Leaderboard

Real engineering is quite good.

Since I don't live in the US this particular missile is not my direct problem. If I were living in the US I would have no means of disarming it, so I would seek shelter. I assume P,.S. is short for Pure Shit. If you seriously mean that, please provide valid citations, or a very detailed argument to supporrt the assertion. Containment field? Right. Sure. I think, overall, you have your wires crossed.

It might work as a Conditional Formatting function. I'm checking it out now. Will the numbers in the two columns always be different? Will you require more than two columns? Tried that as a two part approach. In cell formula to set the correct text. That, obviously, works. Can't get the colour match though. I'll try some more. This matches a problem I was seeking a solution to a while back. I'm convinced that - sooner or later - almost anything is possible in Excel. Ah! Got it. This solves the problem as I understand it. Step 1: In colum 1, the text column, add this forumula, assuming this is cell A1: =IF(B1>C1,"Green","Red") Step 2: Copy down the column Step 3: Select all active cells in column A. Step 4: Go to Conditional Formating, Choose "New Rule"; "Format Only Cells that Contain"; Set this to "Green", then select Format, Patterns and choose a green shade. Step 5: Repeat Step 4 for Red. If you have more columns the coding becomes more tiresome, but the logic will work. Hope that helps.

Tub; I agree with the above and enjoy reading your posts because you add humor, but in a very on-topic way. I envy you that ability. But the point I want to discuss is your statement, "The truth is rarely pure and never simple." So how do we find truth? Philosophy spends a lot of time and energy analyzing and studying different ways to learn what is true, and has lots of theories about truth and knowledge. We do this so that we can learn how to take something that is rarely pure and never simple, and break it down into something that has validity and reflects reality. I think that mixing right and wrong with truth, before discovering what is true, can invalidate the truth that is found. We can corrupt it while searching for it so it will never be found. I study consciousness, so I study subjects that Science does not usually look at, including Religion. If anyone says that we can study consciousness without also studying Religion, they are either pulling your leg, or they are full of it. It is not possible to avoid Religion while working a comprehensive study of consciousness. Religion itself is a study of consciousness. In one of my threads, I referenced the Books of Law, Deuteronomy and Leviticus, from the Bible and was shocked by the reaction that I got. Some of the comments were beyond irrational. This surprised me because some branches of Science, such as Archeology, study the Bible and other old texts. When archeologists study something like the Bible, they find references to land or living conditions and cultural standards, then compare that information to things that they find, and what we know about reality now. This enables them to piece together truths about the reality then. Comparing Common and Classic truths is a big part of their work. Since I studied law, and had reason to investigate the Books of Law after studying law, I found that there is a lot more there than I realized. Everyone knows that the Bible says thou shalt not kill, but killing is more complex than that. There is accidental death, manslaughter, and murder, which are very different. No one expects text that is thousands of years old to explain these differences, but they would be wrong. The old laws define the difference between accidental death, manslaughter, and murder, and use the same concept to define these differences as we use today -- they used "intent". The more I read, the more I realized that the roots of our Common law, our moral law, in the various branches of law are deeply embedded in Deuteronomy and Leviticus. Even more than that, I realized that the moral laws that we can not seem to get right, like abortion, the right to die, and dealing with the physically and/or mentally handicapped are not referenced in the Books of Law. I don't think it is coincidence that the issues we can not resolve are also not in the Books of Law. So there is truth in the Books of Law. I began to wonder how much truth was related to the other subjects, such as the food laws and the sanitation laws as they regard disease. This was the subject that I brought up in that thread, and of course, I learned nothing -- except that people don't like Religion. Some people say that the Bible is the word of "God" and everything in it is true; others say that the Bible is a bunch of nonsense made up to control lesser minds. I find both of these ideas invalid. So how does one separate out the truth, which is rarely pure and never simple, from the rest? Following are the steps that I would take to start this separation. Please note that I have no idea whether or not you have a religious preference, or what it may be, but I have no intention to offend anyone. Just looking for truths. 1. First separate out Religion. When I read the word "God", I interpret that to mean "the unknown author". When I read sinner, evil, punishment, etc., I interpret that to mean that this is bad for you/me/us in the opinion of the unknown author. When I read about heavenly rewards, goodness, innocence, etc., I interpret that to mean that this is good for you/me/us in the opinion of the unknown author. 2. If the Bible is not a religious book, then what is it? A history book, and history books are notorious for having a bias regarding history. This is because history books are written by people who wish to promote their own history, so they usually have a singular perspective, which must be considered. Also consider that the Bible is a book of books by various authors. These books were originally stories or scrolls, which were transcribed into books. And one must consider that there are thousands, probably tens of thousands, of scrolls in the basements of the Vatican, which may or may not be relevant to the history, so the books of the Bible have been preselected. One can not expect that this is a comprehensive history. 3. The book is also ancient, so time must be considered. They did not have Science as we do, and there was a lot that they could not know, but neither were they stupid. They could still observe their reality and see how cause and effect worked in their reality. They just sometimes attributed the effects to the wrong things, so when studying them, we need to look past what they attributed it to and instead focus on what caused their reaction in the first place to find any truth. 4. Culture shock is going to be an issue and must be considered. The people in the Old Testament lived in very harsh times compared to the times we live in. So when they say things like, "Spare the rod and spoil the child." they are acknowledging that children need discipline, challenges, and consequences. We know that this is true because it is still true today, only instead of beating the kid, we ground them to their rooms. Anyone who quotes that phrase and actually thinks that beating a child is necessary, is just a person who is using this as an excuse to vent their anger on their child. Hitting a child is rarely necessary. There are other examples that can produce culture shock, so when reading old text like this, one has to adopt a sort of Continental attitude. Otherwise you will find yourself judging the culture instead of looking for truth. So if one keeps the above rules in mind, we can find truths in the Bible. What we will be looking for are things that are also true now, or things that are commonly true in similar situations. Gee Strange; You know, that didn't look right when I wrote it, but it is St. Patrick, not St. Padrick, so I couldn't figure it out. And I was in a hurry. Thanks for the correction. I don't think I will make that mistake again. One down and a few thousand to go. Gee

Rimshot! Bronco was in the shop, and the Pinto couldn’t be allowed so close to explosive rocket fuel. Some stallion in mission control said, “nay.”

Actually, if in a region the gravitational potential is constant, there is indeed no force. Force is the (negative of) derivative/gradient of potential.

Of course repeat tests are good; tests of variation of parameters are even better. Note well that many carcinogenic substances are cumulative. That is the body does not excrete them, so as Tesco says Every Little Helps.

Somehow, the media (even science writers) need to do a better job of explaining that science is work in progress; it is a process rather than knowledge. So when we learn more, conclusions change. So, yes, it was thought (based on the evidence at the time) that diesels were a better choice (lower carbon emissions) but then the harm caused by particulates was better understood so now we have better advice. Similarly, some newspapers (and hate-filled rags like the Daily Mail) complain that science keeps changing its mind on diet. But if those newspapers didn't take such a binary approach in the first place ("some evidence suggest that a diet too high in animal fats may contribute to heart disease in some individuals" = "AVOID ALL FAT!!!! EAT SUGAR!!!1!") then they wouldn't create the problem when the scientific conclusions change slightly ("further study suggests that animal fats alone may not cause quite as much harm as thought" = "SCIENTISTS WRONG!!! EAT NOTHING BUT FAT!!!") Ditto shoddy reporting of climate science ("15 degree rise predicted in next 10 years!!! Disaster! Death! War!") but ignoring how accurately the observed climate change matches the models. (This is a difficult one because, for incomprehensible reasons, it has become a political debate in the press, not a scientific one.) Some reporters go too far in trying to be fair (yes, BBC, I'm looking at you) by having a scientist who has spent their career studying the subject presenting the evidence with suitable caution on one "side" and an ignorant, rabid ex-politician with no relevant qualifications to rant about the opposite view ("I don't care about the evidence, it's obviously dangerous" - actual quote).

As I did allude to, I'm not 100% sure which is technically right, or even if that can be determined: The point though is that quantum fluctuations/Casimir effect are not observed in such situations. Quantum foam, string theory and such, are elegant and mathematically beautiful "theories" that "seem" to give reasonable explanations to the way the quantum world operates. And they have been formulated by professional, credentialed experts in the field. Still they do not align with the defined meaning of a "scientific theory" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory Again, while even many scientists refer to "quantum foam theory" and "string theory" as theories, [ because of their superior explanations and beauty] and while such theories are elegant and mathematically beautiful, they are not scientific theories as defined. In essence scientists are being human and using "theory" as is used in every day speech.

OK. So the light we see now is not from the same place where the matter around us came from. As you say, that light is long gone. However, we now see the light that is reaching us from further away. Take the CMB for example, the radiation we are receiving now is coming from about 40 billion light years away. To understand why we are still receiving light from the Big Bang after all this time, maybe the "surface of last screaming" analogy will help: https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March03/Lineweaver/Lineweaver7_2.html (If you need to relate that more closely to your question, imagine all the people slowly walking away from you. It doesn't really make any difference.)

The reason it is hard to discern is because It enters into a state of superposition called 'faction'. People will tend to be attracted to and disseminate information that supports their own worldview and convictions, most likely investing little or no time in checking the veracity of the information.

There may be a bit of confusion here as these measures are related to each other. It is rare to use joules to measure electricity consumption/production, as compared to kWh (with is just a simple factor). I think that was Ten Oz alluding to. However, you can also relate cost to Watts though it typically is mostly only relevant to compare the cost efficiency of similar systems. E.g. to compare to a 2kW solar system to a 7kW one. Hmm crossposted with modpost. Sorry about that.

What I see is people who don't know science trying to discredit scientific explanations by claiming nobody is answering their simple questions. They don't really seem willing to unite, since they're usually trying to make assertions about things they're ignorant about. There's no mad scramble to avoid anything, it's just that the folks who don't know don't know how to interpret the science. One sign that someone only THINKS they know science is to claim they're sticking to cold, calm logic. They misuse the mathematical and philosophical term, and actually mean "I only listen to things that make sense to me".

So on a completely unrelated matter, there is a thread i posted about energy and subsidies. I posed three little questions. For some reason nobody is able to give a simple straight answer. I suggest you take a look because it actually ties in with what I have written here. You will be amazed at the lengths people will go to to avoid answering a simple question. Have a look sometime. It is hilarious.