Leaderboard

Wow you have done a lot of algebra! Read here for a better history of how the confusion over ideas of motion were resolved over the 200 years from about 1650 to about 1850. https://nature.berkeley.edu/departments/espm/env-hist/articles/2.pdf Note that this article still presents the same assumption you have made right at the beginning of your own article and caried through all that algebra to a wring conclusion at the end. Your mis-assumption is that kinematic formula for constant acceleration may be used. This was not the case when you developed the tables of lifting force v energy. Since your thesis is that the modern version of The Law of Conservation of Mechanical energy is incorrect, can you state it, including the conditions under which it holds true? You need to show that your analysis satisfies these conditions. Have you done this, I can't find it?

A lot of things do that, though. If it's not religion, it's money, politics, football, ethnicity, brands, neighbourhoods, social class... I don't think the problem is religion per se, but the divisive tendency that persists in people. The whole "us vs them" attitude. We're social animals who are hard-wired to associate with what we consider "our kind". Unfortunately, this often results in tribe mentality: we define ourselves in relation to who else belongs in our circle and who doesn't.

Let's try a different approach. I might have been too concise for those not familiar with belt design. A belt has a neutral line, which does not change length as the belt goes around a wheel. The length of this neutral line is called the reference length or datum length of the belt. Belt pulleys also have a reference diameter, which is where the reference plane of the belt passes. It is this reference diameter that determines the speed of the belt, and any belt geometry or structure that does not affect the reference diameter, does not affect the belt speed. Adding lugs eg does not alter the reference length of the belt. Regardless of how long the lugs are, the same length of belt is going to pass the belt pulley in a given time. The outer rim of the lugs will move faster, but the belt itself won't. The example given in the animation is a chain. In that case, only the amount of teeth of the sprocket counts and any geometry of the belt is irrelevant. In retrospect, the belt in a snowmobile is most likely a timing belt (synchronous belt or toothed belt), which works like a chain. This means even increasing the thickness does not affect speed. At worst a thick belt would compress the teeth of the belt to the point where they no longer fit the pulley. (Note: tension on the belt will change the length of the reference plane somewhat, but lugs have no influence on this stretching, so no reason to overcomplicate this discussion)

...The logical conclusion being that high quality men prefer marrying non-high quality women (since high quality women prefer men closer to their own age)?? Or is this a pro-bride kidnapping manifesto? This post baffles me on so many levels...

Happy to volley with you on this point, but sincerely and respectfully feel you are arguing the losing side: http://www.evilbible.com/do-not-ignore-the-old-testament/

Crossing boundaries? I came across this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/stories-43557836/jews-and-arabs-living-side-by-side So let's follow the example and stop hurling red points about, whilst we applaud something to be encouraged.

I agree. There is a female in my example because I feel I’m too old with too much bagage to seek adventures with men now.

Now, do you see that God is not needed for a lesson to be learned? I'm not picking on you Raider (+1 for the inconvenience), your post is just a good springboard.

The Pharisees practiced those actions as well. There is a story that's quite well known to Christians. One day Jesus was upon the Mount of Olives, and came down to the temple. People gathered around him to hear him teach. While he was teaching them, a group of Pharisees showed up with an adulterous woman and placed her in front of Jesus. "Teacher", they say to Jesus, "this woman was caught in the act of adultery. The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?" They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust. When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?” “No, Lord,” she said. And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”

You're conflating politics with atheism, the other extreme conflates politics with theism. However, you're extreme is more ignorant. I missed this post, never mind, it merely confirms my previous answer.

Thanks for all that support. Any change a moderator might tidy my spelling since itis now too late for me to do this. My apologies.

Smart parents are extending their children horizons, stupid parents are shrinking their children horizons.. Children are naturally curious of the world. Somebody with limited horizons, can destroy this natural curiosity..

I don't see where you mention Noether's theorem, as applied to energy. A mathematical proof that energy will be conserved when there is time translation symmetry.

I can think of two possibilities: 1. The vibration caused the last of the silvering to come away from the glass so the rust spots became visible. 2. The rust spots were always there in the mirror but you only noticed them when you examined it this time because of the spots on the windows, checking for damage, etc. I don't think there is any connection between the rust spots in the mirror and the brown spots on the windows (dead bugs? tree sap? pollen?) I also think we can eliminate the tree causing instant rust as a possibility.

No ugly woman in the world, everyone is beautiful

Yes, that was my realization too, after I had considered the way changing the circumference on a car tire would change speed ratios yet changing the length of a track belt in any direction would have no effect on the vehicle's speed rather busted the whole argument for me. The whole thing is dependent on the radial distance from the shaft center and the track belt is not round or centered on that very obvious detail. +1 to Bender for the breakdown.

Which god?

This, the bolded, was my thinking but since there is no ground contact in way of the sprocket I think Benders interpretation is correct. There may be a (very) small effect, but it really doesn't work like my "simple setup" I described earlier. +1 to Bender and Arc also for the animation, it may not be an exact representation but sufficient for me to see where I was wrong.

Thank you for the correction, and I should’ve been more cautious with my words. What I intended to emphasize was how he used Christianity as another type of nationalism to further his ends. Please clarify for us: What is the philosophy or ideology of atheism? I agree. That truly is terrifying, especially since our existence as a tribal species means that MOST of us get our sense of right and wrong from our local culture and village norms. If someone relies primarily on religion... or, more specifically, a book of Iron Age myths for that then they truly are depraved. If religion is your source of morals, then how do you know enough to ignore the bits about stoning adulterers to death, it being okay to keeps slaves, or murdering your wife if she’s not a virgin on your wedding night? The only logical conclusion is that your morals come from elsewhere and you’re merely trying to retrofit them into your personal brand of woo and belief like a round org hammered through a square hole.

I don't know what morals or nationality have to do with the point of mine you quoted. You really seem to have an agenda with this one, like you're working from a script and not really reading replies. Something that makes another person laugh is not necessarily a joke, just as putting a frame around your napkin drawing doesn't necessarily make it a painting. Just because a few people laugh at something, that doesn't make it funny, and that's what a joke really needs. To me, being funny is like singing, and a joke is an artistic expression of being funny the way a song is an artistic expression of singing. The lines are pretty clear between what is truly funny or satirical and what purposely dances off into the shocking, offensive, or absurd. I think your view of humor is immature, and lacks subtlety and depth. It seems based on something ugly, something that delights in offending for its own sake, and for me that destroys any art that might be appreciated. Slapstick and shock tactics can be fun, but it's a junk food comedy diet, and many people work hard to develop more sophisticated tastes. Strange posted a great one in the Jokes section recently that fits all my requirements, and he did it in an off-hand way that made it like finding a twenty in an old coat pocket. A woman walks into a bar and asks the barman for a Double Entendre. So he gives her one.

And let's not forget the Inquisition.

Except atheism is not an ideology. It’s simply lack of belief in god(s). That’s it. End program. You know literally nothing else about the person based on that label alone. Do you also think bald is a hair color? Perhaps you think my NOT collecting stamps is a hobby? Also, Hitler was Christian and used the church to further his agenda. Mao did not base his policies on his atheism, but on his push for communism, itself treated like a religion in his day. Likewise with Pol Pot who positioned himself as a god, not an atheist. These are old canards. They were wrong when originally suggested and they remain wrong today. All you know about atheists is that they lack belief in god. You know literally nothing else about them based on that label alone. See also: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/atheism

I've been thinking on this for the last hour and believe that animation is not a good representation of the situation. The frame and assembly shown above is more rigid and would give the expected result. But the snow mobile track belt is likely very flexible with little chance that an increase in the track belt's profile could add up to some effect. Right now I would say it would have no effect on the speed ratio. Will be pondering this for now.

Some people will be comfortable with this, some not. You shouldn't worry about couples that are comfortable, just bear this in mind that you are not when choosing your partner. All that matters is that you are on the same wavelength as your partner on this issue.

Copenhagen-based artist Johan Deckmann examines the complications of life through clever titles painted on the covers of fictional self-help books that appear to tackle life’s biggest questions, fears, and absurdities: https://www.sadanduseless.com/2018/03/diy/

I'm working on a Theory of Pa: Solitaryverse, based on unclegravity. But it is half baked at best and not near ready for Speculations.

One of the best jokes of all time. I don't think the problem is with adoption but treating people as objects. (But as others seem to have stooped even lower in the name of "comedy" maybe we should let that one go.) Ob. Joke: A woman walks into a bar and asks the barman for a Double Entendre. So he gives her one.

Mindfulness meditation has been found effective to help people avoid depression, among other things. It doesn't help stop depression; they recommend meditating when not depressed. IDK about anxiety, but may help. You should meditate when least anxious or not anxious if possible.

Taking notes definitely helps, but the effect it has helping to better remember IMO is not specific to the act of writing. It's more related to processing the information in other parts of the brain. Instead of just processing the information via the auditory areas, when you engage the information in other ways you start to include other parts of the brain... Spots like the visual cortex and motor cortex, for example, when you write it down. Since each of these areas are connected to the memory centers, the neural connections become denser and spread out over more areas. Keep in mind, though, the same might happen if you repeated that information verbally or tried to explain it to someone else (wherein you engage the vocal centers and story creation areas), or drew the concepts as art on a canvas, or even sculpted them with clay, etc. AFAIK, it's the activation of other brain regions that matters here more than the mere act of writing. This is just an analogy and limited flawed like any other analogy, but... It's a bit like layering sounds on top of each other when composing and listening to a symphony. When you only hear the information via one channel or only engage one region of the brain, it's a bit like a having only the flutes play. However, once you write it down and engage the motor cortex and language areas and narrative creation areas, you are essentially adding in the clarinets and drums and perhaps even the tubas and trumpets to that score. The sound becomes richer and fuller and more impactful... or, dare I say, more memorable. The recall of information is strikingly similar.

A beautiful woman who has a good career, is smart and well educated, is rich and has never been in a relationship and is a virigin would trigger my alarm that something is dodgy about her.

Godel Escher Bach - an Eternal Golden Braid - Douglas Hofstadter

Blackholes and Timewarps by Kip Thorne. The Magic Furnace by Marcus Chown. The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan.

http://www.harvardprostateknowledge.org/does-frequent-ejaculation-help-ward-off-prostate-cancer Anyone have any ideas? And while we're at it how strong is the evidence exactly that regular ejaculation of semen results is a lower risk of prostate cancer?

Such well thought out and scientific answers to this OP huh? A list of strawmen arguments, (apparently not knowing what a strawman argument is), and then saying that it's not random? Well if it isn't random, then it isn't chance. But I agree it isn't random. So there's no chance. No one can prove against the statements in the OP (which even includes statements from evolutionary scientists), or even give scientific or logical arguments against it, so the responders resort to bad-mouthing the comments themselves. Science doesn't lead anyone to evolutionism and atheism. Atheism leads one to evolutionism, and science is the hat rack.

The same arguments I already answered Pal. Go up and read. And why do they call it nothing if it is not nothing? why are they lying? because they are desperate to prove that something came from nothing. they can't so they lie and you believe it. I'm saying the world came from nothing but we should not regard this as a logical act. It cannot be explained by science and science should not be allowed to downplay this fact. If nothing is really something then we have to return to the only other option: that something existed for ever. But then we have to explain how an infinite amount of time could be crossed to get to now(read the thread if this does not make sense) No. Christ. Am I talking a foreign language? Are you all Polish? I am saying there is no explanation of where the universe came from. I'm not saying photons have crossed infinite time. This other guy is. They haven't. They couldn't. Because infinite time is impossible to cross.

If Judaism did not spread to Europe (by crossing boundaries) then the Holocaust could not have happened. If islam did not cross all those boundaries then there would be no Islam terrorism. The spreading of religion caused the religious wars like Crusades.

Yes I am. The evidence shows that the spreading of religion is not a good thing. You are not getting it. If islam did not spread then there would be no Islam countries. You obviously think good things (hospîtals and universities) are due to religion but bad things are not. R Hitchens' title was well chosen.

According to some studies: https://www.maxim.com/maxim-man/men-date-younger-women-live-longer-2017-7 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/mens-health/5426895/Men-live-longer-if-they-marry-a-younger-woman.html Should every educated person dating have these preferences in mind when considering a potential future marriage partner? Furthermore, would anyone care to speculate why men who marry younger women tend to live longer while for women it is those who choose to marry a man closest to their age that live longest? And also, in regards to "high quality" as used in my thread title question, below are some definitions. High quality man: Handsome, has a good career in a full-time job, smart and well-educated, financially rich, never been in any relationship with opposite sex before (undamaged virgin) Low quality man: Ugly, has no full-time job, stupid and uneducated, financially poor, has had several relationships with opposite sex already (“emotionally damaged" from investing too much energy in the wrong people and “non-virgin") High quality woman: Beautiful, has a good career in a full-time job, smart and well-educated, financially rich, never been in a relationship with opposite sex before (undamaged virgin) Low quality woman: Ugly, has no full-time job, stupid and uneducated, financially poor, has had several relationships with opposite sex already (“emotionally damaged" from investing too much energy in the wrong people and “non-virgin")

If Judaism did not spread to Europe (by crossing boundaries) then the Holocaust could not have happened. If islam did not cross all those boundaries then there would be no Islam terrorism. The spreading of religion caused the religious wars like Crusades. It depends on the country and religions involved but what does that matter?