Leaderboard

C'mon people. Let's keep in mind that this is HW help, and anyone asking questions can only go with what they have been taught. Answers need to be given that conform to the material that's presented. If it's a simple "heat absorbed raises temperature" problem (as it is here) then it's inappropriate to bring quantum mechanics into the discussion, or to be answering questions other than what was asked, or to kibbutz on the information that's given in the problem, over which the student has no control.

...or the dyslexic devil worshiper who sold his soul to Santa?

"You're conflating politics with atheism, the other extreme conflates politics with theism. However, you're extreme is more ignorant." This was my reply to Shauno (I think that's the spelling) a rampant theist, please don't be the other extreme, not as ignorant but... You must know that pedophilia exists outside of a religious setting, a gymnastics coach for instance. Don't condemn Raider and his fellows for believing in Jesus (his/her name may/may not be Jesus but someone clearly started it) and getting a warm fuzzy feeling, since I'm sure they'd be happy to accept, you don't. A classic case of trying to justify a belief you can't explain, by accusing others of having the same/similar belief. In the playground it goes something like this "I know I am but what are you ".

The experiment underlying this is real, and though I'm not sure if the names have been changed, there was a superluminal result from neutrinos at Gran Sasso. "neutrinos pumped from CERN near Geneva to Gran Sasso in Italy" is a reality, not a red-light trigger. But the result was due to faulty calibration. An optical fiber connection was loose, and this messed up their detection and gave a false delay to a signal, making it appear the neutrinos moved faster than c. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/once-again-physicists-debunk-faster-light-neutrinos

Pretty glaring emission...

How cool is THAT?! Congratulations, DanEdition, and best of luck on the staff position (although it sounds like you have something better than luck).

Um, well, uh, because ... mumble ...

The problem tells us that the light sources all have the same intensity. So if we have (as an example) 100 W of light (per unit area), all 100 W of blue is absorbed. Something less than 100 W of white (or any color source) is absorbed, since it will reflect some of the light.

Once I have finished cooking them, none.

OK. But did you hear about the agnostic, dyslexic, insomniac who lay awake all night wondering if there was a dog?

Dyslexics of the world untie! That's probably enough dyslexics jokes (though I still wonder why the word's so hard to spell.

There is a new organization supporting dyslexics. It is called DMA; Mothers Against Dyslexia

You seem to have it in your mind that the goals of us Christians are to go out and tell everyone how wrong they are. It's not. If your belief is that there is no God, because you KNOW it, then you have a belief system. Why? Because you can't disprove God using science. And since you can't, you have to use faith to believe that there is no God. Since you're using faith, you now have a belief system. If your position is that you simply don't know if there is/isn't a God because there's no evidence for you to either way, then you don't have a belief system.

I use comments (in 99.9% of times) only to disable some part of code.. ps. And to-do e.g. // TODO: [...what to fix in the future...] Some IDE even have special feature to automatically search for and make a list of such TODO comments.

I'd say the opposite: Be conservative in your use of comments. Code should typically be reasonably self-descriptive.

A dyslexic man walked into a bra.

Indeed. Cultures are like tributaries of flowing water and we never step into the same river twice

Oi, who are you calling nutty? I have not followed the thread so some it may already have been discussed, The image in OP looks like banding. The reason is that light sources in your home usually have pulsing characteristics due to the 60 HZ AC voltage being used. For cameras that only have electronic shutters (such as phones) the common readout characteristics of the sensors will result in areas of varying intensities, i.e. banding. In this case it is vertical as the image is read out from the sensor in columns (either starting left or right). So why is there less or no banding in some situations? The reason is the exposure time. If your exposure time is a multiple of the utility frequency, you integrate over the whole wave(s) (again, the brightness of the light sources fluctuates with the AC waveform). Thus the image appears homogeneous in brightness. However, if you get close to an object you are likely to change available light and thus change the exposure time. If the corner is dark for instance, it may slow the shutter to a degree where banding becomes very noticeable (I suspect that most phones will use software tricks to make sure that banding or similar common issue are minimized). If you can, I'd try to take photos (or better, videos) with varying shutter speeds at the same light and look at the results. It may be difficult as phones have a significant layer of software that may alter them. And not, it is not the bat. If they had some sensor shattering powers, the folks in the department who document them clearly would have noticed and published something high-ranked with it. Also I hope that you made sure that in you area bats do not carry rabies or similar diseases and, if hurt, find someone who can take a look at it.

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.

Why leap to the conclusion that adoption is a bad thing? (Obligatory jokes to prove I'm not going off topic) Q. What is the difference between a duck? A. One of it's legs are both the same. Q. What's brown and sticky? A A stick.

Condemned by Jesus? You can tell that to your fellow dillusionists at Sunday mass today to feel all warm and cosy inside but don’t expect me to react in any other way than vomiting. Tell that Jesus condemned child rape to the parents of the children who were raped by Christian priests in a village in Poland. I hope you wake up Raider, the sooner the better. Its gonna cost you a whole lot to do so but its worth it.

Thats good to hear, now listen to this; I despise your dillusion as a Christian and everything that comes with it. Your irrational and harmful attempts at making the bible look like a moral beacon, your blindness to how harmful and double faced religions (including Christianity) are. Christian priests are getting away with raping 11 years olds in Poland as Im writing this (hey, its Easter, let everyone rejoice) I despise your attitude with all my heart and I couldn't care less what your Christian goals are or whether you tell me if I'm wrong or right.

To repeat my response to Strange, in case you did not read it : beecee, I am fairly certain that you clearly stated in your Post, in your "third question......" : "Wouldn't this observation and data support my contention/question at [2]? that is, this being what one would term as a "pristine" galaxy in its early formation era, could mean that galaxies forms from conglomerations of baryonic matter, that later attracts the dispersed DM...afterall our knowledge of this DM, tells us it only interacts gravitationally." Note beecee, that you did not end that statement with a "question mark (?)", but rather a period (.). My understanding of the definition of the word "contention", is 1.) - a strong disagreement, or 2.) - an emphatic assertion utilized in an argument. : https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/contention , https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/contention or https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contention in reference to : "Perhaps he will answer it in his next post?" I posed that question to you, beecee. It is NOT for me to answer. It is for you to answer, if you choose to. Is it your contention for "galaxies starting their lives as blobs of normal baryonic matter"?

1.) I was not, and I am still not, aware that Dark Matter has ever been directly observed. 2.) I evidently was, and still am, completely mistaken that I read the word "contention" in beecee's First Post. 3.) It seems that I am Not one of this forums "genuine members without any axe to grind". So, I must therefore extend my sincerest apologies to beecee, Strange and any other person(s) that has read this discussion. I am sorry that I am currently not aware that Scientists have indeed been able to observe where Dark Matter does not exist, nor of their ability to observe where Dark Matter does exist. Please forgive my ignorance that Dark Matter has been directly observed. I am sorry that I mistakenly claimed that beecee used the word "contention" in his first post. I can only hope that my extreme contrition may someday allow me to become one of this forums "genuine members without any axe to grind". Again, I extend my deepest apologies to beecee, Strange and any other reader(s) of my Postings.

Because they are made, to measure correct time. I'm talking about scaling a correctly working mechanism. It can be a clock, it can be an engine or it can be a beating heart of living being Pendulum is not the best example here, as you don't change it's actual size. Better is to take 2 gears - with 32 and 16 teeth for example - make a smaller copy of them (with maintaining the number of teeth and the proportion of their sizes) and measure the rotational speed for the bigger and smaller model. If we will keep the same angular velocity, then their rotational speed will be different - but if we keep the same rotational speed, then the angular velocity will differ. Well, if an object on the surface of a rotating sphere moves with a given velocity, then he can't slow down, just because the sphere became smaller - because it would have to give it's energy to environment. Oh yes? And what about the dimensional time axis? Can you perceive the reality 20 years from now? No, you can't... Here's math: Va is not the same as Vb And that's it. A mentaly retarted monkey should be able to figure this out - but it seems, that it was too much for you

You can heat up a space via many methods and ways; but the object wanting to get warm must absorb part of it. Not efficient. That is why very warm multiple layers of winter clothing on a persons body is usually the most efficient method of heating. An extreme example would be heating a living space in dead cold extreme winter while having the people in the room only wearing swim suits. They may eventually get warm but would have to work at it. The heavily dressed folks would want to get un dressed. The bikini girls would want to get dressed.