Leaderboard

Period versus 1/(vc), frequency versus vc ? I find it very confusing that rotation_speed vc=2*Pi*r/t looks (very similar, &) proportional to frequency f (cycles per second; or (1) cycle (e.g. circle) per time (in units of seconds, or less than a second)); & inverted_rotation_speed 1/(vc)=t/(2*Pi*r) (the time "per" cycle_or_circle_(circumference)) looks proportional to Period T=1/f which is inverted_frequency! (Thus units are suppose to be inverted.) So (confusing) that I must start with what we know. In fact I am so confused, that I know nothing except the rotation_speed vc=2*Pi*r/t (which is obvious), & the frequency f=1/T inverse_period relation (definition). The rest seems (to me) like non_sense! Thus I can derive everything (I need) from what we know: The circumferential_speed vc=cir(cle)/t(ime) vc=2*Pi*r/t. ~f. That looks like cycles (=circles) "per" second =[cps]=[c/s]. (Units in square brackets.) I.e. That looks (very much) like frequency! (Although you guys are only interested in the inverse(=1_divided_by)_time 1/t for the "number" value of f (without units, =excluding units [c/s]). We also know the "inverse" circumferential_speed 1/(vc)=t(ime)/cir(cle) 1/(vc)=t/(2*Pi*r). ~T. That looks like the time_(in seconds)_"per"_cycle(=circle) =[spc]=[s/c]. I.e. That looks (very much) like the Period! (Although you guys are only interested in time t for the "number" value of T (without units, =excluding units [s/c]), because you have defined frequency f=1/T as inverse_period. So the time ("for" a cycle) is t=(2*Pi*r)/(vc) time=(circle (or cycle)) "per" rotation_speed). That is the (number) value for what you guys call period (T). Your units are seconds (because all circles cancel). It's inverse 1/t=vc/(2*Pi*r) inverted_time=rotation_speed "per" (1) circle (or cycle), gives the number (value) for what you (guys & gals) call frequency (f). In other words, stripped of the cycle(s). You now have units [Hz] Herz (=hurts! Ouch!)

Ugh correction, Circumference not Area. This video of a sinewave being traced out from a circle's rotation might make the connection clearer.

Not necessarily true. Depends where you are and what your climate is. It may be true on average, in some places, but it may also mean that you have even more extremes. Some plants can adapt in short time scales. For example, some deciduous trees will happily grow near the equator. They then adapt by wither never losing leaves or losing them continuously. Eventually they may evolve to better fit the new environment. However, other plants will just die. So I doubt there is a simple answer to this. Increasing CO2 levels may be good for some plants, allowing them to grow faster. But it will probably reduce yields of rice, for example as they are sensitive to high levels. In most cases, probably. Small organisms, such as insects, that reproduce rapidly and in large numbers may be able to keep up.

Oops. You are right. I apologise. I think your arguments were good!

I think you're confusing me for DraftPhysics. I am arguing why DraftPhysics is wrong based off of the fact that the intensity is proportional to the square of the amplitude of a wave. If this is not true, please tell me. Edit: Ok, I saw the reply. No worries. lol

Probably because your "theory" was made up to fill gaps in your own knowledge. That's why it seems so perfect to you, and only you. No offense, many people do this. It's untrustworthy, but many do it. You should study mainstream science if you're curious why people refute your claims. Be warned though, there is no truth, especially Truth, in science. Theory is the highest achievement there is.

Sure https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO2yFC7_k2s I should have posted it to begin with, sorry. Ideally, an amplifier should give a linear relationship between power_in and power_out. A linear relationship means that if power_in is doubled, then power_out is doubled, and if power_in is 4x, then power_out is 4x, and so on. At higher power, the linear relationship deteriorates, but the problem is that the out/in curve grows less than the linear relationship, which means that you can't get quadruple power_out out of a doubling of power_in. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gain_compression. Based on these points, I don't think you can say the audio has to do with amplification (although if anyone disagrees, please let me know). As far as I know, for any wave, the intensity is related to the square of the amplitude. This means that the amplitude doubles in constructive interference, but the energy has to quadruple (and that energy should come from the destructive interference).

Fire. I like my food cooked.

There is one argument that can be made, assuming you accept that the constructive peaks in the radio experiments are 4x in energy. If you have two sources, you would expect the energy to be 2x as large, not 4x, so the other extra 2x factor must come from somewhere. In this case, it comes from the dead spots, which means the dead spots must have zero energy received by conservation of energy.

There’s plenty of evidence that Lorentz is correct. I have no plans to waste time by reading your paper. You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about.

If you can, find him somebody who is proficient in lip-reading, which will fill in any gaps in what he can't hear. A teacher with that skill would be great. I had one. Given that he seems to have some hearing, like myself, i think he will find it a very useful tool when it gets a bit noisy and he'll pick up subtle cues about vocal inflection and how others are feeling through being able to read their faces. It will give him a better sense of empathy for people. Tonal inflection through hearing is beyond what a hearing-impaired person can pick up. Also notice that he will tire much more easily in a social situation because 'hearing' what a person is saying from deaf person's perspective requires a lot of conscious effort. It gets easier as one gets older.

I especially like the part where you state that being gay is a natural thing, because many species do it in nature. And the extrapolation you make from this, is that it is OK, since it is 'natural'. And I won't argue with that; it doesn't affect me and provides fulfillment in other people's lives. Live and let live ( that is MY justification ). Yet you fail to mention that in nature, all species reproduce as fast as they can, until they outstrip the ability of their environment to supply them ( food, water, predators, etc. ). Then 'nature' steps in and kills off a whole lot o them, until their population can be provided for again. You fail to mention the predator/prey relation that most species have in nature. How compassionate is the predator to the prey ? Sometimes even within the same specie, there is 'warfare' even more terrible than between humans ( at least we have some rules for military engagements ), and sometimes the sick and infirm ( or even the young ) are sacrificed to predators, to save the healthy herd. All of this is 'natural', and done by countless species. So, I don't understand, why aren't you using the same argument that you used for homosexuality, to justify selfish, predatory, self serving behavior . You instead condemn this behavior in humans, even though it is as 'natural' as homosexuality. I think you need a better argument. ( and to speak for yourself )

yeah i was thinking differently of axial tilt.it was a flaw it my better judgment.

The Earth's axial tilt varies between 22.1 and 24.5 degree over a 41,000 yr cycle. While this does have an effect on the seasons to some degree, it doesn't on the overall habitability of the Earth.

Publish or perish. It seems today in order to continue funding it is best to talk about something 40,000 light years away since no one can verify or contradict anything you say. Scribble a picture of Mickey Mouse on the board then start drawing analysis of it. One born rich PHD, later handicapped, in England actually got a Nobel prize for baloney similar to this, so why not jump on the band wagon, Mr. Susskind? No matter how you quantify the baloney each piece is still baloney. Talk about something someone can demonstrate otherwise just hot air and wasted funding. We were totally wrong about Pluto and its a little closer than our black hole. I thought this section did not allow conjecture?