Leaderboard

Surely this belongs in the enginnering section, you even asked for an electrical engineer. It is not rocket science after all. However asking for an engineer is a good idea since there is much engineering commonsense and experience involved. 'Line of sight' is funny thing because it begs the question "who can see what ?" Height is important, but not all important. It depends what is in the way. You can (sometimes) achieve the same result moving two feet to the right or left to avoid a nearby chimney stack as 20 feet or more vertical elevation to look over the top of it. I agree with the underlined words of this extract from StringJunky's link But Amazon as a first class engineering supplier ?? The linked site seems only to shop at old smiley. Some advice if you are doing this yourself. Only a vey small part of the antenna is actually the receiving or pickup device. Most of the antenna is either focusing/directing/filtering metalwork. So dimensional and alignment accuracy and stability are vital in assembly. (Most DTV antenna come as self assembly flat packs). Small errors of twisted or displaced parts can ruin the performance of the best antenna. To answer your two questions directly, The range depends mostly upon the height of the transmitter, not the receiver. Which is why these are placed on mountains where possible. And yes if the transmitter can place a signal 200 miles away, that signal can be received. As an example, my antenna is about 75 miles form the Bristol Transmitter, which is placed on top of the Mendip range of hills. It is installed in my attic (roofspace) simply hanging by two cords. I get a better signal inside the roof than on top of it because of nearby chimneys. I get almost zero signal at ground and first floor level, even in the trees in the garden away from the house. The antenna picks up a better signal from the Mendip transmitter than the nearer Blackdown Hills transmitter, which is only 20 miles away.

What's black and comes rushing out of the ground shouting knickers knickers knickers ? What's black and comes rushing out of the ground shouting panties panties panties ?

Enough is enough. I'm not sending INow any more photos.

Relying on friction probably isn't good enough to ensure a safe and controlled speed of descent. You have to take the cart back up to the top, which would require a source of energy. Also, there is probably limited number of people who only ever want to go downhill so, at some point, you are going to have get the people back up to the top as well. Now, here's an Idea: why not have two of your carts tied to each other with a cable that goes round a pulley at the top of the hill. The cable is just long enough that when one cart is at the top, the other one is at the bottom, When you have passengers in both carts, you let the one at the top go down and pull the other one up. You may need to use some power to overcome different loads and control the speed, but less than without the counterbalancing cart. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funicular

Everyone knew he was going to choose a female. By announcing it bluntly, he gets a bump in polling and good feeling among a key section of the electorate he needs to win. To me, the benefit of that is far higher than the slightly negative impact among old codgers like you who get their entitled male panties all twisted over it.

It would be "aren't" because we require grammatical agreement. In the same that we say "you are" and not "you is" even when talking to a single person because "you" is a plural pronoun (we lost the singular form, "ye", a long time ago although it is still used in some dialects).

So, one who lists their qualifications cannot be pretending? Found this. Have a look:

Look at it like this: does the obvious (that she's a woman) need to be stated?

GR is hard but not complicated; QM is complicated, but not hard Well said. While these two concepts sometimes coincide (depending on what available information about a quantum system you are looking at), non-separability is more fundamental and more general.

Yeah. Clearly all those little girls who looked up to her and found inspiration in her life’s story were rubes and should’ve found more perfect heroes who weren’t human at all

Playing the 'woman' card is a vote loser in my opinion because it only preaches to the choir and potentially alienates the male floaters and skeptics in the available electorate. People aren't much interested in what you are but what you are going to do.

This isn’t about personal ethics. This is about enforcing the rules of this site. (thread has thus been moved) 1. Your discussion was not scientific. It was crap. 2. If another moderator happened upon your post first, they likely would have done the same. I certainly would have. 3. Your suggestion is noted and has been given all due consideration. 4. You are free to ask questions to figure out why numerology is not science. But not free to post more numerology.

When I first saw your thread on list of current Activities tab, my first thought from the title was Oh no, not another one of these. However I looked quickly through the first few lines that is displayed in the Activities tab and saw the stuff about 12 this and 12 that. So my second thought was no, this is even worse. So I didn't even bother to open to your thread. In order to fairly respond to this thread I have now looked it up and the first thing that springs to mind is the Moderator's stated reason for closing the thread. You had apparantly already been told not to bring the subject up again. Evidently you chose to defy moderator instructions. Unlike the moderators as an ordinary member I can choose which threads to look at and which not to bother with. So I salute them for performing this unpleasant but necessary task on my behalf.

! Moderator Note Normally, Appeal to Authority is considered fallacious reasoning, but I'm going out on a limb here and I'm going to argue that Dr Swanson's capabilities in mathematics exceed your own by several orders of magnitude. The US Naval Observatory thinks highly enough of him as a physicist to let him run the atomic clocks that GPS uses to achieve such incredible accuracy. It's clear you aren't really listening, which means discussion probably won't work to fill the gaps in your knowledge. It's a shame, we've had lots of folks like you who learned a great deal from discussion, but discussion is a two-way street that requires as much listening as talking. If school didn't work for you, and we know discussion isn't a strength, you should try something else to combat ignorance. Three pages is too long to be this obstinate about learning. If there was any science happening in this thread, I'd leave it open, but it's actually creating a negative learning experience, obviously. Don't bother to open any more threads like this, please.

That interpretation is in the 'ear of the listener'. An alarmist, by definition, sounds, or voices, an alarm. Humans have a bad habit of changing definitions to suit their purposes/agendas. You need to consider the source using the term, to deduce the agenda of that source. I certainly wouldn't be offended at being called an 'alarmist' for pulling the fire alarm in a burning building.

I wonder who is going to pay for all these perpetual students and their offspring? And who is going to work in the offices, fields and factories if you can get a good salary by just pretending to be a student? Before this thread gets closed, I would suggest that anyone wanting to get a better understanding of the (complex) relationships between wealth, health, education, migration, etc visits Gapminder, set up by the late great Hans Rosling: https://www.gapminder.org The information they present could change your view of the world.

What does that have to do with the point of this thread? You have yet to establish that IQ is in fact declining, and received several comments to the contrary.

IF youre going to differentiate the exelerating expansion and the expansion of space to simply invalidate my theory you are just splitting hairs man. you know what I mean. thank you though ill clarify By clump imean get more dense. cmon your point does not invalidate my hypothesis My idea has nothing to do with other peoples nonsense and even bringing it up is a low blow and yes another notch on the scientific communities state The way you test it is by logically seeing is if answers the problems that have already been observed! jesus man how are you a moderator on this forum I cant reply to you. this is hilarious.

If you we're to find controversial religious toned scientific material, would you be a scientist and take it seriously, or would you be emotional and throw it in the trash can. Strange is an interest individual who seems to think it's okay to just trash scientific discussion. I think this moderator should be removed for blocking legitimate scientific material. I don't think his ethics are on the level. I think he's bankrupt.