Leaderboard

Agree. This is absolute Borax! Especially from a mod! ...and I don't want to hear his next spin cycle!

swansont if you want to talk about lye or detergent, open a new thread.

I think ALL is American: https://americanlacrosseleague.com/ Are the sources intelligent? is another question.

I gather ALL is from Manchester. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALL_FM

No way to go off-topic, as the topic is ALL.

No. It was shown by Galileo Galilei in 1638. When you scale down (or scale up) you must take account of the square-cube law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square–cube_law

The gravity for any body is related to the mass of the body. So by recreating a scale model, the small earth you describe, your model will have a tiny fraction of earth gravity since the model has less mass. The magnetic fields, magma and the rotation does not have a great effect on the gravity here on the surface. But that said, gravity as physical concept, is the same "thing" everywhere. Gravity has different magnitude and direction, for instance the surface gravity on the moon is weak compared to earth. But it is the same kind of gravity, described by the same physical rules, even if the moon has a different internal composition. Feel free to ask follow up questions.

I was mistaken here. Misread the article. Reince Priebus has not, in fact, endorsed Biden. He’s actually still consulting for Trump.

This might be a lye.

If you Whisk it ALL away on the Tide, what will you Gain? An Xtra Fresh Start. The intelligent source is clearly pointing us towards emulsion theory.

Evidence to support any of this?

Work is being done in your original example (the motor), so this analysis assumes just a nut and a bolt with no work, which is fine, but keep this in mind. The next step is to find the relationship between rotation speed and linear speed of the nut and the various energies. It’s probably easiest if you assume the nut and bolt have the same mass (it has to work for any mass, so if it fails for the simple case, it just fails). See if you can conserve energy. The math will be easier because you have discarded the constraint of momentum conservation If these are supposed to be kinetic energies, how can they sum to zero, unless they are identically zero? The screw is turning, so its rotational energy is not zero. You can’t have energies being the negative of each other. KE is always a positive value.

I recommend you to adress that first; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_probability the wikipedia page looks decent and links to further sources that may help you gather the background knowledge required to start understanding Bayesian network.

As an uninvolved and largely silent reader, I got a very different impression - that you think you understand relativity, but actually you are just shoehorning specific relativistic phenomena into a Euclidean worldview (not very successfully, I might add). You have not yet understood on a deep enough level that the world simply is not Euclidean, except as an approximation in the low-energy, low-velocity domain. I am also getting the impression that you are not prepared to even entertain the possibility that the world might not in fact be Euclidean. No, thank you. As stated previously, I have no wish to involve myself in this discussion. I am also able to rigorously see on the highest level, using simple linear algebra, that it is mathematically impossible to construct any kind of physical paradoxes within the axioms of SR, so I do not have any need to find errors in specific scenarios, because the very existence of such errors means that the proponent of the scenario has failed to apply the model correctly. It’s like a third grader getting his long division wrong - their getting the wrong answer doesn’t mean that long division isn’t a valid operation; it means they haven’t used it right. Relativity is just the same. And in both cases, it is best to get them to understand the bigger picture before letting them loose on specific problems. This is what I mean by top-down approach. I’m sorry to be so blunt, but you are just wasting your time with all these specific use cases. You need to get out of your Euclidean mindset, or else none of this will ever make any sense to you.

This is a new question. Not an answer to mine. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/07/16/its-not-wrong-to-compare-trumps-america-to-the-holocaust-heres-why/ Even Jewish scholars are noting the parallels, and the only valid counter argument to using this comparison is that it short circuits the needed conversation when fine people like you can do little more than attack the comparison for lack of 100% precision.

This is a bit like saying, "Can't you easily bait Jews by saying 'I support Adolf Hitler'."

As you go through notes/textbooks write down key points, ideally in a heirarchical bullet point format. Write in your own words, but retaining technical terms. If you know what is on it envisage typical questions you might be asked, write them down and answer them.

I’ll admit this isn’t an area I know much about but the results seem a bit (a lot?) overstated. They aren’t even completely sure it’s phosphine. I read somewhere that the rotational transition they measured could also be within the same region that SO2 might absorb on a planet with H2SO4 clouds. Is this accurate?

Because, though you repeatedly fail to accept it, there is a difference. You do not set out to brain damage your opponent when you play Rugby. Do you accept that there is a fundamental difference between boxing and other sports? I can only presume that you don't understand the difference. The difference is that of intent. Like the other difference you don't seem to understand- that between pharmacology and murder. Giving people physiologically active chemicals might be homicidal, or it may be medical. The difference rests solely on why you do it.

By conservative I don't mean minimal commenting, I mean not commenting obvious code. I don't like having so many comments that maintaining them becomes a second job.

Confirm you crazy scientists in time travel atrocities? Please do tell me how you people manage to talk about creating universes in real life without first the Holy Perfect original exister of existence? How many theories does it take to find this one fact about the holy father you fools? He used Jesus Christ! And many others but Jesus Proves he is king. Do you lunatics wan hear how christianity is more evident than any other religion? Have you fools ever asked what came before existence?! The holy father did! Why because there was no evil at the beginning to touch him! He's in everything, not at the back of the universe or the front, you need him to exist something... He's in your skin, he's just very patient... If this gets removed, you all will be going further away into possible perish whom choose to play God with your back to the God of the origin of existence... Challenge me you cowards at this topic! Challenge me! Einstein would and so would Stephen hawking!

Philosophy in form of naturphilosophy is more "real Science" than speculative mathematics I believe that the very terms in which this problem is formulated are incorrect, if not stupid. They take a calculation step without determining the complexity of the step itself, that is, (count the universe) + (count the universe) this is a simple calculation, of 2 steps What is it? Cossack? where did you get that they "purged" the Cossacks?

Do you have a link to such studies? This is an illiterate statement because type 2 diabetes is not associated with insulin deficiency. This factor. For example, adjust the rate taking into account the physique (as well as the size of the heart and the state of blood vessels and so on) This experiment not have success. People die

If they found the actual time chemical make up or cosmetic diagnose for example. Theoretically understand how to manipulate it only back in time, as my theory going forward is far superior more dangerous if you fuck with the idea of time travel. Reason being is theoretically there is nothing scarred in the time continume forwardly, so yea... Say these crazy willing to die for the sake of science theoretically gain the cosmetic diagnosis and make up of time. They theoretically manipulate going back words in time. My theory is they would have to be stable and not move to even exist on a past time event, and theoretically they may not even be able to be present in the area they even start and end. Basically they would maybe able to get readings but that might be it, than theoretically they may have to reverse there manipulation out of the past in their designated line of travel. The data they would be able to gather may be as much as environmental reading and that's it, the data they would gather would not be able to actively allow there readings to see time be progressive but instead frozen. It can't be progressive theoretically because of the fact on their inability to actually be there physically. So is time travel even worth it if my theory is correct? And is the data they gain even enough or whatever? Also the reason in my opinion they have to reverse and clean up their travel is if they take the same path again it may not be an accurate reading like the first travel.

Everything is simpler: in *real* science there are no unproven statements, the whole basis is derived from experience and is its generalization It's the principles that was before the middle of XX century, at least as an ideal of at least natural science The very time when science really bore fruit, and not just regular publications of fairy tales about black holes

Yes, lol. Youtube Thrilla in manilla aspecialy

Almost all modern science is speculative and not based on empirical evidence, even "classical mechanic" It's like symbol of faith, that canonized and becomes acsiomatics for sciense, "postulats", "laws", "blablabla". Looks like something "serious". For mass