Leaderboard

I just noted some possible confusion in another thread regarding the quote function, I was not involved but I did spot a possible reason. I do not know if this applies to all browsers or platforms. I will borrow a post from @swansont above to illustrate; here is a screenshot from the post above: If I quote a part of Ahmet's statement from Swansont's post it will look like Swansont said it instead of Ahmet: Anyone know if this is an intended feature that serves a purpose? Note that if I instead include some of Swansont's test the nestled quotes seems OK: It’s not a security risk, as such Here is a screenshot of the quote, in the unlikely case that this observation of mine depends on my browser or other aspects of my local system and

I can't believe you are allowed to keep posting this garbage.

The first stage of a submarine-launched Trident missile is done by high pressure steam generated by the sub's nuclear core. I think it lifts the missile about 30ft above sea level before the rocket engine kicks in.

Maybe a picture helps you understand Janus answer? 2 pennies plus 6 pennies equals 8 pennies: It seems like 6 pennies split equally means 3 pennies each: That does not seem like a reasonable conclusion in this context. As Janus said, units will not be consistent if you do something like:

But I like your smile so excuse accepted.

The NERVA program was more or less based on this idea, though it used hydrogen rather than water. One of the advantages of hydrogen is the fact that efficiency of a rocket increases with exhaust velocity, and hydrogen molecules, with a lower mass than water molecules could be accelerated up to higher exhaust velocities for the same energy. The NERVA program can date it origins all the way back to the 1950's. NERVA rockets were tested throughout the '60s, And it was projected that if development had been continued, we could have had a system capable of getting astronauts to the Mars by 1981. However, do to political reasons funds for the NERVA program were cut in 1973. In 1983, new interest in thermonuclear rockets arose since if was felt that they would be need for the Space Defense Initiative ("Star Wars") program. Development for a new system was started in 1987, but funding was cut in 1994. 2013 brought new interest in NTRs( Nuclear thermo rockets). Again as a possible means to get astronauts to Mars. In 2019, funding was approved for development. So, basically, the reason we don't already have such rocket systems in place isn't due to any problems with the idea itself, but that the development of the systems take time and money, and the money part is subject to shifting political priorities.

Yes, you are ! Most accurate thing you've said, so far.

You're right. You did say so. I'm missing the second purely electrical one...

I won’t be wasting any more time with you

This is very personally insulting. I'm quite frankly tired of your whining and cancerous attempts to justify your own lazy incredulity. So many people have gone out of their way to help you see past your own mental barriers to learning, and now you call it all lies. You take all their hard work and compassion for a fellow learner and piss all over it. I think you've been given enough slack to show you don't appreciate any of it. It's quite clear you got EXACTLY the answer you were asking for, only you don't like it because it's clear you made a mistake. I appreciate the grace and style others have displayed in response to your childish foot-stomping, but it's clear no amount of patience can breach your carefully constructed palace of ignorance. Best of luck elsewhere, please don't waste any more of our time.

Well... most people can. But you do need to start by learning science. Have you tried that approach? I have seen no evidence that we need to try at all, never mind "very hard". What "LIES" have you seen? It's not possible for me to pollute the OP. I can't change it. Do you know what the abbreviation means? You didn't answer my point about cooperation; you went off at a tangent of moaning about me correcting your spelling. You did exactly the thing you accuse others of doing...

I don’t think it’s more important; relativity says it’s not. It’s also true that if an event happens in one frame it happens in all frames, and I am free to pick the frame in which I check. Who said it can’t? Polarity doesn’t represent an energy difference. So it’s zero. A linearly polarized photon has the same energy as a circularly polarized photon of the same frequency.

Actually the plus and minus conventions are more subtle than you perhaps imagine. There are actually two binary ( +/- ) sign conventions involved in electricity which have opposing sense, and yet another if magnetic effects are also included. The net result of this opposition of sense is that whichever way round you choose there will always be this difficulty.

https://phys.org/news/2020-12-korean-artificial-sun-world-sec-long.html

Yes, definitely in my experience these last several years it’s become clear that most Trump supporters are a rather shy bunch of wallflowers who prefer keeping quiet and hiding their feelings about Trump from others 🙄

Oh, you can't possibly be this stupid. I'm not going to answer the other deliberately idiotic response you gave me in the other thread either. Bye.

You seem to be just trolling at this point.

To be honest I do not know. My thinking is that maybe the infrastructure of the Caliphate boosted that. All muslim countries and their scientists were collaborating freely. Nowadays, they are most likely to czre about their own country/fame. This is just an opinion, but I will find out a proper answer. You got me there.

Then I guess it is fair to say Islam is responsible for the current dearth of scientific discovery, honor killings, forced marriages and the subjugation of women. What happened to culture under ISIS? It's not a good idea to cherry pick only the good aspects as someone is sure to point out the bad.

! Moderator Note We’re not a conspiracy site and the rules of speculations requires that it be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. All I see here is assertion. If you want to vent about what you consider to be wrong with physics and tell stories, go start a blog somewhere. It’s not what we do here. Don’t re-introduce this topic.

! Moderator Note Enough! We ask you to clarify what you're talking about and support it adequately, yet every new post makes everything less clear. It seems clear you can't understand the explanations the other members are giving you because you can't see beyond your own concepts. Your style of argument is polluted with conspiracy fallacies, and somehow you think questions you can't answer but also can't be bothered to research properly are interesting and meaningful. You clearly are not ready for the type of reasoning science requires. Please don't post any more threads where you suspect cosmology of some kind of intellectual coverup. This is a place of knowledge and learning, not pitchforks and leeches and ignorant fears. We wish you well, but you don't listen, and that's required in discussion. Maybe you should start a blog somewhere? If you stay, please read more than you post. You have a LOT to unlearn. Thread closed.

Here is an online meatball calculator: https://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/sphere-volume-area.html

Most people are atheist about over 99% of the gods humans have invented throughout history. Some just choose to randomly still believe in one over all of the countless others, usually based on little more than where they happened to be born and what their parents happened to believe and teach them.

Is this as 2 pennies plus 6 pennies is 8 pennies?? could we also say 6/2 = 3 pennies Does this mean that all 3 pennies are1/2 * 6 pennies = smaller pennies? Im totally confused..

Science has always relied on cooperation. And, as the areas of science that are open to small scale experiments are sorted out, we move towards a world where massive collaborations like CERN are the way forward. If scientists don't cooperate with you, it can't be because scientists are uncooperative, can it? It's not a matter of "jumping"; you have made your lack of understanding really crystal clear. A notable example is that you didn't spell "knowledge" correctly.

All this math and so little emphasis on the possibility that poll respondents were simply lying through their teeth? Who would've predicted 2016 better; a pollster, or someone who spends all their spare time staring at the things people say about Muslims and Mexicans in YouTube comments? Whatever happened to the notion of "spontaneous sincerity"?

Then read the thread once again. I have explained it. Why? Is there a rule that I cannot post a link to my thread? I think you give yourself too much power.

"""A number between 0 and 1""" I'm getting this right out of """text books"" This is why i dont like to Google information and may explain confusions.. Proper fraction larger number on top smaller number on bottom. Improper fraction is this thing in reverse. So then, a number between 0 and 1 must be "a base?" I dont need to define anything, you either know or you dont... Do you know?? Yes or No?? Sounds like a product to me, not a number..

Not at all....You make it sound as though nature has no underlining order, im almost insulted by this.. I guess this explains random prices.. What a unique system of permutations we have..lol

The Geological Map of The World (GMoTW) by UNESCO (beware of misleading namesakes) is all the evidence you need. It cost me 30 euro 10 years ago. As evidence it is incontrovertible. Ocean basalt is 5 miles thick. Continents are 20 miles thick. The Pacific mid-ocean ridge follows the west coast of the Americas, becomes the gulf of California, then believe it or not, the San Andreas Fault, to return as a mid-ocean ridge in the north, plainly depicted by the GMoTW. When you obtain the GMoTW the Indian Ocean ridge will be seen to have created the Red Sea, the Dead Sea & Jordon Valley, and the Mediteranean with Etna a result of the rifting. If you do not acquire the evidence, that is beyond my control. To claim that the Pacific rift is causing subduction under Indonesia you must be ready for the Booby Hatch. Has Mainstream changed in the past? By what logic is it prevented from changing in the future? Are we implying that we have reached scientific perfection? Particularly when current Mainstream fails to supply certain answers that may be supplied by the evidence of SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH from UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, SCIENTIFIC and Cultural Organisation.

Because "you dont know." Well, i was told angular momentum is quantized, so the system you speak of must be orbiting at some angle within some time frame.. I was also told that the energy of a photon is "quanta." 0.001% where did this come from??? How can you have more than 100% of anything??? I swear either the books i read are lieing are this science forum is lieing...

I see spelling errors all the time, as im sure do others...Why are you polluting my OP with this?? Please stop making it look as though "anyone" can join the goodole science team, it don't work like that. Its more than "obvious" this science forum "LIES" and tries very hard to make "thinkers" feel stupid or try attacking the ego by noticing "spelling" errors or other "non important" points to diverge from truly saying.. Sorry we dont know the answer to your question... I know other members read this and dont comment for fear of getting bad reputations... Can you state the reasons again?? Why the super positions did not last for long?

dthor68: Does anyone ever question Pangaea? It seem as plausible as Plate Subduction Tectonics, which implies that Everests and Matterhorns should be popping up all over the Pacific. Both Pangea and Plate Subduction are fabrications designed to explain a constant Earth radius. This has been refuted by UNESCO which, following James Maxlow's Earth Expansion Tectonics Theory, has compiled a Geological Map of The World at great expense. The evidence of this mapping proves that the Earth has doubled its radius over tha last 180 million years, and at an exponentially increasing rate, with the mid-ocean ridges located at the most recently laid down basalt. The ocean basins are nothing but basalt no older than 180 MY. Magnetic orientation, correlated with fossil evidence of the Earth's magnetic pole location over time, has been used for the dating. The continents jigsaw into a globe of the right size, with a piece missing in the Pacific area. The reason for this requires a discussion that could be a thread called The Anomalous Moon.