Leaderboard

https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/2020/hubble-sees-a-molten-ring

Trump spent one hour on the phone with GA sec of state, with lawyers, and Mark Meadows. This was after 18 attempts by Trump to talk with Raffensperger. Trump has a complete list of the lies that were thrown out of over 50 courts in front of him on the call. That is why it sounds like he "knows" something. First listen to the short 5-minute Youtube and if you have the stomach for it, you can listen to the full one hour of insanity. Audio: Trump berates Ga. secretary of state, urges him to ‘find’ votes - YouTube Now buckle up for one hour of insanity! Full Phone Call: Trump Pressures Georgia Secretary of State To Recount Election Votes | NBC News - YouTube The question is does Trump REALLY believe that there was massive voter fraud in GA? If he really believes it then he may not be guilty of fraud. Trump is in a bubble of approval like he was all his life. He was spoiled by this bubble of approval. When Trump hears fake news about voter fraud, Trump WANTS to believe it so he DOES BELIEVE IT. Those around him never puncture his bubble of delusion, they just dance around it so Trump remains deluded!!

Hi Studiot, thanks for your interest! Where the propellant makes a small fraction of a vehicle's mass, the momentum is fully relevant. There, more propellant brings you further or faster. But a launcher's mass is essentially propellant, plus very little tank and engine and payload mass. More propellant pushing on more propellant wouldn't increase the speed. This suggests that momentum doesn't suffice. As the rocket's mass (or rather the stage's mass) varies much while it uses propellant, the proper equation is DeltaV = Ejectionspeed * Log (Initalmass / Finalmass), called Tsiolkovski's equation and because the nearest orbit costs around 9500m/s but propellants achieve 3000-4600m/s ejection speed, launchers need a big ratio Initalmass / Finalmass. This implies that all dead mass must be small in a launcher, and even then, they consume a strong part of the final mass, leaving less for the payload. Stages improve that by throwing away much dead mass, but even good designs used in a favourable mission waste easily 1/4 of the final mass for each stage. Put together, the ejection speed (or divided by g=9.806m/s, the specific impulse Isp in seconds - plus subtleties if a secondary flux is lost) is all-important for a launcher. Already the Log would let 1% more Isp gain 3% on the final mass, but on the payload mass it acts even more. So the ejection speed rules, and designers make big efforts to improve it.

Yusef, I'm interested in holy texts mostly from the point of view of historical criticism. I think they give you clues to the concerns and strife of our ancestors, whether they be Muslim, Christian or Jew, or any other religion. I also enjoy the poetry in them, occasionally. They are literary works of art at some points, political manifestos at another. Not even for a second do I consider that they could be an accurate account of anything. Let alone use them as a proper guide for use in our daily lives. My kind of questions would be like: What kind of man must Mohammed have been? Why did the monotheists in the 6th century's Middle East --first years of the Hegira or الهجرة‎-- feel compelled to raise in arms against polytheism and "stranded" versions of their faith in one God? Why did the Kaaba --ٱلْكَعْبَة‎-- end up in Mecca? Why did the Qibla --قِبْلَة‎-- change? What consequences had the vying for power between Caliphs during the first few centuries of Islam in the later developments into different branches? Very similar questions I ask myself about Christianity and Judaism. I also have faith in archaeology: What you dig from the ground is what it is, far more robust an evidence than anything written in a book. And the reason is I can write in a book now whatever I want, and people now, or people centuries from now, can choose to believe me or not. But if I do this or that, I eat or drink this or that, if I worship to this or that god, the remains of my activity cannot easily misrepresent me and my environment. They are what they are. And they will be there when they're dug out, speaking about me volumes more than anything about myself I write down. And they will be proof of what I did or didn't do. Some data, of course, are lost forever. That, in a nutshell, is why I don't take literally anything my ancestors said.

Hi guys and thank you for replying I'm very keen on furthering my understanding in cosmos term and I really appreciate the education. Somtimes my thoughts don't come out as I thought them if that makes sense I know that black holes have entropy sorry I wasn't clear on this I'm still learning how to articulate my deeper thoughts and yes your right on the concept of your space ship example to my uncompleted thought how would so much disorder ie entropy lead to somthing so ordered that engineering can not only interact with it but use the platform made up of such levels of entropy and still vaguely work? Again thank you for the education guys.

No it's now ancient history. Check the OP date.

The implication of what it says here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_barbasco_trade#End_of_the_barbasco_era is that they steroids are now derived from soy.

The reaction can not work. It's impossible to balance it. The electrons won't add up.

In 1996, CPUs had one core per CPU. So I assume you meant "to match 200 machines in 1996" (e.g. server-room). The first Intel/Xeon with a dual-core was released in late 2005. The efficiency of modern CPUs apart of increased frequency, and more built-in cores, is the result of the introduction of new instructions which process more data in single instruction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIMD SIMD = Single Instruction Multiple Data But it requires 1) writing machine code manually 2) writing assembler snippets manually 3) enabling option in compiler (so it must to have such an option in the first place). Doubtful ancient Pascal compiler will utilize power of new instructions.. 4) writing multi-threaded algorithm.. A significant bottleneck is how fast the processor can read and write data from and to physical memory. To help with the bottleneck, many new technologies have been introduced: multi-level cache, dual-channel and triple-channel memory slots (so, when you have dual-channel memory on the motherboard, instead of buying a single 8 GB memory, you should buy 2x 4 GB, or 2x 8 GB.. and if triple-channel, buy 3x at a time, to have 3x faster memory transfers) These days, when somebody wants to have fast code, converts the most time consuming part of application to GPU/CUDA/OpenCL. We have GFX cards with literally thousands cores. Usage of ancient languages with ancient abandoned compilers won't help you fully utilize power of a modern machine. Hmm.. I have sense this sentence can be equivalent of "is modern 8 core CPU faster than 200 machines in 1996", correct? Yes. Modern single computer with 8 core CPU can be faster than 200 old machines from the past. You can check it using e.g. CPU benchmark website, which list CPUs: Compare AMD Ryzen (Cores: 64 Threads: 128). Score 88731. https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+Threadripper+PRO+3995WX&id=3837 with Pentium 4 from 2000 (Cores: 1, Threads: 1). Score 77. https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Pentium+4+1300MHz&id=1058 (the worstest on this website) 88731/77 = 1152 times faster But it requires 1) multi-threaded code (not all algorithms are easily scalable) 2) no significant transfers from CPU to physical memory 3) no significant transfers from physical memory to data storage e.g. HDD/SSD/M.2

Figures, drawings and opinions about a body wider than the 1.8m announced for the Spectrum launcher. At arbitrary 100bar chamber pressure, and including some 7s lost in the peroxide gas generator - a expansion cycle may be more effective. Mass and speed estimates tell me payloads much heavier than 1000kg from 53t at lift-off, with nine 1st stage nozzles reduced now to D=0.5m for 0.25bar on a D=1.8m circle, with D=0.27m inserts at sea level. The D=1.8m fairing wouldn't serve then. My sunheat engine is the next big thing scienceforums and already 700kg hydrogen fit in D=2.5m as depicted but not properly in D=1.8m. But deep space missions could even carry 1200kg hydrogen, which needs a fairing wider than D=2.5m. By the way, the sunheat engine needs trickle hydrogen at the launch pad under the fairing, sorry for that. Strap-on boosters can multiply the lift-off mass by 2.1 with little development, and then the fairing must be wider than D=2.5m and longer. The two stages reach marginally a transfer to Gso, Moon, Mars, Venus - hence the bigger tanks at 2nd stage. A true 3rd stage starting from Leo reaches nicely Gso, the lunar surface, transfers to Mars, Venus and Jupiter. Then the launcher gets taller. My hectares solar sail makes impressive missions scienceforums and it fits nicely in Spectrum's mass capability, but it needs a long fairing for the telescopic booms. Longer and wider bodies and fairings, heavier payloads increase the bending loads that dimension small launchers. I feel a D=1.8m body too difficult here. ========== If ending 0.2mm thin, a nozzle extension of niobium from D=0.8m to D=1.6m weighs 15kg and gains 150kg in orbit. It needs a light interstage. A four-chamber engine is a different option. Light interstages are easily made of a truss. A truss can also hold superinsulated light balloon tanks as I described scienceforums which I believe Ariane 6 has adopted for the upper stage, and SpaceX seemingly too for the BFR. Marc Schaefer, aka Enthalpy

Your reading the pioneering experiment from 1940, which was a semisynthesis. Read the paragraph underneath that for tthe total synthesis done in 1971.

The windows of charity shops used to be covered with a yellow film that blocked all the UV and some of the visible blue/ violet light. It stopped sunlight fading the goods on display. Black paper will almost certainly block all the UV. (In principle it would be possible to make a "black" paper that didn't absorb UVA, but it would be more difficult and more expensive than using carbon black as the pigment so nobody will bother) Practically all commercial white paint uses titanium dioxide as a pigment. That will absorb all the UV but reflect the visible light. (By a helpful coincidence, the reflection cut off for TiO2 is practically the same as the cut off for visible vs UV light.) If you have blinds with white slats so that the light coming in has to bounce off two slats to get through, practically none of the UVA will get through, but you won't be in the dark.

You ned to use somehing like Pilkington Optiview glass https://www.pilkington.com/en/global/products/product-categories/special-applications/pilkington-optiview-range/pilkington-optiview-protect

If it’s blocking all the light, it’s blocking UV. Filters that transmit the red end of the spectrum might block into the UV.

The full energy-momentum relation (which is simply the relationship between the temporal and spatial parts of the 4-momentum vector) is \[E=\sqrt{m^2c^4+c^2p^2}\] For massive particles at rest you have p=0 and thus \[E=mc^2\] For photons you have m=0, and thus \[E=pc\] Particles do not need to be stable in order to be elementary. For example, the muon is elementary, but has only a short lifetime. Protons don't decay, so it is "more stable" than the neutron - even though both of them are quark triplets. Neutrinos naturally arise from the way the weak interaction works, since energy and momentum need to be conserved. Protons are not fundamental, they are composed of quark triplets, same as neutrons. They do interact with matter, it's called the Mikheyev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein effect. They also interact gravitationally, if you have enough of them. Gravity is not a force (though it can be approximated as such in the Newtonian limit) - as is easily seen by going into free fall while carrying an accelerometer.

Yes, that means they will float. But the downflow of water exerts a force as it strikes the beads, so initially the buoyancy can’t overcome this. But the flow rate near the beads decreases after the top fills up, so this force decreases, and then the beads can float upwards.

It's effectively a time reversed Coe and Clevenger test - the progressive fluidisation of a packed bed of buoyant particles rather than the more industrially significant progressive compaction of denser particulates from a suspension. I agree with joigus that it's not saying anything significant about pressure here. No measurements seem to be taken so I question whether it's actually saying anything about anything.

Mmmm. I don't know. There are several things going on, and gravity is not helping. I see it more as an illustration of osmotic pressure, or diffusion, than mechanical pressure. Also increase in entropy. Pressure would be more like the balls pushing a wall. For that I would recommend computer simulation. Some like this from Wikipedia:

The fitness effects of a mutation are a moving target in a variable environment. While a mutation may be deleterious or neutral in one environment, it may be highly beneficial in another. E.g. antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Further, even if the net number of deleterious mutations outnumber the beneficial, the process of selection increases the likelihood of fixation of beneficial mutations. This seems to be a version of the irreducible complexity fallacy - of which this is a good discussion of. As pointed out above, mutations do not need to be of benefit in the current environment to be prevalent or even fixed in an environment, so a trait can exist that has no contemporary function or benefit. Also, intermediate phenotypes are often more prevalent than many expect - as an example there are both air breathing fish and amphibious fish that can't breathe air that are extant today. Epigenetics and gene interactions may well be associated with beneficial mutation, however neither process could be described as effortful or interactive.

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?

Turning a blind eye and a deaf ear was never science! READ my post carefully and reference the UNESCO map provided for what good it can do. If you are more than some verbal jouster, buy the complete map from UNESCO. As you will see, this IS EVIDENCE, not BS. And if you have similarly researched the opinions that are a part of your social environment out of interest in consistency, correlate this information with a document that Albert Einstein, Thomas Jefferson and Woodrow Wilson held true and sacred, specifically this part, relative to Earth Expansion Tectonics, Zephaniah Chapter 3, KJV. US Congress destroyed Woodrow Wilson and derailed The League of Nations, but Woodrow's prophecy "If you do not ratify the League of Nations (together with England, France and Italy) and honour the Fourteen Point Plan, you WILL have another World War in a generation. It almost happened a second time over the price of sugar. His effort was partially reinstated in Einstein's efforts toward The United Nations, and his appeal to Russian Scientists (refer to "Ideas and Opinions" for the replies and weep).

Time does exist, like temperature, pressure, the word time and so on, because we defined them. Space is real because we can move left-right, forward-backward and up-down. In "time" we can't move backward, so it's not as real as the space. Time has a meaning when it's about time intervals, like distances in space. Time as a dimension has less or no meaning. Yes. You can find in this forum my alternative theory, based on dark matter. It is intuitive, it is in agreement with the experiments/facts and it offers new experiments, able to prove it.