Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/11/22 in all areas

  1. https://www.sciencealert.com/confidence-grows-in-mit-spin-off-aiming-to-make-the-deepest-hole-for-limitless-energy Hmmm, sounds a bit airy fairy to me.
    2 points
  2. So not much different than asking a random person on the street. No, not so much. There are very few scientists in the relevant field who are saying it's not anthropogenic. You increase those numbers slightly when you get to other fields of science, but you have to be careful about the ones who have been paid for their denial. It's a false balance, such as you are using here, that is advanced by some of the bad actors in the conversation. And, frankly, I would expect a retired physicist to be taking a more critical view of the issue than talking to an explorer and settling for "he said, she said" reporting.
    2 points
  3. I suppose there may be some further compression occurring, due to the slight reduction of volume in the core as it cools and progressively solidifies. From that link you provided, it seems the latent heat of fusion released as more of the core becomes solid will slow the rate of cooling. If the solid is also denser than the liquid, then the gradual growth of the solid core at the expense of the liquid core will reduce the volume of the core and the rest of the earth will move downward to fill the space and thereby become further compressed, releasing more heat. Regarding tectonic movement, my understanding is that this does indeed release heat due to friction (e.g. in descending slabs at subduction zones, it contributes to the partial melting that takes place which is responsible for island arc volcanoes). But since the source of the motion is thermal convection in the first place, I should have thought that would be a redistribution of heat from core to crust/upper mantle, rather than an additional source of it. But this isn't my field so I speak only as an interested amateur.
    2 points
  4. Let’s be clear that parents typically pay for school. So growing up middle/upper class may have little to no impact on your wealth when you go to get a job. You’re talking about different things as if they are identical, and they aren’t Were you asked about your wealth during a job interview, or did you ask when interviewing someone else? One was paywalled, and I’m just humble civil servant. The abstracts of both are clear enough that they don’t address the claim in question. You are free to quote from them if you think they do. In keeping with academic rigor. I’m not claiming they are wrong, and I’m not making any counter claim. I’m simply asking for evidence that your scenario - hiring only the rich - is something that is widespread enough that it makes sense to protect people from it. What’s the demarcation of “the rich” anyway? How much money do you need in the bank to qualify? I suggested I was smelling BS, so clearly this missed the mark.
    2 points
  5. Jesus was half dead on the cross, his blood ebbing out, gasping his last, but then... the storm hit. The wind and the waves where whipped up and just before the Lor' cried out with a loud voice, tis finished, a storm brew forth. It had lightning in it. And that lightning had electricity. The electricity in that lightning entered through the nails in the saviours hands and went into his nervous system. His nervous system, possessed by this new electric energy, exactly like human nervous system electricity but artificial, was spurned back to life. The deadish brain of the saviour was from then on possessed by the artificial electricity that pervades the atmosphere. And whenever the northern lights hit, he would be double possessed, and could swallow fire, break iron bars with his bare hands, etc. Theory of reincarnation; infallacious or otherwise?
    1 point
  6. Same with streaming media programme lists, same with google search if you never remove your cookies, which probably most mobile phone users don't. I haven't had a TV for for nearly 20 years, so this is really noticeable to me when I go to a friend's home and watch Netflix sometimes. His family's Netflix choices get narrower over time, and they end up bored with it because it now only gives them what they wanted before. They still carry on watching the same genres though. You don't want chocolate ice cream everyday, but that's what the likes of Netflix, Google, et al do, gradually restrict your choices and force you into a rut that becomes ingrained. Brainwashing basically. Social media is not distorting reality as such,.it has increased our exposure to exponentially more realiities than pre-internet times. We are overwhelmed by the number of windows we can see through. On any given night, pre-90's, probably 30-50% might be watching the same programmes at any given time, quite often. Eastenders, Coronation Street, and televised national events easily pulled 25 million viewers ... that was half the UK population on one channel.... one window of reality. That doesn't happen now because of the plethora of media choices. Us older ones sense this but we often don't realise why. Nationally, countries populations used to share a common media reality, and now we don't. I'm afraid us older ones are the new Luddites, as happens with every generational change, and the younger ones will seamlessly accept it because they know nothing else. The consequence of the internet is that there is much less local, national and global synchronicity of shared perceptions and intersubjective realities, therefore, the chances of sharing the same opinions within large groups is much reduced now. This is a major reason, I think, for the increasing disharmony in the world now.
    1 point
  7. So what evidence do you need to show that human induced global warming is a valid concept and real? What would convince you? What external sites do you trust? I was of the opinion that NASA was up there with the best. Do you have any evidence to show whay that isn't true? https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
    1 point
  8. I've decided my next car will definitely be electric. I'm just hoping to hang on for a year or two, while the charging network improves, the main issue being to have a charging point in Brittany where we go for summer holidays. (There are already charging points on the overnight ferry). What gives me a bit of a guilty conscience is that I've found that I can't realistically get a heat pump to replace the gas central hearing boiler. The house, which is Victorian, is too big and difficult to insulate sufficiently. I shall just have to get a new, efficient gas boiler and hope that eventually I can run it on green or blue hydrogen - or a hydrogen/methane blend. The UK government has done almost nothing to address this issue yet, which is a huge hole in its climate change strategy. That's a fairly strange statement. Climate scientists are practically unanimous. The only significant doubt seems to be among those non-experts who don't want to believe it, either for political reasons or for reasons of personal convenience.
    1 point
  9. I don't think this is a new problem, it reminds me of my gran chatting over the garden fence, scaled up. Some people are gossiper's and some people are gossipee's; we're social people, we just want friend's. I don't think it distorts reality, it emphasises the problem of gossip.
    1 point
  10. The vertical force he exert is equal to the weight. However, the weight itself, i.e. the heavy wheel doesn't stay above his head. If we look only at the vertical displacement of the wheel, it goes up and then down.
    1 point
  11. Ah so he's pushing it round in a circle, is he? So the combined total of the force needed to push it round, plus the lifting force from his hand will equal the weight, I suppose. In other words he still has to exert a force equal to its weight, but not purely vertically, due to the reaction of the gyroscope.
    1 point
  12. It didn't go anywhere. You can leverage the angular momentum and torque, as Derek explains in the followup. Notice the path of the apparatus - he's not lifting straight up.
    1 point
  13. I'm quite positive that the OP is talking about this video: No, it doesn't suggest that the weight changes. It is a pretty good demonstration and is followed by explanation.
    1 point
  14. A YouTube video is a bad place to start. YouTube is full of crap. A spinning gyroscope weighs the same as a stationary one, so if your video suggests otherwise that is false. The special property of a spinning gyroscope is that if you try to change the direction of its axis of spin, it will tend to move at right angles to the change you are trying to making. For instance if it is upright in front of you and you push the top away from you it will move to the left or right, depending on the direction of spin. It's hard to visualise why, but you can make sense of it by considering the momentum of 2 bits of the spinning rotor, on opposite sides of the axis, when an attempt is made to change the direction of the axis of spin. Bit hard to explain in detail without a diagram, though.
    1 point
  15. Class is implied by use off the word rich. I shouldn't have to explain that. To me it just seems like you're making an argument about semantics here. If the word choice bothers you that much, then assume I meant middle to upper class. Who do you know that can afford to go to private schools that is not middle/upper class? Assuming it's a school not run by a religious organization. As far as I'm aware, nobody in my area growing up got into a private school unless it was a school specifically for disabled children. My high-school was supposed to get a new building (because the current one is literally sinking into a brae) over a decade ago. The land developers sat on that land for 6 years until they were no-longer contractually obligated to build it and they gentrified the area instead and forced a lot of good working class people out. Not particularly relevant to this discussion I guess but maybe telling you it will help you understand why I believe I am just trying to speak what seems to be the truth to me, in good faith. You really need to read both of the links I sent you, thoroughly. You asked for them, so you need to at least respect them enough to reflect on them and read them carefully. I didn't write them, so if you want to counter the claims made in them, you'll need to find evidence in support of whatever your counter claims are. This is a two way street. You are not my peer, my boss, my professor or my parent. You're a fallible human being capable of being rude and callous, as am I. All I know of you, is how you behave toward me. I'm a fuckin open book. I don't know what any of your intentions are, but have you considered that how you are choosing to communicate with me is to blame for these misunderstandings wherein you keep making me feel like you just don't like me and are mostly antagonistic toward me? I get it, you're one of those people who believe brutal honesty is the best policy, but you also strike me as the type that focuses more on the brutality than the honesty. Compassionate honesty, now that is the diplomatic way to do it. I'm trying to work on that myself. I'm genuinely trying to be kinder and work on my temper. I really do want to understand you better, because I don't want nor like being upset with you. Am I just not getting your style of communication? What's going on? Well it's not outside the realm of mine. Maybe you have anosmia? Are you actually going to read the study? Or just the parts you think will prove me wrong? (when they don't) What is it that motivates you to debate this with me by the way? What do you want from this dialogue? What is your stake in this discussion? Do you stand to gain from a fairer and more equitable world or would it mean you have to share more?
    1 point
  16. You can understand the science behind AGW, and be fully aware of the consequences, yet, when you see things like "The world will end in 20 years" or "There will be no humans left", you reaize there are nut-bars on both sides. What the Ukraine situation has proven, is that people are willing to endure the pain of high gas and energy prices, if they perceive it as a good cause. But, when all that happens during shortages, is oil companies lobbying the governments to increase profits or production will decrease even further, to the tune of astronomical profits of over $20 billion in 2021 for companies like Shell or Mobil, you start asking why we are enduring the pain for them to profit. Or why J Biden is dealing with another ( just as bad ) dictator in Venezuela to make up for the losses from the previous dictator that supplied us, yet refuses Canadian oil even though we have , and use, technology to produce it just as clean. By all means have a fair tax on fossil fuels, but re-invest this tax on infrastructure to facilitate the use of electric vehicles. Off-shore wind farms, Solar panel farms in the South-west, along with distribution grids. And major investments in nuclear fusion.
    1 point
  17. Life is an accident of evolution. To live, love and be happy, free from suffering and pain, as much as is humanly possible. I aim to live forever; so far I'm doing OK.
    1 point
  18. FFS, really? So needless A tyrant is a tyrant, and defined by his actions; what he ( or we ) choose to label his ideology is not really relevant. ( I think the reaction is funnier than the comment, JC )
    1 point
  19. 1 point
  20. Or you could tell swansont to obey the rules of the forum and argue in good faith for once? Those were fair questions to ask. Nothing to do with paranoia. I've laid out where my biases stem from on this subject so why shouldn't I ask others about there's? Or is it offensive to call someone fallible now? If mods are allowed to break the rules here, then this place isn't worth a damn. I am sick of putting in a lot of time and effort into writing here, only to have the majority of it ignored. You guys forgot to add a rule: Never report a mod or we will gaslight you and call you paranoid whenever you accurately call out their antagonistic behavior and lack of forum etiquette. How can you expect users to want to express themselves or share information in good faith when the mods can't even do the same? Why is it that I am expected to answer any question swansont asks me but he doesn't have to answer anything I ask him? Where is the fairness there? Are you really incapable of seeing this from my point of view? Did you learn nothing the last time this happened and you banned me for a year for demanding an apology for him calling me a liar? My mind hasn't changed on that, I was still in the right then and I am now. You know what, just perma ban me this time. I don't care anymore. I've given every opportunity to Swansont to try to have a respectful dialogue with me and he spits it in my face every time. So Ban me permanently please, even though I've not broken a single rule in this thread. Just read the damn links. I'm not answering anymore of your questions until you have answered mine.
    0 points
  21. Can we trust any external site, no matter what it says? Discussion forums like SF therefore serve a very useful purpose by discussing things among members themselves. We know there have been a cycle of ice ages and thaws throughout earth's history, so perhaps we're currently in a "thaw" phase, hence the melting ice. Or perhaps pollution is to blame, so we don't really know what to think?
    -1 points
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.