Leaderboard

There are two parts to a joke. Part one is as you describe above in bold. But that alone does not constitute humor. You still need the part where you have two concepts playing off each other, or you suddenly change the direction of thought the story was leading you on. It is not humor if I say "Trump has ties to Russia." Or "Trump is a big, fat jerk." On the other hand... Q. Why are Trump's ties so long? A. Because they reach all the way to Russia. ... is humor (good or bad) because it met some requirement of humor, in this case causing the listener to have to recognize the two meanings of the word "ties" and be aware of current events. I am not objecting to jokes about anyone or anything. I just think that if you post in Political Humor then the post shouldn't be just about politics, but should also include some humor. If it doesn't include humor, then post it in Politics.

I was not trying to replicate an experiment you had conducted. I was doing an experiment that you had not conducted, but probably should have.

Oooh, I very much disagree with this! This is carte blanche for a diseased, hateful mind. This supports all kinds of victim blaming, stereotypes, and callous insensitivity. Why should humor be allowed to violate taboos we hold others accountable for? This sentiment allows me to say whatever I feel like saying, and to hell with how hurtful it is to some in the audience. It allows a hateful comic to become the victim of "snowflake sensitivity". Do you really believe the "author" of a joke should be forgiven for whatever they say?

We are not all made the same way, so what tickles our individual funny bones is individual.

Political humour by its subject matter is about ridiculing groups or individuals for their thinking and behaviour in some way... depending on which side one sits on. If one is going to engage in it, be fair to everyone and piss-take them too... 'equality', see. Everyone has their 'taboo' subjects' and 8 Billion variations is too many to accommodate, so if you want to do it, do everyone. If people are offended by mistermack's post, I nuked the neg, then maybe they best stat away from political jokes because attacks their collective behaviour and not their being,which would be personal. Attack the behviour, not the person.

The F-22 is the only aircraft in US inventory that is somewhat stable at 60000ft ( other than the unarmed, former SR-71 and U-2 reconnaissance platforms ), the F-15 is right on the edge of its flight envelope. Even the F-22 would need to close at M-1 or better to remain maneuverable. The F-22 carries the M-61 Vulcan cannon, which fires at 6000 rounds/minute, so its drum of 480 rounds would be done in 4.8 seconds ( disregarding wind-up time ), and would have an effective range of a few miles. It is not particularly easy to fly towards a target at approx. 600 mi/hr, shoot off a couple of seconds worth of cannon rounds while heading straight at the target ( it's a fixed cannon, remember ? ), and evade the 200 ft ballon you're flying towards, while only being able to pull 1 or 2 Gs in the rarified air at that altitude. And thse 20mm cannon rounds are explosive. The balloon won't provide enough resistance to detonate them; they'll simply punch 20 mm holes in it. It will take a long time for that balloon to come down; even with 480 20 mm holes in it. And those unexploded cannon shells will still detonate on impacting the ground, or pose a danger to anyone finding them. So the USAF decided to use a $400000 AIM-9X Sidewinder without IR detector, but using semi-active radar guidance from the F-22 radar. Incidentally, Canadian CF-18, or even the future F-35, could not bring it down, even had they tried.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-stoichiometric_compound

The OP is fixated on the outdated idea of caloric. Heat is not kinetic energy. Heat is the transfer of energy owing to a temperature difference. This can happen via radiation, conduction or convection. The thermal energy of a body is related to kinetic energy of constituent atoms or molecules, which we associate with temperature. But two objects at the same temperature will have not heat transfer between them, despite having vibrational KE Not particularly relevant, as it’s the same for both samples. Room temperature. Higher than air, to be sure, so it would tend to warm the water faster than air would. Which might heat the edge of the water but not the center Again, this would affect the edge, not the center. Only some? It needs to account for all of it if your assertion is correct. The counter was at ambient temperature before the water was added. As I noted, that should heat the water faster. You are free to replicate this, as you have repeatedly been invited to do.

The flavor eigenstates are not mass eigenstates, correct. This is an example of a mixing angle between the two, like happens with quarks (and I only recall this because that’s the Cabbibo angle, and I gave a lab tour to Cabbibo, not knowing who he was, because it’s not my area of physics. Only found out later from some jealous colleagues, who were more familiar with that area of physics)

Same here. +1 to both of you. And such comments always will be. Fairness rules are strictly enforced until they work against the parties in charge.

An ISRAELI CORPORATION You have two cows. They come with guns. Move you to a dusty cowshed and take your cows. Then they bulldoze your cowshed and when you protest, they shoot you for being a terrorist. Then American taxpayers pay to replace the bullets. Then end times.

An ISRAELI CORPORATION You have two cows. They come with guns. Move you to a dusty cowshed and take your cows. Then they bulldoze your cowshed and when you protest, they shoot you for being a terrorist. Then American taxpayers pay to replace the bullets. Then end times. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/35130-political-humor/page/17/#comment-1228505 (post content from other thread added by moderator for context) The joke takes a swipe at Israeli hardline policy, seems like. Maybe not the greatest joke, but I would not want to start downvoting jokes. Am counteracting the DV, not because I agree with all the premise of the joke but because I like this thread being one thread where people feel accepted to make weird or even smelly transgressive attempts at political humor. (one can also Google "Palestinian olive trees destroyed" for further research on what triggers such jokes - quite the eye opener!)

It is not his fault if I don't see the element of humor, but it is his fault if he doesn't include an element of humor. On the other hand if it makes you laugh when I say "Trump is a big, fat jerk.", then I admit to having no understanding of your sense of humor.

I'm genuinely trying to find the resolution to what I perceive as a conundrum, I thought the wise people here might be able to help. Why are you so cynical? I'll try to clarify the scenario more with a diagram in a little while. So far, one person said 1.732 seconds and another said half that. I'll try to see if either works in a diagram. Thanks to all who replied so far, even if cynical.

Okay here's a snapshot taken of the train car as it passes directly in front of a ground observer with an instantaneous camera. The red and green lines are continuous laser beams. The velocity is known to the ground observer to be 0.866 c because it was previously set up in the lab to move at that velocity in the lab frame. Length contraction has reduced the apparent length from 10 to 5 m, as the observer knows is predicted by SR, and the observer knows that time is slowed down to half the rate of his because the Lorentz factor for that velocity is 2 Through trigonometry, he knows that the diagonal line has gone from being 14.1421 m when the car was stationary to 11.1803399 m in the snapshot. Knowing that the speed of light in his world is 1 m/s, the ground observer knows that from his point of view a light beam traveling that distance would take 0.5 second but he knows that observers in the car must see it take 1 second of their time, because they see it travel 10 m instead of 5, the car being uncontracted in their frame. How does he make 0.5 second of his time look like 1 second in the car? He imagines a timer at the back wall of the car showing 0 and a timer at the front wall showing 0.75 second when the light beam is emitted from the back wall, so that by the time the beam reaches the front wall the timer will have progressed by 0.25 second in that frame, while 0.5 second has passed in his, and will then show 1 second. That would seem to reconcile things but he recalls that Einstein stated that clocks at the back of moving frames will be seen by a stationary observer to be ahead of ones at the front so he finds this perplexing, because he had to imagine the front clock being ahead of the back one instead. The ground observer then sees what would happen with the diagonal beam with that same timer desynchronization. It would take 1.11803399 seconds in his frame for the green laser to travel the path so, with the timers in the car running at half speed, it would take 2.23606798 seconds on their timers so, with the front timer being 0.25 second ahead of the back timer, the front timer would show 2.48606798 had passed but in the uncontracted car frame the distance would be 14.1421 m and should have taken 1.41412 second on their timers. Now the ground observer is wondering how Einstein was so wrong, apparently, because nothing at all turned out the way he stated that it should and, thus, he perceived that a conundrum was afoot and he needed some people on a physics forum to try to explain how that happened. I would never do such a thing as to smuggle anti-relativity sentiments into a physics forum, I'm offended that you would even think that. I am merely trying to resolve apparent conundrums, that's all.

I have circuits in my mind that can be triggered regardless of the laws of physics.

You do realize that if the top plate is continuously heated so is the working fluid every time it is shunted up or down. I try to get it through my thick head that not everybody lives and breaths Stirling engines every day the way I have for the last 15 years or so, so these things are not readily apparent I'll try drawing a picture. Hopefully that will make things clear. If effectively you have six heating elements distributed around the cold plate, along with hot convective air currents, that is inevitably also heating the cold expanded working fluid above the displacer. The working fluid is constantly in motion so the heat gets washed out, distributed more evenly as time goes on.

What question. And how is what I illustrated "irrelevant" You folks seem to have no comprehension of heat distribution in a Stirling engine. Don't know what more I could do to make it any clearer. The heat from the bolts is heating the top plate as well as the air inside the engine below it. The cold expanded air is forced upward directly impacting those hot zones around the perimeter every cycle. That would not be "replicating" your experiment, which is crap. I've already done experiments of that sort, with nylon bolts.

Then your experiment is off topic. This topic here: Is Carnot efficiency valid? Regardless of what you were testing your experiment is terribly flawed in the ways pointed out as you have not replicated the conditions I have clearly specified for making the observations I reported on. Perhaps, if you want to investigate that, you should start a new thread on the subject but you would need to clean up your methodology which demonstrated an extreme incompetence.

The relevant Heat transfer through a heat engine under investigation is that heat entering into or passing through the working fluid and only the working fluid, which means eliminating, as far as possible, all other avenues for heat transfer. You made no attempt whatsoever in that direction as evidenced by the luminous glow of the "hot spots" on your model There is no hesitancy on my part to conduct experiments. That's an obvious mischaracterization. Well I'm glad to see some kind of effort being put into this but you seem completely unable or unwilling to entertain any criticism of your methodology. If your intention is to prove this experimenter wrong, there should at least be some effort put into understanding the protocol of my experiments.