Leaderboard

This is what you are wasting..

The pitch up is not a result of the thrust vector rotating the aircraft about its CoG, rather it is due to the aerodynamic interaction of the engine nacelle being too close to the active wing surfaces. If you ever see a photo of a second generation 737, you'll notice the underside of the fan cowling on the engine nacelle is 'flattened' so as to enable ground clearance. On the third generation, with an even larger bypass turbofan and cowling, that wasn't possible, so Boeing raised the nacelles such that the engine pylon is almost non-existent, and affects airflow on the wing to a much greater degree. At least from what I've read after the incidents.

Hey! Don't mixup crackpotism and philosophy! Good philosophers know what they must know about the sciences, and know when they don't. If you know what I mean... See my 2nd and 3rd citations of Dennett in my disclaimer.

Another philosopher venturing into the deepest scientific caves without the lantern of maths...

What do you think of this guy? How does he compare to Carl Sagan in your opinion? Personally I like him. He did an awesome job in Cosmos: A Spacetime Oddysey. I am yet to watch Cosmos: Possible Worlds as it didn't air in my country. Although he's sometimes wrong when he talks about stuff that isn't space related. His remarks after a school shooting on the US were quite insensitive too. Any thoughts?

Not sure exactly what the “agenda” is, whether to help Trump win against Biden or lose to a potential replacement, but it hardly matters, IMO, for the sake of this thread…this GOP talking point is front and centre, could very well decide the election, and has been taken up by a sizeable number of Democrats…for good reason, again in my opinion. in fact many top Democrats talking against replacement seem to be buying time to think of the best way forward, want to see Biden make the decision to step down on his own terms, simply prefer not to be seen as stabbing Biden in the back…or in some cases all three. Some in fact, may have set Biden up for early exposure in an earlier than usual first debate. I say lock all potential candidates up and don't let them out until they send a smoke signal to indicate they've picked a leader...

To think you could have had nuclear physicists working on this, except they worked on fusion instead.

All we need do is read the press to understand what happened. It was extensively reported. @Sensei's post, the 2nd in this thread, summarises it. Essentially it was a failure by the manufacturer to disclose information about an automated system that had been fitted. In effect, flight crew were -deliberately - not fully informed about the systems employed on the aircraft they were flying. This was done to avoid the cost and inconvenience of further training, but meant that when there was a malfunction in this "hidden" system, the crew were not equipped to take the right decisions. An appalling result of the way Boeing had come to prioritise financial performance over safety. This cultural failure has also been extensively reported in the press (at least in the Financial Times, which I read) and has quite rightly led to a change of top personnel at the company. It also revealed an unduly close relationship between Boeing and the US regulator for aircraft safety, a state of affairs known as "regulatory capture". There have been many examples of such "capture", across various industries around the world, and it practically always ends in disaster. Business people often resent what they see as bureaucratic "box-ticking" by inspection and supervisory regimes, and lobby politicians to slacken the oversight. It goes fine....until it doesn't, and then it's pointy finger time.

Yeah, String Junky. I need my optic nerves ( more specifically the ganglion cells in the 'bend' from retina to optic nerve ) regenerated. Been waiting 30 years.

Or into neuroplastically regenerating my auditory nerves, so that I and others can hear properly. 62 years and I'm still waiting. People think like there's just like one pot of money.

Thank you very much. I feel myself very happy being corrected/confirmed about my prediction which I wrote in my paper but could not publish it. I shall try to revise and resubmit. Thanks again.

Terrorists are usually state funded. Prophets over profits.

If I may Joigus ... "another 'would be philosopher' who has no clue what Philosophy is" is that better Eise ? And then the OP starts talking about 'destiny' ???

OK so you are just waffling, as I suspected. So far as I know, no country has passed laws to prevent fusion research. I certainly can’t see why any legislature would do such a thing.

This is always a big red flag for me. Theory is the strongest explanatory mechanism science has. Are you looking for "proof"? Proof is for maths, but you don't want to do the maths. Rejecting the foundations of spacetime is going to be an uphill battle all the way. Astrodynamics uses those foundations to land a spacecraft on an asteroid millions of miles away. Without them we miss. How does this match up with your observation that time doesn't exist?

Yes. This is like the space program after the Apollo missions were ended. The momentum and skills were lost.

In Engineering we deal with real world objects called Bodies. Bodies can be affected by agents we call Forces according to specific rules. Individual forces cannot combine directly, but many forces can act on a single body - with the overall effect being a specific combination of the effect of each force acting individually. The same effect as all these combined forces can also be caused by a single suitably applied force called the resultant. Because both bodies and forces exist in the same geometrical universe or framework, there exists a correspondence between the geometry of the lengths and positions of the bodies and the geometry of the diagrams describing the forces. In fact one is a scale diagram of the other. For our present purposes forces acting on a by may be considered as a) Externally Imposed - These are called Loads b) Constraints on the Body by other bodies or forces - These are called Reactions c) Forces generated internally witin the body by the actions of (a) and (b) We will only need to examine (a) and (b). Rules for the actions of Forces on Bodies A force is a push or a pull All forces act only in straight lines, called their line of action. Forces cannot "turn corners" or "change direction" Interaction with a body may produce a new force in a different direction. Individual forces generally act on bodies at a single point called the point of application. A body for which the resultant of all acting forces is zero is said to be in equilibrium. A consequence of (5) is that a body with only a single non zero force acting on it cannot be in equilibrium. If a body is under the action of two forces it can only be in equilibrium if the two forces are acting along the same line. A body under the action of two or more (non zero) forces may always be brought into equilibrium by the application of an extra single force whcih is equal in magnitude but opposite in direction to the resultant of the original forces. This is callant the equilibrant. (This forms the force basis of the triangle of forces). The nature of the geometrical link between the configuration of the points of application and the directions and magnitudes of the applied forces enables a diagram called "The Polygon of Forces" to be either drawn or calculated. Scale drawing alone was once a popular method of obtainingt the Resultant/Equilibriant without calculation. The Triangle of Forces is simplest such polygon and uses three forces, two applied plus the resultant/equilibrant In the next post I will show how this is done using some simple example diagrams. I will also comment on where and why your information is correct or incorrect. I also think you are perhaps confusing the obtaining of a resultant by the triangle of forces with resolving a single force into components in specific directions, which the triangle can do for you because of the aforementioned geometric relationship. But this is a different calculation altogether.

Could posters please post their discursive points in text and not by saying "here, click this." It's against forum rules, and it's a nuisance when you are somewhere that you can't watch videos. Usually, a clear text explanation of one's position is also much faster to read, especially when it comes to presenting facts. (I've seen videos that take half an hour to get to the point that one paragraph of text could have adequately made) Also, @Otto Kretschmer should retract his inaccurate comments about SSRI treatment and respond to my post addressing that. There is nothing wrong with critiquing pharmaceuticals used in treatment, but it needs to be done from an informed and fact-based perspective.

I personally don't base my opinion of any physicist by how popular they are in the media etc. Yes they tend to excel at taking complex topics and simplifying for the public which is very useful and beneficial. It generates interest to help generate new students as well as enhances interest for research etc. So that's never a bad thing. However I tend to focus on their research papers etc. Neil DeGrasse papers aren't bad but someone like Sean Carroll has a wider range of recommended literature. However that's just me

Once again, thank you very much for your response. I read your previous post and feel that we come at the problem from different perspectives. You come with a brain-based and evolution perspective while I come with a more open perspective of let's see what research findings tells us about consciousness and then go where it leads us, even if it brings us to naturalistic dualism. Note: I still have opinions about it (see below). I strongly disagree with your statement that mind is not quite the enigma some researchers conclude. From neuroscientists themselves "consciousness research far from converging towards a unifying paradigm, has become more fractious and chaotic than ever". As for "the primary process or mechanism in brain function that produces a mind is homeostasis", I would like for you to expand on this as it is unfamiliar to me. As for the overall brain-evolution theory of mind, it is one of many out there still waiting to be proven. For myself, I think that a major litmus test for a functional theory of consciousness is when it will take into account the following: that information is a fundamental property of reality and that it must account for consciousness in any system. I also have a hunch (not very scientific) that, like John Wheeler and Roger Penrose, quantum mechanic "may" have something to do with it. My friends in the QM forum will be cringing at this idea, but until proven wrong, I maintain that information theory and QM might have a say in it. Finally, as stated in my original post, there is no center so far of mind in brain, consciousness, or at least its substrate, intelligence, leaves its markings in all living things and there is no currently accepted theory of how brains create minds. And this speaks loudly that we may be looking at the problem in the wrong way. I invite you to have a look at a few of the references that I provide and start with this and my litmus test, in testing out your theory. I hope that our conversation will continue.

Why would you ask that flawed claims not be challenged and suggest some desire to learn what is "not right?" That's ridiculous. I feel this deeply right now.

So panpsychism, basically? Easy to do since a definition of mind is so arbitrary and so consistently conflated with self. That's not a definition, at least not one that anyone with any experience on this topic would willingly accept. The "substrate of mind" is a set of cells that behave in specific ways. Sub - Under, beneath, below... Strate - Material, surface, layer... these are useful concepts in construction, but not in definitions of intelligence (which are expressed behaviors and activities viewed from specific perspectives and with an overarching framework. Lol... now try definining living. Most consciousness chats on a science forum just waste time for page after page after page and go absolutely no where useful. --iNow's Law

Actually, the parts of our minds responsible for narrative generation and story writing pretty much own this. While much like a single board or brick doesn't hold up an entire house and other parts of the brain are involved, contrary to your assertion above the key player here is quite obviously the hippocampus. This depends on how one defines intelligence, does it not? Some people are intelligent with regards to math, others with regards to poetry, and others still with music or engineering or how emotions work and how to interact with others. The point is there are MULTIPLE frameworks for the concept of "intelligence" and your assertion comes across as oblivious to that. I agree that there is intelligence to be found in nature, but unless you make this more concrete then you may as well be saying there is love in nature or beauty. Agreed... so what? So obviously false, it's not even wrong... but maybe you're defining "mind" in a unique way? You're obviously a very important man, but please expect no awe from me that you "have a meeting." I haven't been able to scrub through them all... Do any of your links above touch on recent ideas from neuroscientists regarding the use an algorithm to consistently calculate different levels of complexity in cortical activation? The core idea here in case you're unfamiliar is that we seem to have different levels of consciousness (whatever that is and however it ultimately gets defined) and that those levels of complexity can be put into an equation and get explored by reviewing how much activity is occurring across how many brain regions at which intensities in a given time.

My sincere thanks to all of you for participating in the discussion about 'Time'. As I said about Time, 'Time' is actually the straight line distance between any two actions or events. Time has no real or physical or earthly existence. The equation is given in the copy which I have downloaded from research gate and given here. I request everyone to kindly download my research article PDF and after that give your thoughtful opinion. thank you

Time and Destiny, these two cosmic systems were born simultaneously through the Big Bang at the moment of creation of the universe! What exactly Destiny is: an exploration from a scientific viewpoint https://www.isroset.org/journal/IJSRPAS/full_paper_view.php?paper_id=2397#parentHorizontalTab2

@MigL Please read my research paper on Destiny before you comment. thank you

No I'm saying the technology itself is reverse engineered and misunderstood. There's no-one to train anyone if no-one really knows computers. I've heard it was a computer program, not a terrorist group. "Zeitgeist addendum" was where I heard that.

Liquid drop model revisited The liquid drop model explains forces in atomic nucleus as they were created by tiny liquid drops. It is based partially on theory and partially on empirical measurements. In this revisited model The visible universe is seen as bubble/nucleus of liquid with diameter of 8.8x10e26m.In the further text big bubble. The galaxies inside the bubble are seen as a nucleons.In further text small bubbles. For simplicity of calculation we are going to use average size of galaxies. The number of galaxies inside the visible universe is Ng=2x10e12. The mass of galaxies is found to be 10e7 to 10e12 solar mases. Mass of average size of galaxy is calculated to be ma=2 x10e39kg. The sizes of galaxies are in the range of few to 100 kiloparsecs. The size of average galaxy is Da=4.89x10e20 m.We do not know the average "height" of galaxy. The average distance between two galaxies is 1x10e6 light years da=9x10e21m In visible universe there is about 10E80 protons . There is about 7 protons for one neutron in universe. Z=10x 10e79 N=10e80/7=1.4X10e79 A=11.4x10e79 The average galaxy has Za=10x10e79/2x10e12 Za=5x10e67 Na=5x10e67 /7 Na=0.71x10e67 The Aa=5.71x10e67 From formula R=Ro/A1/3 Ro=R/A1/3 Ro=4.4x10e26/(2x10e12)e1/3 Ro=5.5x10e30m Ro= height of galaxy. We already know one size of average galaxy is Da= 4.89x10e20 Foer approximation the volume of average galaxy is Va=Rox Pi x( Da)e2 Va=(4.89x10e20)e2 x3.14x 5.5x10e30 Va=412x10e70 The density od average galaxy is D=ma/Va D=2x10e39/412x10e70 D=0.0048x10e-31 D=48x10e-27kg/m3 The average density of big bubble(visible universe) is very close to average density of dark matter inside the visible uni. The force acting on surface area of big bubble is F=PoxAbb F=246.10e52 x 1.3x10e-13 F=0.316x10e44N The force acting on the outside surface area of big bubble is very similar to Planck's force. Binding energy between two closest average galaxies(small bubbles)can be calculated from Formula for gravitational energy. U=Gx(ma)e2/da U=6.6x10e-11 x (2x10e39)e2 /9x10e21 U=8.8x10e46J There is 1x10e12 pairs of nucleons (small bubbles) creating this energy) Total binding energy of big bubble is Et=8.8x10e46 x 10e12 Et=8.8x10e58J*********** The binding energy calculated by Weizsäcker formula : E=15.75 x A - 17.8 x A e1/3 (Columb and Pauli term are negligible) E= 15.75 x5.71 x 10 e67 - 17.8x(5.71x 10e67)e2/3 E=89.9x10e67-14.7x10e44 E= 89.9x10e67 mev One ev=1.6x10e-13J E=89.9x10e67x 1.6x10e-7 E=142.4x10e60********** The total binding gravitational energie Produced by little bubbles - seen as nuclons is very similar (close) to total energy produces by total number of protons inside the big bubble (weizsaecker formula ). In fractal cosmology is stated that distribution of matter in the universe or structure of universe itself is fractal across wide range of scales. On sub atomic level all terms(volume,surface,columb and pauli) play important contribution to binding energy. On Plancks scale the terms (volume,surface,columb and pauli) can be used to visualize and explain : Volume term: The volume of liquid in the nucleon multiplied by density of liquid is mass.The mass traveling at speed Is what create binding energy. Arae term: At Planck diameter, there is no smaller diameter so there has to be 2 nucleons creating nucleus. One moving and the other stationary , or moving in the opposite direction. Columb term: The spin of stationary and moving nucleon is can be seen as a pitch of a thread, If the spins are opposite and have the same pitch, the nucleons (moving and stationary)will be bound or attracted to each other. If the spins are same or the pitch is different the nucleons are going to repel each other. The spin number 0,1,2,3. Or 1/2,3/2 .... Can be seen as a "pitch" angle of thread(spin) Pauli term: The magic numbers 2,8,20,28,50,82 and 126 are the numbers of stationary and movable nucleons which can be combined to create nucleons in Planck's scale. To fulfil all terms from above the nucleon has to be created by particles with diameter length of Planck. To fulfil Columb term the particle has to be square-cube shaped. The Planck size cube . The big bubble or visible universe should look something like this . Conclusion: The preplanned (or calculated)change of pressure Po acting on outside surface of big bubble will cause harmonized oscillations inside the big bubble which will cause Planck cubes to move in zig zag helix pattern to create forces we actions inside the big bubble.