pavelcherepan

yahya, please take a piece of paper and then draw the following. To move your plate horizontally you need to apply a total acceleration pointing towards your target location, right? Now, draw g vector pointing down. And now draw another acceleration vector such that the sum of this a and g vectors will give you a net vector at pointing in the direction towards your target location. Do you see now that the vector a will have to point upwards making an angle with the horizontal line and so the force you need to apply to provide this acceleration will have to be bigger than just to move horizontally as you claim? That's your gravitational losses. Every time you move the plate sideways you'll need to provide an extra boost to account for gravity. And you won't get this energy back.

I don't know the formula but here's a link to a program developed by the guys from Purdue University. I entered parameters similar to what is known about Chelyabinsk meteorite and got similar results. UPDATE: Here's a link to their paper that the program is based on. Formulas are all there: http://www.purdue.edu/impactearth/Content/pdf/Documentation.pdf It's only the air burst energy that came way lower than NASA estimates.

1) Does the metal plate spontaneously materialize just above the magnet? Or do you get in there somehow before the initial step A? 2) When moving plate from A to B you still lose energy to gravity. Gravity doesn't go anywhere, it still pulls your plate down, right? 3) Both pictures for C and D are incomprehensible in a sense that it's impossible to figure out how the objects are located in relation to each other 4) Forget about magnetic field, most your energy losses will be due to gravity

Replying to comment by Yahya made in the other thread OK, what is the initial position of metal plate? (Before step A). There are two options: a) Lying on the desk by the side of the magnet, then: When you lift it up and perform work against gravity, yes, you convert your work into potential energy of the plate (assuming a very efficient lifting mechanism), but then as you move it sideways to hover over the magnet, you still have to apply force to move it and to counter gravitational pull (and also the attraction by the magnet). This energy loss will not be converted into potential energy as the height doesn't change, and so will be an energy lost. b) Lying on top of magnet: Here you'll need to apply force to counter both gravitational pull and the pull of the magnet. And while lifting against gravity is 'refundable' in the form of increasing of potential energy, the magnetic field rapidly decreases with distance and so most energy used to separate plate from magnet will be lost. This is just the first step and you're already losing energy, hence the efficiency of the system is far below 100% and you can't generate energy from nothing.

I will reply to this in your 'Energy producer' thread to not derail this thread.

In your thread you explain some device while not providing any mathematical description of why the energy will be generated and absolutely forgetting that lifting metal plate to the initial position and moving it from one point to another in a gravitational field will require work to be done and energy to be expended.

Thanks guys for some highly useful insights on modern scientific developments towards climate change causes. I've been keeping away from this subject for a while so I'll be spending next few weeks updating my information with all publicly available data. Still, there are a few moments of misunderstanding that I wanted to, hopefully, clear out. Sorry, studiot, missed your question earlier. That's the change from modern day average ocean temperatures. Thanks, overtone, for correcting me. I totally forgot that acidity was rising. In that case, I agree, my point is moot. Essay, this comment has two logical flaws in it. First of all you are assuming my inability to comprehend the data without providing any evidence to support your position. The second flaw follows this line of thought (apologies for paraphrasing): "If n scientists haven't found any errors then whatever pavelcherepan might find is wrong by default". By let's not focus on that, it's not the real issue here. My point is that you misunderstood (or maybe I didn't explain it properly) the object of my critique. I have no intention on criticizing the published and peer-reviewed studies. I would assume those to be correct if not without some minor strange points. Instead, what I was looking at checking was the compilation graph of several studies that was shown in post #17. This particular chart doesn't come from a peer-reviewed study, but is rather intended for general public and didn't have the amount of fact-checking that original studies had. Here is the snippet of the graph (from the bottom part) Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any reference to a study by Nolan and Zimmerman. There are studies by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman on the subject but none of those had anyone named Nolan as a co-author. There was a study done in 2009 by Doran and Zimmerman that matches the number of respondents shown here but the results look different from what is shown on graphs: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf If you check the full report of the study, probably just like myself, you won't find from whence numbers of 1% and 11% are coming from. Or I might need a new set of glasses. Next to the graph representing the study of Anderegg et al. http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf+html Again, if you check the original study I bet you won't find a figure of 98.5%. So to conclude this part of my rambling, I believe I've done a rather thorough fact-checking and found that the compilation chart that's been provided as an evidence has misrepresented data, that ultimately doesn't match what actual studies have shown. The amount of difference is irrelevant, as I wasn't trying to prove that the consensus was different. Now as far as original studies are concerned, Essay, you said that : while I don't think that I was all that negative if not a bit sarcastic. I apologize if I did sound aggressive as it was definitely not my intention. You said, that in a widely published studies like these many have already tried to find flaws, right? And they did. Since the following has little to do with my initial point, I'll hide it. Feel free to skip.

Thanks swansont! That was an exciting read! Not really. The meteor was moving at some 25 km/s, about 0.01% of the speed of light, way too slow for the article description to apply. What happened there was that the meteor entered dense atmosphere moving at hypersonic speeds and then rapidly slowed down due to interaction with air and excess kinetic energy was turned into heat.

Probably I haven't made myself clear enough. Electrons don't carry any information, don't "work together" and don't have special properties relating to conscience. Think of a computer and binary code for example. Software/hardware is set up so that it interprets strong current as 1, weak current - 0. Now we can transmit sets of ones and zeros to give instructions for the CPU to add 2 and 2. In this example electrons don't carry any information, it's the computer software or hardware that interprets alterations of current strength and shows you the result of addition. Another example: you can write something on a piece of paper and give it to someone else to read. Do those blue lines on paper carry any information by themselves? No, not really. It's your brain that interprets these lines and reads a message. Also, in terms of electrical impulses in human brain it's not electrons that carry those, but positively charged Na+ and K+ ions.

You should have probably put this into Homework help section rather than this forum. I also see you haven't made much of a progress in terms of getting the task done, so I can give you some pointers, but can't really do all the job for you. First, you need to read data from each column of the input table and assign it into arrays with n-1 elements, where n is the number of rows in your input data. Since the first element of each column is column name which we don't need, you should start reading your data from the second row and as a result the number of your array elements will be n-1. Then, using some loop like for or while perform calculations and assign result to another array. For example, for task A your for loop will be something like for(i=1, i < n, i++) rank_change[i] = rank_after[i] - rank_before[i] print (student_name[i], rank_change[i]) For your second task you'll need to add an if operator inside your loop so that it checks the condition questions_correct/questions_completed >= 0.9 and if condition is satisfied prints student's name.

Both Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia say that there are various definitions and two different notations as cal (normal calorie) and Cal (=kcal) as a dietary calorie. Probably dietitians just couldn't be bothered learning units

A group of Swiss scientists has developed a technique of printing cartilage using a 3D printer. Not only that they can print transplants but they print those from a mix of bio-polymers and living cells of the person who this transplant is tailored for. So now if something goes wrong with your nose, for example, they can re-create a 3D model of it using your medical records and them print with your actual living cells being embedded into the transplant which is supposed to greatly reduce the chances of transplant rejection. They have yet to test transplantation on animals which is going to happen sometime this year. Here's the article about them.

That was exactly my point. I saw the data, I asked whether it showed that those percentages of scientists agreed that 'anthropogenic climate change is real' or that 'anthropogenic climate change is the leading cause of global warming'. I was told to check it for myself and that just what I did. I shouldn't have said that. The heat of the argument got the better of me. I don't think that numbers are forged, but that the original graphs represented the data in the form that was rather ambiguous, in my understanding at least.

If this is your own theory it belongs in Speculations section, not in the forum where accepted physical science is discussed. You say that we can never be right about anything which contradicts itself, since in that case we can never define what is 'right'. The idea that shortest distance between two points is not always a straight line is accounted for in general relativity in the form of geodetics that represent the curvature of spacetime to to presence of mass or energy. "And Heisenberg is once again proved incorrect" I see no proof here and why is it 'again'?

It really depends on multiple factors but as a general idea, yes, it would be possible if on a daily basis your organism uses the same amount of energy as you consume with food. Not much of an eye-opener, is it?

Thanks for the links, overtone and iNow. It will take some time to read through all of those and re-assess my position. Hardly relevant and logically flawed if used as an argumentation. Apologies for that. Sorry, I don't recall mentioning that it was contradictory. The temperature change comes from measurement of ratios between 2H/1H and comparing those to same ratio in a standard and it refers to the temperature variations of the ocean from where this ice had originally evaporated. And also similar studies involving 18O/16O ratios are used for the same purpose.

That one is a bit weird - in the article on monoatomic gases on wiki it says "The only stable single atom molecules at standard pressure and temperature are noble gases", yet in the article on molecules it defines molecules as "consisting of two or more atoms held together by chemical bonds". Those seem to contradict one another.

Go to Kuala Lumpur and take a tour at Petronas towers. In the beginning of the tour you'll be treated and given some brief information on the building by a very friendly hologram But that one is not interactive, pretty cool still. And what do you really mean by "interactive hologram"? What kind of interaction are we talking about?

Thanks for these articles. There's a lot of numbers, a lot of references to peer-reviewed studies et cetera, but the only thing none of these articles covers is the global climate change during the Holocene. We live in what is generally referred to as an interglacial period of the current ice age and since the minor ice age of 14-16 century CE the global climate has been generally becoming warmer. Apart from the obvious change in temperature what is not really discussed in any of these reports is a possible positive feedback by the Earth's hydrosphere. That is, increased global temperatures lead to increased evaporation with water vapor being the strongest greenhouse agent in the atmosphere. Additionally, rise of the global ocean temperatures result in a reduced solubility of CO2 in water and hence it's release into the atmosphere. This positive feedback is mentioned briefly in the IPCC report but is looked at not as a real contributor but instead a result anthropogenic influence. None of the articles you refer to even mentions the possibility of increased water temperature being a cause rather than a result. That's an omission in my opinion. Additionally, based on ice core data from lake Vostok in Antarctica covering some 400,000 years the current temperature increase is not the highest on record for this time period and same with CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Additionally, from the graphs below you can see the correlation between rising global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels but again as with the case of positive feedback of ocean temperatures there is no direct evidence to decide which one of those is correct: a) Increase in CO2 emissions leads to increase in global temperatures, which in turn leads to more CO2 being generated, or b) Increase of global temperatures lead to increase of global ocean temperatures, which in turn leads to increase of CO2 and water vapor emissions and to further increase in global temperature Hence, as I said, I'm waiting for a study that will include and quantify effects of global temperature change due to periodic climate variations before I can be very sure whether anthropogenic influence plays a leading role in climate change or it's just one of major contributors.

It would be a valid assumption if I were debating the point that anthropogenic influence is real, wouldn't it? Yet on multiple occasions I clearly stated that I agree with humanity's influence on global warming. Or am I not supposed to be able to peer-review evidence provided to me on a scientific forum? If I found that the evidence is incorrect it doesn't automatically mean that I'm on the other side of barricades. There is already a majority vote that man-made climate change is real, so why messing with numbers? To get 100% approval?

If by incredulity you mean "refusal to believe something" then yes, I refuse to believe, because science is based not on beliefs, but on evidence and if I consider whatever evidence I have seen so far to be not entirely conclusive then I can also decide to postpone choosing sides and wait until further evidence will confirm for me that either view is the correct one. You also seem to speak of the climate change as non-debatable, like it is a fact and not a scientific theory and that is not really a proper way of behaving in a scientific discussion.

So let's look at the other definition of paradox: So what part of the questions "Is friction real?" and "Is energy real?" contradicts itself? They are both real in a sense that they can be observed in the real world using instruments and technology we currently possess. Friction currently is explained as arising from interatomic or intermolecular forces between contacting surfaces. So far, the theory seems to work, but it's not correct to assume that the work of scientists is only to find accuracy of current theories. Should a phenomenon be observed that completely contradicts the current views a new theory will be developed based on these observations and accounting for all previous empirical data as well. There's actually many other known states of matter in addition to the 4 classical ones you named. A theory is not a limitation. In fact, it's the highest stage of approval that a scientific idea can ever achieve. And yes, any theory is a work-in-progress so as I said before, should any new evidence arise that contradicts current theory, the theory should be modified accordingly.

I'm not sure what your point is. I never argued against anthropogenic climate change and never did I say that geologists I know dismiss it. Au contraire, I said that they generally do accept man-made influence and some consider it to be the leading cause of global warming while a lot of others don't. Any science is based on some sort of empirical evidence and you can't go around randomly changing numbers so they better fit some sort of trend you think you should be observing (and I'm not talking about you, iNow, but of the author of graphs ). Even if the change is minor there's no excuse for fiddling with numbers like they did in graphs you provided. Apart from those incorrectly reported percentages there are extremely large errors on number of respondents in graph 3 where out of 11000+ abstracts only some 7300'ish did actually state any kind of view on the problem in question, but the graph still uses the big, fancy original number for the purpose unknown. Also, if you want to have a look at the attached image, it shows results of the same polls you mentioned and several others too. This comes from the wiki article on scientific community view on man-made climate change. Doesn't it concern you how different it looks compared to the graphs you attached? Based on this graph and depending on which poll to look at it's up to 18% of scientists who disagree that anthropogenic climate change has significant effect on global warming. And again, so that we're clear on that - I don't feel like arguing whether or not anthropogenic climate change is real or not. It's pretty obvious to me that it is, but there is a question on whether it is the main contributor or not. I have yet to see a study that would look at all major contributors and attempt to quantify their influence and with rock-solid evidence. Also, in your post you sounded a bit irritated by me, yet all I did was a peer-review of the evidence you provided, it didn't seem to be entirely valid and I hate forged numbers.

Thanks for the correction. Apparently, I was a bit confused with this one.

I think the prediction of gravitons comes from GR, not the quantum mechanics. Also, Quantum theory doesn't explain String theory, they are in my understanding, competing theories, attempting to explain the Universe in different ways and M-Theory and String theory are not the same. They are an evolution of the same way of thinking but different in a lot of ways. It goes String Theory -> Superstring theory (more dimensions) -> M-Theory (no more strings, branes instead). Gravity and macroscopic interactions in Universe are not explained from QM perspective. In my understanding both of those are real and I don't really see a paradox.