jfoldbar

yep, i know. but i gotta start somewhere yes, i have learnt his from YT this is a very good point. im not a student. im just a regular dumb joe that sometimes likes learning all kinds of science stuff thats way beyond me. this crossed my mind too, and i wondered the difference (if any) between liquid and gas this is one thing i wonder too. how does what happens in a pipe, also relate to what happens over a wing yep. at the moment i want to keep it to bernoulli as much as possible. i realise because my end goal is flight, the discussion will spill over a bit. but try to keep to one subject at a time if possible, as im all ready getting lost thanks

but, at 8000m high, wouldn't the ratio of air molecules vs wing molecules be really different? when theres very little air, how can there be enough air molecules for the ones that bounce of the wing to be crashing into?

so, i was thinking bout this video, and i have a few thoughts. the vid shows the a fluid changing from a larger pipe to a smaller pipe. which means an enclosed space. but if this principle applies to the top side of a wing, would the concept be lessened because there is only one side. so when the air atoms are flying over the wing top, some of the atoms will hit the wing direction, but most will fly upwards. also, wouldnt this concept be lessened too by altitude?

thankyou. this was exactly what i was looking for. an explanation as to the "why". hhhmmm... thinking...

i decided i want to try to "understand" how a plane can fly. if thats even possible for a layman like me. so ive been watching a bunch of videos, but still so many questions. and you cant ask a video anything. so, i thought i would try here. because this is essentially a tricky subject, i thought i would break it up into mini subjects. so the first subject is Bernoulli's principle. now i know this is not the whole picture of why a plane can fly, but it is some of the picture. so, first up i thought it better to try to understand this. so, as i understand, Bernoulli's principle states that an increase in a fluids speed lowers its pressure. the thing i cant find on any YT vid is the 'why'? what is happening on an microscopic scale? even though my end goal is to try to understand flight, for the sake of simplicity, we should try to keep it to Bernoulli's principle as much as possible, i will make a new thread later for the next part. try to keep answers in simple language. (im a laymen). but detailed. thankyou

respectfully, im going to leave it here. you are not grasping what im asking and i cant explaining it any better.

ok ill try again. forget the hippocampi for a moment and just consider that men and woman are different. in many ways. physically, mentally and emotionally. try replacing strong fred with weak sarah. strong fred may not be a gym bunny but hes stronger simply because hes male. if sarah wants to put it over fred, she could go to the gym and become iron woman. may stil not be enough. but what if she also goes and shoots up on all these drugs that essentially make her male. she is no longer sarah, let alone weak sarah. the the question if sarah is stronger than fred is invalid because sarahs not here any more. so the average woman has more trouble reading a map than a man. this could be some impulse/ learned trait that stems back thousands of years to hunter gatherer days. but that is what makes her a woman. those intrinsic difference are what we (generally)love about the opposite sex. take those away and they wouldnt be the opposite sex. if we could scientifically calculate every difference between man and woman and go back in time to make the adjustments so that there are no differences, then there wouldnt be man and woman. thus making the question invalid. on the small scale little girls that get cars instead of dolls can be tom boys when they grow up. so by the mum giving them cars they slightly take away 'the little girl'. stretch this over history and any change that we could have done to change the differences in people would result in there being no difference thus removing the need for us to ask the question. so we have all variety from the most masculine men to the most feminine female, and every variety in between. we have men that act more like woman do, and we have woman that act more like men. these are the few. of course there is no way to determine throughout history were various leaders/rulers whether male or female, a manly man or a womanly man, or vice versa. but statistically it stands to reason that the majority would have been within the normal range. what i mean is if you got every male leader from every time and lined them up, the majority of them would be manly men. but of course this doesnt take away from the fact that there would have been the opposite, even to the extreme (bad word i know) that there was probably some leader that was gay and spoke and acted very feminine and probably wanted to go shopping with the girls and look at handbags/shoes. but im talking averages, not particular examples. because there is always en example that bucks the trend. i dont know how to explain it any better than that. so i hope you get it otherwise i would simply say something like 'better to lock the thread'

im thinking then that when i say society i am actually using the wrong word. sure, there is a place in africa when woman are the top dog, but africa as a whole is the opposite. theres a place in china where woman are top, but china as a whole has men at the top. im talking about the averages overall, not the small pockets that dont fit the norm so when i had this conversation with my daughter, i realized i had to clarify something that i didnt have to with my wife. perhaps i may need to here, but hard in a forum so i will try with an analogy. if i ask who can lift more out of strong fred and weak john, everyone would say strong fred. however if weak john went to the gym everyday and trained real hard then mayby he could then lift more than strong fred, however he is no longer weak john he is now strong john. so the point is still valid that strong fred could lift more than weak john, because weak john had to change from being weak john in order to lift as much. let me know if this analogy makes sense to you. perhaps if you read it again you will see that i claimed woman are/think different, not less capable. my workmates are men. and if they were woman would not have made a difference. i still would have discussed it with them the same . im an adult, and they are adults there is nothing wrong with open philosophical discussion regardless of your gender.

not sure where you are from. but in my neck of the woods men and woman are very different. can u point out a society where men are not the dominant. i can not think of any. please show me where i claimed men are so much more capable than woman? what difference does the gender of my workmates have to do whether i can type this? hhhmmm. interesting that you have observed the opposite. i guess that just goes to show how different our perceptions are prometheus. i like your detailed response. so if woman have smaller hippocampi that may affect their ability to navigate. this may be a factor in all the main explorers throughout history being me. just an idea? this makes me wonder, are there other physical difference within our brains that may affect the way we think. there are obviously other differences though. hormonal etc that can play a role in our thinking. i agree with your point about sending men into battle. from a physique and breeding point of view. but how about a marcho thing? men would probably think because they are the protectors of their woman it is their duty to go and fight for their woman. society says its the right think to do. a bit like letting woman(and children) off a sinking boat first. (dont get me wrong here im not suggesting we dont do this) so with the workmates discussion last week one example came up. so lets say if a man is trying to reverse a trailer, and a woman is also trying to reverse a trailer. my experience is that the man can reverse the trailer better because a woman will turn be turning the wheel wrong way all the time and gets all confused.. and if a woman is cleaning the house then she can see dirt that the man simply cant see. these are differences in the way we think/calculate etc. but it seems you are suggesting these are learned traits and not a biological thing. but this would imply that both sexes can learn the same thing at the same rate. which i dont think is the case (i have no actual evidence for this though) so, to get a different viewpoint, i also asked my wife and my daughter this same question. they both agreed with me. they both think that the natural differences in woman/man would make a difference in how things are achieved in society. ie, they both think that if a woman has 5 lessons at reversing a trailer, a man may only need 4 lesson to achieve the same result (for example, on average).

im not sure what topic this goes in so i put it here. so a few work mate were discussing something. id like some input. the world we live in, throughout all of history, has been dominated by men. even from hunter gatherer days until now, in every society, men were calling the shots and woman were put in the "seen but not heard" category. so what if we lived in a world where that was reversed. if the men were "seen but not heard" and woman where in charge and calling all the shots, what would be different. so our discussion was that , i think in the woman world, there is much less chance of things like going to the moon, inventing airplanes, inventing cars, big infrastructure, coming about because a womans brain works much different to mans and for woman to think this stuff up , and implement it, is much harder. a mans brain is more objective, a womans is more subjective. and subjective doesnt get you to the moon, objective does. workmate thinks that whether we are subjective or objective is irrelevant to the big things that humanity has achieved. the objective mind can get you to the moon just as quick, but it would somehow be achieved a different way. a way that in this man dominated world we cant even imagine. who is right?

aussie here. i think the biggest problem is people. the ones that know nothing of the bush putting their 2 bobs worth in. there should be some law that say that politician who live in the cities are exempt from adding their say in parliament regarding country issues. and then the ones that dont bother doing any research. just blurting out what they have seen or heard as if its a fact, when a little bit of research can easily put holes in it. while ever this goes on, we dont stand a chance. and history shows this. after the black Saturday fires the royal commission stated that biggest reason for the fires was lack of winter burning and the best prevention for future fires is winter burning. (yes, it does state that climate is a factor, but a very small factor compare to winter burning) .this has been completely ignored by all governments and even ignored by all the people who think the fires are scomos fault. then theres the people that say that this is the biggest fire in history. when a bit of research can find fires just as big, just as fierce. some of them a hundred years ago. but the difference between those fires and todays fires is how it affects people. more people live in or near the bush, they either cant or wont protect their propety and then when summer comes they wonder why they lost their house. how is their own ignorance toward how much fuel is outside their house scomos fault? i found a local map of my own area. its an official national park map of my local area showing the winter fuel reductions over the past few years. every part of this map is compete bullshit. they state that particular areas were burnt and they give the time burnt. and they are probably using these figures to justify their fuel reduction quota. but as a local i can tell you those places were not burnt at all. ever. until the last few weeks. the places in question used to be state forest. they were selective logged which employed hundreds of timber workers. (which potentially results in fewer timber imports). the logging process was overseen by a local. and the buck stopped with him. there were never any raging wild fires through this area. because if a fire did start, previous back burning and/or access trough fire trails meant the fire could be put out. animals had a chance to escape. until bob car wrecked it he went through and made everything national park. hundreds of people lost their jobs. the place was all locked up. it was never ever burned in winter against locals advice and against what nation parks service stated to their head office. and come this summer the whole lot burnt, meaning the animals had no chance of escape. the people who simply say that the fire are the result of climate change ignore the very basic concept of more fuel equals more fire. they wouldnt smoke at a petrol station so why do they think forest fuel is any different? FIRE HAS NOT CHANGED, PEOPLE HAVE

lately ive been watching quite a few you tube vids about the brain. i find it fascinating. but theres a few things i wonder and cant seem to find answer on google. are brain neurons the same as the neurons in the rest of the body? or are they slightly different? how? any vid you can point me to. what does a neuron "actually" look like. i cant find any "photos" of them only diagrams and animations ect. every pic i find of them has them as 'like a tree'. so theres the trunk and all the branches. but what about all the space between the branches? what is there? surely inside the brain cant be mostly space as depicted by every picture i can find of a neuron.

i grew up in a religious house, so believed in god. grew up being told all the stuff that made god seem real. things like "the world round us is evidence of god" "prophecies prove the bible" etc. before the internet days it was much harder for people to do their own research, and not to mention that, for religion,research is frowned upon. but as i got older and lived on my own. internet came around. and i started to read things for myself. and, eventually it was the word 'belief' itself that probably finished it off for me. belief definition "to accept something as true without proof" and it clicked. "are you for real?" i thought. in every aspect of our lives most humans look for proof for things,without even realizing it.we want proof that the meat is good before we eat it. we want proof that the road is clear. we want proof that our friend is trustworthy. we want proof that the guy built our back fence properly. to just eat the meat without proof its good can make us sick. to cross the road without proof its clear can kill us. and so on but suddenly as soon as it comes to religion, humans can throw all that out the window and they're cool to accept anything without proof. why the double standards? is this lying to oneself about what it means to be truly 'honest'. if youyre cool with double standards in 1(main) aspect of your life, then could you also be ok with double standards in other aspects of your life? does this mean you are truly trustworthy, when you pick and choose which standards to adhere to? to be truly honest then this concept should also be used the other way. i.e. , to believe there is no god, is still just that, a belief. i think the correct stance would be, if something is fact then accept it as fact regardless of your personal feelings. if it is neither proven or disproven then it should remain on the fence until either happens. many psychological studies have shown that if we 'believe' something, when evidence presents itself that our belief is wrong we are actually more likely to believe it, not less. this is a very dangerous psychological stance to have on any aspect of our life. would you really want your friend to 'believe' you stole his wallet without proof? so to answer the question why did i stop believing in god? i just stopped believing full stop, in every aspect of life.

on the outside we could see fight or flight as a feeling. but deep in our thoughts we are processing :::::: what are the chances of me surviving if a run/fight, ive only been in 1 fight before and i lost, i have been in 3 races before and i won 2 of them, it has just rained and the ground is muddy/slippery, i twisted my ankle 3 weeks ago.......... all calculations that our brain does instantly without us even noticing. so we label the decision our brain makes a "feeling". but it is in fact very fast calculations hhhmmm. are you suggesting then that feeling dont actually exist but are something that the human mind has put a label on in order to function as more than a purely biological entity.

this could be argued as a calculation