forufes

sometimes threads create an interesting trail of thoughts..one so unique that a new thought or idea would fit exactly there better than in a new thread. i also don't see why people don't like resurrection of old threads.. what's so formidable about it? i see it as cute and refreshing as looking at photos of you when you were a kid..

it depends on who banned you. if it's a psychopath xenophobe, then you can't get unbanned, unless you find the real mod in the flesh and put him in front of a computer at gunpoint and tell him to unban you.....and even then he may rather die. otherwise, bans usually stay for a little while to begin with, they tend to give new chances, you can aslo pm the one who banned you or a channel mod. if it seemed like it took too long, but don't get your hope up.

the headache you'll save in building is but relocated in manufacturing. you either buy cheap simple materials and put some effort into building with it. or buy materials which had effort put into them to make using them effortless for you. and i guess the former is cheaper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_G11

perhaps you'd elaborate, as google couldn't help much. EUREKA! sisyphus you're a GENIUS! i've thought a lot about this, and reached an analogy, well, kind of.. if you have a vehicle running off a hamster in a wheel, the vehicle can reach a speed faster than the hamster running it. i always had the problem when trying to imagine a sail boat running faster than the wind pushing it, that the wind particles would actually trying to reach the sail but couldn't, like you won't be able push a speeding car.. .. however, if the boat was going straight up[as a direction] and the sail was tilted at 45 deg for example, and the air came from the right side[90deg], the x component of the relative velocity of the boat to the wind is zero!.. so as long as the wind is faster than zero, it will hit the sail and add momentum to the boat as you said.. one problem though, the sail when moving up; its tilted sail will displace the air particles up faster than the ones from the right can replace, no? i think i've grasped the concept but can't quite digest it fully yet.. hey i didn't buy it either, but was what we were taught in school.

which isn't enough to generate lift. there should be a flat surface as well. since the sail is extremely thin (unlike a wing), it shouldn't be able to generate lift according to bernolli's law, even if it is curved. by the newtainian principle, the sail would move but never faster than the wind. as for benolli's, let me get this right. bernolli states that as the velocity of a fluid increases its pressure decreases. a fluid will move and "push" from the high pressure area to the low pressure one. by applying that to a wing to generate "lift", we'd want the air under the wing to push towards the air over the wing to generate "lift". that'll translate to making the air over the wing go faster than the air under it, hence making the air above it with lower pressure than the one under it, hence lift. [something like this but horizontal: l) ] that is acheived through curving the upper side of the wing ")" and keeping the lower one straight "l" , while my common sense said that the air travelling at the longer curved surface ")" will be slower than the one travelling by the straight short surface "l" because of friction for the former, our teacher said that no, if point A and B were absolutly next to each other before the wing sliced them apart, and point A went through the "l" route and point B went through the ")" route; it is assumed they will be next to each other after the wing seperates them, and hence one would've travelled faster than the other because one route is longer than the other and we assumed the time they took through them was the same, and so, one side faster than the other, one side with higher presser than the other, sooooo, lift, ta-da. a curved sail with uniform negligiblw thickness wouldn't have that apply to it. i don't see how it can generate lift using bernolli's concept. i never bought it anyway, i think it's simply newtainian. the engine scoops the air from the front to the back, the wing flaps tilt the plane and engine up, and that's it. of course the fact that scientists and engineers are debating the issue of which concept is more relative gave me a hint of how much the design of stuff is mainly chance and luck, with little brushs here and there of intentional calculations or knowldge. it's more trial and error than prediction, more of it happening then speculating why and how, than knowing the why and how and then making it happen.

i don't get it, how would a sail with negligible uniform thickness,generate lift? and will it do so based on bernolli's or newton's principles? but as per the op. i thought that it was simply the vehicle riding high wind and gain speed, and not lose it when the wind slows down, and so travelling faster than the wind only temporarily. though i find what swansont said interesting, and wish he elaborates.

look at it like this, a shockwave is a solid wall of air. the explosion pushes a wave of air.. the wave ahead of it doesn't have enough time to move ahead.. ..while the explosion is still pushing. so the two waves become one, they become harder like that; denser. one wave plus another and a third and forth, all pushing eachother and tightly crammed, slam into something, say, you. it'll be like being slammed by a train, or a BIG pan or shovel. add to it the air is scorching hot, so you're cooked on the way, like the big pan is just took of the fire, yeah, that's it.. but as for the nuke in vacuum, the bomb goes off with an energy release of heat, if there's air, it'll conserve/convert it into kinetic energy. and the rest would stay as heat[depending on how far you're from the bomb. at one point it'll be a cool gust of wind.] if there isn't air, wouldn't that mean the energy would be 100% emitted as heat? doesn't sound less destructive to me, only different. one would send you flying away, well done. the other turn you to a carchoal statue in your place.

however, it was the staff who locked the thread, by locking it they are saying that what's in it has passed their consent and that it's beyond discussion. otherwise they would've left it open, and i would've simply asked him to back up his claim. that thread is no ordinary thread meant for discussion, it was more of a revised and specially tailored set of arguments and guide lines for a certain audience, which considering the subject of the subfora, and the tone of thread, makes the mistake worse. you are including a speculation in a sealed argument against speculation. keeping that speculation is a mistake, a big mistake, but nothing too evil. the follow up actions were what i thought of as bigoted, due to the clear bias to one's side even after it was shown to be at fault.[which, upon reconsideration may have been partly( ) because of my, uh, choice of words in the report message. ]

there is a reason why this thread is in "suggestions, comments and support", because while i can deliver a finishing blow by conducting my own research and showing that 99% of scientists do not accept evolution, why the ruddy hell should i bother? heh, for the sake of argument; 99% of scientists may actually accept evolution, but why should i be the one to carry the burden of proof for someone else's claim??? he made the claim, he backs it up, it's not me who should show reality is otherwise. and so the poor souls who tried their best to show that lots of scientists accept evolution should've posted it somewhere else, unless it proved that 99% of scientists accept evolution. which it didn't. the nature of the quoted sentence in the op is unfounded, has no proof or evidence, i have showed that a million times now, and yet, scienceforums stubbornly refuses to accept that fact, and instead of fixing it, are running around in circles, spouting meaningless stuff about "political arguments" and "scienceforums is not a democracy", like show me where i said it was?! i'm asking for proof, using the scientific method, and you're telling me it's not a democracy? you think before you repeat your tag lines? and then it's me who's making the political argument? if it's ok to boost a percentage because it "doesn't change a thing", i.e 95% or 99% it all shows that lots and lots of scientists believe in evolution,then say so, and we'll start boosting our percentages too. if it's ok to extrapolate studies on a whim and because it serves your purpose, like changing "scientists in one country accept evolution" to "scientists accept evolution" then say it's ok, and the rest of us will start with their extrapolations as well. and before you know it, this place'll be stripped of its last scientific standards, and embrace the scientific movement as a religion where the agenda supports the claim, and not the claim is what supports the agenda. iow; "99% of scientists accept evolution" is true because we believe and want it to be true. not our belief that the majority of scientists accept evolution is based on the backed up fact that "99% of scientists accept evolution". i'm not discussing whether scientists accept evolution or not, but rather shed a light on the double standards of how this place is run. lol, just check the last thread posted in this subfora before mine, and look at what the guy went through. and contrast it to what is happening here. and before we derail some more, that's just an example, i'm talking generally here. Merged post follows: [/mp] considering you've been in it for 5.5 years, it's only natural for you to think that; [mp] the numbers mentioned in my refrence, iw ouldn't make something up. the impact, i'm being truthful and scientific, furthermore, i'm following forum rules. i am not abusing my position as an evolutionist in an evolutionists forum to soar over the rules when debating the creationist minority, even though(for the most part) the former is scientific and the latter isn't, and this is a science forum. yet we hold ourselves to the same standards as we hold them to. so far the closest numbers to the statement quoted in the OP are; 95% of earth and life scientists in the USA accept evolution. Brian Alters, who some consider an expert in the creationism/evolution debates, stated that 99.9% of scientists accept evolution. the numbers can be anything,as long as they're backed up. i don't believe i'm the one saying this to you now.

why would i include such details? the statement in the speculation thread didn't say scientists of biology and earth, it said scientists only, and that's what i believe i'm discussing here. note that even if it said scientists of biology and earth, it would still be wrong, or at least, unfounded, for the references speak of the US only. i don't disagree much here, while creationism's affirmative claims might not be called science to begin with, for science is experimental, and creationism for the most part isn't, i find scientific criticism of evolution by creationists to be fascinating and definitely worthwhile, i'm very interested in Behe's irreducible complexity for example, along with other scientific arguments "attacking" evolution. i didn't call science rejecting creationism bigotry, but the way scienceforums rejects creationists is, bigoted. if speculating while telling them not to speculate isn't bigotry, i don't know what is. orly? that means you are saying one of the following. -in scienceforums 95=99. -in scienceforums, a parent set is equal to one of its subsets, given that they don't contain the same number of elements. it also means-if i haden't made the case that it is a mistake- that a statement like this; "scientists are American" true, eh? then you may be right, it may not be bigotry after all, just plain stupidity, partly. i'll reiterate this slowly; -the wikipedia reference cites an opinion. =taking an opinion as fact is fallacy. -the talk origins reference cites a study limited to the scientists in the US, and gives two different distinct percentages, which are not the same nor are they interchangeable, for if they were, they wouldn'tve bothered with them both. combined with the original constraint their data can be phrased into the following facts; = 95% of scientists who are in the United States of America accept evolution. = 99.85+% of scientists who are in the United States of America and working in life and earth sciences accept evolution. i wonder how any of these references translate into: capiche? hope we stop embarrassing ourselves and accept and fix our mistake asap, which if we don't doesn't just say we make mistakes, but says we defend them and stand up for them too. an apology would be nice as well a couple of rep points for my constructive efforts won't go unnoticed either Merged post follows: uh, merged post....? i've discussed that. i didn't find anything in it supporting the statement in the OP. note that i am saying the statement is wrong, not what it was meant to prove.[not that i agree with the latter either, but that's another story]

ok, it's my first time using the button anyway, considering the point of the thread was telling people not to speculate, and then speculate in it, and also lock the thread, don't know.. was the only thing that came to mind. but no problem. the two links you provided are naturally biased, so they cherry picked their facts, but again, no problem; good o'le wikipedia quotes some guy by the name of Brian Alters, who happens to be an evolution hothead; in wikipedia's words "an expert in the evolution-creationism controversy". as saying that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution", i wonder if a certain other guy by the name "Jesus Rocks" was heard saying that "99.9 percent of scientists accept creationism", if his statement be mentioned in an unbiased open encyclopedia like wikipedia, and whether he would be cited as an "expert in the evolution-creationism controversy" as well. but putting their lovely display of factuality aside, they DID say that he stated it, and i'm sure if he had more than his own words to back it up they would've showed it, which they didn't(so why put it up in the first place?), but here in scienceforums, it was stated very boldly as a fact, that hey, 99.9% of scientists DO accept creationism, not that it's the opinion of some guy somewhere expressing his freedom of speech. that's one. the second; 1-they said 5% are creationists--->95% are evolutionists. 2, and most importantly- they said in the USA. their statement in NO WAY translates to 99.9% of scientists accept evolution. so the reference invalidates the statement. true, which is why the pass the latter as the former, to boost the number. :lol: saudi arabia? pakistan? egypt? middle east? north africa? maybe even south east asia.. those countries don't contain scientists? do you think they all accept evolution??? i'm sure in those countries that 95% would be the other way around, no kidding. but if it's the other way around, then they simply are NOT scientists. well i'm sorry folks, but we do not label people as scientists or not based on their stance towards evolution, while i'm sure holders of one side would be eager to discard the other side as crackpots, just imagine what a biology teacher would tell his students in a christan school about evolution, and compare it to what a bio teacher in a secular school would tell his students about creationism. i'm sure the resemblance would be striking. but swansont, for us not to be distracted by the criteria to define a scientist, we'll just take the one used by those who conducted the studies and gave the statistics. i disagree, and i have the right to. you are making a claim. in a science forum, you should back it up with a scientific peer reviewed...bla bla bla. you can't ask us to follow standards you don't hold yourself to. seems to cover how creationism is dealt with here nicely. the thread was a sticky, something of a subfora guidelines and rules. it was sarcastic in it's tone and many times not so nice, contrary to what's preached by the forum rules, to which creationists seem to be a special case. it was one of a humility lecture on how unfounded the nature of creationism arguments are, and how that makes them not so scientific, because science is based on facts which can be proved and demonstrated, not the right to spout whatever you want as truth. and in the process, it very simply states an unfounded statement, which ironically is used to criticize unfounded statements. but hey, as long as it's creationists on the receiving end..it's ok. the thread was locked...why?...why????.. if not to tell the creationists who's boss? that we put the rules and you follow, we slap and you turn the other cheek? now lets say i'm dramatizing and that none of this is true, that it was all in good intentions and i'm making things look worse than what they are, and that it was very simply a mistake, aren't people allowed mistakes? well yeah sure...but it's been 3 days and that "mistake" isn't corrected, and the convict who dared point it out got himself an experimental leash to try on, with an unspoken message of... ...everything...but bigotry. yyyyyup, i'm the bad guy, you're all good and moral.... speak of self delusion or tyranny of the majority. you get too busy diagnosing others you grow immune to diagnosing yourself.

i'm aware of that i wonder how dumb you people think i am but there's plenty of scientific research on religion and religous phenomena as well, surely you know that? then again, i'm not sure if love would be considered to be "hijacking" anything when researched my point was clear.

ta-da, just like that. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/15439-welcome-creationists-to-science-forums-and-debate/ 2nd post near the end. the quoted sentence is unfounded, unscientific, and misleading(as was intended), at best, we'll say it was a mistake. so i followed the rules, reported it. nothing happened. well maybe i should be thankful i was left unscathed? i wasn't, i became the geniua pig for a new forum "feature" of having your posts "inspected" before being posted. i passed the test phase safely, thank god. i also PMed an admin, he rightfully said there's nothing in the forum rules against being wrong, which is strange with all the demands of scientific peer reviewed articles with refrences for any word you put down the wrong way in a discussion, but yup, according to the rules, you're allowed to be wrong. um, for how long? is what i wanna know in this thread. i think i reported the post at least 3 days ago[?] oh yeah, i was indirectly told i should've posted my correction in the thread itself, and my report was considered an "abuse" of the report function, yeah i know, wtf.

i find it strange that this thing had it's first flight dec-2009. isn't it too early to be announcing the existance of this thing to the public? they always keep the gizmos secret for years till they get outdated and THEN tell the petty commoners that they exist. or is it because this isn't millitary? but i still think thhis's high tech edge to keep low.

the usual. we calculate the trajectories of the pieces, then we nuke it. KABOOM!!

or he could be looking for love, and since he can't see or smell or touch love, then love doesn't exist. more importantly, there is no scientific evidence for it, so it doesn't exist. heh, i'm not sure there's even a scientific definition for it, so yup, it definitly doesn't exist.

while a believer can choose anything to be his god... ...everything is NOT a god. anything has to comply to some crieteria to be called a god. like the term "friend".. if you debate whether friends exist or not, and then one who doesn't believe friends exist comes up with a looooong list of what different people think constitutes a friend.. and then goes, "see, people can't agree to what a friend is, and so, there is no such thing as a friend" what would you think of his argument? we're not even concentrating about monotheisms at all, we're discussing theisms in general, all kinds of gods, those he listed and others and some which are not yet born, including personal ones. um, what should i say and where do i start? i hope what i already said would clarify things.

holy! can i have a link to that?not that i doubt you i just wanna read more about it. also, isn't the amount of water used to excrete salt(i.e the ratio of water to salt volume), not fixed? iow, at such cases of emergency, wouldn't the body minimize the amount of water it uses to absorb whatever it absorbs? i mean, your pee isn't always the same shades of yellow now is it?

ok although i did start this thread i actually stopped reading when stuff started going over my head, but i was reminded of it when i came across this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum#Democracy so democracy is a fallacy. but that is rendered meaningless when truth is regarded as subjective.

pretty mature and reasonable advice..objective too..and most importantly, you backed it up, kudos to you sir. certain others may wanna learn from this; this kind of unbiased advice is what he needed. well, the chemical engineering industry has been left relatively unscathed by the economic crisis(job opportunities have continued to grow although the have slowed a bit). much better than other areas of engineering such as electrical and electronic engineers which are enduring a shortage of jobs just now. damn right its biased, but i'm capable of backing it up. "backing" ones assertions with more assertions is erroneous, but if you start complaining every time you see such thing you'll just never stop complaining, but when i see one set an example, delivering a lesson may not be that bad of an idea . from the link above; chemical engineering was the ONLY engineering field with a negative change percent of employment from 2008 to the projected employment of 2018, according to the Projections data from the National Employment Matrix. oh my..facts are golden p.s, if a mod sees this better fitting in the other thread, so be it.

people die of dehydration when they are moored at sea. i've tasted sea water, and it's salt, but i'd drink it if i was gonna die of thirst. is there something missing here?