insane_alien

rofl. that definitely seems to be whats happening here. also, in the interests of backing myself up, i propose that elas creates a set of logarithmically distributed numbers and plots the log of them ordered by size. to do this, have the function =exp(rand()) in excel, make a decent dataset, 100 would be good take the log of it, order by size and plot on a graph. i'm willing to bet money you get a good approximation of a straight line.

you have a logarithmically distributed data set, sorting it on a logarithmic plot will result in a straigt line. this is something any statistician could tell you. it would be the same if you plotted lake sizes in the same way, or anything that follows benfords law. also, looking at that chart again you seem to have made a few ommisions. you have 49 disvisions on the x axis(and the 49-th contains data) but only 43 data points. as it is a graph of size versus position in the data set that means you've took data out, what happened to that?

well, classical mechanics produces inaccurate results beyond 0.1c and if things are smaller than a few nanometers. relativistic mechanics is needed for things faster than 0.1c as it introduces the correction factors and other interesting things and quantum mechanics is needed for the small things as again, it adds in all the missing things. between those to limits classical mechanics is an acceptable approximation.

or more likely, everything is fine but vuquta is confused about relativity.

LED radiation? its light. yes, the light is slightly directional but its not more hazardous than putting a reflector around a normal light. and it was not an epileptic seizure it was a case of me, getting home drunk after a good night out and having 'Jump da F*** Up' come on my mp3 player so i jumped da f*** up.... straight into my light. the only way LED lights are going to damage your eyes are if you stare at them from close range. but then, a variety of conventional light sources will do that to, incandescents, fluorescents, halogens, the sun, etc. etc. typically people aren't so stupid to do this. they may do it once or twice as kids, realise it physically hurts and stop doing it.

depends on if you are drilling for gas or drilling for oil, or both. what the drillers want will determine the order they take off material in. now, in the example i'm giving the oil is extracted first, the gas does not simultaneously come up with the oil(appart from some dissolved gasses so the oil is a bit like a fizzy drink as its coming out of the well) but there isn't an appreciable gas fraction usually.

no, you've got it backwards. they don't wait for the natural gas to be released, they use the natural gas to push the oil out because the natural gas is at a much higher pressure than the atmosphere.

nope. you seem to underestimate how much gas is down there. the answer is, lots. if you just opened up the pipe to the gas itself, it'd take decades for it to all come out. what they do once they breach the top of the field is to continue drilling down deeper so they can put the end of the pipe below the surface of the oil in the field. this means the gas presses down on the oild and pushes it up the pipe. the way to think of it is like using a drinking straw. in this case, the pressure caused by the gas is provided by the atmosphere and the oil is your orange juice(or whatever your favourite drink is). you put the end of the straw well below the surface of the liquid and then suck it up. only in the case of oil wells no sucking is necessary to start as the reduced pressure comes from the atmosphere instead of your lungs in the analogy i gave. i hope this made a bit more sense.

not all the natural gas would have come out. and besides, just because they've penetrated the rock cap doesn't mean they've stopped drilling. they'll keep going until the hit the oil and they'll let the pressure of the natural gas above the oil push it up the pipe until it becomes too low and then they'll switch to pumps.

i've got LED lighting in my room. the only danger they have posed so far is when i hit my head on them when i was drunk and jumping about in my room.

oh i know he's not going to listen to me. he never has before. just hoping that something will filter through. elas, if you take a random dataset and sort it from smallest to largest, of course you're going to see a straight line (although the regime in which the line is straight depends on the distribution) you have a logarithmically distributed data set, so when you take the log of the values and plot them in order then it comes as no shock at all that you get a straight line. this is related to benfords law. it does not hold any significance other than saying that planetary orbits as logarithmically distributed.

becaue no matter what it is, some idiot will believe it cures something and will be prepared to buy it for a lot of money. homeopathy is an industry worth a few billion, it cures nothing but thirst as most of the products it sells are either water or sugar. yet claims to cure everything from cancer to bad dress sense.

if there was then the particular active ingredient would already be being mass produced. its likely just another rumour gone crazy.

same for any laser. colour is immaterial in this case

elas, you do realise that all you've done is show that you ordered your dataset, right?

its just an interference patternt caused by the differing path lengths of light to reach your eye.

but you don't have a valid reason for ordering the samples in that particular order other than 'it looks nice'. because of this, there is absolutely no physical significance in the graph at all.

small n's are more likely because the concentration of primes is greater at small n. as n increases, you'll need more large primes. and as large primes are sparsely concentrated the chance of any particular n having 3 prime divisors becomes less likely. i'm sure with enough searching you'll find plenty though.

no, that wouldn't result in a monopole at all.

it was never meant to produce a cell(though that would have been an awesome unexpected bonus, direct observation of abiogenesis) the fact that it managed to produce amino acids, the basic building blocks of proteins means that if given time, proteins would form from polymerisation of the amino acids. with the introduction of the proteins and enzymes that would have arisen, interesting chemical reactions would have occured that lead on to life. urey-miller were only looking for the creation of compounds present in life. amber is a product of life, specifically, trees. analysing trapped gasses in amber would not give you an example of pre-life atmosphere but of one heavily modified by life. the approximation by urey-miller is pretty close to what the evidence says was present in the atmosphere at the relevant time. it wasn't based on pure speculation.

elas, what is represented by the x axis on that graph? i've commented before on your poor axis labelling.

not only that, but due to the fact that they are cells of the host gone rogue, every individual has a unique form of liver/prostate/lung/whatever cancer.

research typically involves experimentation. You predict the outcome of an experiment. you don't then pretend you've done the experiment and carry on, you go do the experiment. IF and ONLY IF the experiment matches the prediction do you carry on your merry way, if it fails you leave it. the experiment is unaffected by any particular biases the experimenter had (otherwise a whole lot of historical experiments were very very racist despite having nothing at all to do with race)

elas, why don't you just work it out. The direction and distance from earth are published so it is merely a matter of simple trigonometry to find the distance.

eh? the point of a hypothesis is to have a testable prediction. you then run the test in an experiment by limiting the other factors. the data will either prove the hypothesis wrong or not. nothing misleading about this, just a statement of what the experiment aims to discover. by your logic, even an idea is confirmation bias. it would be impossible to do anything without being heavily biased. the major flaw in your arguement is that you completely fail to take into account that the level to which a hypothesis reflects reality is not opinion but the result of experimentation and testing.