StringJunky

From a decorating site: Phosphorescent or luminous paints may themselves be sub-divided into two classes-those which give a relatively bright afterglow of short duration and those which give a longer but less bright afterglow. For the first class, zinc sulphide or zinc and cadtnium* sulphide are the pigments most employed; for the second, calcium sulphide, strontium sulphide, or combinations of the two, are commonly used. The medium may be oil or cellulose varnish. All pigments for phosphorescent paints are comparatively coarse in particle size, since the property of phosphorescence depends mainly on a coarse, crystalline structure; consequently they cannot be ground in a tightly-set roller mill. Either a very loosely-set mill must be used or the pigments must be stirred or mixed in the medium. The range of colours in which they are available is limited to a greenish-yellow phosphorescence for the first class, and a bluish green for the second; in daylight, the colour is a dull white. Owing to their coarseness, phosphorescent paints have poor gloss, do not flow well, and tend to settle hard and quickly. Best results are obtained if they are applied over a white-base coat, such as a good zinc white; on no account must the undercoat contain any white lead, - either as a pigment or in the form of a drier. For outside exposure, the luminous paint must be protected by a coat of clear varnish or lacquer, or it will soon disintegrate. The protective coating will involve some loss of luminescence. * I think this should read cadmium http://www.bozzle.com/paintluminous.html

The thin silvery outer skin of the Silver Birch tree is very flammable if you have them around...just peel some slivers off.

You might get comments from people who have posted only a few times and this may give a clue to the feelings of the one-time-posters. You and I are probably blind to the impression the site gives to newcomers having got used to its ways and members. A site will always get some drive-by thread-starters though.

Something like this?: Topic title: New members: How do you rate SFN and it's membership? Topic description: Please give us your initial impressions.

I can't find a single instance of extreme detail and photorealistic drawing combined (didn't look too hard) but I can find a high level of detail drawn from memory and photorealism separately so it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to think there may be people that can fuse the two talents and do it from memory alone...probably an autistic savant. Pen drawing: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/23/samuel-silvas-amazing-pho_n_1822572.html After viewing New York skline once from memory: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223790/Autistic-artist-draws-18ft-picture-New-York-skyline-memory.html

We see at least one GUT or ToE everyday...forgive them their scepticism...it's justified.

You can test here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/58931-latex-testing/

Here's a quick latex tutorial: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/3751-quick-latex-tutorial/

(My bold) Note: He is not addressing a fundamental article or phenomena like gravity....he is using the word world at the macro level and in the collective sense. Gravity is a part of the world and we use gravity to explain why things at the macro level do what they do. This discussion is not about the world...it is talking about a much more fundamental component of it and at that level things start to become more axiomatic ie resist deeper analysis.

I don't know why does mass attract other things in the first place. Happy? That's not what I was addressing, DH covered that in his excellent and clear reply.

You understand me perfectly. Perhaps my words didn't translate well for Michel.

DH's answer was spot on and I got something from it hence I repped it. I was addressing something else which clearly is outside your scope of comprehension. What I wrote, that you call bullshit, is actually a distillation of what I have learnt from the physicists here concerning knowing the underlying nature of phenomena.

No, trying to describe it ontologically is. The OP seems, from my interpretation, to be seeking an ontological answer: "All the research I have been able to find about gravity, never really covers the subject of the force itself, but rather more it's effect on objects. But why does mass attract other things in the first place?"

ms.math You are soapboxing your ideas onto us. From the rules: 8. Preaching and "soap-boxing" (making topics or posts without inviting, or even rejecting, open discussion) are not allowed. This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. Discuss points, don't just repeat them.

Gravity is not alone in defying an ontological description. If you read much by scientists you realise that descriptions of phenomena are written in terms of their parameters (measurements) and behaviour. The 'is' and 'why' of a thing aren't covered because it's considered outside the scope of physics and more the domain of philosophy/metaphysics.

I wonder if you could set up a digital camera directly over the area and then do an exposure in the pitch dark ? Placing a bit of photographic paper placed over the area and developed would be better but that's likely not to hand

A place where dogma walks backwards, whilst looking forward, into the arms of the Grim Reaper.

OK, point taken.

Nothing is one of those words that needs pre-defining before a sensible discussion can ensue utilising it.

CP has a point. Your reply is written to a much higher standard of presentation than your hypothesis! Is it logical to present your idea, which presumably is the most important post, in such a sloppy manner compared to your subsequent replies?! If you don't write properly, which you quite clearly are capable of, how can you justifiably expect people to read your OP with more care than you wrote it?

Talking about pan spermia is an irrelevant distraction i think because it does not address how life started. It only hypothesizes how life may have arrived on Earth in the absence of it starting on it.

A quick read suggests over 1m is too much for hifi buffs. I'm wondering if he can get a preamp like THIS one, sit it next to the turntable, then run that to the amp to boost the signal? Moon, you could get the good quality cable, as imafaal suggests, and if the sound (probably high frequencies are hit too much) then you could add a phono preamp after to compensate if necessary.

How long do you need the T/T-Amp interconnect to be precisely? What is the make and model of the cartridge?

To add to what ajb said but in another way: the brain doesn't like random; it will do it's very best to turn any type of apparently random image into a recognisable pattern. Your emotional state is clearly negatively-colouring how you interpret what you are seeing. We really can't say any more than go and make an effort to see someone who is expert in mental health matters via your doctor if it's making you constantly anxious and fearful...a problem shared is a problem halved.

What do you read?