zapatos

Seems Google has a lot of information... https://f1chronicle.com/formula-1-cooling-systems-how-do-they-differ-cars/

Me too but so far you are not discussing anything, you are simply asking questions. Can you contribute anything to this discussion that you started?

What is it that makes Mars so influential? Gravity? The fact that I can or cannot see it at certain times? Something mystical?

Worth is in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure every aspect of 'this gigantic project' is under regular evaluation. The LHC cost near $5 billion just for construction.

Good example. But what exactly is it telling you? You can tell what year a ring was formed, whether or not it was a wet year, and some level of details about climate. Even though we know a great deal about an individual ring, spending a great deal of money and intellect to understand, we still don't know what days it rained in a particular year, what the high and low temperatures were, if it was cloudy, etc. In other words, our best efforts got us some information but not very much. If you knew every bit of data there was to know about every atom in the universe starting at the beginning of time, knew what impact each data point had on every other data point, and had the computing power to process all of that data, it is true you could extrapolate a great deal of information about the universe than we do not have now. But as @MigL pointed out, you still run into the uncertainty due to QM. As far as astrologers having enough relevant data, knowledge and processing power based on looking at constellations visible from earth to predict human behavior, and of your behavior as opposed to mine, and without even bothering to make adjustments for the fact that you were born in a different year than me and thus different data applies? That would be a "no".

These are the ones who scare me. The ones who say something like "If he pushes me I have the right to shoot him. It is self defense." And too many of our laws support that kind of response.

Well said.

Of course not. The people using the evidence are the ones fighting for gun control.

Except: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." When you are burdened with this one, then you can tell me how your citizens would react differently.

Really? Americans I know are quite familiar with the knowledge that we have more guns and more firearm related homicides than others. It is in the papers nearly every day, and certainly every time there is a mass shooting, which is just about every day. This is just a superior-than-thou emotional argument. Surely there are enough real data suggesting American gun laws are outrageously lax without having to make things up.

Sorry, I didn't mean to say there were "no" guns. What you stated here is what I was trying to point out. Guns here are not an oddity and would not be seen as such. People use the tools at their disposal. People here also call the police, and that is because it is a tool at their disposal. If there are emergency call boxes, or roving neighborhood watch groups, people would utilize them. In America one of the tools is guns, and so we use that tool also. And it is not as if all Americans are armed. Seventy percent of American adults do not own guns. (https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/) Most Americans are not walking around armed. It feels as if other Western countries see Americans as a breed apart when it comes to guns. I suspect we are basically the same, and if it was you who had a Constitutional Right to bear arms like ours and we had restrictions like yours, that this conversation would be playing out in reverse. Neither group is more right/wrong/moral/rational/pragmatic, it is just that we live in different environments. We eat biscuits and gravy, while others like that vile Marmite and Vegemite.

That's an average, right? I suspect some dolts are likely to injure themselves taking the gun out of the safe and don't even know it, while the chances of others injuring themselves (e.g. ex-military) are next to zero. Neither one of those people are acting irrationally by carrying. One doesn't know they are being risky, the other knows they are not. I'll certainly accept some people are irrational and fearful, but I believe making a general statement that people carrying guns are irrational needs a little more support.

Citation? That sounds like you are projecting what seems rational to you. I'm unsure how you are using the term "fear". When I hike by myself I carry an emergency shelter, a knife, and a way to start a fire. I just want to be prepared in case of a situation comes up, even though I think the chances of it happening are remote. Would you say I carry those things not because I'm rational, but because I'm fearful? I also had life insurance when I was in my mid-20's, even though the chances of a sudden death was remote. Was that irrational and fearful?

Sure, I can see where it is bewildering. And I think the bewilderment primarily comes from living in a country with no guns. People who live in the dessert carry water just in case. People who live where there is a lot of sun carry sunscreen just in case. And people who live where trees may fall across rural roads they travel carry chainsaws just in case. Do you find it bewildering that a person may train in martial arts in case they need to defend themselves? Guns are common tools in this country. You can go to the store and walk out with one in about 20 minutes. I don't carry a spare tire because I am exceptionally fearful. Guns are scary to people who have no exposure to them. But then so are chainsaws.

True, but in most developed countries the citizens you run into are not likely to own a gun of their own. While there are of course people who think they may get shot at the grocery store, I think that misrepresents the mindset of the average gun carrier. I think they carry guns the same way they carry spare tires around. You know you probably won't need it, but it's nice to know that you are prepared just in case.

I often hear that Americans are fearful but I must be living in a bubble as I've never found that to be the case. I've lived in St. Louis (or the surrounding area) most of my life. St. Louis is considered one of the deadliest cities in the country. I have never once been confronted by someone with a gun (or any weapon) or heard a gun fired in the streets. Most people I know don't own guns. The ones who do (me included) generally don't carry them (never saw the need), and the ones who do carry them (I can only think of one) are not afraid, as they are carrying a gun. My experience has been that if you are not involved with illegal activities or those who are, you don't have much to fear. Living in a part of town where there are illegal activities going on certainly does make you more vulnerable, but I personally have not lived in an area like that. This is not to say I don't recognize there is crime, but even with the relatively high rates in the US, it is still infrequent enough that it has never once hit me or those close to me.

He needs to be gone. I'm afraid he's crossed over to some place that is no longer compatible with this site.

Just to reiterate, remember that none of the models are saying that in "reality" gravity is a force, and none of the models are saying that gravity is in "reality" the result of geodesics. What they are saying is "If you look at it this way, it will explain why we get the results we do...". There are multiple theories on what motivates people. Maslow says people are motivated to meet needs. Skinner says people are motivated by reinforcement. Those are two conflicting ways to look at human motivation. The two models of human motivation conflict because two different people worked out a model of human motivation that successfully predicted behavior. Similarly in the future a person may come up with another model whose description of gravity conflicts with QM and GR. If it turns out that this new model makes better predictions, is easier to use, or is in some other way superior to the existing two, we will then have a third way to describe gravity.

If I understand your question correctly... No, a model cannot describe anything to a fundamental level. A model is a representation of a system that describes the workings of that system in terms we can understand. It is not meant to represent "reality". Gravity is a force when talking Newtonian gravity, but not a force when talking about Relativity. Neither is "right" or "wrong" except in context of the model you are discussing at the time.

Did you just come here to fight?

Wanting to live with difficulty rather than being dead is vain? Glad you are not in charge of the medical system.

Can you answer my question first? What do you mean by "scientifically backward" and "scientifically senseless"?

What usual weapons can destroy missiles in silos in the middle of South Dakota, or on submarines? The whole point is that since you cannot destroy them all, some will end up successfully used. What do you mean by "scientifically backward"?

If it so common then why are we having pages of debate about it? No commonly used word means the same thing to all men. (And by 'men' I am not referring to just people with XY chromosomes. It also includes women. Although some say 'women' means what is on your birth certificate and others see it more broadly. But of course not everyone receives a 'birth certificate'. In this sense 'birth certificate' simply means how you were viewed by others at birth. But I fully expect everyone here to only use terms the way that I define them. Because that is how I "commonly" use them.)

Correct. It is arbitrary and subject to change over time. So perhaps you can try to understand how people are using it and stop trying to hold everyone to YOUR arbitrary definition.