mooeypoo

I'm not trying to be cynical when I say - thank you. Now I have something to read and verify, which is what I was looking for. But if you do have more to share, I would request you do. It seems you're taking this more personally than it should be. I am not against you personally, I just don't trust your word for it, as I don't trust anyone's word for anything. I require reference and proof.. look up my nick and see my posts -- I require that from *everyone* on this forum. As for iNow's response, I haven't seen whatever other response was before the one that is available at this moment above your previous post. If it was edited, I have no way of knowing what the previous one was, and by what I saw, I didn't think it was - in any means - rude. I thought the demand for proof was justified, as I demand the same. From everyone. There's no need to go into personal defensiveness here.

Look.. I don't ask for much, I ask for references and resources, for the very important reason that this subject is taken headon by multiple pseudoscience "causes", and I don't want to trust information over nothing. You might be right. You might be wrong. The only way to judge is if you supply the evidence and reference what you're claiming.

We've asked for references and you give us irrelevant ones. My initial question was about cow milk, not breast milk. Cow milk (that we drink) does not contain white bloodcells. iNow's response was relevant. It wasn't rude, it was vigorous, as it SHOULD be in a scientific forum. I chose this forum to ask my question because I'm not interested in unfounded claims. I have enough of those at other sites, thank you. So when you make a claim, make sure you reference it and back it up. iNow pointed out that your references were outside of the subject asked, which they are. Stop being defensive and just give us other references that support your claim in cow milk. A point that you have NOT substantiated, and is in NEED of evidence. Either substantiate it or stop complaining we're asking for more evidence for your claims. ~moo

Here: How do you measure a planet's mass? Capabilities of Various Planet Detection Methods (NASA Site) How can you measure the mass of the Earth or any other planet? That should get you started on some of the techniques that are used to find the mass of planets. ~moo

References?

I was refered to this thread by my fellow SFNers on the chat room, apparently they figured since I am a woman I should have a response to this. So-heh--I am read--heh heh--reading th--heh heh heh-this-oh, my god-and trying to-heheh-to breah-hehehe-while-heh-while-oh, yes, yes!-while while while-hehehehehehehehehehehheh.. I think I just laughed myself into an orgasm.. Because unlike men, women can actually do that. It's a neat feature in our biological design, actually. Unlike men. And we can do it again, too. So just to prove your statement wrong, I'm going to read your post all over again so I can repeat my result. hehhehhehheh-- there we go. Ah. Don't you hate when that happens? hehehehehe. ~moo

Why is that cheating? It's a 7 year old child, and that definitely solves the problem. The only problem I see with your first suggestion is that there's a big possibility of the mug falling off the balloon (like you said, depends on the mug being in 'the right place', which I would guess is very tricky).. so I would agree with you and say that putting the balloon inside the mug, inflating it so it can "grab" the mug and then lift them both together. That's using the balloon to lift the mug off the table without touching the mug. It solves the question and doesn't require scientific information or talents above that of a 7 year old child. ~moo

Are you here to debate this seriously or are you here to run away? I don't mind putting the effort into reading and analyzing everything you say, and conducting a proper analysis and debate, but you seem to have a tendency to leave arguments the moment you think you are on the "losing" side. I would like to not waste my time this time.

This is not an inconvenience, it's unsurprising (you've done this before). What you're saying, really, is that you have no answers to any of our questions, no proof to back up your claims and no way to scientifically argue your point, so you run away. Like last time. We put the effort to try and have a debate with you, and the moment you see you're on the losing side of it you run off. That's not an inconvinience. You coming back again and doing the same thing all over again and wasting our time will be. This doesn't exist in reality, it exists in your mind. What is negative and positive energy? Free energy? You need to start putting evidence and references next to your claims, my friend, or they are no more than fantasy. But then again, you're leaving again, so why would you care. I think the decision to hide the invisible pink unicorn from the world is smart. Since I hven't proven the invisible pink unicorn to exist, nor have I proven that he is hidden and that someone made a decision to hide it consciously, my opinion about such fantastically-unproven claim is irrelevant. And so is yours. But you're leaving. What do you care. Please don't waste our time again. Either participate in a debate and see it through to to end, or don't come back here again. We've been trying to participate in a scientific debate with you. You coward away when you have no answers. It's disrespectful and it does very badly for your point. ~moo

oookay then. Word salad, quackery, no proofs, mixing psychological enthusiasm with physics concepts, and a touch of condescending preacher'y. I am not too much for ridiculing anything, but this above post is quite ridiculous. You are in a science forum, liyon, not in a church. Don't preach, debate. Either you have evidence to support your case, or you don't. Using nice words and enthusiastic uplifting will not convince anyone. Also, before you get into a physical concept, I suggest you try to learn what it means. There's nothing in Quantum Physics about meditation, prayer, human experiences or psyche. Nothing at all. ~moo

yeah it didn't belong to the camera itself, it was a standalone software. And I did find it! WebcamXP -- there's a free version and the paid version gives the possibility of surveillance - the camera takes pictures when something moves or changes on the screen. Pretty nifty Thanks ~moo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_energy Considering the context of this thread, I assume http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy ?

Hey guys, I remember I had a webcam software that could double-up as a "surveillance" software. Essentially, it reacted to changes in the picture so if you hooked your cam to look at your room while you were out, it would idle harmlessly until someone opened the door, or turned on the lights, or just walked around, and then it would take rapid-succession pictures (you could define how many in a certain period of time) and could either upload to FTP or send you an email alerting you that there was a change. I don't remember where I got this software from, all I remember is that it was a webcam software and that it was free, or at least that most features of it were free. It was meant to be installed in your comp and act as a webcam server, so in order to watch it, you went to your ip at a certain port. I am looking for that software - or anything like it that could alert by mail if a streaming picture is changing. Any ideas? Thanks! ~moo

I think that instead of attacking a new user that tries to ask a question a lot of people are struggling with, we should explain why those ideas are incorrect. Saying "It's bunk" offhand might actually drive people to think we are dogmatically dismissing ideas offhand instead of what the actual truth is - that it really does have no connection to reality. edward.cole, The word "Quantum" appeals to people because it is a subject in physics that people don't understand much of. It speaks a lot of statistics and 'dual existence' (of particles), so a lot of pseudoscientists take on to claim that it has possibilities about mind or existence behaving the same. The reason it's bunk is first and foremost because it has nothing to do with one another; Quantum physics speaks of the very small particles and their behaviours. It doesn't speak of the brain, or existence, at all. It's very easy to jumble those subjects, so people do. It's also quite cool to talk about psychology and pseudopsychology so people do. "You can be anything you want to be if you only think good thoughts" is a common thread between those pseudoscientist ideas, like "What the @#$% do we know". It's bunk also because there's absolutely no proof of any sort of correlation between Quantum mechanics / Quantum physics and a human mind, brain, or existence. Hope that helped. ~moo

...what? what blood cells? what mucous.. what.. uhm.. are you talking about? are you claiming milk is all blood cells? ... or that it has blood cells? I.. don't quite understand what you're saying. Raw milk is very fatty, that might be one reason, but regardless, I think you're mixing a bunch of subjects together, and it would help if you give a few supporting evidence? I love milk and I am not lactose intolerant (I actually had a "scare" a few months ago where my doc claimed I might be.. but am not). The question is - with today's processing techniques in America, and growing methods (hormones? whatever), is it good for the body to drink milk, or isn't it? As far as I can see, it's still unclear either way, leaning more towards the "safe to drink milk" side. ~moo

Oh, no, I know that it won't work in this case, I was refering to general cases where I can use both -- is there any preference? I .. am not sure we learned undetermined coefficients. I will definitely check it out..

but but.. but.. Okay, I was about to post a whole mumbly confused question about this, but while I was typing, I suddenly got it... My professor is making the mistake of telling us to NOT write units at all because they are cancelling out anyways. It's a math prof, not physics or chem (btw, i hate chem, but that's a side note ) so i guess it's working out for him. I always write units, not just to get the final units but to also see where I get things wrong. Like here. I am not sure why, maybe because I read a few of his explanations (lacking units), but this time I wrote the units and actually missed the concentration units. Damn. At least I have a case to show him and prove my point (I actually argued this in class ) Thanks I'll try it again now and see if I can solve the equation when it's actually written correctly. Now as a side note -- *IF* this was the right equation, I could do it as separable variables method, right? of course integrating factor method would work here too, I guess, but is there any reason for me to pick one and not the other when solving such equations, or is it a matter of pure preference when the eq. can be solved using different methods? Thanks again ~moo

Okay, for the past 3 posts I am not getting it, and I don't get it still. Can you please show where the extra factor of Q is, please? The question states that the is the concentration. Concentration of salt. Hence it needs to be written as Q Is that what you mean? You can think of the formula, instead, as if it says 43%. 43% of what? of Q. So the rate IN is 47/100 OF Q ==> 47/100*Q Same here, only with sint and fractions. If I wrote the equation wrong, please point out where, this is getting quite frustrating.

Uh, yes.. and what I wrote as "Rate In" and "Rate Out" was the representation of that... I don't see the problem.. did I get some LaTeX wrong or something?

Uh, no no.. Rate In: [math]\frac{1}{4} (1+ \frac{1}{2} sint)Q \frac{(oz)}{(gal)} * 2 \frac{(gal)}{(min)} = \frac{2}{4} (1+ \frac{1}{2} sint)Q \frac{(oz)}{(min)}[/math] Rate Out: [math]\frac{Q (oz)}{100 (gal)} * 2 \frac{(gal)}{(min)} = \frac{2Q (oz)}{100 (min)} = \frac{Q (oz)}{50 (min)}[/math] So, [math]\frac{dQ}{dt} = \frac{1}{2} (1+ \frac{1}{2} sint)Q \frac{(oz)}{(min)} - \frac{Q (oz)}{50 (min)}[/math] It's kinda hard writing things in LaTeX, but it does work out (go over it again . This part of the question is identically solved in my notebook and cramster.com , btw.. the problem starts with SOLVING this equation.

42.

Hey, I have a question in the book, solved it one way, and the book solution in cramster has another way. I am not sure if I'm right or not, since in the case of these questions, multiple cases for solutions are possible. Any help would be appreciated here.. where was I wrong (was I?) Question: So.. I started with the premise that [math]\frac{dQ}{dt} = Rate In - Rate Out[/math] Rate In: [math]\frac{2}{4} (1+ \frac{1}{2} sint)Q[/math] Rate Out: [math]Q/100 * 2[/math] So, [math]\frac{dQ}{dt} = \frac{1}{2} (1+ \frac{1}{2} sint)Q - Q/50[/math] [math]= Q\left( \dfrac{1}{2} (1+2sint)-\frac{1}{50} \right) [/math] [math] \frac{1}{Q} dQ - \left( \frac{1}{2} (1+2sint)+\frac{1}{100} \right) dt = 0[/math] [math]\int \frac{1}{Q} dQ - \int \frac{1}{2} (1+2sint) dt + \int \frac{1}{100} dt = 0[/math] [math]lnQ - \frac{t}{2} - cost + \frac{t}{100} = C[/math] [math]lnQ - cost - \frac{t}{100} + \frac{50t}{100} = C[/math] [math]lnQ = cost - \frac{49t}{100} + C[/math] [math]Q = C \exp{( -\frac{49t}{100}+cost)}[/math] Then, I can test for C by putting the initial values Q=50 when t=0: [math]50 = C \exp{(cos0)} = Ce[/math] [math]C = \frac{50}{e}[/math] And, therefore, the final equation is: [math]Q = 50 \exp{(\frac{49t}{100}+cost-1)}[/math] But the answer in cramster.com (I don't have an answer in my book), says: Thanks in advance, this is my preparation for a test, so I'd love to know where I got things wrong.. I was actually quite happy to see my dQ/dt equation is separable, but cramster.com seems to not even try the separable equation technique and goes on straight to integrating factor. Should I go straight onto integrating factors without even checking if the equation is separable? Is that a better method? Anyhoo, I'd appreciate an answer.. the exam is on monday and I want to make sure I am at laest preparing correctly... Thanks! ~moo

Thanks Klaynos for helping me find this link again: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=misconceptions-about-the-2005-03 Misconceptions about the "Big Bang". Including a few bits about the difference between explosion and expansion. Explosion has an origin.. if we are "moving" with a particle that exploded, we should, conceptually, be able to see the origin. That's not the situation with the big bang; Expansion is more like standing on a surface of an expanding balloon; there is no "origin". It expands. It might sound petty, but consider the fact that the theory requires some conceptual understanding, and this conceptual change is important to understand it.

Bubbles are not necessarily AIR bubbles.. they can be fluid bubbles. YT is right, there's no reason air should go into the joints, not unless something's quite wrong. Perhaps it was my mistake to write it this way, but when I wrote someone told me it's bubbles, I didn't mean air. In any case, I'm still waiting for a doc's appointment, so no news so far ~moo

Soemthing to think about in terms of the HW forum - the mere fact we have a homework help forum might actually bring us more traffic (SEO wise). Many people look for 'homework help' or 'homework solutions', and though our policy is NOT to give out solution (but rather the method), I think it's worth a check. Can we check how many new users we're getting out of the homwork section? How many of the search-keywords have "homework" in them? And another thing -- Anyone can rewrite his hw question in a way that can seem non-hw and thus get the answer on any other forum, but I actually think that since the HW forum has the 'don't give answer, give method' rule, we are helping people get focus and work out problems on their own. There's a different approach in answering a hw problem than in answering a science question, I think that the hw forum actually helps organizing our forums more and avoids messing up other forums. That's my two cents.