mooeypoo

Did you watch the video? It speaks about that and says to check out the sources... Also, if you click on it and go to the YouTube page, you'll have a list of ITS sources. No one is saying that a "source knows" anything; a source isn't an "entity". You should RESEARCH the sources of a claim. Just like you should watch a clip before you criticize it. ~mooey

The American Physical Society has a page dedicated to different (and sometimes quite surprising) careers in Physics. Not all physicists go on the strictly academic research or to be professors. Many of them go out to the industry, and some are "hidden physicists" because they work in jobs that are related to engineering or r&d and tend to lose the"Physicist" in the title. Here's a few examples that can be cool in seeing the different careers and also the diversity of how a physics degere (BSc, MS or PhD) can help people in ways many of us wouldn't think about: PhysicsCentral's People in Physics (notice there's a "by topic" on the right side): http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/people/index.cfm An interesting list of physicists who now do something different but rely on their physics background a lot for it: http://www.aip.org/tip/profiles.html Many physicists go to Medicine or Law (though this is likely less relevant to a career in theoretical physics per say, still a nice stat to look at): http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/mcat2009.pdf and also, it appears that a Physics BSc is better preparation for the MCAT and LSAT than anything else (INCLUDING 'premed') I will try and find the other database of "hidden physicists", it has a really nice overlay of a lot of theoretical and experimental physicists who now work in the industry in jobs we don't usually think about when we think of physicists. ~mooey

This was shared on twitter, and it's an absolutely awesome explanation about how the media (and some random 'fancy looking' sites) totally misleads the public, either intentionally out of some agenda or by incompetence (by not asking for proper resources). GREAT resource for everyone, but I think it's even doubly relevant to this forum. There are other parts to it, too.

There are a few actually, specially from the Humanist and Skeptics community. "Maybe Yes, Maybe No: A Guide for Young Skeptics" by Dan Barker is one that I heard good stuff about (never read it myself, though). I knew of a few more but I need to re-search them; I bought some for my cousins but that was a few years ago. I'll post more if I find them. [EDIT] There's also this book meant for the parents of said children: "Raising Freethinkers: A Practical Guide for Parenting Beyond Belief" by Dan Barker as well. Again, didn't read this book myself but I heard good stuff about it. You could probably find more through the recommended section in that page.

I am not entirely sure about my own point here (I guess that's *my* practice ) but point 2 seems a bit shaky to me. Surely, God could have created the Universe around himself. No?

Let me ask you, though.. what do *you* think is happening? There seem to be quite a large array of options here. I'm curious to know how you plan to "attack" the problem.

In one of the videos (here: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/16/portland-draining-reservoir-after-man-urinates-in-it/) he seems to be very reasonable and apologetic. Also, he states: "I wouldn't mind paying for it, but I don't have a job right now. But I'm willing to do community service to clean up the place because I do feel bad and feel stupid about doing it.." Sounds like he really is the only reasonable voice in this.

I don't quite understand how people drink it, honestly.

! Moderator Note This is a mainstream science sub-forum, please avoid politics. There is a (probably more than one) topic about global warming in the politics forum dealing with the political aspect of it. Keep political issues there.

I must ask this... you don't... SERIOUSLY.. think you're breaking the laws of physics, do you? We might want to change attitude and explain what physics means if you actually consider this option for real. ~mooey

There's also an issue of refresh rates of the screens. The *value* was probably transmitted in the right order while the screen momentarily displayed a delay value. In any case, there's very *VERY* little chance you broke the laws of physics. As others have said, I'd go over the software and hardware first.

! Moderator Note Bank information removed. Please don't post that again. If anyone is interesting in ways to donate, they can contact you privately through the Private Message system and get the info they need.

And liver.

This seemed like a helpful resource, though I didn't have time to cross reference things. http://hubpages.com/hub/3-Main-Causes-Of-Beer-Belly-Fat-And-How-To-Finally-Burn-It-Off

Belly isn't necessarily strictly fat. Sometimes bloating is a sign of too much sodium (water retention) or, alternatively, it can be muscles that are not quite shaped right. Many people have that problem, it's not as easy to solve as it sounds. It *is* solvable, though, you just need to make sure you do exercises that are directed towards that location and eat right. It seems to be easier to have that as you grow old, but you're not 80. You can work on this Also, working out in general is a good idea, but if you have a particular zone you want to work on, you need to concentrate on it. That is, cycling and swimming are generally good for legs and hand muscles; if you want to work out your belly muscles, you need to do exercise routines that are directed to that area. I suggest you either check online or talk to a proper gym instructor; a lot of the gyms offer "first time trainer sessions" for free, and you can tell the trainer you want to work on your belly in particular, and they will give you exercises that are aimed at that. As for getting tired, I would recommend you check that with your doctor. There can be many reasons for it from pushing yourself too hard for your own stamina to health problems like high blood pressure or some hormone imbalance. There's no harm in checking to be sure. Lastly, this SOUNDS to me like it could be a diet issue. As in, your eating habits should be changed. It doesn't necessarily mean you eat junk, but it may mean you're not eating balanced enough for your own metabolism. Some places also recommend eating more fiber particularly for belly fat in men. There are also a bunch of exercises you can do for upper body training that will assist in shaping the muscles specifically. But honestly, I'd recommend taking a session with a trainer and visiting your doctor. Check first to see if you should change your diet or fix something physics. Then get advice from a professional trainer on what to do particularly for the stomach. Losing weight isn't the only thing, and sometimes it doesn't help the "shape" - to change the shape you need to do particular exercises, and there are mixed ones for men and women depending on what, in general, they want to work on. Good luck ~mooey

Two things here, though 1. The fact someone could just strall on over there and pee is a problem if the municipality considers littering of the OPEN water as such a problem. I'm quite sure if a person could walk over and pee, there are probably animals that drink off it, birds poo in it and other such icky stuff people would find horrible to drink... which leads me to point two-- 2. I would assume and HOPE that any water reservoir (particularly an open one) goes through some filtration and water-quality assurance BEFORE it reaches the taps in people's houses. Urine, along with everything else (leaves, bird poo, etc) would be filtered out. So isn't that an insane waste of money?

Well said. This is now pinned and will be always visible to any poster on the forum. Feel free to link back to it as needed, too.

Isn't it much more likely that you've been there before and simply have random (and probably not entirely recognizable) memories from there? Is this a place you, perhaps, grew up next to? walked by next to a while back? did something unique happened to you there? did you see it in a movie you liked or in a TV commercial? Try to see if this area has some meaning to you. Usually "deja vus" are simply memories we don't quite place. Since parallel universes as the concept you're describing isn't really supported to exist in reality, jumping to the conclusion it might be a portal between them is a bit premature. We should first try to see if it's not something a lot simpler, and a lot more logical. Think if you've ever been there before, or if ti's possible your parents took you there as a young child, etc etc. ~mooey

Right, yeah, I think I mostly agree. I'm being a bit of a pain in the rear atm, but I was just wondering about this particular terminology. I mean, "deceleration" might not be physical but it does "Get the point across", and you do see it in freshman-physics books, and, normally (at least from what I encountered) it doesn't get physicists all riled up when it's used. Unlike "vacuum sucks". I am not talking about you in particular, swansont, your note above that vacuum doesn't suck but pressure pushes was on point with the thread, it just got me thinking. It's not the first time I hear this correction, and I get the feeling this *is* something that most physicists get annoyed with (I hear this one being corrected much much more often than the 'deceleration' term). And yet I don't quite see a situation where "vacuum sucks" doesn't actually means pressure-pushes. So there's no potential of using it wrong, but rather misunderstanding the fundamental physics --- just like "deceleration". I just wonder why this one seems to be more of a pet peeve to many physicists than other abused and misused terms. ~mooey

The negative sign is a good point, I didn't think about it like that. I get the idea of where the forces are going (and in that aspect, that positive pressure always pushes), but isn't the word "suck", in general, a misnomer completely, then? Even when we literally "suck" things -- like with a syringe -- what we are REALLY doing is creating negative pressure and "allowing" the positive pressure to push outwards. I don't see any example of anything that can actually be sucked without having the higher-pressure being the thing that exerts the force. In that aspect, then, if *all* instances of anything "sucked" are, really, instances where the matter/liquid/gas in higher pressure is, in fact, pushed, won't that just make the term "suck" a proper term to use (with the knowledge that common day-to-day language is a misinterpretation of it)... ? We misinterprate many terms, for that matter.. I hope I'm being clear on that, my "problem" isn't really the words, it's more the concept. I always told my friends that they don't know what "sucking" actually is, rather than say "there's no such thing"... see my point? EDIT/ADD: The term "Weight" is similar. It's not wrong to use it when refering to, say, how many tomatos I bought in the store today (because tomatos DO have mass, and hence weigh...) but it's usually misunderstood by the general public. We often don't push that point because (at least one earth) it's close enough to the physical meaning, and because it serves its purpose -- everyone understands what you want to say. In that aspect, isn't the term "Suck" the same? It's not what people THINK it is, but it's consistently used in the proper context, and physicists are attempting to not be as pedantic as to correct people. You should be able to say "it was sucked out" though, if you understand that this doesn't mean the force was the other way around.

Okay, I'm allowing myself to be a pedantic pain in the rear because it seems the main question was answered. If this develops into anything more than my own misunderstanding, I'll move it to its own thread. I was under the impression that calling space a "vacuum" at all is wrong, since it's NOT a vacuum. It does, of course, have much (MUCH) lower pressure than the 1 atmosphere pressure our bodies requires (and hence, what would likely exist in a spaceship) but calling it "a vacuum" is not quite right. Also, another pedantic question, I get that pressure pushes, but isn't the case of "sucking" something almost ALWAYS the case of changing pressures? When we "suck air" we create negative pressure in our lungs. Positive pressure "pushes" the air into our lungs. But.. we're "sucking" in air. I can't think of an example where "sucking" is not, in practice, a change of pressure.. and hence while in terms of pure forces higher pressure pushes, shouldn't it also be true that lower pressure sucks? ~mooey

Sure. But first, what are your results?

It doesn't quite have to do with "empty" but rather with pressure differences. For that matter, the same thing (only less "extreme") would happen (and did) to a plane at full-altitude. The pressure INSIDE is higher than the pressure OUTSIDE, and when there's a hole, the gas inside "wants" to go to equilibrium with the outside, which means it is sucked out. Since this often happens (in movies, and again, in a plane just a few weeks ago) through relatively small holes, we see it as a wind-sucking thing. The pressure makes the air expand rapidly, and when it's through a small hole, it's "sucking" out things. This may help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontrolled_decompression It's actually not quite right to call it an "explosion", but rather a rapid (uncontrolled) decompression. Sometimes it's called "Explosive decompression", specially when referring to planes. So it seems the way you think of it is generally correct, but reading about uncontrolled decompression can make it more accurate. I am not sure I understand this question? Spaceship hulls (and astronaut suits, too) must be well protected. Small holes can lead to rapid decompression that's very VERY bad. In movies they might not emphasize this, but there are quite a number of real life companies working on making the hull of space-instruments (and the ISS, and astronaut suits) protected and safe. In hulls there's usually a mesh of support "veins" that keep it together even if there's a hole somewhere. Same goes with a spacesuit, though I believe this would likely be much worse for the person in it (since the volume is smaller, and air escaping would affect pressure much faster and with more disastrous effects). Think of a balloon for instance. It holds up just fine when it's blown up (pressure inside is higher than pressure outside). But when we rupture the balloon, it doesn't just shrink, it pops -- the rubber literally rips apart quite violently. On the other hand, if you tape a balloon with packing tape and rupture THAT part, the balloon would lose air but will not pop. The packing tape strengthens the structure and prevents it from ripping uncontrollably. That's the same principle in space ships. At least, it's supposed to be. Some sci fi shows make a point of saying that, specially when a decompression occurs, and some don't. If the ship is not made of something very strong that can prevent rips from spreading, it would likely pop like a balloon. Sorry, I am not sure I got this part... TL;DR? and.. what do you mean the atmosphere pushes outwards and not sucked out? if there's a hole in the ship, it will be sucked out.... I'm not sure I understand the question or confusion? ~mooey