mooeypoo

Here: n_H5ZIoZSBo If you go over to the youtube video, the explanation on the sidebar is quite good, actually. When you open your beer bottle, you release the gasses - which is what happens when you "tap" the bottle too (and why this "trick" works). If you want to avoid surprises, try tapping the bottle or can *BEFORE* opening it, wait a few seconds, and then open -- it should freeze prior to opening so at least you won't random unexpected spills anywhere. That said, I can't believe no one noticed this bit before: (underline not in source) Lovely, dude-with-military-email Your beer shouldn't be close to your steering wheel whether it's freezing or not... just sayin' ~moo Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAh, an even better video with some tidbit of explanation: 3qFXyEFMwBE

Sure, good prescription glasses would solve it all. Seriously, though, it *might* be a CSS mismatch for some browser versions (it happens, and usually it is very frustrating figuring out where and what), but I think Cap'n made the style and he's the CSS mastah, so.. I'm not sure. This is the only site it happens on, right? If it isn't, it's likely chrome, but if it is, then it's probably the CSS.

Here you go again trying to confuse me with facts.

Is this a homework problem?

Please try to refrain from giving away answers. We're here to help making sense of the homework problem so members can solve other similar problems for themselves, not feed our members the answers. Just a reminder.

Yes, indeed, scientists "crush" each others' theories all the time, but the scientists who do that actually know what they're talking about, and are able to support their claims with falsifiable testing. You're not. By the way, don't get me wrong here -- the fact that you're trying is a noble attempt, and you shouldn't just "drop it" because people criticize what you do. However, falsifiability isn't rocket science -- it's quite simple -- you need to find a way in which your statement MIGHT be wrong. Start by *finding* such statement or condition - not even testing it, just.. finding it. If none exists,you should consider that you might have a problem with your logical reasoning; anything unfalsifiable is unscientific by definition. If you can find those, we might be able to see if there are others out there with better equipment or knowledge that can actually physically test those falsifiable claims -- but the step of finding them is yours, since you're the one who knows your own idea. It should be part of your self assessment as to the validity of your ideas/theories. And btw -- happy birthday ~moo

Cool, if it's working, it seems like a good copied script. Good luck!

Yah.. by a quarter of a day,roughly... which I was sure is why we add a day every four years.. no? Yup, and it's .24 which is almost a quarter, hence another day every 4 years. Indeed. My point is that *WE* defined the year this way, not the universe.. as far as the universe is concerned we're off with our count which is why we need to "correct" for the actual orbit, not the other way around. We defined a unit of measurement, and the unit isn't really exactly precisely sufficient to describe our orbit time, so we have to play with it.. we add a day, we sometime extend a year by an extra second (like we did this year), etc. That doesn't mean it's nature's fault, though. Nature's just fine. We defined our definitions *before* we knew how to measure these processions so now that we know they're inaccurate, we have to fix our definition. I just don't understand what the big deal is.. what's so "earth shatteringly unphysical" with the difference of the definition *WE* created? It's not like the Earth is behaving in an inconsistent way, or is acting against the laws of nature -- it's perfectly fine.. we just need to define ourselves better. Yup. And all those are OUR definitions... it's like saying "Look! Here's a cube. It's also a square, when you look at it straight-on." and then go "OMG OMG I can't have both a square and a cube it's just not right it's impossible!"... well, it's possible because you are the one who made the definition twice: once as a three-d object, and once as a head-on view. therefore, the shape itself isn't different, it's just our measurement -- which we defined! -- is different. Why is this surprising?

If you want a bot that kicks and bans people, you can download a pre-made script for that. If you want to program it yourself, you have to learn the basics. You seem to need to read up about conditionals (if/else statements) and whiles and all that, and about how to keep things in { } proper brackets. And the general gist of a programming language -- IE, have the theoretical idea in your head and how to translate it into the script, etc. Read up, come back when you can at least build theoretical ideas for the code.. as it goes now, we're going in circles because you lack the very basics of the language. I can't help with that, you need to read about it.

Spyder... seriously, mah man... you need to go over if statements, yous statement is not even in the right place. The "if" should OBVIOUSLY be BEFORE the "else".. Like so: on *:TEXT: !ban *:#bottest: { [b]if ( $nick isop $chan || $me isop $chan ) {[/b] /ban $chan +b $address($2,2) | /notice $nick $2 has been banned! } else { /msg $nick You're banned from this channel. } }

Your syntax is again screwed up. The bot doesn't know what to do with "!ban" since it's not a mirc command.. perhaps you meant "/ban" ? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Also, my friend, where did the "if" statement go? you can't have "ELSE" without the "IF".. if you decide to get rid of the "if a user is op" statement, then you need to get rid of the followup "ELSE", and if you want to keep it, you need to keep the if statement. I think you should go over syntax. And rules of conditionals.

Spyder, the syntax is: ON [level]:[type of input]:[text inputted]:[where?]: { routine to run } So your script is saying, essentially, that no matter what user level (first *), if the script sees a TEXT that equals "!kick" in the channel #bottest, it will run the routine. Your syntax for "ban" should be DIFFERENT condition than the syntax for "Kick".. what you did in the above snippet is tell your script to react to someone saying "kick" and then check if they wrote !ban... that's not the way it works. you either tell your script to react on *EVERY* text input and then test what the input is (and react accordingly) *or* you set it up to react to specific text inputs. Don't mix the two up. go over my example above again.. see how I separated the two commands.

Okay now it's working. Now the bot essentially reacts EVERY time someone speaks in the channel. You should change that, it's also simpler to read and operate. Something like this: on *:TEXT:!kick *:#bottest:{ if ( $nick isop $chan || $me isop $chan ) { /kick $chan $2 $3- | /notice $nick $2 has been kicked! } else { /msg $nick You're unauthorized. } } on *:TEXT:!ban *:#bottest:{ if ( $nick isop $chan || $me isop $chan ) { /mode $chan +b $address($2,2) | /notice $nick $2 has been banned } else { /msg $nick You're unauthorized. } } BTW, you should probably do "&&" in the 'isop' condition. What you have at the moment is a condition that EITHER the bot is op *or* the user is op. That means that if the bot is op but someone NON op is requesting !kick, the bot will comply. That might not be what you want. We could add more access codes later for permissions and user ranks, etc... but for starters, I'd change the "if isop" to && instead of "or". Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Your syntax is all screwed up. Look at my example above.

Ok, seeing as the bot doesn't respond at all, make sure the script is active first. You are opped in #bottest so it *should* work. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedoh, I almost missed it, I think you have an extra : Here: on :*:TEXT:*:#bottest:{ should be on *:TEXT:*:#bottest:{

I thought that at first, but then I saw this one: doesn't look like the rocket in the middle...it;s not the moon? Well, it seems a bit too big, but that would make it weird for a missile too. I thought that was the moon, distorted. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedBesides, the ejecta is getting thinner towards the bottom - which I thought that's where the direction is headed - the ejecta expands with time, so the narrower parts will lead to the current location of the missile... Am I getting this wrong, though?

What's the bright spot?

First picture -- what's the bright white spot? is'nt that the moon behind the ejecta of the rocket? Though a bit distorted. If you look at the other two pictures, the moon is again a bit distorted, look: Is that not the moon?

You seem to be a happy camper when you want to crush the work other - professional - scientists are doing, but when you're asked to follow up with a relatively simple falsification, you claim you're not a professional? Seriously, elas, choose. Either you know enough to crush common knowledge, or you don't, and you need further study. ~moo

By the way, I can't help but wonder if this isn't a simple result of our confusion for the first one. For that matter, look at the pictures from the missile over norway - the moon is weird, it's distorted. I'm not quite sure why (a filter?) so I wonder if the second images/video isn't a simple case of "been there, seen that" where the people working on the pictures spent less time working out weird ways of presenting them..?

Sidereal year and tropical year are both definitions created by humanity to define two different situations... I'm to sure I understand how one can argue they're physically wrong or, for that matter, what difference it would make for our understanding of physics, if they are our own definition. It's as if we realized that "sobbing" and "crying" are only slightly different, and then argued the distinction is false, isn't it? we're the ones making that definition from different points of view. We defined them differently from the beginning. The differences between them are also the reason we add an extra day each four years (February 29th). It's a logical result of two slightly different definitions of a year.. not sure I get why this difference is such a big deal?

SKF, this is very simple: You need to specify an inertial frame, otherwise this calculation makes no sense. There are an infinite amount of answers depending on infinite amount of reference frames. You seem to use a certain number of seconds and claim that's the movement of the sun. It may well be, but it is *not* in the reference frame you claim it is. If you mix reference frames, you make no sense. That's really quite simple. You were told this fact multiple times in here and in the other forum.. I am hoping that this is due to some fundamental misunderstanding you have about the need for reference frames, so I am being patient and really trying to understand what you mean -- but it's very hard when your descriptions are so confusing. Which scenario are you talking about? (A) Stationary camera on the surface of the Earth, looking at the visible sky, making a "movie" of the sun every day for one year. (B) Satellite orbiting the Earth in a point where it always faces the sun above the Earth - on a fixed point between the Earth and the Sun - taking a snapshot once, then a year later another snapshot, and you want to calculate the difference (the "sum" of movement in relation to the Earth). These are two different reference frames.. one speaks of the apparent movement of the sun in the sky (A) and the other describes the apparent movement of the Sun relative to the earth as a whole (B). Pick one.

It seems this has happened again.

Due to the rotation of the Earth around itself, which is a different frame of reference. You're mixing two frames of reference up, and then take the answer based only ONE frame and compare it, declaring it to be false. See the problem? Again, this is too vague. The sun travels in the sky because the Earth rotates around itself. The sun changes position relatively to the Earth (regardless of rotation) within a year but then it doesn't quite "travel in the sky". You are mixing two frames. No, you seem to be mixing the two. What I stated was a reference frame *NOT* from the surface of the Earth (I ignore rotation around itself). You say "yes" to my description but include the rotation of the Earth around itself. That would not be a 'Right', to my description: it would be a wrong. You're mixing two frames. Again. Choose one.

But the above is wrong, and the two links D H posted explain why. Let's try to see this again, SKF - You seem to be choosing one reference frame (a crappy one at that, for this type of calculation, seeing as it mixes up the rotation of the earth around itself WITH the rotation of the earth around the sun) and expect the answer to fit a different reference frame (just the rotation around the sun). Things don't quite work this way. It's also confusing to answer. And it's definitely not yielding the simplistic calculation you posted. So.. can you clarify here? What reference frame are you talking about? Let me try and understand: Do you mean we look up at 00:00 on day X and take a "picture" of the sun's location in respect to a specific post, then we wait a full year (365 days) and take the same picture at 00:00 on day X a year later, then compare the position of the sun? Is that what you mean? Or rather, do you mean how it moves apparently to us while we're looking up? Because if you mean the second, then the sun appears to move because the Earth rotates around itself, on top of the fact that it seems to move because the Earth is moving around the sun. When we calculate the differences and the sun's apparent movement, we don't usually mix the two up because mixing them up is useless. We calculate either-or, from a reference frame that isn't rotating around itself. Is that clearer?

Indeed. Read the rest of the posts