CaptainPanic

Your classmate probably meant that the motivation to study came easy to you. Not the physics itself. In addition, some people find it easier to motivate themselves to study in general. They are more future oriented, others are more present oriented. This explains the principle of past/present/future oriented people. If you watch the first 2 minutes, you get the picture, but the whole movie (= 10 min) is quite entertaining. Natural abilities in math or science (as the OP put it) are a combination of several factors. The two most commonly mentioned are: the ability to understand certain concepts (in a simplified way, that's your IQ), your motivation to study (resulting in more hours of work). If you are bad in 1 part (for example, you are naturally a little slow at understanding new concepts), you can compensate with the other fields (by being more motivated to study and putting in more hours). But you can also use your naturally excellent creativity to find a new way to motivate yourself. Or you can use your natural charisma to ask others to explain things to you. All I try to say is that there is more than 1 road that leads to Rome.

What is Q? What is R? What is P? Not everybody is still in school, and not everybody uses the same books as you. Also, did you maybe mean "Le Chatelier's Principle"? The quality of the answer is often determined by the quality of the question. Especially since you copy-pasted the exact same question onto another website too, you might as well spend a little more time to remove the mistakes. Sorry that I cannot help you, but I really don't understand your question.

On a measure of 1 to 10, I would give it a 9... but that's nothing to be afraid of. Most students fear the maths before starting a course. That's why you will actually get quite a lot of maths courses at uni. It's not just physics. Anyway, physics is so tough, it can indeed become rocketscience. But after you get through your classes, it's probably as tough as you make it yourself.

Who would have thought of that? Btw, that's a serious question... you claim that Thought (with a capital T?) started the big bang, so since thought is a property of life, who was there to think before the big bang? Or are you claiming that Thought is somehow a property of the entire universe? Like, the universe has a certain amount of mass and energy? How much Thought is there in the universe? Is there a conservation of Thought, like there is conservation of energy and mass? Does every particle have thought? Or are there thought-neutral particles as well? What shall we make the unit of Thought (Like force has Newtons, mass has kilograms)? Maybe we should call it the "Ponder". And 1 Ponder is exactly the amount of Thought required to imagine one apple falling from the tree onto Newton's head. The big trick is of course to fit the Ponder into the International system of Units (SI). But most importantly: if we have no idea at all about the very first moment after the Big Bang, and certainly no clue about what happened before the Big Bang (what triggered it), what makes you think it could only have been something that we cannot measure? Even if Thought exists (are we sure of that?), then we're still as stuck as before, because we have no working model for the Big Bang itself. (You want whacky? We got it).

A lot of people take the opposite approach. They think that science is serious, so they come here with their serious face, telling us how brilliant they are and why science (in general) is wrong. It gets boring when multiple crackpots (that's how we call them) join each and every week. Don't worry. The problem we have is that a lot of people visit our site with quite similar posts (yes, your 1st post sounded like a typical crackpot)... and they are dead serious. They are the types who have invented antigravity in their dreams, and who think science is a major conspiracy to keep the rest of the population dumb. I'm glad you're not in that category. This thread can remain open if we're just to have some fun writing some stuff that sounds scientific, but is in fact nonsense. If you decide that you want a more serious feedback on your whacky idea, I propose you present it in a different (and more organized) way. Welcome to the forum.

HenryB, what do you want to achieve with this thread? Why do you want other people to read this? Did you write this to entertain us? Or is there some scientific contents which we can discuss? At the moment, it is a nice collection of scientific words, but I am afraid that it makes no sense to me.

Yes indeed. You can be angry and calm. For example, at this moment, I am angry at my government for collapsing in a time of crisis. But I haven't lost my calm. I am sitting behind my computer, and I feel pretty good actually. I am not boiling over. Still, I am angry about certain things at this very moment. Anger and violence are not the same. Anger and losing your temper are not the same. When applied correctly and functionally, anger can be useful. If you stand up for your rights (calmly!), you defend yourself against any kind of injustice, or you at least protect your own interests.

Let me be the first to give a serious reply. The good So, yes, it is true that we have leaders in our society. They are the heads of state, ministers, and the leaders of large enterprises, as well as a number of very wealthy investors, etc., etc... The more money/goods/people you control, the more influence you have. So far, nothing new. I also agree that we need those leaders. The alternative could be anarchy, and although anarchists claim that would be nice, it wouldn't. I also agree that if we would dispose (somehow) of our current leaders, that someone else would become the new leader. For example, the anarchists might have an inspiring anarchist leader, which they would follow. Yes, there are anarchists who have organized themselves. Silly idiots. So far, these are only really obvious things. The bad But I also disagree with a number of things in the OP: First and foremost, why do you use that silly word "illuminati"?? It's connected to conspiracy stories, and as you can see, nobody wants to be associated with that (including myself). So, don't use that stupid word if you want to be taken seriously. Secondly, I disagree that our leaders need more power. Some argue that centralized financial power has caused the current crisis, and I agree. I do not think centralizing power can solve all problems. Also, the Soviets tried to run their economy from a centralized point of view, and it failed. And the funny Your proposal to give the Illuminati more power fits right in with the ultimate goal of the Illuminati: the New World Order (to form a single world government)... so I can only conclude that you are part of the Illuminati yourself.

Why would anger be destructive? Anger can mean you stand up for your right. It can be a self-preservation. It can be a form of self-defense. When applied in the right way, anger can be very useful and effective in telling someone you disagree with something. Communication is a combination of cooperation and opposition. Sometimes it is useful to oppose someone. Without anger, it would therefore be a lot easier to oppress someone. And I disagree that it is only descructive.

It is not clear enough. You have to improve your style. I read one of your articles again, and I do not understand anything. Maybe your English is bad. Maybe your structure of the text is also bad. My suggestion would be: write the text in Russian, and give it to a technical translation agency. It costs some money to get a good translation of the paper, but at least it means we can discuss science. If you do not improve, we cannot respond. Sorry.

Did this happen on a Wednesday by any chance? Horned Space Travelers from Neptune (*) often get it wrong, and the consequences are consequential! (*) the ones that come from Pluto

Your value of $ 2 billion is pretty close to what an on-shore town of 8000 people would cost! Assuming that a house costs a modest $150,000, 8,000 of such homes cost $ 1.2 billion, leaving only 800 million for all your community buildings, companies, shops, roads/infrastructure, energy, water, etc. Remember that a cabin on a cruise ship is pretty damn small compared to a real house. Based on this comment, I would guesstimate the costs to be a lot higher. And while your city would require no propulsion, it would require quite a bit of engineering. Climate systems would be one concern, but some decent docking system that allows people to come and go is another. So, that cruise ship is a fair comparison. So, yeah, I agree that 2 billion would be a basement value.

It's not just a matter of pressure. The first question is what initial friction you have. What I would advise you to do is to build the underside of the vehicle, and just put some dead weight on it to imitate the engine and propellor. Then get a force meter, and pull on the vehicle from the front it to see the friction it needs to overcome to start moving. Then you know what force you should create with the engine. Then the next step is to realize that pressure equals force/area, or: force equals pressure*area. So, you should design a pressure together with the size of the outlets for the steam (the cross sectional area of the outlets is your area). Good luck.

The video mentions a number of famous historical republican or conservative politicians who were positive about cannabis. But a few examples cannot be extrapolated into a general rule. Finally, the video mentions that the American medical association went on the record to protest the ban on weed. But the medical association isn't related to a political party, so that's irrelevant in relation to the OP's question. So, I don't believe that the movie gives any arguments to say that legalization is a conservative point of view. But it does give a few good anecdotes. Not related to the movie: I always thought that reducing regulation (less government control) was a conservative position, so from that point of view, legalization would be logical. But the movie does not seem to mention that.

What is L? (Or rather, what are L1, L2, L3)? And where do you think will be the losses? It sounds to me that there is no friction, so no losses?

! Moderator Note questionposter, The previous moderator note also counts for you. If you are not contributing to the discussion, don't click on the "post" button. To everyone, either this discussion continues in a polite fashion, or the thread will be closed. Read your post again before clicking on the "post" button, and check whether it is polite and on topic. Do not respond to this moderator note.

Your post is interesting, but it does not explain why the USA has such a large percentage of prisoners in comparison to other countries. On average, there are more people in prison in the USA than anywhere else in the world. John Cuthber was very helpful to give a link to the "List of countries by incarceration rate". ewmon, your post seems to describe some kind of subculture in prison... Why is it that this even exists? Why are there more than 2 million people in prison in the USA (about 0.7%)? Why are there more than 8 times as many prisoners per capita in the USA than for example in the Netherlands, or over 6 times as much as in France?

! Moderator Note Mike Infinity, your last two posts in this thread have contributed absolutely nothing to the discussion. You dismiss valid contributions by members who took the time to read all your text without even giving them a decent reply. That behavior stops here and now. Do not respond to this moderator note.

First of all, building your own water heating is always risky. If you have a closed system, you risk the buildup of steam, and therefore you risk a steam explosion. This is a serious hazard. It's not straightforward to build a control system. If your water flow is too low, you get steam. Too high, and you have cold water. But the main problem is that your heating source is not constant. The heating power of a fire can easily vary by a factor 2, if not more. Therefore, your water will sometimes heat up by just a few degrees, and sometimes by a lot more... unless you can actively control your water flowrate. Anyway, let's crunch some numbers: As a first estimate, you can assume your heat transfer coefficient (U) is 50 W/m2K to 1000 W/m2K. It's a broad range, and the actual value depends on the design. Firebricks are insulators, so it depends how deep you bury the coils into those bricks, if you would want to do that at all. In the calculation below, I take a couple of shortcuts to save time. There are better ways to calculate this, but they also take more time (which I don't have today). This will give you a first impression. So, since 10 meters of 10 mm pipe has a surface area (A) of 0.31 m2. Let's sasume you place your coils at a place where the temperature never exceeds 100 C (that's the safe thing to do). Let's also assume your water comes in at 20 C, and leaves the coil at 80C. The average temperature difference between the wall and the water inside the pipe is (dT) is 50C. The power (P) is then: P = U*A*dT = 50*0.31*50 = 785 W (low value) P = U*A*dT = 1000*0.31*50 = 15700 W (high value) Assuming you want to heat up water from its inlet temperature (Tin) of 20 C to its outlet temperature (Tout) 80C, that means you need a 60 C increase. We want to find the flow (F). We know that the Cp of water is 4180 J/kgK. P = F*Cp*((Tout-(Tin)), so: F = P / Cp*((Tout-(Tin)) = 785 / (4180*60) = 0.003 kg/s, or about 0.19 liter/minute (low value). F = P / Cp*((Tout-(Tin)) = 15700 / (4180*60) = 0.063 kg/s, or about 3.8 liter/minute (high value). It should be noted that the high value is so high that you would be actively cooling down your oven, and you should burn more wood to heat that much water, or risk that your pizza never gets hot enough. Also, cooling your oven that much can affect the draught of the chimney, and therefore mess up your oven. Personally, I would see if there are some commercial (=tested!) solutions for your problem. Off the top of my head, sauna heaters often have hot water reservoirs. A reservoir does not heat up so quickly, and will almost never boil completely dry, which increases safety. Also, your hot water will be available after the fire went out. It might be a starting point from a practical point of view.

It doesn't. But some people use their freedom of speech to offend. And when offensive comments lead to an argument, some people hide behind their freedom of speech, saying that people cannot be angry at them, because they did not break any laws, because after all, it's freedom of speech. Yeah, I agree, as I already said in this post. I was wrong saying it's an absolute, and I don't remember what I was thinking when I wrote that down. I know that there are limits to the freedom of speech, and I agree with it.

But revenge is one of the primary reasons we put people in jail. It pleases a lot of people when a criminal receives a very heavy penalty for the crimes committed... so politicians increase the severity of punishments to win votes. Take a child rapist for example. There may be scientific evidence that with the right treatment, a child rapist can be rehabilitated in only 4 years or so. But of you would let a child rapist walk freely after only 4 years, it would cause outrage. People don't care about rehabilitation, and simply want to see the child rapist rot in the deepest circle of hell. And I agree that there should be an element of revenge in a punishment, especially for crimes that cause mental harm to people. Revenge is (especially in certain cases) very important. Regarding the drug-related crimes you mention: that is only an American problem. And I agree with you that punishments are way too high in the USA. But the distinction shouldn't be between violent and non-violent crimes, it should be measured by the impact that a crime has on a society. Smoking a joint is harmless, and I don't think any punishment is required at all (and there isn't any where I live). But the example given earlier in this thread of Madoff who stole billions is not harmless, and should be punished by jailtime (a life sentence if you ask me).

My point exactly. And I'm taking back my words that it's not to be curtailed. It is. If you and swansont hadn't replied so quickly (i.e. if you had given me another 24 hrs - I'm slow today), I would have edited it out, because I disagree with my own post. There are indeed a few cases where other laws limit the freedom of speech, and I agree with them. Like you say, racism is not allowed in the Netherlands either.

Sure. I'll give 3 different examples. 1. I think one of the better examples was that drawing of someone's prophet, just to show off that it's allowed in our society. Nobody thought that the drawing was particularly funny, and it served no purpose other than provocation. 2. Populist (right wing) politicians also enjoy predudices against people. It's their right to say this to win votes. But it's not actually solving any problems to just point your finger. Racists often hide behind the freedom of speech. 3. I've seen some people getting warnings here on our forum for trolling or soapboxing, who then said "but it's my freedom of speech", when they themselves clearly broke our rules.

Hello! My name is CaptainPanic. I've joined this forum somewhere in 2008, and I already have about 3,600 posts on this forum, and I am a moderator here. I thought I'd just say hello (and show that other people really do read all your introductions). I hope you will all participate in our existing threads, or your own threads, with questions, answers, opinions or other types of posts. Anyway, you're all welcome to the forum.

I never said anything about mandating anything. The freedom of speech is an absolute, and should not be curtailed. But people should take responsibility for the things they say, rather than hide behind their freedom of speech.