Jump to content

Strange

Moderators
  • Posts

    25528
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    133

Everything posted by Strange

  1. Unless it specifically says so, you do not have permission to copy it. If the planes turns to left of right then the pendulum will swing the other side at. Which is kind of the point. If your plane were moving like that, then I think you have bigger problems than whether a pendulum can show your orientation It is hard to see how this is relevant to a plane in controlled flight
  2. My understanding is that the USPTO simply has a blanket ban on patents for perpetual motion machines. They just go straight to the "rejected" pile without any further consideration (and no appeal). (This is effectively the same as "until proven to work" but without the time wasting!) It might be of limited use when the plane is accelerating, but once the plane has reached a steady velocity I can see that it could be a useful indicate of the angle the plane is flying at. It might need to be damped to avoid being thrown around by every bump. Do you have the author's permission to pst this here?
  3. You would just need to understand the behaviour you wanted to build in. We do that all the time with current computers. We observe behaviour. The "source" is that it is hardwired. In animals, that means it is encoded in the genes. You seem to have fallen back on the "it is mysterious therefore impossible" argument. Why not just use the word "soul" and have done with it. It was a joke. Because of your quasi-religious argument. We could try and evolve AIs to do what we want. But we don't need to rely on millions of years of evolution because we can design a system with the characteristics we want. We can understand non-human behaviour. We can also attribute intelligence to non-human behaviours. So these arguments seem pretty shallow. Do you have anything to say other than "humans are special therefore AI is impossible"?
  4. ! Moderator Note Do not start another thread on this.
  5. ! Moderator Note Provide this math, and show how it matches observation, in your very next post or this thread will be closed.
  6. This is just evidence that people are searching for something to justify their beliefs. Not all vaccines contain mercury. So in the uk, people latched onto Wakefield’s lies and faked results as a cause. In the USA, where some vaccines contained mercury in the past (as a preservative) they latched on to that. Even if you remove mercury, the anti-vax (or pro-disease) lobby don’t shut up. And even when it is proved that Wakefield's results were fraudulent and he abused the children in his care, the pro-disease lobby still use him as a reference.
  7. Exactly. But each of the "steps" (0 to +1, +1 to 0, 0 to -1, -1 to 0, etc) are 90° apart. Which is what the OP said. I just wanted to understand your point (and this discussion was off topic in the original thread). Quite.There is so much that is actually wrong in the original thread, which is why I picked you up for arguing about an interpretation of the word "apart".
  8. It interesting how we seem to interpret the same words quite differently. Consider this line (from an imaginary Sherlock Holmes story): "Holmes pointed out the faint footsteps in the dust, just under 1 yard apart leading to the door" Now, from that you would appear to deduce that the person who left the footsteps must have been walking in a small circle (or doing an odd dance). Whereas, I see it as quite reasonable for the footsteps to be in a line and spaced by 1 yard (even though there are increasingly large distances from the first footprint. You seem to think that "N things X distance apart" must all be X distance from all the others. Or does this interpretation only apply to angular measures?
  9. Yes, I read what the OP wrote. It is completely accurate. For a sine wave, 0° is zero, 90° is +1, 180° is zero, 270° is -1. These are 90° apart. (Obviously, they are not "all" 90° apart, but that bit is your invention). ! Moderator Note Off topic (but kind of interesting) discussion split to here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/121402-split-from-on-the-fractal-nature-of-our-universe/
  10. I am pretty sure that Nostradamus did not know about viruses. I am not aware that he had any scientific theories, either. And viruses do not have cell membranes. What is "tesla electric"? Are you suggesting using electric cars to destroy viruses? So, has anyone considered any of this? Probably not. It appears to be nonsensical.
  11. ! Moderator Note Where does it say they are "all 90o apart from each other" ? I'm sure there are real issues with the OP's idea that you could discuss without resorting to silly strawman arguments.
  12. ! Moderator Note Your questions (demands?) are very specific. Is this homework? Why? Why not use the obvious, simple method?
  13. What does this mean? What is the “size” of the Big Bang expansion? What is this lower zone of pressure? And around what? Difference in what pressures?
  14. Don't worry. You are not going to have to fly to Sweden on the basis of this incoherent nonsense.
  15. Well if we assume that the alcohol has some bitter/toxic component, after using it on your hands you would want to wash your hands. In which case, you might as well just have washed your hands in the first place. And if there is a risk it might be absorbed or cause skin irritation / dermatitis, then I would avoid it for that reason as well.
  16. Well, you seem to have made your mind up. Good luck.
  17. And many alcohol products like this have toxic compounds added to try and stop people drinking them. So I wouldn't want too much exposure to it. One way of extracting alcohol from a mixture of alcohol and water (e.g. cider) it to freeze it. The water freezes and leaves the alcohol behind. The problem with this is that it is difficult to control the purity of the alcohol. And it is illegal in many jurisdictions. I think cider was suggested because (in the UK) it is a cheap alcoholic drink. (In some countries, "cider" just means apple juice.)
  18. That is how it was derived. OK. Thanks for confirming that you don't understand the basic concepts of special relativity.
  19. The thing is, he derived the Lorentz transform from the starting assumption that the laws of physics (ie. speed of light) are the same in all frames of reference. The fact that it then correctly relates measurements in those frames of reference is not surprising (in fact it is rather obvious). I am not aware of Einstein ever using "a stripped down Michelson interferometer." (And I can't find any previous reference to it in this thread.) So the fact that the theory works, and correctly predicts the results of experiments, raises doubts in your mind? Do you understand how science works? (Based on your posts n this thread I am not sure you even know how SR works.) I suggest you do that in a new thread in the Speculations section so as to avoid breaking the forum rules.
  20. The overall cycle: bright-dim-bright (or dim-bright-dim) is around 420 days. Most of that period is bright with shorter (variable length) dimmer periods. There seem to be different processes with slightly different periods which is one reason for the great variability in the variations
  21. But sometimes it goes back to being brighter and sometimes dimmer. There is a long term graph here: https://twitter.com/EricMamajek/status/1208176941502590976?s=20 It doesn't look that unusual. It appears to have got this dim in the 1980s. And presumably many times in the past. It is a variable star. So varying is what it does. https://earthsky.org/space/betelgeuse-fainting-probably-not-about-to-explode Looks like the dimming may be over: http://www.astronomerstelegram.org/?read=13512
  22. Why not. The ability to create new stars depends on many factors but, I assume, mainly the amount of hydrogen available and how it is distributed. Not all galaxies in a particular area are identical. They will have formed at different times, be different sizes, have experienced different things. Some may have stopped creating new stars and then started again after some even such as a collision with another galaxy caused gas to compress enough to start another period of star formation.
  23. Ravell suspended again for a refusal to accept that the rules apply to them
  24. ! Moderator Note Obviously not ! Moderator Note No you don't ! Moderator Note Ironic from someone who is terrified of learning. Which is a good reason to close this thread. Do NOT start another one on this subject.
  25. As you can see from the graph, sometime the bright part of the cycle is dimmer and sometimes it is brighter.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.