|
TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote: My disagreeing with your beliefs is not ill mannered.
Sure, just the way it's phrased.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
No offense meant. Sorry if it was ill phrased.
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
"It's not what we don't know that gets us into trouble. It's what we know that ain't so."
It's a quote from somewhere (I don't remember where I read it.).
I'm thinking of phlogiston, or the aether.
|
|
|
|
|
YaakovF wrote: "It's not what we don't know that gets us into trouble. It's what we know that ain't so."
Well, just thank Heavens we know that google is our friend!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps you're confusing the terms nature and science. Nature, specifically how the natural universe works, never changes, but science, how we perceive and model it, changes constantly including how we use models that might be in disagreement to each other but work within their respective contexts.
Even so, what makes something that doesn't change more important than something that does change?
(Psst, you don't have to answer that; it was just rhetorical.)
|
|
|
|
|
I think you're correct in your assertion. Take Newtonian mechanics as an example: Newton formulated his laws on planetary motion but it took till Einstein to come along and refine them to give a more accurate picture. Even this might not be fully correct and someone in the future comes along and refines them even more. Therefore, the science changes. The fundamental laws do not. Whether we understand the fundamental laws FULLY is a different matter and what science is all about.
modified 6-Sep-22 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
You're confused.
Politics unfortunately rules our lives. The more politics there is the more tyranny and that's the situation most countries find themselves in.
China landing on the moon means NOTHING to the vast majority of humanity.
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: science ... because it never changes
Your definition of science doesn't correspond to either my definition or the ones I found on google. Your statement is probably meant to express something closer to 'natural laws do not change over time'.
Google term: define:science
1. "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."
The above definition refers to a process carried out by people. As a process that doesn't define the nature of the universe but even that changes over time (for instance how statistics are applied and used have changed over time.)
2. "a particular area of this."
Presumably this definition is not applicable to your usage at all since is used to name a discipline and not what the discipline achieves.
3. "a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject."
This is closest to your usage but it definitely can and has changed over time.
|
|
|
|
|
Herself has discovered - I blame Google - that today is Perihelion, and that we are over 5,000,000km closer to the sun than we were last July. She has also noticed that it is in fact bl**dy freezing round here and that it wasn't last summer. 
Now I know it's that the axis of rotation is not perpendicular to our rotation round the sun and that the tilt of a tiny (13,000km) object affects the temperature more than being 5,000,000km closer to a huge ball of fire, but ... how do I explain that to her? When she is cold, she moves closer to the heat, not leans over a tiny bit! 
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
The difference between aphelion and perihelion is only about 3.4%
On that basis She should expect to get warmer when she breathes in deeply. (If she's facing the fire her front parts will get about that much closer when she breathes in.) Of course, it would help if she breathed in and out slowly, for six months each.
Phil
The opinions expressed in this post are not necessarily those of the author, especially if you find them impolite, inaccurate or inflammatory.
|
|
|
|
|
Get her to stand in front of the fire and lean back as far as she can. Now ask her whether her head is as warm as her feet. Alternatively, while in the leaning position, walk round a bonfire for a year.
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, yes - my favourite topic!
Happy new arbitrary-period-of-time-close-to-but-not-quite-one-year-from-the-entirely-arbitrary-date-when-this-was-last-celebrated to one and all!
We should really celebrate the tropical year, the sidereal year or the anomalistic year - these can be calculated precisely. Let's face it - so the earth nearly - but not quite - went around the sun once from an entirely arbitrary position, both astronomically and calendrically. The earth actually needs to spin another two quarter days to get to where it was (roughly) since the last leap year.
Sidereal year = 365 d 6 h 9 min 9.76 s
Tropical year = 365 d 5 h 48 min 45 s
Anomalistic year = 365 d 6 h 13 min 52.6 s
As a result of all this arbitrary nonsense, I now celebrate perihelion day. This morning I toasted in the new year with a bacon buttie and a large bloody Mary, at 07:20 local time (GMT +2).
Next year, the UK can join in without getting up at sparrowfart, as perihelion occurs nearly two and a half hours later.
So happy REAL new year to one and all. 
|
|
|
|
|
The buttie sounds good, but that's a little early in the day for me to start drinking vodka. At least, I hope you were referring to the cocktail? What was your wife's name again ... 
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: What was your wife's name again ...
Definitely not Mary - 'though she can be quite contrary at times.  She joined me with a buck's fizz, as today is not a working day. 
|
|
|
|
|
Wouldn't the latest sunrise of the year be the right time to start the new year? According to my calendar, the latest sunrise occurs on January 6, so Happy New Year! 
|
|
|
|
|
As Phil said, the difference between perihelion and aphelion is only ~3.4%, so that isn't the cause of the difference. The difference is due to the fact that the Sun is (a) lower in the sky now than it was in July, and (b) appears for fewer hours in the day. Both these phenomena are due to the Earth's axial tilt.
If the Sun is directly overhead (which can never happen in Wales) on a cloudless, clear day, you will get the maximum possible amount of light & heat. When the Sun reaches a maximum height of ~60 degrees above the horizon, which is what you get in June, then the amount of light and heat is only ~86% of the maximum possible. When the Sun reaches a maximum height of ~15 degrees above the horizon, which is what you get in December, then the amount of light and heat is only ~24% of the maximum possible.
The effect of having Perihelion close to the winter solstice is to slightly moderate the cold of winter in the Northern hemisphere. A similar effect, moderating the heat of summer, occurs at aphelion.
Note that the actual effects of less sun are moderated due to the gulf stream, the winds in the atmosphere, etc. etc.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: how do I explain that to her?
"The Earth is flat!" That should prevent any further questions.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
Just point out that she's in Wales.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: how do I explain that to her?
Campfire on a cold night. Stand close enough so that front is warm but backside is cold. Now move forward half an inch and see if backside now gets warm.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: how do I explain that to her?
"There, there, dear, don't worry your pretty little head".
|
|
|
|
|
Conclusive proof that you are either
1) Single
Or
2) A UK Conservative Prime Minister.
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
|
 very cool indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
I don’t think the average person, myself included, can ever fully understand the magnitude of this accomplishment. In fact, the quantities involved are so far beyond the human experience, I suspect even the mission scientists and engineers struggle to truly visualize them.
First, consider the distance. Assume you wanted to emulate this trip. So, you decide to continually fly round-trip from New York to Sydney, until you equal the distance. Bad news here. It would take over 200,000 round-trip flights. Assuming you fly one leg of this round-trip, every single day, you would be flying for a bit over a thousand years.
The good news is that, if you’re willing to wait that long, you’ll save a bit on the trip. At around $200M for the commercial flights, you’d beat the $700M price tag for New Horizons 
Next, consider the navigation. Imagine you fire a bullet moving about 20 times as fast as the average rifle round. Your target is a different fast-moving bullet. Finally, make the problem a bit more difficult by requiring that you ricochet off two other fast-moving bullets on the way. Oh, and don’t forget that distance we talked about earlier. Simple right?
Then, consider the engineering. You decide to build a contraption that can accomplish almost all of these goals. Though, at that point you’re “only” aiming at that second bullet. You haven’t decided you’ll ricochet off of it yet.
So, you plan and lobby, lobby and plan…for a couple of decades. Then, you get permission (and funding) to actually build the thing. A few years later its built and launched. Yeah! Success, right?
Nope, you get to wait, and watch it travel, and wait…for an additional decade. Along the way, you decide that second ricochet would be really cool! You even find another bullet to hit. Finally, decades later, if you’ve got the patience, and are still around, you get to enjoy the payoff.
All done right? Maybe. They’re talking about another ricochet and another bullet
Personally, I am in awe of this accomplishment. And, more, as an engineer myself, the patience it must require to begin a project that might not be completed until after you’re gone.
Kudos, NASA! Home run on this one!
Now, can we talk about that Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway? Are you sure about it? Can I talk you out of it, please?
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
