41
General Science / How bright are lighthouse lights?
« on: 30/08/2009 10:28:04 »
I think I may have just been insulted [
]
]
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
44
General Science / How bright are lighthouse lights?
« on: 29/08/2009 01:16:45 »Speaking of sailors.. did you know that 3.14 of all sailors are pirates?
38.62% of pirates are Black Sabbath fans.
45
General Science / How bright are lighthouse lights?
« on: 28/08/2009 19:22:26 »
Yes, interesting report. Thank you, SC.
46
Just Chat! / What sheeps did this?
« on: 28/08/2009 19:19:13 »
I thought it was a Siamese Twins Brokerage.
47
General Science / How bright are lighthouse lights?
« on: 28/08/2009 14:57:08 »
SC - why do you say that?
49
General Science / Can dogs learn to ride trains into town for lunch?
« on: 28/08/2009 13:59:34 »
Dogs prefer driving to get their lunch
50
General Science / How does a nebuliser work?
« on: 28/08/2009 13:52:34 »
I've got 1 and I started wondering exactly how the liquid & air combine to make a vapour. Any offers?
51
Just Chat! / What sheeps did this?
« on: 28/08/2009 13:45:15 »
FOGgers of the world unite. We have nothing to lose but our cranes.
Probably doesn't know what STB is either.
Probably doesn't know what STB is either.
52
Just Chat! / How should we answer Questions
« on: 28/08/2009 12:49:07 »
To get back to the original question (unusual for me, I admit), the status of the person answering the question affects the type of answer that will be given. Those of us who live in a mainly academic environment & who use technical language all the time will normally answer in the more formal manner used between peers. Then there are those, among whom I number, who are or have been educators and are used to having to impart knowledge to, for want of a better word, beginners. Our replies tend to be more informal and not loaded with subject-specific language.
I am not implying that either manner of answering is superior to the other, but the point has been raised that most visitors to this site do not have degrees in the subject they ask a question about. That most of the answers given here are readily understandable by the layman is what makes this site unique.
I have seen topics here that have developed into a mathematical examination of the subject that the original poster wouldn't have a hope in hell of understanding. Whilst this kind of intellectual interchange is very interesting to those concerned, and I do not wish to deny them the right to such in-depth analysis, the needs of the person asking the question need to be considered. I myself have asked questions that, to me, seemed as if they should have a fairly straightforward answer, only to find that there is much more involved than I had realised. But throwing complicated maths at me does not help in the slightest. I'm not good enough at maths to understand the reply and if I were good enough I probably would not have needed to ask the question in the first place.
I ask my questions in layman's terms. If I have used a word inappropriately it is because that is the meaning of the word that the general public understands. I don't want to be told that my question is meaningless because the person answering is adhering to a rigid scientific definition of the word. Accept the fact that most visitors to this site would use the word in the same way I do and try to answer accordingly. I have no objection to being corrected (where would we be if misunderstandings were allowed to go uncorrected?), but trying to demean me by simply pointing out my lack of understanding does no credit to the person replying or to the forum in general.
I am not implying that either manner of answering is superior to the other, but the point has been raised that most visitors to this site do not have degrees in the subject they ask a question about. That most of the answers given here are readily understandable by the layman is what makes this site unique.
I have seen topics here that have developed into a mathematical examination of the subject that the original poster wouldn't have a hope in hell of understanding. Whilst this kind of intellectual interchange is very interesting to those concerned, and I do not wish to deny them the right to such in-depth analysis, the needs of the person asking the question need to be considered. I myself have asked questions that, to me, seemed as if they should have a fairly straightforward answer, only to find that there is much more involved than I had realised. But throwing complicated maths at me does not help in the slightest. I'm not good enough at maths to understand the reply and if I were good enough I probably would not have needed to ask the question in the first place.
I ask my questions in layman's terms. If I have used a word inappropriately it is because that is the meaning of the word that the general public understands. I don't want to be told that my question is meaningless because the person answering is adhering to a rigid scientific definition of the word. Accept the fact that most visitors to this site would use the word in the same way I do and try to answer accordingly. I have no objection to being corrected (where would we be if misunderstandings were allowed to go uncorrected?), but trying to demean me by simply pointing out my lack of understanding does no credit to the person replying or to the forum in general.
53
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / What are neutrinos and what do they do?
« on: 28/08/2009 11:59:16 »Gravitation is no problem for a speculative soul. It is photon attraction for other photons. Everyone knows photons attract each other gravitationally. However, most folks then seak some other source for gravitation in general. There is no need for some other source. If the final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field, photon-photon attraction would account for gravity.
The exact mechanism for photon-photon attraction is not known. But I suspect it is that photons exist as saturated points within fields of electric and magnetic force. The fields contribute toward the saturation amplitude, so photons must then migrate toward increasing amplitude of the fields.
*brain explodes
Can you explain what you mean by saturated points? Are they points where the effect of the field is "stronger" (I may have used the wrong word there)? If the EM force is mitigated by photons and you say that photons are saturated points in the EM field, isn't that going round in circles?
I get very confused by fields so I'm probably trying to think in totally the wrong direction.
54
General Science / Why is this probably a faked video?
« on: 28/08/2009 11:33:31 »
I won't post a link to the YouTube vid of well-endowed young ladies on a wet Slip n Slide. That's Slip n Slide on YouTube. [
]
]
55
General Science / How bright are lighthouse lights?
« on: 28/08/2009 11:25:26 »
Thank you all for your replies, by the way.
I notice that no-one has addressed the question of GPS. Surely, GPS is now accurate enough to keep ships away from rocks etc. so are the days of the lighthouse numbered?
I notice that no-one has addressed the question of GPS. Surely, GPS is now accurate enough to keep ships away from rocks etc. so are the days of the lighthouse numbered?
56
General Science / How bright are lighthouse lights?
« on: 28/08/2009 11:23:09 »
Apparently it has now been admitted that the aforementioned interchange between the naval ship & the lighthouse did happen.
57
General Science / How bright are lighthouse lights?
« on: 26/08/2009 23:38:39 »
and other lighthouse based questions:
What is the power output of a lighthouse compared to a 100w household bulb?
Are lighthouse lights just bigger versions of household bulbs?
Do lighthouses still perform a useful function in these days of GPS?
Any pharologists who can answer these questions will have the beaver's eternal gratitude.
What is the power output of a lighthouse compared to a 100w household bulb?
Are lighthouse lights just bigger versions of household bulbs?
Do lighthouses still perform a useful function in these days of GPS?
Any pharologists who can answer these questions will have the beaver's eternal gratitude.
58
Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Can chickens get hiccups???
« on: 24/08/2009 22:59:04 »
Chiccups! [
]
]
59
Just Chat! / How should we answer Questions
« on: 24/08/2009 14:05:52 »
Newton's laws of motion are actually being called into question now, are they not? I've read a lot of articles where the new theory is dismissed out of hand simply because the existing laws have apparently passed the test of time. I call that entrenchment.
60
Just Chat! / How should we answer Questions
« on: 24/08/2009 13:28:37 »QuoteI think people do realise how entrenched science can beThe word "entrenched" is a bit loaded, is it not? Buildings can be relied upon to stand up because their foundations are laid in "trenches". One man's "entrenchment" is another man's "foundation". (Or person's, if you like)
I think entrenched is the right word considering how vehemently certain theories are defended by their advocates. But do we really want to get into semantic arguments?