41

Technology / Re: How good are online translators

« on: 20/09/2022 08:15:35 »

DeepL translator (surely a better english translator than some Bored Chimist) :

"But surely the principle of doing experimentation is not well understood by anyone."

Is translated to :

"Mais le principe de l'expérimentation n'est sûrement pas bien compris par tout le monde."

And doing the translation again to english (yes with e because i like it so, and same with the i, as if you were teaching me something about that...) :

"But the principle of experimentation is surely not well understood by everyone."

So what ?
Anyone has changed to everyone.
I suppose everyone can now see that there is 2 possibilities to understand the first sentence.
But you surely are not part of everyone.

In diplomacy, it's very helpful to say 1 thing, but mean 2.

No it is very awfull.
You probably do the confusion between diplomacy and trade.
Diplomacy and trade are 2 separate words (just to say...).




 

42

Question of the Week / Re: QotW - 22.09.19 - Do nuclear bombs cause global warming?

« on: 19/09/2022 21:27:14 »

Not significantly. The energy released in an average  thunderstorm is equivalent to that of a 20 kiloton nuclear weapon. There are around 2000 thunderstorms in progress at any time, probably 15,000,000 per year, and that's just a small fraction of the daily energy exchange.

I almost used myself the example of the thunderstorms, but it is not consistent.
Because the thunderstorms take energy from the macroscopic world, so there is some equality (almost) between what they take and what they give (i like this simple way to explain null match).
At the opposite, nuclear weapons uses microscopic energy directly from the matter.
So yes, there is some energy added to the macroscopic world.

Is this amount tremendous ?
I dont think so.
Compared to the volcanoes (heat coming from the inner core of the earth) or the sun (heat coming from the fusion of the star), like you say, there is no comparison.

Yes, atomic bomb tests added some energy to the world.
No, this energy is negligible.

But dont be fooled.
If some atomic bomb would be released around the world, the effect (of some of the bombs exploding near soil) would not be their "heat" but the dust going in suspension into the atmosphere (and stratophere).
This would lead, not to some increase of heat, but to some loss of the energy coming from the sun.
So the incoming of some ice age.

Perhaps doing so (using some few atomic bombs near the soil) could stop climate heat change ?
I let the answer to the specialists.

43

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 19/09/2022 21:04:20 »

IMHO i think that we will have the final answer when the theory of the "motion" also give the answer to : "why is there something rather than nothing ?".

But i will not explain it here. Too simple to be believed.
 

44

Technology / Re: How good are online translators

« on: 19/09/2022 20:45:30 »

Something that is not well understood by anyone means that nobody understands it well.

You are wrong.
There are two possibilities to understand it (english langage is not well suited for science... but i known it already)
1. It is not well understand by everyone.
2. Nobody understand it well.

Thats why you do the confusion.
I am not doing the confusion (i am aware of the subtility).
It is you, because you use english language, who are confused (probably because you dont master the ambiguity of your own language or because you fooled yourself because you want to be right) who think there is only one way to understand some words.
Pretty amusing.

Now you know at least why french language has been choosed for diplomatic actvities, and not the english language.

45

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Do animals get static shocks like we do on carpets?

« on: 19/09/2022 20:24:32 »

So why are not cats constantly discharging like cows attempting to drink from troughs under high voltage lines?"

Interresting question.
Perhaps cats (some of the more advanced predator on earth) fur slightly charge and discharge, helping the animal to sense their nearby environment.
Cats fur is somewhat special as it effectivly charge very easily.
They charge positively ... ++++

Cats dont like being wet, perhaps because this diminish their "electrostatic sense" ?

This could be investigated further.

46

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Is there any way for the immune system to detect water molecules?

« on: 19/09/2022 20:06:09 »

The immune system is exquisitely sensitive to water and ceases to function in its absence.

You can also say more clearly that the molecules involved in the immune system dont work when they are not surrounded by water molecules.
Not sure if this will help to answer the question : Can immune system react to water molecules ?

Here we are not talking of "absence of water" but of "presence", so the question remain open (in some logical way).

47

Technology / Re: How good are online translators

« on: 19/09/2022 19:57:17 »

You seem to think that nobody understands how to do experiments.
That's plainly wrong.

No, you have to go back studying logic.
I say that it is not well understood "by anyone".
This mean that not anyone well understand... not that everyone not understand.
This mean that there are some people not able to understand how science experience work (we cant know how much and we are not giving this information).
Do you understand clearly now ?

48

Technology / Re: How good are online translators

« on: 19/09/2022 19:55:02 »

OK, say you want to do an experiment to find out about tigers.
According to you, you can't include a tiger in my experiment because that would be "the phenomenon you want to study."

There is no sense to include a tiger in your experimentation if you already know what a tiger is...

But you can understand the thing better with an other example :
You can not test if someone is stupid if you give him the right answer to the question used to verify if he is stupid.
Is it clearer for you ?

49

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Why don't people internally allergic to H2O react to swallowing their saliva?

« on: 19/09/2022 13:44:18 »

This is true if there is nothing else going on.

And this is the point.
If the biological systems used by the living organism so as to couteract the eventual effect of osmosis due to "pure" (even distilled water can be drunk normaly) water is defect, this could have some effect like the one stated by some individuals.

Also, the stomach is lined with mucous.

And so forth.
I think there are many systems i dont know that also permit to resist to water.

50

Science Experiments / Re: How to demonstrate polarization of light?

« on: 19/09/2022 13:37:40 »

The behaviour of microwave horns is well understood.

But surely the principle of doing experimentation is not well understood by anyone.
You can not demonstrate reliably any further phenomenon behaviour if your experimental devices itself use the phenomenon you want to study.

51

New Theories / Re: what is temperature?

« on: 18/09/2022 19:13:19 »

I dont agree with the explanation at 2mn30
He is doing the comparison of the "temperature" of two systems composed of the same objects.
One has more kinetic energy as the other, so it is hotter (this is what the guy say).
This is wrong.
I think he is doing confusion between temperaure and heat.
Temperature is not a concequence of heat, even if there is a possible link between the two concepts using mass !

He use a specific case (same molecules (same mass) in two systems) to demonstrate a false general conclusion.

Heat and Temperature are totally different things !
First, temperatures cant be added with temperature, but heat can be added with heat.

Here the guy is talking about heat, not about temperature.
To be convinced, just think about "tin air" (few molecules) : It has very low heat, but it can have very high temperature if the speed of the molecules is high.
You could grip it with you hand and dont be burned (no heat...) altought it has very hight temperature.

The best temperature measurement tool is the one who change the less the temperature measured (so when mass of the measurement tool tend to 0).
So here there is no heat involved at all (no "equilibrum" needed unlike the guy say incorrectly).
 
Now, yes the heat is also a mechanical energy, but he say it himself... it is a statistical mechanical energy.

52

Science Experiments / Re: How to demonstrate polarization of light?

« on: 18/09/2022 17:15:30 »

Rectangular "tubes" are not made of plastic. They are made from metal, and act as directional antenna, which concentrate microwave beam to one narrow direction, hence the wave signal can still be measured for longer distance.

Thats bad, because this hinder logicaly some further investigation on the change of direction of the raw wave (you dont know what this initial change could have change on the raw wave)

Furthermore, to be sure to have some straight wave you should use some parabolic reflector like used with radars.
Like here : https://www.radartutorial.eu/06.antennas/Antenne%20parabolique.fr.html

53

Science Experiments / Re: How to demonstrate polarization of light?

« on: 18/09/2022 17:06:26 »

So you have to start with some definition :
What is the wave.
What is the beam.

This is how Google defines wave, with physics as context.

a periodic disturbance of the particles of a substance which may be propagated without net movement of the particles, such as in the passage of undulating motion, heat, or sound.

And the more specific context for electromagnetic wave.

a variation of an electromagnetic field in the propagation of light or other radiation through a medium or vacuum.

And this is how beam is defined.

a ray or shaft of light.
a directional flow of particles or radiation.

Yes, but do you think this kind of mathematical "representation" is compatible with the experimentation you do ?
You infer in a spacialy way and you conclude using this mathematical representation (i dont say you are the only one doing this, so i suppose you already have conditioned thinking).

Perhaps to understand the problem it could be usefull to use the classical "representation" you showed at 1mn02 of this video :

Here, you show some spacialy representation of the "electric field".
Do you really think the figure show how the "field" occupy the 3D space ?
Do you really think the field stop at the value showed by the "arrow" of the field ?
Do you really think the field is limited at some plane ?
If you add the magnetic component of the wave, do you think the field is some monopole ?! (why nobody talk about the N and S of the magnetic field ?)
Do you think the field (result of the photons) cant be received at 100 km perpendicular of the moving independently of the wave length ? (This would be a nice discovery, so we could do the jedi lightsaber...)
What has the lateral espacement of the grid to do with the longitudinal wave length ?...
Etc.

Therefore, i think you should try to explain with "words" and reasoning what the wave "is", at first place (and dont just repeat wrong things you have heard already, so as to add some knowledge).

 

54

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Why don't people internally allergic to H2O react to swallowing their saliva?

« on: 18/09/2022 15:44:10 »

Which leads me to the question, "WTF?"

It is a very good argument.
I will try to answer this profound tought:

WTF.

55

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Why don't people internally allergic to H2O react to swallowing their saliva?

« on: 18/09/2022 13:55:26 »

I've seen several people going to the news claiming to have an internal allergy to water to the extent that drinking a sip of water causes a (potentially fatal) internal allergic reaction, such as anaphylactic shock or swelling of the throat.

So then lets stay focused on the "swelling of the throat".
This is some raw observation and dont constitute a "diagnosis" (anaphylactic shock is already a diagnosis).

This lead to the real question :
How can we even drink water ?

Osmosis should make the cells of the intestines and stomach swell, like it happens when water enter the lungs.
 

56

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Why don't people internally allergic to H2O react to swallowing their saliva?

« on: 17/09/2022 20:18:05 »

According to who? If it was possible to be allergic to water, then that person's body would be in a permanent state of allergic reaction, seeing as how the human body is mostly water.

You forget the first rule when someone ask you to help him.
(when you do computer troubleshooting this is obvious)

Dont believe the diagnosis of the user !!!!
.
The person is actually facing some problem, so he is trying to understand himself his own problem, and this is how he is telling what we can tell "bullshit".
His problem is real, but if you believe that his diagnosis is correct then you are what we can tell "a rooky".

Now try just to understand that the facts are real.
"I drink water, and it makes me ill !!!"

What is your diagnosis if you are some science expert ?
1. He tell lies..
2. I can give some hypothesis.

57

New Theories / Re: Lifting One Weight Higher Than Another Drops

« on: 16/09/2022 14:39:50 »

This thread is descending into absurdity and I am very tempted to lock it

At least i aggre that it is totally absurd to think that the OP can not do the right calculation of 2*(-2).

58

New Theories / Re: Lifting One Weight Higher Than Another Drops

« on: 16/09/2022 13:50:48 »

“ -4 - 2 = -6 “ was not the formula posed, it is very different from “when multiplying 2 * (-2) the value is -6”

I suppose you do the confusion between the word "value" and the word "result".

59

New Theories / Re: Lifting One Weight Higher Than Another Drops

« on: 16/09/2022 11:14:49 »

Maybe the 2 of you can explain this for me? Why when multiplying 2 * 2, the value is +2. Then when
multiplying 2 * (-2) the value is -6.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/eAKoLxNsCuYuJzXq8

Simple
"Why when multiplying 2 * 2, the value is +2" :
2 * 2 = 4
So 4 - 2 = 2
So the value is +2

"Then when multiplying 2 * (-2) the value is -6."
2 * (-2) = -4
So -4 - 2 = -6
So the value is -6

Your problem is not mathematical.

Lol.

60

New Theories / Re: Lifting One Weight Higher Than Another Drops

« on: 14/09/2022 09:13:34 »

My dead mother is only relevant in that she was an English teacher.
Would you like me to invoke her spirit and correct all your mistakes for you?

Perhaps you should invoke her for yourself.
I am sure she could also give you some teaching on general comprehension.

Here it is said : 43 arc seconds is missing time.

I repeat, again and again, that this sentence do no imply that arc seconds are time.
If you dont understand simple general sentences like that, you could effectivly, like you suggested yourself, ask the spirit of your mother to give you some lessons.
Because in reality this sentence mean that seeing that we have a 43 arc seconds difference we can deduce that there is some difference in time.
So simple.