Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Polar ice caps and possible rise in sea level
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 61 of 86 (143296)
09-20-2004 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by riVeRraT
09-20-2004 8:23 AM


Re: refute a theory
quote:
Used to rain cows in England from tornados.
What? do you have any evidence to back that up? British tornados only last seconds at best.
And what does England have to do with Eire?
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 09-20-2004 07:26 AM
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 09-20-2004 07:27 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by riVeRraT, posted 09-20-2004 8:23 AM riVeRraT has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 62 of 86 (143298)
09-20-2004 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by crashfrog
09-19-2004 9:47 PM


Thats an easy one, but your description is missing some things.
At what point on the wheel is the block? The top or bottom?
If it is suspended from the bottom, the axis of the wheel has nothing to do with it, and we can apply: —32 feet per square second or —9.8 meters per square second. Because terminal velocity would have little affect on a distance that short.
But since you mention rotation of the wheel, I am guessing top of the wheel?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by crashfrog, posted 09-19-2004 9:47 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Percy, posted 09-20-2004 10:16 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 09-20-2004 11:34 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 74 by CK, posted 09-21-2004 5:13 AM riVeRraT has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 63 of 86 (143303)
09-20-2004 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Coragyps
09-19-2004 10:53 PM


Re: Hydroisostasy & LGM
Thats awesome, thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Coragyps, posted 09-19-2004 10:53 PM Coragyps has not replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 64 of 86 (143311)
09-20-2004 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by CK
09-19-2004 11:10 AM


Re: Hydroisostasy & LGM
Dear Charles Knight;
As you can see from Percy's post, my findings are controversial and rejected by most here. I would also like to point out the double negative in Percy's argument, that my findings are not marine diatoms and yet are human transported marine diatoms. My argument that Percy confirmed my identification of marine diatoms was based on his inability to identify my findings as something other than what I said they were. I was also able to counter all of the counter arguments presented for other sources of my findings, contamination etc. But my findings are unconfirmed by anyone else and will remain so until I am able to publish a paper. I am still working towards that goal and have much work to do yet to reach it. I am still working on improving my lab procedures, to do the research for a paper, I need a lot more findings which would take far too long with my old method. My research is also just a hobby I try to do in-between being a father with two preschool age boys. If need be, science can wait, my boys can't so sometimes my research is put on the back burner for a while. But hopefully if I can get the bugs out of my lab work and find the free time, I will get my research done.
Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by CK, posted 09-19-2004 11:10 AM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 09-20-2004 10:47 AM wmscott has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 65 of 86 (143312)
09-20-2004 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by riVeRraT
09-20-2004 8:40 AM


It's a pulley problem. The wheel is actually a pulley. The cord is wrapped around the pulley, and from the free end of the cord hangs a block. As the block falls and pulls the cord, the wheel rotates faster and faster. The question asks for the velicity of the block just as it hits the floor.
Here's the problem statement from Crash again:
Crash writes:
There is a wheel of r = 0.38m and m = 1.3kg and attached to that wheel from a cord is a 0.70kg block that is 1.2m off the ground. If the block is released from rest, what speed will it have just before it hits the floor if there is no friction at the wheel's axis?
Crash only presented the problem to you because you said this:
riVeRraT writes:
I have a common sense understanding of science and physics way beyond any jerk scientist that went to 8 years of college, just because I can look around at things at see whats going on.
But you didn't even recognize it as a pulley problem, let alone provide a solution.
Anyone who devotes a considerable proportion of his life to something, as "jerk scientists" do to science, are bound to become pretty good at it. Crash was trying to make the point that scientists actually know some stuff (a lot of stuff, actually) that you don't about science.
There's no harm in not knowing something. Most of us know almost nothing about everything. But I think Crash's attention was caught by the incongruity of your statement given the level of knowledge demonstrated in your posts so far.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by riVeRraT, posted 09-20-2004 8:40 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by riVeRraT, posted 09-20-2004 10:34 PM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 66 of 86 (143316)
09-20-2004 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by wmscott
09-20-2004 10:02 AM


Re: Hydroisostasy & LGM
Hi, Wmscott!
No one faults you for having insufficient time for research.
Where we fault you is in your expectation that we should give serious consideration to your evidence which has seen no peer review or replication.
I, personally, still fault you for initially hiding the fact that you were the author of the book you were promoting, and for not mentioning that it was self-published. This is not the way to establish the trust that might have helped you promote your views. I don't want to hear your rationalizations again. The only thing that would satisfy me is an acknowledgment of your error and a promise and committment to do better in the future by making scrupulous honesty your goal.
When making disclosures there are always questions about what one should and shouldn't include. You answer this conumdrum by asking yourself, "Am I building an impression in people's minds that is contrary to the truth?" In the case of your promotion of your book, the question you should have asked yourself was, "Does this review give the impression it was written by someone who read the book and found it worthwhile, rather than that it was written by the author?"
And in the case of self-publishing the book, you should have asked yourself, "If I don't mention it, will people assume my book was published through traditional channels, thereby lending it greater credibility in their minds than if they knew it was self-published?"
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by wmscott, posted 09-20-2004 10:02 AM wmscott has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 67 of 86 (143327)
09-20-2004 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by riVeRraT
09-20-2004 8:40 AM


At what point on the wheel is the block? The top or bottom?
It's at first point on the wheel where its motion would be strictly downward, obviously.
A "jerk scientist" wouldn't have even needed to ask. Everything you need is in the problem. Go to!
But since you mention rotation of the wheel, I am guessing top of the wheel?
Still wrong. The weight is at that point of the wheel where its motion would be strictly downward, obviously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by riVeRraT, posted 09-20-2004 8:40 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by riVeRraT, posted 09-20-2004 10:47 PM crashfrog has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 68 of 86 (143502)
09-20-2004 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Percy
09-20-2004 10:16 AM


Yes, I can figure that out, with out having gone to college.
He said the block gets released from the rest. I wasn't sure the type of problem he was presenting to me.
So being a smart person, I want to clarify the problem before I tackle it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Percy, posted 09-20-2004 10:16 AM Percy has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 69 of 86 (143512)
09-20-2004 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by crashfrog
09-20-2004 11:34 AM


A "jerk scientist" wouldn't have even needed to ask
Anyone who doesn't ask, is a jerk.
You said released from everything. I thought that might have meant released from the cord also. So I would have had to figure out the forces involved in rotating the circle 1/4 turn, plus falling to the ground.
But I see what it is your showing me now. The weight is completely in the air, and doesn't have to move laterally at all, right?
I would also like to do something with this. Being that I have not been taught the formulas, and maybe you have. you would be able to know exactly how to calculate such a problem.
I will without looking up any formulas, try to figure this out on my own, if we drop the 20 minute part. So I will need to calculate the trade off in energy between the wieght falling, and getting the wheel in motion.
So the speed will be =(the effect of gravity on the wieght)-(energy absorbed by the rotating mass of the wheel)
This is correct?
This all happens in a vacum right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 09-20-2004 11:34 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by coffee_addict, posted 09-20-2004 10:53 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 71 by crashfrog, posted 09-20-2004 11:00 PM riVeRraT has replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 70 of 86 (143515)
09-20-2004 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by riVeRraT
09-20-2004 10:47 PM


the rat writes:
This all happens in a vacum right?
Um... it doesn't matter, if you were thinking about drag.

The Laminator
B ULLS HIT
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by riVeRraT, posted 09-20-2004 10:47 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by riVeRraT, posted 09-21-2004 8:37 AM coffee_addict has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 71 of 86 (143520)
09-20-2004 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by riVeRraT
09-20-2004 10:47 PM


I thought that might have meant released from the cord also.
Jesus, RR, you don't have a clue what's going on in this question, do you? It's a simple problem in angular momentum, one that a first-year physics major might encounter as a "refresher" on the first day.
Being that I have not been taught the formulas,
Shouldn't matter. Remember, you're the one that claimed that you could do just as well as "jerk scientists" equipped with nothing more than your own common sense.
Well, go to. Employ common sense and solve the problem as well as a first-year physics student.
This is correct?
No, because you haven't taken into account the radius of the wheel, which effects its angular momentum.
This all happens in a vacum right?
Air resistance is negligible, so if you want to assume a vacuum, that's fine.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-20-2004 10:01 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by riVeRraT, posted 09-20-2004 10:47 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by NosyNed, posted 09-21-2004 3:24 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 77 by riVeRraT, posted 09-21-2004 8:46 AM crashfrog has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 72 of 86 (143556)
09-21-2004 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by crashfrog
09-20-2004 11:00 PM


Don't be too harsh Crash
Read what RR has posted. He is actually making progress on sussing this out even though he starts from total ignorance. (ok, maybe I'm reading too much in there, but let's be patient).
You have, I think, made a mistake though. RR may get the idea that this problem has something to do with modern physics when it is on the leading edge of the science centuries ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by crashfrog, posted 09-20-2004 11:00 PM crashfrog has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 73 of 86 (143557)
09-21-2004 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by riVeRraT
09-19-2004 8:56 PM


Re: refute a theory
I believe I did, maybe you didn't really read it.
Let's see if I have it all. Maybe you can fill in anything I've missed.
You say that it rained so hard that the water could not run off fast enough so it "piled up" in some way on the sides of mountains. This means that the flood "covered" the whole earth for the duration of the 40 days of rain. That is all that I recall you trying to say.
Is there more? There is a huge amount of data that this can not explain. You may start with the sea shells which many creationists say is evidence for the flood being over the top of the mountains. So you should really go and argue with them to get your speculation accepted.
If your saying that sea shells on a mountain is evidence that the flood didn't happen the way I am theorizing it, then it must have happened a different way, but it did indeed happen then. Unless you can come up with another explainantion for the sea shells.
Yes, I am saying that. Will you either explain how they got there under the conditions you are describing or retract this latest speculation.
I don't have to come up with another way that they got there. That was done decades ago by others.
They are extremely reasonable.
No, they will not produce, or you haven't described how they could produce, what we actually see when examining the geological record. To do this you first have to learn what the geology shows us then and only then figure out an alternative explanation for how it got that way.
I gave a theory so that someone who might know the actual numbers involved and could calculate it, might look at it and say "let me see if it would work" I don't have the time to go and find all the numbers. But not having gone to college, I could easily figure it out.
Then figure it out. You don't have a 'theory' if you don't do the calculations to show what would happen. You may start by calculating the rate of arrival of water on a mountain side, determing how fast gravity can move it off and by doing so determine the depth of water at each elevation down the mountain.
Then, if you want a 'theory', you would suggest what kind of specific evidence this would leave on all the high mountains of the world that could be looked for to check your hypothosis.
Since you haven't done any of that you have nothing. The fact that you think you have is enough to engender significant disrepect of your abilities. I'm not the one who thinks they can contribute anything by making stuff up and not thinking it through.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 09-21-2004 02:36 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by riVeRraT, posted 09-19-2004 8:56 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by riVeRraT, posted 09-21-2004 9:14 AM NosyNed has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 74 of 86 (143561)
09-21-2004 5:13 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by riVeRraT
09-20-2004 8:40 AM


I'm still waiting for evidence of it raining Cows in England.
Link please?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by riVeRraT, posted 09-20-2004 8:40 AM riVeRraT has not replied

IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4437 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 75 of 86 (143568)
09-21-2004 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by riVeRraT
09-20-2004 8:24 AM


Re: refute a theory
Hey, you said "any jerk scientist". I am a scientist, so I'm entitled to take offense - especially when you're talking about my particular field (i.e. geology).
The reason that Ireland's geology is not consistant with the Flood story is that in all the time I've gone on field trips and done field studies, I've never seen any deposit or structural feature that might support it. Yes, I've seen flood deposits - representing local floods. In the context of the Flood story, everything about Ireland is a total anomaly.
Ok, a quick run down on Irish geology... The thing about Ireland is the variety of different deposits from different time periods, all of which are chopped and mashed together by faults and folding from several major tectonic events. If you're determined and have a degree in geology, you could spent a good while looking through the maps on your own, working back through every event and period, and eventually you'll have a general idea of the geological history of the country - needless to say, it's very, very complex.
The point is, Ireland screams 'millions of years', with no trace of any large-scale flooding event that occurred over the entire country. Evidence that might support the Flood just isn't there. For a start, 6000 years just isn't long enough for several tectonic events to occur in this small area of the crust. And if you say that I'm just interpreting the evidence differently, I will be very insulted - and I will post a summary of one of my field studies for your consideration.
Listen RR, you can't start knocking scientists just because you disagree with them. It's also just a bit arrogant to say that your common sense is better than a degree; what a degree essentially is, is several years of learning and studying one subject, aided by people who have already spent a decade or more in learning and studying. Common sense can't be applied to that subject the same way that superior knowledge of it can.
I suppose Isaac Newton said it best: "If I see further than you, it's because I'm standing on the shoulders of giants."
(I know he actually meant something different, but who cares)
The Rock Hound

Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by riVeRraT, posted 09-20-2004 8:24 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by riVeRraT, posted 09-21-2004 9:23 AM IrishRockhound has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024