Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9208 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,436 Year: 6,693/9,624 Month: 33/238 Week: 33/22 Day: 0/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A test of your common sense
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1534 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 121 of 137 (666118)
06-22-2012 3:52 AM


Edit.. it's been answered.. and I can't be arsed.
Edited by Heathen, : No reason given.

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9580
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 6.6


(1)
Message 122 of 137 (666119)
06-22-2012 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Bolder-dash
06-21-2012 10:32 PM


Bolder-dash writes:
Only the experts can understand evolution, it defies common sense
Very young children can understand 2+2=4, but not usually Calculus until they are older and have learned more.
Children can understand the simple concepts of evolution - that small changes that are beneficial to organisms will be selected for in their environment and carried on by their offspring - but will probably never understand the molecular biology that underpins it unless they go on to specialise in that field of study.
I understand the principles behind bridge building but I could not even attempt to generate the maths necessary to actually design one - we leave that job to those whose life's work is to do it.
Uneducated individuals not understanding the intricate detail of everything, does not negate the facts that bridges carry loads and are successfully built, calculus works and evolution happens. Thinking that everyone needs to understand everything or that everything needs to be common sense for it to be true or to work would be silly wouldn't it?
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-21-2012 10:32 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-22-2012 4:56 AM Tangle has replied

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 123 of 137 (666120)
06-22-2012 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Bolder-dash
06-21-2012 10:32 PM


Thank you for that Taz. Only the experts can understand evolution, it defies common sense!
No evolution is simple and completely logical its just some people have more common sense then others.
But there are things that dont go well with common sense like say speed. Everything you pushed in life goes faster, but if you would travel at the speed of light and push something it would not go faster because it cant.
There are allot of things people believe that go tottaly against common sense like magic men in the sky managing the world. Like you know why earthquakes happen but when an earthquake hits Japan and fucks up their nuclear power plant suddenly that was magic-mans doing. And when they pull a little girl out from under some rubble after 7 days its magic man again he saved her it wasent just dumb luck or because he had the sense to hide under the door frame when she felt the earthquake, and all the rescuers and helpers, and their trained dogs had nothing to do with saving her life it was all magic man praise him.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
Click if you dare!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-21-2012 10:32 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3881 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


(1)
(1)
Message 124 of 137 (666122)
06-22-2012 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Tangle
06-22-2012 3:53 AM


Sorry Tangle, but you will have to take that up with Taz. He will tell you that you are not really qualified to discuss evolution, because you can't use common sense to figure it out, and you don't have the technical education to make an educated guess about it. I guess we have to wait to hear from the expert to know what's true, whoever he is.
Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Tangle, posted 06-22-2012 3:53 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Drosophilla, posted 06-22-2012 7:29 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 128 by Tangle, posted 06-22-2012 7:51 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1534 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 125 of 137 (666125)
06-22-2012 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Taz
06-21-2012 1:35 PM


The point of the wheels is to transfer the load to the ground.
so put the wheels directly under where the plant pot transfers its load to the dolly.
that is the simplest most straight forward load path. a straight line down.
otherwise you're introducing a moment into the cross members.
Edited by Heathen, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Taz, posted 06-21-2012 1:35 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Taz, posted 06-22-2012 2:06 PM Heathen has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 137 (666126)
06-22-2012 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Taz
06-20-2012 5:57 PM


Taz writes:
I was really hoping for some more creationist participation in this thread, since a lot of them seem to be all knowing.
Hi Taz. Wouldn't it have been better to ask a question to Creationists about evolution that would require an answer beyond what common sense could provide and see what kind of answers we would have given?
I think when Creationists give answers that suggest it's common sense it's more along the lines of "well, common sense says it's designed".
I don't think it happens much where an evolutionist were to ask "given a population of wolves how many changes in that population would it take for a novel feature to evolve?"
I don't think Creationist' would answer "well, common sense says "so and so".
It depends on how technical the debate is, who's debating and what the subject is. Your OP here is asking a question about a topic related to engineering and asking what Creationists think cause "a lot of them seem to be all knowing".
It might have been better to ask a topic related to the creation/evolution debate that was somewhat technical to make your point.
If you think that a lot of Creationists seem to be "all knowing" I assume you mean when it comes to the "debate" and not engineering.
So, maybe to test this hypothesis a thread should be made to see what kind of answers you might get from a question related to the creation/evolution debate that goes beyond what common sense would say.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Taz, posted 06-20-2012 5:57 PM Taz has not replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3892 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(4)
Message 127 of 137 (666128)
06-22-2012 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Bolder-dash
06-22-2012 4:56 AM


Sorry Tangle, but you will have to take that up with Taz. He will tell you that you are not really qualified to discuss evolution, because you can't use common sense to figure it out, and you don't have the technical education to make an educated guess about it. I guess we have to wait to hear from the expert to know what's true, whoever he is.
Sorry Tangle, but you will have to take that up with Taz. He will tell you that you are not really qualified to discuss evolution, because you can't use common sense to figure it out, and you don't have the technical education to make an educated guess about it. I guess we have to wait to hear from the expert to know what's true, whoever he is.
NO!
That is NOT what Taz has said. He is not saying only experts can discuss evolution (or whatever they are expert in). what he is saying is that you can't apply everday common sense carte blanche.
You should never apply 'common sense' to detailed investigations as 'common sense' from a scientific point of view is often utterly inadequate to explain reality.
Common sense seems to show the Sun goes around the Earth.
Common sense seems to show that time is fixed
Common sense seems to show that matter is solid
Common sense seems to show that the speed of light can be exceeded
....had enough yet?
Anyone can discuss evolution (and any other subject they care to discusss). However for that person to have rational relevant content, it requires detailed study of evidence and the underlying theories of the subject so far discovered.....and defininitely NOT common sense.
And THAT is the point being made here.
Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-22-2012 4:56 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9580
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 6.6


Message 128 of 137 (666129)
06-22-2012 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Bolder-dash
06-22-2012 4:56 AM


Bolder-das writes:
Sorry Tangle, but you will have to take that up with Taz. He will tell you that you are not really qualified to discuss evolution, because you can't use common sense to figure it out, and you don't have the technical education to make an educated guess about it. I guess we have to wait to hear from the expert to know what's true, whoever he is.
I'm prepared to put a large bet on the fact that Taz will tell you that you're wrong to say that I'm not qualified to discuss evolution. Are you prepared to take it?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-22-2012 4:56 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 663 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 129 of 137 (666141)
06-22-2012 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Taz
06-21-2012 5:35 PM


Taz writes:
What the members here did by insisting the diagram made no sense or didn't have enough info was overstepping their boundaries and trying to tell the 2 engineers here what's what.
Who did that? What I saw was people asking you for more information. Since when is asking for more information a bad thing? What do you think EvC is here for?
Taz writes:
Why do you think there are so many engineers who are creationists?
Apparently, it's because engineers are taught to think and argue like creationists.
Edited by ringo, : Added a smilie to reflect the kinder, gentler ringo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Taz, posted 06-21-2012 5:35 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by NoNukes, posted 06-22-2012 1:09 PM ringo has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 137 (666146)
06-22-2012 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by ringo
06-22-2012 12:08 PM


Apparently, it's because engineers are taught to think and argue like creationists.
Engineers are getting a bad rap. Nothing in their education teaches them to argue like a Creationists. However, engineers are not scientists, and many of them don't learn anything more about geology, biology, or cosmology than any other rube. Most engineers do not work with subject matter on a day to day basis that forces them to confront evidence that creationism is wrong.
All of that said, at least the electrical engineers who post here don't seem to argue much like Creationists.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by ringo, posted 06-22-2012 12:08 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by ringo, posted 06-22-2012 1:30 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 663 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 131 of 137 (666147)
06-22-2012 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by NoNukes
06-22-2012 1:09 PM


NoNukes writes:
Engineers are getting a bad rap.
I should have put in a smilie. I was just taking a cheap sot at Taz.
Edited by ringo, : Added signature.

"Perhaps I should be more clear." -- Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by NoNukes, posted 06-22-2012 1:09 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3543 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 132 of 137 (666150)
06-22-2012 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Heathen
06-22-2012 5:42 AM


Heathen writes:
The point of the wheels is to transfer the load to the ground.
so put the wheels directly under where the plant pot transfers its load to the dolly.
that is the simplest most straight forward load path. a straight line down.
otherwise you're introducing a moment into the cross members.
I know. But the guy insisted to me that the middle is where it will break and therefore putting the wheels toward the center will help it... or something like that. You can't argue with people like that.
Edit.
Perhaps I should be more clear. The dolly thing was made of wood. Just by carrying the pot around, it was clear to me that the pot wasn't going to break the dolly thing any time soon. That's why I thought it was better to put the wheels toward the outside for stability. Now, if the pot was heavier, then yes put the wheels directly underneath. But putting them toward the middle is just plain stupid.
In this particular case, the guy's common sense clearly told him the middle was going to break and therefore he needed to put the wheels underneath there. But from our perspective, that actually made it worse. Anyway, I tried for about a couple sentences to get him to change his mind. The thing about me is I don't like to argue with people who can't understand me. So, I just gave up and agreed with him. No point in demonstrating to him how it actually works.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Heathen, posted 06-22-2012 5:42 AM Heathen has not replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 295 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 133 of 137 (667635)
07-10-2012 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by xongsmith
06-20-2012 11:43 AM


Engineering Symbols
Going off my single CIV101 (Civil Engineering) course in University over 10 years ago, so don't take this as perfect. But I didn't see it answered and decided to have a go:
xongsmith writes:
And presumably the pin doesn't allow it to move vertically as well.
Exactly. The intention is to show that the beam is held by "a point" (like a bolt), not glued completely in place. That is, if the beam was longer, the left of the pin would 'swing up' as the right swung down... as opposed to having the left staying flat and causing deflection to the right if it were "glued completely in place."
I still don't have any idea why it was drawn as a Right Triangle facing the way it is instead of an isosceles triangle
Simply general notation (I think).
Does it make a difference if the symbol is drawn facing the other way?
No. It would simply go against standard practice (I think).
So now I would revise my hipshot answer, since only the roller can move away, once the deformation is large enough.
Actually, the roller cannot "move away."
The roller, again, is part of standard notation and doesn't act like an actual, real roller would.
The point of drawing the roller-symbol is to say that the beam will not "drop" at that point, that it is constantly supported vertiaclly, regardless of the amount of deflection. You can imagine the roller "magically" moving inward as the beam deflects, if you'd like.
So, even if the beam would greatly deflect, if something was constructed to represent this diagram... the beam would either be long enough so as to never drop to the inside of the roller, or the roller would be forced to move inward to make sure the beam never dropped due to not having a vertical support at that end. Or it's quite possible that no roller is used at all, perphaps it's some weird upside-down piano-key-like thing where a certain key is pressed up to support the load wherever it moves horizontally... The point is that the load at that end is vertically supported... no matter what happens due to deflection.
The symbols are not physical representations of anything specific. They indicate "I don't care how it's physically done in the real world, but I'm talking about a fixed, rotation-allowed support here, and a verticial-only support where x-axis movement is allowed over here."
Those two symbols are generally used in conjunction with each other. This drawing is generally used to say "hey, we don't care about all the other shit that could happen in reality, this diagram is to show that we're testing the load force required to break this beam under the simplest of conditions."
In bridges, "rollers" are generally used at one end for purposes of expansion/contraction as well. But that is not the purpose of using that symbol in this diagram.
...from what I can remember, anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by xongsmith, posted 06-20-2012 11:43 AM xongsmith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by RAZD, posted 07-11-2012 7:17 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1656 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 134 of 137 (667681)
07-11-2012 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Stile
07-10-2012 3:42 PM


Re: Engineering Symbols
Hi Stile,
The roller, again, is part of standard notation and doesn't act like an actual, real roller would.
Correct, it would also prevent the end from rising under load. What it means is that there is no induced stress from tension load that would occur with two pinned ends under deflection.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Stile, posted 07-10-2012 3:42 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by xongsmith, posted 07-11-2012 4:16 PM RAZD has replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2620
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009


Message 135 of 137 (667725)
07-11-2012 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by RAZD
07-11-2012 7:17 AM


Re: Engineering Symbols
Well then: What I get here is that all of the drawing is fiction, but not only that, secretive codes...symbols! that have coded meanings only for card-carrying members of the Busily Esteemed Engineering Society (BEES). Nothing about this is actually at all commonplace, as posited in the OP.
So basically the triangle "pin" represents a roller of 0.00 radius and the roller is a fat pin (r>0) and they are both anchored to a fixed, practically infinitely strong background. One of the answers was that the pin breaks. ??? We weren't given the info that the pin might be weaker than the beam. WTF? WTF??
Why not just put a board over 2 cinder blocks? There's your commonplace example. Jeez...eyes roll....

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by RAZD, posted 07-11-2012 7:17 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Taz, posted 07-12-2012 12:05 AM xongsmith has not replied
 Message 137 by RAZD, posted 07-12-2012 7:06 AM xongsmith has seen this message but 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