Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The limitations of common sense
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 61 of 66 (304045)
04-13-2006 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by DominionSeraph
04-13-2006 4:24 AM


Re: testing ... 1, 2, 3 ...
That's the idea - a clear test that shows the effect of rotation.
You could add a third rocket in polar orbit to validate the distance\orbit calculations for a none rotating earth (it would end at the same latitude regardless of rotation, but would be shifted along it due to rotation.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by DominionSeraph, posted 04-13-2006 4:24 AM DominionSeraph has not replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 2908 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 62 of 66 (304380)
04-15-2006 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Modulous
04-12-2006 9:09 AM


willing to learn
The poker terminology for it is 'semi-bluff'. Common sense gets a lot of poker things very wrong and I have a lot to thank David Sklansky for ridding me of my intuition and giving me a new one
:
Who is David Sklansky and can he help me to retire early?
This message has been edited by ts, 04-15-2006 05:10 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Modulous, posted 04-12-2006 9:09 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Modulous, posted 04-17-2006 7:16 PM tsig has not replied
 Message 64 by tsig, posted 04-18-2006 3:06 AM tsig has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 63 of 66 (304825)
04-17-2006 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by tsig
04-15-2006 5:09 AM


sklansky
Sklansky is one of the leading authorities on poker books. He is the deviser of the Fundamental Theorem of Poker, and lays out the mathematical considerations one should consider whilst playing poker of all varieties. Check out some of his books for more info. A word of warning though: most of his work is primarily concerned with mid-high limit poker, so most of the work is too subtle to work in most people's poker career (unless you have a massive multi-k bankroll).
I enjoyed reading the books, but to make some proper headway into small and mid stakes try Lee Jones' work for low limit hold 'em. With his much simpler poker playing style it is easier to pick up the fundamentals from which you can begin intergrating Sklansky's work. I have made a profit (small) from Jones' techniques.
To retire early, you need the Poker Bible, or more accurately the Principia Poker - The Theory of Poker by David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth (I don't have the book close to hand so I'm not sure if Malmuth is credited as an author, though he did have significant influence either way). I can say with high confidence that basically all serious limit poker players have read it...and in it, common sense is often turned on its head entirely (I think you are suitably warned :-D).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by tsig, posted 04-15-2006 5:09 AM tsig has not replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 2908 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 64 of 66 (304883)
04-18-2006 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by tsig
04-15-2006 5:09 AM


Re: learning
Sklansky is one of the leading authorities on poker books. He is the deviser of the Fundamental Theorem of Poker, and lays out the mathematical considerations one should consider whilst playing poker of all varieties. Check out some of his books for more info. A word of warning though: most of his work is primarily concerned with mid-high limit poker, so most of the work is too subtle to work in most people's poker career (unless you have a massive multi-k bankroll).
I enjoyed reading the books, but to make some proper headway into small and mid stakes try Lee Jones' work for low limit hold 'em. With his much simpler poker playing style it is easier to pick up the fundamentals from which you can begin intergrating Sklansky's work. I have made a profit (small) from Jones' techniques.
To retire early, you need the Poker Bible, or more accurately the Principia Poker - The Theory of Poker by David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth (I don't have the book close to hand so I'm not sure if Malmuth is credited as an author, though he did have significant influence either way). I can say with high confidence that basically all serious limit poker players have read it...and in it, common sense is often turned on its head entirely (I think you are suitably warned :-D).
This message is a reply to:
Message 62 by ts, posted 04-15-2006 05:09 AM
Click for Modulous's profile Click to email Modulous Reply without quote View this message text with the dBCodes and HTML used by the author
sometimes a duce of spades will beat cased aces.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by tsig, posted 04-15-2006 5:09 AM tsig has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 65 of 66 (304969)
04-18-2006 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by petrophysics1
04-12-2006 2:28 PM


Re: I'll take a stab at it ...
petrophysics
Fb/m + (-Fg)/m = a Are you seriously suggesting that "a" is always equal to -9.8m/sec^2 ?
In this instance the acceleration by the force of gravity is matched by the force of buoyancy and the net acceleration reduces to zero.
The reason is simply that the buoyancy is measured in the same way as the gravity
Force of buoyancy is Fb=mg m equal to the mass of water displaced and g equal to gravitational acceleration while force of gravity is also Fg=mg m equal to mass of body and g equal to acceleration of gravity.
Thus,folowing your reasoning, we get Fb/m +{-}Fg/m = g. g = 9.8m/sec^2
so the answer to your question is Yes.
In accoradance with Newtons third law the force of buoyancy acts in a equal magnitude but opposite direction to the mass acceleration due to gravity. Since they are equal forces but applied in opposite directions the net force becomes zero.
The acceleration due to gravity remains the same otherwise there would be an imbalanced force due to the opposing equal force of the water which would repel the mass and expel it from the water.The force of gravity remains constant thus it is always accelerating at 9.8m/sec^2 on earth.
This message has been edited by sidelined, Tue, 2006-04-18 09:36 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by petrophysics1, posted 04-12-2006 2:28 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Modulous, posted 04-18-2006 11:42 AM sidelined has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 66 of 66 (304975)
04-18-2006 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by sidelined
04-18-2006 11:34 AM


Re: I'll take a stab at it ...
Naturally the accelration depends on where you are on earth, and how far away you are from it. 9.8 is generally close enough though

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by sidelined, posted 04-18-2006 11:34 AM sidelined 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