OK I phrased that incorrectly. I meant that in the vaccine case you are already healthy[1], so the vaccine can't make you better. It can only make you worse.
The whole point is that the vaccine will make you better than you would be if you contracted the infectious disease because you didn't get vaccinated.
Once again, this has nothing to do with the question at hand, which is "how can a wind-driven vehicle travel faster than the speed of the wind while traveling exactly downwind?". Answer: it can't, therefore Cavallaro's vehicle is not traveling exactly downwind. Even one or two degrees off downwind is enough to make the vehicle act like a tacking sailboat.
The bogus analysis of the vehicle causing the wheels to turn, which causes the propeller to turn, which causes the vehicle to go faster is horseshit.
The explanation is very simple. The maximum speed of a sailboat is achieved when it is traveling at 90 degrees to the wind. This can be several times the wind speed, since the vehicle's direction is normal to the wind and so does not reduce the net force of the wind. At 45 degrees off downwind, this is less true, but can still generate vehicles speeds greatly in excess of wind speed. The key thing to note is that this still applies to some extent even when the vehicle is moving at just 1 or 2 degrees off downwind. In this case however it will look like it is going straight downwind when in fact it isn't.
The function of the prop is to simply act like a sail. As an earlier poster ( v1525388) pointed out, this obviously won't work when the vehicle is truly moving directly downwind.
Another thing to consider, according to Chinese students that I know, is that government censorship in China is largely a joke. Not one of them ever had a hard time getting around the "Great Firewall of China" when they wanted to.
You don't get the proof that you think you need from someone, so you threaten to torture him to death if he doesn't recant? I guess that makes perfect sense to a catholic.
Let's assume that people build a billion (!) exploration probes whose sole purpose is to look for extraterrestrial life and resources all around the universe. Let's also assume that it takes an hour to find, travel to and analyse the vicinity of a single star anywhere in the universe and then go back to report on it, so that covers 24 billion stars per day.... Let's also assume that the universe has around 100 sextillion stars. That's 100000000000000000000000 stars.Those billion ships investigating 25 billion stars per day would take 4000000000000 days or 10958904109 years.
So what if it would take 11 billion years to search the universe? Searching our galaxy (about 10e10 stars) would be quite enough, and by your calculations this would take
(10e10/10e24)*(4e12) days, or 10e-2 days, or about a quarter of an hour.
Jesus Christ did prove it by rising from the dead and accurately predicting the future.
How do you know he did any of these things? How do you know he ever existed?
From legends that were written decades after he and all that knew him were dead, and weren't collected together into the new testament until 300 years later?
He is the only founder of a major religion, in fact the only one, who even claims to have conquered death, our biggest enemy. It has been almost 2000 years, and there still isn't anybody who has topped that.
Bullshit. Many other religions make similar claims.
I'm not sure I agree with everything you say, but it is a reasoned argument.
reasoned argument != troll
Re:I think the big questions are "big"
on
The Big Questions
·
· Score: 1
The point is, you have no idea what the disciples of Jesus claim to have seen or not seen. All you know about Jesus are legends written long after the fact. You don't even know if Peter, Paul and the others ever existed.
Do you think scientists with >10 years training know less about statistics than you?
If they are so-called "Social Scientists", then yes I do.
I have met several full professors in the Social Sciences whose ignorance of basic probability is shocking.
And, if you don't understand probability, you will never understand statistics.
Again, the Quantum eraser experiment has nothing to do with "observation". If the detectors had been replaced with anything else capable of absorbing photons at that wavelength, the result would have been the same.
It's a matter of logic:
"observer" implies "photon absorber" (and thus wavefunction collapser) but "photon absorber" does not imply "observer". Calling anything capable of collapsing a wavefunction an "observer" is like calling all four-legged animals "dogs".
But, having the experiment fail and having QM fail are entirely different things. I expect that the experiment likely will fail, not by contradicting QM but by producing no significant result at all.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no such thing as "recorded players". What the TIVO contains is recorded pixels, that's all. And "free will" has nothing to do with pixels.
Oh yeah? Here in Arizona the interstates are 75mph. In parts of Texas it's 80mph.
And that's the minimum speed.
In other words (in Cartmans's voice):
"I hates hippies!
Is there a vaccine against grammar nazis?
OK I phrased that incorrectly. I meant that in the vaccine case you are already healthy[1], so the vaccine can't make you better. It can only make you worse.
The whole point is that the vaccine will make you better than you would be if you contracted the infectious disease because you didn't get vaccinated.
We don't need no stinkin badgers!
Once again, this has nothing to do with the question at hand, which is "how can a wind-driven vehicle travel faster than the speed of the wind while traveling exactly downwind?". Answer: it can't, therefore Cavallaro's vehicle is not traveling exactly downwind. Even one or two degrees off downwind is enough to make the vehicle act like a tacking sailboat.
The bogus analysis of the vehicle causing the wheels to turn, which causes the propeller to turn, which causes the vehicle to go faster is horseshit.
The explanation is very simple.
The maximum speed of a sailboat is achieved when it is traveling at 90 degrees to the wind. This can be several times the wind speed, since the vehicle's direction is normal to the wind and so does not reduce the net force of the wind. At 45 degrees off downwind, this is less true, but can still generate vehicles speeds greatly in excess of wind speed. The key thing to note is that this still applies to some extent even when the vehicle is moving at just 1 or 2 degrees off downwind. In this case however it will look like it is going straight downwind when in fact it isn't.
The function of the prop is to simply act like a sail. As an earlier poster ( v1525388) pointed out, this obviously won't work when the vehicle is truly moving directly downwind.
WTF?
Another thing to consider, according to Chinese students that I know, is that government censorship in China is largely a joke. Not one of them ever had a hard time getting around the "Great Firewall of China" when they wanted to.
My kingdom for an HD 50" CRT.
How about an HD 120" CRT? See http://www.curtpalme.com/SonyD50.shtm I have one and it rocks!
You don't get the proof that you think you need from someone, so you threaten to torture him to death if he doesn't recant? I guess that makes perfect sense to a catholic.
Let's assume that people build a billion (!) exploration probes whose sole purpose is to look for extraterrestrial life and resources all around the universe. Let's also assume that it takes an hour to find, travel to and analyse the vicinity of a single star anywhere in the universe and then go back to report on it, so that covers 24 billion stars per day. ... Let's also assume that the universe has around 100 sextillion stars. That's 100000000000000000000000 stars.Those billion ships investigating 25 billion stars per day would take 4000000000000 days or 10958904109 years.
So what if it would take 11 billion years to search the universe?
Searching our galaxy (about 10e10 stars) would be quite enough, and by your calculations this would take
(10e10/10e24)*(4e12) days, or 10e-2 days, or about a quarter of an hour.
Actually, I think the original Hebrew for "in his image" implies that Adam, initially, was perfect and without sin.
Jesus Christ did prove it by rising from the dead and accurately predicting the future.
How do you know he did any of these things? How do you know he ever existed?
From legends that were written decades after he and all that knew him were dead, and weren't collected together into the new testament until 300 years later?
He is the only founder of a major religion, in fact the only one, who even claims to have conquered death, our biggest enemy. It has been almost 2000 years, and there still isn't anybody who has topped that.
Bullshit. Many other religions make similar claims.
Unless there's a series of pipes to take it away...
That looked like shit. Is that the point?
I'm not sure I agree with everything you say, but it is a reasoned argument.
reasoned argument != troll
The point is, you have no idea what the disciples of Jesus claim to have seen or not seen. All you know about Jesus are legends written long after the fact. You don't even know if Peter, Paul and the others ever existed.
Especially if she has been persuaded to stand at the head of her stairs.
Do you have stairs in your house?
Do you think scientists with >10 years training know less about statistics than you?
If they are so-called "Social Scientists", then yes I do.
I have met several full professors in the Social Sciences whose ignorance of basic probability is shocking. And, if you don't understand probability, you will never understand statistics.
That's a cool picture of physicist Hui Chen. She looks like Cyclops from the X-Men.
What does Three Mile Island have to do with it? Will your face do a meltdown?
Again, the Quantum eraser experiment has nothing to do with "observation". If the detectors had been replaced with anything else capable of absorbing photons at that wavelength, the result would have been the same.
It's a matter of logic:
"observer" implies "photon absorber" (and thus wavefunction collapser) but
"photon absorber" does not imply "observer".
Calling anything capable of collapsing a wavefunction an "observer" is like calling all four-legged animals "dogs".
But, having the experiment fail and having QM fail are entirely different things. I expect that the experiment likely will fail, not by contradicting QM but by producing no significant result at all.