Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

[Slap Shot]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Oh, please continue, you rebel you LOL...

ohrly?

[joecct]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Musk also announced on Thursday that the company’s branded $500 “not-a-flamethrower” will start shipping to customers in just two weeks. Musk has faced a number of regulatory hurdles to get the product off the ground, which has led to a rather unusual delivery method.
https://www.inverse.com/article/4499...a-flamethrower

[Berkshire BU Fan]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Sears Laws of auto repair.

If it doesn't fit, get a hammer.
If it still doesn't fit, get a bigger hammer.

With apologies to Kepler's citation of Maxwell's equations, when do you break out the silver hammer?

[Slap Shot]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

With apologies to Kepler's citation of Maxwell's equations, when do you break out the silver hammer?

If you are (or were) George, John or Ringo you broke it out every time that song played on the radio and bashed it to pieces.

[Kepler]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

If you are (or were) George, John or Ringo you broke it out every time that song played on the radio and bashed it to pieces.

As somebody not all that enamored of the Beatles, I've always thought that song was quite good. 1. Story songs are the best songs. 2. Funny songs are great as long as they're funny (and it is). 3. For a band that spent the second half of their career deeply breathing in their own farts, it is pleasingly self-deprecating about the idiocy of their fans and their fame.

I also like the song because Paul pushed it all the way and I hate Paul but I like the song for the same reasons he did, and I shake my head that the other 3 didn't get it. So this song reminds me that Paul was actually onto something, sometimes, when he wasn't staring at the mirror, which helps explain why John put up with him as long as he did.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Fluid flow in three laws:

Not enough flow? Open the valve further.
Still not enough flow? Start another pump.
Still not enough flow? < bleep > mechanical engineer designed it wrong.

[Slap Shot]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

As somebody not all that enamored of the Beatles, I've always thought that song was quite good. 1. Story songs are the best songs. 2. Funny songs are great as long as they're funny (and it is). 3. For a band that spent the second half of their career deeply breathing in their own farts, it is pleasingly self-deprecating about the idiocy of their fans and their fame.

I also like the song because Paul pushed it all the way and I hate Paul but I like the song for the same reasons he did, and I shake my head that the other 3 didn't get it. So this song reminds me that Paul was actually onto something, sometimes, when he wasn't staring at the mirror, which helps explain why John put up with him as long as he did.

George and Ringo weren't all that excited about how long it took to record the song thanks to Paul insisting they get it exactly right. George would refer to it as one of Paul's, "fruity songs" although in the end I think he grew to like it. Ringo said it took, "fu***ng weeks to record" and didn't see the point in it.

Lennon's distaste went deeper. It was recorded shortly after a car accident left him and Yoko quite injured and therefore he wasn't in the greatest of moods. Additionally John really hated that Paul often wrote from fantasy rather from a first person perspective - even if the made up evens he depicted were ultimately meant to convey his own feelings and experiences. John really felt all art should be personal and be drawn only from one's own experiences. To each their own.

I'm not saying I agree with their criticisms but the reference to the song reminded me of the stories behind it.

btw you're not really getting what the song was about. It was basically that, "s**t happens". As in things can be going along swimmingly and then, "bang, bang" something happens or comes along (a hammer) and ruins it all.

But you have a stubborn and ill-informed narrative about the band and not sure I'll ever change that.

[Kepler]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

But you have a stubborn and ill-informed narrative about the band and not sure I'll ever change that.

LOL. Do tell me more about what I think.



For the record my only "narrative" about the Beatles is that they're a band. They did a lot of really good stuff and a lot of really lazy stuff. Too many people identified with them too strongly for there to be a reasonable discussion of how good they are until those people are dead, and we still have about 20 years to go until that happens.

Until then, they're Kanye. Love them or hate them; it's none of my affair.

[Slap Shot]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Too many people identified with them too strongly for there to be a reasonable discussion of how good they are until those people are dead, and we still have about 20 years to go until that happens.

That's somewhat the narrative to which I refer as well as the previous post. You either enjoy their music or don't but this line of thinking kind of gets in the way of that.

btw - they're not even my favorite band of all time so it's not a personal thing for me. To each their own and this isn't the best thread for the topic.

[5mn_Major]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

3. For a band that spent the second half of their career deeply breathing in their own farts, it is pleasingly self-deprecating about the idiocy of their fans and their fame.

Not a big Beatles guy either. But find it interesting you preferred the first half of the Beatles over the second. First half stuff seems too much from a different era. Second half was cosmic, but at least modern.

Having said that, their best work by far was when they transitioned.

[joecct]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Le whigne

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018...h-costs/?amp=1

[5mn_Major]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Le whigne

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018...h-costs/?amp=1

Not quite.

The article makes Ariane look uncompetitive and that its complaining about it. Whereas actually SpaceX are getting pretty massive government subsidies and even then, Ariana is actually cheaper for commercial launches. Right, wrong or indifferent, what's being pointed out here is US commercial welfare. The article is either putting a spin bias on it or is at minimum poorly worded - ars technica .

"SpaceX is charging the US government 100 million dollar per launch, but launches for European customers are much cheaper." Essentially, he says, launches for the US military and NASA are subsidizing SpaceX's commercial launch business.

[GrinCDXX]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Not quite.

The article makes Ariane look uncompetitive and that its complaining about it. Whereas actually SpaceX are getting pretty massive government subsidies and even then, Ariana is actually cheaper for commercial launches. Right, wrong or indifferent, what's being pointed out here is US commercial welfare. The article is either putting a spin bias on it or is at minimum poorly worded - ars technica .

"SpaceX is charging the US government 100 million dollar per launch, but launches for European customers are much cheaper." Essentially, he says, launches for the US military and NASA are subsidizing SpaceX's commercial launch business.

I think the article fairly articulates the arguments that Charmeau is making. It's just that the author is also rightly pointing out his hypocrisy. Also by calling Spacex's commercial launches "subsidized", he's suggesting that the commercial prices would not be possible without the government contracts. That, in and of itself, is a non sequitur.

[Kepler]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

their best work by far was when they transitioned.

I agree with this.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Someone that is brilliant would be able to understand how to deal with basic automotive quality issues. They guy's cars are ****ty, because Tesla is not a manufacturing company, and that doesn't seem to be changing.

https://carbuzz.com/news/check-out-t...control-issues

https://www.greencarreports.com/news...tter-to-buyers

http://autoweek.com/article/green-ca...ssembly-issues


But, sure, he's a genius....so we should give him a pass for building a complete pile of **** car and selling it for $100k.

Sounds like Edmunds and Consumer Reports have serious issues as well:

https://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-...pril-2018.html

https://jalopnik.com/consumer-report...sla-1826198783