What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

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

That sounds like something off a chain letter.

It’s also two fairly rare conditions. Schizophrenia is around 0.5% (1 in 200) and congenital blindness at birth has to be around 1 in 3,000-5,000 from what I can find (impossible to figure out all the causes). So that alone makes it around 1 in 1.2 million births. So three or four people born per year in the US. Since both tend to follow genetics, it would mean two people with a family history of fairly rare genetic abnormalities would need to have kids and still pull triple 7s.

Now, imagine two incredible impediments for someone. Schizophrenia, which already comes with a severely shortened lifespan, reduces the chance of someone being found in a canvas. Now imagine a schizophrenic person trying to make it in life past their 30s. Hard enough with both eyes, hence the reduced life expectancy.

I think this is easily explained with statistics.

Edit: and what kind of **** is this?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0920996418304055

So you had 66 kids who had blindness and none of them developed schizophrenia so therefore blindness protects against schizophrenia? Even if you assume a generous 1.2% that’s only like 0.7 people who would average both. That’s such **** logic it hurts.
 
Last edited:
Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

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

dxmnkd316 said:
That sounds like something off a chain letter.

It’s also two fairly rare conditions. Schizophrenia is around 0.5% (1 in 200) and congenital blindness at birth has to be around 1 in 3,000-5,000 from what I can find (impossible to figure out all the causes). So that alone makes it around 1 in 1.2 million births. So three or four people born per year in the US. Since both tend to follow genetics, it would mean two people with a family history of fairly rare genetic abnormalities would need to have kids and still pull triple 7s.

Now, imagine two incredible impediments for someone. Schizophrenia, which already comes with a severely shortened lifespan, reduces the chance of someone being found in a canvas. Now imagine a schizophrenic person trying to make it in life past their 30s. Hard enough with both eyes, hence the reduced life expectancy.

I think this is easily explained with statistics.

Edit: and what kind of **** is this?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0920996418304055

So you had 66 kids who had blindness and none of them developed schizophrenia so therefore blindness protects against schizophrenia? Even if you assume a generous 1.2% that’s only like 0.7 people who would average both. That’s such **** logic it hurts.
Click to expand...

That, and schizophrenics see things all the time.
 
Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

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

That and there are some cases.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4246684/

I have also had a patient with Usher syndrome who also had psychosis consistent with schizophrenia. One thing also to consider that the diagnostic criteria of schizophrenia is more difficult to fulfill in a patient who is blind, even if they were having the same process going centrally.
 
Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

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

This is one of those things that will probably turn out to be really important in a few hundred years and open (or close) rival theoretical avenues of understanding the universe.
 
Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

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

A true constant? Valid across all space-time? Is that what they're implying with this?
 
Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

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

dxmnkd316 said:
A true constant? Valid across all space-time? Is that what they're implying with this?
Click to expand...

It's too much to say all. Kinda by definition that can only be falsified, not proven.

But what I gather is this supports the hypothesis that some constants really can cash unlimited checks within their own universe.

The rival theoretical approach was that the values of all constants erode over time or can be warped in weird space -- that what we think of as "constants" are implicitly limited by local conditions in some way (so for example Newton physics turned out to be a special case of Einstein physics). This to me seems intuitive: we've only just begun to crawl as one species on one planet with only a few hundred years of methodical logical science cleared of fuzzyheaded supernaturalism, and every time we have had a theory of the Big Picture it has quickly been superceded by a larger frame, then a larger, and so on. My instinct is that this process continues forever and that there is no reason to assume a machine evolved to find tigers hiding in tall grass will have the capacity to comprehend science beyond a rudimentary point. We already see this limitation operate when we talk to stupid people or, indeed, average people. There just aren't enough neurons firing well enough to get past a simplistic model.

But this experiment suggests that no, in fact, there may be some constants that are, for lack of a better word, real. They transcend time, space, and conditionality and are what they say they are. Which would be... reassuring? Maybe?

Once you move to the next brane or universe or whatever, all bets are off. In the universe next door maybe the fine-structure constant makes all matter manifest as different flavors of licorice.
 
Last edited:
Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

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

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

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

dxmnkd316 said:
A true constant? Valid across all space-time? Is that what they're implying with this?
Click to expand...

I found an interesting discussion of the inconstancy of constants:

11. Constancy of Fundamental Constants
... They began running when they liked, and left off when they
liked.
-- L.C.

The fundamental constants, most of them, appear in physics with quantum mechanics. The Newton’s
constant G came earlier, but only considering the Planck-scale effects we can imagine how fundamental
it is. They were called ‘constants’ and it was believed that they should be such by default.
To vary them, one should rather expect an exceptional reason. That was the situation, when Dirac and
later Gamov suggested that the ‘constants’ may not be constant.

However, the truth is that there is no strong reason why the ‘constants’ of Nature are constant. We
know that the ratio of the electron and proton spins is unity and cannot vary. If it were possible to switch
off the QED corrections, we should expect that the g factor of an electron is a trivial constant equal to
two. Thus, there may be only one theoretical reason for their constancy—that would be an explanation
of their origin. For the most important constants we have none. The constancy of the constants is merely
an experimental fact and an a priori trust in the domination of symmetry in the nature of Nature. The
former, indeed, can never be final and we need to check that again and again with a more broad range
of phenomena and with a higher accuracy. The latter is in a formal sense rather wrong: we recognize
the inflation as a basic element of modern cosmology. And the inflation [30, 31] had urged the electron
mass and charge to vary in a very remote past. If we accept that the constants were varying once, we
should rather consider them as changing quantities at a default situation, and need a reason for them
not to vary again. Or not to vary fast. A once non-constant is forever not a ‘trusted’ constant.
We recognize the existence of the dark matter which may interact ‘very’ weakly with our matter.

We do not know what the dark matter is and how weak may be this ‘very’ weak interaction. Due to a
number of such unclear phenomena, we need to distinguish between

• effects such as a violation of the local position invariance (and in particular a violation of the
local time invariance)
• and a variation of the constants.

One may expect that a violation of the local invariance means that results of measurements would depend
on time and location upon the measurement and that is the same as a time- and space- dependence
of the fundamental constants. However, these two situations are not quite the same.

The results of an experiment may be affected by an environment. In earlier times, an ‘environment’
for a laboratory-scale experiment was also laboratory-scaled. An exception was gravitational and magnetic
field of Earth. However, they were not significant: since the former was nearly a constant (which
did not depend on the location at the level of then achievable accuracy) and from the latter there may
be a shield. Now, doing high-precision balance experiments, one can clearly see effects of the motion
of Sun and Moon in this scale of experiments. Indeed, the existence of the surf has been known for
centuries. But the surf is a result of an accumulation of these effects over a ‘big’ detector, which is
of the Earth scale. Until the very recent time it was not possible to see such effects with the ‘small’
detectors.

Now, we are sensitive to the environment at a very large scale. We know that we live in a changing
universe (the environment item number one), going through a bath of 2.7-K cosmic microwave
background and a similar background radiation of known (neutrino) and, maybe, unknown massless
particles (the environment item number two) and dark matter and dark energy presented around (the
environment item number three) etc. We would never qualify any effect of interactions with them as a
real violation of Lorentz symmetry, but we may want to qualify a variation of certain natural parameters
induced by them as a variation of the constants. In principle, we can say that there was no variation
of truly fundamental constants during the inflation, but only ‘environmental effects’, caused by cooling
of the Universe. However, we prefer to say that the electron mass has changed.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

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

<blockquote class="reddit-card" data-card-created="1587358442"><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/EngineeringStudents/comments/g4c2ub/according_to_compressible_flow_analysis_the_usps/">According to Compressible flow analysis, the USPS Eagle is going Mach 4.9</a> from <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/EngineeringStudents">r/EngineeringStudents</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//embed.redditmedia.com/widgets/platform.js" charset="UTF-8"></script>

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

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

Study: even pigeons hate M-ssholes.

Fun fact buried in the story: uptown and downtown rats in NYC form two distinct genetic clusters. For anyone familiar with the city this is the funniest thing they will hear today.
 
Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

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

Kepler said:
Study: even pigeons hate M-ssholes.

Fun fact buried in the story: uptown and downtown rats in NYC form two distinct genetic clusters. For anyone familiar with the city this is the funniest thing they will hear today.
Click to expand...

So which brood claims Pizza Rat?
 
Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

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

RaceBoarder said:
So which brood claims Pizza Rat?
Click to expand...

Pizza Rat was working (he is hopefully WFH these days) the staircase to the L train platform at the First Avenue station (BMT Canarsie Line), which is located at the intersection of First Avenue and East 14th Street. This is solidly downtown, being a stone's throw from the East Village.
 
Last edited:
Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

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

Kepler said:
Study: even pigeons hate M-ssholes.

Fun fact buried in the story: uptown and downtown rats in NYC form two distinct genetic clusters. For anyone familiar with the city this is the funniest thing they will hear today.
Click to expand...

Those Upper East Side rats are total snobs and no one likes them. The Bushwick rats liked Long Island before it was cool. The Kew Gardens rats had just landed their first-ever transcon line when the pandemic hit and now they might not make rent for the crash pad next month. And of course the New Jersey and Staten Island rats are the only REAL New York rats.
 
Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

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

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Those Upper East Side rats are total snobs and no one likes them. The Bushwick rats liked Long Island before it was cool. The Kew Gardens rats had just landed their first-ever transcon line when the pandemic hit and now they might not make rent for the crash pad next month. And of course the New Jersey and Staten Island rats are the only REAL New York rats.
Click to expand...

You forgot the Bed-Sty rats. Why do you think it's called the Black Death?
 
Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

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

Kepler said:
Pizza Rat was working (he is hopefully WFH these days) the staircase to the L train platform at the First Avenue station (BMT Canarsie Line), which is located at the intersection of First Avenue and East 14th Street. This is solidly downtown, being a stone's throw from the East Village.
Click to expand...

Another reason to show that anything outside Manhattan is worthless to an outsider like me :p
 
Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

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

RaceBoarder said:
Another reason to show that anything outside Manhattan is worthless to an outsider like me :p
Click to expand...

I have spent more time in Boston, DC, Portland, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Tucson, and San Francisco, not to mention Paris, Rome, and London, than I have in NYC, so I am not the ideal spokesman for the city.

My overdetermining impressions of NYC are (1) it is the greatest city in the world, and (2) I do not like it.
 
Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

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

New York has the best "mixed" culture of any city in the world - Berlin and, from what I've heard, Singapore are very close, but I could not live there. It's one of those "great to visit for a long weekend, but wouldn't want to stay" cities, right up there with Boston and both Portlands. ;)
 
Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

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

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
New York has the best "mixed" culture of any city in the world - Berlin and, from what I've heard, Singapore are very close, but I could not live there. It's one of those "great to visit for a long weekend, but wouldn't want to stay" cities, right up there with Boston and both Portlands. ;)
Click to expand...

Entrepôts have the great cosmopolitan cultures: New York, New Orleans, Venice, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Singapore, Tokyo, Athens, Rotterdam, Tangier, Barcelona, Marseille.

Of those, New York, London, Shanghai and Tokyo are also huge world cities. In my limited opinion, New York has a far more international and vibrant culture than London. I cannot speak for the others having never been in Asia.
 
Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

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

Kepler said:
Entrepôts have the great cosmopolitan cultures: New York, New Orleans, Venice, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Singapore, Tokyo, Athens, Rotterdam, Tangier, Barcelona, Marseille.

Of those, New York, London, Shanghai and Tokyo are also huge world cities. In my limited opinion, New York has a far more international and vibrant culture than London. I cannot speak for the others having never been in Asia.
Click to expand...

I haven't been (it's on my list), but from what I've read I don't think of Tokyo as particularly "mixed" outside of a couple neighborhoods where the Americans, Canadians, and Brits congregate. I've read that there are bars and restaurants in Tokyo that will outright turn away gaijin, because they don't want to embarrass their Japanese staff and clientele who don't speak good English (the whole "save face" thing in North Asian culture).

I agree with you on London vs. NYC. The Indians have lived there for years, and they're still treated like sh*t by some Brits, even if they were born in the UK.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top