Page 7 of 27

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2015 11:38 pm
by JimBentley
Ian Volante wrote:
JimBentley wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:Amount of nickel in them?

We have plastic notes now, at least two of the seven (or is that eight?) UK banks that issue sterling have them. Very nice they are :)
This sounds suspicious. Send all your money to my address so that I can independently verify them.
I've just chucked one in the canal by my house. I've no doubt it'll make its way up the Tees in no time. Couldn't be bothered trying to find any closer destination waterway.
Excellent, I shall keep my eye out for it. If anybody else wants to send their money to me to be independently verified, please feel free.

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2015 11:48 pm
by Gavin Chipper
I've got another question about relativity. The speed of light is the same for all observers, right? So let's say there's a planet that's exactly one light year away and not moving relative to Earth. Some weird freaky alien sends a beam of light from there towards Earth. There are two people standing next to each other on Earth when this happens. I think it makes sense to talk about the beam being emitted at the same time as the people standing next to each other because the two locations they are not moving relative to each other. Or at least the events are simultaneous for anyone stationary relative to Earth or this other planet.

And because the speed of light is the same for all observers, that basically means that you can't try to outrun a light beam. (Well, you can try but you'll fail.) So both of these people will experience exactly a year before the light beam reaches them (we'll assume that they only move in a straight line towards or away from the light beam.) It's a light year away from the people and it will travel at one light year per year towards them. It will reach them in a year whatever they do. Right? If one of them starts to move away from the light beam then presumably there must be some relativistic effect to sort this out (time going at a different speed or something).

But one of these people moves away from the light beam at a really high speed and then back again rejoining the other person that has just stood still. And as you all know, this can mean that the two people's watches can read different times from each other. So the person that travelled is now a minute behind the one who stood still. And then the light beam reaches the spot where they are standing. But now how can they both have experienced exactly a year when one has experienced a minute less than the other?

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 12:43 pm
by Matthew Tassier
Gavin Chipper wrote:I've got another question about relativity. The speed of light is the same for all observers, right? So let's say there's a planet that's exactly one light year away and not moving relative to Earth. Some weird freaky alien sends a beam of light from there towards Earth. There are two people standing next to each other on Earth when this happens. I think it makes sense to talk about the beam being emitted at the same time as the people standing next to each other because the two locations they are not moving relative to each other. Or at least the events are simultaneous for anyone stationary relative to Earth or this other planet.

And because the speed of light is the same for all observers, that basically means that you can't try to outrun a light beam. (Well, you can try but you'll fail.) So both of these people will experience exactly a year before the light beam reaches them (we'll assume that they only move in a straight line towards or away from the light beam.) It's a light year away from the people and it will travel at one light year per year towards them. It will reach them in a year whatever they do. Right? If one of them starts to move away from the light beam then presumably there must be some relativistic effect to sort this out (time going at a different speed or something).

But one of these people moves away from the light beam at a really high speed and then back again rejoining the other person that has just stood still. And as you all know, this can mean that the two people's watches can read different times from each other. So the person that travelled is now a minute behind the one who stood still. And then the light beam reaches the spot where they are standing. But now how can they both have experienced exactly a year when one has experienced a minute less than the other?
To the travelling person the light has travelled a shorter distance due to the phenomenon of length contraction when two things are moving relative to one another. She will observe that the light has travelled 0.999998 of a light year due to the alien and her earth colleague being (from her perspective) closer than a light year apart during the times she was moving.

At least that's what I understand. You'd be well advised to get confirmation from a genuine physicist.

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:37 pm
by Gavin Chipper
Matthew Tassier wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:I've got another question about relativity. The speed of light is the same for all observers, right? So let's say there's a planet that's exactly one light year away and not moving relative to Earth. Some weird freaky alien sends a beam of light from there towards Earth. There are two people standing next to each other on Earth when this happens. I think it makes sense to talk about the beam being emitted at the same time as the people standing next to each other because the two locations they are not moving relative to each other. Or at least the events are simultaneous for anyone stationary relative to Earth or this other planet.

And because the speed of light is the same for all observers, that basically means that you can't try to outrun a light beam. (Well, you can try but you'll fail.) So both of these people will experience exactly a year before the light beam reaches them (we'll assume that they only move in a straight line towards or away from the light beam.) It's a light year away from the people and it will travel at one light year per year towards them. It will reach them in a year whatever they do. Right? If one of them starts to move away from the light beam then presumably there must be some relativistic effect to sort this out (time going at a different speed or something).

But one of these people moves away from the light beam at a really high speed and then back again rejoining the other person that has just stood still. And as you all know, this can mean that the two people's watches can read different times from each other. So the person that travelled is now a minute behind the one who stood still. And then the light beam reaches the spot where they are standing. But now how can they both have experienced exactly a year when one has experienced a minute less than the other?
To the travelling person the light has travelled a shorter distance due to the phenomenon of length contraction when two things are moving relative to one another. She will observe that the light has travelled 0.999998 of a light year due to the alien and her earth colleague being (from her perspective) closer than a light year apart during the times she was moving.

At least that's what I understand. You'd be well advised to get confirmation from a genuine physicist.
Thanks for the answer, but I'm not sure I'm convinced. This person would have been stationary when the light set off on its journey and when it arrived and the light would have travelled a measurable light year according to this person.

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 4:05 pm
by Matthew Tassier
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Matthew Tassier wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:I've got another question about relativity. The speed of light is the same for all observers, right? So let's say there's a planet that's exactly one light year away and not moving relative to Earth. Some weird freaky alien sends a beam of light from there towards Earth. There are two people standing next to each other on Earth when this happens. I think it makes sense to talk about the beam being emitted at the same time as the people standing next to each other because the two locations they are not moving relative to each other. Or at least the events are simultaneous for anyone stationary relative to Earth or this other planet.

And because the speed of light is the same for all observers, that basically means that you can't try to outrun a light beam. (Well, you can try but you'll fail.) So both of these people will experience exactly a year before the light beam reaches them (we'll assume that they only move in a straight line towards or away from the light beam.) It's a light year away from the people and it will travel at one light year per year towards them. It will reach them in a year whatever they do. Right? If one of them starts to move away from the light beam then presumably there must be some relativistic effect to sort this out (time going at a different speed or something).

But one of these people moves away from the light beam at a really high speed and then back again rejoining the other person that has just stood still. And as you all know, this can mean that the two people's watches can read different times from each other. So the person that travelled is now a minute behind the one who stood still. And then the light beam reaches the spot where they are standing. But now how can they both have experienced exactly a year when one has experienced a minute less than the other?
To the travelling person the light has travelled a shorter distance due to the phenomenon of length contraction when two things are moving relative to one another. She will observe that the light has travelled 0.999998 of a light year due to the alien and her earth colleague being (from her perspective) closer than a light year apart during the times she was moving.

At least that's what I understand. You'd be well advised to get confirmation from a genuine physicist.
Thanks for the answer, but I'm not sure I'm convinced. This person would have been stationary when the light set off on its journey and when it arrived and the light would have travelled a measurable light year according to this person.
The light would indeed be a light year away from where it started, but due to the apparent contraction of the space during the intermediate period the light will have travelled less than a light year, as far as she is concerned, assuming she somehow notices the contraction.

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2016 5:36 pm
by JimBentley
You know on Wikipedia? Why is it that some things - often plainly factual - say [citation needed] and others don't? Is it just a question of time (just not enough time to police the whole thing) or are some things just allowed through unsubstantiated?

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2016 6:42 pm
by Gavin Chipper
JimBentley wrote:You know on Wikipedia? Why is it that some things - often plainly factual - say [citation needed] and others don't? Is it just a question of time (just not enough time to police the whole thing) or are some things just allowed through unsubstantiated?
Different people doing different stuff. Don't expect consistency!

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2016 9:39 pm
by JimBentley
Gavin Chipper wrote:
JimBentley wrote:You know on Wikipedia? Why is it that some things - often plainly factual - say [citation needed] and others don't? Is it just a question of time (just not enough time to police the whole thing) or are some things just allowed through unsubstantiated?
Different people doing different stuff. Don't expect consistency!
I know, but it just seems weird. It really just came from reading an article about a singer and there was a passage about a certain single selling "approximately 496 copies" and it made me laugh (not only for the approximation of an exact number, but also that there was no citation for it). I think the same article might have contained other excellently uncheckable gems like "after buying his first bass guitar from George Harrison..." and I suppose I just sort of got around to wondering how that whole system worked.

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2016 10:26 pm
by Gavin Chipper
JimBentley wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:
JimBentley wrote:You know on Wikipedia? Why is it that some things - often plainly factual - say [citation needed] and others don't? Is it just a question of time (just not enough time to police the whole thing) or are some things just allowed through unsubstantiated?
Different people doing different stuff. Don't expect consistency!
I know, but it just seems weird. It really just came from reading an article about a singer and there was a passage about a certain single selling "approximately 496 copies" and it made me laugh (not only for the approximation of an exact number, but also that there was no citation for it). I think the same article might have contained other excellently uncheckable gems like "after buying his first bass guitar from George Harrison..." and I suppose I just sort of got around to wondering how that whole system worked.
I think there is supposed to be evidence for all claims, but some stuff just sneaks in I suppose. 3,476,112 articles aren't properly cited.

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2016 9:57 am
by Marc Meakin
My favourite onw is for Jonathan Wilkes
Earnugs...living off Robbie Williams

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 4:45 am
by Mark James
This is almost not a question and it's not something I've "always" wanted to know because it's kind of a new thing but what is with the whole "woke" concept? Apparently woke is now an adjective in young people's vernacular. Now i've always been one of these people who don't care for people who complain about the advancements of language and the adoption of new phrases and the whole evolution of language but even this seems like a step too far to me. It has always seemed to me that the vast majority of the kind of linguistic changes that have taken place over the years can still always be justified and no matter how strange a departure they make from so called "normal" speech there's still been an element of consistency in terms of following rules of syntax or whatever but this just doesn't make sense to me. I think this is the one phrase that has crossed a line in terms of its acceptability. To me it seems like this is the first phrase that is hiding its acceptability behind the notion that that anyone who disagrees is some kind of square who isn't accepting of the idea that language evolves. I disagree however and think it is a huge detriment to the english language.

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 7:59 am
by Gavin Chipper
Woke? What?

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:06 am
by Ian Volante
When I woke this morning, I didn't think my language would be impugned in such a manner.

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:28 am
by Gavin Chipper
Mark James wrote:This is almost not a question and it's not something I've "always" wanted to know because it's kind of a new thing but what is with the whole "woke" concept? Apparently woke is now an adjective in young people's vernacular. Now i've always been one of these people who don't care for people who complain about the advancements of language and the adoption of new phrases and the whole evolution of language but even this seems like a step too far to me. It has always seemed to me that the vast majority of the kind of linguistic changes that have taken place over the years can still always be justified and no matter how strange a departure they make from so called "normal" speech there's still been an element of consistency in terms of following rules of syntax or whatever but this just doesn't make sense to me. I think this is the one phrase that has crossed a line in terms of its acceptability. To me it seems like this is the first phrase that is hiding its acceptability behind the notion that that anyone who disagrees is some kind of square who isn't accepting of the idea that language evolves. I disagree however and think it is a huge detriment to the english language.
I should put people like you in the "people you shouldn't trust" thread - people who write a whole long thing on something without saying what they're talking about. Anyway, I Googled it and found this and this. It seems pretty odd, but no more or less bullshit than other things I've come across.

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 11:03 am
by Matt Morrison
Are we complaining about the wrong grammatical context (e.g. like describing someone as "lit"?) or what describing someone as "woke" represents?

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 3:00 pm
by Mark James
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Mark James wrote:This is almost not a question and it's not something I've "always" wanted to know because it's kind of a new thing but what is with the whole "woke" concept? Apparently woke is now an adjective in young people's vernacular. Now i've always been one of these people who don't care for people who complain about the advancements of language and the adoption of new phrases and the whole evolution of language but even this seems like a step too far to me. It has always seemed to me that the vast majority of the kind of linguistic changes that have taken place over the years can still always be justified and no matter how strange a departure they make from so called "normal" speech there's still been an element of consistency in terms of following rules of syntax or whatever but this just doesn't make sense to me. I think this is the one phrase that has crossed a line in terms of its acceptability. To me it seems like this is the first phrase that is hiding its acceptability behind the notion that that anyone who disagrees is some kind of square who isn't accepting of the idea that language evolves. I disagree however and think it is a huge detriment to the english language.
I should put people like you in the "people you shouldn't trust" thread - people who write a whole long thing on something without saying what they're talking about. Anyway, I Googled it and found this and this. It seems pretty odd, but no more or less bullshit than other things I've come across.
I was very drunk and immediately regretted posting this when I woke up this morning.

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 3:28 pm
by JimBentley
Gavin Chipper wrote:I Googled it and found this
I've got a broad template for those articles. Just delete as applicable and insert the values and information you want:

"Unless you've been living under a rock/in a cave/on Mars/in prison for the last {insert value x} days/weeks/months/years, then you WILL have/MUST have/can't have avoided/fallen in love with {insert fleetingly insignificant internet trend here}!"

"Although this {trend} has been around in internet circles/the gay community/the black community/the trans community/neocon organisations/hard left factions for {insert value x} days/weeks/months/years, its current ubiquity can be directly traced to {insert a recent tangentially-related news story here}."

"Google/Yahoo/Twitter/Facebook users have been making claims that {fleetingly insignificant internet trend] is the best/worst thing that has ever happened, but other Google/Yahoo/Twitter/Facebook users are more cautious, warning that it might actually be a bad/good thing."

"Whatever, it looks as though {fleetingly insignificant internet trend} is here to stay!"

"IN OTHER NEWS: 17 extraordinary stories of cannabilism - you WON'T BELIEVE number 5!"

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 6:31 pm
by Gavin Chipper
JimBentley wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:I Googled it and found this
I've got a broad template for those articles. Just delete as applicable and insert the values and information you want:

"Unless you've been living under a rock/in a cave/on Mars/in prison for the last {insert value x} days/weeks/months/years, then you WILL have/MUST have/can't have avoided/fallen in love with {insert fleetingly insignificant internet trend here}!"

"Although this {trend} has been around in internet circles/the gay community/the black community/the trans community/neocon organisations/hard left factions for {insert value x} days/weeks/months/years, its current ubiquity can be directly traced to {insert a recent tangentially-related news story here}."

"Google/Yahoo/Twitter/Facebook users have been making claims that {fleetingly insignificant internet trend] is the best/worst thing that has ever happened, but other Google/Yahoo/Twitter/Facebook users are more cautious, warning that it might actually be a bad/good thing."

"Whatever, it looks as though {fleetingly insignificant internet trend} is here to stay!"

"IN OTHER NEWS: 17 extraordinary stories of cannabilism - you WON'T BELIEVE number 5!"
I think you're just not woke enough.

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2016 10:35 pm
by Gavin Chipper
What are those table tennis bat things that tube workers have? One day I want to go to an underground station with a bat and ball and serve to one of them.

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2016 1:54 am
by Johnny Canuck
Why do prison administrators in the US sterilise the needles that they use to put people to death by lethal injection?

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2016 2:02 pm
by JimBentley
Gavin Chipper wrote:What are those table tennis bat things that tube workers have? One day I want to go to an underground station with a bat and ball and serve to one of them.
They use them for semaphore signalling.

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2016 3:22 pm
by Mark Deeks
Johnny Canuck wrote:Why do prison administrators in the US sterilise the needles that they use to put people to death by lethal injection?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Autry

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2016 4:58 pm
by JimBentley
Mark Deeks wrote:
Johnny Canuck wrote:Why do prison administrators in the US sterilise the needles that they use to put people to death by lethal injection?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Autry
As well as that sort of situation (rare but significant for its historical precedence), I think it's far more to do with it being far safer for the prison personnel (or whoever carries out the injections) to be working with sterile equipment.

Plus the "lethal injection" is actually a process of injections (three of four separate drugs I think) administered in a specific order in an attempt to make the death more "humane", so any potential introduction of pathogens from an infected needle might well interfere with that process. But on the whole I reckon it's more down to wanting to keep the prison personnel safe.

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2016 5:15 pm
by JimBentley
Gavin Chipper wrote:I think you're just not woke enough.
This made me laugh. You're funny. (Incidentally, where's Fred Mumford gone?)

Anyway, you've inspired me to become more woke, which has got to be a good thing. Not sure how I'll achieve this, especially as I'm still taking the piss out of the concept. Mixed messages eh?

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2016 5:42 pm
by Mark Deeks
JimBentley wrote:
Mark Deeks wrote:
Johnny Canuck wrote:Why do prison administrators in the US sterilise the needles that they use to put people to death by lethal injection?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Autry
As well as that sort of situation (rare but significant for its historical precedence), I think it's far more to do with it being far safer for the prison personnel (or whoever carries out the injections) to be working with sterile equipment.

Plus the "lethal injection" is actually a process of injections (three of four separate drugs I think) administered in a specific order in an attempt to make the death more "humane", so any potential introduction of pathogens from an infected needle might well interfere with that process. But on the whole I reckon it's more down to wanting to keep the prison personnel safe.
Indeed. Basically, there's no reason not to - the possibilities it guards against are all very unlikely, but possible nonetheless, so might as well.

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2016 8:14 am
by Marc Meakin
On a similar theme, why did your mum tell you not to swig germs from a cough medicine bottle....you already have germs

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2016 3:10 pm
by JimBentley
Marc Meakin wrote:On a similar theme, why did your mum tell you not to swig germs from a cough medicine bottle....you already have germs
I'm still trying to figure out what this means, I mean, it looks like a sentence and all that but I can't get it to make sense however I look at it. Why would you be drinking cough medicine from the bottle? Why would your mum let you? And why would she think that cough medicine contains germs? All they are is combinations of mild painkillers, anti-inflammatories, possibly antitussives in a syrup suspension.

You don't half come out with some strange stuff, Marc.


More please

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2016 4:16 pm
by Gavin Chipper
Mark Deeks wrote:
Johnny Canuck wrote:Why do prison administrators in the US sterilise the needles that they use to put people to death by lethal injection?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Autry
That's a bit of a strange case, but with the needles already in his arms, they could have executed him anyway just before the stay of execution came. So an equally good solution would be the carry out the execution five seconds later than you would otherwise have done.

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 9:58 am
by Gavin Chipper
Why are all perfume adverts ever the same pretentious bollocks? You'd think the different brands would want to distinguish themselves from each other in some way.

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 10:24 am
by Marc Meakin
It would be different if we had smellavision

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 2:59 pm
by Euan Slatter
Gavin Chipper wrote:Why are all perfume adverts ever the same pretentious bollocks? You'd think the different brands would want to distinguish themselves from each other in some way.
I agree 1001%!

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:28 pm
by Fred Mumford
Quite a few adverts show customer data at the bottom of the screen such as "84% of 189 women agree" and so forth. This can easily (if you're stupid or not paying attention) be misread or misinterpreted as "84 out of 189", which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.

Why don't they restrict the sample size based on the feedback as they go along? If only about half the respondents seem to like the product then stop asking after about 54 people - "50% of 54 women agree" sounds better than "50% of 106 agree". Or would nobody be fooled?

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:33 pm
by Euan Slatter
Fred Mumford wrote:Quite a few adverts show customer data at the bottom of the screen such as "84% of 189 women agree" and so forth. This can easily (if you're stupid or not paying attention) be misread or misinterpreted as "84 out of 189", which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.

Why don't they restrict the sample size based on the feedback as they go along? If only about half the respondents seem to like the product then stop asking after about 54 people - "50% of 54 women agree" sounds better than "50% of 106 agree". Or would nobody be fooled?
I get what you mean, but I don't think anyone would notice much difference

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 10:41 pm
by Mark Deeks
Fred Mumford wrote:Quite a few adverts show customer data at the bottom of the screen such as "84% of 189 women agree" and so forth. This can easily (if you're stupid or not paying attention) be misread or misinterpreted as "84 out of 189", which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.

Why don't they restrict the sample size based on the feedback as they go along? If only about half the respondents seem to like the product then stop asking after about 54 people - "50% of 54 women agree" sounds better than "50% of 106 agree". Or would nobody be fooled?
At 50%, I think I'd just leave it out to be honest.

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 11:37 pm
by Graeme Cole
Mark Deeks wrote:
Fred Mumford wrote:Quite a few adverts show customer data at the bottom of the screen such as "84% of 189 women agree" and so forth. This can easily (if you're stupid or not paying attention) be misread or misinterpreted as "84 out of 189", which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.

Why don't they restrict the sample size based on the feedback as they go along? If only about half the respondents seem to like the product then stop asking after about 54 people - "50% of 54 women agree" sounds better than "50% of 106 agree". Or would nobody be fooled?
At 50%, I think I'd just leave it out to be honest.
Dave Gorman did a piece about this. Starts at 18:30. Particularly silly example at 20:45.

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 6:05 am
by Euan Slatter
What are England almost always brilliant in qualifying stages (forget last night), but s**t in the actual thing!?

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 10:34 am
by Marc Meakin
Big fish little pond........little fish big pond

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 12:10 pm
by Ian Volante
Marc Meakin wrote:Big fish little pond........little fish big pond
Are you raving?

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 3:26 pm
by Marc Meakin
:D Yes but that is beside the point.
Unless you was referring to big fish little fish cardboard box

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 4:10 pm
by Euan Slatter
Why do teachers, tutors etc. only ever have sore throats when you are being loud?....

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2016 6:46 am
by Stephen Moore
Euan Slatter wrote:Why do teachers, tutors etc. only ever have sore throats when you are being loud?....
Because it is the only time they need an excuse not to shout as it is the only time they need to shout. Does this mean that they always have sore throats?

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 8:14 pm
by Gavin Chipper
Kinetic energy is 0.5mv^2. So if something going 1 m/s has 1 unit of energy, then something going 2 m/s has 4 units of energy. So if a vehicle is travelling at 1 m/s already, then it should take three times as much energy to reach 2 m/s as it did going from 0 to 1 m/s.

But speed is a relative thing isn't it? If there is a spaceship that is stationery relative to Earth, then it could have a blast on its rockets to then be going at 1 m/s relative to Earth. But what if it did the same again to go at 2 m/s relative to Earth? How much energy would that take? Three times as much? But there could be another spaceship next to it that did the first blast in unison with it. So the second blast would make the spaceship go from 0 to 1 m/s relative to this other spaceship but from 1 to 2 m/s relative to Earth.

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:56 pm
by Ian Volante
In a nutshell, it is correct to look at the change in velocity rather than the overall velocity.

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2016 1:14 pm
by Gavin Chipper
Ian Volante wrote:In a nutshell, it is correct to look at the change in velocity rather than the overall velocity.
But I could increase a vehicle's velocity by 2m/s or by 1m/s twice. Is there a difference?

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:00 pm
by Ian Volante
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:In a nutshell, it is correct to look at the change in velocity rather than the overall velocity.
But I could increase a vehicle's velocity by 2m/s or by 1m/s twice. Is there a difference?
Not as far as I can see. To increase its velocity by 1m/s takes the same amount of energy whether it's going at 9m/s or 999m/s. Ignoring relativity anyway.

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:18 pm
by Gavin Chipper
Ian Volante wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:In a nutshell, it is correct to look at the change in velocity rather than the overall velocity.
But I could increase a vehicle's velocity by 2m/s or by 1m/s twice. Is there a difference?
Not as far as I can see. To increase its velocity by 1m/s takes the same amount of energy whether it's going at 9m/s or 999m/s. Ignoring relativity anyway.
And how much energy does it take? Let's say my spaceship is 1kg.

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2016 11:20 pm
by Ian Volante
40.5J to get your spaceship from zero to 9m/s. And yes, I know where this is going. Someone who's done physics more recently than me is welcome to explain the answer, cos I'm now confused too, something to do with the rate of acceleration probably.

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2016 12:10 am
by Conor
Ian Volante wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:In a nutshell, it is correct to look at the change in velocity rather than the overall velocity.
But I could increase a vehicle's velocity by 2m/s or by 1m/s twice. Is there a difference?
Not as far as I can see. To increase its velocity by 1m/s takes the same amount of energy whether it's going at 9m/s or 999m/s. Ignoring relativity anyway.
The kinetic energy needed to get an object from speed u to speed v is 1/2mv^2 - 1/2mu^2 = 1/2*m(v^2 - u^2).
If v = u + 1 (so increasing it by 1m/s), this becomes 1/2*m(2u+1) which very much depends on the initial speed.

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2016 11:34 am
by Gavin Chipper
Conor wrote:The kinetic energy needed to get an object from speed u to speed v is 1/2mv^2 - 1/2mu^2 = 1/2*m(v^2 - u^2).
If v = u + 1 (so increasing it by 1m/s), this becomes 1/2*m(2u+1) which very much depends on the initial speed.
So how much fuel will I need to use to accelerate my spaceship by 1m/s? It's currently already going 1m/s relative to Earth, but it's stationary relative to the spaceship next to it. I want it to be going at 2m/s relative to Earth and 1m/s relative to the spaceship next to it.

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2016 9:51 pm
by Gavin Chipper
While do people feel the need to have two separate two-minute silences to mark the end of the First World War? And when the 11th November falls on a Sunday, they seem to invent some other day just to make sure we get two. I think it's insane.

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2016 10:52 pm
by JimBentley
Gavin Chipper wrote:While do people feel the need to have two separate two-minute silences to mark the end of the First World War? And when the 11th November falls on a Sunday, they seem to invent some other day just to make sure we get two. I think it's insane.
I agree. The addition of another minute of silence this year - ostensibly to mark a train crash - is particularly egregious. I'm pretty sure that everyone affected by that particular crash has already mourned in their own way; it was awful, of course, but to put it alongside the millions who died in World War 1 is frankly ridiculous.

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 1:57 pm
by Ian Volante
JimBentley wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:While do people feel the need to have two separate two-minute silences to mark the end of the First World War? And when the 11th November falls on a Sunday, they seem to invent some other day just to make sure we get two. I think it's insane.
I agree. The addition of another minute of silence this year - ostensibly to mark a train crash - is particularly egregious. I'm pretty sure that everyone affected by that particular crash has already mourned in their own way; it was awful, of course, but to put it alongside the millions who died in World War 1 is frankly ridiculous.
There's an ongoing thread here in the office on a similar sentiment - we just had a minute's silence for a year-old event in Paris while ignoring all of the equally worthy deaths of numerous people in other bits of the world. Gobshitery at its worst. In protest, I loudly stomped through the office to make a cup of tea.

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 3:06 pm
by JimBentley
Ian Volante wrote:
JimBentley wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:While do people feel the need to have two separate two-minute silences to mark the end of the First World War? And when the 11th November falls on a Sunday, they seem to invent some other day just to make sure we get two. I think it's insane.
I agree. The addition of another minute of silence this year - ostensibly to mark a train crash - is particularly egregious. I'm pretty sure that everyone affected by that particular crash has already mourned in their own way; it was awful, of course, but to put it alongside the millions who died in World War 1 is frankly ridiculous.
There's an ongoing thread here in the office on a similar sentiment - we just had a minute's silence for a year-old event in Paris while ignoring all of the equally worthy deaths of numerous people in other bits of the world. Gobshitery at its worst. In protest, I loudly stomped through the office to make a cup of tea.
I think there's a certain amount of "being seen to be altruistic" going on with people lately; it's completely misguided (in my opinion) but I'm sure it makes them feel as though they're good and are doing good things.

Actually I might have to make a new topic about this whole phenomenon, as it ties into another weird modern thing, which is the taking up of causes in the news by people who are entirely unaffected by said causes (I'm thinking in particular of the UK "Black Lives Matter" protests; whilst it's definitely an issue in America, I don't believe that there's a comparable situation in the UK and as such, the protests probably did more harm than they did good).

I might just forget though.

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 3:22 pm
by Gavin Chipper
By the way, I generally don't do silences at all. Any of them. I don't have a problem with people doing them, but I think they should be a personal thing. There are many ways people can remember or show respect, and having large public mass silences strikes me as a bit of an illiberal way of doing things, because people in the vicinity feel compelled to join in. It needs to be a voluntary thing or it defeats the point.

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 4:57 pm
by Marc Meakin
what about singing the national anthem in public.
I dont, not least because it needs updating/changing.

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 6:07 pm
by Euan Slatter
Well, soon it'll be GOD SAVE THE KING

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 7:23 pm
by Fred Mumford
I'd have thought she is too old to risk having that sort of operation.

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2016 12:52 pm
by Ian Volante
Fred Mumford wrote:I'd have thought she is too old to risk having that sort of operation.
*like*

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 1:02 am
by Mark Deeks
Why does fog only happen sometimes?

Re: Questions you've always wanted answered

Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 9:24 am
by Gavin Chipper
Mark Deeks wrote:Why does fog only happen sometimes?
Why does it ever happen?