Snow bird

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Snow bird

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,338 profile views
  1. Real men eat with the fork in the left hand because we are using a knife in the right hand. The fork is not a scooper if you are eating real meat that needs to be cut up into small enough pieces to get into your mouth. The fork spears the cut meat and unless you want to change hands every time you cut off a piece of meat then you use the fork in the left hand. If you do it the American way, like me, then you use the fork in the left hand and the knife in the right hand and you cut up everything that needs it, all at once, so you do not need the knife anymore. You then put the knife down and put the fork in the right hand and away you go. Much more practical and masculine. It always pisses of snobs and pussies.
  2. No. I am not using BT. I use xplornet in Canada. Yes, please send my password (preferably the current one) by PM. I have used PMs before and pretty sure they work fine.
  3. I am changing from internet explorer to chrome but I have lost my password. I cannot get the site to send me my password or allow me to change my password so I am stuck with internet explorer. Can you send me my password somehow? The site keeps telling me it has sent an email but I never get one.
  4. Attaching a weight to his tail would massively increase the moment of inertia of his tail, so much so that the cat would be able to rotate his body much easier given he had the muscle power in his tail. It is quite likely the cat would only need a partial rotation of his tail to get his body feet down. Oddly I doubt the cat would appreciate this assist to being dropped upside down over a bed or whatever. He might well take even more offense at the assault on his dignity and enter you for a Darwin award. Oops that was supposed to be a steppensheep reply.
  5. When I dropped my cat he started from rest but upside down. His angular momentum was zero. When your farmer friend kicked his cats out the back door he imparted a fairly high angular momentum to the cat so the cat would rotate fairly fast and the opposite angular momentum the cat is able to apply with his tail is limited, so a number of rotations of the cat before the cat could restore his angular momentum to zero is to be expected. Even so, my cat rotated himself remarkably quickly. My guess would be that he was oriented feet down after a drop of about three feet. The other seven feet he was feet down all the way. I dropped him onto cushions so I didn't think his complaints were totally justified, probably hurt his pride more than his legs.
  6. I actually experimented on our cat many years ago and much to his chagrin, but what happens is that the cat rotates his tail rapidly thus rotating his body in the opposite direction according to the law of conservation of angular momentum. The cat was remarkably knowledgeable about physics and math! When his body was facing feet down he rotated his tail in the opposite direction just long enough to stop his angular movement and then he descended feet first all the way down. He didn't like me for months after that!
  7. The theory would not apply to an axe since the axis of rotation gives the maximum moment of inertia. The theory only applies when the axis of rotation is intermediate between the maximum and minimum inertias.
  8. Very similar. I got the wing nut and the mathematical explanation. Asymmetric moments of inertia . . . fascinating!
  9. Here's a good one: Take your regular cell phone and hold it on your hand as it would normally be used but hold your hand flat. Do this over the bed or something soft. Now flip the cell phone up with your fingers with the intention of rotating it towards you and catching it exactly the way it started. Toss it high enough to give it time to rotate. Can't be done! Try the same trick with a tennis racket. Stick a piece of duct tape on the mesh to identify the side. Hold it normally and toss it into the air so that it rotates towards you with the intention of catching it in exactly the same position that it left your hand. Can't be done. There is an explanation which was kept top secret by the soviets for ten years.
  10. Snow bird

    Ask dosbods

    I will give it a shot. Our bodies are largely made up of proteins and these are manufactured by dna. Proteins can be very large molecules and their construction also involves folding so they are complicated. A typical protein has about 200 amino acids and there are about 20 different amino acids used. So a strand of dna required to manufacture just one protein has 200 amino acids all lined up in exactly the right sequence. The chances of amino acids bumping into each other accidentally and forming just one strand of dna is 20 to the power of 200. Jumping past the statistical nightmare of dna actually forming in the first place I was addressing the subsequent mutation of said dna. If the dna replicates itself and makes a mistake that is called a mutation and these mutations are going on all the time. Generally speaking natural selection will favor a small mutation that has a benefit to the organism. No problem with that. The problem arises in the creation of a new species or some organ that is new (like eyes). The dna changes required are astronomically huge and the chances of said dna changes occurring purely by chance are even more so. People have tried to get some sort of estimate of how long it would take to evolve a small animal using random dna "mistakes" they come up with numbers that are totally off the scale. To use a common analogy: how many monkeys typing randomly on typewriters would it take to produce Shakespeare? There may be a number and there may be a time but the number of monkeys exceeds the number of atoms in the universe and the time required exceeds the age of the universe. The mathematical evidence in front of us suggests design but by who? I find those of us who would rather attack the personality of people who are attempting to address this problem tiresome. For all of our technical advancement we have yet to manufacture a single strand of dna. We can cut and slice and insert but we can't produce an original. I think it is unreasonable to suggest random molecules of amino acids forming dna by bumping into each other. It is also unreasonable to think random selection of dna mistakes will produce small variations which over time produce a totally different life form. The time required for such theories is just too great. As an example, with selective breeding of dogs, while impressive, it is hard to imagine dog breeds randomly springing up by natural selection. And all the selective breeding of dogs in the world has never produced a cat! I propose that we are missing something. I don't know what it is but whatever it is, it is huge.
  11. Snow bird

    Ask dosbods

    When I watched this video I didn't know the guys involved, their qualifications or their character and I still don't and I don't care either. I listened to what they had to say and their logic. Their facts are easily checked from many sources. I think you make a fundamental mistake when you judge the reasoning and truth of an argument by your perceived notion of their character. I see their personality or character or history or life style etc. as totally irrelevant to the subject under discussion. If you do not agree with what they are saying I suggest you refute their position with logic and reason and facts. I don't give a rat's ass who they are or your opinion of them.
  12. Snow bird

    Ask dosbods

    The problem is that random mutations that might be an improvement or just lead to some useful change are so small a percentage of the total that their occurrence is ridiculously rare. So rare in fact that the universe is not old enough for them to form in the quantity required. the mathematics just does not support random mutations. That is the fundamental problem. Consider the difference between a primal mud puddle and a modern chemical laboratory. Knowing the complexity of DNA, hundreds of molecules, all amino acids and about twenty different varieties arranged in an exact sequence such that one out of place screws up the entire molecule. Are we to believe that the mud puddle produced these on a regular basis while our modern laboratory has yet to produce even one? It is not reasonable to accept random molecules coming together by chance. The mathematical chances are so huge that there is not enough time or available molecules in the entire universe.
  13. Snow bird

    Ask dosbods

    To your first point: yes indeed the earth was in eclipse for the people on earth and it was a real event to them. It is of no relevance to them that someone else saw it differently. We do need to know however that this event was not universally real. If we had interaction with other observers we need to know their perception. An example would be gps positioning satellites. The satellites are traveling fast enough that they see the earth a little differently than we do. They have to be corrected for the effect of relativity. To your second point: Although the end result would be identical for both observers they would disagree as to when it happened. Their time frame would be different.
  14. Snow bird

    Ask dosbods

    When all the observers are essentially in the same place and traveling with respect to each other at very small relative speeds then they will observe the event almost identically. An observer some distance away traveling close to the speed of light would not observe the event the same way. That is established relativity theory. The hard part is recognizing that both observations are correct. There is no "truth" of what happened. What happened is Dependant on the observer. Keep in mind that from the point of view of the observer in this case the solar system went whizzing by at near the speed of light and he did not observe a solar eclipse. From his, perfectly valid, point of view there was no solar eclipse though he might calculate that if he were in the frame of the solar system there would have been a solar eclipse. This would be to him academic since anything he did would have to use the information that there was no solar eclipse because in his frame there was not.
  15. Snow bird

    Ask dosbods

    That hypothesis is not supported by experimentation. All experiments we are able to perform (only at the atomic level) contradict that hypothesis and conclude that the event is governed by the observer. Denying the results of experiment is just not scientific no matter how crazy the results sound to your view of reality.