Jump to content

NFUN

Members
  • Posts

    786
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by NFUN

  1. A better than awful movie does not make it a good movie.
  2. Funding was cut. They built the planet but failed to include anything interesting. At the least, we should be able to build the mile-high molten lead slide
  3. What's the test schedule looking like?
  4. they do... but those aren't the articles whose failure people here are deriding?
  5. With a spring scale, you're measuring the weight of the object by balancing the force exerted by the springs vs the force exerted by the mass. Given a different local acceleration, the spring scale would register a different rate. Given an appropriate gradient, the balance scale should always give the right answer--you're comparing masses directly with each other, and although the medium is via their apparent weight, in a very real sense the result you're getting is the object's mass. In other words, with a spring scale, given what you're measuring and what you're measuring it with (the object and the parameters of the spring), you can calculate the local force field. With a balance scale, you know nothing about the local environment other than there's some persistent direction of force. Anyway, in real terms, so long as the system is self-consistent in which value it prefers, neither is inherently preferable; one might be useful for some use-cases over others, but that line of attack is like debating between mks and cgs units, which is not an argument any sane person wants to have. The idea that imperial being bad because it's hard to convert to an entirely different system assumes that the different system is better anyway, and that when doing your own calculations, you would always want to convert
  6. Extremely silly point. If you use a spring scale, you're ackshually 980 Newtons, but if you use a balance scale, you're ackshaully 100 kg?
  7. it's just the least common multiple of the two orbital periods, assuming this is in reference to Earth, no the sidereal period (in which case, add a few days)
  8. I wish this were something I had not learned about
  9. It took me way too long to parse that "nm" in this context is "nautical mile". Kept wondering why barely-measurable lengths were relevant
  10. From the makers of Uranium™, comes Thorium™. Same great taste, less filling!
  11. Every single Mech E major I knew would convert the imperial units they were given in problems to metric to do the work and would convert them back at the end, even though they were mostly American and they were taught in Imperial in most classes since the beginning of school Just say no.
  12. ??? this seems entirely unsurprising
  13. little known fact: nuclear power technology has advanced since in the 1970's
  14. because saying somebody is wrong then trying to shut down the conversation so you'd have the last word is obnoxious and cowardly
  15. if you wanted to avoid veering into the War of Ideas, why did you challenge him instead of saying nothing
  16. Depending on the mission, they'd probably blow it up to deny the enemy any intel do you understand the scale of the US military budget? we spend over a hundred thousand dollars *on individual missiles*
  17. If you're concerned about them in the real world, they fundamentally require negative energy. It's been proven. Our resident particle physics ABD has some good posts on the topic scattered around if you want to know the logic in more depth than "they work by exploiting local negatively curved spacetime, so of course you need exotic matter to create such a curvature"
  18. please stop feeding the concern troll thank you
×
×
  • Create New...