EPTAsk and answer stupid questions here! - Page 528
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On November 10 2016 14:13 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: Random weird law question. If after Ford's pardon it had turned out that Nixon had personally murdered someone while president would he be able to be prosecuted? Most murders are state level crimes, and a presidential pardon doesn't affect those. But yeah if he committed a federal murder at some point from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974 he would be totally free from prosecution. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On November 10 2016 12:44 ZigguratOfUr wrote: It doesn't make any new physical predictions. It tries to explain the properties of the cosmos in ways that do not involve dark matter. It and the Lambda-CDM model both serve to explain stuff like CMB radiation, the accelerating expansion of the universe, the distribution of galaxies etc. Since they "fit existing facts" and don't make new predictions existing experiments won't falsify them. There may be new experiments that could be devised to distinguish between them, or objections based on theoretical grounds (like in 2010 after Verlinde's initial paper there were some criticism to it claiming it broke quantum coherence and stuff like that). ok, so what does "fit existing facts" and "explain" mean here? Sorry for being picky here, I'm just trying to boil it down to exactly what I'm after.  Can you calculate observables that match quantitative (existing) measurements? If so, which of these is the better description: 1) Does it do so through a large number of free parameters in the model that are tuned to match data, and the parameters could be changed to match essentially any measured data (not falsifiable). or 2) The model constrains the predictions (of currently existing data) so that it could've been impossible to fit the model to the data, if the measurements were a bit different (falsifiable), but the shape of the data is similar enough to what the model expects. 1) doesn't really mean anything, while 2) is worthy of a nod and a "huh, nice".  I'm not even sure if you are knowledgeable enough on the subject to know, but I try... Thanks. | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On November 10 2016 14:37 Cascade wrote: ok, so what does "fit existing facts" and "explain" mean here? Sorry for being picky here, I'm just trying to boil it down to exactly what I'm after. Can you calculate observables that match quantitative (existing) measurements? If so, which of these is the better description: 1) Does it do so through a large number of free parameters in the model that are tuned to match data, and the parameters could be changed to match essentially any measured data (not falsifiable). or 2) The model constrains the predictions (of currently existing data) so that it could've been impossible to fit the model to the data, if the measurements were a bit different (falsifiable), but the shape of the data is similar enough to what the model expects. 1) doesn't really mean anything, while 2) is worthy of a nod and a "huh, nice". I'm not even sure if you are knowledgeable enough on the subject to know, but I try... Thanks. The second though I quote: Admittedly, the observed scaling relations have played a role in developing the theoretical description, and motivated our hypothesis that the entropy of de Sitter space is distributed over de bulk of spacetime. The current prevailing model (Lambda-CDM) meanwhile uses (a minimum of) six free parameters. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On November 10 2016 15:06 ZigguratOfUr wrote: The second though I quote: The current prevailing model (Lambda-CDM) meanwhile uses (a minimum of) six free parameters. Never black and white, is it? So there is some merit to the model? Thanks, interesting to hear. | ||
|
Birdie
New Zealand4438 Posts
| ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On November 11 2016 07:53 Birdie wrote: Not exactly stupid but how long do fossils take to form? Google seems kinda imprecise in the first page, saying basically "we dunno but a while", but couldn't we do a lab experiment which accelerates the fossilization process or something? Fossilization is basically a catch-all term for anything that results in preserved remains or traces of organisms so it varies wildly. And people have done fossilization in lab: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17801278. Though in general people don't consider things to be real fossils unless they are older than the last glacial event. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23957 Posts
| ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On November 12 2016 01:28 GreenHorizons wrote: We're overdue for a polar shift, when it comes, would it be easier to switch everything labeled north and south or to just explain for the next few hundred thousand years why everything is named backwards? A geomagnetic reversal would be welcome. Right now what we call the North Pole is in fact the south pole of the magnet--a geomagnetic reversal would only make this less confusing (until you look at a compass and have to explain why the north-seeking pole is pointing south). | ||
|
mantequilla
Turkey781 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On November 12 2016 04:02 ZigguratOfUr wrote: A geomagnetic reversal would be welcome. Right now what we call the North Pole is in fact the south pole of the magnet--a geomagnetic reversal would only make this less confusing (until you look at a compass and have to explain why the north-seeking pole is pointing south). Wouldn't you just have to swap the letters? | ||
|
Emnjay808
United States10665 Posts
aka: if im getting 120fps in wow right now. will it stay 120fps when i switch in the new monitor? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22373 Posts
On November 13 2016 07:35 Emnjay808 wrote: hey guys if i get a 144hz monitor will that put a strain on my gpu? when i normally use a 60hz same reso. aka: if im getting 120fps in wow right now. will it stay 120fps when i switch in the new monitor? Your monitors refresh rate has no impact on your fps. Your FPS will not change with a new monitor. In your example (60 hz monitor, 120 fps) your graphics card is drawing 120 pictures a second (your fps), your monitor is then displaying 60 pictures per second (your refreshrate). therefor half of the pictures drawn by your graphics card are ignored because the monitor doesn't have time to show them. (nothing wrong with that) With the new monitor you will have a smoother screen, because more pictures can be shown which makes the transition between each smoother. (the 24 frames your new monitor can show but your graphics card can't supply in time (120 fps vs 144 hz) just means every so often a frame gets repeated, but the duration is so short your eyes wont notice). | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On November 13 2016 07:35 Emnjay808 wrote: hey guys if i get a 144hz monitor will that put a strain on my gpu? when i normally use a 60hz same reso. aka: if im getting 120fps in wow right now. will it stay 120fps when i switch in the new monitor? Refresh rate and FPS are independent. So getting a new monitor won't affect your GPU at all. Unless you use v-sync. | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
On November 13 2016 08:17 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Refresh rate and FPS are independent. So getting a new monitor won't affect your GPU at all. Unless you use v-sync. Even with V-Sync it would only have an effect if his GPU was faster than his monitor refresh rate. V-Sync does not somehow force the GPU to become faster. It only throttles the speed if it is already too fast. | ||
|
Emnjay808
United States10665 Posts
| ||
|
Epishade
United States2267 Posts
| ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On November 13 2016 14:17 Epishade wrote: If I'm marooned on a life-raft with a few other people, is it common courtesy to let them know they can eat me after I'm dead, or is that just sort of an unspoken rule that whoever dies first will get eaten? Is it a dick move if I expressly tell them I wish to be buried at sea after I die, still intact. I doubt there are protocol for common courtesy regarding this. :D Anyway I don't think they will care too much about what you wished for in that situation. Do you expect them to respect your wishes and die because you didn't give them permission to eat you? I think most would be deep into survival mode at that point, and just do whatever to stay alive. But yeah, I have no real information about this ofc. Would be interesting to know how this kind of scenario has played out when it's happened in reality (and someone lived to tell the tale). | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On November 13 2016 14:27 Cascade wrote: I doubt there are protocol for common courtesy regarding this. :D Anyway I don't think they will care too much about what you wished for in that situation. Do you expect them to respect your wishes and die because you didn't give them permission to eat you? I think most would be deep into survival mode at that point, and just do whatever to stay alive. But yeah, I have no real information about this ofc. Would be interesting to know how this kind of scenario has played out when it's happened in reality (and someone lived to tell the tale). R v Dudley and Stephens provides some precedent though in that case the victim of cannibalism, Richard Parker, was still alive when the other occupants of the lifeboat kill him for food. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
For example, you put beef roast into the oven, you know you want to get the inside temperature to say 70C, so you set the oven to 175C, and eventually thermodynamics does its thing, and the convection of air in the oven, and heat conduction in the food. In this situation, the food would keep increasing its temperature asymptotically to 175C. But say you had an oven that kept the temperature of food constant, would keeping it at that temperature longer make the food taste different? | ||
| ||
