Chat Forum
It is currently Fri May 25, 2018 4:14 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 247 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8590
Location: Mzansi
Bokkom wrote:
Beaver_Shark wrote:
It's impossible to hum while holding your nose.

:blush:
Correct.

No idea where I read/heard it, but I remember trying it immediately.

Let's just that my nose was blown that day :smug: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4561
Beaver_Shark wrote:
Bokkom wrote:
Beaver_Shark wrote:
It's impossible to hum while holding your nose.

:blush:
Correct.

No idea where I read/heard it, but I remember trying it immediately.

Let's just that my nose was blown that day :smug: :lol:

The only reason I didn't try to lick my elbow today was because I've heard that one before!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10881
MrJonno wrote:
Jeff the Bear wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:
Jeff the Bear wrote:
Quote:
Every single blue eyed person today has one common ancestor.


Hmmm...I'd like to see the proof on that one.


The proof is trivial. Every person alive today shares a common ancestor.


But isn't that a statistical thing, rather than an absolute? As in, I read the above as saying that one single person evolved blue eyes, and that every single human who has blue eyes now is descended from that one person.

Essentially, I'm questioning whether blue eyes, as a genetic variation, only ever happened once?


I believe all humans sharing a common ancestor has been researched and verified (it might of course have been refuted since I studied it 6 years ago) but I know that it is a mathematical certainty that if any species survives long enough at some point all existing individuals will have a common ancestor.


All people with blue eyes alive today can trace it back to a single ancestor:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 170343.htm

On the subject of the common ancestor - it's the Most Recent Common Ancestor (mitochondrial eve and Y-chromosomal Adam) from whom all humans can trace direct descent. It doesn't mean that we don't carry the genetic material of other ancient humans, just that we can't draw a direct line back to them thanks to the vagaries of genetic drift.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14739
Location: Leafy Surrey, UK
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 4:19 pm
Posts: 3259
Location: A Dreaming Spire
guy smiley wrote:
koroke hangareka wrote:
What if you have two pizzas?


That's Venn, man. Totally Venn.


My form tutor in Year 7 - Mrs Venn - is John Venn's great grand-daughter.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12415
MaccTaff wrote:
happyhooker wrote:
Onelostbear wrote:
John Tyler, America’s 10th president born in 1790 has two living grandchildren

Ah, bollocks, was going to do that one. It's fûcking astonishing


What??

That’s fûcking incredible! Just done some maths and, yes, it’s possible - but wow!


A man born in 1790 fathers a child at age 63 (1853). The son, in his early 70s, then fathers 2 children in 1924 & 1928, who are both alive today.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10881
Insane_Homer wrote:
Image


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12415
Bokkom wrote:
Beaver_Shark wrote:
It's impossible to hum while holding your nose.

:blush:
Correct.


I was just about to post bullshit, because I can. You just can’t do it for too long as your mouth fills with air. Still humming.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 3:43 pm
Posts: 873
There are more lifeforms living on your skin than there are people on the planet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 4:57 pm
Posts: 2834
Wait, Brando was in the Superman movie?

Also, I wonder who was pitching...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10881
Andalu wrote:
Wait, Brando was in the Superman movie?

Also, I wonder who was pitching...


Yep, played Jor El for all of five minutes at the start and, IIRC, squeezed all the money he could out of the studio for it.

I doubt we'll ever know for certain who was pitching, particularly given that it seems Brando would do anything to anything.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Posts: 675
Location: NZ
There are more possible moves in a game of chess than atoms in the observable universe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 12:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15221
de_Selby wrote:
Clive Simms wrote:
Emmanuel Adebayor's dad still washes elephants

What does his mother do these days?


Keeps her eyes closed to avoid the suds.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 12:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17527
fatcat wrote:
de_Selby wrote:
Clive Simms wrote:
Emmanuel Adebayor's dad still washes elephants

What does his mother do these days?


Keeps her eyes closed to avoid the suds.


and avoids CMM


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 12:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 40377
Beaver_Shark wrote:
It's impossible to hum while holding your nose.

Rubbish I can!!

or 😂😂😂😂


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 12:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:57 pm
Posts: 9220
The universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old, but the diameter of the observable universe is about 93 billion light years.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 12:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 4:57 pm
Posts: 2834
A5D5E5 wrote:
The universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old, but the diameter of the observable universe is about 93 billion light years.

Amazing, I assume then that the EM we get from the edges of the observable Universe don't depict that area as it is now?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 12:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:57 pm
Posts: 9220
Andalu wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:
The universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old, but the diameter of the observable universe is about 93 billion light years.

Amazing, I assume then that the EM we get from the edges of the observable Universe don't depict that area as it is now?


No, it is looking back in time. What we see now is as it was when the light was emitted. This is true for any observation of course - including things we see with our own eyes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 12:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4568
A5D5E5 wrote:
The universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old, but the diameter of the observable universe is about 93 billion light years.

I always find that disparity weird - 13.8 billion years is obviously a very long time, and my feeling that it’s manageable and I get what it means is a little delusional, but it still feels like it’s on a scale I can cope with. Whereas 93 billion light years is not a distance I can even begin to imagine comprehending.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 12:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10881
Mahoney wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:
The universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old, but the diameter of the observable universe is about 93 billion light years.

I always find that disparity weird - 13.8 billion years is obviously a very long time, and my feeling that it’s manageable and I get what it means is a little delusional, but it still feels like it’s on a scale I can cope with. Whereas 93 billion light years is not a distance I can even begin to imagine comprehending.


You can imagine time in a linear fashion, whereas space is more abstract, even on a terrestrial scale it's always slightly disconcerting just how big Italy, for example, actually is in physical terms compared to you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 12:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:57 pm
Posts: 9220
The Banach-Tarski Paradox shows that mathematically it is possible to cut a solid sphere into a limited number of pieces (possibly as low as 5) and then reassemble the pieces into two solid spheres of exactly the same size as the original. In practice of course, it is a bit harder.

(For a reason I've never understood - perhaps a bet?, when I was first taught this, the lecturer explained it as applying to rabbits rather than spheres)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 12:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:33 am
Posts: 6172
Location: Stockholm
A5D5E5 wrote:
The Banach-Tarski Paradox shows that mathematically it is possible to cut a solid sphere into a limited number of pieces (possibly as low as 5) and then reassemble the pieces into two solid spheres of exactly the same size as the original. In practice of course, it is a bit harder.

(For a reason I've never understood - perhaps a bet?, when I was first taught this, the lecturer explained it as applying to rabbits rather than spheres)


Wot? Are you sure you've got that right?

That doesn't even make sense. I'm no mathematician, but it seems to me you'd be making doubling the amount of matter you have, and you know the laws of thermodynamics...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 12:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:57 pm
Posts: 9220
Mog The Almighty wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:
The Banach-Tarski Paradox shows that mathematically it is possible to cut a solid sphere into a limited number of pieces (possibly as low as 5) and then reassemble the pieces into two solid spheres of exactly the same size as the original. In practice of course, it is a bit harder.

(For a reason I've never understood - perhaps a bet?, when I was first taught this, the lecturer explained it as applying to rabbits rather than spheres)


Wot? Are you sure you've got that right?

That doesn't even make sense. I'm no mathematician, but it seems to me you'd be making doubling the amount of matter you have, and you know the laws of thermodynamics...


That is why it is called a "Paradox" rather than a theorem!

In fact is it much weirder than I stated. It is also "possible" to cut one of the spheres up and reassemble it to be a sphere as large as the earth or the sun or as big as the milky way. The key (or trick) is that the pieces are cut in such a way that they don't have a definable volume.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach%E2 ... ki_paradox


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 12:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2016 12:40 pm
Posts: 1132
Mog The Almighty wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:
The Banach-Tarski Paradox shows that mathematically it is possible to cut a solid sphere into a limited number of pieces (possibly as low as 5) and then reassemble the pieces into two solid spheres of exactly the same size as the original. In practice of course, it is a bit harder.

(For a reason I've never understood - perhaps a bet?, when I was first taught this, the lecturer explained it as applying to rabbits rather than spheres)


Wot? Are you sure you've got that right?

That doesn't even make sense. I'm no mathematician, but it seems to me you'd be making doubling the amount of matter you have, and you know the laws of thermodynamics...


We know that God exists because mathemtics is consistent, and we know that the Devil exists because we cannot prove it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 12:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2016 12:40 pm
Posts: 1132
A5D5E5 wrote:
Andalu wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:
The universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old, but the diameter of the observable universe is about 93 billion light years.

Amazing, I assume then that the EM we get from the edges of the observable Universe don't depict that area as it is now?


No, it is looking back in time. What we see now is as it was when the light was emitted. This is true for any observation of course - including things we see with our own eyes.


I am suffering from Head-wrap-around-failure!

If we can observe 93 billion years of the travel of light then how can the universe be only 13.8 nillion yeears old?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 12:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 6009
HurricaneWasp wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
koroke hangareka wrote:
What if you have two pizzas?


That's Venn, man. Totally Venn.


My form tutor in Year 7 - Mrs Venn - is John Venn's great grand-daughter.


I once had dinner with the master of Gonville and Caius college who had been Venn's student. He took me back to his rooms to see some original Venn diagrams. Fascinating stuff...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 12:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7068
A5D5E5 wrote:
The universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old, but the diameter of the observable universe is about 93 billion light years.

To my simple mind that means 46.5 billion light years' expansion in 13.8 billion years. What am I missing?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 12:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:57 pm
Posts: 9220
ManInTheBar wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:
Andalu wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:
The universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old, but the diameter of the observable universe is about 93 billion light years.

Amazing, I assume then that the EM we get from the edges of the observable Universe don't depict that area as it is now?


No, it is looking back in time. What we see now is as it was when the light was emitted. This is true for any observation of course - including things we see with our own eyes.


I am suffering from Head-wrap-around-failure!

If we can observe 93 billion years of the travel of light then how can the universe be only 13.8 nillion yeears old?


Because the universe is (and always has been) expanding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 12:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:57 pm
Posts: 9220
Gwenno wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:
The universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old, but the diameter of the observable universe is about 93 billion light years.

To my simple mind that means 46.5 billion light years' expansion in 13.8 billion years. What am I missing?


The expansion of the universe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 12:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18144
danny_fitz wrote:
On average, every single person on the planet owns 14 lego bricks.

Lego are the world's largest manufacturer of tyres


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 12:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:57 pm
Posts: 9220
danny_fitz wrote:
On average, every single person on the planet owns 14 lego bricks.


Given the amount that is currently distributed around my house, I suspect the average for the rest of the planet is closer to 13.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 12:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2016 12:40 pm
Posts: 1132
A5D5E5 wrote:
ManInTheBar wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:
Andalu wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:
The universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old, but the diameter of the observable universe is about 93 billion light years.

Amazing, I assume then that the EM we get from the edges of the observable Universe don't depict that area as it is now?


No, it is looking back in time. What we see now is as it was when the light was emitted. This is true for any observation of course - including things we see with our own eyes.


I am suffering from Head-wrap-around-failure!

If we can observe 93 billion years of the travel of light then how can the universe be only 13.8 nillion yeears old?


Because the universe is (and always has been) expanding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe


" space itself is expanding, so we can actually detect light from objects that were once close, but are now up to around 45.7 billion light years away (rather than up to 13.799 billion light years away as might be expected)"

This article just adds to the mystery it seems to me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 12:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:57 pm
Posts: 9220
ManInTheBar wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:
ManInTheBar wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:
Andalu wrote:
Amazing, I assume then that the EM we get from the edges of the observable Universe don't depict that area as it is now?


No, it is looking back in time. What we see now is as it was when the light was emitted. This is true for any observation of course - including things we see with our own eyes.


I am suffering from Head-wrap-around-failure!

If we can observe 93 billion years of the travel of light then how can the universe be only 13.8 nillion yeears old?


Because the universe is (and always has been) expanding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe


" space itself is expanding, so we can actually detect light from objects that were once close, but are now up to around 45.7 billion light years away (rather than up to 13.799 billion light years away as might be expected)"

This article just adds to the mystery it seems to me.


Try this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBr4GkRnY04


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2016 12:40 pm
Posts: 1132
A5D5E5 wrote:


OK, that is very helpful, thank you.

I know this will sound like barrack-room physics, and I apologise in advance but....

It strikes me that this explanation is based upon a series of hypotheses which are internally consistent but have been created to explain observed phenomena that otherwise appear to contradict theory. At one point I felt that the script referenced the 'problematic' observations in order to demonstrate the truth of other assertions which were, themselves, created to explain the phenomena.

That made me feel as if a comparison with the development of Ptolemaic astronomy was coming on. Dark matter and energy feed into this also.

I'd prefer the unattainable, a set of hypotheses that did not claim to be wholly provable (Goedel) but that did provide explanatory power and enable new discoveries.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7138
Clive Simms wrote:
After you die there will come an exact point in time where you are mentioned in conversation or thought of by another human for the very last time


Didn't like this one, got a little shiver


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7068
A5D5E5 wrote:
Gwenno wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:
The universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old, but the diameter of the observable universe is about 93 billion light years.

To my simple mind that means 46.5 billion light years' expansion in 13.8 billion years. What am I missing?


The expansion of the universe.

But 46.5 billion light years in 13.8 billion years is over 3 light years per year - expansion at over 3 times the speed of light? The barrier that can't be broken? That's why I asked - what am I missing?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6809
slick wrote:
Clive Simms wrote:
After you die there will come an exact point in time where you are mentioned in conversation or thought of by another human for the very last time


Didn't like this one, got a little shiver



I'm ok with it as long as it happens after I die


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7068
MrJonno wrote:
slick wrote:
Clive Simms wrote:
After you die there will come an exact point in time where you are mentioned in conversation or thought of by another human for the very last time


Didn't like this one, got a little shiver



I'm ok with it as long as it happens after I die

Hasn't happened to Julius Caesar yet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4568
MrJonno wrote:
slick wrote:
Clive Simms wrote:
After you die there will come an exact point in time where you are mentioned in conversation or thought of by another human for the very last time


Didn't like this one, got a little shiver



I'm ok with it as long as it happens after I die

Oh, almost certainly - once they find your body they’re going to want to identify you to get the death certificates and any other legal stuff sorted out, so as long as you’re living in a relatively modern bureaucracy I reckon memory of you is pretty much guaranteed to outlive your death by a few days.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18144
Portsmouth football club's first ever goalie was sir Arthur Conan Doyle


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 247 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BBB, Bing [Bot], ElementFreak, Farva, Google Adsense [Bot], Jeff the Bear, LandOTurk, Morgan14, Sards, wamberal99 and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group