Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.

Scott wrote:

You made yourself look foolish and you're grasping at straws. You might as
well have claimed I didn't take into account the match you lit the other
day.

You made a statement that was exclusive. It was wrong, and the only one
looking foolish here is the person stupid enough to state "There is only
one input source, the Sun" without qualification. For the avoidance of
doubt, that's you.

Scott wrote:

Biochemistry is not a non-numerate discipline. And you're wrong.


To *you* it may seem numerate, but I can assure you it is non-numerate.

You can assure me of many things, but since you're a bull****ting
blagger those assurances would still be hollow. What your statement
shows is that you're an empty-headed know nothing.

Or do you consider x-ray crystallography, NMR, protemics, genomics etc
to be "non numerate" applications of science?

Now I think you should get back to studying for your GCSE.

In article ,
JAF wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:59:01 +0100, Cynic wrote:


So your physics knowlege doesn't extend to levers and pulley systems
either. Ah well.

? ? ?

"a little effort can do a lot of work" is what that presumably means.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

"charles" wrote in message

So your physics knowlege doesn't extend to levers and pulley systems
either. Ah well.

? ? ?

"a little effort can do a lot of work" is what that presumably means.

'Amplification.'

In this case, mechanical.

[4 marks]


Sad, this is probably the most entertaining thread atm.
(f/u's set)

"Steve Firth" wrote

You made a statement that was exclusive. It was wrong, and the only one
looking foolish here is the person stupid enough to state "There is only
one input source, the Sun" without qualification.

http://websearch.thesun.co.uk/uk.the...ineset=uk-only

"August West" wrote

All science is either physics or stamp collecting

If it moves it's Biology
If it smells it's Chemistry
If is doesn't fukking work it's Physics

Wood Pigeon wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote

You made a statement that was exclusive. It was wrong, and the only one
looking foolish here is the person stupid enough to state "There is only
one input source, the Sun" without qualification.

http://websearch.thesun.co.uk/uk.the...ne%2Bsun?engin
eset=uk-only

Ah, you mean that's why Spott's comments are so lame arsed? He's used to
staring at heavenly bodies.

August West wrote:

(Steve Firth) writes:

Scott wrote:

Biochemistry is not a non-numerate discipline. And you're wrong.


To *you* it may seem numerate, but I can assure you it is non-numerate.

You can assure me of many things, but since you're a bull****ting
blagger those assurances would still be hollow. What your statement
shows is that you're an empty-headed know nothing.

Or do you consider x-ray crystallography, NMR, protemics, genomics
etc to be "non numerate" applications of science?

All science is either physics or stamp collecting

Yebbut no one invites physicists to drunken orgies because they're so
dull. Well, other than Feynman and Einstein of course without who an
orgy would have been neither drunken nor indeed an orgy.

Cynic wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:17:27 +0100, Scott
wrote:

Small inputs in the right place can greater effects than huge inputs
elsewhere. In Africa, your life is likely to be affected more by the
mosquito than by the elephant.

LOL
Solar radiation varies by at least 100 times the average geothermal flux from
minute to minute.

As I said, a small input in the right place can have a greater effect
than a huge input elsewhere.

I could have said you had an ounce of common sense that would be wrong as well.
It is amazing how often "common sense" turns out to be totally
incorrect - especially in areas of physics. Perhaps you are applying
a tad too much, and the sort of sense required is, unfortunately,
*not* that common?

ROTFLMAO
Fortunately I find basic physics to be more useful than the quasi-magical
belief system required to make 0.005 significant compared to 1370.

So your physics knowlege doesn't extend to levers and pulley systems
either. Ah well.


No I think its you who doesn't understand levers and pulleys. Use of a lever or
pulley *doesn't* decrease the amount of energy expended. This is basic 'O'
level stuff.

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:29:08 GMT, JAF
wrote:

So your physics knowlege doesn't extend to levers and pulley systems
either. Ah well.

? ? ?

Yes, I'm not surprised that you are bewildered, there is quite a lot
that you do not comprehend.

To explain - you said:

Fortunately I find basic physics to be more useful than the quasi-magical
belief system required to make 0.005 significant compared to 1370.

Which indicates that you cannot conceive of a situation in which a
value of .005 would be significant compared to 1370. I therefore gave
a very simple example of a mechanism in which it could be.

If you use a lever or a pulley system with sufficient mechanical
advantage, a force of .005 (at one end) will indeed be significant
when compared with a force of 1370 at the other side. There is
nothing magical or quasi-magical about it - it is simple physics. You
just need to think outside the very narrow box that you appear to be
stuck in.

The example I gave before of a trim tab on a ship's rudder was meant
to illustrate the same thing - but you failed to grasp its
significance and instead went off on flights of fancy about all ships
turning in the same direction.

And my elephant/mosquito analogy was similarly designed to illustrate
that size is not always the most important factor. You have probably
been told that before (but they might have been lying to you).

--
Cynic