A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

OT question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old December 29th 17, 01:21 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.d-i-y
Bill Wright[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,448
Default OT question

On 29/12/2017 02:03, Java Jive wrote:

Someone with a First-class Honours in Mathematics & Computing, and
therefore, by implication, logic.¬* The statement was a provable error of
logic¬* -¬* since assuming its truth leads to an absurdity, it must be false.


Someone with a big head I reckon. Lots of knowledge and no sense.

Bill
Ads
  #102  
Old December 29th 17, 08:18 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.d-i-y
Roger Hayter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default OT question

Java Jive wrote:

On 28/12/2017 15:49, Cursitor Doom wrote:

I don't need "studies" to tell me I'm freezing my nuts off more and more
with each passing year. I only need to look out the ****ing window.
Global warming = my arse.


You will always get short-term variations from year to year, it's the
long-term trend over many decades into centuries that matters. Besides,
it's winter at the moment, and winter is usually cold. Also, as you get
older, lack of circulation tends to make you feel the cold more.


Where I am we have had about eight very mild winters in a row, after of
couple of years of prolonged snow and ice about ten years ago.
Needless to say, I draw no particular conclusions from this.

--

Roger Hayter
  #103  
Old December 29th 17, 12:45 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.d-i-y
Java Jive[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,774
Default OT question

On 29/12/2017 02:21, Bill Wright wrote:

Someone with a big head I reckon. Lots of knowledge and no sense.


So what are your scientific qualification then? If I'm big-headed, what
does that make you?! Big-arsed I guess, as you're always talking
through it.
  #104  
Old December 29th 17, 12:56 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.d-i-y
Fredxx[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default OT question

On 28/12/2017 18:08, Bill Wright wrote:
On 28/12/2017 16:24, Java Jive wrote:
On 28/12/2017 14:38, brightside S9 wrote:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 12:44:43 +0000, Java Jive
wrote:

What do reckon to this then?
https://astronomynow.com/2015/07/17/...e-age-by-2030/


Interesting, but the emphasis on solar cycles is overdone, see below.
However, let's deal with the obvious *error* first ...


So it's Professor Simon Shepherd of Bradford University, Dr Helen Popova
of Lomonosov Moscow State University and Dr Sergei Zarkhov of Hull
University

VERSUS

The Sage of Loch Shin

Seconds out!



Its not clear what you are trying to say. The post seemed very
reasonable to me.
  #105  
Old December 29th 17, 03:05 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.d-i-y
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default OT question

Bill Wright wrote:
What are the parameters that set the speed of electromagnetic
transmission in a vacuum? I've googled everywhere but I can't find the
answer. It's easy enough to find the figure but WHY? Why not
29,979,245.8 metres per second or 2,997,924,580 metres per second?


The speed of electromagnetic waves (in vacuum) is set by the speed
built into the underlying spacetime metric, usually denote "c".

Many physicists, particularly theorists, happily (and without introducing
any ambiguity) set this to 1, because they are not tied to any traditional
set of unit conventions. However, back in a more practical environment,
we have to work with pre-existing units such as meters and seconds.

Those physicists who have particular expertise in measurements decided
that since it is easier to measure times accurately, that would be best
to first define the second, and then tweak the definition of the meter
slightly so that c in everyday SI units was exactly 299 792 458 m/s.

If you want, feel free to convert c into furlongs/fortnight, or whatever
other crazy units take your fancy. But our second and meter definitions
mean that c = 299 792 458 m/s.


#Paul
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright ©2004-2018 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.