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
  #71  
Old December 27th 17, 02:38 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.d-i-y
Bill Wright[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,448
Default OT question

On 27/12/2017 05:55, Tjoepstil wrote:
On 27/12/17 01:59, Bill Wright wrote:
On 25/12/2017 18:46, Tim Streater wrote:

Mind you, that idea could be scrapped at any time. Remember phlogiston
and the luminiferous ether. Both though to exist to explain observed
phenomena, both ideas scrapped as sharper minds thought up other
explanations.


Be interesting to watch what happens with anthropogenic global warming
over the next few decades.

like watching paint dry?

already people are bored with it: its lost the power to amaze, so it
will be replaced by something else.

but its got nothing to do with science so I don't know why you
introduced it.

As an example of a bandwagon. Like the hoola hoop.

Bill

Ads
  #72  
Old December 27th 17, 02:56 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.d-i-y
Bill Wright[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,448
Default OT question

On 27/12/2017 08:58, Woody wrote:
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
news
On 25/12/2017 09:51, John Hall wrote:

Which raises the interesting question of whether alternative
universes exist in which some or all of those constants have
different values.


There are places not far from here where different values are
universally applied.



Ursa Minor maybe?


Edlington

Bill
  #73  
Old December 27th 17, 02:59 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.d-i-y
Bill Wright[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,448
Default OT question

On 27/12/2017 11:40, Java Jive wrote:
On 27/12/2017 01:59, Bill Wright wrote:

Be interesting to watch what happens with anthropogenic global warming
over the next few decades.


No it won't, you'll be dead.


Might be, might not. Who knows?

Bill
  #74  
Old December 27th 17, 03:02 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.d-i-y
newshound[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24
Default OT question

On 25/12/2017 08:19, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/12/17 20:59, newshound wrote:
On 24/12/2017 20:43, 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?

Bill


Start here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electr..._wave_equation

then look up permittivity and permeability of free space


But that doesnt do more than transform the question into 'why is that
the value of the permittivity and permeability of free space'?



No, but it tells you there are other more fundamantal measurable
parameters which have particular values, and these fix the speed of
light. So it takes you back one step.
  #75  
Old December 27th 17, 03:06 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,448
Default OT question

On 27/12/2017 13:40, Phi wrote:

Tell Bill 'c' is close to 300,000,000 metres per sec


Phi, are you trying to square the circle? Anyway, who decided to call
the speed of light 'c' and why? Was 'a' the speed of a horse and 'b' the
speed of a greyhound?

Bill
  #76  
Old December 27th 17, 03:49 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.d-i-y
Fredxx[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default OT question

On 27/12/2017 14:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/12/17 13:04, Fredxx wrote:
I do think any claim that there are 26 "constants", when we don't know
the origin of these numbers, is a bit risky.



That sounds intelligent, but on close examination, it is completely
meaningless.

Then I looked at the poster...


You often trot out your defence of 'meaningless' when you don't
understand something, in this case a simple wiki page?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-v...ntal_constants

Are the words too long for your vocabulary?




  #77  
Old December 27th 17, 04:01 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.d-i-y
Rod Speed
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 412
Default OT question

Bill Wright wrote
Cursitor Doom wrote


Natural philosophy was the term for science back in Newton's day. I'm
guessing you must surely know that, since it's your adopted moniker.


They had to call it philosophy because they hadn't really figured out
about doing proper experiments and that (well at best it was early days)
so they had to kinda guess about why things were as they were


That’s not true of early medicine, they were free to dissect corpses
and do simple stuff like applying a tourniquet and seeing that that
stops the blood flow etc.

and that's what philosophy is really. Just chewing the fat and getting
nowhere.


Early science got somewhere, particularly with medicine.

It's another of those devices that otherwise unemployable people use to
get a salary out of the those of us who actually do a job that benefits
humanity.


The early ones weren't paid to do it. And the early
medical practitioners did benefit humanity.

It's the same with linguistics.


Nope.

They only invented that because the Indo-European theory was wearing a bit
thin and otherwise there would have been a lot of profs out of work.


Academics don’t work like that.

Can't have profs doing proper jobs, not the done thing, so they invented
linguistics. Remember when plate tectonics came in? A lot of profs had two
choices: either disown their life's work or get the sack. Most of them
managed to make the transition. I don't know if they actually burnt their
own books. The next one will be when the tide turns against global warming
as caused by mankind. A few foolhardy youngsters will speak out; most will
be blackballed but a few won't; gradually the consensus will drift just as
the magnetic poles drift, then like the poles there will be a sudden flip.
Luckily by then most of the people who've made their money from global
warming will be retired, so the damage won't be too bad. I suppose a few
guys in their late 50s who were a bit slow on the uptake will be the
collateral damage, but to be honest I think they'll deserve it for
clinging on and propagating the bull**** long after they should have kept
quiet. The sensible thing is to be like the Vicar of Bray.



  #78  
Old December 27th 17, 04:51 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.d-i-y
Java Jive[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,774
Default OT question

On 27/12/2017 15:59, Bill Wright wrote:
On 27/12/2017 11:40, Java Jive wrote:
On 27/12/2017 01:59, Bill Wright wrote:

Be interesting to watch what happens with anthropogenic global
warming over the next few decades.


No it won't, you'll be dead.


Might be, might not. Who knows?


You'll certainly be dead before AGW significantly changes.

  #79  
Old December 27th 17, 06:39 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Max Demian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,970
Default OT question

On 27/12/2017 16:06, Bill Wright wrote:
On 27/12/2017 13:40, Phi wrote:

Tell Bill 'c' is close to 300,000,000 metres per sec


Phi, are you trying to square the circle? Anyway, who decided to call
the speed of light 'c' and why? Was 'a' the speed of a horse and 'b' the
speed of a greyhound?


http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...OfLight/c.html

(Nobody really knows apart from Isaac Asimov.)

--
Max Demian
  #80  
Old December 27th 17, 07:10 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.d-i-y
Andy Burns[_12_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 573
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 units are irrelevant, it's just 1.0 speed of light per unit time.

 




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 10:14 PM.


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.