Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > General off-topic
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1401  
Old 07.03.2013, 10:50
Kosti's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oranje County
Posts: 488
Groaned at 27 Times in 17 Posts
Thanked 871 Times in 364 Posts
Kosti has a reputation beyond reputeKosti has a reputation beyond reputeKosti has a reputation beyond reputeKosti has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
Yes. And the linked articles are quite clear on this. An object could be moving at a minuscule speed relative to earth but still 'escape' as long as that speed is maintained by some additional force.

The key point is that the total energy needed to escape (disregarding air resistance which varies with the square of speed) will be the same regardless of the speed used - just that in the bullet example all that energy is imparted in one bang, so that initial speed must 'contain' the kinetic energy needed, whereas the rocket stores it in the form of potential energy (i.e. fuel) and converts in later to kinetic (i.e. moving) energy.
The total energy needed to escape does go up with time spent escaping the Earths gravitational well, even if you ignore air resistance.

Until the rocket achieves orbital velocity, it will use part of its fuel to push against gravity. This is called a "gravity loss" in calculations for launches.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_loss
To launch, its best to apply the highest possible acceleration for the shortest possible time.
Reply With Quote
  #1402  
Old 12.03.2013, 11:45
MusicChick's Avatar
modified and reprogrammed
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: La Cote
Posts: 9,713
Groaned at 87 Times in 70 Posts
Thanked 11,201 Times in 5,564 Posts
MusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

OK, this has bugged me.

Why on earth are linguists using and quoting sources from primary literature. To prove their point, by quoting literary constructs? Primary lit is not a report about authentic communication. With primary lit you can pretty much illustrate whatever you want.

Why do they do this, theories are distant enough, why illustrate them with something not real, when you can do the leg work, find your stuff, do your research, get data, and illustrate with something a lot more tangible on hand. Unless your theory is not valid. Quoting EF is a lot more usable source for any theory of communication than a theater play.

I think using literature sources discredits. Or maybe I am just a little too practical. Theories of comm should be about practicality and real use. Or we can just chuck it all, and say, yes, people communicate. They say whatever.

I have had it with posy books today, rant's off.
__________________
"L'homme ne peut pas remplacer son coeur avec sa tete, ni sa tete avec ses mains." J.H.Pestalozzi
Reply With Quote
  #1403  
Old 12.03.2013, 11:56
adrianlondon's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Basel
Posts: 8,788
Groaned at 189 Times in 172 Posts
Thanked 24,215 Times in 6,520 Posts
adrianlondon has a reputation beyond reputeadrianlondon has a reputation beyond reputeadrianlondon has a reputation beyond reputeadrianlondon has a reputation beyond reputeadrianlondon has a reputation beyond reputeadrianlondon has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Can you please post in English. Thank you.

(I think it was a rant, not a question )
Reply With Quote
  #1404  
Old 12.03.2013, 12:01
MusicChick's Avatar
modified and reprogrammed
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: La Cote
Posts: 9,713
Groaned at 87 Times in 70 Posts
Thanked 11,201 Times in 5,564 Posts
MusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
Can you please post in English. Thank you.


There...hahahah.

No, I was serious. People write up a theory on communication. And they illustrate it with constructed dialogues. You can hundred times imagine that dialogue to be true, but it does not matter. Corpus linguistics also does not push people to change all rules of grammar and immediately and now, thought they would have better chances, since corpus actually reflects real use. Communication constructs don't illustrate anything. I want to know why some linguists do it and consider it credible, I seem to be going wrong somewhere.
Reply With Quote
  #1405  
Old 12.03.2013, 18:04
22 yards's Avatar
Only in moderation
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Basel-Land
Posts: 6,596
Groaned at 188 Times in 147 Posts
Thanked 10,932 Times in 4,519 Posts
22 yards has a reputation beyond repute22 yards has a reputation beyond repute22 yards has a reputation beyond repute22 yards has a reputation beyond repute22 yards has a reputation beyond repute22 yards has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

I'm with Adrian. Posting your rant twice didn't make it any more intelligible. Or interrogative.
Reply With Quote
  #1406  
Old 12.03.2013, 21:56
MusicChick's Avatar
modified and reprogrammed
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: La Cote
Posts: 9,713
Groaned at 87 Times in 70 Posts
Thanked 11,201 Times in 5,564 Posts
MusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Ah, shush you two..I am waiting for some brainiac from humanities, linguistics or similar where research might be conducted the same way.

Can you have a feminist linguist, who would claim existence of gender differences in real life communication and prove her theory by quoting novels and theater plays?

There...was that interrogative enough? Hahahaha. I really do not like fem ling. I tried to like it very much. Girls rock.

(what doofus moved this to off topic, we need edjukashion...in every day life)
Reply With Quote
  #1407  
Old 12.03.2013, 22:51
Ace1's Avatar
A singular modality
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Engelberg & near Basel
Posts: 5,855
Groaned at 167 Times in 120 Posts
Thanked 8,886 Times in 3,980 Posts
Ace1 has a reputation beyond reputeAce1 has a reputation beyond reputeAce1 has a reputation beyond reputeAce1 has a reputation beyond reputeAce1 has a reputation beyond reputeAce1 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post

No, I was serious. People write up a theory on communication. And they illustrate it with constructed dialogues. You can hundred times imagine that dialogue to be true, but it does not matter. Corpus linguistics also does not push people to change all rules of grammar and immediately and now, thought they would have better chances, since corpus actually reflects real use. Communication constructs don't illustrate anything. I want to know why some linguists do it and consider it credible, I seem to be going wrong somewhere.
Maybe you should pick a language that you can communicate in yourself. Apart from the many grammatical and logical errors in your post(s) you're completely failing to illustrate the issue you're complaining about.

Really, it's just a matter of guesswork trying to work it out.
Reply With Quote
  #1408  
Old 12.03.2013, 22:58
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,338
Groaned at 176 Times in 126 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
OK, this has bugged me.

Why on earth are linguists using and quoting sources from primary literature. To prove their point, by quoting literary constructs? Primary lit is not a report about authentic communication. With primary lit you can pretty much illustrate whatever you want.

Why do they do this, theories are distant enough, why illustrate them with something not real, when you can do the leg work, find your stuff, do your research, get data, and illustrate with something a lot more tangible on hand. Unless your theory is not valid. Quoting EF is a lot more usable source for any theory of communication than a theater play.

I think using literature sources discredits. Or maybe I am just a little too practical. Theories of comm should be about practicality and real use. Or we can just chuck it all, and say, yes, people communicate. They say whatever.

I have had it with posy books today, rant's off.
Do you want the simple non-answer answer? Scientists (linguists) are lazy buggers, too. Why do all that legwork, when they can just cite something remotely relevant, get published (there's so many journals nowadays), and move on to the next grant?
Reply With Quote
  #1409  
Old 12.03.2013, 23:23
MusicChick's Avatar
modified and reprogrammed
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: La Cote
Posts: 9,713
Groaned at 87 Times in 70 Posts
Thanked 11,201 Times in 5,564 Posts
MusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
Do you want the simple non-answer answer? Scientists (linguists) are lazy buggers, too. Why do all that legwork, when they can just cite something remotely relevant, get published (there's so many journals nowadays), and move on to the next grant?
It's the remotely relevant that irritates me..And the fact the same linguist quotes more of her own articles as sources than other peoples', so you are probably right. I think it's lazy, too, but it's a shame since you can really conduct a pretty decent study to prove your point, no need to quote a literary source. It's like trying to make an imaginary friend give your some scientific credentials

I wonder if reaching out to literature is supposed to support the theory more, maybe, since the author is pretty known. Still has nothing to do with real life communication patterns, though, that the linguist talks about. It wouldn't be hard to mix both real life recordings and literary sources.
__________________
"L'homme ne peut pas remplacer son coeur avec sa tete, ni sa tete avec ses mains." J.H.Pestalozzi
Reply With Quote
  #1410  
Old 12.03.2013, 23:47
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: At home
Posts: 4,167
Groaned at 210 Times in 135 Posts
Thanked 6,404 Times in 2,719 Posts
Faltrad has a reputation beyond reputeFaltrad has a reputation beyond reputeFaltrad has a reputation beyond reputeFaltrad has a reputation beyond reputeFaltrad has a reputation beyond reputeFaltrad has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
I think using literature sources discredits.
It depends what you really want to study. This is often not stated in the research. THAT bugs me.

Communication in spontaneous situations is of course your pool of data. Communication analysis is what one thinks nowadays about, but the good old dialectology did the same 150 years ago. Recordings means studying what language is but not necessarily all it can be.

Literature is a construct. But nonetheless a construct of the given language. If one keeps in mind that literature is a language production of one author and nothing more, then you have a different set of data by nature. Data from literature means studying what language can be but not necessarily all it is.

Not the use of literature as such is a discredit, but mixing up the two above defined sets of data is. Which usually happens.
__________________
Es wird nichts ausgelassen, um mich hier herauszuekeln. Ein Lehrbuch. False accusations and attacks continue. There is no stopping righteous people when they are wrong.

Last edited by Faltrad; 13.03.2013 at 00:00. Reason: unsure about the syntax of some sentences... I hope it's clear.
Reply With Quote
  #1411  
Old 13.03.2013, 00:47
MusicChick's Avatar
modified and reprogrammed
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: La Cote
Posts: 9,713
Groaned at 87 Times in 70 Posts
Thanked 11,201 Times in 5,564 Posts
MusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
It depends what you really want to study. This is often not stated in the research. THAT bugs me.

Communication in spontaneous situations are of course data. Communication analysis is what one thinks nowadays about, but the good old dialectology did the same 150 years ago. Recordings means studying what language is but not necessarily all it can be.

Literature is a construct. But nonetheless a construct of the given language. If one keeps in mind that literature is a language production of one author and nothing more, then you have a different set of data by nature. Data from literature means studying what language can be but not necessarily all it is.

Not the use of literature as such is a discredit, but mixing up the two above defined sets of data is. Which usually happens.
Exactly, thanks. I am not apriori against it, to be honest, since using constructs talks more about the potential of language, which is ok.

But if you play that game and talk about how it could be used in a potential dialogue (despite the fact it is all made up by one person not as a real communication should be), I feel it takes us to a kind of meta meta position. Using meta language about a mere potential of an abstract system, but all used in a hypothetical, constructed dialogue. A giant cop out.

I know this might sound phony, but if you take a language as a system, an inventory of instruments that carries potential one might use in communication situation (langue, by good old De Saussure), the use of a concrete, specific situation should make it parole. Using constructs instead of real life, makes parole become langue.

It makes all too hypothetical, which is a shame. Anyways, I am not a theorist, I enjoy how concrete individual utterances I work with everyday are. I like processing theories, though, and that particular theory did not seem to be well taken care of. Theories need appropriate apparatus, I always thought. Or maybe that's gone? Am I a formalist?

It wasn't the only thing, though. The whole feminist linguistics mission. What would you think about a feminist linguist, that publishes work which say girls and boys do not really communicate differently, the differences are mostly cultural and ethnic. Yet, the examples, again, used to illustrate portray girls talking about sincere topics, in caring, thoughtful way, and boys carelessly chatting about superficial stuff (including dumping a girl). Sneaky. What's the point of making a hypothesis.

Is there a feminist linguist I would like? Is feminist linguistics dead?

Thanks, F.
__________________
"L'homme ne peut pas remplacer son coeur avec sa tete, ni sa tete avec ses mains." J.H.Pestalozzi

Last edited by MusicChick; 13.03.2013 at 01:02.
Reply With Quote
  #1412  
Old 13.03.2013, 01:00
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: At home
Posts: 4,167
Groaned at 210 Times in 135 Posts
Thanked 6,404 Times in 2,719 Posts
Faltrad has a reputation beyond reputeFaltrad has a reputation beyond reputeFaltrad has a reputation beyond reputeFaltrad has a reputation beyond reputeFaltrad has a reputation beyond reputeFaltrad has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

True that I am more of a theorist. The fun of the game is that a system can only be considered known if its limits are known. But this is not what your targeted incompetent linguist was doing, I got that. It's still necessary to confront a system with its own power of creation. If you only study actual utterances, you limit yourself to the cognitive power of speakers, and fail to grasp the system as a cognitive tool. If you postulate that unspoken "parole" is no "langue" but only a "langue" in spe that only become "langue" by validation of "parole", then you make a methodological assumption that gives a frame to your work, but it doesn't have to be this frame.

I have no idea why you take so called feminist linguistic seriously but there is no reason to. The gender studies are interesting and legitimate as such, language and communication within gender studies is fine too. But that makes it only a specific case of sociolinguistic or psycholinguistic (I am not sure the latter is legitimate though.... still puzzled about it).
__________________
Es wird nichts ausgelassen, um mich hier herauszuekeln. Ein Lehrbuch. False accusations and attacks continue. There is no stopping righteous people when they are wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #1413  
Old 13.03.2013, 01:54
MusicChick's Avatar
modified and reprogrammed
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: La Cote
Posts: 9,713
Groaned at 87 Times in 70 Posts
Thanked 11,201 Times in 5,564 Posts
MusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
True that I am more of a theorist. The fun of the game is that a system can only be considered known if its limits are known. But this is not what your targeted incompetent linguist was doing, I got that. It's still necessary to confront a system with its own power of creation. If you only study actual utterances, you limit yourself to the cognitive power of speakers, and fail to grasp the system as a cognitive tool. If you postulate that unspoken "parole" is no "langue" but only a "langue" in spe that only become "langue" by validation of "parole", then you make a methodological assumption that gives a frame to your work, but it doesn't have to be this frame.

I have no idea why you take so called feminist linguistic seriously but there is no reason to. The gender studies are interesting and legitimate as such, language and communication within gender studies is fine too. But that makes it only a specific case of sociolinguistic or psycholinguistic (I am not sure the latter is legitimate though.... still puzzled about it).
I had to take it seriously since I had to dispute it. Fem linguistics was quite a fad and people are still catching up with it back home. It is seasoned now by the whole PC language push, then some language purity pushes, too. We have a strong official language standard control (similar to France), very normative. I had to write a review on that particular fem linguist, I did a decent job, but I was disappointed at the manipulation.

I understand the limitations of basing system theories only on concrete examples of real speech. I am plagued by pragmatic linguistics these days, it's not a bad influence. I get it, aspiring to learn and use the system correctly with as much potential as there is, is a base of education. It does have a positive effect on quality of cognitive skills and thus parole itself. It's nurturing. On the other hand, what does it mean...correctly. I think that might no longer exist, because linguists and theorists are starting to use frequency more, as opposed to correctness. Because they base their theories on individual utterances, the actual spoken language, maybe because they are not worried about the system deteriorating? Usage is a tangible evidence and it is attractive. Besides, it is a modesty thing, too, I wonder. Quality control, it won't let linguists go crazy with unsupported theories.

Hmmm...

(heyyy, I saw that nice post disappear, post it! it's great)
__________________
"L'homme ne peut pas remplacer son coeur avec sa tete, ni sa tete avec ses mains." J.H.Pestalozzi
Reply With Quote
  #1414  
Old 13.03.2013, 08:11
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Zurich
Posts: 1,072
Groaned at 93 Times in 54 Posts
Thanked 1,665 Times in 573 Posts
Busby has a reputation beyond reputeBusby has a reputation beyond reputeBusby has a reputation beyond reputeBusby has a reputation beyond reputeBusby has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Occassionally us lay people come across something that is so complicated to understand without the necessary background that we just sort of ignore it.

But I've come across this statement or similar a couple of times now and would like to know how: 'Twin particles may travel in opposite directions to reach faster than light speeds across vast spatial distances and still remain part of the same system; i.e.they maintain a relationship.'
My question is, how do we know that?
Reply With Quote
  #1415  
Old 13.03.2013, 08:58
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: At home
Posts: 4,167
Groaned at 210 Times in 135 Posts
Thanked 6,404 Times in 2,719 Posts
Faltrad has a reputation beyond reputeFaltrad has a reputation beyond reputeFaltrad has a reputation beyond reputeFaltrad has a reputation beyond reputeFaltrad has a reputation beyond reputeFaltrad has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
linguists and theorists are starting to use frequency more, as opposed to correctness. Because they base their theories on individual utterances, the actual spoken language, maybe because they are not worried about the system deteriorating?
For a linguist, the system is not deteriorating, it's changing. The times of prescriptive linguistics are over, so descriptive analysis is the only way left. This methodological debate originates in the cravings of descriptive linguists to validate their research by applying the same experimental method as the natural scientists. Not a bad idea as such, provided one recognizes the nature of cognition as opposed to natural organisms and matter. This is never the case, hence the very immodest attitude of linguists (and economists) to claim all sorts of things with mountains of evidence without necessarily treating the data appropriately because nobody really knows what appropriate would mean when adapting experimental methods to cognition.

It seems simple to base reasoning on causality. It is in rocket science, it is not in linguistics. Which means that rocket science is infinitely more accessible to human understanding than language. The sole fact of not being able to isolate any component of the system studied leads to the necessity of accepting a significant part of relativism in language studies. Scientists in CERN are lucky to be able to do it, linguists can't to a certain extent. To me, failing at recognizing the holistic and nevertheless systematic nature of language equals failing at identifying the very object of linguistics. Hence the contradictions we face all the time and that we can not ignore by looking away. In my eyes, only looking at natural speech is exactly that: looking away from language by pretending that what one doesn't see doesn't exist. In other word, speech analysis with experimental method and cognitive theories do not exclude each other but interact by reinforcing or contradicting each other all the time. Contrary to natural sciences though, contradiction is not refutation.
__________________
Es wird nichts ausgelassen, um mich hier herauszuekeln. Ein Lehrbuch. False accusations and attacks continue. There is no stopping righteous people when they are wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #1416  
Old 28.03.2013, 00:28
MusicChick's Avatar
modified and reprogrammed
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: La Cote
Posts: 9,713
Groaned at 87 Times in 70 Posts
Thanked 11,201 Times in 5,564 Posts
MusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
For a linguist, the system is not deteriorating, it's changing.
I see it the same way. I was thinking about this since we posted here a few days ago..

An old linguist I know back home said once "throw the language to wolves", sounds awkward in English but it basically means language needs no defense. No purists. No judgmental or evaluating efforts, by people who need to push the world to stick to the rules. It evolves too fast. As fast as people do, sometimes faster, due to new ways of info travels. It's not a question of accuracy anymore, but ineptness or competence to communicate what people intend to communicate.

The cognitive tool..is it a tool or is it a result? Sapir, Whorf and Humboldt, wasn't it. I am not so sure though, if language directly influences the way we think and perceive, so automatically. I watched sign language people today on the train. Their language is not limited. Because their reality is not. I watched my trilingual preschooler struggle with rules of three languages at once, not failing to conceptualize, though. The mistakes students make aren't really mistakes, when they manage to communicate what they need to tell me. Learning steps more than faults. They are learning to conceptualize, all over again. I think there is a shift in thinking, when L2 starts sticking to you. We say "kolik řečí znaš, tolikrát si člověkem" (you are human as many times as many languages you speak). If people want to communicate, it is far more valuable than the formal quality of their speech. Judged by what, by the way..by a few years outdated grammar books or conventions?

Do you remember that debate we had here about semi-linguism years ago, it was so interesting.

I was reading today about smugness some teachers use to present themselves as the only ones with the "license" to knowledge. There are linguists like these, too. Who speak impressively. Anything well verbalized can pass for deep thoughts. Academia can be tiresome.

Quote:
Hence the contradictions we face all the time and that we can not ignore by looking away. In my eyes, only looking at natural speech is exactly that: looking away from language by pretending that what one doesn't see doesn't exist.
I think looking inward means realizing there is more than language, a system of music, sounds, language is a part of communication process. There are attitudes, symbols, silence, withdrawal, timing. I used to dislike pragmatism and comm theories, it seemed woodoo. Too intangible. Like what you said earlier about psy and soc linguistics. I have started to embrace it though since it seems to provide what was missing for that holistic approach, sense. Language is a means of comm and viewed as such, presents its sense. Even if it is unspoken. As you talked about potential, only.

So...yeah. Damn lit examples. Made up dialogues to illustrate comm strategies. I see the point. It hurts, though, hahahah, makes me laugh to have to accept it. Phonetics, you can almost touch. Syntax you can feel and see and play with, like lego blocks. Comm, psy and soc, loads of assumptions and imagined theories. I disliked made up dialogues to illustrate comm strategies because it seems to be too easily molded to fit the form we want to show, we want speakers to demonstrate. Then we forget how maybe rare that form could be, rare means it won't exist tomorrow at all. Words die as much as people do.

By the way, do you like Nathalie Sarrautte? Pour un oui ou pour un non was the first thing I read in French, so nice.
__________________
"L'homme ne peut pas remplacer son coeur avec sa tete, ni sa tete avec ses mains." J.H.Pestalozzi
Reply With Quote
  #1417  
Old 28.03.2013, 01:19
mirfield's Avatar
Moddy McModface
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Basel
Posts: 8,184
Groaned at 50 Times in 44 Posts
Thanked 8,023 Times in 2,938 Posts
mirfield has a reputation beyond reputemirfield has a reputation beyond reputemirfield has a reputation beyond reputemirfield has a reputation beyond reputemirfield has a reputation beyond reputemirfield has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

I've a question.

How come MC, who normally types like one of the infinite monkeys, managed to type the post above

There's not even a rogue "ayit".
Reply With Quote
  #1418  
Old 28.03.2013, 01:36
MusicChick's Avatar
modified and reprogrammed
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: La Cote
Posts: 9,713
Groaned at 87 Times in 70 Posts
Thanked 11,201 Times in 5,564 Posts
MusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

It's not me, it's the HTC, hahahaha...
Seriously. And the fact I got spellchecks turned off, sometimes, coz they don't seem to be able to switch back and forth from en/fr/cz automatically.

Correct spelling does not mean one is more than a monkey, by the way. Don't hate on monkeys.



Ayit.

Last edited by MusicChick; 28.03.2013 at 14:13.
Reply With Quote
  #1419  
Old 28.03.2013, 07:59
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Zurich
Posts: 1,072
Groaned at 93 Times in 54 Posts
Thanked 1,665 Times in 573 Posts
Busby has a reputation beyond reputeBusby has a reputation beyond reputeBusby has a reputation beyond reputeBusby has a reputation beyond reputeBusby has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
Occassionally us lay people come across something that is so complicated to understand without the necessary background that we just sort of ignore it.

But I've come across this statement or similar a couple of times now and would like to know how: 'Twin particles may travel in opposite directions to reach faster than light speeds across vast spatial distances and still remain part of the same system; i.e.they maintain a relationship.'
My question is, how do we know that?
Maybe my question has not been noticed. Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #1420  
Old 28.03.2013, 08:18
22 yards's Avatar
Only in moderation
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Basel-Land
Posts: 6,596
Groaned at 188 Times in 147 Posts
Thanked 10,932 Times in 4,519 Posts
22 yards has a reputation beyond repute22 yards has a reputation beyond repute22 yards has a reputation beyond repute22 yards has a reputation beyond repute22 yards has a reputation beyond repute22 yards has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
Maybe my question has not been noticed. Thanks.
I noticed it, but am not too sure what your question is, exactly. How do we know what? That two particles travelling at what I understand to be impossible speeds away from each other remain in the same system? We don't. There's no empirical proof; this is some theory, that's all.

A bit like the confident statements one reads frequently about the existence of God. No empirical basis, but strong theoretical support.

On the other issue, could MC and Faltrad get a room? Science and the arts never mix well.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
clean eating habits, nutella, say no to marmite




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Average salary for post-doctoral scientist barish Employment 87 01.10.2008 15:27
Wanted: Drug Metabolism Scientist to work in major Pharma, Basel Caroline Jobs wanted 0 20.09.2007 20:00
Surfing Scientist!!! Sarge Jobs wanted 2 24.05.2007 04:38


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 13:42.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0