Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Soliton signing out!
12/25/2008 | Soliton

Posted on 12/25/2008 7:55:05 PM PST by Soliton

After 10 years and many thousands of replies, I am leaving FR.

I don't really care, and I don't know why anyone else would.

I am leaving before I am banned (again). Truth doesn't seem to matter on FR. I don't know if it is donations or sympathetic opinions that do, but I have been suspended twice when I followed the rules and the people who complained to the moderators didn't, yet the moderators sided with them.

For the record, evolution is a fact and the Shroud of Turin is a fraud. I would prove it if the admin moderators would let me, but they won't. Your resident "expert", Swordmaker won't debate me because he can't.

I will work to build a forum where members have rights and truth matters.

Merry Christmas


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: freepun; humor; opus; pout; scientism; wahwahwah; yawn; zot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 881-900901-920921-940 ... 961-968 next last
To: js1138
You brought water displacement up in a discussion of gravity. I don't know why you brought it up. It makes no sense. Archimedes discovered that water immersion allows

No, I pointed out that one can determine mass without gravity.

The reason fat analysis requires the particular methodology of immersion is that volume is needed for the formula.

Right, and generally fat is spoken of in terms of mass, not volume.

901 posted on 01/03/2009 4:13:35 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 899 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode; Mr. Silverback

Like the one he moderates is?

pfffttt.....


902 posted on 01/03/2009 4:34:34 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 891 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode; Mr. Silverback

Like the one he moderates is about science?

pfffttt.....

It’s about slamming TOS...


903 posted on 01/03/2009 4:35:36 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 891 | View Replies]

To: js1138; tpanther

Why do you keep ragging on tpanther about stuff he never said or meant?


904 posted on 01/03/2009 4:37:32 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 894 | View Replies]

Comment #905 Removed by Moderator

To: camerakid400; ConorMacNessa; liege

Newtons laws are wrong. We just have two theories that seem to hold up, Relativity and QM and they contradict each other. My money is on Shrodingers equation.

By the way, it is impossible to prove anything, all we can do is falsify something.


906 posted on 01/03/2009 4:51:35 PM PST by LeGrande
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

So how does your procedure calculate the fat content or percentage for people who don’t float?

http://www.sports1234.com/swimming-diving/2324-Swimming-Diving.html

I’m dying to hear how you weigh someone via immersion if they are too dense to float.


907 posted on 01/03/2009 5:38:57 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 901 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande

Newtons laws are not wrong. It just depends on how they are used and what reference frame the measurements are made in.


908 posted on 01/03/2009 5:47:48 PM PST by camerakid400
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 906 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande; camerakid400
Newtons laws are wrong.

Please provide sources to back up your contention.

909 posted on 01/03/2009 5:53:56 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 906 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
By the way, it is impossible to prove anything, all we can do is falsify something.

Sure...after all, we might be wrong about that whole germ theory thing...it's not proven, somebody may come along and falsify it.

Good grief.

910 posted on 01/03/2009 6:02:25 PM PST by Mr. Silverback ("[Palin] has not even lived in the Lower 48 since 1987. Come on! Really!" --Polybius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 906 | View Replies]

To: metmom

TOS?


911 posted on 01/03/2009 6:04:42 PM PST by Mr. Silverback ("[Palin] has not even lived in the Lower 48 since 1987. Come on! Really!" --Polybius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 903 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Why do you keep ragging on tpanther about stuff he never said or meant?

I really can't believe you said that.
912 posted on 01/03/2009 6:14:58 PM PST by DevNet (!dimensio || !solitron)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 904 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback

The Original Series - It’s a star trek thing.


913 posted on 01/03/2009 6:16:02 PM PST by DevNet (!dimensio || !solitron)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 911 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

Oh man, you went and asked him a yes or no question! You may not get an answer for two years!


914 posted on 01/03/2009 6:25:29 PM PST by Mr. Silverback ("[Palin] has not even lived in the Lower 48 since 1987. Come on! Really!" --Polybius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 889 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
Newtons laws are wrong.

Oh...and last time I checked, objects in motion still tended to remain in motion, objects at rest still tended to remain at rest and every action still had an equal and opposite reaction.

915 posted on 01/03/2009 6:28:07 PM PST by Mr. Silverback ("[Palin] has not even lived in the Lower 48 since 1987. Come on! Really!" --Polybius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 906 | View Replies]

To: DevNet
Why would you have trouble believing metmom would say that? I find it rather like the former FReeper who argued for days that a circle is not an ellipse and that 1^720 is a really big number. It's kind of interesting how this discussion evolved. I started by saying that displacement measures volume, not weight or mass or body fat. It was a simple statement of fact. A clarification.

Now if the opposition knew anything, he might have responded, as Swordmaker did, that displacement can indirectly measure weight. He might also have pointed out, as I eventually did, that the body fat determination requires both weight and volume.

It's kind of amusing that we now have the assertion that Newton was wrong. Well, of course Newton's formulas fail under extreme conditions. All scientific laws are limited to a range of conditions.

But I find it a bit ironic that the use of body immersion to measure weight fails for a significant number of people -- those whose body density is so great that they cannot float. One doesn't have to approach the speed of light to find the limits of this procedure.

916 posted on 01/03/2009 6:28:55 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 912 | View Replies]

To: DevNet

Ha! Actually, that’s how I first translated it when I saw it, but I thought it might be something else.

Sounds like a real bunch of tools over there.


917 posted on 01/03/2009 6:29:33 PM PST by Mr. Silverback ("[Palin] has not even lived in the Lower 48 since 1987. Come on! Really!" --Polybius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 913 | View Replies]

To: js1138

She keeps insisting that I am either dimensio or solitron posting under a different account. That is what I was trying - poorly it seams - to get across.

Now I am going to have a nice cup of tea.


918 posted on 01/03/2009 6:39:51 PM PST by DevNet (!dimensio || !solitron)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 916 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
“Newtons laws are wrong. We just have two theories that seem to hold up, Relativity and QM and they contradict each other. My money is on Shrodingers equation.

By the way, it is impossible to prove anything, all we can do is falsify something.”
Sad.

I mean, after all, its impossible for you to prove that your statement is true, but everybody can come along and falsify it.

What a shame.
919 posted on 01/03/2009 8:04:54 PM PST by Fichori (I believe in a Woman's right to choose, even if she hasn't been born yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 906 | View Replies]

To: js1138
I find the answer to my question about people who do not float.

It is possible to obtain an estimate of body density without directly measuring weight underwater, and without directly measuring water displacement.

...

A person who neither floats nor sinks with empty lungs in water would have a density of approximately 1 kg/L (the density of water) and an estimated body fat percentage of 43% (Brozek) or 45% (Siri), which would be extremely obese. Persons with a lower body fat percentage would need to hold some kind of flotation device, such as an empty bottle, in order to keep from sinking.

...

A light plastic bottle filled with air makes a convenient floater, since the amount of air in it can be adjusted and accurately measured. The plastic occupies only a small volume is about the same density as water so that there is very little error in not correcting for the plastic bottle. The measurement begins with the bottle completely empty. The subject is asked to expel as much as possible from the lungs and use the bottle as a completely submerged floater. Water is allowed to enter the submerged bottle until the person sinks beneath the surface without touching the bottom. The liters of air in the container is equal to the kg of water displaced. v is equal to this kg plus the estimated 1.2 kg of water displaced by the air remaining in the lungs after full exhalation.

Embedded in this description is an explanation of why someone could assist or participate in this procedure without understanding any of the science. In practice, the procedure uses shortcuts and lookup tables that eliminate the need for understanding the concept of displacement and relative density.

But here is the interesting phrase, following the formula:

where ρr is relative density, W is the weight of the body, and Wi is the apparent immersed weight of the body. Absolute density is determined from the relative density, and the density of the liquid. Because the density of water is very close to 1 , when density is computed relative to water, for many purposes it may be treated as absolute density.

Note that it is unnecessary to actually weigh a body under water in order to determine its volume, density or, for that matter, its weight under water. Volume can be easily determined by measuring how much water is displaced by submerging that body.

Link

920 posted on 01/03/2009 8:15:13 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 916 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 881-900901-920921-940 ... 961-968 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson