Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: The energy upon the mass

Recent Posts

1
Politics and Current Events / Re: Trumpocalypse
Last post by RAFH -
trump has done a lot of damage, but I think it's being overstated.  examples:

he didn't repeal obamacare, he just repealed the individual mandate.  the good things, like medicaid expansion and guaranteed issue, are intact.  scrapping the mandate may lead to the unraveling of obamacare, or it just may cause a bunch of temporary damage before the system ends up being salvaged or at least propped up.

he didn't end the iran deal, he just pulled the US out of it.  all the other countries are still party to it.  like repealing the mandate endangers obamacare, this endangers the iran deal,  but it might survive this shock and continue forward.  both the Iranians and the Europeans seem intent on keeping it going.  unilateral sanctions from the US won't affect that much.  now trump also threatened to sanction European companies who do business with them.  a lot will depend on whether trump makes good on the latter threat, and on whether the europeans, in turn, stand up to him and shield those companies.  iirc, the Europeans did so before with previous iran sanctions, and they don't like trump, so hopefully they'd show backbone again.

one area of total destruction to Obama's legacy is the scrapping of carbon regulations.  but in real-world effect, even that is mitigated by natural gas continuing to drive coal out of business, and photovoltaics being competititve now and continuing to get cheaper every year.
So, not a matter of Drumpf not trying to cause damage, just he wasn't able to cause as much damage as he attempted.
2
Dave, when a single tree falls it doesn't clear a saw the 300ft wide and a mile long.  You're not proposing to clear a little false here and there at the kind of rate you'd expect to be happening in the forest anyway. You wanted to "thin the canopy by 50%". All those animals attracted to light gaps by the abundance of food? Normally they live in the canopy. Remove half of it and you destroy their habitat.
Is opening up some "light gaps" comparable to those described in the article the same as thinning the entire rainforest canopy to 50%?  No I don't think so.

Did I say it was? No, no I did not. I'm pointing out to you that natural breaks in the canopy are not what you are proposing to create. They, and the huge amounts of leaching that you will open the soil up to, are not comparable to a gap in the canopy that lasts a few years at most, is rapidly colonised by shrubs and (comparatively) low growing trees that will still be supplying the thin topsoil with nutrients, and taking those nutrients up almost as fast as they are applied. The bulk of the biomass is still in the plants, not the soil. It still doesn't get a chance to build up, because those plants, being rainforest plants, are adapted to soils with very few nutrients and take everything up as fast as they can. And yes, there will be increased leaching in that little area, because there will be more rainfall reaching the forest floor in large bursts, rather than gradually as a result of being delayed by the canopy and all the plants living up there.

Quote
I stopped talking about the 50% thing when I saw too many heads exploding.  We can talk about that again later once you've gotten your heads around "light gaps."

Dave, we understand light gaps as being a standard part of rainforest ecology. They form, there;s a brief flurry of activity around them, and then they close up again. More importantly they're small and widely spaced. Totally unlike your proposals.

Dave, once you've gotten your head around basic rainforest ecology maybe you can start thinking about exactly what effects your idiotic and utterly destructive policy will have on animals and plants that depend on the canopy and near continuous rainforest cover have. How do you think sloths will be able to get to their communal middens with 330ft gaps between trees? Did you even know sloths have communal middens?
You're full of shit.  I'm tired of arguing with idiots.  Maybe I'll be in the mood another day.  Nothing will be destroyed.  I'm simply going to open up some "light gaps" and feed sheep and goats therein.  The end.
Well you're right about one thing. Nothing will be destroyed- Because you'll never get to do any of those things.
3
I'm putting Zombies on ignore along with RAFH ... S/N ratio is just too low.
So you're just going to pretend you don't see his posts, while carefully reading them in the hope you'll find something to comment on and strike a 'gotcha'?

Because that's what you do with RAFH.
4
Rainforest.

Focus.
Leaching

Focus.
None to speak of in rainforest soil. 

But let's think about this ...

If I cut ONE big tree in the rainforest down to the stump and coppice it every year ... just ONE ... a big one ... So that some sunlight can reach a small patch of forest floor ...

What will happen?

Will I suddenly experience leaching?

Why or why not?

Looks like you found your answer:

Quote
A common event in the tropical rainforest is the fall of an emergent tree, usually during a tropical thunderstorm. In fact, it is estimated that tree turnover rates in some rainforests are every 80-135 years. When one of these giants--laden with lianas connected to neighboring trees--falls, it takes out a sizeable portion of the canopy. This hole in the canopy is known as a "light gap" because direct sunlight reaches the floor in contrast to the usual 1-5 percent under full canopy conditions. The opening of a light gap brings many changes to the section of rainforest.

The light gap is rapidly colonized by the same pioneer species that colonize clearings including trees like cecropia, balsa, macaranga, musanga, and bamboo, and shrubby plants like gingers, bananas, nightshades, climbing lianas, and rattan palms. These species are well-adapted for rapid growth, but not for long-term existence in the forest. Their often white wood and leaves with poor chemical protection are subject to infection and infestation by insects. Generally, these pioneers flower rapidly and produce numerous fruits, but are soon overtaken by the hardier, better adapted hardwood trees which fill in the gap in the canopy. Many forest tree species are dependent on light gaps to complete their life cycle.

As a result of the increased light and abundance of fruits produced by gap colonists, light gaps are areas of increased animal activity. Carnivorous animals follow the herbivorous animals that are attracted to the fruiting plants.

I don't see anything about leaching :dunno:
Is there some reason you should?  Is that meant to be an exhaustive list of effects?
5
Dave, when a single tree falls it doesn't clear a saw the 300ft wide and a mile long.  You're not proposing to clear a little false here and there at the kind of rate you'd expect to be happening in the forest anyway. You wanted to "thin the canopy by 50%". All those animals attracted to light gaps by the abundance of food? Normally they live in the canopy. Remove half of it and you destroy their habitat.
Is opening up some "light gaps" comparable to those described in the article the same as thinning the entire rainforest canopy to 50%?  No I don't think so.

Did I say it was? No, no I did not. I'm pointing out to you that natural breaks in the canopy are not what you are proposing to create. They, and the huge amounts of leaching that you will open the soil up to, are not comparable to a gap in the canopy that lasts a few years at most, is rapidly colonised by shrubs and (comparatively) low growing trees that will still be supplying the thin topsoil with nutrients, and taking those nutrients up almost as fast as they are applied. The bulk of the biomass is still in the plants, not the soil. It still doesn't get a chance to build up, because those plants, being rainforest plants, are adapted to soils with very few nutrients and take everything up as fast as they can. And yes, there will be increased leaching in that little area, because there will be more rainfall reaching the forest floor in large bursts, rather than gradually as a result of being delayed by the canopy and all the plants living up there.

Quote
I stopped talking about the 50% thing when I saw too many heads exploding.  We can talk about that again later once you've gotten your heads around "light gaps."

Dave, we understand light gaps as being a standard part of rainforest ecology. They form, there;s a brief flurry of activity around them, and then they close up again. More importantly they're small and widely spaced. Totally unlike your proposals.

Dave, once you've gotten your head around basic rainforest ecology maybe you can start thinking about exactly what effects your idiotic and utterly destructive policy will have on animals and plants that depend on the canopy and near continuous rainforest cover have. How do you think sloths will be able to get to their communal middens with 330ft gaps between trees? Did you even know sloths have communal middens?
You're full of shit.  I'm tired of arguing with idiots.  Maybe I'll be in the mood another day.  Nothing will be destroyed.  I'm simply going to open up some "light gaps" and feed sheep and goats therein.  The end.
I can't tell, Dave: is this
1) You backing off of the "strips" and switching to proposing feeding your livestock in light gaps, or
2) You saying that the "strips" are merely light gaps?
6
Trump isn't a real business man.

Trump is going to start World War 3 with China.

Trump is going to piss off China and not be able to reduce the trade deficit.

Trump is not going to be in office in January of 2019 and will probably wind up in jail.

And last but not least... You can't raise goats and sheep in light gaps in the rainforest.

Oh my sides!
Leaving out the quotation marks is not going to convince anyone these are not fake quotes.

As for the "real businessman", would you not want your president to be at least a "good businessman"? Not just an imbecile asshole with an inheritance?
Why would you think I'm trying to convince anyone that they are real quotes? 

And if you don't think he's a good businessman, then you simply don't know much about being in business.
What would be the point of mentioning these things if nobody said them?
So you think someone with a long list of bankruptcies who cannot get a loan from a bank can be a good businessman?
Good enough to be president?
I don't.
8
As the ordained chief steward over all of nature, it is not Mankind's job to make every tiny little decision, just as it is not the job of the CEO of Ford Motor Company to make every tiny little decision involved in running his company.
9
Dave, when a single tree falls it doesn't clear a saw the 300ft wide and a mile long.  You're not proposing to clear a little false here and there at the kind of rate you'd expect to be happening in the forest anyway. You wanted to "thin the canopy by 50%". All those animals attracted to light gaps by the abundance of food? Normally they live in the canopy. Remove half of it and you destroy their habitat.
Is opening up some "light gaps" comparable to those described in the article the same as thinning the entire rainforest canopy to 50%?  No I don't think so.

Did I say it was? No, no I did not. I'm pointing out to you that natural breaks in the canopy are not what you are proposing to create. They, and the huge amounts of leaching that you will open the soil up to, are not comparable to a gap in the canopy that lasts a few years at most, is rapidly colonised by shrubs and (comparatively) low growing trees that will still be supplying the thin topsoil with nutrients, and taking those nutrients up almost as fast as they are applied. The bulk of the biomass is still in the plants, not the soil. It still doesn't get a chance to build up, because those plants, being rainforest plants, are adapted to soils with very few nutrients and take everything up as fast as they can. And yes, there will be increased leaching in that little area, because there will be more rainfall reaching the forest floor in large bursts, rather than gradually as a result of being delayed by the canopy and all the plants living up there.

Quote
I stopped talking about the 50% thing when I saw too many heads exploding.  We can talk about that again later once you've gotten your heads around "light gaps."

Dave, we understand light gaps as being a standard part of rainforest ecology. They form, there;s a brief flurry of activity around them, and then they close up again. More importantly they're small and widely spaced. Totally unlike your proposals.

Dave, once you've gotten your head around basic rainforest ecology maybe you can start thinking about exactly what effects your idiotic and utterly destructive policy will have on animals and plants that depend on the canopy and near continuous rainforest cover have. How do you think sloths will be able to get to their communal middens with 330ft gaps between trees? Did you even know sloths have communal middens?
You're full of shit.  I'm tired of arguing with idiots.  Maybe I'll be in the mood another day.  Nothing will be destroyed.  I'm simply going to open up some "light gaps" and feed sheep and goats therein.  The end.
Fortunately, other posters aren't tired of arguing with
you, so the thread goes on.

What, specifically, will grow in your gaps that can feed sheep and goats?
At the risk of watching Borealis' head explode yet again, my answer is...

"Don't know don't care"

Because nature Knows Best. The sheep and goats will select what they want to eat from what is there.

Just like they do here in Missouri.
10
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Last post by semper -

No matter what inertial reference frame you choose to stop the linear motion of the top belt surface, you cannot find an IRF where the rotation through the arc "isn't moving"

That is what you people keep missing in your naive "analysis" of this and that is why you bought into this nonsense.


There is only one reference frame useful for the transform, that where the top surface of the belt can be taken as at rest. Just like we take the road on the earth's surface as being at rest generally. And just like the road surface, there is a deformation as the wheel rolls due to the elasticity of the material, whether it be the belt rubber surface or the road bitumen surface. 

You either deliberately miss this fact, or simply (naively) cannot understand it.

You are an idiot, semper.
The contact patch at the bottom of a wheel that is rolling on a road is essentially flat, as it is the wheel that deforms and the contact patch is momentarily at rest with the road. So, in the reference frame where the road is at rest, so is the contact patch. This is Physics 101.



On the other hand, whenever a belt is driving a wheel or a pulley, the belt deforms into an arc around some part of the wheel, however small that arc may be. That part of the belt passing through the arc will never be at rest in the inertial frame where the top flat section of the belt is at rest. Again, Physics 101, angular motion does not stop in any inertial frame of reference.




I hope all you crackpots get over your disappointment with the balloon test, which turned out as I predicted.

Now maybe someone will do the High Frame Rate video test of the cart on the treadmill, to confirm my prediction about that also.

Now maybe some more people are starting to see what a Farce this ddwfttw claim is?



Hmmm, "The contact patch at the bottom of a wheel that is rolling on a road is essentially flat, as it is the wheel that deforms and the contact patch is momentarily at rest with the road. So, in the reference frame where the road is at rest, so is the contact patch. "

Ok, and what about the case where the road is made of rubber of the same type as a TM belt, and the wheel has the same elastic properties as the Cart's wheel?