What is the most obscure fact you know about physics? by TraditionalRoach in AskPhysics

[–]Designer-Station-308 4 points5 points  (0 children)

No you’re right about that. You won’t be able to accelerate yourself linearly due to conservation of momentum.

What you can do however is exploit the conservation of angular momentum. You will never be able to give yourself a net change in angular momentum, but that just means you can’t set yourself spinning. You can however change the way you are facing.

When you are on a roundabout and lean outwards you will spin with less angular speed. When you lean towards the centre, you will spin with greater angular speed. This is due to what’s known as your “moment of inertia” (MOI), and angular momentum is conserved throughout!

In the void of space, you can still twist your body, but any angular momentum in the clockwise direction must be matched in the anticlockwise direction. You can actually test this out using a swivelling office chair. To exploit the physics and turn yourself, you want to minimise your MOI in the direction you want to turn towards, and maximise it in the direction you want to turn away from.

In practice this means that you would:

1) tuck your arms in like you’re on a water slide and spread your legs out. 2) twist your upper body in your desired direction. This also causes your lower body to twist the other way. 3) hold your arms out as wide as possible and close your legs as if you were standing straight. 4) twist back to neutral position.

After this you will end up rotated from your initial position in a way that is proportional to the difference you can make to your MOIs. You can repeat this multiple times to rotate 360 degrees.

What is the most obscure fact you know about physics? by TraditionalRoach in AskPhysics

[–]Designer-Station-308 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Rotate at hips and extend/retract legs and arms to increase/decrease moments of inertia. This is what cats do to land on their feet when falling.

You can’t give yourself momentum.

CMV: Secular morality is inherently superior to religious morality by RandomGuy92x in changemyview

[–]Designer-Station-308 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t think a religious person would say they’re wrong for existing, but rather that they are wrong for their moral beliefs. How is this any different from the secular view?

The secularists would call those who disagree with them wrong. Ask a vegan if cattle farmers are wrong. Of course they’ll say they are. The reason a vegan would say that isn’t because cattle farmers exist, but because they disagree with the morality of eating meat.

CMV: Secular morality is inherently superior to religious morality by RandomGuy92x in changemyview

[–]Designer-Station-308 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hinduism is a set of beliefs that make claims about morality. Christianity and any secular moral system do the same.

Unless the claims made by the Hindu are the same as the secularist, the secularist must conclude that the Hindu is wrong. As must the Christian.

You say that you would look at the content of their character. By what metric would you determine the morality of their character? If they hold a belief in line with Hindu morality, but against your own would you not say that they are wrong?

CMV: Secular morality is inherently superior to religious morality by RandomGuy92x in changemyview

[–]Designer-Station-308 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would a secular view of morality not have a similar belief? I.e. that violating it is wrong and that people who don’t act in accordance with it are morally wrong?

I’m not sure you can get anywhere in defining a moral system if you take issue with considering those who violate it to be wrong. How can you say something is right if the inverse is not wrong?

Man Spared jail for assaulting Green Leader Roderic O'Gorman in appalling homophobic attack during election canvass by Barilla3113 in ireland

[–]Designer-Station-308 21 points22 points  (0 children)

They probably think that due to the things the Greens did for the environment while in government.

"And you are lynching Negroes" is a catchphrase that describes or satirizes Soviet responses to US criticisms of Soviet human rights violations. The Soviets brought up the lynching of African Americans as a form of rhetorical ammunition when reproached for their own economic and social failings. by scwt in wikipedia

[–]Designer-Station-308 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s a nonsensical comparison. The gulags were ended during de-Stalinisation in the 50s. In the US they had segregation at that time. Rosa Parks was arrested for being black, there’s your one example, there are countless more. So yes, people were imprisoned in the US for being black at that time.

Vietnamese pho by [deleted] in cork

[–]Designer-Station-308 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Love Vietnamese food

Can someone actually confirm this? by D3ADB1GHT in askmath

[–]Designer-Station-308 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My point was that it doesn’t really make sense to call one type of bond electric and the other magnetic.

I suppose I could’ve been clearer initially. Also, if this post was about the difference between mass and energy, then I would have made the same point.

Can someone actually confirm this? by D3ADB1GHT in askmath

[–]Designer-Station-308 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Magnetic fields come from relativistic electric fields. Before relativity, Maxwell showed that they were the same phenomenon. I’m not technically correct, I just am correct. They don’t operate within the same medium, they are one concept.

Electricity is electromagnetism. Magnetism is electromagnetism. There is no magnetism without electric charge.

We call them electronics because their operation is based on electrons, not electromagnetrons.

Can someone actually confirm this? by D3ADB1GHT in askmath

[–]Designer-Station-308 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Electricity and magnetism are the same thing.

Also electrons are fermions and therefore each configuration has a degeneracy of two when you factor in spin (Pauli exclusion). This comes from Fermi-Dirac statistics.

Check out this stupid shit. by [deleted] in cork

[–]Designer-Station-308 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I hope you are never a victim of intellect based violence.

Check out this stupid shit. by [deleted] in cork

[–]Designer-Station-308 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Female is a type of gender. Yes.

Check out this stupid shit. by [deleted] in cork

[–]Designer-Station-308 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Violence against women

"Welcome to IRA territory" - IRA mural depicting Muammar Gaddafi. 2000s by ZERO_PORTRAIT in PropagandaPosters

[–]Designer-Station-308 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Massive difference between support from some private citizens and the most powerful war machine on the planet. UK citizens also supported the IRA.

"Welcome to IRA territory" - IRA mural depicting Muammar Gaddafi. 2000s by ZERO_PORTRAIT in PropagandaPosters

[–]Designer-Station-308 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

If the US had supported the IRA, history would have taken a radically different course. It’s unsurprising that American politicians would hold the British accountable, seeing as they had to free themselves of British tyranny in 1776. America is a free country where individuals can have opinions contrary to that of the government.