Hub of Reason

Kortuk

14:00

@RussellSteen You are talking to maybe 3 mods, just ask.

Ivo Flipse

17 messages deleted

Kortuk

Damn!

Ivo Flipse

BAM! if that aint magic, then I don't know it anymore @RussellSteen ;)

Borror0

Holy cow!

Actually, there are five mods in the room. XD

Kortuk

@IvoFlipse, pro sir.

I meant taking part in the discussion actively.

Russell Steen

14:07

Nice, skeptics is becoming a mod magnet

Borror0

In before @Ivo mentions scifi

Kortuk

I did not know about it until recently. I came over because the questions were absolutely was hilarious and the chat had people in it until I got off work.

Ivo Flipse

lol @Borror0, I was about to point out that I move from site launch to site launch at this rate :P

Borror0

@Kortuk What? The question about if papaya is an effective contraceptive is TOTALLY SERIOUS AND NOT FUNNY AT ALL. stare

Ivo Flipse

just to be clear, I never ever want to see a question from Skeptics migrated to Fitness & Nutrition, no matter how ontopic-ish they would seem :P

Borror0

14:11

Whyyy? =D

Ivo Flipse

because all your questions are TOTALLY SERIOUS AND NOT FUNNY AT ALL.

Sklivvz

Well except the poop one

Kortuk

@Borror0 ROFL.

Borror0

@Sklivvz The poop one is the MOST SERIOUS AND LEAST FUNNY OF THEM ALL

Kortuk

haha

Russell Steen

14:14

Cleaning your bum is a serious matter. Otherwise you come away smelling....

:P

Kortuk

@RussellSteen of failure

Russell Steen

nice

Borror0

We have another answer at the top of the MultiCollider...

Kortuk

link

><

Borror0

5

Q: What is the scientific explanation of "Orbs"?

This is a typical extract form a blog post about Orbs, Reading an article about orbs, the mysterious lights sometimes appearing in photographs, I was reminded of how little we know of the world surrounding us. And here is a example image: Could they really they Ghosts, Spirits or...

Kortuk

14:21

That question just made my day better, I am going to come to this site regularly.

You have ruined my productivity.

Russell Steen

Speaking of productivity, back to work! Thanks to @Borror0 for leading me to water...

Ustice

14:53

I understand the reason not to, but it would REALLY help if we could do private messages.

@Borror0 I couldn't believe that "orbs" even made it onto the site, given how much info there is on the subject on the internet.

Sklivvz

15:18

@RussellSteen Hi, your tornado question is probably going to be closed

Feeds

0

Q: How can one be so 100% sure that a specific post/account is a spammer/scammer?

I wish I could lose my memory about this, but sorry I just ain't able to. Before I asked mine, I hope DJClayworth's question (after update) can be addressed: Should we close questions challenging specific ads? Now here comes mine. Seriously, to whom it may concern, please answer me: Are you 10...

discussion

Russell Steen

17:26

@Sklivvz -- No worries on closing it. It's a bad question.

Sklivvz

@RussellSteen Thanks

@RussellSteen I've nuked it (if you really disagree let me know and I'll set it to closed only ok?)

Russell Steen

nuked is fine :)

anthony137

18:00

Hey Sklivvz. Are you certain about hte 3-body problem always producing unstable orbits in numerical simulation?

It wouldn't surprise me if some simulation algorithms did that, but I didn't think all of them did.

Sklivvz

@anthony137 Let me find a reference

N-body problem

The n-body problem is the problem of predicting the motion of a group of celestial objects that interact with each other gravitationally. Solving this problem has been motivated by the need to understand the motion of the sun, planets and the visible stars. Its first complete mathematical formulation appeared in Isaac Newton's Principia (the n-body problem in general relativity is considerably more difficult). Since gravity was responsible for the motion of planets and stars, Newton had to express gravitational interactions in terms of differential equations. Newton proved in the ...

anthony137

Right. It doesn't have a convenient closed-form solution.

Ah. I see what you're saying. I don't think that forces the selection of a reference frame, though.

Sklivvz

Normally it's chaotic (in the general case)

anthony137

It just makes it easier to calculate. The "Circular Problem" as described in the linked section is a simplification of the general 3-body problem

Sklivvz

But if you can separate the system into 2 two-body-problems (by fixing a reference frame) then you can have a decent solution

anthony137

18:09

Yes, but I'm pretty sure if I were to run a numerical simulation in some whacky reference frame, I could still get nearly the right solution.

If you fix a reference frame, it's just easier

Sklivvz

Sure

We are in vehement agreement

anthony137

Which was my original point. The selection of reference frame is arbitrary, but some frames are easier to calculate in than others.

Sklivvz

you say "easier to calculate", I say "natural"

anthony137

I could calculate the Earth-Moon-Sun system from the rotating reference frame of Mercury, but it'd be horrendously complicated.

Sklivvz

yes yes

anthony137

18:11

I don't like that attribution. "Natural" has connotations of "Correct" which implies that there is only one natural reference frame.

Sklivvz

we are simply using two different vocabularies - in physics you would call natural something that is easier to calculate due to simplifications and so on

anthony137

For all problems

Fair enough. That might be a good clarification to add to your answer.

Sklivvz

natural implies that and in fact, there is only one reference frame in which everything is easier to calculate. there is a whole field of physics devoted to that

classical mechanics is all about that

anthony137

For any given problem. Yes.

Sklivvz

yes

anthony137

18:13

What I was objecting to was the implication, perhaps only in my mind, that natural meant there was one reference frame in which all problems are easier to calculate.

Sklivvz

sure i'll point out what i mean by natural - i didn't get your point before

no, of course not e.g. moon around earth and earth around sun has a different natural reference frame

anthony137

Right.

Sklivvz

thanks for bringing this to chat by the way

anthony137

No problem. Easier to hash out this way.

Wow. Fredley's coming up with some really good questions.

Sklivvz

12

A: Is the "proof" of geocentrism scientically valid?

Here is the only correct, natural1 physical answer: The Earth and the Sun both move around their center of mass Since the center of mass is located within the Sun surface, it is correct to say that the Earth rotates around the Sun within reasonable limits. On the other hand, of course you can ...

anthony137

18:21

sighs

I don't know how that other guy's answer has more upvotes than yours.

Ustice

Suggestion to vote to close:

-1

Q: Why are we told vaccines are efficient in preventing diseases when no studies have been made?

Why are we told that vaccines are efficient in preventing diseases when not even one Peer-Reviewed Double Blind Study of any vaccine has been done?

safety

anthony137

Voted, although for a different reason than you.

I went for "Not a real question"

Ustice

That one should be closed for just about all of the reasons.

anthony137

Heeey... where did Fredley's Dvorak vs. Qwerty question go?

Ustice

likely to one of the other QA sites.

It wasn't a skeptics question

anthony137

18:31

It wasn't? I thought it was a great question for this site.

Ustice

10

Q: Dvorak vs QWERTY

Possible Duplicate: Which keymap for programmers? Dvorak? A friend of mine is trying to convince me to learn to type in Dvorak. The main reason I would consider switching is to relieve the strain on my hands from long periods of typing. Is it worth the effort to learn a new keyboard ...

dvorak qwerty rsi

That is just one of the MANY on the subject.

It's a good question, to be sure.

Just more appropriate on another QA site.

anthony137

Hrm.

Neither that question nor the related "exact duplicate" answers the question Fredley proposed, though.

shrugs

I still think it's a great question for our site. In that link, one of the lower-voted answers references an article from Reason.com

Ustice

I honestly love the question, and if it was moved, I wish that there was some way to see that it happened and where it went, but if we accept questions like that, then it opens the door for any of those comparison questions (PC vs Linux vs Mac, iPhone vs Android vs Blackberry vs WP7 vs Palm, Coke vs Pepsi, Cats vs Dogs, etc.)

I might be over-zealous about OOS though. Others don't seem to be as ardent about it.

anthony137

18:46

I'm not sure that slope is as slippery as you're portraying it.

Ustice

19:00

Maybe not quite, but out of scope is out of scope. The more off-topic questions we allow, the more dilute and less useful this site is.

anthony137

See, that's the thing. I don't think it was out of scope. The original question was, "Dvorak claims to result in faster typing than qwerty. Is this claim true?"

That's a claim I've seen made many, many times.

With stories about "Designed to type faster" and references to army studies.

I think it's perfect for a Skeptics site. It's just as good, imho, as the Atkins Diet question was.

Fabian

@Ustice The question was self-deleted by the owner.

Ustice

@Fabian Or that.

anthony137

I may steal it from him.

Ustice

Thanks, Fabian, for the insight.

Sklivvz

19:06

@anthony137 Sure, all content is cc-licensed

Fabian

@anthony137 I do think the deletion was the reaction from the comment

Maybe just ping the poster in chat and encourage him to undelete

anthony137

What comment? I didn't see it.

Ustice

I think that he means mine.

anthony137

I didn't see it.

If I see him, I'll encourage him to re-post. I thought it was a good question.

Russell Steen

19:53

@Ustice -- sorry for misunderstanding your comment earlier

Feeds

23:46

0

Q: Censure vs. Assist

I choose to use this question as an example arguing for assistance. We're a relatively small community and I think we may be at risk of driving off people who will be productive users by being too quick and terse in our "not a question" "no citation" style comments. Sure if someone has 500+ rep...

discussion

Transcript for