Page 8 of 27 FirstFirst ... 34567891011121318 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 525

Thread: Fuck yeah, Science!

  1. #141
    I see 2. One high and one low.

  2. #142
    Bernie Eskimo Bro
    KickballDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Vermont Republic
    Posts
    3,464
    Ultra high-res Hubble pic of (a small part of) the Andromeda galaxy. Those aren't pixels--they're individual stars. And the bright spots are stars from the Milky Way in the foreground.


  3. #143
    Steve Lepore GoDeacsGo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem
    Posts
    1,205
    There is a left turn, a U-turn, straight and right turn. What goes low is the U-turn.
    I heart Hartman

  4. #144
    Quote Originally Posted by GoDeacsGo View Post
    For one thing you have 4 lanes of traffic but only one that goes straight through.
    ya but it would be a continuous flow, no stopping for lights
    #GoDeacs #GoPanthers

  5. #145
    THE quintessential dwarf dartsndeacs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    paradise
    Posts
    46,216
    You can also add a lane in the middle
    just drivin' round in John Voight's car

  6. #146
    Quote Originally Posted by dstanleywfu View Post
    ya but it would be a continuous flow, no stopping for lights
    Only the bridge one can be continuous. I believe the "at grade" one has to cycle for pedestrian/bicycle traffic which are the outter lanes. It would cost a lot of quid.

    One concept that is gaining traction for freeway intersections is the "diverging diamond" interchange. Reduces congestion and is cheap (uses existing bridges). There's one in Charlotte somewhere I think.

    http://www.divergingdiamond.com

  7. #147

  8. #148
    #GoDeacs #GoPanthers

  9. #149
    That traffic flow thing also depends on people not being idiots and changing lanes at the last second etc which is a fatal flaw. People will always be idiots.
    Go Deacs and Hook 'em

  10. #150
    Steve Lepore GoDeacsGo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem
    Posts
    1,205
    Quote Originally Posted by bojanglefunk View Post
    That traffic flow thing also depends on people not being idiots and changing lanes at the last second etc which is a fatal flaw. People will always be idiots.
    Who needs fancy intersection?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdHkRkwJvww
    I heart Hartman

  11. #151
    -------------------------
    DeaconSlim2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    RoCo
    Posts
    9,593
    Quote Originally Posted by pourdeac View Post
    Only the bridge one can be continuous. I believe the "at grade" one has to cycle for pedestrian/bicycle traffic which are the outter lanes. It would cost a lot of quid.

    One concept that is gaining traction for freeway intersections is the "diverging diamond" interchange. Reduces congestion and is cheap (uses existing bridges). There's one in Charlotte somewhere I think.

    http://www.divergingdiamond.com
    Concord: http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/loca...concord/nhHK9/

    Two have opened there in the last 6 months. That one on Poplar Tent, then one right nearby on Hwy 73...I actually drive that every day to work and it is amazing....much quicker/easier.

  12. #152
    OGBoards Chaplain
    RevDeac06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Salisbury, NC
    Posts
    2,601
    Quote Originally Posted by DeaconSlim2.0 View Post
    Concord: http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/loca...concord/nhHK9/

    Two have opened there in the last 6 months. That one on Poplar Tent, then one right nearby on Hwy 73...I actually drive that every day to work and it is amazing....much quicker/easier.
    It makes sense, but given the relative lack of traffic at the Poplar Tent and 73 intersections, seems like a waste of money, or a "let's try this somewhere it doesn't matter before doing it at Concord Mills."

  13. #153
    -------------------------
    DeaconSlim2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    RoCo
    Posts
    9,593
    The 73 area is getting a lot of new business, they are building 2 or 3 huge business parks along international drive.

    Those stoplights were getting very annoying...and making it 3 lanes both ways has really helped.

  14. #154
    cookout = blabbermouth?
    wfudkn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    truxton circle
    Posts
    16,781



  15. #155
    Quote Originally Posted by yodeacsgo View Post
    this is crazy. it almost hit the moon! and us! also, taht was very much like watching a spirograph.

    Quote Originally Posted by bojanglefunk View Post
    That traffic flow thing also depends on people not being idiots and changing lanes at the last second etc which is a fatal flaw. People will always be idiots.
    truth.
    I know how to spell definitely.

  16. #156
    I disagree with you
    ImTheCaptain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    46,133
    lol, NASA is so confident in their science that we barely heard about an apocalypse rock but they're supposedly way fucking off on climate change. ridiculous

  17. #157
    Quote Originally Posted by ImTheCaptain View Post
    lol, NASA is so confident in their science that we barely heard about an apocalypse rock but they're supposedly way fucking off on climate change.
    Well....yeah. Newtonian/Relativity physics is very well understood and predictive models extremely accurate...on computers that might power your TV remote. Many experiments have been run...like putting shit in orbit and flying to the moon. In this case you're talking about the motion of just 4 entities (asteroid, earth, moon, sun). That's kids play compared to the complexities of climate modeling/science...where you have millions of variables, no ability to test or validate, no understanding of the basic mechanisms occurring, etc. They probably predicted its path to within a few miles of where it traveled.
    Last edited by pourdeac; 01-22-2015 at 04:39 AM.

  18. #158
    cookout = blabbermouth?
    wfudkn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    truxton circle
    Posts
    16,781
    These "near misses" with asteroids are kinds of weak. I understand that space is vast beyond human comprehension, but missing us by 5,000,000 km doesn't seem all that close.

  19. #159
    I disagree with you
    ImTheCaptain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    46,133
    Quote Originally Posted by pourdeac View Post
    Well....yeah. Newtonian/Relativity physics is very well understood and predictive models extremely accurate...on computers that might power your TV remote. Many experiments have been run...like putting shit in orbit and flying to the moon. In this case you're talking about the motion of just 4 entities (asteroid, earth, moon, sun). That's kids play compared to the complexities of climate modeling/science...where you have millions of variables, no ability to test or validate, no understanding of the basic mechanisms occurring, etc. They probably predicted its path to within a few miles of where it traveled.
    ohh, got it. predictive models are good, in this case.

  20. #160
    Quote Originally Posted by ImTheCaptain View Post
    ohh, got it. predictive models are good, in this case.
    They aren't the same type of predictive model.

    Models of celestial bodies are based on the physical properties of the forces on the objects, i.e. the mechanism by which the movement is fundamentally altered: gravity. It's the fundamental laws of the universe. The data going into the equation (motion, mass, velocity of the objects) is highly accurate and proven to be accurate by hundreds (probably millions on the case of the moon-earth relationship) of repeated measurements. Lots of experimentation has occurred.

    Models of climate are not based on the mechanisms, they are based on arbitrarily fitting observations into equations as if you decided to create an equation for hooking up with chicks. There are no fundamental laws of climate change that are absolute. There are lots of variables. We do not understand how any of the variables change so it's all unpredictable. None if it can be repeatedly measured and validated. It's not even close to being the same thing. Theoretically, one could use the same universal laws of physics to describe climate change, but that would mean understanding the forces that act on every molecule involved....which is impossible.

    And FYI....physicists have been the loudest critics of the CO2 climate change theories. That's because they understand the above difference very well.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •