• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Fuck yeah, Science!

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.

hst_m31_detail.jpg.CROP.original-original.jpg
 
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
 
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.
 
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/local/diverging-diamond-interchange-open-monday-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.
 
Concord: http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/local/diverging-diamond-interchange-open-monday-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."
 
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.
 
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
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top