It would depend on the controller. Most recent controllers have non-volatile memory which stores your program, so it should run the program every time you power up the system.
Another option is continuously feeding the motor 50% of the max PWM voltage (i.e. if it's a 12VDC motor, send it a...
Losing cells isn't the only possible negative outcome. A worse one often involves differentiation into a different cell type due to some stimuli. Other bad things include DNA damage (for which repair mechanisms exist but often fail in cases resulting in cancer), protein aggregation and...
In terms of frequency/dose drivers of tissue damage, it depends quite a bit on the cell type. For example, the retina is susceptible to damage from infrared, whereas the cornea is susceptible to UV. This depends on the absorption spectrum and composition of the cells/extracellular matrix in each...
If you're seeing only circular rings, I think you entered 100000 in the field to get 100 kt. However, the blank is asking for kT already so you really specified a 100 Mt nuke. In that case, the outermost ring (radiation) extends into Connecticut. It says on the right what each ring signifies...
There are a few ways to do this and it really depends on how sophisticated you want to get. I would use on/off control rather than PWM. This will reduce wear and tear and won't maintain the temperature exactly but should be good enough for the purpose. You could just set it to kick on when...
Only to the extent that it can repair it back to the way it was before government got involved in the first place. That's called "less government intervention."
You were never interested in a discussion. Your initial response to my initial post in this thread was something to the effect of, "Bullshit!" On the middle school playground, that's how discussions started, usually followed by a punch or two. Here, you feign intellectualism periodically using...
This simply proves my point: you're not grasping my concept. Perhaps I'm explaining it incorrectly. Using an example from your link, consider the following scenario. In case 1, you look up and see a villain cutting the rope holding the safe above your head. In case 2, you look up and the...
I asked you a direct question which could put this whole matter to rest if you would either propose a suitable hypothesis or admit that you cannot do so. You chose option C (neither). What am I to rebut?
Lack of common nomenclature does not imply that my ideas are incorrect, nor does your apparent inability to understand the simple concept.
In that case I know that the cat is dead. Here, all you've done is assume that what I said is false, then state that under your paradigm (which you assume...
None of what you wrote here is true. If the earth is 6000 years old, evolution could still hold. The relative abundance of C14 could have evolved according to the exact same rules as it does now (assuming the initial abundance was altered accordingly as I specifically stated previously). And...
I think the use of the prefix "fore" is potentially problematic in and of itself. If one postulates the existence of a deity (or other omniscient being), then why would this deity be constrained by time? Indeed, proposed theories which successfully mathematically unite quantum and relativistic...
This still doesn't get at the heart of my argument. My two theories, as posed, do not dispute evolution, laws of motion, conservation of energy, or anything else we could use to distinguish them: they simply choose a different time point and initial conditions for the beginning of this...
Math is a symbolic language which allows us to formalize your so-called "factual predictions" into something which can actually be tested. This is the standard of any and all scientific journals (even if the exact standards they utilize are inherently arbitrary). Thus, your idealized form of...
The young Earth creationism theory, as I've posed it, does not disallow evolution. Stop projecting your prejudice against morons on me and perhaps you will be able to wrap your head around why you are completely wrong. You have no idea what I consider to be true, false, probable, or...
That's a blatant mischaracterization of what I've said. I can look at the world and see that there is no turtle under it: that's a scientific approach to disproving a theory. However, science cannot disprove the second myth you mentioned (yet) because we have no testable hypothesis regarding...
I don't think you understand my statement. Neither theory, as posed, makes different predictions or explanations for anything we might ever find, except for their origins (where they came from/how long ago they were put there/what processes were involved in generating the condition of...
I'm not disagreeing that it's a scientifically useless theory - only that it is not scientifically distinguishable from cosmological theories. As long as the theory is formulated as I've posed it here (i.e. that all physical laws are admitted), then my theory makes the same predictions...
You dismiss it using a philosophical argument (i.e. it's ridiculous). However, you can never scientifically prove that it's incorrect. That's the difference. The premise of the OP is that the two are scientifically distinguishable. The conclusion of my original post here is that that premise...
It's not an argument: it's a statement of fact. I'm sorry you feel that my statement of fact makes no sense, even immediately following your acknowledgement that it is correct. The question you ask (why?) is a philosophical question. And that's the whole point.
I pose two initial states governed by identical physical laws. In state 1, billions of years ago, we have the big bang and everything since. In state 2, ~6000 years ago, we have an initial state exactly what would be predicted using a perfectly accurate simulator of a perfect cosmological...
Science can only discern which is "better" between two hypotheses if they offer differing predictions about an outcome. Differentiating between hypotheses which make equal predictions in all observable cases is therefore a philosophical exercise. I can't say scientifically whether green or...
Two things having identical properties cannot be distinguished using scientific means. Two models making identical predictions in the space of all observables cannot be distinguished using scientific means (at least until the observable space is expanded using new techniques/technology)...
You're admittedly neither a mathematician nor a scientist? I figured that out when you called my mathematically and scientifically sound argument absurd without effort toward refutation.
The problem is that science has not yet answered everything about the natural world. All it can do is try to predict new observations. It cannot distinguish between two theories which make equal predictions for those observations. The latter is a philosophical exercise, at least until science...
One cannot test scientific hypotheses objectively without invoking a mathematical model of the hypothesis. Scientific theories make mathematical predictions. That's how they can be tested. Unless you're a social scientist...
Unfortunately in your rage, you missed everything I posted. There are infinitely many models which yield identical predictions regarding any observable event. The two I described are simply two of those infinite possibilities. I never denied any scientific theory (if such a thing can even...
I agree that a scientific theory can never be proven correct - it can only be proven false with some finite probability of support for the null hypothesis. Along that same line of reasoning, there is no scientific support (other than a lack of contradictory evidence) for any scientific theory...
That's not a refutation of anything I said. It is possible to pose the young Earth creationism "hypothesis" such that it is mathematically equivalent to any other cosmological theory which predicts all obsevables. We cannot scientifically distinguish whether
(1) the universe formed 6,000...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.