Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[King Zultan]

Those damn evil corporations putting addictive chemicals into my addictive chemicals!
*shakes fist*

[anewaname]

Fine fine fine...

[Magmacube_tr]

Those damn evil corporations putting addictive chemicals into my addictive chemicals!
*shakes fist*

''We put addictive chemicals into your addictive chemicals so you can get addicted while getting addicted!''

[Frumple]

If some degree of fairness, that's pretty close to literally one of the major reasons why there's so much salt and sugar in everything :V

[King Zultan]

I don't think salt is an addictive substance.

[Criptfeind]

I think anything that's pleasurable can be addictive. For most people eating salt is pleasurable and given the massive over consumption of salt I think it might be fair to say that many people are addicted to salt.

Edit: although maybe there's some medical definition difference between addiction, over consumption and such that would put it some other category technically. Still, people love eating salt, they crave salt and seek out and consume far more salt then is healthy. Seems like an addiction to me? Even if it's not the same thing as a caffeine addiction where you have physical downsides for stopping use.

[dragdeler]

I don't think salt is an addictive substance.

Hmmm

More like king big zultan.

[Frumple]

Seems like an addiction to me? Even if it's not the same thing as a caffeine addiction where you have physical downsides for stopping use.

Actually cutting salt out of your diet entirely will kill you, though, if I'm not misremembering (nope, double checked, you last a bit but it's eventually lethal). We need at least a bit daily or our bodies eventually stop working, heh. It's not much (I'm forgetting the rough amount off the top of my head and can't be arsed to look, but it's like 50 or 500 mg or something like that -- a quarter or less than the 2k daily recommended), but there's a minimum or you die.

Sugar in general is similar (though zero carb is apparently technically survivable in a way zero salt isn't), though processed sugar specifically isn't -- you can cut that out of your diet entirely without any issue but the cravings. There's pretty significant health consequences, in any case.

As far as I can recall neither of the pair are technically classified as addictive substances, but we 100% react to them in more or less the exact same manner, right down to cravings, dependency, and the possibility of overdose/abuse. Coke didn't exactly lose customers when it cut out the cocaine

[Great Order]

Are there any stretches to increase hip articulation? The inside is fine, I can almost put my foot behind my head, but they don't articulate outwards all that well which caused some bother today when I was thrown in Jitsu and my legs went further than they normally do. I've got a limp now, and I'd like to avoid that in future.

[delphonso]

Probably things like Butterfly stretch, frog stretch, and pigeon stretch can slip into warm up routines. You can also just practice standing with legs as far apart as possible.

[Maximum Spin]

Coke didn't exactly lose customers when it cut out the cocaine

Well, they didn't really cut out the cocaine. They used coca leaf extract before and they still use coca leaf extract now. It's true that the coca leaf extract now is decocainized so they're definitely sure there's no cocaine in it, but it wouldn't have been more than a trace to begin with, as I understand it. Snopes had a thing on this somewhere, if I remember right.

[MCreeper]

Any duet songs where singers often sing diffirent things at the same time, such as there?? Just curious about such stuff. I amassed 250 songs in my music folder (goddamn), but only "EveR ∞ LastinG ∞ NighT" has something remotely like this. Lines being a right devil to arrange may be part of a reason it's so rare. 

[McTraveller]

Relativity says there is no such thing as absolute velocity, but there is, I believe, such a thing as absolute acceleration.  That is, you can detect if you have zero acceleration.

Interestingly, I believe that angular velocity is absolute, not relative: it's possible to detect if you have zero angular velocity because if you have nonzero angular velocity in a rigid body then you have a detectable acceleration within the body.  That is - if two objects are rotating relative to each other, it's possible to determine which one(s) is(are) "really" rotating.

I can't think of any interesting implications of this, it's just kind of interesting that while linear velocity has no absolute zero, angular velocity does.

I suddenly wonder, though... if you have a rigid body traveling very fast relative to another body, like relativistic speeds, and that rigid body is rotating... I wonder what interesting effects occur because one edge of the body will be moving faster compared to the other, and because relativistic effects get more extreme the closer you are to the speed of light, is there any interesting effect due to that "leading" versus "lagging" differential?

[Eric Blank]

If I understand correctly, the light coming from different surfaces of the rotating object it will be red/blue shifted slightly based on whether they are approaching or moving away from the viewer, but only by the speed the object is rotating, so unless its rate of rotation is also relativistic (like its speed at the equator is significant.), and the light will also be Doppler-shifted as the object approaches/passes you. That understanding comes from watching Dr. Becky's explanations.

I don't know if we've ever directly observed an object moving a significant portion of c with like, anything other than an astronomy telescope from astronomical distances.

[Il Palazzo]

About absolute rotation, there's that thing called Mach's principle, that I could never quite understand. But it's right up your alley, methinks, and might be worth a read.

With acceleration, you can always detect proper acceleration (the thing that shows on an accelerometer), but it doesn't give you any sense of global acceleration. Anything you could call absolute. For example, you can have two free-falling bodies accelerate towards each other in their mutual gravitational field, but their on-board accelerometers won't show anything.

As to your actual wondering, it's beyond my pay grade. There's the transverse relativistic doppler, but that's more when the sideways motion is relativistic (so, implausibly fast rotation). I'm thinking then, maybe the effects are just as negligible as with a regular, slow-moving rotating objects? Some asymmetry between the two sides?
I don't know. I'm just an Ackchyually guy.