# Scientific theories and reality:

One simple problem with math, that is common to solving many equations, is division by a fraction, such as 1/ (1/2) = 2. If I have one gallon of gasoline and divide by one half, I get two gallons of gas. This is perpetual motion, which is not possible. Solving equations often relies on this perpetual motion step.

Wow, you cannot properly do division and you want to show this to everyone in the forum?

One simple problem with math, that is common to solving many equations, is division by a fraction, such as 1/ (1/2) = 2. If I have one gallon of gasoline and divide by one half, I get two gallons of gas.
you get 2 equal parts.
you divide one gallon of gas into 2 equal parts and what do you wind up with?
2 equal parts, 2 quarts each.
why would you even suggest that you would get 2 GALLONS for?

leopold said:
you get 2 equal parts.
you divide one gallon of gas into 2 equal parts and what do you wind up with?
2 equal parts, 2 quarts each.
why would you even suggest that you would get 2 GALLONS for?
wellwisher is creating another pretense for spouting nonsense. He did not say he was dividing it into two equal parts, but dividing it into 1/2 equal parts, which is a nonsensical way of saying he is multiplying by 2, not dividing by 2. Who knows what his post is supposed to mean. Evidently he feels the need to attack science and math periodically, probably to shore up what appears to be a bizarre version of Christian fundamentalism. Even origin took it that wellwisher actually thinks this is a division of a whole into its parts rather than multiplication. He seems to have and inkling of it, but simply can't state properly.

In my mind, even a person as weird as wellwisher ought to fully understand that division by a fraction "means" multiplication by the reciprocal. I think that's covered by around 4th grade. So once again we are left trying to understand if he's on psyche meds, or suffers from a disability caused by brain damage of some kind . . . since he can never seem to recall the science and math he had in early school. Or maybe he played hooky or lived under a bridge or in Appalachia or the Sudan. Who knows. He does seem to feel the need to glorify ignorance here. And of course he's probably just a religious troll which is why I usually have him on ignore. The irony of course is that the bullshit he just posted is the kind of claims he is attacking.

Actual science uses actual math and most of the time all is well. Apparently he simply has no reference to measure "well" by.

In my mind, even a person as weird as wellwisher ought to fully understand that division by a fraction "means" multiplication by the reciprocal.

It is really bizarre, and the guy claims to be a chemical engineer? He states that dividing by 1/2 makes no physical sense and results in perpetual motion fercryinoutloud (he does not know what the 1/x on his calculator means). He should just stick with the evils of women and liberals so at least the red neck radical right would agree with him.

It is really bizarre, and the guy claims to be a chemical engineer? He states that dividing by 1/2 makes no physical sense and results in perpetual motion fercryinoutloud (he does not know what the 1/x on his calculator means). He should just stick with the evils of women and liberals so at least the red neck radical right would agree with him.

Besides the point , the " evils of women and liberals "

Thats offensive , to not only women and liberals , but to Humanity

origin I know who you are , and its far from good

Besides the point , the " evils of women and liberals "

Thats offensive , to not only women and liberals , but to Humanity

Hey, don't whine to me, that is wellwisher sentiments not mine!

origin I know who you are , and its far from good

You have no freaking idea who I am, hell, I'm not even sure I do.

Hey, don't whine to me, that is wellwisher sentiments not mine!

You have no freaking idea who I am, hell, I'm not even sure I do.

I know enough that you repeated , wellwishers statement

I don't blame wellwisher , although if he said this , not good

origin you are responsible for your posts , nobody else

rivers said:
I know enough that you repeated , wellwishers statement
I don't blame wellwisher , although if he said this , not good
origin you are responsible for your posts , nobody else
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Wellwisher said it, but you don't blame wellwisher, you just blame origin for mentioning the fact that wellwisher did say it????

Wow! We have a few acts misinterpreting being done today. I suppose being evening over where you are, you must also have a full Moon out tonight?

Wow! We have a few acts misinterpreting being done today. I suppose being evening over where you are, you must also have a full Moon out tonight?

Reality = the last Full Moon(Worldwide!) was July 12th.
Reality = New Moon(Worldwide!) was July 26th.
Reality = the next Full Moon(Worldwide!) will be August 10th.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
dmoe said:
Reality = the last Full Moon(Worldwide!) was July 12th.
Reality = New Moon(Worldwide!) was July 26th.
Reality = the next Full Moon(Worldwide!) will be August 10th.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

:roflmao:
As well as interpreting scientific articles far more accurately than you have a reputaion of doing, you should also try your hardest to recognise tic humour.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
dmoe said:
Reality = the last Full Moon(Worldwide!) was July 12th.
Reality = New Moon(Worldwide!) was July 26th.
Reality = the next Full Moon(Worldwide!) will be August 10th.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

As well as interpreting scientific articles far more accurately than you have a reputaion of doing, you should also try your hardest to recognise tic humour.
NOTE FROM A MODERATOR:

Why do you guys devote so much of your posts to insults? Do you really think anybody here cares what you think about each other? Do you honestly believe that this is how scientific discussions are conducted?

When I run across one of your silly little squabbles, the only analogy that comes to mind is a playground full of third-graders. Is that how you want to be perceived by the rest of the members?

it's my opinion that, technically, the full moon occurs at a specific latitude and longitude on each occurrence, not worldwide.

it's my opinion that, technically, the full moon occurs at a specific latitude and longitude on each occurrence, not worldwide.

leopold, although I am not sure what you mean by "technically", I was taught that that the Lunar phases are the result of Earth based observations of the illuminated side of the Moon in it's orbit around the Earth.

This may or may not have anything to do with what you mean by "technically", but :
moonphases.info said:
For practical purposes, phases of the Moon and the percent of the Moon illuminated are independent of the location on the Earth from where the Moon is observed. That is, all the phases occur at the same time regardless of the observer's position.
- the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://www.moonphases.info/moon_phases.html#phases_of_the_moon_calender_2007

leopold, there is quite a bit of information about the Moon Phases at that Link, including the Dates/Times of the 4 main Phases through December of 2014.

it's my opinion that, technically, the full moon occurs at a specific latitude and longitude on each occurrence, not worldwide.
The distance from the earth to the moon is, in round numbers, sixty times the radius of the earth. Is there really enough parallax to make the full moon appear not-quite-full to someone in the polar regions who can just barely see it on their northern or southern horizon--even through a telescope?

Besides, "fullness" is measured by the shade slipping off of the moon's eastern or western region, not its polar regions! During a full moon you see its full width from anywhere on earth.

it's my opinion that, technically, the full moon occurs at a specific latitude and longitude on each occurrence, not worldwide.

That would be wrong.
The full Moon occurs when the Sun and Moon are directely opposite, or their respective Longitudes are 180 degrees apart.
It is viewed worldwide, as are the other phases of the Moon.
Also a popular misconception that we are only able to see half the Moon's surface is just that....a misconception.
Due to the effects of Libration, we are able to see around 58% of the Moon's surface.
This Libration effect is brought about by the eccentric motion of the Moon's orbit about the Earth, together with the osscilation in the Earth's own rotational period.

Last edited:
Since we have strayed onto eclipses and how we view other astronomical bodies from Earth, it should be noted that we do live in a rather lucky period of cosmological evolution, although I suppose most would know that.

I had the pleasure of viewing a full solar eclipse in 2012, a spectacular event!
Solar eclipses are either total or Annular depending on whether the Moon is at Apogee or perigee.
In the past when the Moon was closer, Annular eclipses were Impossible. In the future, total solar eclipses will be Impossible.
This is due to the fact that the Moon was once about half as far from Earth as it is now, and in the future will be much further away.
At the epoch we happen to be living in, the apparent size of the Moon and Sun are the same, and the actual sizes have the Sun to be around 400 times the Moon's diameter, and 400 times further from Earth.
Just thought that may be of Interest to some.

This Libration effect is brought about by the eccentric motion of the Moon's orbit about the Earth, and alternatively the osscilation in the Earth's own rotational period.

Here is a gif showing that effect.

The distance from the earth to the moon is, in round numbers, sixty times the radius of the earth. Is there really enough parallax to make the full moon appear not-quite-full to someone in the polar regions who can just barely see it on their northern or southern horizon--even through a telescope?