"100% of people who do not save money do not have any!"--Dave Ramsey

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by Xist

Everyone's favorite digital demon doesn't like Anton Petrov!

Is that the whole quote? What was the prompt? Because is says nothing about the cheezy grin and side-to-side hand wave he always ends with.

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

In other words, if our universal constants (like the speed of light, the strong and weak nuclear forces, the electromagnetic force, the mass of subatomic particles, etc) were ever so slightly different even by a fraction of a percent then atomic matter, chemistry, stars, etc. would not be possible and therefore life would not be possible.

You have your Strong Anthropic Principle and Weak Anthropic Principle. and Leibniz's --

Best of all possible worlds
The phrase "the best of all possible worlds" was coined by the German polymath and Enlightenment philosopher Gottfried Leibniz in his 1710 work Essais de Théodicée sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de l'homme et l'origine du mal, more commonly known simply as the Theodicy. Wikipedia

It's kind of like having an infinitely long conveyor belt. If someone is walking toward us on it but the conveyor belt is moving away faster than that person can walk, then they will never reach us.

But.... Light knows where it's going from the get-go, and takes no time to get there.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

The problem is there's no good theory of what caused the Big Bang in the first place. We know what happened from the early fraction of a second of the Big Bang until now, but nothing in between. So trying to add several big bangs would mean we're still way off.

There is a theory of evolution of universes that states that black holes might be the start of big bangs in other dimentions. That theory has been proposed because our Universe seems "finely tuned". In other words, if our universal constants (like the speed of light, the strong and weak nuclear forces, the electromagnetic force, the mass of subatomic particles, etc) were ever so slightly different even by a fraction of a percent then atomic matter, chemistry, stars, etc. would not be possible and therefore life would not be possible. The theory of evolution of universes tries to figure out how our universe is so perfect for these processes to exist. If each universe is slightly different and can reproduce via black holes, then somewhere at some time a universe is going to pop up just right for life to exist, at least according to the theory, which really has zero evidence to back it up.



There are theories that try to explain a non-expanding universe. But there is really little evidence for those as well. An expanding universe has a beginning, which means it would need something to have caused it's beginning. Some people don't like that idea so they try to find ways to combat what seems so obvious, the universe is expanding.

The microwave background is the farthest we can see. The farther something is from us the faster it moves away from us until you reach a point that visible light becomes infrared, then microwave, then UHF, then VHF, then HF, then MF, then LF, until it's moving away so fast it can't ever reach us (faster than the speed of light to us).

It's kind of like having an infinitely long conveyor belt. If someone is walking toward us on it but the conveyor belt is moving away faster than that person can walk, then they will never reach us.

Of course the theory of relativity is much more complicates. So is quantum field theory. And yet these two theories don't even agree on everything.

Do you answer the physics challenge question on the chalkboard at nights?

Have you ever uttered the phrase "how do you like them apples".

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Do you answer the physics challenge question on the chalkboard at nights?

Hehe! Sometimes I feel like just writing some joke or something on the chalkboards for when the teachers and students come in.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Have you ever uttered the phrase "how do you like them apples".

Yes, but usually as a joke, like when I go apple picking.

[freebeard]

[QUOTE]Hehe! Sometimes I feel like just writing some joke or something on the chalkboards for when the teachers and students come in.[/QUOTE

Crib from The Simpsons. You might develop an appreciative audience.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by Xist

I didn't search for "Cars." I searched for "Vehicles."

Some of those "Cars" were crossovers.

You might have searched for vehicles but you linked two lists of cars. Not a crossover in this list:

1. 2023 Mitsubishi Mirage ES: $17,600
2. 2023 Kia Rio LX: $17,645
3. 2022 Hyundai Accent SE: $17,740
4. 2023 Nissan Versa S: $18,425
5. 2023 Kia Forte LX: $20,585
6. 2023 Hyundai Venue SE: $20,795
7. 2022 Nissan Sentra S: $21,045
8. 2023 Kia Soul LX: $21,085
9. 2023 Hyundai Elantra SE: $21,545
10. 2023 Subaru Impreza: $22,115

The Venue is classified as a midsize car (hatchback) and the Soul as a station wagon. Hyundai wants to maximize those CAFE and GHG credits.

The Malibu isn't the cheapest "Domestic" vehicle for sale. It is the cheapest "Domestic" car. Although the Trax is classified as a station wagon like the Soul but maybe it didn't exist when the list maker was making their lists.

[Xist]

Hyundai calls the Venue an SUV.

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by Xist

Hyundai calls the Venue an SUV.

Everyone tries to call everything they have as "SUV." The Chevy Bolt is an SUV. The Subaru Outback is an SUV. If you want a vehicle to sell, just put "SUV" on it and it will sell.

[Xist]

That must be where Arcimoto went wrong.

I am the worst son in the world! I provided my brother with food while Mom was sleeping and I was working on his financial report, which I just found out is due tomorrow!

[freebeard]

Bad Xist! But we forgive you.

CUV? LUV? I think the -UV is the important part.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by Xist

Hyundai calls the Venue an SUV.

Depends on who they are talking too. Yes, Hyundai's marketing team tells customers it is a crossover - because crossovers are cool and hatchbacks are the kiss of death - but are they fooling anyone? Anyone can look at one in person and see that it is a hatchback. Not enough ground clearance to be a crossover or SUV.

GM tried to call the Bolt a crossover too but nobody bought it - even with the roof rack.

Hyundai tells the government it is a car - because it doesn't meet the legal requirements to be a crossover.

An automobile capable of off-highway operation, as indicated by the fact that it:

(1)

(i) Has 4-wheel drive; or

(ii) Is rated at more than 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight; and

(2) Has at least four of the following characteristics calculated when the automobile is at curb weight, on a level surface, with the front wheels parallel to the automobile's longitudinal centerline, and the tires inflated to the manufacturer's recommended pressure—

(i) Approach angle of not less than 28 degrees.

(ii) Breakover angle of not less than 14 degrees.

(iii) Departure angle of not less than 20 degrees.

(iv) Running clearance of not less than 20 centimeters.

(v) Front and rear axle clearances of not less than 18 centimeters each.

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

Everyone tries to call everything they have as "SUV." The Chevy Bolt is an SUV. The Subaru Outback is an SUV. If you want a vehicle to sell, just put "SUV" on it and it will sell.

Exactly right. The marketing people can spin whatever tale they want - if the customer will buy it.

However, the Outback actually meets the legal requirements of a SUV and is classified as one.