Leaderboard

If you click the "Share this post" button at the top right corner of a post (the three dots linked by two lines), you'll get a direct link to the post, which you could use to refer to a specific post.

"Unlikely" is probabilistic terminology. Indeed, the so-called Fermi Paradox is said to be based on probabilistic argument: Drake equation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation Lets have a look how the probability in question is calculated. From wiki: We can see immediately, or we can read it in wiki, that number of parameters are speculative with ranges varying greatly. Then the question to me is, how useful such estimation of probability is and if its possible to base any sound argument, the so-called Fermi Paradox in particular, on it.

In the last few years we've quietly disproved most of these things. Almost everyone in the western world and many people in the world in general now all carry acceptable quality cameras with them all the time. Yet good photos just hasn't appeared.

Now please read the following extract from my Handbook of Inorganic Chemistry This couldn't be clearer. HYDROGEN AND ITS ISOTOPES DEUTERIUM AND TRITIUM HAS ONLY ONE PROTON A AND ONLY ONE ELECTRON If you insist on publishing diagrams of atoms of other elements and calling them hydrogen or one of its isotopes there is no point our continuing this discussion.

From your link: "In a recent paper in Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, Christopher Chyba and I argue that it is a mistake to try to define 'life'. Such efforts reflect fundamental misunderstandings about the nature and power of definitions. Definitions tell us about the meanings of words in our language, as opposed to telling us about the nature of the world. In the case of life, scientists are interested in the nature of life; they are not interested in what the word "life" happens to mean in our language. What we really need to focus on is coming up with an adequately general theory of living systems, as opposed to a definition of "life." Your link is more of arguments pro and con (mostly pro) for the value in attempting to define non- terrestrial life. It isn't a clear definition. A hypothesis formulated entirely based on Earth's life and never tested or applied in any practical way to non-terrestrial life for the simple and obvious reason that life else where is a giant missing value as it hasn't be discovered or is known to exist. A judgement made with the advantage of hindsight. In real time people didn't believe their assumptions had little to no reason. Who knows what those looking back hundreds of years from now will think of our reasons; I think no one alive today can answer that with any certainty. I didn't say it was.

He puts all his weight on his ankles first though. So whatever your ankles can take without breaking. As a side note it is much safer to fall onto your back or front and roll as that maximises the surface area and reduces the risk of you breaking an ankle or hand.

I am not disagreeing with you, I think you are right. I think we will continue to make further breakthroughs and fast too. Which is also why I still have 'faith' that, although it has always been quoted as a nominal 50 years away, we will solve the issues around energy production using fusion safely eventually. There have been such advancements in my lifetime with regard to looking deeper into space that it has been totally amazing to watch. I expect much more.

Probably both (radio telescopes didn't replace optical ones) even if something radically new did appear; but I can't imagine that happening because what, other than light traverses intergalactic distances?

I assume it was Immanuel Kant, so not a Greek philosopher, and doesn't begin with an 'A', but at least has an 'A' in it. See here (huge pdf), pages 470 (483 in the pdf) and 471:

That ranks right up there with one of the dumbest statements I have ever heard on any forum I've ever come across. Sorry but it is precisely the same thing. By the literal definition of the term superppsition.

Stare into the shadows long enough without critical thinking and your imagination will fill the gaps in your knowledge with fantasy.

If the ball is charged, he charges on the plate will feel a force. Like charges attract, opposites repel. Why use such a large probe? Every probe I've seen has been small. Your oscilloscope doesn't have a ground input? You are measuring a voltage, not a current. The current through the probe is supposed to be small. And if it's AC, the electrons don't move very far anyway.

I don't know if you are talking about the ill fated attempt to replace 'conventional current' with 'electron current' in electric threory. That was a really bad idea and lead to much confusion in the 1990s. The plain fact is that currents can be the flow of either positive or negative charges or both. It is difficult to say which is more common. The issue was resolved by choosing a convention many years ago, now called 'conventional current'. This was neither the right nor wrong way round, but it did allow the whole of electric theory to develop to what we have today. Whatever convention you choose you have to actually choose not one but two sign conventions and you cannot avoid the situation where some quantity seems 'the wrong way round'. Therefore there is no point changing current direction conventions and I strongly recommend you stick with conventional current. Thanks for the vote of confidence expressed about my posts.