Senior Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Area54 last won the day on August 23

Area54 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

61 Excellent

1 Follower

About Area54

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Astrobiology, vulcanology

Recent Profile Visitors

676 profile views
  1. No, my apologies. I think I failed to notice the second page of posts. At any rate I completely missed your penultimate post. It was clear that you recognised you may have been misunderstanding the niceties of DrP's position. Edit: subtleties would probably be a better word than nicities.
  2. That certainly appears to be true, but surely there are some who would now choose to vote for him who previously abstained or voted for another. Examples: Those who believe we need to tear down the current edifice and rebuild. Anarchists The criminally insane Sleeper agents More seriously, at each stage of Trump's odyssey I argued he could not move to the next stage. I have been wrong every time. The smart gambler knows when to quit. Very little in this sorry affair could now surprise me.
  3. Perhaps we have only a few revolutions left in the fundamental fields of physics and cosmology, but I suspect that in those fields addressing emergent properties there are many revolutions to come. Two examples that spring to mind: Our understanding of the formation and evolution of planetary systems is primitive A soft science such as sociology is still at the observational - stamp collecting - stage
  4. This is a discussion forum, not a blog. More to the point, it is a science discussion forum. What is your evidence for any of these statements?
  5. @Zapatos. While I do not generally agree with Dr.P's position I feel you are misrepresenting that position and in the process appear to be seeking to demonise him. If I understand his argument correctly it runs like this: Services such as the Air Ambulance, which are thought to be essential, should be funded by the government (local or national) through tax revenues. Supporting the current apparent disinterest of the government by making a voluntary contribution provides tacit approval of the government position, compromises efforts to persuade the government to change that position and delays, or even prevents, effecting that change. (A side effect of some of the well meaning efforts of volunteer collectors is undue pressure placed on people who can ill afford any contribution.) This is a moral position, though it is not one I would follow. [I would prefer to press government to take responsibility for such services, while making contributions to such charities as seemed appropriate to me.] It seems to me that you are both in agreement in the central point - the Air Ambulance is a valuable, perhaps essential service that requires funding from somewhere. Your disagreement is over mechanism. It is counterproductive for either of you to become incensed over mechanism - and both of you seem to be heading in that direction. Just saying.
  6. Less so if you invest all your winnings in buying more tickets.
  7. @T.McGrath, I really do hope you are not one of those posters who seem to jump ship when asked to justify an assertion when they realise it is indefensible. I am looking forward to your response. You clearly have an interest in and knowledge of science, so it would be a pity if you left the forum over this. I'm hoping it's because you really only have time available on forums at the weekend. See you Saturday.
  8. Make notes. Put things in your own words. Re-read the things you really want to remember just before going to sleep. In the case of New Scientist articles follow up any references they provide. (If, for example, we only remember 10% of what we read, then read ten times as much. :)) I doubt if your dyslexia has too much to do with the problem, but even if it does these techniques will still work.
  9. I thought it was Trump's integrity. I've always come down on the side of "invented". As to the OP, with a nod to Strange's second line, we certainly use Euclidean geometry every day. Also, the Archimedes screw. I'm sure there are many more.
  10. Paradoxically the best way to increase your general knowledge may be to enhance your specific knowledge. First, if you are serious about achieving an improvement you have to commit to working hard beyond the point where you have lost interest. If you cannot do that then, to be blunt, you don't deserve to succeed. With that commitment made choose a topic that interests you. Let me use as an example World War II. Imagine you were intrested in WWII and wish to enhance your knowledge. Select a portion of the war that captures your attention - let's say it's the Italian theatre. Now go into more detail. Tha Anzio landings. Locate books and articles on the Anzio landings. Read them. Make notes. Write a summary in your own words, with your own perspective. Persist even when all interest has evaporated. (It will almost certianly return.) You will now find that not only do you know a great deal about the Anzio landings, but about WWII in general. The trick, if you wish to consider it one, is that despite the intense focus you still pick up many facts with your "peripheral vision". Try it. You won't be disappointed.
  11. Yes, that's broadly what I thought you were aiming for. This attempt is clearer. Like you my (very limited) grasp of quantum theory is based largely on pop science, with a scattering of the real thing from 1st year undergraduate physics and chemistry.
  12. As Itoreo has said, possibly carried on the wind. Alternatively caught on the feathers of birds, or dispersed in their droppings. Branches, or even complete trees, bearing seeds carried on ocean currents and blown by winds are another possibility. If you think about it, even the smallest of islands always has at least one tree.
  13. In the real world we often do not know exactly what data will be necessary to solve a problem. It makes problems more realistic if the examiner includes non-essential information. And it teaches an important lesson, preparing the student for that "real world".
  14. Those who perpetrate such hoaxes live in perpetual darkness.
  15. John Cuthber replied: "But it's not cogent, not focused, not ethical and not the only option available to those who seek to follow, rather than to lead. I'm not asking for a book; just an example of what religion can do that nothing else can." John, perhaps you are not taking this thread seriously. I say this because, based on those of your posts I have read, you do not suffer from poor reading comprehension. Therefore, I am puzzled that you, apparently, do not know the meaning of "improper". If I state that offering a "cogent, organised ethical focus" is part of an improper answer might it not mean that one or more of those characteristics is invalid? And yet, apparently thinking you are disagreeing with me, you choose to repeat my observation. Odd!