Leaderboard

Gravity on a large body like Earth is not a trivial hurdle for life to escape, survive space and survive re-entry on another hospitable body, which would also likely be large. I'm not saying it's impossible but it's not a simpler solution than life starting on Earth. Executing Occam's Razor would tell us to start here, on Earth, for signs of the abiogenesis of life on Earth.

I am pretty certain that not all of them had cat heads. Bastet did. But Thoth had the head of a bird for example and Anubus of a Dog. I am not sure how many others had cat heads - I would have to look that up... but I am sure there are others with different heads that aren't cats. I would argue that you CAN build a loving bond between yourself and your cat. They can be quite loving as it goes... they just think and communicate a little differently. It is often said though about cats and dogs that "Dogs have owners.... and cats have staff". PS - I just found this - it looks an interesting read. I only skimmed it because I am a little busy right now, but might try to look at it more closely later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cats_in_ancient_Egypt

Just went back in Reg Prescott's history as far back as 2015 where apparently then under the name SillyBilly, he was making exactly the same apparently rehearsed claims including the scientific method, his crazy take on the orbits of the planets in the solar system and Newtonian mechanics among his usual unmistakable attempt at humour when cornered or shown to be in error. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/91338-scientific-testing-split-from-goal-of-science/?page=6&tab=comments#comment-886741 Just thought at this stage of this continued circular argument it might be an interesting observation.

Not to pile on here, but I took issue with this, too. This is plainly inaccurate. I have a custom spear. It's for survival. I have a custom trapping cage. It's for survival. I have a custom insulated jacket. It's for survival. I have a custom fire starter. It's for survival. I could go on...

! Moderator Note I think we’re done here.

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-nasa-humans-venus-brilliant-idea.html NASA wants to send humans to Venus – here's why that's a brilliant idea October 16, 2018 by Gareth Dorrian And Ian Whittaker, The Conversation Credit: NASA extracts: Hovering in the atmosphere .I'm all for it! One of the apparent dangers was that Venus's atmosphere is acidic with H2SO4 [Sulphuric acid] falling as rain. This is readily overcome and to quote the article again, They had in excess of 200,000 applicants for Bas Landorp's one way Mars trip, I'm pretty sure they'll get at least that number here. What do others think? My greatest wish again is that if we were all smart enough to make this as big an International effort as possible, we could be returining to the Moon, conducting a manned mission to Mars, and balloon air cities on Venus. Having this all done before I kick the bucket would be great!

I read last year somewhere that regulated repeated assembly of certain polymeric units could have been influenced by the clays found on earth at the time it would have happened. The assembly can take place in the layers between the clay structures which can influence things like selective chirality and alignments. It wasn't 100% but was an interesting theory. Some post docs in my group a couple of decades ago were using similar catalysts (graphite not clay) to 'force' or favour certain alignments for their own polymerisations. They found they could increase the yield of their desired chirality with the presence of graphite - they assumed or concluded that the polymerisation was taking place in between the plates/layers of graphite which was forcing a certain molecular orientation. Something similar could have happened in the layers in silicate clays to help get more regular repeatable arrangements and additions of the early building blocks for repeat units. Still speculation as far as I am aware - but made a lot of sense.

Reg You have pitted direct quotes from one member against those of another using misrepresentation of the words of a third member. Polysemy? I give and gave you credit for stating your definition of mainstream. But you have no basis whatsoever for asserting that 'everyone else' uses this definition. In fact I specifically ruled out any polysemy by the words "in this context" Since you wish to claim that everybody else uses your definition (quite reasonable in some very limited contexts) here is my version. By far the greatest majority of the activities of scientists is in the application of existing Science, not the search for new Science. As such I would offer mainstream to represent the major activity of Science. Application is, by definition, using science for something we want to work and be successful. As an example, since you are fond of these, consider the motor car. There is an existing world land speed record. New Science would be trying to build a car to exceed this speed. But this would be one single solitary car. Set that against the output of the world car manufacturing industry building mainstream cars, using mainstream Science. Turning the the other member statement you placed in opposition brings us to the meaning of "all the time" It may have been an unfortunate use of words fo those who can only take pedantically literally what others say. I did not, anymore than when I use the phrase "I am forever making typing errors" do I mean literally that every word I type is in error or that I will live forever or that I am doing nothing else with my time. You use literary hyperbole liberally and I take Phi's words in the same vain. Most of the activity of Scientists is, as I already mentioned, spent performing activity where it is undersirable to challenge what is known to work. But some of it is spent on new Science. For instance I am reading an interesting book about the history of Earth interior geophysics. In the last two decades our knowledge and understanding of the interior of the Earth has been turned on its head at least 3 times. Perovskite, post perovskite and other matters. Fascinating.

Boston Dynamics’ SpotMini robot dancing to Uptown Funk

While I would agree with 20 deg as a reasonable substitute for room temperature, I don't see the attraction, if you are hoping to preserve dna. From reading a few of the links, it would seem that dna degenerates like most food items, in that any cooling is better than room temperature, a fridge would be good, and a freezer would be very good. Bacteria are responsible for much of the degradation of dna. I would put it in a tiny quantity of distilled water, and put it in a decent freezer at minus 20. If the dna of the ice man survived 5,500 years, and the dna of the meat in his stomach survived being cooked, eaten, and frozen all those years, then your hair samples should last well enough to be tested in five years time. I did try to search the internal temperatures of glaciers, but couldn't get an answer. I think the Ice Man glacier was at about 10,000 feet, I very much doubt if the average temperature was lower than minus 20. Probably a fair bit higher.

Right.

Typically RT is not used in the same way as STP is used. RT defines a broader range of temperatures and can vary on the application. Standard lab work generally refers to the mentioned 20-25 C. In the pharmaceutical industry the range can be down to 15 C or between 20-25, depending on standards. Similar norms are used for regular storage of chemicals or other goods, for example.

STP in my school days was 20C and 760mmHg. It turns out to be the NIST values and they call it NTP. https://www.1728.org/stpcalc.htm

In lab protocols it typically refers to a temp range of 20-25.

You will be able to read all the files; ie. documents, images, etc. You can copy them onto another disk/computer. You will not, in general, be able to copy any installed programs or their settings. (There are a few exceptions, generally open-source programs that are not written specifically for Windows). So, after re-installing a new version of Windows, you will have to re-install any applications that were on the computer. In some cases, this may mean purchasing them again to get a new license. But some companies will be helpful if you explain the problem - they might give you a new replacement license for no charge. (Even Adobe have done that for me in the past. Which is pretty bloody extraordinary.)

Those are all awesome, michel, but they’re nothing compared to their Atlas robot doing parkour last week:

20oC . This is 'standard' temperature.

I just have been feeling very unsure about my place in life. I have never been tested for any mental illnesses but believe I might have some. I experience constant negative emotions towards life in general; including my obligations in the military, my music, and school. I would like to see how others validate their life in terms of worth, and ability.

There are several errors in your "logic" here. You distort what Born said -- in more ways than one! First of all, he did not -- contra your own misrepresentation -- say "science" simpliciter; what he said was "a scientific theory [that has become] firmly established and confirmed". Second of all, he did not say, as per own your distortion, that "[it] isn't questioned because it is dogma"; what he said was "it becomes dogma". Now, whether or not Born's assertion poses a threat to Phi for All's claim (see OP) that science is "questioned all the time" hinges on the meaning of the word dogma. If dogma connotes that which is constantly questioned, then Phi's claim needn't fear anything, from Max Born at least. I'm suggesting that on any standard usage of the term, dogma implies that which is, by and large, not to be questioned. If this connotation of the term is granted, and Max Born's claim is true, then it follows immediately that Phi's claim is false. Either way, there is no begging of the question. The execrable logic is your own.

Ah, so we're back to the old "logical fallacy" game, are we? Forty years ago or so, when John Searle first published his celebrated (or notorious) "Chinese Room" argument demonstrating that computation is insufficient for cognition, i.e., if a machine thinks it won't be in virtue of performing computation alone, the howls of protest from the A.I. community were predictable and vociferous. The argument was wrong -- fallacious -- they screamed. It had to be wrong. After all, their own research program would be jeopardized if it were right. While everybody agreed the argument was specious, curiously enough though, the critics seemed unable to agree on precisely what was wrong with it. Recent posts assert that my arguments commit the fallacy of (i) begging the question, (ii) polysemy, (iii) equivocation, and (iv) appeal to authority. Well, did you evah! (i) has already been refuted. (ii) Perhaps SamCogar does not mean by "mainstream" what I, and presumably everyone else, means by the term, this complaint asserts. Well, it's possible. It's also possible that when SamCogar says "undergraduate" he has in mind "Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves". In this kind of debate, though, we presume that our interlocutors are competent speakers of English who use words more or less the same way as every other competent speaker, and if a word is being used in a deviant, technical, or unorthodox manner, we expect this to be indicated. Otherwise the rules break down. (iii) Now we're told that a mixing of two uses of the verb "to question" leads to fallacy and the end of the world as we know it. Well, as with (ii) above, lacking direct access to other contributors' inner mental states and concepts, I have only my own concept of "question" to work with, which I take to be fairly standard. If it weren't, it's hard to see how we'd be communicating successfully at all. (iv) Were we to consult Max Born on poetry of the late Tang dynasty, say, his authority might indeed be suspect. I see nothing whatsoever fallacious, however, in appealing to an authority on matters that he is indeed authoritative about. Judicial courts call it an "expert witness". Does being an expert entail that he's right? Of course not, but neither can he simply be dismissed with a wave of the hand, and a "Buzz! Fallacy #37! Next!". Born is an expert and his testimony has to be taken seriously. Born's testimony constitutes only a small part of a case I've been building which includes theoretical and historical evidence, as well as expert opinion from various sources, amounting to good reasons for thinking that mainstream science is not "questioned all the time". Now, is the plan of attack really to go through the entire book of logical fallacies? Who knows, if you throw enough of them out there, some members less able to appraise these matters for themselves may even be persuaded.

I don't know what happens in the video. All there is is your assessment as shocking. No, that's not enough. I see, then move this to the trash can