Jump to content

Carrock

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    553
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Carrock last won the day on December 10 2018

Carrock had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

90 Excellent

About Carrock

  • Rank
    Molecule

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    physics

Recent Profile Visitors

6242 profile views
  1. Do the math: Pre-WW II farming was essentially "organic"-- the best yields were 50bu/ac for corn. Today, corn belt farmers get 200bu/ac-- ain't enough cow dung and Rhizobium to produce that. US population before WW II ~130M; today it's 330M....We've been swimming hard against the current all these yrs and can't stop now or we'll get swept away. To go organic on a large scale would result in a large change in the carrying capacity necessitating a commensurate die-off. ...Any volunteers? Total irrelevance. I didn't suggest going organic. You should read my posts rather than guessing. I did look at your earlier posts. All your refs to premodern ag were unsustainable e.g. Destroy the land's fertility then move on. That is not even intended to be sustainable farming. Maintaining the pasture's nitrate content etc by crop rotation or otherwise would have somewhat reduced the short term yield. If you meant 'not using inorganic N fixed by the Haber-Bosch Process produces a lower yield' you should have said that, not claimed that sustainable farming was impossible before Haber-Bosch How about the Atlantic northwest cod fishery? Cod was still cheap enough to continue fishing at 1%. Despite occasional subsequent (over)fishing there are signs cod is at last recovering. e.g.
  2. You seem to be saying technology should be used to save us, and it won't save us.... Cannibal humans couldn't be a problem for long. Trump has adopted the 'more is better' approach in some ways, such as encouraging the use of fossil fuels while building barriers to protect his golf courses from rising sea level. From https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2017-12-22/trump-resort-in-ireland-will-build-seawalls-to-protect-against-climate-change And a not very high tech fix to make nuclear weapons much safer to use.... From https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/29/us-submarine-trident-nuclear-warhead-patrols-atlantic-ocean Perhaps they learned from 'Doctor Strangelove' that secret deterrence was unwise. Potential targets might also learn from 'Doctor Strangelove' and decide to add cobalt jackets to their nuclear weapons and create fail-deadly devices. Things have got more complex since 'Doctor Srangelove' and it would be unfortunate if that military officer attacked a country with fail deadly devices because the president thought they were bluffing. No doubt reviving Reagan's star wars initiative would again make the world safer.... Exactly. Never heard of crop rotation? Worked fine in Britain from the last ice age until artificial fertilisers were invented. Britain ran out of West long before America did.
  3. Can't resist.... It's arguably more significant that LIGO with VIRGO provide strong evidence that there's no such thing as gravitiferous aether.
  4. I thought the answer was 'yes' until you asked the question. On reflection I think the speed of light is the (unachievable) upper speed limit for propagation of information. Semi classically, infinite bandwidth (i.e. no fuzziness) would be required for light speed propagation of information. (Alternatively, Heisenberg UP could be invoked.)
  5. Strange concept of extinction. Imprison animals or humans in an unsurvivable 'utopian' prison and they'll 'become extinct.' By that definition, I guess technology, or lack of it, will cause every human now alive to become extinct in a hundred years or so. An example of how all of humanity can become extinct without very high tech help would be good.
  6. It appears that a single droplet of water can generate 50nC at 140v i.e. 7 microjoules. And a litre of water/second falling from 15cm can generate 70mW. I suppose that's about 1.5W of kinetic power so the efficiency is quite impressive.
  7. The human species is incapable of self annihilation without technology. The current approach of using technology to ameliorate the harm caused by other technology seems a bit illogical.
  8. He's one more turtle than I could think of, and now she's suing me for failing to create her. Fortunately I have a £1 million bank loan backed by a foundational sub prime mortgage.
  9. As long as the turtle at the bottom doesn't think about what he's walking on, everything should be fine.
  10. If something exists and there has to be a creator, then the creator also has to have a creator etc. Turtles all the way down.
  11. Use Maxwell's middle hand rule to determine the sign of the exponent. Exponent size is just a matter of adding or subtracting something ... etc. Ultraoversimplified.....
  12. Possibly. Never tried that. I think it would have to be bright enough to cause pupil contraction and perhaps be too bright to look at without discomfort.
  13. You could try looking at a bright light bulb. In a lucid dream it always looks dim to me. I suspect it's because I can't create the physiological effects of a bright light.
  14. An extreme example: I didn't kill that child in a hit and run. There's evidence the police overlooked which will prove I was robbing a bank at the time. Almost(?) everyone has something, lawful or not, that they don't want generally known and might withhold even if it would be evidence of their innocence of the crime they're charged with. Trump in particular must be concerned about other offences coming to light if witnesses are cross examined under oath. They seem to be claiming he is innocent however dubious their reasoning. So he is not guilty until and unless found guilty. It should be, but for some senators who decided their verdicts before the trial, facts are irrelevant.
  15. Exoneration requires a much higher standard (I think) than does 'insufficient evidence to prove guilt.' At best, if the defence claims are mostly true, the suppressed evidence would likely fail to exonerate Trump but simply add no more evidence of guilt. Certainly, it would be usual and good for Trump to facilitate this evidence if it doesn't harm his case. Acquittal is all Trump can really go for. Doesn't matter so much if everyone is sure the trial was fixed.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.