Harold Squared

I admit that seems unlikely, but like Ross Perot and Teddy Roosevelt before him, his independent campaign might significantly affect the election in the event he chooses to mount one.

Quite possibly. I've been around awhile and noticed a definite drift in the "conservative" direction, with some exceptions, over the past few decades. Coincidentally, or perhaps not, living conditions have declined for most rank and file of both parties.

Republicans and Democrats, then. The history of these factions is a topic unto itself, I would think. Hi, John, please elaborate if you are inclined.

Celebrity endorsements are a proven sales tactic. Have I mentioned the Pope yet? I am pretty sure I have not mentioned Jane Fonda. All these people have more name recognition than Harold, therefore their endorsements are "good news", conceivably better for the Cause than that of your humble correspondent. That being said, having a baccalaureate degree in the sciences might furnish kindly old Uncle Harold with better credentials than Redford's. Too right, the science is settled, so why is research still being funded? I mean, how many times can we discover the same damned thing? It is probably moot anyhow, he who must not be named said we have only a decade to act back in '06. Carbon dioxide levels have gone nowhere but up since then. Might as well party hearty, guys!

Is it easier to eat with one chopstick or two? This simple thought experiment helps explain the methods of professional manipulators of popular opinion. To elaborate, an issue is chosen and polarized using various methods of propaganda, leading the majority to enlist in either of two camps, both of which are effectively controlled from the top down, usually by the plutocracy. Issues not selected by the plutocracy are literally off the table and exempt from scrutiny and public consideration.

We are fortunate to have had several notable men of genius from your country come join us, for example Paul Dirac. Thank you for your kind response.

There is plenty more to the untold history of the USA. BUT, since the discussion centers so far on WW II, the USA was fighting a proxy War against Japan in China well before Pearl Harbor and the official start of hostilities. The Japanese were inspired to build a maritime empire from their island nation by the example of another monarchy, the United Kingdom. Perversely, despite having suffered at the hands of British imperialism, the United States has tacitly condoned it since the late 19th century. Why? Racism and British propaganda.

It will most certainly, as will slowing down from relativistic velocity.

Scientists are wrong more often than the scientific method itself. Good point, in modern society aliens have filled the void left by fanciful creatures of old. The notion of an alien spacecraft magically appearing in somebody's backyard is just as unlikely as a leprechaun showing up in the same location.

Screw that, we have Robert REDFORD! Do you think anybody cares that his scientific credentials are even less impressive than those of he who must not be named? By the way, I credit you with most of the heavy lifting regarding my changed point of view. Must have been all the scorn and cartoons, good to see you still have an amplitude of the former. I am trying to replicate your strategy with some of my former buddies but they just tell me to get lost. I guess it must be the lack of cartoons. This is not science, this is a marketing campaign now and the more celebrity spokespersons we have the better we shall fare.

Anyway, we have Robert REDFORD on our side, plus the Pope. Now all we need are a few more celebrities, like Henry Winkler, Alex Trebek, and that guy who played Cliff Clavin on "Cheers".

Alien-human hybrids, ridiculous. Would WE do some creepy stuff like that, and supposedly representing a super-logical race of beings? YES, Mr. Spock, I'm looking at YOU! And wars of invasion, greedy aliens wanting Earth's natural resources? Give me a break. If they wanted to wipe us out they could just push a little garbage out the airlock before braking to enter our solar system, boom, we probably wouldn't even see it coming at any relativistic speed.

I must agree with DrRocket's evaluation of "reputation points". To present the flip side of the coin, a banned member may very well have spoken the truth. Of course once that person is banned we can only guess at what they have to say. I am under no obligation to respond or even to read each individual post and am becoming more of a placid pachyderm but I do not bear the responsibility of a moderator, nor do I wish to. Thanks to those who tirelessly seek to improve the quality of discussion here. This should become easier in the age of electronic records, I would assume. Do you agree?

Humans are mammals as are cougars and wolves, and social animals like wolves. Less harmoniously social than nearly any other such creatures but paradoxically living in larger groups than the great majority of them. Do ants need "forgiveness"? Do wolves? They are destitute of morality but do not murder their own kind with anything like the frequency and zeal of humans.

Do you mean to imply that the dinosaurs met their end due to moral depravity and shortsightedness? They were around longer than we have been, for whatever that is worth. The fossil record does not reveal their angst, if indeed they were so afflicted.

It is always now.

It exists in the material Universe, it has mass, wavelength, etc. The irony of THAT is we have to use wholly imaginary units in order to perform such measurements. Meters, seconds, kilograms, etc. Then COUNT how many such units using numbers, less arbitrary but no less immaterial. And while what we see in the material Universe inevitably rots and disintegrates, even at the scale of stars and galaxies, numbers in their serene immutable beauty continue forever outside time itself. Time, an abstraction itself as well- to the realm of number the life of the mayfly and the life of the galaxy are equally transitory. Does pi "exist" then, or do you? Stupid joke: M. Descartes is sitting in a café one day, thinking deep thoughts as usual. The waiter asks, "Would monsieur care for another glass of wine?" Descartes replies, "I think not." Then he vanishes.

Without imagination there is no progress, indeed all of mathematics is a work of imagination, in the sense of abstract concepts, ideas outside our purely sensory experience. But yes, imagination without discipline(another imagined concept) is worthless. Is it surprising or not that we can express such abstractions more precisely to each other than sense perceptions? I struggle to describe sunsets to the blind or symphonies to the deaf but we assume that even intelligent beings not native to this planet can grasp mathematics and so we start from there. All the positive thinking in the world won't get you out of a concentration camp. I am pretty sure there are other limitations too. On the other hand, pessimism has defeated many who have yet to begin. This is a symptom of a truly robust imagination! Lol... The paradox has its function though. By definition, atoms are indivisible, how can they split? Yet they do split, both spontaneously and by our design. Nature cares nothing for our definitions, so we redefine our terms accordingly. And our body of knowledge profits thereby. What was once "impossible" yields vast power both for destruction and beneficial service.

It has long been observed that computers exhibit the "GIGO" syndrome. In general I expect this to apply to models as well. Long and short term are relative concepts, the onset of AGW is generally attributed to the 1950s, but it took awhile for the popular press to catch on as records of a preoccupation with an ice age fill the records of the 1970s, pretty much the entire decade. The last such reports I personally know of in fact, appeared in 2008. Pinatubo approximates the magnitude if not the duration of the AGW effect since then, 0.5C approximately. Thanks for the link, I hope you are well.

But to clarify, the application of terrestrial resources to lunar settlement was never meant to be a comprehensive solution to our planetary woes and it would be vastly preferable to have resources more convenient to the proposed site. That is why the water ice found by Clementine is so encouraging. Good heavens no, as I recall my objection to terrestrial photovoltaic applications is due principally to daily and seasonal interruptions and diminished performance at high latitudes, plus vulnerability to extreme weather events such as tornadoes. Serious contemplation of a lunar colony implies, to me at least, inexpensive and reliable access to space and space solar energy is a logical or even inevitable consequence. The seed sprouts, the stem reaches upward, stabilized by the root, and the leaves develop- it is a proven model. But forgive the digression. Commonly the settlements on the moon are visualized under a transparent dome but it may be preferable to have them deeper below the surface, with sunlight transmitted via mirrors in a periscope-like manner. I should think an apartment in the wall of a lunar cavern looking over the green commons would be highly appreciated. Also, in the lower gravity plants should exhibit some interesting adaptations.

Very true, thank you for pointing this out, there are no hydrogen mines. The method most familiar to me is electrolysis of water, the classic high-school demonstration, and the electricity can in principle come from any source, even pitiful, low voltage solar photovoltaic. There is also the thermal decomposition and various thermochemical routes of water decomposition and methods involving methane gas. Welcome to the discussion, sir. In fairness, locations which favor solar furnaces would be as effective at thermal decomposition of water as any other source of heat. Such an application might be superior in practice to direct production of electricity by the same means as it would be more tolerant of various interruptions. Whatever the source of our hydrogen, this gas is problematic in its pure form as far as storage and transportation due to its diffuse nature and its tendency to embrittle metals which are exposed to it.

Agreed. And we have a pretty robust infrastructure for dealing with this fuel in place. There is some concern about current extraction technology for tapping naturally sequestered deposits of gas, i. e., "fracking", so we could leave those in place. Industrial trivia: the original household "gas" was synthesis gas derived from coal, a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. The latter was what poisoned people who put their head in the oven to commit suicide. Natural gas as we know it was an obviously safer alternative to say the least and caught on in a big way for this and other reasons.

I traded my doubt for despair, it does not seem like such a good deal so far. Whatever, we persevere, right?

Materials science continues to progress and the human desire seems to compel us to build ever higher. Maybe an evolutionary thing, we like being able to see far away, spit predators(or prey) from far away. Have you seen drawings of Frank Lloyd Wright's "Mile High City"? He wasn't going to just put it in Denver, Colorado. A dynamic approach might be the Space Fountain, as described elsewhere on this site and better yet Wikipedia. Keep thinking big. All important factors to consider, most certainly. Swaying in tall buildings today can be counteracted with motion dampeners, perhaps a network of these integrated by computer over the height of the structure would be of some merit?

In New Scientist 21 May 2002, attempts by Israeli scientists to develop a feather free breed of chicken were described. Supposedly better tolerance to heat and more efficient production would result, i. e. no feed going into the production of inedible feathers which would be discarded. Does anyone know what became of this project or have additional information? Thanks in advance.