DrKrettin

Don't know if it's still true, but Micro$oft Publisher used to think the plural of rhinoceros was 'rhinoceroses'.

Found that out when one of my students was searching for flower clipart for a Valentines Day card.

But that's American.

I think Goethe sums it up perfectly:

Wer Wissenschaft und Kunst besitzt,
hat auch Religion;
wer jene beiden nicht besitzt,
der habe Religion.

I find this fiendishly difficult to translate accurately, mainly because I can never find a satisfactory word for Wissenschaft. Science or knowledge are the best, depending on context. Anyway, I'd say

He who has science and art

also has religion.

He who has neither of these,

let him have religion.

In plural fun-gus

In singular fuun-g(h)ee

 

They are Latin pronunciations of them

You have them the wrong way round. -us is singular

This works.

I went to Brazil once, and in 11 days I was able to hold a basic conversation with someone, and still can.

I can also describe a lot of things, and ask what the word for it is.

I'm impressed, because Brazil is perhaps not the best place to learn English.

Can anybody prove that eight is the only positive integer cube which is one less than a square?

Can anybody prove that eight is the only cube which is one less than a square?

I think this is totally bullshit. I have no idea about physical size of this event. But plants need Gibberellin or maybe Auxin for grow, not notes! Maybe it is possible when we can see any receptors , but i guess, there is no receptors for music in plants.

You are confusing "need" and "benefit from". I have seen myself that plants which experience some air movement benefit from it by developing stronger stems. It is unlikely, but not entirely unreasonable to suggest that music could provide the same benefit.

I think you need various different maps, of varying complexity, each one aimed at a different age group or education level. For example, you mention the 7-year-old. I don't think that at that age he/she would appreciate the difference between organic and inorganic material, and if the thrust is the differences in scale, that does not matter. Equally, a child of that age would not appreciate the difference between galaxy - visible universe - cosmos, which would (I think) be a distraction.

I think that the aim of your diagram is very laudable, but rather unrealistic simply as one diagram. Start with the top layer, dead simple, for a 7-year old, then other layers of increasing complexity and detail. Without giving it much thought, I guess that 3 or 4 layers would be sufficient.

 

So if not "matter" is there a better description for things made up of molecules or should I leave that out entirely ?

I think organic materials are too prominent. The inorganic ones are the important ones for the physical world.

 

If there is somebody who don't understand what I am talking about, such person does not deserve for finishing primary school IMHO..

At least not in XXI century..

 

 

I agree with koti - this is a typical case of specialism where somebody thinks that everybody should be as involved in the technicalities to the same extent as they are. You could use the same argument for a lack of knowledge about how many things work which people use on a daily basis, for example, a TV, a car, paracetemol, alcohol distillation, prostate gland**, the English language, the list is very long. I doubt whether many people actually know how a telephone works. The point is that the primary school education enables you to find out about these specialities if you want to, and I for one find every item in my list considerably more interesting than computer stuff.

**not sure whether this is on a daily basis.

Today I learned that Frequency of Penile-Vaginal Intercourse is Associated with Verbal Recognition Performance in Adult Women

What I have not yet learned is whether this is good news or not.

Link

Some weeks ago I learned that there are 483 identifiable chemical constituents known to exist in the cannabis plant, and at least 85 different cannabinoids have been isolated from the plant.

For those with a genuine interest in the science around this (i.e. not David Levy), just came across this web page with some good info, including a cool animation of the orbits.

http://www.galacticcenter.astro.ucla.edu/blackhole.html

That is cool. Is this the same phenomenon as the perihelion shift of Mercury, or something totally different?

how can we eliminate f1?

 

It looks like you have the two equations correct. (It's too unclear to be sure) Resolving along the x-axis you have F2.sin(theta) = F1.cos 30

From that, F1 = F2.sin(theta)/cos 30

In the other equation resolving along the y-axis, use this to replace F1 with F2.sin(theta)/cos 30

Rearrange that and you get an equation of the form F2. f(theta) = constant, as I mentioned above. Then proceed as stated.

Today I learnt that olive oil is 91% the weight of water and if you tried to swim in it would be like having a lead belt around you that was 9% of your bodyweight.

But it would make your skin nice and moist (if you did not drown). The Greeks used it regularly after a bath, and I always thought it would make one uncomfortably sticky. Greek women used rancid olive oil as a spermicide, by the way. No idea how effective that would be. Yuk.

If we consider the title of this thread, this non-dialogue with a "believer" illustrates the impossibility of turning one. For many, there is no common ground because of the total lack of rational thought on one side. Someone who claims that chemistry is the only rock-solid science, takes Cayce and Berlitz seriously, has an extraordinary superiority complex and knows that they have a seat in paradise, clearly has no nous at all, which is extraordinarily ironic.

Yet again I find myself in a discussion which is like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling. I'm done with this thread, it's bad for the sanity.

 

DrKrettin, do you seriously believe that I am not in the slightest measure capable of critical judgement.

 

I can only form an opinion based on what you write here. You are displaying absolutely no critical judgement when you refer to Atlantis as though it were a certainty, and referring to unscientific, fanciful and dishonest writings of the likes of Berlitz. Earlier in this thread, you fail totally to engage in any kind of dialogue because you simply refer to the bible in response to any post. This is not the behaviour of somebody who wishes to be taken seriously on a science forum.

You make bewildering generalisations about science and scientists as though everybody were automatically atheist. You do not differentiate between atheists and scientific sceptics. You do not differentiate between the "how" of science and the "why" of religion. You treat the bible as an absolute authority which comes across as not only laughable but displaying a total lack of critical judgement. It's in there, so it must be true. Miracles happened in the bible. Evidence? It is written, so it must be true. You might have spent centuries coming to this conclusion, but you say nothing which demonstrates why this should be so.

There are plenty of ancient religious texts - why the bible in particular?

If such a thing exists, I suspect contextual overlap is important. Simultaneously listening and interpreting are much more closely related than simultaneously assembling IKEA furniture and changing a baby's diaper.

That's not the best comparison really, because you would also need four hands, and for the last item, very little thought. But yes, I take your point.

You have two equations and 3 unknowns.

1) resolve along the y axis

2) resolve along the x axis

Eliminate F1 and you get an equation of the form F2. f(theta) = constant

F2 is a minimum when f(theta) is a maximum. So differentiate f(theta) and you get a turning point (assume maximum) for a value of theta. Then you get F1 and F2.

Does that help?

Would you not say that simultaneous language interpreting involves doing two things at the same time - listening, translating, speaking? Just a minute - that's three. It takes some training, so it's not an automatic ability.

It is certainly the case that thinking of more than one thing at once is increasingly more difficult as you get older. There are times when I have problems just thinking of one thing at once.

Perhaps somebody trod on your grave.

"Certainly. Plato mentions it. No more evidence." This is so typical of guarded academic discounting. Charles Berlitz has written a book, correlating the "mention" with a wide variety of "no more evidence". For the mentally challenged, it spells a huge and detailed dialogue has been supported with a ton of evidence. After sorties of the Aristocratic flavour, how many bleat likewise, do you think, without a second thought.

I am forming the opinion that you believe everything anybody has written if it is in a book, without the slightest critical judgement. The odd thing is that you are guilty of exactly what you criticise others for. Berlitz wrote about the paranormal, and is generally recognised as promoting pseudoscience and fabricating evidence. It is an insult to the intelligence to expect anybody on a science forum to take him seriously.

Yes, that is a typical guarded academic statement by me, because good academic opinion requires solid foundation, and not a flight of fancy with no evidence to support it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, something Berlitz ignored. You choose to believe what is said in the bible, with no supporting evidence for its veracity. That's your choice, but you can have no concept of how utterly smug and self-righteous you come across. Jesus wouldn't like that.

And stop quoting Revelation to me. The only fact it reveals is that John was totally off his head in his cave on Patmos. My avatar is from his writings, by the way, 13.18.

DrKrettin, if I may, upon what evidence then do you base your opinion that Atlantis is just a myth?

Certainly. Plato mentions it. No more evidence. As it happens, I think that myth usually has some origin in historical events, so he was probably referring to something which happened, and a volcanic explosion of Santorini, the Thera eruption, probably explains the sudden collapse of the Minoan civilisation. At present, this is the most likely explanation, and quite a convincing one. My objection to what you said was the offensive claim of parroting, particularly ironic because this is exactly what people do when quoting from the bible,

Your question is interesting, because it highlights a fundamental difference in viewpoints. If something is mentioned in an ancient manuscript, I am entitled to assume it is myth unless somebody can offer evidence that it is fact. You seem to operate on the complete opposite - if an ancient manuscript says something, you take it for a truth unless somebody can prove it is not. That is a seriously perverse way of looking at written documents. Why believe what is written, just because somebody wrote it, with no further evidence?

Just for the record, I think that it is highly likely that a lot of myth has historical facts as a root. Any number of mythical characters probably had real people as their origins, but where the historical accuracy has been damaged by constant repetition. I hold it as totally plausible that the Trojan War is based on some event that took place, and that people like Oedipus actually existed. For that matter, I suspect that Jesus actually existed, but that is an entirely different matter than the supernatural characteristics attributed to him.

And again for the record, when you say "Atlantis is myth, they say. Atlantis is myth, you parrot. " you insult people like me who have spent many years studying myth, Greek myth in particular, the relationships between myth, history and ritual, and the transmission of ancient texts. My PhD involved a great deal of myth and its influence on religious thought in the ancient world. I have read and analysed enough ancient texts to know that nothing can be taken at face value. So do not assume that you are always talking to people who have not given much thought your references.

 

 

. Out of curiosity I just checked if blasphemy is still a felony here where I live and it turns out that blasphemy is a criminal offence subject to a fine, penalty or imprisonment of up to 2 years. I presume there are far more European countries with such laws in place. Sigh.

 

Only this week, Stephen Fry has been investigated by the Irish police for blasphemy, because he called god an effing moron, or something like that. It's worth seeing his interview.

More info here This is Europe in the 21st century. But it's Ireland, so really only the 18th century.

I've just read a newspaper interpretation of this with the headline "Brain damage can make you religious"

There are no real journalists these days.