Jump to content

Area54

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    993
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Area54 last won the day on July 16

Area54 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

248 Beacon of Hope

2 Followers

About Area54

  • Rank
    Protist

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Astrobiology, vulcanology

Recent Profile Visitors

3744 profile views
  1. We may anticipate a resumption of manned lunar exploration within the next five or six years. (See, for example, here.) I am curious about the likely response from those who deny that the Apollo landings ever occurred. Given that the deniers seem to be made up of a mix of trolls, the poorly educated, the gullible and the bloody-minded, I would expect a range of reactions. The poll gives you an opportunity to indicate what you think will be the most common response. Please post the reason(s) for your choice and add any related thoughts. Since this is about the psycholgical response to an engineering approach to pursuing scientific(astronomy & geology), political and economic goals, I was unsure where to place it. Moderators, please move it if you can think of better location.
  2. So, you are one of those amusing people who think you are not already in a virtual reality. Come on! No conceivable real world could actually produce a Donald Trump as President of the US. It's obvious that we have all subscribed to a third rate farce. I'm thinking of asking for a refund.
  3. I would simply like to understand the point you are making. At present it is not clear. Please state your position clearly, because at present I have little or no idea what it is, other than, apparently, being generally disagreeable. You state society is not to blame, but also imply it is to blame. Also note, I have expressed no position whatsoever on the thread topic. My couple of posts have been directed solely at attempting to understand your position. So please don't assign me imaginary motives conjured out of your own psyche.
  4. No, I am focusing on your assertion that "alcoholism arises from a more permanent set of conditions that cause the disease. This is determined not by the alcoholic but by the vast majority of alcohol users who have no problems with consumption." That reads, to me, that if there were not a large number of people (ergo, society) creating the demand for alcohol, coupled with many others meeting that demand, then alcoholism would not exist. Thus, as you have written it, you are blaming society. Your post has failed to address that ambiguity. Try again.
  5. So, you are arguing society is to blame, by providing the alcohol? That seems to run counter to your earlier position. I am confused. Using the same logic you would appear to agree that responsibility for the use of guns in violent crimes is not down to the gunmen, but to the existence of many responsible gun owners and the gun industry that equips them. That thought would also seem to run counter to your bumper sticker position.
  6. It would be helpful if you could cite the paper, or at least give some clue as to date, author or journal.
  7. You are welcome. I challenged you on it, partly because the thread, which was silly to start with, seemed to have run its course and partly because I think, on a science forum, we should avoid "lay usage" of scientific terminology. The abuse of "theory" is the one that springs easily to mind, but there are others lurking around of which "average" is one. The average bloke just doesn't seem to get it.
  8. I offer you an alternative. The confusion, ambiguity, uncertainty and seeming paradoxes promoted by quantum mechanics are clearly the work of a super intelligent, vindictive genius. Solid evidence for the existence of the Devil, not of God.
  9. Had he just mentioned average then I would agree, but he stated "by definition". My view is that if one seeks to impart weight to a post by quoting definitions one had best ensure the definition is accurate. Pedantic? I suggest not.
  10. That depends upon whether you are using mean, mode or median. It is only necessarily true for the last.
  11. How much more than the average 1%, 20%, 400%? Where you put the boundary is subjective, as @Dord suggests.
  12. These two papers, Initial results from safety testing of US AGR-2 irradiation test fuel and Key results from irradiation and post-irradiation examination of AGR-1 UCO TRISO fuel, report on Triso tests to 1,600o C and 1,700o C respectively, well below the crucial temperature of 2,800o C mentioned by @swansont I can find nothing reporting tests at higher temperatures.
  13. There seems to be a presumtion in the last few posts that the solar system formed from the product of a single supernova explosion. This is not the case. Multiple supernovae would have contributed to the molecular cloud whose collapse led to the formation of the solar system. What is thought to be practical is to identify sister stars to the sun, from their spectroscopic signature. These would have formed as neigbours in the same cloud (compare with the Pleiades) then drifted apart. I don't recall whether such siblings have yet been idenitifed, but a literature search should turn up the answer. Here are a couple of papers on the subject: The evolution of the Sun's birth cluster and the search for the solar siblings with Gaia The authors "use self-consistent numerical simulations of the evolution and disruption of the Sun's birth cluster in the Milky Way potential to investigate the present-day phase-space distribution of the Sun's siblings." Searching for solar siblings among the HARPS data The authors note "At present, there are four plausible candidatesreported in the literature: HIP21158, HIP87382, HIP47399, and HIP92831. In this study weconduct a search for solar siblings amongthe HARPS high-resolution FGK dwarfs sample, which includes precise chemical abundances and kinematics for 1111 stars. Usinga new approach based on chemical abundance trends with condensation temperature, kinematics, and ages we found one (additional)potential solar sibling candidate: HIP97507."
  14. There is a reasonable correlation between the mass of an organism and its lifespan. (cf. mouse, dog, man, elephant). So, unless you anticipate us evolving into 300ton monsters don't expect a 2.5 my lifespan. Part of the explanation for extended lifespans lies in the inreasing complexity of the most complex organism: An e.coli bacterium doesn't need any time to develop a whole suite of interacting organs. Yes, we are continuing to evolve. We shall either evolve into and entirely new species, or multiple species, or our line will become extinct. Species don't last for much more than a million years. Convergent evolution is common. Thus flying was independently developed by pterosaurs, birds and bats. Swimming with a "fish shape" was developed by mutiple kinds of fishes, ichtyosaurs and cetaceans.
  15. I thought that was the intent of all threads, on all forums, for all time.
×
×
  • 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.