Area54

If you have read about Faraday and EMF I find it difficult to believe you have never heard of gravity, but I'll play along for the moment.

Gravity is the 'force' that causes all matter to attract other matter. It's what holds you onto the ground and a thousand other things besides.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

4 hours ago, Moontanman said:

It's so frustrating to post something you are intensely interested in and have either no replies or no serious replies. Seriously guys what gives?  

It is likely that a process for generating these elements will be discovered and their appearance here, while rare, will turn out to be completely natural.

It did remind me that in late 1971 I drafted a short SF story in which aliens established interstellar communication by modifying the spectra of stars. If that turns out to be the case here, then once again I shall have missed out on an opportunity for fame and fortune.

Could you find no papers on the research?

16 hours ago, StringJunky said:

. Perhaps Eisenhower saw Nagasaki and Hiroshima that way.

Eisenhower? What did he have to do with it? He wasn't in the decision chain. Did you mean Truman?

10 hours ago, Itoero said:

How do you know people that teach religion teach forgiveness?

Because I have been taught by some of them.

Just now, dimreepr said:

The reason I think it's obvious you've not suffered depression is that you think it so easy to escape via a list.

"Depression arises, in my experience, not from a failure to find a purpose in life, but in failing to realise that purpose"

How can you realise a purpose one doesn't have?

Strnage has made my point for me. I shall be withdrawing from further discussion with you since you seem to believe you can diagnose my mental state, past and present, from a few posts on an internet forum. That would be a great skill if you were actually capable of it.

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

I can't see the relevance of this comment. 

That is comforting. I thought it might just have been me who was being dense.

Dimreepr, I would appreciate it if you not make calls on my state of mind, past or present. You imly you have suffered the effects of depressionso you will be aware that such comments are not helpful.

Depression arises, in my experience, not from a failure to find a purpose in life, but in failing to realise that purpose.

Just now, dimreepr said:

Do you really think it's that easy?

Yes. And you didn't specify anything about degree of difficulty in your question. What is it you consider to be difficult about the approach?

5 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

It sounds like the teacher failed to understand what religion is about and was unable to convey it to the student, both failed the exam. Perhaps the student realized his teacher was talking BS.

What is this god thing people are discussing on this thread that they still believe in? Is it a great spirit concept or the idea that the pope speaks for god on earth, like some roman emperor in a frock  or perhaps something in the middle.

Can some one define what version of god or gods are being discussed here.

Count the number of participants, multiply by pi and take the integer of the result to find how many are being discussed. It's a starting point.

31 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

 so the real question is, how does one find a purpose/reason to live?

By selecting one, from a very large range of options, that appeals to you.

How do you think you should go about this? It looks like homework and I understand the forum discourages just giving people the answer without some effort on their part.

10 minutes ago, bimbo36 said:

The Muslim God , Allah

So which certain books suggest this? I don't recall seeing that in the Qoran, but I am not well read in that regard.

Thank you. It was a question I had never seen asked before and I was curious whether the possibility was automatically exlcuded in some way.

7 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Space, being only volume, can expand at any rate without violating the SOL limit. If the universe is infinite then it was always so.

Has it been established that the finite cannot become infinite? Since I am unable to conceive of either concept without melting my brain I cannot tell how dumb a question that was.

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

That "rule" was just one writer's preference that was somehow adopted by pedants as an absolute truth. Less has always been used with countables. 

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003775.html

Nevertheless (or, if you prefer, neverthefewer) I still have to supress the gag reflex each time I hear the "rule" breached. If this makes me a pedant I shall wear the badge with pride.

17 hours ago, dimreepr said:

A swallow doesn't consider its existence, it flies and eats them, breeds and dies; how would a swallow benefit if it did consider such things? 

In the same way that we benefit, if benefit we do.

Why do you think everything must have a purpose? Indeed, why do you think anything should have a purpose, other than things constructed by intelligent beings such as beavers, humans and ants?

What you perceive as a purpose is simply the natural interaction of chemicals and the application of physical laws. "Lifeless planets" are a consequence of the same processes that produce life bearing planets, minus the conditions necessary to generate and sustain life.

5 hours ago, Itoero said:

Christianity and Islam are the biggest religions.(I counted them)  Many Christians can't forgive people for being atheist or homosexual. A good friend of mine lives in Italy with an Italian catholic girl. She was pregnant but the baby was unwanted. He proposed abortus and for saying that she sued him and they broke up for a while...being an Italian  catholic prevented her from acting like a normal person. She was indoctrinated as a child with religious 'morality'. The main story in Christianity is the one of Jesus's sacrifice...Why couldn't God just forgive people without a 'human' sacrifice? 

In Islam, apostates are most of the times punished and can even be killed...why cant they forgive people for apostasy? Most  Islam terrorism comes from the fact that they can't forgive people for being different...this difference creates imaginary social injustice. Or why can't they forgive people for making cartoons about Mohammad? (Charlie Hebdo)

What a strange post, filled with anecdote, unfounded claims, fanciful opinions and a fair amount of prejudice.

Do you have any data to support your rather unusual claims?

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

I don't understand why you think the potential threat of North Korea and various imagined scenarios lands at our (U.S.) feet more so than there neighbors  and our partners in the region:South Korea, Japan, and China?

Historical commitment.

1 hour ago, seriously disabled said:

How can people still believe in God when there is so much cruelty and misery on this planet in every single day?

If you also believe in the Devil and the concept of Original Sin, it's probably not too difficult.

Some people are seriously suffering on this planet whether it's from illnesses, injury, being heartbroken from never finding love, loneliness, financial troubles or from bullying etc. and if there was a loving God he wouldn't let good people suffer so much with no reason.

What doesn't kill us makes us stronger.

The fact that bad things happen to good people who don't deserve it to me kinda proves that there is no loving God in my opinion.

Perhaps, but it does nothing to disprove a sadistic God.

24 minutes ago, iNow said:

Doesn't the "point" of nukes depend entirely on who you ask in what context?

As with most things, context and perspective are important, however I believe I have expressed the conventional and consenus view of the role of nuclear weapons as understood by politicians, historians, military personnel and the like.

If this is a simulation and someone hits the reset button, will I still be unemployed in the next run?

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I thought the point of most nukes was to be used in retaliation and the issue simply hasn't arisen yet. 

No. The point is to prevent (discourage) a first strike by the threat of retaliation. Hence MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction. Hence calling it the nuclear deterrent. I'll grant you that in the immediate post WWII years it was mainly seen as an additional weapon in the arsenal, comparable with all the other weapons. Thus Macarthur could seriously plan to use them in the Korean conflict and so-called battlefield nuclear weapons do have a role akin to conventional ones, but the primary aim remains deterrence.

I feel your lengthy response, for which I thank you, merits an appropriately lengthy reply. However, I can only offer a (probably) familiar aphorism. "When all you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail."

Cheers.

15 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

The US has nukes.
If the senior staff of Armed Forces are not prepared to say, publicly, that they would use them, what are those nukes for?
 

What else should he have said?

"Let me answer your question with a question. Are you seriously suggesting that an officer in the US military, who has taken an oath, should choose to disobey a legal order of the Commander in Chief of those military forces? I am here to answer serious, informed questions, not assanine trivia. Next question please."

As to your first question John, the function of nukes is for them not to be used; a function they have discharged admirably for approaching three quarters of a century.