Area54

7 hours ago, VladP said:

Dear Area54, hold your horses. Everything in its own time.

I have removed saddle and bridle, brushed them down, given them some fresh hay and secured them in the stable. When you get around to presenting your thesis with clarity and completeness I shall be pleased to return to the discussion.

I just tried to explore one possibility of what is going on in the mind of the sender. He has a friend. He has developed, over time, an understanding of the friend's interests attitudes. He sees a video that amuses him and a photograph that he thinks is very artistic. He decides to share them with his friend (and perhaps other friends, besides). Unbeknown to him the friend is convinced she is being sexually harassed and is discussing it with anonymous persons on the internet. When he is finally confronted by an irate friend he is horrified that she has misinterpreted his intent and,more importantly, deeply hurt that she thought so little of their friendship she was not prepared to raise her discomfort at the outset.

As noted, it's just one possibility, but given the general absence of data it is one that deserves at least passing consideration.

I have noted, over the years, that people identify problems and solutions on the basis of their experience and knowledge. That's hardly surprising, but it is rare that they then modify their conclusions in the light of this specific knowledge.

Shorter version: "Yes, but...."

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

Thank you for this. I kneaded it.

Are you suggesting his thoughts may be half-baked?

@Doctordick

I note that Strange has found, as I did, that your writing is sometimes ambiguous. Ambiguity is not unusual in forum posts; we are not writing papers for Nature. However, you are seeking to present/develop, if I understand you, a fundamental concept relating to language, communication and explanations, amongst other things.

Given that ambitious intent it behoves you to post with more precision and care than the typical forum post. Your have failed to do so. I shall continue to watch this thread, but if you continue to redefine your meaning each time you are questioned I shall rather rapidly abandon the effort.

If this comes across as aggressive I apologise. I think I am partly influenced by your comment in the OP - " It also points out a few minor errors in modern physics not realized by the professionals." This has echoes of the internet trolls who "have a theory" based upon the fact that "science has got it wrong". I hope I am mistaken and this is just another example of you not wrting what you meant.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

And I hold global warming as an important  problem that certainly should be dealt with appropriatley...but why pick on science...or space science in particular?

Thank you for your reply. On this particular point I must have been unclear. My point about global warming is that if we fail to counteract it and the worst case scenarios are realised there will be no civilisation to practice space exploration and thus your claim that economic matters will not stop that exploration is faulty.

Disclaimer: I'm overly influenced by pop science explanations, but I'm confident others will correct any nonsense in my post.

We do not know what preceded the BB, but it entirely possible matter/energy were present in some form before the expansion of the current universe began. So,something coming from something else, not something from nothing.

Or, as the quote notes, "nothing" in physics is not quite the same as absolutely nothing. (There is an ongoing discusison about this somewhere on the forum,) We know that virtual particles can and do emerge from "nothing" then disappear. Some have suggested that the universe is just a large scale blip of virtual particles. Again, not something from nothing, but arguably something from "nothing".

Hope that clarified rather than confused.

4 minutes ago, Mr Ask said:

This helps a lot.  I think I can work with several parts here.

As for the moon explosion, I tend to think that most moon rocks would fall into orbit and most that fell to Earth would evaporate.  Only a few chunks would do damage.  And I have control over how much damage there would be by picking the site of the explosion.  There would be no damage at all if it were on the far side of the moon for example.
But I am leaning towards a point facing Earth because it would create a cavity that would direct the following energy (and EMP) bursts directly towards Earth.  But that means the blast pushes the moon away from Earth rather than just adding spin, etc.

Decreasing the size of the blast is an option, but I do want a changed sky in my story.  A misshapen moon, a ring forming around Earth, and very frequent Aurora Borealis and Aurora Australis.


Mr. Ask

Just a bunch of minor points.

Not evaporate, but burn up, or incinerate, or volatilise.

For an explosion of the magnitude you appear to be envisaging having it on the far side would not stop some of the "chunks" striking the Earth.

A blast poweful enough to move the moon any signficant distance from the Earth would destroy the moon.

I'm at a loss as to why an explosion on the moon is going to influence aurora, but perhaps I haven't read all the posts closely enough.

Good luck with your writing.

15 hours ago, beecee said:

Exploration, space or otherwise anywhere, will not be stopped by any bleeding heart sob stories, or political opportunist or any possible variable economic circumstance.

I am in agreement with several aspects of what you have said here and in other posts in this thread, but I have two counterpoints for you.

I think it is inappropriate to suggest that those who express concern for the poor, the sick, the disenfranchised are simply peddling "bleeding heart sob stories". I will go further. Making such an accusation tends to cement the opposition the of those are concerned about these matters and see space exploration as an unwelcome distraction. Using such rhetoric may make you feel good, but it does nothing to persuade the opposition. If manned exploration and colonisation of space is important to humanity it is important that we have the support of the majority of humanity in that endeavour. "One small step for a man, . . . . "

You discount the "variable economic circumstance(s)", yet our civilisation is perilously close to disintegration. Global warming, nuclear holocaust, falling spem counts. The list is a long one and that's without considering a chance encounter with an asteroid or stray comet. We'll probably make it through, but your absolute belief goes further than the facts warrant.

Remove the entire tectonic plate? That would then expose the mantle at a depth of between 100-200 km. Massive earthquakes as the sides of the chasm collapse. Pressure release from already partially molten rock and you have an eruption that makes the Deccan Traps look like a child's firework. Tsunamis sweep deep into continents, then oceans evaporate, the atmosphere fills with noxious gases and particulates, Dante's Inferno looks like a holiday camp in comparison. Things are so bad the cricket at Lord's is cancelled.

Thank you for the link beecee. Very interesting. Given the variety of organic molecules present in GMCs and the ISM these results are not surprising, but nevertheless welcome.

31 minutes ago, imatfaal said:

What is the meaning of life, the universe, and everything?

Just in case you didn't get the reference

Thank you imatfaal. I did get the reference and my wayward attempt at humour was a way to subtle dig at the Infinite Improbability Drive which, I am confident, must rely upon irrational numbers, not primes. (I won't give up my day job.)

24 minutes ago, Doctordick said:

Area 54 --

In a sense, (that is, with regard to my numeric representation) photographs are certainly a form of communication of presumed facts which can be represented by numerical references. Consider transmission of those photographs with a computer. They are certainly transformed into a numeric code.

Think about it a little.

You specified "language" and not the more general "communication". Language is a form of communication. Photographs can be used another form of communication. My objection stands. You seem to be attempting a tightly argued thesis, yet you have - in your first substantive assertion - been loose and imprecise in your terminology. That does not bode well for success.

3 minutes ago, Doctordick said:

 Please consider the following facts very carefully!

Coming up with an explanation of anything requires comprehension of a language first. If there are readers who believe that is not a fact, I would have them please present an explanation without use of a language of any kind.

My second fact is that any and all languages require symbols (think in terms of concept representations) to represent any specific collection of relevant concepts! If the reader believes this is false, please provide an explanation which requires no means of referring to any concepts relevant to that explanation.

My third fact is, those symbols (if they are known) can be referred to by assigning specific numbers to each and every relevant symbol! The subtle issue of that fact is that, even when the actual assigned numbers are not known, it is still a fact that the concepts can nonetheless be represented by a "specific" collection of numbers and that issue by itself has significant consequences. Anyone who believes that is a false assertion please post a collection of symbols which can be used to represent a language which can not be numerically listed.

Re your first "fact". As stated, it is not a fact. I can present an explanation of events to myself by visualising it. Perhaps you meant to say that no explanation can be conveyed to another without the use of a language. However, the manufacturers of flat pack furniture can explain to me how to assemble it through a series of photographs. Are you asserting that photographs constitute a language? If so I should like to see some citations from linguists to that effect.

Your second and third facts appear sound.

Since one of your "facts" is thereby invalidated I have not proceeded to consider the notions you build on a flawed foundation.

On 25/07/2017 at 1:17 AM, Baron d'Holbach said:

Pharaohs, Nimrod the great , Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Nero Caesar, Genghis khan, Adolf Hitler, Josephus Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot,

Florence Nightingale, Albert Einstein, Mohamed Ali, Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, Queen Elizabeth II, Marie Curie, Charles Dickens. I can make my list much longer than yours.

As to the OP. The idea that the meaning of life is improvement is a very common one. Ultimately, unless someone discovers the Rule Book, the meaning of life is what each individual chooses it to be. (As an aside it is certainly not 42. The meaning, if numerical, is bound to be a prime number!)

On 05/01/2015 at 1:58 PM, Strange said:

It is equally possible that we will all be reconstituted as jars of peanut butter. Based on the level of evidence you present.

That would certainly help us spread the word.

Hello Eclipse, when I read only the title of your thread my immediate thought was "No way" because of the high and persistent wind velocity. I see you had exactly the same thought. That said, I should like to see some comprehensive modelling to convince me that it was not a viable option. I suspect the work hinted at by Moontanman may have been somewhat simplified and limited in scope, as most early modelling of any problem necessarily is.

2 hours ago, VladP said:

Dear Area54, so far you are missing nothing at all. The idea in question is quite simple and transparent, yet there is hardly a possibility to consistently expound it in a couple of paragraphs.

In that case perhaps it is not as simple and transparent as you imagine.

And curiously enough, the Monod’s conditions for spontaneous evolution to proceed don’t involve natural selection. This delicate circumstance deserves special attention.

Anyway, I am to continue. For instance, consider prokaryotes that are natural self-replicators. Asexual bacteria satisfy the Monod’s conditions, and so they spontaneously evolve.

At that, bacteria fall into the so-called modular self-replicators class. [Eors Szathmary. The Evolution of Replicators. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B., 2000] The thing is that in prokaryotic cells, unlike the early syncretic self-replicators, the information modules (genomes) are clearly segregated off those executive, - i.e., off proteins and functional RNAs.

Moreover, a bacterial genome comprises, along with coding fragments, some DNA snippets that are identified as these “junk”. In other words, a genome is segregated into two subdivisions: first, this operational which codes genes and transcribes functional RNAs. And, second, the enigmatic subdivision which part still remains indistinct.

 

 

I am generally quite dense. I still have no idea where you are going with this.

I think I am missing something here. Perhaps you can help me follow your point.

You suggest Monod's ideas may "throw light" on junk DNA, but you then (apparently) make no mention of what light is thrown and how. Would you explain?

The observations of Monod do not seem qualitatively different from how evolution was perceived a couple of decades, at least, before he wrote them. As I said at the start, what am I missing?

 

Vietnam won by determination

America lost through an abyssmal strategy and questionable tactics.

This is a forum thread not a formal presentation.

I'm sorry your humour circuits were not engaged this morning.

I expect you can find errors in the few posts I have made here. I would be happy to have any and all of them pointed out, even although none of them were in formal presentions. Clarity and a respect for the language make me demand it of myself. I'll gently chide oversights by others if they are in banner headlines in a title and the correction can be applied with some light humour.

.

 

But in a way , that issue , in a way was one of the central reasonings of this thread .

And that reasoning is flawed. I, and others, have demonstrated this. You have ignored the demonstrations. You have failed to address the objections, You have simply continued to assert your belief and your flawed reasoning.

Your premises are wrong! Your evidence is absent! Your logic is faulty! Yet you continue to assert your belief. This is faith, not science. It is religion, not spirituality.

. . . . . then I would suggest than far from being " Indifferent " to the Human Species , we are very much in the ' spotlight ' at the moment , as indeed many television documentaries illustrate , with talk of GLOBAL WARMING , EARTHS HUSBANDRY , POPULATION, , RESCOURCES, , VIOLENCE , , CRIME , ATROCETIES, WARS , Etc , ETC. To name but a few of the issues that a Universal Overseeing System. would be bound to notice , and come to assistance. and or radical sort out .

Mike, that is just silly. The antics of a bunch of jumped up monkeys on a lump of debris floating around one of half a billion stars in a galaxy that contains at least half a billion more galaxies is hardly going to be in the spotlight. "Seagull poops on pensioner" might get a one paragraph mention in the Whitsatble Gazette, but it will never make the New York Times.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I cannot believe that such a ginormous Scientific project ( of the very early universe) , was NOT contrived and augustrated by the Earliest of Universal Engineering Scientists of Extraordinary skills and capability .

The universe is indifferent to your incredulity.

What are some of the causes of computer's to breakdown over time...say 5-6 years?

Seriously misplaced apostrophes.

 

 

maybe I didn't put it very well, but you have entirely missed the point.

 

Creationists :- The Earth was created as being entirely suitable, yay perfect, for animals and Man.

 

The truth: For 4 billion years the Earth was uninhabitable, yay deadly, to animals and Man.

No, I entirely got your point, but I felt it was worthwhile clarifying the ambiguity it contained, even though that ambiguity was not central to the point. The same creationists whose views you are addressing are also adept at taking an exclusively anthropomorphic view. It is important to remind them and interested bystanders that life is much more varied than they tend to believe it to be.