Intrigued

First, pardon my ignorance - I had to look up wikipedia to discover what a peltier is. Secondly, the Heath Robinson nature of the experiment sounds intriguing and great fun. Thirdly, what do you hope to learn from this, other than determing the great inefficiency of the scheme to generate electricity (which I infer is your intention)?

You seem to be talking about ion thrusters. Unfortunately these will not work in the atmosphere, so could not achieve your goal of "powered propulsion to space".

It is a good idea to provide citations in a recognised format when a reference is requested, or a paper or text is mentioned, or an assertion requires justification. Why? It is an accepted convention in science It enables readers to better appreciate your arguments It is implicit within forum rules It is courteous Snide comments, such as you have made here, focus readers attentions upon your style and not your substance. That's self defeating. A smart person would reflect on that.

You beat me to it. I was going to say, I draw the line at Jackson Pollack. Well not so much line as a linear row of dots.

Perhaps you could give some concrete examples, together with an estimate of efficiency and what you have based this on. Thank you.

The fine tuning argument is rendered unconvincing by the Weak Anthropic Principle. i.e. if the universe hadn't chanced to be suitable for life then we wouldn't be here to discuss it. Paley's arguments, though well structured, were contradicted by Darwin and Wallace, and all who came after them. Natural selection of variation in species leads to the new forms that Paley thought required divine intervention. Why? What evidence you have for a single God rather than multiple gods. Genesis asserts that man was made in God's image: man is a social animal, who achieves things through cooperation within a hierarchy, Why would you expect the gods to be arranged differently? As Strange has pointed out twice you have failed to provide any evidence to support your claim of historical accuracy. Don't get me wrong, many of the principles advocated by Christianity are noble in their intent, but the claims of divinity etc are supported only by faith, not facts. If you disagree please provide the evidence.

Surely the difference is that we know stage magic exists and that given passable talent, requisite knowledge and much practice we could duplicate the tricks. In contrast we have no scientifically sound evidence that real magic exists. As an, arguably, sophisticated, educated, scientifically inclined society we would tend to interpret alien technology as magical (amazing/wonderwul/awe inspiring), but would doubt that supernatural elements were involved. In that regard I seem to be aligning with S-Man's position. S-Man, comments?

Does this discussion revolve around what Clarke meant by magic? i.e Was he talking Harry Potter or Penn and Teller? I would strongly argue for the latter in which case his statement seems to me to stand. We would not know how the alein technology worked, just as we don't know how Teller managed to turn into a tiger, but we can be pretty damn sure it didn't involve incantations and magical potions.

When we read that we are reading an oversimplified or ill informed statement. Coelacanths are not a species, a genus, or even a family, but an order. None of the extant species were around 400 million years ago, or 200 hundred million, or 100 million. The living fossil name is appropriate because coelacanths were thought to have gone extinct at the end of the Cretaceous, yet some of them managed to avoid the KPg boundary event.

Agreed. If creation science were actually a science then it would be investigating and providing at least provisional answers to questions such as: Since there is insufficient atmospheric water to provide the required volume of water where did the excess come from? If it was sourced from the mantle, by what mechanism was it extracted from the minerals it was part of? How was this mechanism able to release that water in a geologically brief time? By what mechanism was it able to reach the surface? What evidence is there for the locations from which it emerged? By what means was at least a portion (and a substantial one at that) evaporated? We could easily make a list of scores of such questions. I know of not a single one that has been genuinely raised and addressed by any creationist or creation scientist.

We are just three months past the New Horizons' passage of Ultima Thule, but work from the earlier encounter at the Pluto-Charon continues. This article in Icarus is an example. "Charon displays extensive plains that cover the equatorial area and south to the terminator on the sub-Pluto hemisphere observed by New Horizons. We hypothesize that these plains are a result of Charon's global extension and early subsurface ocean yielding a large cryoflow that completely resurfaced this area leaving the plains and other features that we observe today. The cryoflow consisted of ammonia-rich material, and could have resurfaced this area either by cryovolcanic effusion similar to lunar maria emplacement or a mechanism similar to magmatic stoping where lithospheric blocks foundered. Geological observations, modeling of possible flow rheology, and an analysis of rille orientations support these hypotheses." After six decades of solar system exploration by robotic craft we have seen remarkable diversity across the sytem and yet also intriguing similarities such as the surface shots from Viking on Mars, Venera on Venus and Huygens on Titan. How do other members imagine the diversity that may exist in the systems of exoplanets we have discovered? Different, but not by much, or orders of magnitude more diverse? (And how do you quantify diversity?)

For sure. I would break the routine work into two categories. The fisrt would be the confirmation and detailing work, following major breakthroughs, that you mention. The second is more purely observation, devoid of hypothesis, that contributes to the next breakthrough. Unfortunately, publication is more likely if the observations are clearly associated with the current paradigm. I think this can lead to shoehorning a suite of observations into that paradigm, when a more accurate approach would be to say "Here's something we noticed, though we have no idea what caused it." I am now quaking with fear that someone will ask me for a "for instance". To forestall this I suggest the Sudbury Igneous Complex that was long thought to be a conventional igneous intrusion, but is now recognised as an impact melt from a large bolide. I'm just glad that pictures, whether black or white, in current publications are clear and informative, rather than the washed out greys of poor quality photo copies. The difficulty is in discerning what might interest others. Can you be more specific as to what might capture your interest? I'm not quite following you Michel. Could you expand on that a little? I'm missing something. (Probably brain cells. :))

Valid points, well made - and yet: Option 1: adopt the ethos you have skillfully presented here and apply it consistently. Result - some individuals will be offended (or even hurt) and never stay around long enough to acquire an understanding of the "general conversational style" (and to temper their more radical ideas with scientific objectivity). Option 2: exercise a litte more care and so retain the interest and participation of those individuals, thereby growing the size and diversity of forum membership. For me Option2 is the obvious choice, since it requires no more effort than Option 1 and produces what appear to be significant benefits. But look, I'm not suggesting this is how the forum should be conducted - that's up to the mod/admin team and, I imagine, to established members such as yourself. I was just throwing out a thought for consideration. I hadn't intended to initiate an extensive dialogue, or to give the impression that I was trying to start a revolution - not that you've suggested I was.

Which argues, surely, for extra care in how things are phrased. At no point have I suggested that the thread should not have been closed. I think this is the second time I have pointed this out to you. I'm not sure what I should have done to get it across more explicitly. It's rather frustrating having to respond to a strawman response. Your perception of civility is duly noted. Thank you for the insight. To quote yourself from a relevant post, "I think we're done here".

If the Chicxulub crater is the smoking gun for the impact theory on the KPg extinction event, then these findings from North Dakota by DePalma and his colleagues are one of the ricochets. Here is the abstract - " The most immediate effects of the terminal-Cretaceous Chicxulub impact, essential to understanding the global-scale environmental and biotic collapses that mark the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction, are poorly resolved despite extensive previous work. Here, we help to resolve this by describing a rapidly emplaced, high-energy onshore surge deposit from the terrestrial Hell Creek Formation in Montana. Associated ejecta and a cap of iridium-rich impactite reveal that its emplacement coincided with the Chicxulub event. Acipenseriform fish, densely packed in the deposit, contain ejecta spherules in their gills and were buried by an inland-directed surge that inundated a deeply incised river channel before accretion of the fine-grained impactite. Although this deposit displays all of the physical characteristics of a tsunami runup, the timing (<1 hour postimpact) is instead consistent with the arrival of strong seismic waves from the magnitude Mw ∼10 to 11 earthquake generated by the Chicxulub impact, identifying a seismically coupled seiche inundation as the likely cause. Our findings present high-resolution chronology of the immediate aftereffects of the Chicxulub impact event in the Western Interior, and report an impact-triggered onshore mix of marine and terrestrial sedimentation—potentially a significant advancement for eventually resolving both the complex dynamics of debris ejection and the full nature and extent of biotic disruptions that took place in the first moments postimpact." The full article is available here on PNAS.

On any occassion I can recall in business, academia, social or personal contacts that a meeting has very often ended with the words " but we’re done here", it has been said in an aggressive, patronising or dismissive tone. That can call into question the sincerity of the "best of luck" statement, or the "whatever it is that you want" clause. swansont, I'm not here to create waves or argue. I offered an opinion in a thread containing many opinions. I offered it on the basis that another perspective might be of value to one or more participants. Apparently I wasn't the only one to feel there was discourtesy in the thread in general. Discourtesy does not need to be intentional for it to exist. I feel as if my post was seen somehow as an attack rather than a sincere observation, so if I have been inadvertently discourteous I apologise. . As I noted at the time, feel completely free to disregard it.

As I said you were free to ignore it. Still, I would value a comment by PM as to which of my statements you felt most deserving of the face palm. Most opinions are based upon incomplete facts. The other points are duly noted, however, I was not questioning the closure of the thread, so you are preaching to the converted on that point. My concluding point was that I felt the closure and associated remarks could have been more courteous. You may respond that courtesy had been exhausted by private contacts between the OP and the admin team, or that you see no discourtesy in any of the replies. None of what has been said would alter my view that the responses could have been more courteous and I offered that as opinion in the expectation that the admin team would welcome opinions both pro and con.

I have read the OP of the thread under discussion a number of times as well as the rest of the thread. For what it's worth (probably not a lot) this is my take on it. The OP clearly has major difficulties with English. This is unfortunate since it detracts sigificantly from their attempt to get across a clear message. More than that it can create the impression, consciously or unconsciously sensed, that the poster is not the sharpest knife in the draw. At one end of the possibilities I see a deluded person, probably not well versed in science, but knowing enough (poorly understood and often wrong) to think they have had a revolutionary idea. At the other end is an individual who has had a relevant insight to a plausible renewable energy resource. They have likely been seriously overoptimistic about its potential, but yet is may offer a genuine benefit. In either case they lack the resources to construct a protype and fear loss of control if they publish details. The quality of their English makes it impractical to distinguish between these possibilites, though past experience might suggest the first is the more likely. In neither case was there much point in continuing the thread, but I sympathise to a degree with the point made by Studiot that the poster could have been treated with a little more courtesy. Obviously, all of the foregoing is an opinion and can certainly be disregarded, though I've always found it productive to reflect on all opinions.

Not a poor use of the word choice on your part, rather an overly subtle reply on my part. My precise point was that humans are naturally omnivores, therefore - for most people - being an omnivore is not a choice, it is the default position.

It's worth keeping in mind that many, perhaps most, of the members of a science forum have some kind of grounding in the sciences, or have educated themselves to a greater or lesser extent. Thus what has appeared to you as significant and exciting (which it is) is likely to be (very) old hat to most members. It's great that you see the remarkable importance of descent from a common ancestor. Just be patient with those members who have moved on to many of the other wonders of biology that hinge upon that fact. A book you may wish to consider reading is Daniel Dennet's Darwin's Dangerous Idea, but there are many other works both more or less detailed that cover the same ground. A visit to your local library would be worthwhile.

Summarising and adding: Wetness relates to the interaction of fluids and surfaces. For example, if a surface is preferentially water wet a water drop will spread out on the surface.It's contact angle will greater than 90 degrees. If it is not preferentially water wet the drop will tend to remain as a drop and the contact angle will be less than 90 degrees. In the latter case the strength of any attraction between surface and water is less than the surface tension.

I apologise for the lack of clarity in my posts. I shall try to make my position clearer. 1. I cannot make an educated guess on the matter, since I lack sufficient relevant education. 2. If you agree that no one knows, then there is nothing meaningful to discuss. 3. For me this seems not unlike the alleged debates in the Middle Ages as to how many angels could fit on a pinhead. 4. I do know enough to know that when I don't know enough then my best guess is worthless. 5. But since you press me, 2,000,434,823. (As per point 3 above) Note: In my attempts to be honest in these posts I fear they may come across as aggressive. Such is not my intent.

Charles Bababage or the makers of the Antikythera mechanism might well disagree with you, placing the first computer a hundred and twenty years, or a couple of millenia earlier. The technology advances you describe that suggest to you the possibility of rapid advance occurred within a field. The successful creation of "nerve gear" would depend upon major advances within several fields. You have used an analogy to suggest rapid advance is possible. I am using other to demonstrate that rapid advance does not always occur. Both are analogies; either may be correct, but without other evidence or argument they are equally valueless.

Perhaps we were reading different articles. The one I read in your link presented, in a straightforward, factually based, level-headed way, several examples of people in general and women in particular expressing concern over bringing children into a world that potentially faced a dystopian future. Implicit in the structure of the article was that these were discrete examples, not a universal trend. This point was emphasised within the final paragraphs where the writer stated " To be sure, the decision to not have children isn’t a full-on movement; it's more a discussion that’s beginning to bubble up in people’s consciousness." In summary, I found none of the extremism you saw, but rather a sober and interesting insight into a novel response to climate change. I think, as you suspected in your opening remark, that you were reading too much into it.

I am no history expert, but nations do not appear to have a great track record for choosing wars that would be to their benefit. In WWII Germany's war aims failed completely, Britain accelerated the process that lost her an Empire and Russia, while it may have gained territory lost 20 million people. Counter examples can doubtless be found, but if you are implying, as you seem to be, that governments (nearly) always make wholly rational decisions in regard to war then the facts seem to be against your assertion.