joigus

What do you mean in friendlier terms?

Your OP is too long-worded, flooded with rhetoric and purely stylistic literary figures, and has several important misnomers/misconceptions, or allegedly novel concepts without explanation in it, which makes it kind of difficult to address as a scientific paper. That doesn't mean you're necessarily off your rocker. By skimming through your PDFs, I come to the conclusion that what you're trying to do there is to concoct a transfer orbit based on exploiting energy exchanges from the spinning of the satellite to the orbital degrees of freedom; or more in general, from the internal energy of the system to the CoM gravitational energy. You mention a "compression force" that sounds remarkably like a tidal force.* It's not impossible to extract elastic energy, energy from friction, or other kinds of internal energies and transfer it to the orbital DOF. It is known that tidal forces are throwing off the Moon from the Earth's attraction the order of 10 cm per year. Also the Earth is spinning more and more slowly due to these exchanges. Given that the Earth-Moon system requires masses of astronomical order only to induce a minute kinematic change that needs laser telemetry to detect, my submission is that, even if your idea were based on a correct intuition --it is impossible to know as it stands, at least for me--, the orders of magnitude would be ridiculously unacceptable. Does any of this give you pause? You would need an end-of-the-notepad, rather than a back-of-the-envelope calculation. And I suggest to drop the anti-gravity there. You haven't mentioned anything that remotely suggests anti-gravity. * Using standard names is important. People get really annoyed if they have to spend, say an hour or two, going through a preprint, only to discover that this brand new thing is good-old-reliable tidal force. Summoning Iron Man and co does not make it any better, although I assume you're just trying to be helpful.

I haven't said I agree. I don't. When I posed this question to my teacher back then it was precisely because he was making an argument that suicide is a sin, and it's wrong --he was a Catholic priest. That's why I jumped "then it should be punishable by law --both human and divine-- for those people who aren't successful, wouldn't it?" He said, "that's an interesting question, but we don't have time for it." That's why I would try to bring it to the context of action and reaction. Right or wrong are pretty much just tags to me.

I think this is a very interesting question. This is far from my area of expertise, but what I can say from my own thinking is that it'd better be phrased in a way that has a practical content, like, e.g., 1) Should a failed attempt of suicide be punishable by law? 2) Should a successful suicide be subject to investigation, with similar intent than in other police investigations, with the purpose of bringing to account those responsible for the situation that put the person on the brink? Some people may have suicidal tendencies without much help from others; other people may be just pushed to them by abuse or extreme injustice. It is possible to conceive situations in which the differences can be discerned, and action be taken. When I was 16 I posed question number 1) to a philosophy teacher who unfortunately dismissed it on the grounds that we didn't have time to deal with it. Ever since this question popped up in my mind I've thought about it, but I haven't quite made up my mind about it.

Ok. I'll lose the flowers. Do I keep dysentery, diphtheria, TB, and polio? As you said, that's just the way you see it. We have diets (or the possibility of having them) rich in different essential minerals, complete package of aminoacids, vitamins, etc., and the amazing possibilities of GM food. The fact is much more people in the world have access to a diet that's far more complete than that of the ancients --no matter where they lived-- than ever before. Quite a different thing is the matter of dietary habits. There is a cultural factor there. If people choose to daily intake far too much sugar, or palm oil, it's largely a cultural issue. 10'000 y.a. people stuffed themselves with hydrocarbons, and they died in their thousands due to combination of poor diet combined with miserable existence conditions. The Romans drank lead diluted in sapa, to sweeten wine and several dishes, which resulted in big swathes of the population being lead-poisoned and becoming sterile, or die prematurely. Nice picture.

Don't forget half your children dying of dysentery, diphtheria, TB, and a long etc., was part of the equation in that misleadingly pictured "paradise of yore." It's a nice mental exercise to imagine your family living next to crystal-clear waters, teeming with fish, provided with timber for the winter, and the children rejoicing in the sunny Spring morning with flower garlands on their heads. That's not what the past was like. Would you say "welcome back" to polio? And this is just an example off the top of my head.

Thank you. I'll add some more from Wikipedia, for completion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteora

The tepuis (tepuyes in Spanish) from Venezuela, Brazil, Guyana and Colombia. Karst topography is awesome almost beyond words or concepts. But not beyond belief, because it's there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tepui Because the first continents had no plant cover to protect them from erosion, for eons upon eons sediments formed over vast regions, which later became exposed to more selective wearing down, sculpting canyons, plateaus, grottos, and seemingly bottomless chasms. That's what a blind, unconstrained by intention, relentless force can do. No thinking is necessary, if given enough time. Gigantic pillars carved out of the depositions of a long-lost world, where once big dinosaurs roamed, and tiny mammals scurried around, waiting for their moment to arrive, these monuments are silent, patient witnesses to the existence of Gondwana. No human-made temple is remotely comparable to this. No religious feeling can echo in our minds what the first people coming from the Bering Strait must have felt when they first saw this more than 15'000 years ago. Picture from: https://hananpacha1.wordpress.com/2017/07/07/tepuy/ (In Spanish.)

The first time that the word "mediate" appeared was because you mentioned it, misquoting me --again. I've been proofreading texts for over ten years, so I know and appreciate how important it is to edit your text and make corrections. I can only imagine it's just because you're just as sloppy editing your texts as you are about your intellectual propositions that you repeatedly stumble into the same pitfalls. The Romans said verba volant, scripta manent. It's there for everybody to see, both what you've said and what I've said. If I've ever said something imprecise, I'm quite ready to apologize. Intellectual dishonesty --mine, or yours-- is for the mods to ponder, not for you. Your accusations of dishonesty, or stupidity, are moot. The last line of text is unique by definition. It is logically impossible to clarify something further than "the last" in an ordered list. It's an ordering superlative. Do you at least understand this? You have a problem with basic logic. I can't --nobody can-- clarify further than "the biggest rectangle", or "the oldest person in the room".

Will you just read what I said instead of answering to the last line of text? I refuse to write it once again just because you're sloppy and don't care about the argument at all. Same with the 17 balls of jello, all my answers are there. And other users tried to help you along. Only by skimming over what I was saying, they immediately understood. I've had many déjà vu moments with you: Some of my students with very low attention span. They have an excuse, because their minds are forming. Is yours?

They also mentioned some "sources", which have been announced but never made explicit.

Oh, well.

The problem is not in the pronoun. You can use any pronoun you want. Your concept of letting someone think is what's abhorrent.

I never mentioned any "mediation". I broke down the word in "pre-" and "meditation" "Pre-": in advance, beforehand, in anticipation of. "Meditate": To think, to consider, to evaluate, to ponder, to examine, etc. Try to be more careful with the terms and with the logic when you're trying to make fine points. You are addressing Swansont's questions and objections by spilling over into just about everything that crosses your mind. You deal with mine by misunderstanding my meaning of my words, whether it be on purpose or not. You seem to be under the impression that a mind is needed to explain how photons move about. The average positions and polarisations of photons can be predicted from wave equations. The particular positions and polarisations of photons are random. What role does that "mind" play in it?

No. I know where I'm going, and I know where you're going. Confused by an idea that was discarded as superstition in the Ionian islands 26 centuries ago? Why should I?

This is a very good question. IMO, the only reason to withhold something that you think to be true, after reflection and examination of evidence, is not because it may cause anger or demoralization, but because of the danger of this piece of knowledge being revealed. I remember this point to have come up before in my life, and I've compared the anger or demoralization that you mention to the cauterization or sterilization of an injury: Pain or annoyance are different from harm. I'm a firm believer that people are better off if they are able to rule out assumptions that are not worth considering. seriously. As to topics about which I haven't made up my mind yet, I prefer to stay quiet, as you say, and let others talk until I find my position, if at all. What's your position?

Meditated by whom? Can you write something that makes some sense for a change? This "meditation" involves the wave equation. Why do you call it meditation?

I don't really know. I suspect it based on what scholars say. Perhaps a good account of it is here: https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/52384/did-the-babylonians-know-the-pythagorean-theorem-before-pythagoras-formulated-it The lowdown of it is: Apparently the Babylonians (well, the scribes, accountants, etc. what? just a 1% of the population?) got close to the Pythagorean theorem by discovering Pythagorean triplets. They found a funny coincidence: Sometimes for triplets of whole numbers you can arrange triangles so that the long side is, say, 5, and the shorter, perpendicular ones are 3 and 4. And, lo and behold, 52 = 32+42. Wow! it's what they seem to have said. But you're right. We don't really know. Imagine this analogy for your "selective memory" example (based on the storage method): Some big shot among the scribes actually knew the theorem, but he decided not to tell, keep the secret and look like a genius to everybody else. The only fragment of that knowledge is tablets in which he (and others downstream on the line of culture and knowledge) show only punctuated examples in the form of Pythagorean triplets. That would be the equivalent of computer memory that has not been cached. So you may be right. The suggestion is that they didn't understand how to generalise. But we cannot be sure. I can only guess that only tablets that were extremely important and official were baked and hardened. But many tablets that were just for students homework were never baked. Many were probably lost. Only those that burnt in the destruction layers survived. My intuition* tells me that it was the Greeks who took the big leap. I mean. Think about the alphabets. The Phoenicians already had it, but they forgot to include the vowels. The Greeks copied and improved it, by adding vowels and putting them to many other different uses. *Not just my intuition. It's been claimed by scholars for centuries now. And I think they had a point. The Greeks were the essential communicating vessel between East and West.

For three billion years there was not much more than cyanobacteria ruling the Earth. Cyanobacteria are not capable of much thinking. So my bet would be yes, intelligence emerged, or evolved. Whether the laws of Nature were always there is another matter, much more difficult to answer.

Average brain size grew in the past, among other things to accommodate the relational cortex, the capacity for prediction of events in the prefrontal cortex. Cultural expressions developed in sophistication and changed in manner, the adequacy of people to respond to challenges also developed. Intelligence evolves as a response to the challenges of the environment. This is not a matter of opinion. There is a record of it in the fossils, and in the tools that our ancestors left behind, and in the change of the environment that they induced. Intelligence is proven to be a part of Nature. Intelligence is a product of evolution. What else could it be? There is no supernatural, pretty much for the same reason that there is no under-natural, or co-natural, or parallel to natural, or perpendicular to it. Everything is natural. "Supernatural" is just a silly word, like "over-possible".

Exactly my thoughts.

I'll pop open my best bottle of wine. Thank you. Unfortunately the video didn't work. Maybe later. I've never underestimated soil. It's gold dust in terms of biology. Long live soil!

Oh, you're most welcome. It's such a pleasure to have a sensible conversation for a change...

I've been thinking about this too. They had a lot of practical knowledge and "played" with the maths very cleverly, but they didn't have the real drive to relate and understand, the basis for prediction. They were basically concerned with measuring the land, accounting, and measuring time.