Charles 3781

Could you translate your program into BASIC, please, as that's the only programming language I understand?

Surely, you are going too far. If we know that the average temperature of the Martian surface is -60C, how can that be "utterly useless" in our efforts to engineer a rover capable of surviving on Mars? On the contrary, it has enabled us to engineer numerous recent examples of rovers capable of operating in this low-temperature Martian environment.

I hope that when you get on a plane, your pilot doesn't follow the same objective scientific approach to co-ordinate system choice, when landing

We door-spiders pop up to catch our prey again.

Crikey, I'm not sure what that means, Phi - will you semaphore it by waving your spinnarettes at me on the Dark web, if you get my drift. Nudge, nudge.

No, it's real, but we can only visually perceive its reality because we have two eyes. If we were one-eyed creatures like a Cyclops, we'd see everything as optically flat and 2-dimensional. We'd have to use our hands and possibly other appendages, to feel the three-dimensional physicality of bodies.

I would say, that for humans, the 3rd dimension is "depth" . Like when we look at the colourful images which you kindly posted, in your OP. These are attractive, but exist only on our screens, in the form of flat 2-dimensional images. If we could perceive them in 3 dimensions as solid objects, we would be able to truly visual their 3rd dimensional nature.

I don't believe you keep a spider as a pet. Or actually know, or ever met anyone who does. I bet you just read about the idea in a book, didn't you?

Snakes have never bothered me. But I absolutely can't stand spiders. They're so frightening, with their multiple, thin, stalky legs and unnaturally fast rushing mechanical movements. This fear and loathing of spiders seems universal in humans. I once read in a book, that it is caused by spiders being of extra-terrestrial origin. Could that be true?

Isn't the point of calculus this - only proper mathematicians can understand it.

Don't you mean, "according to scientists", the whole Universe was born from nothing? Suppose you were asked, "Where did your computer come from?" And you said: "That's a meaningless question - it came from nothing." How would you respond?

According to current theory, didn't the entire Universe spring from a minute "Black Hole" smaller than a proton. Then expanded outwards. To create trillions of stars, galaxies and so on. Given the wide vista of prospects allowed by such a theory, would you rule anything at all out, as physically impossible?

Well of course it was. But please understand my position. When one has acquired a -25 rating, and faces the danger of getting booted off, a degree of unctuousness is called for.

You're right. My post was definitely off-topic, Apologies for derailing the thread.

Thanks Dord. On your remark concerning the outdated "nor", I think you raise a valuable point. Consider these two lines: "Water, water, everywhere, nor any drop to drink" - (18th century original) "Water, water, everywhere, and not a drop to drink" - (revised 21st century modern) The modern revision gets rid of the awkward " nor". Replacing it by the much smoother, and more natural "and not". A definite literary improvement. In a similar way, Science is always being revised and improved. For example we have improved our understanding of combustion, by replacing the 18th century "phlogiston", with "oxidation". Shouldn't such scientific principles be applied to past literature, so as to update and improve it.