zapatos

I understand why you think every action is taken due to instinct or experience, but do you have any evidence that this is the case?

😂

With horse flies you can slowly approach it from above, moving your finger in a circle as you descend, then when close enough just squish it!

As we generate a lot of produce from our garden it is not uncommon for us to occasionally have a fruit fly problem. I have never found any of the vinegar, beer, detergent, etc. methods to be useful. We have only found that immediately disposing of any imperfect produce will result in fewer fruit flies. One caveat though; if you cannot find why you keep having fruit flies after clearing out any bad produce, it is likely they are breeding in your sink's drain. Simply pour in boiling water a few times a day and in a couple of days they will be gone.

Today learned that female cicadas seem to confuse the sound of lawnmowers with the sound of male cicadas. I can walk through my yard and maybe have a couple of cicadas fly into me. When I cut the grass it is more on the order of 100 or so that land on me, one after the other.

Ah, I now understand what you and Genady were saying. Thanks.

What you describe is what I find when my LED bulbs are beginning to fail.

Agree. And what we did was find something in nature that provided lift (presumably before we even understood 'lift') and used it in our own way to design wings for airplanes. Of course. But I don't think that is what we were doing. We were comparing bird wings to plane wings, and finding design features that would be useful to us. The design features we find in some things in nature are very coarse, and the design features we find in other things is much more fine. I'm still not understanding why these aren't relevant, but philosophy is not my strong suit and that may be why.

If you mean they are not an exact replica I agree. If you are saying they don't share 'design' features then I disagree.

But again, it depends on the dispersal. Isn't it clear that the more dispersed the less the impact?

Your two sentences seem to contradict each other. If I see how a bird's wing or a fish is shaped, then use that design in our own way, how is that not taking a "cue" from nature?

Seems like it MIGHT be devastating even if dispersed. Even a nuclear bomb would have minimal impact if its energy were spread over thousands of square miles.

Well, they would at least transfer the same amount of energy to earth's atmosphere anyway, right? While a large object may make it to the surface, many small objects may not.

We're all aware that avoiding missions going wrong would be important but the fact remains that missions in space have on occasion not performed as expected. Thus identifying and mitigating risk is important. As far as I can tell, reassembly still remains a risk depending on the type of mission. One way to mitigate the risk of dispersal of debris with nuclear weapons and subsequent reassembly or 'bouncing' around, would be to avoid nuclear weapons when possible. A gravity tractor would not introduce such a risk

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_impact_avoidance#:~:text=In addition%2C an asteroid may,to gravity after being disrupted.

I have difficulty dealing with confident declarations about complex physics ("Yes, that's how it works.") based on "it just makes sense."

If you choose a career in the theater I think you would be wonderful as that bloke who lives beneath bridges and in caves.

Yeah, bad use of terms. I should have said the pieces would be dispersed. Do you have a reference for the melting and refreezing causing the mass to be fused together? My understanding was that the radiation only penetrated the exposed surface of the sides facing the radiation.

Coalesce due to gravity is a bad thing if the thing you just blew up coalesces into a single object prior to impact with earth.

Sure, I believe there are secret projects. Who doesn't? What has that got to do with these projects that are out in the open? Are you suggesting that there are even more projects that we don't know about? Wouldn't that be a good thing? It is questionable if the asteroid is a certain size rubble pile, both because the rubble pile may coalesce due to gravity or may rain down radioactive material over a large area. Also making it potentially inefficient are the impact of politics and the consideration of risk during or after launch. Using nuclear weapons when you don't have to may not be acceptable to many people and governments.

If you watch my posts you'll see I regularly ask for citations. I am not biased against you but you are acting as if you feel I am. The way this site works is that anyone can ask or comment about anything posted. That's kind of fundamental to a discussion forum. You don't get to control what others say, just as they don't get to control what you say. Just because you don't wish to talk about anymore doesn't mean I don't want to talk about it anymore. Thank you. You are not being asked to defend yourself; you are being asked to defend your comments. Nothing personal going on. That is how a science discussion forum works.

Nothing wrong with questioning science. However, if you are a true believer in what you preach, will you be kind enough to back up your contention with a bit of science? IOW, a citation supporting your contention? Otherwise it may appear that you are biased against scientists and pulling your contention out of thin air.

Who cares what you want? Did you check with the African bushmen to see what they want?

I underline propose we be realistic in our proposals.

Not likely. Is it most efficient to have one type of vehicle for ALL uses? Or one type of weapon for ALL military situations? Or one type of restaurant for ALL people wanting to go out to eat?