Prime-Evil

The answer is yes, and then it started again.

Next.

Prime Evil.

Your arguments are leaving a very nasty taste in my mouth. To suggest that' date=' because others use mud slinging tactics, that justifies you doing it also, reflects very badly on you and no-one else.

 

Sure, there is mud slinging on both sides. I read both sides of the global warming argument and have read both side's nastier tactics. Current paradigm supporters claim their opponents are in the pay of oil companies, when they are not. Skeptics claim that their opponents are nailing down cushy jobs by 'going with the flow' when they know they are on shaky ground.

 

Prime Evil. Both arguments are dirty. I am not going to indulge, and I am asking you, please, clean up your act!

 

Cthulhu.

We still have not reached a meeting of the minds. However, your arguments are clean and polite. Thank you.[/quote']Perhaps we are just different personality types, but I see you as being hypocritical, so I chose to be hypocritical also. When you chose to be rational, I will be rational. Guilt only works if you let it batman.

 

This was your mudslinging link, not mine:

http://www.climatescience.org.nz/

 

Here is my type. What's yours?

http://typelogic.com/entp.html

"ENTPs have little patience with those they consider wrongheaded or unintelligent, and show little restraint in demonstrating this. However, they do tend to be extremely genial, if not charming, when not being harassed by life in general."

.

I am ENTJ,

but I'm still not too sure about the J.

I am fairly certain I am an extrovert, but mostly I just love to hear myself talk and I prefer to beat just one person into submission at a time and have the rest of the crowd just watch and wait their turn.

I think all sensing feeling people are great nurturers, but are also more likely to be bigots.

How do you know when you haven't been yourself lately?

p.s. I just took the test, and this is how I scored:

Your Type is

ENTP

Extroverted Intuitive Thinking Perceiving

Strength of the preferences %

11 62 1 33

ENTP type description by D.Keirsey: http://keirsey.com/personality/ntep.html

ENTP type description by J. Butt and M.M. Heiss: http://typelogic.com/entp.html

Qualitative analysis of your type formula

You are:

slightly expressed extrovert

distinctively expressed intuitive personality

slightly expressed thinking personality

moderately expressed perceiving personality

Thanks for this by the way. Haven't done this in a while.

Does that mean that many or perhaps even most successful mutations start off dormant?

Do you think it might be possible that the human species carries enough genetic material that a group of them could adapt into a Neanderthal form under favourable conditions without having to go through any genetic mutations. How plastic of a species are we? How many old forms, and even new forms, are we able to take that we simply are not aware of because conditions are not currently favourable for humans to exist in that form?

What is evolution vs adaptation or re-adaptation?

Why would we want to get rich anyway?

I thought our job was to make them rich.

oops, I mean serve all of mankind.

Isn't it somewhat ironic that a creationist from 800 years ago was more able to accept stars and planets and rocks and air and water and fire, and even abstract ideas like death, as a fellow living creature, than most of we scientists are able to today. All generalizations fail, but are still useful.

Canticle of Brother Sun

Most High, all-powerful, all-good Lord,

All praise is Yours, all glory, all honour and all blessings.

To you alone, Most High, do they belong,

and no mortal lips are worthy to pronounce Your Name.

Praised be You my Lord with all Your creatures,

especially Sir Brother Sun,

Who is the day through whom You give us light.

And he is beautiful and radiant with great splendour,

Of You Most High, he bears the likeness.

Praised be You, my Lord, through Sister Moon and the stars,

In the heavens you have made them bright, precious and fair.

Praised be You, my Lord, through Brothers Wind and Air,

And fair and stormy, all weather's moods,

by which You cherish all that You have made.

Praised be You my Lord through Sister Water,

So useful, humble, precious and pure.

Praised be You my Lord through Brother Fire,

through whom You light the night

and he is beautiful and playful and robust and strong.

Praised be You my Lord through our Sister,

Mother Earth

who sustains and governs us,

producing varied fruits with coloured flowers and herbs.

Praise be You my Lord through those who grant pardon

for love of You and bear sickness and trial.

Blessed are those who endure in peace,

By You Most High, they will be crowned.

Praised be You, my Lord through Sister Death,

from whom no-one living can escape.

Woe to those who die in mortal sin!

Blessed are they She finds doing Your Will.

No second death can do them harm.

Praise and bless my Lord and give Him thanks,

And serve Him with great humility.

In the greastest sense, all that exists is life.

We are all connected.

The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition

http://www.climatescience.org.nz/

28/04/2006 - 60 Scientists Send Open Letter To Canadian Prime Minister

"60 leading world climate scientists, including four from New Zealand, have written to the Prime Minister of Canada urging a review of climate change science and the commitment to Kyoto"

1. They are not all scientists, yet are presented as such.

2. They claim that they are experts and that others are not.

3. They are engaging in politics, not science, but present it as science.

4. Their financial and political motives are suspect, yet they don't make them known.

So tell me more about this The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.

Where do they get their funding?

Prime Evil

I ask you not to pursue your line of argument. Trying to discredit scientists whose opinions you disagree with is' date=' at the least, in very bad taste. Mud slinging tends to leave everyone splattered.[/quote']I ask you not to pursue your line of argument. Trying to discredit scientists whose opinions you disagree with is, at the least, in very bad taste. Mud slinging tends to leave everyone splattered.

 

Did you not even read the letter to the Canadian Prime Minister by the so called 60 experts where they do the very same thing you are condemning? This letter, by the way, was published in that wonderful peer reviewed scientific journal - the Financial Post. Those that sling mud, like you say, are likely to receive it. Scientists should stay away from using this sort of political rhetoric in a political public forum, and pretending that it is some sort of legitimate scientific scepticism, which it is not. The gang of 60 was headed up by an economist by the way, not a scientist, and if they were not all connected with the petroleum industry, they certainly are now.

 

So get off your high bloody horse. If you associate with whores, and behave like a whore, and engage in political rhetoric guised as scientific discourse, don't be surprise if people call you a whore. You can call me a whore too if it makes you feel any better. There's no whore like an old whore.

Cthulhu.

I will cease to be skeptical when the proponents of the current paradigm meet the requirements of good science.

 

That is; their hypothesis must be confirmed by solid' date=' repeated, real world testing, and pass the falsifiability test. Computer models are not real world tests. Any other scientific idea must meet this standard. Why not the "anthropogenic greenhouse gas causes global warming" hypothesis?

 

Incidentally, I am not alone in my skepticism. Plenty of climate scientists are leading the skeptics pathway.

Try http://www.climatescience.org.nz[/quote']Again you should be more sceptical or your own sources of scepticism. I think you will find that most of the 'scientists' cited on that link you provided are in fact male prostitutes posing as scientists. Why not the "prostitution within petroleum industry leads to prostitution within scientific community" hypothesis?

I don't think you understand what the computer models are for. They are not to identify that there is a problem. You just need to look at CO2 levels to see the problem. The computer climate models just make it a bit more interesting.

Fun to think about though, eh.

If you had a really long pair of scissors and closed them shut the point of intersection between the two blades could travel at the speed of light. It could not be observed as travelling at the speed of light, but the state of being observed could travel faster than the speed of light.

Does that count?

If you pulled this cable the information would travel at the speed of sound. Also, if it broke and got wrapped around the Sun and pulled you in that could be a real bummer.

Water/hydrogen is really more of an alternate to batteries. There is vegetable oil, but yield per acre is better with wind power. Still, biomass energy is OK as long as you are frugal and protect the soil. You could use water buffalos to convert some biomass into power, and fertilizer, and more water buffalos. Keep it real. I am more of a Shetland Pony man myself but buffalos are cool also.

So what sort of crops would you like to grow?

Don't forget trees. Lots and lots of trees.

I was there once. The Phillipines rock.

Must be quite the thermometer huh.

Anyhow, I have no clue what you guys are up to, but keep at it.

I'm working on the assumption that fusion is unfeasable, but I'm not married to it.

You don't have to understand something completely to prove there might be a problem and modify your behaviour as a precautionary measure. What's the big deal? CO2 is now really really high and biomass levels are really realy low, so cut down on deforestation and fossil fuel burning. It's really that simple. What's so great about our way of life that it can't be changed unless everything is understood? Very little. If you want to be sceptical, be sceptical about business as usual, and not just everything opposed to it.

Increasing biomass and biodiversity is not just a constraint, or even an enabling objective, it is an end objective in itself. It is self-actualizing. What are biomass levels today compared to 100 years ago?

Hiking and camping is a good way to get to know how little you need to live on. I think people should go camping at least once each season. Another good way to prepare is to simply shut your own power off for a week at least once each season and not do any shopping that same week.

The best revenge, or preparation, is living well.

Think more concretely. If you have a report to prepare, and you're extremely uninterested in its subject how do you get through it? ...

1. You have to know yourself, in the Myers Briggs sense. Some scientists are more intuitive thinkers. Some are more sensing thinkers. The former often come up with ideas quickly but might not get their kicks following through on details. Some very excellent scientists are actually feelers rather than thinkers, but these usually have to be very intelligent to function well as scientists. Those that do and are can be awesome. Takes all kinds. Then there the perception vs judging thing. I don't understand that entirely, but that can be the hurdle also.

2. Lack of sleep. On monotonous details I work better after working all night because it dulls the creativity just enough to get the work done. Only works for one day though, followed by at least two days to recover. I am not recommending this for everybody, but it works for me.

3. Caffiene. They say a little each day is not so bad. Personally I think its addictive as hell. Once you have done the lack of sleep thing and then get on a roll then caffiene can help you stay on a roll for awhile, to prolong it a bit, but eventually you crash. Everything in moderation, including moderation.

4. Alcohol, the other white drug. This does not work for me. It might work for you but I still wouldn't recommend it. Great once the work is done though, assuming you want to forget all about it.

5. Sex. Highly recommended. It might not help your work, but still, highly recommended.

6. Talking with colleagues. This is a good way to keep the interest going on your subject and to keep the mind working or get it functioning in a differerent part of the brain, especially if you are an extrovert like me. But mostly it is just a good way to get to number 5.

7. Walk to work. Very very important in the long term as well as the short term, to keep yourself healthy and thinking right, especially if you are experimenting with any of the above, individually, or in all the possible combinations.

Best wishes. Scientist heal thyself.

hey, you may get some ideas from this thread[/url'] which discusses the possibility of homo neanderthalis and sapiens interbreeding.

Sex is nobodies business but the two or three species involved.

It would depend on the gravity and pressure of the situation. Obviously if the bowels are empty, it doesn't matter, and if you are dead, then it does really matter much anyway, does it? Have you never seen an animal get killed? Sometimes shit happens. Sometimes it don't.

Hmm. I'm not sure if I'm right' date=' but particles that are not between the object and the center of gravity/mass of the earth will have less effect on the object. This is because they pull at an angle, and only part of it is toward the center of gravity. Therefore a hollow earth would have many more particles pulling at an angle because the only particles pulling directly downward are the particles right under the feet of the object and the particles exactly 180 degrees around the earth. The other particles, expecially those close to 90 degrees away, can pull at up to a 45 degree angle away from downward. Granted the effect would be small, but less particles are pulling down.

 

After thinking about that for a while, I am beginning to doubt myself. I forgot about the distance squared being divided in the gravity equation. In the hollow earth, the mass is closer to surface than an evenly dispersed or all in one point at center. I'm not really sure anymore.[/quote']Its a neat problem isn't it. I'm 43 and I'm just getting it, I think, maybe.

 

Anyhow, it has to be a sphere, and you only need to be concerned with the vertical component, but it helps to break it down into concentric hollow spheres. You could use calculus, but you don't need to. Keep at it.

Oh. I think it still would be different. If the earth was hollow with all the mass on the outside and you were on the top of it somewhere, it would be less then if the mass was equally distributed. This is because some of the mass would pull at an angle, having less effect on you than the mass pulling straight down. If it was all in one point at the center and you were in the same place, all the mass would pull down.

It is probably best to start on the inside of this hollow sphere. Consider two very narrow cones spreading out in opposite directions from anywhere within the sphere. The gravitational attraction in both directions will be the same because the area, and thus shell volume, and thus mass, increases with the square of the distance while the force reduces with square of the distance. So there is no net gravitational field at all within the hollow sphere. Wierd huh. A solid sphere is of course a set of concentric hollow spheres, and so the only net gravity inside the earth is from the solid sphere you are standing on, and the hollow spheres outside of this cancel themselves out. OK, I guess that still leaves the orginal problem of the sphere you are standing on, and whether it is hollow, or not.

Consider two hollow spheres. They both have the same mass, say 90 kg but one is half the radius of the other, say 1m and 2m. Your 1kg mass is at the same distance from the center of both, say 2m. I think you just need to show that the gravitation force from the sum of any pair of latitudes, North and South, will be the same for both spheres, and any hollow sphere of any radius, as long the radius is less than or equal to the distance to your 1kg mass. Take the 30th latitude +- 0.5 degress. They have the same mass, regardless of the radius of the sphere. In this case 1 kg, 0.5 kg per hemisphere, same as any other latitude, as long as the sphere is hollow. If the sum of the vertical component of the distances to the north and south latitudes are the same regardless of radius of hollow sphere, that should be sufficient, and that is of course the case. Whether you have a single hollow sphere, of a series of concentric hollow spheres to make up a solid sphere, it does not matter.

Yes?