Realitycheck

OK, so things won't be optimal. I think it's pretty obvious that recycled phosphorus won't be as abundant and cheap as mined. The world is STILL there.

I devoted an entire thread to fish shortage recently. I did world food shortages and arable land shortages a few years ago. I think they (this site) like solutions more than fear-mongering. I think it has a defeatist, almost biblical sound to it, so I keep that to a minimum. Besides, who needs a computer to tell us that we're short on fish. The world will still be here with the exact same amount of chemicals it started out with ... somewhere.

The Technological Singularity is a very interesting concept.

The technilogical singularity will hit, slap us up the side of the head, and restore our direction to sanity and sensibility. Computers will save us from our superstition and ignorance, and the next model will laugh at how easy it was. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/technilogical_singularity

Is that when Skynet will become self-aware?

About a million little axons need to be reconnected, and you only have a very vague idea which is which based on which nerve they travel out of the spinal cord in. By the time it all gets up to the brain, things start getting pretty fuzzy, also because we have different parts of the brain controlling different functions.

http://www.organicagcentre.ca/NewspaperArticles/na_phosphorus_glenlea_part2_jtm.asp Keys to Phosphorus Management are Cycling and Recycling

Everything. The universe coalesced into a huge mass of primordial particles, eventually organizing into hydrogen and helium, and through the formation, explosion, and rebirth of stars, larger and evermore complicated elements and chemicals, continuing on to life, ever-more complicated organisms of increasingly complicated assortments of chemicals and defense systems - both innate and sentient - all designed to preserve the lineal progression of organization. Peace and utopia is like the only logical conclusion, but we need to take off the blinders and see our place, become aware in its entirety.

viral?

Yeah, but isn't the wind responsible for moving gas, air currents, gravity, and all? I guess if you want to get technical, the electrons flying around the nuclei have kinetic energy. You could also check out Kinetic theory of gases, but it looks like you've got a handle on it. Sorry if you took offense, but I actually have a lot of respect for Oriental philosophy and Hong Kong, as well.

But in this little interview, he advocates no religion.

"Religion is a very murky and grimy bathwater, and if you don't look carefully, you can easily miss the baby." How do you interpret this statement?

If the gas happened to be flammable, then it would have potential energy. If it was burning, then it would have kinetic energy being transferred to the space around it. I don't see anything kinetic about gas, in general. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/potential_energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/kinetic_energy

A favorable mutation oddly enabled it to sense that. That was pretty far back. What I have caught glimpses of is that other species completely separate of the one in question seem to have developed similar sensory organs independently. So the question (in my mind) shifts to why did these completely different creatures develop similar organs indepently of each other? Or do I have it wrong and we can trace eyes back to one species?

How do you arrive at the conclusion that the first statement is right? The more matter there is, the more energy is involved, whether you're talking about binding energy or the energy created from splitting the atoms. Maybe you just have your arrows mixed up. Do you have your arrows mixed up? Here's a way you can remember which is which. The small number always eats the big number. Sorry if that sounds too much like kindergarten for you. Secondly, there is no kinetic energy in a gas. In order for something to have kinetic energy, work must be being done. There is no way that matter, by itself, can have kinetic energy, in any form, unless the gas was blowing out of a nozzle real fast or something, but that wasn't stated. Something must be having some effect on something else in order for it to be kinetic energy.

You're right. The message has changed quite a bit as the world became more enlightened. I guess that stands for something.

What caught my eye was the only time on the chart when taxes were lower than the Reagan era. By the "established" line of thinking, the 30's should have been rife with jobs created by the 20's tax breaks, but I guess the market crash kind of complicated things.

As far as I can tell, the issues are not that significant. Microperspective doesn't agree with macroperspective. So? It's not exactly comparing apples to apples. I think adjustments will be the rule rather than going back to the drawing board. An infinite amount of testing went into establishing the norm. It's not like we keep running into all of these unexplained exclusions, except maybe for detailed collider experiments. Just what is so flawed with the establishment?

Smith was the first guy to come along and revelate that God lived in another solar system, selfstyling himself as a living prophet, and reincarnating polygamism, in direct violation of the laws of the land, in direct violation of the Bible itself. Was the Beast of Revelation supposed to be regarded as a savior? If so, I would expect him to be right.

Ahhh, thank you very much. All is revealed. I finally have a true understanding of the word singularity.

What happens to the protons in a neutron star and how are they situated in a black hole?

Sorry Capn, I somehow missed that it was spelled out from the start. I would venture to state that its just wrong, on both counts. Can't explain why, but matter has potential energy comprising its makeup. More matter equals more energy. The other statement doesn't make sense either.

What's the name and authors of the book? Where was it written?

Probably something like windsheer caused it. Judging by the look of it, it can't be that stable in its course, especially at that kind of speed. It would go from 5 miles high to sea level in 2 seconds, literally.