Dekan

Yes, strong people sometimes forgive weak people. This probably arises from two motivations: 1. When you're strong, you may feel confident that your weak adversary doesn't, at present, dare to hit back at you. So you can safely forgive them. 2. And by forgiving, you experience a glow of self-satisfaction. Which massages your vanity. But - if you forgive them - how can you sure they won't perceive such forgiveness as a sign of your own weakness. And so be encouraged to attack you again. Therefore, isn't it better from your strong point of view - not to forgive, but to take harsher measures?

Many thanks Imatfaal, Strange, and Janus for your very helpful and informative replies. Having considered and mulled them over, they've increased my understanding of the physics involved. Especially in the case of Janus's post #40, where he says: "it is the force needed to constantly deflect a mass to follow a circular path rather than a straight line" My only quibble, is whether confusion is caused by using the word "acceleration" for this force. The word does literally mean something like "speeding-up". Which is bound to seem contradictory. When, for example, we're asked to accept that the Moon, which is in a stable orbit, is actually accelerating round the Earth. That suggests that's its speeding up and about to fly off into outer space! The word "acceleration" doesn't seem right. Couldn't we just use "inertia"?

Thanks for post Janus, - could you just expand on that please, because it seems to me, that if: 1. I walk at a constant speed of 4mph round a circle 2. The circle is a constant 50 yds in diameter; Then both speed and circle stay constant. They don't undergo any "acceleration" I mean, "acceleration", literally, means ""speeding-up". Where's the "speeding-up" in this example?

Thanks Janus, But I don't quite get it - I thought "acceleration" meant going faster. What's change of direction got to do with it? I mean, suppose you decide to keep walking in a circle round your house. Will you be constantly accelerating?

I like the tree-trunk at top-left, it's very thought-provoking! As for Monet, he did OK with his 19th Century slowly-painted low-res oil pictures. They give a feeling of nostalgia. Like good old oil-lamps, when compared to our modern electric lighting. But I prefer scientifically accurate colour photos, to see things as they really are. Perhaps if Monet had had a modern digital camera, he could have captured the changing light conditions even better?

Couldn't all this be put to a scientific test - ie, by very accurate measurement of physical human bodies? For example - I've read about astronauts who spend 6 months orbiting the Earth, aboard the International Space Station. Apparently, when they de-orbit and return to Earth, they're permanently 0.07 seconds younger. This is because Time has contracted during their orbiting. Why that should be so, seems far from clear. They orbited at a constant speed, relative to the Earth. So no real acceleration was involved. The astronauts just went steadily in circles round the Earth. However, suppose we accept that during the orbits, time was somehow, permanently changed. Then shouldn't space also have been permanently changed? Space and Time are, after all, thought to be just different aspects of a single unified entity - Spacetime. And if one component of this entity is changed, ie Time - then shouldn't the other component, ie Space, also be affected? By way of reaction, or compensation, I'm not sure which. So as to maintain unity. Therefore, it seems to me, that if astronauts come back with their ages permanently changed - then their spatial bodies must show some corresponding change. Like getting taller, or shorter. Or with subtle differences in the size of their organs. Have any such changes been measured by the post-flight doctors who examine the astronauts?

Well, you may be right. But I suspect that the mods are here, to puff up their own egos.

This is a load of crap

But why post your loss on a Science Forum of all things? It smacks of attention-seeking. I bet that's what it is.

It seems to me, that if someone was really anguished, they wouldn't come onto Science Forums, to exhibit it. That's why I said it was bollocks. And it is, as you know.

We all have to die, and shouldn't weep and wail too much about it.

So it is like a popularity contest. Like who gives rep to someone else. This might be disappointing, from a scientific viewpoint. But not entirely surprising. We note that most posts by a mod, get a + point. And why not! The mods are superior. Don't they deserve praise! If it weren't for their intellectual efforts, this forum wouldn't even be here!

This frankly sounds like a load of bollocks

I just say what I think. Is the forum supposed to be a popularity contest - who gets the most "rep" from their replies?

Above all, don't deny this idea - that changes in the Earth's climate are caused by man-made carbon emissions. Admittedly, the idea is laughably stupid. But - it's the current fashionable theory. So contesting it will get you nowhere. Except for getting lots of negative rep,

The next President of the United States of America will be a woman . That's obvious. There's been a (semi) "Black President" . He hasn't been much good. But he ticked the politically correct box, ie "black". The next box to be ticked must surely be "Woman President". After that, there'll be an openly Gay President. Then a Black Lesbian President. I empathise with what Americans are suffering. Their country used to be the hope of the world. Now it's being deliberately destroyed. "Republicans", "Democrats" , what difference does it make?

Vexen, you must avoid saying anything that could possibly be construed as: 1. Racist 2. Sexist 3. Homophobic. Provided you keep quite clear of expressing such views, there's no reason (speaking unofficially) why you shouldn't be perfectly safe. Also, it's best not to question Anthropogenic Climate Change. The Mods don't like it.

Thanks Phi, for the link. I looked at it. But couldn't understand it. It seemed like gibberish.

I can't see any objection to us killing animals. Animals kill each other all the time. Like lions killing wildebeests, and sperm whales killing giant squids. These examples show that Nature is based on killing, So why should humans try to be aloof. Killing is clearly natural. Shouldn't we just accept the fact. And stop pretentiously moralising about it. We enjoy the thought of killing. It gives us a thrill. Isn't that why millions of us buy, and play, video war-games?

Why do you want to put gel, or oil, on your hair? It seems very unnatural. Human hair evolved, for a reason. Surely this reason shouldn't be cut back by chemical "gels". I mean, consider what happened in the past. Like in the Stone Age. Back then, men didn't shave their hair. Not only because shaving with a flint razor, plus the lack of soap, made it very uncomfortable. But also because they felt an instinctive need, and desire to grow their hair. Because It's a sign of masculinity So primitive men grew beards and big mustaches. This is confirmed by Latin authors of the Classical Period. The Romans were always very disconcerted by the Germans. And never beat them across the Rhine. Was it partly because the primitive Germans were unshaven. Thus shocking the civilised, clean-shaven Romans?

Yes - the Internet and Forums like these, have empowered the masses The masses have got the opportunity - for almost the first time in History - to assail their superiors, just by typing on a keyboard. I say "almost the first time", because there is a kind of historical precedent. Which was, obviously - the invention of the gun. Equipped with a gun, a peasant could knock even the most valiant and superior Knight off his horse. Just by pulling a trigger. Where will it lead?

It's probably better to read from the further monitor. Because the monitor's increased distance, reduces the strain on the ciliary muscles. These muscles have to "squeeze" the eye-lens, in order to make it more convex. So that it can bring the incoming light-rays - from a viewed object - to a sharp focus on the retina. And thus transmit a sharp optical image to the brain. The amount of "squeezing" this requires, depends essentially on how far away the viewed object is. If the object is quite close, say only a couple of feet away, the muscles will have to squeeze quite a lot. Thus exerting a continual strain on them. Which is bound to stress them - and so cause eye-strain. Such as results from a viewing a small computer monitor screen, at close range. Viewing is much easier if the screen is bigger, and further away. The increased distance means the eye-muscles don't have to squeeze so much. They can be more relaxed. They don't get so stressed. A big screen at a big distance, is easier on the eyes. For example - when you go to watch a film at a cinema, isn't the screen extremely big, and 30 or 150 feet away? Of course, this analogy may not be entirely appropriate. Other factors can come into play when we're considering computer monitors. Especially their "fonts" - to go back to Ganesh's OP. All fonts are made of "dots". And there are more dots in some fonts than others. This can obviously affect their intrinsic "readability" - from any distance. Nevertheless, I think that as a general rule - "big screen - big distance" is optically preferable to its converse.

Perhaps this whole business comes from a simple fact. All our present-day computers, are made of a few simple elements. Mainly copper and silicon. They may have some additional elements, but they're basically made of metal. Now if that's true, how could these contrivances, possibly give rise to to "intelligence"? Wouldn't it be like expecting an alarm-clock to understand the meaning of time. Or a CD player to have an appreciation of music and speech. The CD player certainly reproduces music and speech. In a limited way. But it doesn't know what it's doing. It doesn't know anything - it's just a metal mechanical contrivance. As are modern computers - they're just metal mechanisms. They work by sending electrons through NOR and NAND gates, following their program. Just like a light-bulb lights up, or goes dark, according to which way its switch gets pressed. And the switch itself, is a simple "on-off" mechanical device, made mostly of metal. This shows that metal atoms haven't got enough complexity to become intelligent. So it's a false trail to expect AI from metal computers. It'd be like making a bronze replica statue. Then expecting it to come to life, and behave intelligently. It can't - because it's not complex enough. So, shouldn't AI researchers ditch metal. And concentrate on building carbon-based devices? The carbon atom is chemically vastly superior in its ability to form complex molecules. These could possibly result in an Artificial Carbon Intelligence.

I think it's clear, from everyday experience, that only a minority of people are genuinely interested in Science. Most people simply do not want to know about Science. That must be because there's some vital ingredient lacking in their brains. It's not just intelligence. Many non-scientific people show obvious signs of intelligence. But something is lacking - a sense of wonder, a wish to find out facts about the world, how things work, the details and the maths - to explain things. Non-scientific people can be cultivated a bit, perhaps, by talking to them in broad and general terms. Showing them colour pictures of Saturn, or big Dinosaurs. But no detailed explanations should be attempted. Such explanations cause social failure. They make people look at you like you're a Martian. And so you get pushed out.

The errors seem more likely simple typos, than sophisticated bits of the clue. The clue itself contains just two pointers "all valuable" and "pressure". These might be resolved into "Gold" "Oil" "Dollars", as suggested in my previous post. Though "Dollars" could better be replaced by "Diamonds". Because "Diamonds", like "Oil", are formed under pressure within the Earth's crust. However - Gold isn't. So that knocks that suggestion out Unless one wanted to claim, that Gold also formed under "pressure" - ie the pressure of supernova explosions in the early Universe. But that'd be unsatisfactory, for two reasons: 1. The supernovae created all the elements heavier than Iron, not just Gold. So there'd be no uniqueness in the clue. 2. Such an explanation seems far too recondite for a TV Game Show. To pursue this topic further, we urgently need further input and data from the OP!