Dekan
Senior Members-
Posts
870 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Dekan
-
This point about fast evolution is good. Perhaps life did start on Venus first Stimulated by the warmth of the nearby Sun. Such warmth would naturally speed up chemical reactions. Just as they're speeded up, by putting a test-tube of chemicals, into the flame of a Bunsen-burner. It makes things happen fast. So one might well expect life in the Solar System to have started on Venus. And perhaps progressed, by about 3.5 billion years ago, to multicellular organisms. These organisms evolved into intelligent Venusians, who took stock of their situation. And reasoned like this: - Venus is our home planet, and it's given us life. For which we're thankful. - But life can't continue here much longer. Our oceans are drying up, owing to the Sun's fierce heat. - The heat will be less, if we go outwards from the Sun, to the third planet - the Earth. - The Earth looks, through our telescopes, to be a beautiful moonless blue planet, with big oceans, and a lot of fertile land. This is confirmed by our space-probes. They've verified habitat-suitability for Venusians. Gravity is no problem, and there's plant-life and oxygen. So we'll go there. Unfortunately for the colonising Venusians, after they'd landed, a Mars-sized mega-asteroid smashed into the Earth, boiled the oceans, sterilized the planet, and blew a chunk off it - to create the Moon, which we still see today. I don't what more proof anyone could want than that.
-
I can see how your "time series" method, might be applicable to earthquakes. Or epileptic seizures. These both depend on strictly physical events. The physical events are - in the case of earthquakes - changes in terrestrial sub-surface rock/magma distribution, flow, pressure and so on. Which eventually cause a seismic event. And it's possible to conceive, that there might be analogous physical changes occurring in the brain. Which eventually cause an epileptic fit. And can be predicted. This is OK so far. But, I can't see how the behaviour of the Stock Market can be predicted. The "Stock Market" isn't a physical thing, like a human brain, or the Earth's crust. It's just a kind of abstract, collective noun. It encompasses millions of people, trading stocks and shares. Which are, in themselves, non-physical. "Stocks" and "shares" have no physical existence, except as numbers on a video screen, or numbers written on a piece of paper. They mean nothing, except what people agree to believe in them. They are thus mere figments of human imagination. And I don't see how our imagination can be "predicted" by any method. But - this may be unjust. Could your method be put to a test. Such as predicting the Dow-Jones Index a month in advance. At close on Oct 31, it stood at 17,390. What will the Dow-Jones Index be at close on Nov 30? Can your method supply an accurate prediction?
-
There is a lack of female scientists in movies. Why that should be, would be an interesting theme to explore. You mention "Contact" - unfortunately that's not a film I've seen. I've been trying to think of TV productions where a woman was the central "scientific" character. I remember a TV adaptation of John Wyndham's "Dumb Martian" - which despite the name, depicts a very intelligent Martian woman. But that goes back to the 1960's. The example that most springs to mind is the character "Jill Greeley". She was the computer programmer in Nigel Kneale's TV play "The Stone Tape" in 1972. She got to the bottom of the "Taskerlands" haunting. I'd like to discuss all this further. But, as you say - it's heavily off-topic! So I won't derail the thread any more, and will leave it for now.
-
Yes, that's right. The male character should definitely be, in some way, inadequate. Also, the female virologist must be - how should one delicately phrase it - of a minority ethnic persuasion? Put both those factors in the novel, and you got a best-seller. Plus movie-rights. Can't go wrong. Just write the book, ignore conscience, and collect the bucks.
- 4 replies
-
-3
-
Perhaps some people who post on here, are more interested in getting "rep" points, than being really interested in Science?
-
The climatologists agree with all the other climatologists. What else can they do? They have to protect themselves from ridicule. It's possible that some, maybe even most of them, have secret doubts.
- 263 replies
-
-3
-
What parts of scientific articles should be skipped and when?
Dekan replied to 5U03N15's topic in Other Sciences
Does anyone actually read long scientific papers? Or just glance at the introductory paragraphs, to get some idea what it's supposed to be about. Then skim rapidly through the mass of verbiage, figures and diagrams in the middle. Finishing by a look at the last paragraphs to see what the purported conclusion is. And give it a pinch of salt.- 9 replies
-
-1
-
It sounds like a good idea, in your novel - having a female virologist as the main protagonist. That's very politically correct. It gives your book a good start. However, this good start seems spoiled, when you go on to say - "she and other members of her team are ultimately unsuccessful" Such lack of success by the female-led team, is bound to evoke invidious sexist thoughts. But the thoughts can be ameliorated, by a modification of your novel. Along these lines - Keep the central character female. That goes without saying. But - allow her to have a supporting male character, who will be her companion. Acting as a contrast to her brilliance. Like Dr Watson did to Sherlock Holmes. But don't overstress the companion's masculinity. Make him manly. But with a hint of gayness. Not overtly, only suggestively. That way you'll get three benefits - 1. Women will be appeased 2. Straight men will be reassured 3. Gay men will be titillated I think that's all you need to write your novel. You can get the Science from SFN.
- 4 replies
-
-5
-
The Goal of Science (split from EMR and Hydrogen atom)
Dekan replied to Dekan's topic in Other Sciences
Engineering shouldn't be disparaged. Science is all very well, but to get practical results, you need engineers. For example, Scientists speculated for hundreds of years about what the Moon's surface might be like. Didn't it take rocket-engineers to build the Saturn-5, so we could land there, and find out for certain? I take a simple view. I think the purpose of Science is let us understand things. I don't see how such understanding can be achieved by continually inventing "particles". Every week, there's a new one. How many "particles" are currently supposed to exist (as of today)? Obviously, it's getting silly. -
The Goal of Science (split from EMR and Hydrogen atom)
Dekan replied to Dekan's topic in Other Sciences
But, shouldn't it be? Because otherwise, isn't it just Technology? Technology is good for making things work. Like for example, a steam-engine. A working steam-engine could be built by a competent engineer. Just by following the blueprints. The blueprints would show how to assemble the bits and pieces. Such as the furnace, the boiler, the steampipes, the cylinder, the piston, the connecting-rod, and the wheels. These components could all be assembled, by the engineer. And put together to create a steam-engine. Without any understanding, by the engineer, of what the components actually do. Just as birds build their nests, by collecting twigs and bits of stuff, and shoving them together. The birds don't really understand why they're doing it. Does the male bird ruminate, and consider: "I've just mated with a female bird. She'll soon be laying eggs. These eggs will require a suitably-shaped receptacle, to hold the eggs while they get incubated. So I'll build one" Surely not. The male bird just follows a blueprint, which is hard-wired into his head: "After mating - collect and assemble twigs in this order". This results in the production of a competently-engineered nest. Which works. It gives the right results. It enables the chicks to be protected and a new generation reared. Could this be how scientific blueprints such as Quantum Mechanics operate? They get sort of hard-wired into Physics. They work, they give the right results. So each new generation of Physicists, is born into the protective nest of QM. The occupants of the nest, feel safe and secure. But every so often, a cuckoo comes along........ -
Do you seriously mean that Science isn't about trying to get to the bottom of things. It's only about explaining the phenomena, by making "models". And these "models" needn't be logical They can even be in blatant defiance of logic The "models" don't have to be considered as "true" or "false". As long as the "models" are "accurate" - ie they work out mathematically - that's all that matters? This disastrous line of reasoning was unfortunately followed by the Ancient Greeks. They famously called it "saving the phenomena". Which is probably why they didn't progress very far in Science.
-
If America were to enter a ww3 situation. What plan would you propose?
Dekan replied to too-open-minded's topic in Politics
Will there be a big nuclear war soon? We seem long overdue for it. Just consider how long nuclear weapons have been available. They were invented so long ago as 1945. In that year, they were used only twice, on two Japanese cities. The results were moderately impressive. Though not much better than a thousand-bomber air-raid by B-29's. That's because the first A-bombs were puny low-yield fission devices, which gave a yield of only 12 - 22 KT Since then, we've developed much more powerful fusion weapons. Which are very thrilling in their effects. They can burn down entire metropolitan areas. Whole cities taken out - with just one big warhead, or several MIRVS, distributed to maximise blast and heat effects. It's absolutely fascinating. But the thing is - when will we actually put these marvellous weapons to use, in a proper World War III. With every continent engaged. Hundreds of cities turned into blackened glassy craters. Entire countries wiped off the map. Seas boiling from the multiple underwater detonations of SS-18 MIRVS, throwing up lethal spray in the form of radioactive rain. So dramatic - so appealing to human nature! Nuclear weapons can give us all this. So surely it can't be long before we start using the weapons. The pause in their use since 1945, is starting to get unnaturally long. And increasingly strained .I reckon that the first (post WWII) use of nuclear weapons will occur fairly soon. It feels like the time is approaching, don't you think? -
Ebola outbreak in US...unneccssary scare?
Dekan replied to Elite Engineer's topic in Microbiology and Immunology
Is it really weird? Obviously we all know (secretly) why Ebola gets treated more effectively in Germany, than in Texas But we can't say so. That would be extremely "politically incorrect". It could lead to banning from the forum. Or even arrest by the police. So, don't we all pretend to be dumb, and carefully skirt around the truth?- 64 replies
-
-3
-
I've always been very sceptical about Art. It seems too subjective to offer any real insights into Science, which is concerned with the nature of objective REALITY. However, your dramatic, and impressive, composition/ diagram/illustration, in #141, has caused me to reconsider my position. I think your composition could be interpreted scientifically like this: 1. The short dumpy pencil, at the bottom left, represents the human male organ. It's shown as short, and obviously un-aroused. 2. However, from the tip of the organ, we see a pencil-line, extending upwards at an angle, and gradually thickening as it goes towards the centre of the picture. This represents growing arousal. 3. And when it reaches the the centre, we observe an enlarged, upstanding, quasi-cylindrical object. This is instantly recognisable as an erect phallus. Any student of Freud would clock that instanter. 4. The phallus is shown as inserted into, and penetrating, a curved, oval object. Surely that must depict the vulva and womb. So we see sexual intercourse in action. 5. To clinch the matter - let's note that at the top, or " climax" of the picture - there's a kind of "sunburst". Doesn't that look, indisputably, like a symbol of orgasm? Thus, the composition brilliantly portrays a fundamental principle of the Universe - that all things have an origin. In the case of humans, the origin is petty copulation. On a grander, Universal, scale, it's the prodigious orgasm of the (aptly-named) "Big Bang". The picture contains many other interesting details, which could be profitably explored and interpreted.
- 252 replies
-
-2
-
If your computer is rated at 1200W, that's more than a 1-kW electric-fire. Wouldn't such heat output make your computer rapidly get red-hot, melt its plastic case, and engulf you in flames? The fan might be just there, to make a "whirring" noise, so you think it's a proper computer. I remember when Alan Sugar started making PC's back in the 1980's, He produced a PC which didn't need a fan. It was replaced by clever design of the internal circuitry of the PC. Sugar was very proud of this. But the customers didn't like it. They were suspicious of a silent computer. So Sugar had a fan put back in. It wasn't necessary from a functional viewpoint. It contributed nothing to the cooling. But it made a "whirring" noise, and made the customers happy. So, your big heat sink and fan might be the same? I mean, why haven't laptops, tablets, and smartphones got fans inside them?
-
This "Fantasy War Games" business brings up an important point. There are two fundamentally different kinds of people: 1. Peaceful people, who want to read books, and study Science. 2. Aggressive people, who don't give a stuff about books, or Science. They just want to shout and fight. I think that's clear, from everyday experience. Now, suppose the aggressive people can be persuaded to buy video war-games. These games enable aggression to be fantasised, and worked off in private. Thus allowing the aggressive people to feverishly press buttons, kill and maim, and shout and exult in front of their video screens. Without causing any actual wars in the real world. Isn't that a good thing?
-
Yes, it does seem mystifying, about the vacuum cleaners. I mean, a vacuum cleaner needs a certain amount of intrinsic "power" to suck up some kinds of dirt. Especially for example - bits of fluff. When these get stuck in the fibres of a carpet, they're very hard to remove. They become entangled in the carpet fibres, which hold the fluff down. The fluff can't be released and sucked up, unless sufficiently strong power is applied. And - crucially - the power must be applied in "one go", so to speak. Thus, it's no good at all running a weak hoover twice across the carpet. Admittedly, this gives two "goes" at sucking the fluff up. But in each "go", the sucking power is simply insufficient. So it won't lift the fluff from the carpet. No matter how many times the weak hoover is run back and forth. As regards computers, they're different. They're not doing the kind of physical "work" involved in pulling bits of fluff from carpets. They're internally only "flipping" binary bits inside electronic chips. That can be done, on very low power. Such as is supplied by small batteries and "button cells". Computers don't actually need high-powered mains electric input at 110/240 volts. The mains electricity mostly goes into lighting up monitor-screens. So we can watch what the computers are doing. Therefore, I don't think the EU power requirements need have any relevance to 32-bit, or 64-bit, or 128-bit chips. The chips only use up a minuscule amount of power. So they can be allowed to progress without fear of global energy-depletion.
-
Well yes. You were in a subsonic plane, which still only goes at the same speed as a 1950's vintage Boeing 707. So your trans-oceanic cruise took several hours. Thus affording plenty of opportunity to while away the time by exchanging messages and drawing up spreadsheets. I suppose travellers on 18th century sailing-ships enjoyed similar leisure, as they wrote their journals and composed letters during their month-long cruise across the Atlantic. But it does seem a bit disappointing, that in the 21st century we haven't got sub-orbital rocketships crossing the Atlantic in 30 minutes and the Pacific in 90 minutes or so!
-
I sincerely wish someone would govern the difference between "may" and "might". These words have been wrongly used twice in the above post. Which has caused me to suffer. And led to depression. Which might have been avoided entirely, if the poster hadn't adopted an increasingly prevalent misuse of English - saying "may" instead of "might". Why do people keep doing it? I think it might be caused by this idea - that "may" is a kind of superior word. Like "whilst" is often thought to be superior to "while". Or "Between you and I", is thought to be better than the grammatically correct "Between you and me". Perhaps it's just language changing and evolving. Perhaps in years to come, it'll become standard usage to say: "If you hadn't posted that, I may not have been upset". At the present time though, such an abuse makes us lovers of the English language wince! English is the most sophisticated medium of communication so far devised by humans. It's above all other languages on Earth, for its richness, subtlety, pithiness and precision So we ought to treasure it. And defend its rules. We don't want any of its rules to be broken - unless there's a very good reason for doing so. And in the case of blurring the subtle distinction between "may" and "might", there seems no good reason. Such blurring only causes ambiguity and loss of precision. So, please, can't we stop doing it?
-
We used to want futuristic flying cars to change our lives. But, as you say, we were looking in the wrong direction. Now the future is here. And instead of flying cars, we have computing technology. This has certainly changed our lives. We can now send stupid 140 character messages to each on Twitter. Is that progress? I'd rather have the flying cars.
-
Fiveworld's examples raises some interesting points. Take the case of the preacher. Is the preacher really interested in whether you personally go to Hell? Or is the preacher more concerned with this question - how many souls can I save? The preacher might be calculating on these lines - if my preaching is high-quality and efficacious, and causes a lot of souls to be saved from eternal Damnation, that's bound to put me in God's good books. Which will guarantee me a ticket to Heaven. So the preacher's motive might really be self-interest, not altruism. On the student/teacher example, that's an issue which I'd like perhaps to go into, at some other time.
-
It's interesting to note that some English verbs can express tense without any modification to the verb. For example, the verb "to put". "Put" can be used in the Past, Present or Future, like so: Past Tense: "I'd been drinking all week, but yesterday I put the bottle down" Present Tense: "You think I'm tempted to have another drink? No - watch me, as I put the bottle back in the cupboard" Future Tense: " Well. I might get the bottle out again in a little while, just for a quick one. But tomorrow - I put it away for keeps" Actually, the above Future Tense example does sound slightly strained.. I'm not sure why.
-
Electrons smaller than protons, but have equivalent charge
Dekan replied to Buych778's topic in Applied Chemistry
We keep trying to penetrate into the scheme of things. Layer after layer. We go from elements, to atoms. Then to the atomic nucleus. Where we find protons and neutrons. From them, we deduce even smaller components - the quarks. And quarks may be composed of yet smaller bits - prions, preons, or strings, or whatever.name we give them. It seems like peeling layers off an infinite onion. However deep we go, we can reach no ultimate centre, no final truth. At least, that's how modern Physics looks. All these particles! Such as "Higg's bosons" (in several varieties apparently) , And "quarks" in three different colours, "red ", "green" and "blue". Not to mention "up", "down", and "top" & "bottom". And "flavours". Doesn't all this strike anyone as slightly insane? Can the Universe really be that complicated? It reminds me of the Ancient Greek conception of the Solar System. Where every planetary orbit was supposed to be composed of a set of "epicycles". The epicycles were invented to explain why the planets move in elliptical orbits, instead of perfect circles. Circularity could be maintained, by supposing each simple elliptical orbit, to be composed of a complex set of multiple, interlocking, circular motions - the "epicycles". Which were purely imaginary. All this is, of course, well known to students of Astronomical history - apologies for restating the obvious! But it does seem to sound a warning note. Are we sure that some "particles", like quarks, aren't equally imaginary? Just on a personal note, I think electrons are actually real. Quarks might not be. -
Perhaps the need for a "speed-limit" could be deduced, merely from the existence of our big, extended, complex, spatial Universe. And from the existence of Time. I mean, suppose there wasn't a speed-limit. So that particles, such as electrons, protons, photons, gravitons, travelled instantaneously from one side of the Universe to the other. That would mean, that there wouldn't really be any distance, or "Space" within the Universe - it'd be just a single point-like object. And everything within it, would happen "at once". So there'd be no Time either. Therefore, from the fact that we do actually observe Space and Time, doesn't it follow that there must be some kind of limiting speed?
-
Lets move polar bears to Antarctica
Dekan replied to Basic Biology's topic in Ecology and the Environment
We're not "corrupting" it. Just improving it, by getting rid of dangerous wild animals, such as wolves, elephants and polar bears. These animals don't seem to contribute anything to human civilisation. So why bother with them? We could keep a few specimens in zoos, for people to look at, if they want. But surely we don't want them running around all over the place. I mean, suppose herds of elephants were let loose in the US Mid-West. They'd keep trampling down the cornfields. What farmer would want his crops ruined like that? The farmers would soon get mad, and start shooting the elephants. And who could blame them? The elephants would be a pest, to be got rid of. Just like insect pests are got rid of by spraying modern insecticides. I can't understand why some people seem so keen to reverse human progress. We humans have spent 10,000 arduous years cleaning the planet up, and making it a nicer place. With our farms, parks and gardens. The gardens are a good point. They have neat well-trimmed lawns with tidy,pretty flower-beds, and are very pleasant. Should we regard them as "corrupting Nature", and let them turn into rank masses of weeds, thistles, and stinging-nettles? Has any gardener here intentionally "rewilded" his own back-yard, and thought it an improvement? On the business about the Arctic and Antarctic ice-caps, I don't see why we should be terrified if they melt. We'll cope. Humans are too great a species to be overwhelmed by a few hundred foot rise in sea-level.