Dekan

Your "mouse" example is very good. Except in this respect - the mouse doesn't understand language. Therefore, it can't receive communications in language. That makes it useless as a creature to speak to. Anyway, its brain is too small for complex thinking. I agree with DSW in #3 - humans have the potential to solve all mysteries. Provided we use our brains properly, and don't get diverted by sex and religion.

Is this what we've come to? When no-one dares write a certain word? Like I said, we're all afraid of the consequences .

Surely Scots don't really want to break up the United Kingdom. It'd be like going back to the Middle Ages. Who wants that? The whole idea of so-called "Independence" never entered any Scot's sensible head, until the puppet politicians, TV and newspapers started relentlessly plugging it. Anyone can see that it's just part of a blatant conspiracy. Which is to shatter all European states into small bits - so that they can be more easily controlled by a Global World Government.

Nuff said

Doesn't it seem strange that only Humans have exploited fire.. Other animals always seem to run away from fire. Without realising the benefits it can bring - like keeping warm, on cold nights. Even such a simple benefit as keeping warm, seems very advantageous from an evolutionary viewpoint. Not to mention the potential offered by fire to cook, and make more things eatable. So why haven't other species made use of fire - is it just because their brains are too small?

The above posts are perceptive. But they don't get round this serious fact - that nowadays, there are some words which are absolutely taboo. Especially one word, which no-one dares to write or type, for fear of the consequences. Doesn't this demonstrate the power of language?

Many thanks, Strange and Sensei, for your posts. I understand that numbers are written in notation. And that the notation we use, can't change the intrinsic property of a "number". For example, suppose we represent number "7" by "I I I I I I I I ", or "VII", or a letter of the Greek alphabet, or a Chinese logogram That makes no difference to its "mathematical" properties. Only how we "visual it", as Sensei points out. I was only wondering, how prime numbers can be determined in Binary, if all Binary numbers can only be divided by "1" I still don't quite get it, but am content to dumbly accept Sensei's explanation. Thanks again!

The concept of a "human superorganism" seems scientifically plausible. It's like "superorganisms" in the insect world. Consider the ants, termites and bees. Each individual insect has only a minuscule brain - a mere dot of nervous tissue. Yet this meagre resource is combined to create complex, well-organised insect societies. These societies, in turn, develop a kind of technological "civilisation". Leading to the construction of impressive artefacts - intricately-tunnelled nests, hexagonal-celled beehives, and towering air-conditioned termite cities. The parallel with human civilisation might seem fairly close. But it's superficial. The big difference is this - humans have consciousness. We know what we want. We aren't ruled by instinct. That makes us superior to ants, bees, termites and all other past terrestrial organisms. We will decide what we do with the Planet. Stuff Gaia - we're in charge now!

I was wondering, how does the concept of "Prime Numbers" work, in the Binary system. The definition of a Prime Number is - a number that can only be divided by itself, or by 1. That definition leads to quick results in the Decimal system. For example, we find that "29" is Prime - because it can't be exactly divided by any of the other smaller digits - 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9. But In Binary, there aren't any other "smaller" digits. There's just two digits available: "1", and "0". And since division by "0" isn't a permissible mathematical operation, then you can only divide by "1". Does that mean that all Binary numbers are Prime? That can't be right. Yet, how can we recognise when a Binary number isn't Prime? Such recognition is facilitated in Decimal. If a number ends in "0", "2", "4", "6" or "8", we know it's divisible by 2. So, it's not Prime. And if it ends in "5", we know it's divisible by 5. So again, not Prime. The only numbers that can be Prime in Decimal, are those ending in "1", "3" ,"7" or "9". Which at least narrows down the range of possibilities. Whereas in Binary, there's no way of telling?

Once we on Earth opened the box, we could write down what we saw. Like "Box opened August 25, 2014 - cat found dead as a doornail. Definite stiff, and ponging like heck". This information - with the confirmed date of death - could then be sent out to the whole Universe. By such means as radio transmissions, or messages in rockets. Admittedly, the information would take thousands, or millions, of years to arrive. But so what? That's just a time-lag in getting the news. It doesn't affect the facts. I mean, suppose your Uncle Albert died of cirrhosis of the liver, last Monday. But you only received the news on Wednesday. Would you conclude that he wasn't actually dead until Wednesday, when you first heard about it? Surely that would be absurd! Or is it how we should think?

I think there's some truth in that. When you know "people", you realise they're very predictable. They consistently go for rational human objectives, such as money, sex, and power. Whereas the motives of gods are less certain. We can't quite figure out what gods are really after. So we try all kinds of irrational means to propitiate them. Like sacrificing a hundred oxen, or taking great care never to kindle fire on weekends. The whole business seems badly in need of sorting out.

Vitto, try to get hold of the book: "Asimov on Chemistry". It's just what anyone interested in Chemistry needs, to gain an understanding of not only the Science, but also of the historical development of Chemistry, My own edition of the book was bought in 1974, from the "Scientific Book Club". I've done a quick google search, and second-hand copies are available. Though for quite expensive prices - not perhaps surprising, considering how good the book is! I really do recommend it. It's pure gold.

Thanks Swansont. In reply to your # 21: 1. You quibble about the distinction between "stopping" carbon emissions, and "reducing" them. The problem is this: Suppose carbon emissions are regarded as bad. Then, by how much should they be "reduced", until we're sure the badness has gone? Will a 50% reduction be enough? Or 25%, or 10%, or what? How can we know? We can't. The only way to be sure, is to stop them altogether. Which is what I think, some Environmentalists are really aiming at. (BTW, this reminds me of discussions in theological contexts, about how far "interest rates" must be reduced so as not to constitute "usury", but that's another story!) 2. I wasn't accusing anyone of being "lazy or unprofessional" Those are your words, not mine! But everyone has their career to think about. It's not good to risk it, by expressing "wrong" opinions.

Don't go overboard about the "ego" thing! All mods have big egos. Otherwise, why would they keep mutually awarding themselves "+" points for their posts, and so building up huge rep? We all know that, but it doesn't matter. The practical point is, that they've created a very useful, and highly valued "Science Forum". For which every science-minded person should be grateful. Amid all the dross of the Internet, "SFN" shines like a beacon of light. I've loved it ever since I first found it. I couldn't bear to be excluded from it. Such a site could only be created by big egos, with powerful, energetic, thrusting minds. Every mod on here shows these qualities. Including the lady ones, I hastily add! Acknowledged. It was just the word "hatespeech" which seemed so 1984ish!

Your term "hatespeech" looks just like a word from the "Newspeak". dictionary. "Newspeak" was, as you know, a language devised to make it impossible to successfully express any views which contravened the Party line. The parallel is, sadly, exact.

Thanks Swansont. On your first point - "who is arguing that we should resume the natural cycle". Isn't it the people who think we should reduce our artificial, industrially-generated carbon emissions? If human-generated carbon emissions are regarded as "artificial", then it follows that they're "unnatural". And interfere with the natural cycle of the Earth. Including Ice-Ages. So, if humans stop emitting lots of unnatural carbon, it will bring a return to the natural cycle - ie, recurrent Ice-Ages. On your second point, about "mainstream climate scientists" - obviously they're only human. And most humans find it expedient to adjust views to the currently prevailing fashion. No slur intended - we all do it! Thanks Essay. I do appreciate the time and trouble you took to present the graphs and charts in your post. But they're quite complicated, and frankly I don't think I can interpret them well enough to offer a detailed reply. I'm only looking at this subject from a simplistic viewpoint. Which involves answering these two questions: 1. Suppose we carry on emitting CO2 and other "greenhouse gasses" from our human industrial activities. Will that delay the onset of a new Ice-Age? 2. Suppose we cut back our CO2 emissions, or even eliminate them entirely. Will that speed up the onset of a new Ice-Age? Thanks again for your post!

Let's look at it from the Mods' viewpoint. They're trying to run a Science Forum. (Why anyone should want to do that, is another issue - it probably involves ego-massaging). However, given that there is a Science Forum, obviously the Mods must comply with current requirements. Which are - that no post shall contain any of the following: 1. Racist views 2. Sexist views 3. Homophobic views From this, we see that the basic rule is simple - don't express, or blatantly imply, any of the above taboo views in your posts. Then you'll be safe, and the Mods won't ban you from the Forum. Forget about old-fashioned considerations of "morality" or "objective truth", or indeed "Science"! These are quite irrelevant. What matters most nowadays, is to be "Politically Correct" in all your posts. This is good practical advice.

Well, the main argument seems to be this: Do we let the Earth resume its natural cycle, and start a new Ice-Age, thereby freezing most of us to death. Or do we do something about it, by pumping as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we can, to stabilize the Earth's climate at a warm temperature. Simplicity is the key to solving complexity.

Essay, that diagram is worrying. It seems to show that human activity is the only thing that's "warding off" a new glaciation, ie Ice Age. And that - if it weren't for our human activity - the world would today be in the grip of a new Ice-Age. Which would presumably bury most of Europe and North America under mile-thick sheets of ice. And destroy our present civilisation. And cause billions of people to die, not just in those continents, but worldwide. Surely that wouldn't be a desirable situation! So, if a new Ice-Age is being kept away by human Global Warming, why should we want to stop the warming? I mean, does it make sense to argue: "This man-made Global Warming is awful! It's not natural! So let's stop emitting greenhouse gases - get rid of that nasty industrial CO2 input into the atmosphere! Then the Earth will be able to cool down, resume its natural cycle, and give us a really great new Ice-Age by 2150" Can't quite get it myself - does one have to be a dedicated "Environmentalist", to fully understand?

That's a good point. Present-day video games don't teach a player much about negative consequences. Like the painful consequences of getting shot. Could video-game machines be equipped with electrodes. Which had to be attached to your body, before you could start playing the game. Then in the game, every time you got shot ( say in the leg), the electrodes would deliver a painful shock to your leg. Or better still - every time you shot someone else in the leg - you'd get a painful shock. To instil empathy with your fellow humans.

Don't worry about "rep". My own "rep" has been comprehensively destroyed, but I value that at a straw. The whole current system of attaching "rep" to individual posters is unscientific. Isn't it like giving Isaac Newton negative "rep", because he had lots of wacky ideas about Alchemy and Biblical Studies. And that therefore, this neg "rep" should somehow cast suspicion on the validity of his work on Universal Gravitation and Optics?

Thanks Strange, I appreciate your reply. But you seem to be invoking an entity called "Space". Which can "expand", by itself. This sounds mystical. What exactly is "Space". Is it made of particles? Are there "spacetrons" - particles of Space? Do they get bigger, or further apart, when "Space" expands? If not, how can "Space" have any real existence. Surely It's just an abstract word like "Gap". When things get further apart, like galaxies in the Universe, there's a bigger "gap" between them, But can this be explained by saying - it's because the "Gap" between them has expanded. Would that be a satisfactory explanation?

That's very true, the Moon hasn't anything much to offer. Nor have the planets Mars and Venus. Or anywhere else in the Solar System. It's just dead lumps of rock and giant balls of poisonous gas. To find anything worthwhile for our ships to land on, we'd have to go beyond the Solar System. That would require developing a star-drive, and we won't do that. We'll just stay on Earth, and watch porn on the Internet.

Could you clarify the difference between, an "explosion", and an "initial period of very rapid expansion ("inflation)"? Don't they both mean the same thing. Except that "initial period of very rapid expansion (inflation)" uses more big words. And so sounds, to some people, more scientific? I

It depends, to some extent, on how you define "organs". The word means literally (going back its Greek origin) a " working thing". So such things as hearts, lungs, livers, kidneys are obviously "organs", because they perform obvious work in the human body. Pumping blood, circulating oxygen, filtering wastes and so on. But what about things like bone and teeth? They also do vital jobs - supporting the body and enabling us to bite food. Can they be regarded as "organs" If so, they're probably the most long-lasting bits of the human body. They even survive death for ages. Consider the role bones and teeth have played in the development of sciences like Paleoanthropology. However, bones and teeth do give living humans health problems. Our teeth decay, and our bones are more likely to break, as we get older. Therefore they don't really satisfy your OP. Could the definition of "organ" be extended to "fingernails"? If so, I'd say they probably best meet your requirement of being "less prone to illnesses, failure, cancers, found in better condition than others at old age death, and rarely give/harbour health problems".