JMJones0424

while it's true that at the moment, Bt has seemed to decrease the amount of pesticides used in the world, it's also true that every year, more pests evolve resistance to Bt, even with the refuges that are supposed to "delay the evolution of resistance". (I do find it ironic that industrial ag is reduced to using ecological concepts to solve problems that they always seem to argue can be fixed with more technology.) And there's already a significant number of weeds that have evolved resistance to glyphosate, which has increased the amount of herbicides being used by keeping us on the "herbicide treadmill". (Pesticide treadmill -- same concept)

I couldn't agree more, though it should come as no surprise that even industrialized agriculture is finally realizing that an appropriate approach to integrated pest management should include ecological concepts. The only thing that's surprised me is how long it's taken to reverse the mechanistic thinking. I did not intend to blindly promote Bt crops. My intention was to combat FUD.

I've been facepalming for a few days, but no one more qualified has stepped in to get this thread back on track, so I'll give it a shot.

The industrial revolution feeds people. DNA modification on the scientific basis of mapping the genome is in line with the industrial revolution. Mutating plants may have a few niches in which a real production is seen. It's not to likely you would find DNA in one species that was better at producing an enzyme, et al, than the species from which that enzyme came from in the first place. And when this organism is modified, it now occupies a place in our ecosystem that is not existent. If all corn is GMO'd, then it is as if there is no corn at all in a sense.

 

Another thing. It worries me that they have developed, thus far, only a handful of quasi-useful GMO traits. I build my own Linux operating systems from source code. This is like have a C:\ prompt and writing some PacMan knockoff. This is how bored farmer must be to find BT corn commercially attractive.

 

How about corn that grows an ear in three days? Or green beans that taste like chocolate? Or red, white and blue apples?

The first paragraph is pure word salad, but I'm more interested in the second. It appears that your understanding of what takes place when a GM crop is developed is woefully inadequate. No one is building a plant or a trait from "source code". As far as I know, that is far beyond our capability. Instead, they take genes that exist in nature, but not in the target cultivar or species, and insert it. Prior to GM, the only way to artificially spur on the development of a new trait to jump start a selective breeding program was to expose the plant to various chemicals or radiation, and even over many decades and generations, the breeder might not ever find success.

The analogy to coding would be as if the breeder randomly hit keys on the keyboard in order to write a new subroutine. However, the analogy for GM would be to identify a subroutine that works perfectly well in a different application and cut and paste it into what you're working on.

Bt corn is attractive because it reduces the need for pesticide use, which is beneficial whether the farmer is bored or not.

I heard the sugar cane in Brazil has nitrogen fixing capability.

 

But it's not GMO.

Neither sugar cane, nor legumes, fix nitrogen. Legumes are known for maintaining symbiotic relationships with diazotrophic bacteria, which do fix nitrogen. I was previously unaware of any diazotroph that partnered with sugarcane, but a google search led me to Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus.

Wouldn't the alternator at least make the battery last longer?

No, because the battery is what is powering the alternator. At best, given 100% efficiency, there would be no difference. Power output from the battery to turn the alternator would equal power input to the battery from the alternator. Under no circumstances, in the situation as you have described it*, will the alternator ever charge the battery more than it draws from the battery. In practice, due to inefficiencies such as bearing friction, heat loss, etc., the alternator will always require more energy to turn it, and therefore draw more power from the battery, then it generates and returns to the battery.

*Regenerative braking is a way of recovering the energy of the vehicle in motion that you need to shed in order to stop rather than wasting it as heat loss in the brakes. This is wholly different then using a battery to turn an alternator that charges a battery.

The US embassy made a very inept statement regarding the attack on the compound on the 11th anniversary of 9/11.

This is false. Did you read the statement that you posted? The statement isn't regarding the attack on the embassy, as it was issued prior to the attack.

My first thought is the city, Sydney, so the word is pretty neutral to me as far as ethnicity goes. However, it looks like the word is of English origin.

In my opinion, video links should be treated in the same manner as a link to a lengthy pdf file or a paper with many pages. It is rude, and generally unproductive for discussion, to require members to watch a 45 minute video to see the few minutes pertinent to your discussion. Some direction towards the relevant portion of the video should be included in the post. Note that with youtube videos, if you end the url with the string "&t=xmys", when clicked, the video will start at x minutes and y seconds.

Those were my words. Everything but the illustration came from me. I provided links for you to follow if case I didn't adequately explain something. I do not appreciate being accused of plagiarism without merit or evidence. If you don't understand what I've written, please ask for clarification.

What in the world do you mean by "daily Life example what u feel about gravity in your Daily Life"?

My vote is for Colonel Sanders in the immovable Earth video. Evolution deniers are noobs, this man denies the Earth revolves around the sun.

I don't think you're using terms correctly, or at least I don't understand how you are using them.

Gravity is the attractive force felt by two massive objects and is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to their distance squared.

[math]F = G \frac{m_{1}m_{2}}{r^{2}}[/math]

Centripetal and centrifugal forces are a little harder to explain because centrifugal force is only observed in a rotating frame of reference, and thus is a fictitious force. The following image is from the HyperPhysics page on centrifugal force, and illustrates the difference better than I can in words.

Basically, centripetal force is the force that keeps you moving in a circle, and centrifugal force is a "fictitious" force you feel when you are turning that pushes you away from the centerpoint of the turn. You can think of gravity as being the centripetal force that keeps satellites in orbit around the Earth.

However, none of this is really relevant to your desire to "swim human body in earth atmosphere without reducing its Mass -Density."

If you are trying to float in the atmosphere, like floating in water, the only way you'll be able to pull that off is by having less than or equal density as the fluid you are floating in. Buoyancy is the force resisting gravity. Hot air balloons and helium balloons float in air because they have the same density as the air surrounding them. If their density is greater, then they sink, if less, then they rise. So there's no way to swim through Earth's atmosphere without decreasing your density (or the density of you and the vehicle you are riding in). Of course, there are more ways to overcome gravity than just buoyancy, such as thrust and lift, but I'm not sure that this is what you're after.

Maybe this will get you headed in the right direction at least.

Nobrainer-

Instead of picking through the word salad, I'm curious why the number three is so important to you. I have three toes on my left foot. What does that mean?

Why did you neglect gravity in your list of forces?

Why did you neglect plasma in your list of "atom densities"?

You realize that the way we see color is directly related to the physical nature of our eyes, not any fundamental nature of light, right? Some people are born with only two functioning types of cones, and they see only two primary colors. Most birds and some other animals have four types of cones. An unlucky few have only one functioning type of cone cells, and therefore, their rainbow is made of varying shades of one color. Another group of people have all three cones, but some are not as sensitive as the general populace, or they are sensitive to a slightly different frequency curve than the general populace, so while they have three primary colors, they are different colors than the majority of humans.

Confirming one's preconceived notions is a slippery thing. You are tempted to find evidence everywhere, and if you've got no good way of distinguishing between fact and fiction, how do you know you're finding truth in your confirmations? I don't think you understand most of anything you've written in this post.

The picture you posted is from the webcomic XKCD. I'm unclear what "daily life experiments" you are looking for, but what didn't you understand about D H's explanation, or the explanation in the comic itself?

Personally, I would say you're a person at the moment you're born, in whatever fashion. That's the moment you become a citizen, so it seems as good a definition as any (I mean if we're leaving aside biological considerations and looking for an arbitrary definition).

I think I could accept this, but it gives no concessions to the very large and vocal pro-life crowd, which I think makes it impractical. In order to become a legal definition, I think we have to at least prohibit late term abortions for no reason other than "I changed my mind".

I refuse to concede the point that civil rights are subject to concessions to any crowd, regardless of size or vocality. In that regard, the anti-abortion crowd can stuff it; where they move to incrementally make abortion illegal, they are wrong, period. I see nothing wrong with our current legal approach at regulation, except that in some states, mine included, doctors are now required to harass a woman that exercises her right to obtain medical care. If anything, legally redefining life is the wrong tack, and needlessly concedes the existence of a problem that isn't there. The true problem is that many states now arbitrarily require procedures, counseling, or waiting periods prior to a woman being able to have an abortion.

Unequal reporting rates?

I've always had the impression that any debate between presentism and eternalism rests on grammatical errors. From the time and place that I'm writing this post it only makes sense to say "Shakespeare existed". It wouldn't make sense to say "Shakespeare, who died some time ago, still exists right now". Rather than being the basis of a philosophy, it looks more like a problem with grammar.

I wouldn't necessarily call it a grammatical error. If I understand the situation correctly, you have mis-characterized eternalism. Clearly, from your point of view, since the event of Shakespeare's death lies in your past, it is incorrect for you to claim that Shakespeare exists for you, right now. Instead, eternalism claims that because of special relativity, different observers cannot agree on whether or not Shakespeare is still alive, right now, for them.

Clipped from the paper linked by VikingF, Is There an Alternative to the Block Universe View?, on page 5

Let's say you are observer C, on Earth. I am observer A, moving at a relativistic speed towards you, and VikingF is observer B, moving at a relativistic speed away from you. VikingF and I cross paths in time and space at point M. At that moment, (when corrected for the finite speed of light) I observe you on Earth to make a post claiming Shakespeare is long dead at point Q. Simultaneous to me, VikingF also looks towards Earth (and after correcting for the finite speed of light) observes that tragically, Shakespeare has just died at point P. Though VikingF and I share the same present at point M, our "present"s intersect the Earth bound observer at radically different times.

Therefore, given Special Relativity, presentism cannot be a valid view. Of course, the explanation given in the paper is better, I have just adapted it to your narrative.

VikingF- rarely have I encountered an answer to one of my questions that so absolutely addresses the issue as the paper you have recommended. I can not thank you enough. I'm going to work in my garden to digest what I've read, and re-read at least a few times, but it seems that my concept of world-line-ism is entirely compatible with eternalism. In fact, on page 5, there exists a diagram that had I taken the time to draw, would nearly exactly match what I had envisioned. My only remaining question, then, is how can there be any support whatsoever for presentism? It seems obviously false to me, and I have learned to be wary of my "obvious" conclusions.

I plead ignorance again, on more than one front. What is "RoS"?

Perhaps I need to revisit my understanding of eternalism. Do you have a specific source that is better than wikipedia?

If my future exists before I experience it, which is what I understand eternalism proposes, how does that not remove free will? Am I mistaken in my understanding of eternalism?

I must admit that due to a general apathy towards philosophy for much of my life, I am just beginning to appreciate the significance of questions like this. However, it seems to me that the question, "Is eternalism or presentism correct?" is a bad question.

Presentism, as I understand it, can be thrown out immediately because of special relativity; there is no universal "present".

Eternalism is also undesirable, as it evokes destiny and other concepts that I choose to reject, because it asserts that my future already exists, I just haven't experienced it yet.

Is there such a thing as "world-line-ism"? While none can agree on a universal present, past, or future, events only occur once, and all can agree on the progression of a world line. Simultaneity between events on different world lines is relative to the observer, but events on a world line are universally observed to occur in the same order. Where two world lines cross, all events prior to the crossing are universally recognizable as occurring prior to the crossing event (past in both world lines), and all events after the crossing are universally recognizable as occurring after the crossing event (future in both world lines).

Eternalism seems to me to rely on a false construct, the idea that we can arrange all world lines together in a great big block and meaningfully proclaim that future events on my world line already exist from some other's perspective. Instead, it makes more sense to me to recognize that there's no such thing as an external observer, and the timing of events is always dependent upon the world line from which you are measuring those events. Words like "past", "present", and "future" are only meaningful in the context of a world line.

Who is this "you" that you are railing against? I asked a simple question. You've answered half of it, but I get the feeling I've stepped into an ongoing conversation and I'm missing the beginning. Is there another thread that I need to read where you lay out the case that "plasma electron density is responsible for most of the observed redshift"?

Try oil change companies, mechanics, or machine shops. Safety Kleen comes in steel drums, and the quick oil change shops around me get their oil and antifreeze in steel drums.

So I wonder why we don't have wind-powered cars.

We do, though land sailing is more of an eccentric sport than a practical means of transportation. The biggest difference between sailing on open water and driving a land vehicle is that land vehicles need to be able to navigate through particularly constricted areas at many different angles of attack relative to the wind. Using the wind as a primary source of power for a land vehicle is therefore not practical, but perfectly possible.

What is plasma other than very hot energy full of motion? Sounds like primitive particles to me.

 

99% sounds possible.

I think you need to revisit your definition of plasma. Not sure what you mean by either "very hot energy full of motion" or "primitive particles". Plasma is simply a group of atoms that have been so energetically excited that the electrons have been stripped away from the nucleus.

Or it could possibly be that plasma electron density is responsible for most of the observed redshift which would match the obsrvation that 99% of the universe is plasma.

http://www.sciencedi...030402608000089

Do you, or anyone else, have either a copy of this paper that isn't behind a paywall or other supporting evidence for your assertions that "plasma electron density is responsible for most of the observed redshift" or that "99% of the universe is plasma"?

Yes, plasma is the most basic form of matter before it becomes atoms and planets and stars. But plasma redshift calls into question expansion so it will be ignored. Even Hubble favored another explanation for redshift which was unavailable at that time.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Edwin_Hubble

Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature."

And indeed it appears he was correct as plasma redshift due to electron density was then unrecognized and undiscovered.

The portion of the wikipedia article you quoted is regarding Hubble's attempt to relate redshift to the geometry of the universe, and makes no claims whatsoever about his views on plasma. The previous paragraph makes this clear. Without quote mining, the entire passage reads:

In the 1930s, Hubble was involved in determining the distribution of galaxies and spatial curvature. These data seemed to indicate that the universe wasflat and homogeneous, but there was a deviation from flatness at large redshifts. According to Allan Sandage,

Krauss' point, that I object to, on basic principle is that he said that at some point a distant galaxy would be receeding from us, at greater than C, and then said "it would disappear".

I agree. Claiming that distant galaxies will at some time in the future "disappear" is a poor wording of the situation. I think that you need to take his statement in this video, which is geared towards the layman, with a grain of salt. The paper is more precise in spelling out his assertion.

At the point at which a distant galaxy reaches a recessional speed from the Milky Way that is greater than C, it is also true that that galaxy is many billions of light years away, which means there is at least as many billions of lightyears supply of photons, that will continue to reach us, from the long existence that Galaxy had, while it was NOT receding from us faster than C. So whatever is the case, it is not the case that the Galaxy will disappear WHEN it exceeds a C recessional speed.

Agreed.

And I am still unsure as to why we don't consider the photons on their way, as existing in and of themselves. That is, that as a photon propagates its way toward Earth, it is no longer subject to the recessional speed of its source, but is only hampered in its journey, by the rather mild (in relationship to its own speed) expansion of the space through which it propagates. With this thought in mind, the photon is continually entering, existing in, and emerging again into an area of space, that is receding from us, due to expansion, at a lesser rate, than the area of space it was traveling through the moment before.

Yes, agreed.

For an ant to get "stuck", the rubberband would have to be expanding locally, faster than ant speed. This is not the case with our observed situation. We can see stuff very far away with relatively minimal reddening. The space between is expanding at no where near © ant speed. No ant, will ever be stuck. We are not pulling the distant end fast enough for that.

Again, I would like to point out the limitations of your ant analogy. Not all ants on the rubberband are the same from a far future observer's perspective. At some time far in the future, the rate at which those ants reach their endpoint in our galaxy will be so low that far future observers will not receive them in the intensity required for those observers to notice that ants are headed their way. Even if they could, with some future technology, detect the incoming "ants" there is a point in the even farther distant future that the wavelength of those "ants" will be so large that no antenna, even one the size of the galaxy, would be able to detect them. This is the point that Krauss is making, and his point is more precisely spelled out in the paper. What you are objecting to is a description in a talk geared towards the layman and as such, the talk is not specifically correct, although his intended point (as I understand it) is correct.

The challenge is: I have a coffe can and some pieces of wood, now how do I make charcoal with them?I really hate the method of heating the can in an external fire, the wood should be it's own fuel for pyrolysis. Please help?

I think you will find that a "top lit up draft" (TLUD) stove is exactly what you are looking for. Designs are abundant on the internet