Greg Boyles

Can you please explain what you mean by "time dialtion in ligtht". Red shift increases with distance. Could it be that the distance within the solar system, galaxies or galaxy clusters that the distances are to small for there to be a measurabe red shift or are methods of measurement precise enough to be able to detect minute red shifts? Could it have anything to do with the lumpiness of the universe and/or uneveness of expansion?

The expansion is not like an explosion where the galaxies are flying apart in a pre-existing void. The balloon analogy is a two dimensional analogy where our universe is represented by the surface of the balloon - two dimensional space rather than three dimensional space. We observe the galaxies as 'flying apart' because the volume of space between them and us is itself expanding, carrying all the galxies with it. In much the same way as the area of the balloon surface is expanding as you blow it up causing any marked points on the balloon's surface to move further apart. No matter where you are on the balloon's surface you will observe exactly the same expansion. There are no privaledged reference points as there would be with an exploding bomb where you could be at the centre of the explosion, observing objects flying away from you, or you could be outside the explosion observing objects both flying away from you and towards you.

RNA is not a permanent store of genetic info anyway, so that is turned over continuously throughout the cells life. I presume that certain parts of neurones, e.g. cell membranes, membrane protiens, etc are continuosuly repared or replaced, it would be hard to conceive otherwise in such a dynamic system. But axons are not replaced - that is why when you get a spinal injury you are paralysed for life? Dendrites are a different matter, these nerve connections are continuously altered and replaced and re-connected over time. This is fundamental to the process of learning and memory etc.

It seems quite obvious to me that balance refers to the ration of a species and its food source. In the lynx / hare relationship, the balance is in the ratio of lynx to hares. Since a lynx requires a minimum number of hares per day in order to survive and cannot migrate to another area or otherwise transfer to other resources once all the hares have gone the 'balance' is maintained one way or another. If the lynx get too numerous they diminish the hare population to the point that the lynx start starving to death to eventually restore the optimum ratio. The hare population may increase and the lynx population responds by increasing to restore the optimum ration. If that does not happen then the hares eat out all their food resources and starve to death themselves, again restoring the optimum ration. The precise size of both popoulations may be quite dynamic as some of you have pointed out but the ecological balance, i.e. the predator to prey ratio is mostly maintained despite the magnitude of the populations. Humans are different to all other animals species in that resource scarcity, over the long term and in the global context, has not checked the expansion of our population. We simply keep transfering to other resources and consume them to exhaustion. That is why we are having such a severe impact on the global ecosystem. Sooner or later we will run out of resoruces to transfer to or we cause such severe environmental degradation, through climate change in particular, that any resources that we might transfer to will be largely destroyed. So, since resource scarcity has not controlled our numbers, we must be smart and do it by reducing our own ferility on the global scale. Possibly via involuntary methods if necessary. Once again this does not mean that I advocate forced sterilisation as there may be other options open to us. The alternative is that our population will, sooner or later, crash with all the unthinkable human suffering that will be associated with it. We are fast approaching the point where will be forced to choose the lesser of evils.

Mitochondria can divide independantly of the cell so I presume that they are replaced from time to time. Or perhaps not - do I remember something about the number of mitochondria in each cell declining with age, or is only specific cell types that this is the case? The nucleus however remains for life although the DNA probably undergoes repairs from time to time, but it is not entirely replaced or duplicated in a short time period as in cell division.

OK I will paly along and assume you are just trying to get me to justify my statements and that you don't seriosuly question these scientific facts. But it will have to wait till I get back. The graph of lynx vs snow shoe hare in this link: https://www.math.duke.edu/education/ccp/materials/diffeq/predprey/pred1.html shows very clearly that the populations of both species have oscillated around an average over almost 100 years and therefore in ecological balance. Explosions and crashes of the hare population are closely mirrored by the lynx population. Humans are one of the few species that can transfer to new food resources, or coopt food resources from distant parts of the globe, when the original one is driven to through unsustainable expansion of our population. But this cannot continue indefinitely. Sonner or later we will run out of resources to transfer to or coopt and our population will crash too.

Are you folks really going to deny the well established science of ecology where all this is demonstrable and widely accepted in order to deny that the same principals apply to the human species????? We no doubt collectively think that we are smarter than nature and that her rules do not apply to us, but in the end nature will win out over our technology.

Alright we are quibling over time scales here. Over the very long term all species are doomed to extinction....big deal. Over shorter time periods species remain in ecolgocial balance not withstanding external shocks (climate shifts, diseases, tsunames, exceptional rainfall) that alter the balance. After such shocks species always return to ecological balance until a shock comes along that they are unable to adapt to and become extinct. We are the only species with the intelligence to recognize this and to regulate our breeding and our resources so as to avoid the boom bust cycle that all other species are subject to. Should we not use that intelligence for the collective, as opposed to individual, good?

I didn't imply that you did make such accusations - I don't know as I didn't read back through the posts to see who it was that did. I am merely responding to your criticism of my "blah, blah, blah" response. I don't necessarily think that aid should be stopped if a government genuinely tries to curb fertility and fails. But if that does happen then it should coopperate in allowing the west of the UN to intervene with their own programs to try and achieve better fertility outcomes. He who pays the piper calls the tune. With the war on terror, most of us believe that islamic contries should accept western troops if their country is a major source of terrorists that threaten the west and they are unable to effectively elimate them themselves. Over population in the third world is also a threat to the west. Because it breeds terrorists and immigrants that want a better life in the west and threaten to cause over population in western countries, and all the related problems that the immigrants are trying to escape in the first place.

Point taken but I am not convinced that increasing the wealth of islamic countries would signficantly decrease their political instability or poverty levels.

Like I said John, I have no intentions of debating straw man accusations of genocide, naziism, sterilisation and culling etc. Such comments will always receive a response of "blah, blah, blah" from me. If folks don't want this response from me then they should refrain from making those childish accusations. There is ALWAYS ecological balance between populations of any animal, including humans, and its environment over the long term though there is always oscillation around that balance point over the short term. This is demonstrable scientific FACT. That oscillation leads to individual suffering when numbers exceed available resources. With humans we seek to eliminate that individual suffering. And the only way to do that in the long term is to stop our population oscillating around the ecological balance point. At present we only do half the job of handing out food packages but we must consider the bigger ecological picture and do the other half of the job of preventing births.

I guess you would have to compare, between western and islamic countries, how effectively wealth is shared across the population. How big are their middle and upper classes compared to those living in poverty. It is probably safe to say that the middle and upper classes of most islamic countries are quite small. That is why they are pretty much all politically unstable. Not withstanding the difference in wealth between western and islamic countries. If they acquired more wealth then the upper classes of islamic countries would likely become even more wealthy with little sharing out of that increased wealth. Apart from the fact that any increase in wealth would be greatly diluted, if it was shared out, by their quite large and growing populations. They would remain politically unstable.

Sorry to rain on your parade but here is some more facts and figures that don't support you assumptions about Arabia. My link Poverty Hides Amid Saudi Arabia's Oil Wealth There is another consistant characteristic of islamic countries - a sectarian divide with a rich and powerful minority, of either sunnni or shiite, oppressing an impoversihed majority of the other group. Or in some cases another religious or ethnic group entirely, e.g. Sudan

Poverty in Arabia That Saudi Arabia is not an exception to the previously mentioned proposition that islamic countries are third world /develoing countries.

In the case of Somalia I guess the terrorist groups and famine do a bit of culling - mother nature's default way of dealing with over population. Those living by religious rules - we should say good luck to them and keep our noses out. Again mother nature will take care of their over population. It that is their choice then so be it. In the case of western Catholics, regardless of what the pope says the government should not provide baby bonuses, or perhaps any other form welfare, for the third or more child. If people want to be good catholics and have a third or more child then they should be entirely self funded. The government should not be seen to be encouraging more than 2 children per couple. This is especially important in western countries since we all consume so profligately. Nor is ethical to interfere with the ecological balance. Because all you end up doing is increasing the number of people and the level of suffering later. You either compensate for saving lives by preventing births or you leave the matter to mother nature to sort out. What ever you do you MUST maintain the ecological balance of humans and their environment.

Western funded family planning services and contraception, education on the use of contraception in schools, encouragement of girls to seek careers rather than babies, use of subcutaneous long acting oestrogen pellets (I think tey have those available for some animal species I believe so there should not be any reason why they could not be made available for humans). Cooperation on the above from third world governments should be a pre-condition of receiving any western aid. On an individual basis, coperation on the above should be a pre-condition of receiving food packages and medical help. The time for polite half measures is coming to a close I fear. If not then nature should be allowed to take her course.......strangely it appears that many humanitarians would prefer this than interfere in any way with the human 'right' to breed.What they fail to understand is that breeding is also a responsibility in the global context and that what may be good for an individual regarding breeding is not necessarily good for the world as a whole.

For the record, while I do not advocate culling or forced sterlisation as a solution here I do advocate linking foreign aid to cooperation on fertility reduction by third world governments and third world citizens. No cooperation then no aid and no exceptions. You may accuse me of being insensitive or mean spirited but you may not accuse me of being Hitler or genocidal etc, because ushc goals are clearly not the aim of what I advocate. And I am not interested in debating with nit wits about such straw man accusations, that are worthy of nothing more than "blah, blah, blah".

Saudi Arabia and other 'rich' muslim nations also have a very high proportion of citizens living in poverty I believe. There is a big gap between the minority of haves and the majority of have nots. They are also overwhelmingly counties with high fertility and a very large proportion of their citizens under the age of 30. A demographic profile that promotes political instability when the younger demographic can't get jobs and a slice of the wealth.

Just curious to know whether this is an urban myth or reality. I certainly have not noticed any problems with it with brush cutters and chainsaws etc.

What is meant by this? Is it legit or is it nonsense?

That is exactly what I have been trying to say through all these posts, i.e. that particle size of the pigment or additive determines whether the finish is matte or glossy and that refractive index of the lacquer has little if anything to do with it. Although I had not considered the possibility of additives determining the finish rather then the pigment particles.

Happy??? However it seems that it is not necessarily pigment particle size that determines the finish and it can be large grain size additives, such as talc, that creates the light scaterring surface of the paint. But the priciple I am enunciating remains sound. PF Online

If you run your finger over ceiling paint you can feel the roughness compared to gloss paint. That has nothing to do with refactive index of the lacquer and everything to do with large pigment particles. Also if you continually rub ceiling paint with Jiff or what ever, it eventually acquires a sheen. That can only be explained by emergent large pigment particles being worn down to create a smooth finish. Differences in refactive index may account for the difference between gloss and semi-gloss however.

That's interesting. I had been wondering what would happen in the soil if you sprayed the weeds with vinegar (acetate) over a long period. I presume you would get CO2 and H20 as the oxidation products of acetate.

You could always titrate with ferric or ferous sulfate (forget which one) - ferrocyanide / prussian blue