DrP

2 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

Tell me then what part of utilizing undersea CO2 waste disposal isn't possible. Be specific as to your question. I wikll answer you. 

How do you get the CO2 from the atmosphere and pumped under the sea?

What is the conversion rate? How much gets back to the air?

3 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

There's a million ways possible, from installing factories near seabeds, to installing them underwater via oil rigs.

Describe a single one. How do we get the CO2 from the atmosphere around the world into a factory by the sea where we can pump it down into the sea? It is all very well just saying that you have a factory to do it... but what exactly is this factory doing? How did the factory get all that CO2 from the atmosphere to be able to pump it into the sea?

43 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

This video sketched out exactly what is needed and how, to use undersea emissions of CO2 to counter global warming and precisely why it works. 

No it didn't. How is the CO2, from all of the worlds different CO2 generation methods, collected and pumped through the sea water? 

43 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

No it is very different from asserting teleportation is possible, which in pure statemnt form leaves no clue of how to go about it. 

You have given no information about how this CO2 is supposed to be collected from the atmosphere and pumped through the sea. How is that supposed to work? What percentage gets converted and how much returns to the atmosphere?

I've invented a new machine that cures death. You put the dead body in a box and spray it with chemicals that reverse the death. I won't patent it as it is a cool thing for everyone to use - free for everyone - no more death. Why don't people start using my box that removes death? The exact mechanism can be worked out by the experts, but the idea is mine and I'll probably get a Nobel prize for it eventually or made into a saint by the church. What do you think of it?

The first 16 seconds of that 32 second video is a blank screen with background music. You could have just written the sentence that the video gives in the last 16 seconds. It would have been clearer and easier to read the sentence written in plain text rather than having to watch a video with music irrelevant to the topic of the sentence you are trying to get across.

23 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

The solution pertains to a heavily researched version of my CO2 salt theory.

Researched by who? Do you have a link to the research?

How is the CO2 going to get into the sea from the air?

Just now, thethinkertank said:

I contrive to come up with novel solutions to existing problems, explain them to the experts and then leave them to do the technical work (designing apparatus, forumlating equations and so on.)

Yea - but isn't that just like claiming you are inventing teleportation by stating you get into one box and step out of the other? How does it work? - You step in one box and get out of the other! We'll leave the internal workings of the device to the tech guys - that's the easy bit eh?  

On ‎6‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 10:46 AM, Curious layman said:

it seems impossible to practically get humans out out the solar system, too much energy, we need stimulation, prone to disease, food, water, vitamins etc... 

When I was younger it would have seemed impossible for people to have a telephone in their pocket to carry around with them without any wires, let alone a PC which lets you network worldwide and have access to the sum of the worlds information at a click. It's not even a click - you only have to touch the screen. It's all in a single slim box that goes in your pocket.

There are many ways in which people have speculated how such feats of power generation and food and water production/recycling could be possible in the future.

13 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Using smartphone camera, and some kind of 2D painting application..

 

or taking the picture of the object next to a graticule?

15 minutes ago, MigL said:

I would say that posting signs that disagree with observations/facts is not science

Which is probably why they removed them. How far do you think they were out by?

I hope the majority are wrong and the ACC deniers are right obviously. That would be great. But even if that were the case I would scorn the 'ridicule' attempted by the article that said that we (the majority) are being hysterical over our concerns of accelerated glacial melt. 

The article talks (or subtly suggests) as though removing the signs is the end of the matter that clears up that there is no ACC and that it was all a myth. I do not share that conclusion with the writers of the article.  

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

So he has a 'history'...
Do you not believe people can be educated and change their opinions/ways ?

but in the OP it says that the claims of glaciers melting were hysterical.  It does look like he is sceptical of anthropogenic causes... otherwise - why is he going on about it and ridiculing them for removing signs?

10 minutes ago, Curiouscat33 said:

Do we have the technology to transform mechanical energy, like that of a bouncing ball, into electricity?

yes.

10 minutes ago, Curiouscat33 said:

If so, would bouncing an incredibly large/dense “bouncy ball”, between two such surfaces, with a high initial rate of speed, in space, work to generate more energy than was used to start the ball movement. 

no. also you'd loose energy to heat and sound with each bounce.

10 minutes ago, Curiouscat33 said:

The ball would bounce between the two surfaces for an incredibly long time creating energy everytime it does so. 

energy would be converted not created.

10 minutes ago, Curiouscat33 said:

I know its obviously not a perpetual motion machine for a number of reasons, but could it potentially work for long enough to create more energy in the end than it took to run it.

How would that be possible?  As the answer to the above question about generating more energy than was used to bounce it in the first place was no, again, unfortunately no. You would fail to convert most of the energy from the ball to electricity... most would be converted to sound and heat as the ball bounces.

10 minutes ago, Curiouscat33 said:

Do we have the technology to transform mechanical energy....... into electricity?

A dynamo or a turbine of some kind? I can think of several inefficient ways to convert the energy from a bouncing ball to electricity but, unless you have invented flubber, it would not be worth the effort.

2 hours ago, Ventus said:

 everyone knows that a^2+b^2=c^2

This is for the specific case of a right angled triangle with hypotenuse c.

2 hours ago, Ventus said:

but is there a set of numbers where a^2+b^2=2c^2?

Yes - but not presumably for a right angled triangle where a²+b² always = c² where c is the hypotenuse.  Unless you define c = half the length of the hypotenuse or forget anything about right angled triangles.

I'm pretty sure you'll be given all the training you need to get on fine in the position. Congratulations on your new job. Good luck! :-)

So they were out by a few decades or even a century or so. Good news they didn't go as fast as predicted.  I'm not sure about the articles claims that the fears of them receding were 'hysterical' claims. They are still predicted to recede and disappear are they not?

Just now, dimreepr said:

Yet we continue buying cheap eggs and KFC.

But the choice is not for the public to make. It is illegal.

From the net:-

"Since 1 January, all laying hens must be kept in "enriched" cages with extra space to nest, scratch and roost. ... The European Union announced the ban on battery hens in 1999"

So you can't blame the consumer  -  we assume that the suppliers are abiding by the law when doing their farming and keeping the hens we eat and feed from in a condition that is suitable for their quality of life.  So - I will keep eating KFC (I love it) and expect them to abide by the law.

1 minute ago, Strange said:

By packing more chickens into pens you can make more money

I think battery farming is banned in the EU.  We've been talking about banning it in the UK for years now. A quick google search suggest it still goes on in the UK (regardless of EU law). I hope they follow the law and stop this cruel practice. Going along the USA route of making the lives of the hens hell to make a little more profit  doesn't sit right with me and wont with the general public here either. 

12 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

Rather than hope your supply chain is perfect, you clean before sale to consumers.

Or you can have legislation like we have to ensure it is clean anyway before it arrives - no hoping about it.

10 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

All the countries are going to be asking for some concessions though. 

Concessions to what though?  Food safety standards and our NHS - no thanks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7yRHQtMQnk

1 hour ago, Endy0816 said:

Honestly food poisoning numbers look pretty comparable, if not slightly better here. Different processes. Visitors come here and none seem all that concerned.

We have strict food processing laws for a reason. If we drop the standards just so we can buy your chicken do we then have to start using the bee killing pesticides that are banned here in the UK and the EU too? What other safety laws do you want us to ignore or rewrite so we can give you our money?

1 hour ago, Endy0816 said:

if Brexit does happen, the UK would need consider some changes

When they were campaigning, the leavers wrote on a bus that we'd be £350M better off per week and that it could go into our NHS system to make improvements. Now they are talking about selling it off to the USA. wtf?  The UK has been going through many changes already over the last 20 years. Many of those changes are for the better (like better work pay and leave, better protection for women in violent marriages etc, cleaner environment, more fish in the sea due to quotas etc...). They have all come from the EU - what changes do you think we would need to make if brexit happens?  We don't want to make any changes that are going to take us back decades thanks. 

13 hours ago, Strange said:

I remember seeing something years ago that all that twisting (and always in the same direction) was not good for the back

Depends on your swing. Those (like Seve Ballesteros) that had the old fashioned full follow throughs that leave their bodies arched in a high C shape at the end of their swings tended to get back problems later in life. The modern swing is 'quieter' and more compact and does less damage to the back.  

8 hours ago, MigL said:

promising 'sweetheart' trade deals with the UK once they leave the EU

Which seems to include American interference with our NHS   - He can fuck right off with his chlorinated chickens!

22 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

You don't have to break a sweat

Then you probably haven't played the game to any half decent standard or competitively. ;-)

The hardest game I had was 36 holes on a links course in a near hurricane and torrential rain. Over 90% of the field withdrew throughout the day. I ached everywhere afterwards and had so little energy left in me that I had to lie down when I got home and rest (after food).  I won the net prize for playing to somewhere near my handicap - which was a nice big silver plate and a £100 voucher for the pro shop.

49 minutes ago, munro41320 said:

What is good about golf

For me it is the visualisation of the shot before hitting it in the preshot routine... then executing that shot exactly as it was visualised in your minds eye. It is a great feeling to actually see the image of the ball going off on the trajectory and shape that you pictured it a few seconds before.

Loved the series. Didn't like episode 3 of season 8 though. Too dark, no dialogue, some odd discontinuities, poor castle battle defence strategy and a lacklustre finish to the night king's story without proper explanation about what was after imo - although, Arya Stark, she finishes him well.  

Just bought all 6 of the books In paper back in a charity shop for £1.50 the lot.

Just now, dimreepr said:

Who are most disordered, those that think they understand "the standard model" or those that think they understand the bible

or those that think they are the Dalai Llama?

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

 

 

 

delusion

/dɪˈluːʒ(ə)n/

noun

 

1. an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.

I'd like to think it wasn't a mental disorder...  I do wonder sometimes though. 

It says 'typical of'...  presumably you can be deluded without the mental disorder?   

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument

This - exactly. Reality and rational argument contradicts.... but the belief is(was) still there.

41 minutes ago, koti said:

delusion

I was a believer for decades. I can only conclude that I was deluded (well - other conclusions could be come to - but I prefer delusion to insanity). The word describes well how I was for many years imo.

23 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I imagine this is the actual question (call it instinct), people lick their lips (for a variety of reasons) because they are dry: a) due to dehydration b) due to atmospheric conditions. Either way they get wet first.

Yea - Says on that health site that 'habitual' licking can cause the moisture to be stripped out of them by the saliva. I think it depends on atmospherics and how often they get licked as well as other things.

They do when they get dehydrated. Their tongues are wet - thus wetness left behind on things they lick.

7 minutes ago, Carl Fredrik Ahl said:

When people lick their lips they get dry lips.

When I lick my lips they become wet. If you lick them too often and let them dry naturally then they can become chapped in some conditions and crack...  Is this what you mean? Obviously they don't get dryer when licked.

https://www.healthline.com/health/chapped-lips This talks about the cause in humans. Doesn't mention dogs though.

1 minute ago, Strange said:

If such a god existed, it would be.

Which it isn't - which is why people stop believing in it.  You don't have to rely on 'feeling' to come to a conclusion.

1 minute ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Then they are free to say that if it's their reason. The OP asks individuals why they stopped believing. It does not ask one to speculate why others might stop.

IOW, as in most situations here, your answers and questions should be directed, in some way, at the OP, rather than raising a new issue to be discussed. 

 

Someone DID say this was their reason though. They wrote it in this thread as an answer to the OP as to why they stopped or did not believe in god and said it was due to their 'feeling' that it was not there. I just mentioned as a natural extension of the conversation that this was the same reason that many give for actually believing... did you read the thread at all?