DrP

http://www.liberalamerica.org/2015/12/04/7-year-old-girl-killed-at-soccer-practice-by-paranoid-man-with-concealed-carry-permit/ I am no longer surprised by this.. it should be shocking. I read the other day that so far in 2015 you have had more mass shootings that DAYS in 2015. It is your own moronic views and laws that allow this...

.."indicate a nervous disposition.." Wot? Why? Never heard of that before. "when you see a car or a bus, what does it imply" To me it implies that the place I am in is a 'civilised' modern place where the people use motorised transport. It implies that we are living in an age where science and technology have made such marvels of transport possible.

Sorry, I see that now. Would I change my life god revealed himself? Depends on how it was revealed and what it was asking of me I suppose.

This is exactly the point - religion is based on testimony not facts. I am sorry, though, I have come into the conversation late and do not know what facts you are looking for. I'll share 2 facts. It is a fact that the laryngeal nerve takes the same route between it's two points in all animals. So what? It means that in a giraffe it has to go all the way down it's neck and back up again. This is a fact (to the best of my knowledge). It is also a fact that when I first learn't this I thought 'you know what, this is ridiculous', and I dropped all of the other very tenuous arguments I ever held against evolution and more importantly the ones I held for intelligent design. You can't come to a decision about something like that based on one piece of information though... it was one fact in a sea of many that lead to my current belief.

On the way home from work tonight I looked up at the moon - it was very low in the sky, full, yellow and very big (Harvest moon). It was amazing! It was beautiful. I laughed. One of my first thoughts was 'praise the lord'. I have been religious in the past and believed in creation, so I have pondered the universe from that perspective and have been awed. But, being honest, it seems like a load of trash to me now. I was just as awed tonight looking at the harvest moon as ever I had been when thinking that a god had designed it. You don't realise how dumb it all sounds when you just believe from a position of blind faith. It's just that - a belief in a fairy tale. I used to argue from the other side of the debate.... in fact - I have never really had a discussion on this side of it before. The problem is... and I used to do this too to other people, the problem is that you believe what you say is true because of what is in the book and the only evidence are people 'testimonies'. But when someone who doesn't believe gives you a testimony you refuse to believe it because it goes against what is in the book. It is just plain denial to look at and accept the FACTS (not personally fealings and testimonies and writings in a book), the facts presented by the opposing argument.

Einstien suggested that they [the entangled particles] were like a pair of gloves in two closed boxes. When you open one, you then know the state of the other one... but there is no communication. That's what he reckoned anyway.. I think there is some experiment that measures spins at different angles or something that shows there is entanglement at a distance and is supposed to show that they are NOT like gloves in a box... but I'm not sure I really get that experiment fully (or the conclusions drawn at least).

We are what we are - no one should look down on you for praying to God imo. We are humans and naturally programmed to feel a bit of fear. It can keep an animal alive and is perfectly natural. Some of the more cautious of our ancestors would have survived better by fearing things and passed on their genes to us modern day humans and we still have instincts. Maybe I will pray to God again too. It seems likely and pretty instinctive to me, especially as I have done it most of my life. I may fall to that in a time of need for personal strength. But, just because that works for me, doesn't actually make it real. There are explanations for it. It is organised religions that I kind of feel I wouldn't ever go back to.

I was going to say the same about the coins from 1971 (I was born then also ) - the introduction of new coinage in that year meant that they had to replace the whole coin system so they would have needed a lot more than subsequent years where they are just topping up or adding to the coins already in circulation rather than replacing them all.

I don't understand how the 'Sickness' bullet point is supposed to mimic the universe. (or some of the others as it goes). When you mention 'the creation of two life forms from one' - do you mean cells splitting and multiplying? Again - how does this 'mimic' the universe?

QUOTE from link in post 7: "... =-1/12 is incorrect as it confuses Dirichtlet series with the zeta function" I don't quite follow those derivations.... but without following it through or spending more time than I have free to go through it all now for little reward I would assume that the quote above from the link sounds pretty reasonable.. someone has confused something somewhere if they get this result surely. I doubt anyone will actually claim that 1+2+3+4.... = -1/12 in actuality.

Yea - for me I'd want a safety shut off switch for when it crashes. Would you trust Windows to run and control a nuclear plant?

No problem sir. I was thinking some kind of spring too, nearly mentioned it but It wouldn't really be great. With the cost of the bomb you would not get enough of the energy converted back to get your money's worth... and it still sounds way too dangerous, lol. I think you might be under estimating the amount of 'wear and tear' a nuclear fusion bomb is going to create. ;-)

Thanks for the support Yea I'm being honest. I was a christian and a scientist for many years Danijel, so I do think you can be both. yes. The only reason I shared this here really is because I have professed a christian faith on this website, in conversation once or twice a few years back, so thought it relevant to update anyone who remembers this to the change. I have always professed to be into facts (or what I believe to be facts) and try to be honest (within the scope of social decency); honesty is a big part of christianity too, or at least it is in my opinion. No one really, lol. Maybe some very old christian friends, but most of my current friends are atheists and most of my family are nominal or they pretend to believe a bit now and again. Most of the people in my life are lovely. just further to clarify, as everyone's experiences are very different, I took this seriously for a long time. It has only been a couple of years that I have thought this way. I have always had questions though and there are a lot of awkward ones to defend when you are on the christian side of a debate, especially when talking to other scientists, lol. I guess I made excuses for all the inaccuracies or accepted dubious explanations with the thoughts that not everything could be explained. I'm not sure if what I am trying to say is really coming across, there is so much to it all. There are many reasons why I now feel this way. Anyone wanting understand more about the final nails in the coffin for it for me should look at talks by people like Derren Brown, Richard Dawkins or Penn Jillette.

I am a scientist. Most of my life I have been a Christian and have professed a close and personal relationship with god. I have argued for creationism in the past and have evangelised people, often to the point of annoyance. I have even experienced healing 'miracles' and answers to prayer and have 'felt' god's presence and holy spirit. I am a scientist. I can no longer call myself a scientist unless I make this statement: I can no longer call myself a Christian! I can no longer call myself a Christian, not because of the way I act or see the world or through any lack of love compassion. I can no longer call my self a Christian because I am open minded enough to look at all the evidence and I have come to the conclusion that there is no god..... I will change that belief IF I get solid evidence to the contrary..... but good luck with that one. I feel a little silly for taking a lifetime to come to this conclusion, but I forgive myself (something positive I took from Christianity, lol) because I understand how easy it is to get sucked into this and the psychology involved in believing and wanting to believe. At the end of the day, ALL of my experiences and miracles can be explained in various ways other than god. I have many reasons for this 'conversion'... I will answer any Q's anyone has - believer or not. Regards, Dr P.

QUOTE: "I can't copy or paste on this.." Niether can I when I am at work - or use the quote button, but I can at home... Spooky! ;-) Isn't this entanglement just like a left and right glove in a box though? when you measure/open one, you know the other must be the opposite? You can't change one and have the other instantly change also. Therefore - it is not going faster than light.

SB - Ophilote's post and all the points made seem very clear and correct to me - an outside observer of this conversation and many others. If you do not understand his points then go away and think about them. Every point you listed.... I agree with Oph on every one as I believe pretty much everyone else does - it is just you mate! Which means you have some self reflection to do.

I found a vid of some guy doing test hacks - but I wasn't happy with his method.. he was 'debunking' the curved blade 'theory' with his longs sword and very slightly curved katana.. (and he didn't really look like an expert)... basically he said no difference, but he looked like a prat and the blade was curved back, so I would have expected it not to 'chop' as well - which is what he was doing, when we reckon the backway curve is better for a slice rather than a chop (a longer shallower slice). He would have been better with yours for his chop I reckon (shorter deeper slice), except he was no way consistent with the power he put into each hit. Wow! A can of worms and arguments all over from searching - lol. I reckon I am right for the theory.... back curve = shallower longer slice / forward curve = deeper biting chop some discussion here. https://www.reddit.com/r/SWORDS/comments/2phltp/why_do_curved_swords_cut_better_than_straight/ Yea - it complicated, lol depends on the hack and draw etc.. and the user's skill. There are loads of discussions about it - can't find anything definitive yet though. Seems it might all be over stated a little and dependent on style of use - but I still reckon the angle thing giving deeper or longer cuts based on a forward or backwards curve makes some sense. What do you think?

With the sword - could it be about the angle of impact during the strike or slice? Take a hack to the arm for example - with a sword hacking down with your own striking hand and a given angle (lets say what ever angle gives the 'sweetest' chop).. some of the impacting energy from the blade will go into the sever and some will slice off rather than cut through, how much goes to each will depend on the angle of the blade to the target arm - at 90 degrees to the arm's normal the blade is purely chopping and if parallel to the arm's normal it is a glancing slice. If at 45 degrees then it is part chop and part slice. So - if you want to chop, then your sword above is great because the curve forward gives you a more chopping blow (the weighting of the blade lends more for a chop too)... I've heard it said and it would make sense that a curve in the other direction would favor a slicing, cutting blow, The angle would favor the slice more and you get an easier longer cut, although not as deep. That's what I recon anyway - don't take it as gospel. There would be some distribution of the incoming forces/energy of the blade and it would have something to do with the angle of inpact (sin/cosQ x incoming force to favor the chop or the slice) - If I get time I'll look it up to see if I find anything.

Also - just to go with it for a sec - if you are going to utilise the motion of the falling object to make energy, then you might as well use it on the way up also. . But to echo one of the questions above again.... How is it supposed to work? It still sounds terminally inefficient and very messy. I'm trying to find that Rusian ITER you tube vid I saw - it was inspiring. I'll share it here if I find it again.

So what? It still seems like a massive waste of energy... it sounds dangerous too. My questions still stand - why bother wasting all that energy in an explosion; and if you do go down that route then why waste the explosive energy chucking a rock in the air? Why not drive a piston directly with it? (I suspect you can't as it is too big an explosion to be controlled/harnessed in this way). Also - how are you harnessing the power of this falling rock? Seriously - watch out for ITER and the subsequent fusion power stations that I hope will be inspired by it.

Strange - thanks for addressing my question (post 90) - I still might start a new thread asking some further questions... (although they probably have been answered before) - I don't really want to get involved with this one. it will just confuse matters

Problem is it wastes a heck of a lot of energy during the explosion... why not harness that itself? Seems very inefficient to me. Why not use the heat and shockwave of the blast to generate electricity? I bet that would generate more than you will get back by blasting a rock in the air... and honestly, how are you then going to harness the potential energy/KE of the rock on the way back down?

Got to ask..... Why blow a thing up in the air and use it's falling to turn a turbine? This seems a massive waste. Why not harness the power from the explosion itself to drive a motor? Like in an engine? There will be so much wasted energy in the initial explosion that propels the ball/water/lump of ground upwards that it would not be worth the effort. Just use the potential of the chemical energy straight off - rather than converting into a mixture of heat, sound, light and KE to get your mass up to a level where it has potential energy again which you are planning to use as the mass falls back to earth. You have done a lot of work for absolutely no reason. So, why? Also - I saw a good documentary the other day regarding Russian experiments with Tokamaks and new modern super conducting magnets - they are well confident that the new ITER will not only be an experiment, but a full working demonstration of fusion power running solidly at much better than break even. It all looked very promising.

Actually I was thinking something similar earlier last month after watching a documentary about the big bang.. I was thinking that our 'universe' as we define it could be one of many in the greater expanse that encompases everything. I was wondering if there had been far away big bangs that we will never know about and wondered if there could be more to come that are just so far away we wouldn't ever interact with..... Not being an expert in this (I only have a degree physics/chemistry and a PhD in Chemistry, so am not qualified as an expert in astrophysics) I was going to ask if this was a feasible. So Gater - although I see where you are coming from - there is no way you can KNOW this surely? If so then please show it. I would imagine though that this is just speculation - just saying it is obvious will not cut it.

Russia could benefit greatly as the large Siberian wastes and forests that are too cold to in habit may become farmable land at higher temperatures... I read that somewhere recently. They could become the worlds dominant provider of food if temperature keep rising. There's a happy thought.