Glider

Not likely. The concept (and variations on the theme) already exists. If it was popular enough to be likely to earn billions, there would be very many more already.

The charge goes to earth (pylons are earthed). There is a surge, but the charge is taken out at the next relay. They do, but not completely. Depending on its intensity the lightning can scorch the conductor, or melt a bit of it, but they won't completely destroy it. Lightning conductors are designed to take the bolt. They, and the earthing straps that take the charge to earth are designed to be large enough to conduct the charge to earth with low enough resistance to avoid melting. They usually do get burned. It's one of the signs that an animal or human was struck; a burn at the strike site, and a burn line down to earth. In the extremely rare cases where there is no burn, it's because, for some reason, the resistance through, or over the body was low enough not to cause a burn. Very much more. I wouldn't advise it. Unlikely. Lightning takes the path of least resistance between two points. Having leaped that gap, it will tend to maintain the connection between those points for as long as there is sufficient potential (which is a very short time), even if the points are moved (you can see this in artificial lightning). There are a number of possible reasons. If you mean why was't it louder than other thunder at that time, then it's most likely because the lightning was all very close.

Then what are you leaping from? The conclusions resulting from an intuitive leap are based on some experience of a thing (qualia) that results in an automatic (preconscious) extension to another thing (conclusion). That the process occurs 'without evident rational thought and inference' simply makes it preconscious and so unknown. The point remains that leaps of intuition cannot be made from nothing at all. iNow's response is a good one: Incoclusive data is not no data'. We sometimes have to make a decision concerning where the greatest weight of evidence lies where the existing evidence is contradictory or inconclusive, but that is still evidence based. A person could still provide a reasoned argument as to why they chose to go one way or the other based on the evidence to hand. Faith is not a requirement of the 'proper functioning' of a human being. Never. But then, I've never been a nurse either. Nonetheless, in my job, I do not work on faith, I work on evidence. Moreover, nurses do not do this either. They work to the evidence at hand. It forms the basis of 'Evidence Based Practice', which is key to good clinical practice and is taught by the Royal Collage of Nursing and medical schools and is strongly and continually reinforced in hospitals. Nurses (and other clinicians/practitioners) are actively discouraged from working on 'leaps of faith'. If anything goes wrong (as they sometimes do) a clinician has to be able to provide some evidence-based rationale for their actions. If they cannot do this, they are open to disciplinary action and "I just felt it was a good idea" is not an acceptable defence. You may disagree with my reasoning and/or conclusions, but if you are honestly stating that my post (#131) shows no evidence of reasoning or intelligent thought at all, then I can only infer that you do not recognise the process of reasoning. If this is true and you cannot recognise its presence, then how can I trust your estimation of its absence? Because there is some evidence for their claim. The evidence, as I have previously stated, is often found in the active suspension of critical faculties that would normally be employed in other areas of the lives of those that hold a faith. As I have already said "Faith requires that a conclusion be based on no evidence at all. If there is any real evidence for it, then there is some justification for that conclusion and thus, by definition, it is not faith. Therefore, to hold such a belief must require that the person does not ask the questions that, in other areas of their life, they would normally ask, such as 'why should I believe this?' For example, if I replied to your post saying "I really don't have time to type a response today, so could you please take it on faith that I have replied, and that my rebuttal is profound and irrefutable", the first question you would ask is "Why should I believe that?", and you would be perfectly justified in doing so. After all, there is no evidence that my rebuttal ever existed, let alone was profound and irrefutable." Another way of looking at it of course, is 'how can someone who claims that faith (in general terms) requires an 'active suspension' of (more accurately) reason and critical faculties not be regarded as having a sane point of view? What grounds are there to consider that point of veiw anything less than sane? Yes, that is my point. Well put. Yes, there is a difference. Again, well put. And data. For a human being to function properly (as a human being), we need valid and reliable data.

Now if Miss South Carolina had said that, she would have won outright

I can understand that. It makes perfect sense. I think in those cases where a person's behaviour (based, as you say, on their own intellect) results in a successful and happy life to that person, their family and no problems to others around them, I take your point that there's absolutely no reason for criticism. I think Dawkin's point about faith being harmful is, at that end of the 'faith continuum', more philosophical (insofar as it makes no material difference). At that end of the continuum, I feel the only valid application of Dawkin's point is that it's a shcame that such a person (intelligent, successful and happy), still, even in the 21st century, chooses to suspend his or her intelligence in order to hold to a faith. I agree, Dawkins does get a bit 'evangelical' about it, but in such cases as this example, I really think his argument can only be applied to the principle rather than to the person. The person (and the people around them) clearly has no problems. However, faith does exist on a continuum, and this example is only one end of it. I can understand that too. I think this is where Dawkins' point gets a bit more confrontational (he's not alone in this either). A principle that has been widely held for a long time is that we should 'respect the beliefs of others'. Now, people (of which Dawkins is just one) are beginning to question this principle. Is it reasonable (they ask) to ask a reasonable individual to respect a ridiculous belief? Why should a reasonable person be expected to respect a baseless belief like the 'memory of water' effect in homeopathy? Could a person be reasonably expected to respect a belief in purple unicorns? Therefore, rather than just blindly accepting and respecting a person's beliefs, however ridiculous, isn't it a duty to question them? I think this is a perfectly reasonable question. Where it becomes tricky and people have to be really, really careful is where the following argument is raised (I should point out that I haven't worked out for myself where I stand on this yet. I'm just summarising it as far as I understand it): If we accept that it is not reasonable to ask a reasonable person to respect a ridiculous belief, then we should at least respect a person's right to hold that belief. Arguably, a person has the right to belive what they choose. However, if that belief is baseless, then it must require an active process of non-thought to hold it, whiich is ridiculous. So, how can you respect the individual who chooses to hold it? Doesn't choosing to hold a ridiculous belief, at least in some way, make that individual ridiculous (thought the process they have to use to hold and defend it)? Then we're back to expecting people to respect the ridiculous. More important, beliefs influence behaviour. Behaviour based on or driven by ridiculous beliefs can only be, at best, ridiculous. At worst, lethal (as has been the case in homeopathy and other 'alternative' approaches). As I say, it's all very tricky. I think these questions do need to be asked, but carefully and with, if not blind respect, then at least some regard for other people's feelings. A person may hold an incorrect belief, but ridiculing them will not change their belief, it will only make them defensive and more resistant.

Yes, snow and water can reflect UV. Here's a Wiki entry: "Snow blindness is a painful condition, typically a keratitis, caused by exposure of unprotected eyes to the ultraviolet (UV) rays in bright sunlight reflected from snow or ice. This is especially a problem in polar regions and at high altitudes, as with every thousand feet increase in elevation, the intensity of UV rays goes up five percent. The problem is also related to the condition arc eye sometimes experienced by welders. Snow blindness is akin to a sunburn of the cornea and conjunctiva, and may not be noticed for several hours from exposure. Symptoms can run the gamut from eyes being bloodshot and teary to increased pain, feeling gritty and swelling shut. In very severe cases, snow blindness can cause permanent vision loss."

An intuitive leap is usually from something known, to a logical, albeit so far untested, conclusion. Therefore, intuitive leaps have some basis in evidence, although the conclusion may or may not be correct. Faith requires that a conclusion be based on no evidence at all. If there is any real evidence for it, then there is some justification for that conclusion and thus, by definition, it is not faith. Therefore, to hold such a belief must require that the person does not ask the questions that, in other areas of their life, they would normally ask, such as 'why should I believe this?' For example, if I replied to your post saying "I really don't have time to type a response today, so could you please take it on faith that I have replied, and that my rebuttal is profound and irrefutable", the first question you would ask is "Why should I believe that?", and you would be perfectly justified in doing so. After all, there is no evidence that my rebuttal ever existed, let alone was profound and irrefutable. Does it really seem that way to you? Can you say honestly that my post shows no evidence of reasoning or intelligent thought at all?

I should re-read the article if I were you. "Conclusions: Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester. " (Lee, S. J., et al. 2005). This is a long way from "It is proven that foetuses feel pain in the third trimester". Probably because PETA stands for 'People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals'.

Forcing the ice cubes together producec heat, which melts the ice. The ice melting releases energy and the loss of energy causes the water to freeze again, welding the cubes together.

Possibly, but I think if s/he came to the conclusion for themselves that helping the elderly was the right thing to do, then this conclusion was based on a process of ethical reasoning, not faith, in which case it's just a coincidence that the same conclusion appears in whatever religious text s/he uses. In such a case, the text is incidental and the behaviour is therefore not faith-based. It’s probable that many adaptive social behaviours are as valid today as they were in the bronze age (e.g. looking after the elderly), but it’s certain that many other behaviours are not (e.g. stoning rebellious children and non-virgins). Arguably then, deciding which is currently appropriate and which isn't requires a degree of ethical reasoning and so faith becomes redundant, as does the text. The belief in this case is supported by ethical reasoning (i.e. an active process of moral thinking) and so requires no support by its coincidental appearance in a bronze age text. Not really. I think we’re confusing 'belief resulting from an active process of reasoning', with 'faith'. Acting on such a belief is different from acting on faith. Such a belief requires some grounds, faith does not. Faith in one’s self is known as ‘self-efficacy’ and ‘faith’ is a poor term for it. Self-efficacy comes from the perceived balance of successes and failures at given tasks throughout life and so is evidence based. Whilst I would agree that actions are very important, I do think that motive (and understanding of one’s motives) is as important. You’re not really comparing like with like here on the one hand you have a charity (which is ok) but on the other? What did you study 10 years for? Anyway, as I say, there is nothing wrong with the actions of the person motivated by the invisible elephant, but their lack of understanding of their own motives, being, as they are, limited to ‘the elephant says that’ll be good’ is to the detriment of that person. Suppose the elephant hadn’t said ‘that’ll be good’. Would that person still have started the charity? Well, as I said, it’s Dawkins view that the harm done is not necessarily to others. The harm done to individuals ‘of faith’ (in Dawkins’ view) is that to support that faith, they have to stop thinking (the ‘active process of non-thought’ that faith requires). Thus, faith is always harmful. The difference between ‘faiths’ is simply the degree of harm and to whom it is done. If a surgeon performs surgery as a ritual, adhering only to the words of an invisible elephant; “First must thou incise the skin at the point of McBurney. Next must thou incise the adipose and muscle, laying open unto the very guts, but incising not them” and so-on, that surgeon might very well perform successful appendectomies time after time. Nevertheless, I would question whether that surgeon really understood what he or she was doing (or why). More to the point, faith is of absolutely no use if something goes wrong and the situation suddenly changes. I would rather they worked to an understanding of anatomy and physiology so that under novel and unexpected circumstances their understanding of these underlying principles would allow them to adapt quickly to the new situation, in effect ad-libbing (as many surgeons do under such circumstances). Successful ad-libbing has to be based on knowledge and understanding. You cannot ad-lib when adhering to ancient texts written by invisible elephants. You do not have ‘blind faith’ in yourself. You have evidence that you’re “pretty good at maths/physics etc.” . Therefore you have evidence of an existing level of skill, and the knowledge that you can acquire new skills and so you have a degree of justified self-efficacy. Whilst the outcome of your PhD is not certain, the balance of evidence suggests that you have a good probability of achieving it. If there was no such evidence, that would be blind faith, but then, no supervisor would touch you. Thank you Hmmm. Perhaps, if we concede that building churches and cathedrals is progress, given the cost in the face of the numbers in poverty and that hospitals and alms houses would have been more useful at that time. On the other hand, the ‘faithful’ who commissioned them were not the people who built them. I would wonder whether the architects and, masons and carpenters of these churches were working to faith as much the people who commissioned them. Why design those amazing flying buttresses? Because faith won’t hold the walls up. Well, we could think and work on the balance of probabilities that comes from evaluating the evidence. I agree, but I Dawkins isn't referring to faith in god in particular, but faith in general that requires the active suspension of critical faculties (i.e. ‘the active process of non-thought’), even faith in some conspiracy theory. I agree completely, but I think Dawkins’ point is that faith requires the active suspension of both, at least in that particular area of a person’s life. .

I don't know if this is relevant, but Harleys use a vacuum operated switch (based on a simple diaphragm) connected to the venturi of the carb. At higher revs, the vacuum activates the switch and advances the timing.

Person X is not doing any harm, but s/he is basing their behaviour and actions in life on the whims of an invisible elephant. Therefore I think the harm lies not in the actions of person X, but in the effect of the idea (concept/meme/whatever you wish to call it) of an invisible elephant upon person X. The actions of person X may be laudable, but the process that led him or her to that line of action is patently ridiculous. Person X did not decide to help senior citizens through any reasonable belief (e.g. 'they worked hard throughout their lives, they need/deserve care now', or 'one day, I'll be a senior citizen and I hope someone will look after me then'), but because an invisible elephant said they should. So, whilst their behaviour deserves merit, their reasoning is absent and any rational person would have to question their judgement. If they are going to make decisions based on the whims of an invisible elephant, what makes them fit for the post of carer to senior citizens? Would you want such a person caring for your gran or granddad? Essentially, what is the difference between person X and person Y? They're both acting on the instructions of an invisible elephant and in the absence of any critical evaluation of their own motive, reasoning and rationale. It's simply blind faith. The difference in their courses of action might just as well be based on the toss of a coin as in both cases, the reason for their action is not supported by any rational line of argument. I think this is what Dawkins is talking about. Not that those who have faith are necessarily harmful to anyone else, but that faith itself can be harmful to those who hold it because of the "active process of non-thought" (Dawkins words) that faith requires. PS. Sorry for butting in.

You're entirely welcome. Nice links! They also advise it for people at risk of heart attack through coronary heart disease. It's been suggested that popping one or two before embarking on a long-haul flight to reduce the probability of deep vein thrombosis is a good idea, (along with drinking lots of water). Well, you could always sell it to these lunatics. .

This answer does you a lot of credit You did. It was impressive to behold. It does but the inflammation doesn't happen inside the skull (that would be much more severe than a headache). Pressure in the skull (i.e. intracranial pressure) is always equalized. If, for some reason it isn't, the consequences are severe. In any case, the brain itself is completely insensitive, it has no sensory nerves. The pain from headaches, as much as it feels like it's inside the head, isn't. I'ts usually a diffuse sensation originating in the scalp, or the muscles and veins in it and in the face and neck (depending on the type of headache: vascular, myogenic or cervocogenic). It's not the pressure of inflamed tissue that causes the pain. The pain relatated elements of inflammation is the release of substances like prostaglandins and histamine which sensitize and activate (respectively) primary afferent (pain) fibres.

Evidently Headaches are more often due to muscle tension around the shoulders, neck and scalp. Aspirin inhibits certain parts of the clotting cascade (i.e. acts as an anticoagulant), but does not 'thin' the blood. Blood needs to be of a certain viscocity to perform its function. 'Thinning' the blood won't influence its pressure in an enclosed system anyway. Aspirin is a COX inhibitor. Inhibiting cyclooxygenase reduces the production of prostoglandins and other substances associated with inflammation and so reduces pain.

No they're not. The resting potential of the entire neuron is around -70mv. There is no difference from one end to the other. The potential is transmembranous (i.e. between the inside and outside of the cell membrane), not between different parts of the cell. The negative potential comes from the presence of large anionic proteins inside the cell. The resting potential is maintained, by the sodium/potassium pump. What? The current models are way too complicated and make the brain sterile in the sense that they don't even make provision for consciousness. The simple movement of potential and backwash current gives us a mechanisms for interactive and self sustaining loops. This gives a way to add consciousness the picture without having to get unconscious.

Yeah, I used to be nervous about wasps when I was a kid. I always thought they were agressive and would 'go for you' at the slightest provocation. The rationale behind the myth was that 'it's because they can sting you as many times as they like without dying!' (unlike bees). Still, since I've moved back here (London), I notice a lot more wasps than when I lived in Herts. Around my trees on dry days, there are usually anything between 10 and 30 wasps (even had a hornet one day; like the 'heavy bomber' of wasps), all drinking from the leaves and pots after I've watered the trees. So many was a bit worrying and my initial thought was to grab a can of raid and decleare war. I doubted it would have made a difference, so I didn't bother. These days I just walk through them. I do what I have to do with my trees (I'm just careful when picking off dead leaves), and they do what they do. I've had one or two land on me from time to time, but I've never been stung or felt threatened.

And therin lies the problem. It is in the nature of conspiracy theorists to deny themselves exposure to alternative explanations to their own theory. Having said that, to be fair, I don't believe he's really that convinced anyway. I wouldn't class him as yer actual full blown conspiracy therorist, he's more somebody who likes to argue (a lot) whilst drinking. Still, there's some very useful stuff there, thanks for posting those links.

That's a null hypothesis (predicting a null result). It's usually best to avoid these because null results are hard to interpret cleanly for a number of reasons. If you predict the absence of an effect (a null hypothesis), then if you find the effect, you can simply reject the hypothesis. However, if you fail to find the effect, can you be said to have generated evidence in support of your hypothesis? There are usually two possible explanations for a null result: either the effect really does not exist, or it does exist and your experiment just failed to find it. As you cannot be certain which applies, you can't really state anything concerning the results of your experiment with any degree of certainty. If you hypothesise the existence of an effect (a positive experimental hypothesis), then if you do find an effect, you can state with some certainty that the effect exists. If you fail to find the effect, you can simply reject your experimental hypothesis.

All tall buildings flex in the wind. You can feel it. I think the movement caused by a plane hitting the building would be enough to pop windows out and remove what were essentially big tiles from the walls. Why only in the lobby? It's where the building joins its foundations and it's less flexible there. The movement higher up would have been shared between floors, in the same way that you can bend a stick quite a lot in the middle where it's free to flex, but if you bend it to the same extent at an end that's fixed (e.g. clamped in a vice), outer fibres will begin to crack and peel off. The shock wave of the impact would have rippled down the more flexible parts of the building until it reached the more rigid section at ground level where, due to it's inability to move, damage would have occurred. That wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Well, thanks for not doing so. As I say, I don't buy into conspiracy theories, but the thing that unsettled me this time was not being able to think of a reasonable response to the 'evidence' my mate presented (knowing bugger all about structural engineering). I was tempted to go into a rant about nutcases too, but he seems to enjoy buying tequila so much (probably helps to get people to listen to him) and it seemed a shame to screw up a good thing at the time PS Thanks for the (quick) reply too. Very helpful.

I don't buy into conspiracy theories, but in a debate with a friend, I was stumped by a few points he made. He gave me some YouTube links to check out (yeah, I know), but I'm still stumped. Mainly because I'm not a physicist or a structural engineer I suspect. Here are the points I could use some help with (I'm just trying to summarise his whole argument here): 1) Three buildings, despite suffering different structural damage (i.e. two being hit at different points and burning for different times, one not being hit at all apart from by debris from the othersl), all manage to fall tidily into their own footprint with almost no deflection or resistance from the more ridgid and undamaged sections below. 2) All manage to do so at speeds approaching freefall velocity, i.e. falling in around 10 seconds or so, where (he says) resistance from the undamaged sections (and their undamaged 47 central supporting columns) should have provided at least some resistance. Even if each floor had provided only a quarter of second resistance to the falling floors above, it should have taken over 24 seconds for them to fall. More realistically (he says) given the in-built redundancy of the central supports, it should have taken around 40 seconds (i.e. half a second resistance by each floor). 3) The controlled demolition hypothesis of Bulding 7. This (I'm told) only suffered external 'gouging' damage on one side and only burned on two floors, yet fell in the same manner as the towers (i.e. straight down into its own footprint and very quickly), and inconsistently with the damage it suffered. It apparently left a debris field radius of only 70 feet. The Oklahoma city bombing did much more catastrophic damage but a good part of the buiding remained standing. 4) Not strictly related, but odd. Apparently, the BBC released news of the Salmon brothers building collapse 20 minutes before it did. You can see the building in the background of the live report here. As I say, I don't buy into conspiracy theories, so I don't want to start a debate on this, nor am I interested in theories concerning 'whodunnit' or why. It's only 'how' explanations I really need, and I'm sure there are people here who have enough physics and/or engineering knowledge to help me out in this debate (he thinks he's won). I would just tell him to bugger off, but he does so enjoy buying tequila

A good basic rule of thumb is to try to state positive experimental hypotheses, regardless of what you expect. Scientific method is set up to disprove hypotheses, which is a lot harder if they are negative (null). If you expect a null result, then rejecting the experimental hypothesis will allow you to accept the null anyway.

'Down' would be a fair guess?

If only I could train the damned squirrels to eat the stuff!