Gian

Well it doesn't happen very often, but it happened on 9/11 What do you mean by base-jumping chute? 🙂

You can start off with science basics with children as soon as they start primary school. You can also start them off with the basics of theology. Schools should also start primary school children with Latin and classical Greek, which help to extend IQ. All the 5yo's I've ever met have their own developed opinions before they even start school. Cheerz GIAN 🙂XXX

And do you want to go back to a time when people were burned at the stake for their opinions? And at least Joan of Arc was given a hearing, and both sides were able to express their opinion and hear the other's. There was no "We feel physically intimidated by being in the same building as Joan of Arc so we're not even going to let her speak" which is similar to what happened at Manchester "University" recently.

Cancel Culture has certainly not always been there or not on the scale it is now; I don't recall anyone before about 2005 losing his job because of opinion. Debate was always sacred at university and the phrase "He's entitled to his opinion" was widely used and went without saying. Richard Dawkins has been cancelled for simply expressing a point of view several times, and even if his ideas are stupid, cancelling him is even more so. The whole point of argument and debate is to overthrow not elevate nonsense; it's difficult to debate it without mentioning it. In order for you to decide that cowboys and aliens is nonsense, the concept had to be there for you to disagree with it. I repeat, if you don't teach the children to discern that Cowboys and aliens is bs, someone else will. And as for Creationism, that is already very much there in the public consciousness. So if you don't give the children proper critical skills they're sunk. Why do you think all these conspiracy theories are so popular? Why do you think people are so susceptible to any old bs on the internet? It's because children are not being taught proper critical analysis. What they're being pumped full of are other people's agendas. And inevitably - you can see this for yourself - Noam Chomsky is so right that the people most "educated" are those who are most willing to accept damned stupid ideas. The reason is that more "education" in our society = more brainwashing You won't find many construction workers on a building site who believe in Q-anon. cheerz GIAN😊XXX PS On your point about teaching creationsim and religion alongside science, one can state that it is true the Earth was formed about 4.5billion y ago, while also stating it is true that Sherlock Holmes lives at 221B Baker Street. They're both true.

Apologies Hun, I meant no disrespect ❤GIAN

The word Dawky used in "2002" was "disrespect." I'm not aware that disrespecting racists or anyone else's opinions actually changed those opinions. What Dawk should have said was something like "We need to sharpen our arguments and counter-argue religion even more strongly." There is no argument inside "disrespect" of other people's perspectives, any more than there there's a valid argument inside some men's disrespect of women. Disrespect is an act of violence, not reason. So yes, Dawky was actively encouraging cancel culture, and if he doesn't like it now he's only himself to blame. Plus of course, Dawky's critique of religion is especially useless, becasue he's critiquing something which really is not there. What constitutes religion is something else entirely from what he's concocted in his ridiculous God Delusion book, for the sole purpose of having something he can then not believe in. Extraordinary. And putting creationist beliefs to children alongside science is an exceptionally good idea. Argument with counterargument is the most important thing children need to learn, they enjoy argument and they're always very good at it. In other words, if you've been able to work out Creationsim is nonsense, shouldn't you want to give children the equipment they need to do the same? Becasue if schoolteachers don't... someone else will won't they? If creationsism were taught alonside science in school, you'd probably find there'd be alot less creationsim and not more of it. Cheerz GIAN😊XXX

Indoor skydiving apparrently works by means of a "vertical windtunnel" blasting air upwards at about 150mph, so novice skydivers can gain experience of floating. Could vertical windtunnels be installed on a much larger scale around very tall buildings to be uncovered and switched on in the event of a rapid evacuation? Would it be possible for people to have jumped from the top of the World Trade Centre at 1368 ft to be caught safely in a vertical windtunnel at the bottom? Cheerz GIAN🙂XXX

Yes I am suggesting that Dawky's encouragement to disrespect other's opinions at the 2002 Ted talk has contributed to intolerance. I mean what other effect could it have? "Stop Being damned Respectful" means stop being damned respectful GIAN🙂XXX MOONTANMAN It's silly to critique religion if using a stupid methodology, same way It's stupid to try to critique science by using a skipping rope. It's not critique that's wrong, critique is never wrong. It's the methodology the Dawk uses that's wrong. GIAN🙂XXX

CharonY Of course it's silly, and it's precisely that methodology that Dawky uses to "critique" religion, so he's being equally silly. Cheerz GIAN🙂XXX PS My words were that racism and intolerance seem to have got worse over the last 15y. I did not say I thought they had only appeared in my lifetime. It was all there anyway MOONTANMAN Honey it's not disrespect to disagree GIAN🙂XXX

MOONTANMAN Well because in 2002 he was encouraging people to be disrespectful, and 21y later he's weeping about cancel culture. And the "logic" of his ridiculous book The God Delusion is about as logical as me saying that Dawky and all other scientists are stupid because they believe the Earth is flat. The Flat Earth Society have made scientific experiments which they claim prove the Earth is flat. Therefore as Dawky et al are all scientists, they must of logical necessity believe the Earth is flat. That's how ridiculous he's being in his anti-religious methodology. He's just one of those atheists who needs God in order to have something not to believe in. That's why when I asked a priest friend of my mum and dad about Dawky, he replied "I don't think we're particularly worried by Professor Dawkins." Cheerz GIAN🙂XXX PS I respect you and everyone else here💘💋 PPS Most people I know are atheists Antisemitism is 1800y old. Racism was invented in the 19th century. Both seem to have got worse in my lifetime GIAN🙂XXX

I think it's more a case of what you "feel" should not be dismissed out-of hand. I suspect alot of scientific discovery starts with someone just having a feeling, or hunch about something. But Dawky and people like him were extremely unwise in the so-called "atheist spring" post 9/11 to encourage people to be disrespectful, which is another word for bigoted. What Dawky's too dumb to realise is that if he encourages bigotry in one department eg religion, it never stops there. Given that over the last 15y or so there seems to have been a noticeable increase in racism and in particular antisemitism, Dawky should cut out the rabble rousing. Cheerz GIAN🙂XXX

Discuss Dawky's comments. And I put this in Physics & Astronomy because not being a scientist I respect astrophysicists. I suppose an "Evolutionary Biologist" only describes what's already there. I guess an astrophysicist needs to be able to think laterally, outside the box. That's why Dawky can't get religion and makes such a fool of himself. Cheerz GIAN🙂XXX

Can people here define free speech please, and with a philosophical rationale justify how people should react to opinions they strongly disagree with? I hope no one here agrees with sacking people for their opinions Cheerz GIAN🙂XXX

"Let's stop being so damned respectful! Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness... Lets stop being damned respectful!" RICHARD DAWKINS 2002 "I think it's very sad especially in universities... where you should be free to speak your mind and to listen to something even if it's something you don't like, and it's very tragic that universities seem to have bought into the idea that if you hear something you don't like you should shut them up and refuse to let them speak" RICHARD DAWKINS bleating to Piers Morgan about cancel culture 2023

JC MACSWELL So after 10¹⁴ years, that's it. No more life? GIAN🙂

I read that by about the year AD10¹⁴ the last stars will be dead, so no more light in the universe, and the universe will leave the stelliferous era and enter the dark degenerate era. The universe will have evaporated away altogether by AD10¹⁰⁰ If species are still around in the year 10¹⁴, I assume life will no longer be possible with no more light. If so, will it in theory be possible for spectacularly advanced species to repair, prolong or create new stars and thus prolong the stelliferous era? Not indefinitely of course, but for alot longer? Cheerz DECLAN🙂XXX

MOONTANMAN Thanks! GIAN🙂XXX

MOONTANMAN Well I'm just thinking that if the explorers have to start from scratch the equipment they've brought with them may malfunction, or there's other difficulties they don't know about. But I guess it's axiomatic that they'd have to take enough oxygen with them for the return trip in case they can't harvest any on Titan. I guess the most difficult and expensive thing about space travel remains getting out of the Earth's gravity well, and the greater the mass the more expensive it all works out. I just wonder if sending equipment separately and unmanned would reduce costs. Plus for the explorers to know the tech was already up and running, already generating power and growing foodstuffs would be reassuring. But it may be better to undertake the whole project all at once. GIAN🙂XXX

Moontanman I guess it may be advantageous to send unmanned spacecraft with all this equipment accompanied by robots and ai which could get it all set up and functioning before the human explorers arrive? GIAN🙂

You'd have to take either nuclear or some other source of potential energy with you (batteries?) plus some oxygen and petrol to get started I guess GIAN🙂XXX

Well obviously fusion would be best, but meanwhile they could set up electrolysis machines to separate the oxygen and hydrogen and thus - combined with nitrogen - make air. Then set up methane generators in a big barn. Plus, I assume that at those temperatures foodstuffs would be preserved almost indefinitely. If the scientists had packed a stack of hamburgers and bread rolls in the Huygens Probe, I bet when explorers finally get to Titan in eg 50y time and find the Probe, the first thing they could do is have a Big Mac as the stuff is still fresh

MOONTANMAN Dr Lorenz says the light levels are like a deeply overcast day here on Earth. But yes there is obviously insufficient light to grow crops. He also says there's never any break in the clouds. But I thought that with shed loads of methane readily available as fuel, plus water ice, explorers could generate breathable air and electricity to create heat and UV lights to grow stuff in big greenhouses. Wikipedia says "Titan is primarily composed of ice and rocky material, which is likely differentiated into a rocky core surrounded by various layers of ice, including a crust of ice and a subsurface layer of ammonia-rich liquid water." Sounds like there's everything human beings need Cheerz GIAN🙂XXX

Dr Ralph Lorenz who was one of the scientists on the Cassini Huygens project which explored Titan tells me "The Sun at noon on Titan = 0.1% of noon sun on Earth but this is still 500x brighter than full moonlight, you’d see fine, as proven by the Huygens images" He also adds that yes cloud cover is total so explorers wouldn't be able to see the night sky or Saturn from the Titanian surface. Cheerz GIAN🙂XXX JANUS and MOONTANMAN That's interesting about light levels, particularly regarding explorers growing stuff on Titan. Obviously it's far too cold to grow stuff on the surface but I wonder if there'd be enough light to grow crops in giant greenhouses. Plus there's shed loads of water ice on Titan so sources of water and oxygen are already there, although I guess farmers would have to take a fair amount of compost with them to get started lol. And once oxygen has been harvested, I guess the plentiful supplies of methane could be used to generate heat and more light. Cheerz GIAN🙂

MOONTANMAN O.1% of the sun's light??? So essentially it's about as light on the surface as a starry night here on Earth. I think Prof John Zarnecki (of Huygens Probe fame) said it would be like a deeply overcast day here on Earth, which given the distance I was surprised at. I think it's probable cloud cover is total on Titan, so future space tourists won't be able to see Saturn hanging in the sky. I'll see if I get in touch with one of the Huygens scientists to find out then report back here. Cheerz GIAN🙂xxx

Is it known why Titan happens to have at thick atmosphere when none of the other moons in the solar system do? And from the surface of Titan, is there ever a break in the clouds (doesn't look like it) so that Titanians (I know there arent any but maybe one day) can see Saturn and the sunshine from the surafce? Cheerz GIAN🙂