Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Moontanman

  1. Evidently a new hearing about UAP's is happening, this is a short synopsis of the hearing by CNET. I thought some of us might be interested in discussing this latest chapter in the on going investigation. 

    Congressional UFO Hearing



    Complete hearing. 



  2. 2 hours ago, studiot said:

    Hi Moon, I hope the recovery is going well.

    I wonder if your question is a bit short and general ?

    Why metal alloys ?

    Do you mean all metal since a carbon -iron alloy is not?


    Then again predict the properties is a very big ask.

    All of them ?

    and how accurately ?


    The short answer is yes.

    The longer answer is we can predict some of the properties some of the time and sometimes very accurately indeed.


    For instance the alloying process to make the earliest transistors with metallic germanium literally counted atoms of alloying element to achive the desired electrical properties.

    There are not that many possible crystal structures or arrangements and alloying means combining two elements into one structure so their respective crystal structures must be compatible, other wise a mixture is produced instead.

    Physical properties such as melting point can be estimated quite well, though some systems are more complicated than others.

    The Iron - Carbon system is particularly complicated by itself.
    Start to add further alloying elements such as manganese, chromium, nickel, vanadium, ... and it gets real complicated.
    We know from experience, rather than theory, what constituents produce desirable properties such as corrosion resistance (stainless steel).

    So give us some more detail to work with please.


    Just curiosity on my part about how metal alloys are made, or more accurately, why certain elements are used as alloys but not others. I know carbon isn't a metal, poor choice of words on my part really. Iron and carbon make steel, I have to assume the combination was accidental on the part of iron smiths since the very idea of an element wasn't really clear at the time. 

    I am assuming that some other alloys were also accidental or maybe more accurately experiments of trying to combine properties of various elements. I wondered if it is a hit and miss process or if there is more of a science behind it and if so could the properties of such combinations be predicted. I'm not sure if we were starting from scratch if someone could have predicted iron and carbon would make a better alloy or if it would still be mostly hit and miss experiments? 

    In other words do we have a reason to combine certain elements or would it be as a wild a shot in the dark as adding lead and tungsten to see what happens?  

    As for recovering... I'm not sure it is possible to do anything more than deal with the profound sadness I feel. Hasn't diminished any, I am just learning to accept what I can't change. 

    Oh yeah, I have been giving this alloy question some thought for a couple weeks now. I had seen a show where an alloy was being touted as unknown to modern science and it got me to thinking how such a assertion could really be made. 

  3. 1 hour ago, TheVat said:

    Good question.  One way to think about it is to consider the size of the body generating tidal stress on another.  With Jovian moon Io, where gigantic Jupiter is generating the tidal force, the heating effect is pretty dramatic.  But Earth does not cause the moon's core to heat significantly, so it seems pretty likely that the moon, smaller than Earth, would not generate enough tidal stress on Earth to heat its core.  The heat in Earth's molten center is from a different source, which you may have also heard about.

    I'm going to have to disagree, the Earth rotating as the Moons tidal effects slow down Earth's rotation has to result in some heat. Not as much as other sources but it has to be a significant source of heat/friction. 

  4. 2 minutes ago, TheVat said:

    Have no idea what that means.  Where I live, having a six-pack is not uncommon in the libation sense.  In the other meaning of well-defined abdominal muscles, it's more rare.  The first usage tends to cancel the second usage.

    I have more than a six pack, I have a keg! 

  5. 37 minutes ago, TheVat said:



    Plus one for the mental image rendered by

    "....a ring of barking bassets circling around you is an impressive and frightening thing."

    Your appraisal of the solo Basset "personality" is consistent with Bassets I've encountered.  Haven't met up with a pack of them.  I think the palpable air of melancholy could be intense.

    Believe it or not the melancholy is mostly a look, they are lazy and the look contributes to the profound dignity/silliness of the breed.  

  6. When I was a kid dogs would follow me when I went fishing. I would set out with my fishing pole and walk a few miles to the river, along the way I would always pick up an entourage of dogs from houses along the way. They would sit with me while I fished, wrestle with each other and chase rabbits. When I went home the dogs would cut out of the "pack" as I passed the houses where they lived. My grand father was the same way, dogs just seemed to like him and me as well. I have no idea why, some of the dogs were big others were small, mostly hounds but a few others as well. 

    I spent much of my adult life raising basset hounds as pets, weird dogs for sure. Many people think they are dumb... not true they just don't care to please like many dogs do. They are very self centered and distant unless they want something. I had some bassets that were almost too lazy to live, others that were active and aggressive. All of them adhered to the pack mentality, individually they were shy and barked incessantly at anything strange. In a group they became almost of one mind and few other dogs would want to approach them, a ring of barking bassets circling around you is an impressive and frightening thing.  When I walked them they would always walk around me and stay between me and any other animal or person who approached. their behavior in a group and individually was like night and day. 

    As individuals they were easily frightened, mostly with a couple of notable exceptions, but as a pack they were a force to be reckoned with.    

  7. Anyone else watched Project Blue Book? I am watching it on Peacock but I think it originally aired on the History Channel. 

    Not a bad show, it does seem to be loosely based on actual UFO sightings, very loosely, they take a lot of poetic licence and make up details and change names but I do recognise the sightings from the late 50s to early 60s so far. Sadly they have left out some details that were IMHO important and made up stuff to make a "better" story but really didn't need the embellishments.

    Let me know if you watched it and want to discuss.   

  8. 17 hours ago, MigL said:

    Maybe to you, but a certain percentage of the male population happens to find males more attractive, regardless of hair color 😃 .

    We must have dated the same women, Moon 😃 .

    I'm sorry, I just can't take these kinds of threads seriously ...


    My first wife was a readhead, she couldn't tan, her skin turned red and her freckles turned green, I told her she looked like a christmas tree. 


  9. 2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

    That sounds like "brainwashing". Ritual has nothing intrinsic to do with untruths. Ritual is just a ceremonial form of conduct, usually repeating the same words in unison or along with a speaker. They're usually special words, words everybody wants to get right, sacred words that aren't supposed to change based on individuals (not sacred in a religious sense). Weddings, swearing-in ceremonies, pledges of allegiance, vows & oaths, clubs, leagues, lots of non-religious folks use ritual to mark the importance of an event. Memorizing the words and saying them together creates unity and brotherhood. 

    Like any tool, ritual can be misused. Any form of teaching can be misused. Doesn't mean the tool is evil.

    I never suggested the tool is evil, I was just using the word in a different context. Religious rituals have no basis in rational thought. 

  10. 1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

    I didn't mention any particular religions, nor shown favour to any (in this instance). The time-spans I mentioned in comparison to the longevity of skyscrapers seemed to me sufficiently inclusive.


      This is no entirely true, though it also misses the point.

    Humans have rational and irrational ideas. Humans have rational and irrational fears. Humans have rational and irrational responses to the environment and to events in their lives. When irrational fears and desires create a crisis addressing that crisis is rational, even if addressing it means inventing an irrational response.

    A man's wife died recently. She used to read bedtime stories to their small child and he misses her, doesn't understand about death or why she abandoned him. Child can't go to sleep without the mother reading him stories, and he's starting to imagine bizarre things due to sleep deprivation. The father, not exactly in the grandest emotional condition himself, is worried. He has explained about how people don't want to die, but they do, and that it's forever; they can't come back. Child says father is wrong, because he's seen his mother. (this is a common occurrence ) No, the father explains, he was just dreaming (except he can't go to sleep, so he knows this is lie) or 'just' imagining things - as if imagination were a trivial thing! But the child is not convinced. And he can't sleep until his mother reads him a story.

    So, the father says: "Well, Mommy can't come back anymore, but she can see you from heaven. If you close your eyes and try to sleep, she'll be able to read you a dream. That's even better than a story!" Child allows himself to be tucked up and closes his eyes. And every night, until he's a big lout of 8 of 9, he goes to sleep confident that his absent mother will read him a dream and he feels less bereft. And even when he's grown, sometimes, in very stressful situations, he might go to bed, close his eyes and think, "Mom, can you read me the solution to this problem?" Was the father wrong to say that?

    It was both wrong and irrational. Lying to a child is always wrong, telling a child that something irrational is true is doubly wrong. 

    1 hour ago, Peterkin said:


    What's irrational about an individual or elite group using whatever tools and methods are available to give themselves an advantage over others? Given competition for resources, mates, status etc., of course. Hierarchy, the drive to be top dog, top of the food chain, certainly predates H. sapiens by some 60 million years, and so does the pack impulse to take direction from a leader. If that's irrational, it's also unshakable.

    The irrational part is the people believing it, the wrong part is the few lying to the many for power. 

    4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

    I can argue the rationality of ritual fairly well. For people who can't read, ritual repetition is one of the best ways to learn. It's how most of our oral stories were passed down. You see early religious individuals trying to "control" their group, but it probably just started out as teaching what they though was right, in the right way. You repeat the chant, and if you get it wrong you get corrected. Most teaching progressed like this, and still does.

    Hmm, I think we are using the word ritual in different ways, I am using it in the sense of something used to control others through repetition and repetition of non truthful things. IMHO words do not have meanings but usages, that is why when you look up a word in the dictionary they have many and even contradictory definitions but your mileage may vary. 

    6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    You and @beecee describe our yesterday's as ignorant and today as enlightened, as if we know better?

    Our ignorance of yesterday is no more enlightened than our ignorance of tomorrow...

    No, you are putting words in my mouth, the past has wisdom as does the present and so will the future, none of them have the last word on knowledge but science becomes ever more accurate, faith and belief are not, were not, and will not be accurate methods of obtaining knowledge. 

  11. 1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

    OK, forget it. My arguments specifically about the foundations of religion can't seem to get through your desire to bash all current religion. I'm tired of trying to work past this obvious strawman. I hope this isn't intentional.


    NO! That's not at all what happened. I listed some of the noble reasons a religion might start (you know, foundational stuff), and you listed the bad things many have become. I don't know how to explain the difference to you anymore, and I'm frankly tired of your insistence on dragging my posts through the dismissive filters you've installed surrounding the subject. 

    It's a mark of integrity that you can understand something and acknowledge it without embracing it or accepting it as right. I don't embrace religious beliefs, but I certainly don't think they started out corrupted. That happens over time to most human institutions.

    Religion IMHO was just an attempt to explain our reality in terms of what we observed, our instinctive biases, and a generous dollop of mind altering drugs. There was no doubt some logic in it as far as the observations go but they were flawed and no method of testing them existed. I am willing to discuss whether or not this involved rationality but IMHO any rationality was immediately overshadowed by the need for ritual and control by an individual or an elite group. Belief and faith played and still play a paramount part in religion and these are not rational means of obtaining knowledge.   

  12. 7 hours ago, Peterkin said:

    The foundations of religion [general term for a social phenomenon] are not interchangeable with the tenets of any particular religious belief.

    None the less none of them are based in or on rationality. 

    7 hours ago, Peterkin said:


    And yet the phenomenon of religion has lasted for thousands of years, if not tens of thousands; even particular religious institutions have lasted hundreds, and in some cases, at least two thousand years. What's "not very long" in the life-cycle of a skyscraper? 

    You are forgetting the ones that have lasted for longer than 2000 years or do I sense a bit of favoritism? 

    7 hours ago, Peterkin said:

    Social structures are not like buildings; they have different foundations and serve different purposes.

    I thought religions all claimed to be true as opposed to social structures which can be total bullshit and still withstand the test of time. I mean the Illuminati is still around. 

  13. 3 hours ago, beecee said:

    That is the $64,000,000 question!

    Exactly, I'd like to point out that the life Isaac Asimov suggested would require a narrow "goldilocks" zone much like Earth and no planet in our Solar System meets this requirement, although Jupiter's Moon Io might have these conditions underground below it's frozen sulfur rich surface. 

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.