arc
-
Posts
978 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by arc
-
-
Beautifully written.
Thank you, I really appreciate that.
It only has nothing to do with what academic philosophers do. Just to clear this up: philosophy is not a science. But to declare everything useless that is not science might be very wrong.
Philosophy resembles a post game commentary on what should have/could have been of the human condition. It dwells on our shortcomings through examining our past experiences, and for those that believe in its usefulness to overcome the biological nature of human behavior, presumes it can or does influence the later outcomes of the sport, be it the triumphant wins or the tragic losses. And in this regard appears to be going down the same dead end road as astrology.
I said "resembles" a post game commentary, I didn't say it was one. And I said "for those" that believe in its usefulness to overcome the biological nature of human behavior, I was not referring to the academics that you speak of. I was referring to the sizable group that believe philosophy can be used to modify their behavior/and/or environment and by that, change their "karma" in regards to "influencing" their metaphorical "triumphant wins or tragic losses". Which of course it is no more effective at doing than astrology.
He just wanted to make a rant, and does not want to discuss this. If he would, he would do something useless... namely philosophy.
For a philosopher you sure seem to have missed every metaphorical meaning I put in that "beautifully written" argument.
0 -
Perfect!0 -
Okay, so science is not the study of truth or observable truth. It's the study of only the truths we can measure. Right? Is there a single truth, an absolute truth?
So if the idea, the perception of a mind exists, and the perception of things within a mind exist, then what is a mind? It must be observable or do we forget it because we think we can't measure it? Can we measure the mind by how it affects the material world? Who is the internal human monologue talking to? Why does it even talk at all? Why are some human internal monologues not even language?
When I asked how you think I meant it. I am an intuitive, I do not consciously think. Things just pop up out of nowhere and I get a deep feeling of intuition. My mind is non stop mind-pops (google it). In my mind also all senses are merged. When I hear a sound, my mind feels it, sees it, smells it, it has shape, position, mass, texture, etc. Way more properties than the material world. Thus for me how can I not put equal stock in that reality since it makes up my perception? Am I wrong or are you? If I am able to navigate the world without dying and manage to live a longer and happier life than you, am I right? Or is there no right or wrong because there is no one truth or is there a single truth? Why does the word "information" when broken down into its "root words" describe particles?
In =
Wow . . . . Ok, I would like to suggest an experiment where we put Syn5 and Popcorn in a room together and see if they spontaneously combust.
0 -
That is funny you say that. On occassion some phrase or sentence in the book reminds me of something I've heard him say before and it is like I hear that small part being narrated by him. His books are such a pleasant, comfortable read, just like his narrations.
I'm so glad to hear you say that. I think his work is some of the best examples of a historical narrative, he really is as descriptive as a good fiction writer. Smooth is a word I would use to describe his style . And it is undoubtedly the quality of his narrative style that triggers those impromptu narrations.
0 -
"The Path Between the Seas: The Creation of the Panama Canal"
David McCullough
An excellent telling of what was behind the effort to build the canal, and an interesting view of how science slowly began to accept that malaria and Yellow Fever did not come from swamp fumes and low moral standards.
David McCullough is a national treasure, I would gladly admit the sound of his voice is now indelibly imprinted within me. Do you ever read his works with this somewhat subconscious narrative effect coming into play?
0 -
Philosophy resembles a post game commentary on what should have/could have been of the human condition. It dwells on our shortcomings through examining our past experiences, and for those that believe in its usefulness to overcome the biological nature of human behavior, presumes it can or does influence the later outcomes of the sport, be it the triumphant wins or the tragic losses. And in this regard appears to be going down the same dead end road as astrology.
Anyway, thats my philosophy on philosophy.
0 -
Airplanes can and do fly in stationary air. This means air cannot flow across the wings. The airplane moves...not the air. So bernoulli has nothing to do with lift. A wind tunnel uses moving air across a stationary wing, and those with tunnel vision assume that Bernoulli is proven. This is on a par with Ptolemy who said the heavens go round the Earth. We all know that Ptolemy was wrong... and pretty soon we'll all know that the use of Bernoulli's theorem is wrong in explaining lift.
Incidentally, the physics that explain the lift of an airplane are the same as the physics that explain the lift of a helium balloon. Put simply: air must descend in a downwash in order to produce lift.
The extensive history of rigid airships show that an aircraft with or without neutral buoyancy can attain lift from an airfoil regardless of whether it is the crafts airfoil or the air itself that is moving.
0 -
-
It is interesting to read that. Thanks arc. The dimensions of the EOC are quite large and I don't see much trouble in having the EIC off set by 60 km. The velocity that the liquid would have to undergo would only be a fraction faster than stationary. One thing that surprises me is that the Bernoulli and Venturi effects have not been applied, the flow of the EOC liquid would help to draw the EIC off center. Now that is a weird one if it did work for it seems to happen in small scale experiments. The molten metal was said to have a viscosity less than water. It surprised me when I read that but I have had no experience with molten metals to confirm that.
Try this experiment (a variation of the one described earlier):
In this experiment you have a bowl of water and stir it gently to get a good clean circulation and instead of the tin of peaches placed off-center you used another smaller cylindrical container in the middle part-filled with water so that it is still floating but only just missing the bottom, you might find that the laminar flow through the venturi side of the off-center middle object draws it toward the outer wall of the large bowl.
Consider this: Will the same effect happen to the EIC if was off-center?
OOPS! I ended that post in haste, and came back and edited without checking for your post. Well, no harm done.
I'm really stuck on the outer core/inner core being under incredible pressure and not having the freedom of movement that you are implying. I'm not completely fixed about this but the extreme pressure and the confinement by the magnetic field would seem in line with what is expected. Could a inner core of around 1.7 % of one Earth mass move that much and not be shaking the planet?
0 -
I like the idea of setting up the mechanical experiment and I have drawn a little diagram and it certainly could be built. It would be so good if the liquid was able to be polarized to represent a current. Imagine if it produced a magnetic field in the inner ball!
Yes, the experimentation is the best part of this kind of stuff. You may not need to get to complicated with this. The acceleration that would simulate a gravitational pull on the heavy ball in a thick liquid would need to maintain an adequate acceleration in one direction for a long enough of a time to overcome the fluid's viscosity. With the moon continually orbiting, the direction of force applied on the inner core is continually changing, so it would seem to me the outer core probably would not have time to yield. The tides happen because the ocean only needs to displace the atmosphere, which it does without difficulty. It is the gravity of the Earth, after all, that is the tides primary adversary. But the outer core material would additionally need to simultaneously fill the developing void on the other side of the inner core - outer core boundary, which again requires adequate time and duration of force for the outer core to reconfigure. If the Earth was accelerating in one direction or the moon was pulling the outer core in one direction for an adequate amount of time the outer core, I'm sure, would yield. But that is not happening now or ever will in my opinion.
edit to clarify.
0 -
What I believe and what you may have missed is that the seismological data would have indicated the width of the EIC but not necessarily its exact position.
It is so easy just to think it is nicely in the middle, dead center, of the Earth, but the math of the situation clearly shows there is an off center position where the buoyancy matches the gravitational pull from the moon.
I'm stuck but I haven't given up yet.
Robittybob1, I believe Billiards is correct. The outer core may be liquid but it is still subject to the pressure of that depth. The density of that liquid iron would be providing large amount of resistance to counter the effects your hypothesis is claiming. Add to this the internal field of the outer core that surrounds the inner core and provides a magnetic resistance to the inner cores movement, a magnetic bearing if you will.
Einstein imagined using acceleration to simulate gravity. Maybe an experiment using a heavy ball in several different viscosities of liquids from a very thick to a medium and then a low to provide an idea of what a highly compressed liquid iron outer core would do when subjected to displacement by an inner core.
1 -
You answered your own question. Trying to recover your expelled air would require an expenditure of at least an equal amount of energy to compress the air into the secondary tank. Even an empty tank would gradually require more energy from the first tank as it is filled, using the same energy you wanted to use for the robotic systems. Pneumatics need an open system to operate.
You could recover some heat from the compressed air though.
0 -
Eight years later, after a loong wait for your dozens of opinions in ten pages; releasing mine :
----> Spiders <----
With minuscule brains,
-They wait for desired (and correct) wind direction and strenght to glide tethered to the 'planned' target in order to anchor a web.
-Admirable uniformity to create the web.
-Spacing between turns follows an incremental proportion. Weaker points near center are reinforced closely. Some engineering there.
-Follow an efficient spiral path for construction.
-Choose sturdier over weak anchoring.
-Position themselves to sense and determine direction of prey caught on the web.
-Discern debris from prey vibrations.
-Hide protected from bad weather.
-Decide when to cleanup their webs from debris.
-Clean the debris by untangling it and dropping to the correct downwind side.
-Know a vertical web is better than in a horizontal plane.
-Select higher 'traffic' locations, as near artificial lamps.
-Select rain sheltered locations when available.
-Know how to untangle the web with no damage to it.
-Properly reconstruct damaged sections.
-They double threads at weak sections.
-Evaluate attacking or not by sizing the prey and danger.
-Know where in the prey to direct the killing bite.
-The behavior when killing another (even bigger) spider is full of amazing strategy. A great show of technique to watch.
-Since very young, fully capable of survival and to do their 'engineering work'.
-Preserve captured insects, wrapped for later 'bad days'
-Show patience over hunger.
-They wait for a calm moment to strike a captive.
-Perform evasive actions.
-They show precaution by every few steps anchoring a 'lifeline' in the event of falling/losing grip.
-Build their nests nearby considering positioning, sometimes bending leaves as housing.
-Guard their nests and young.
-I believe they have some sort of signalling/communication.
-And more I do not remember to type right now.
But, do not perform team work.
What I have not observed is if the have a 'tool' to cut/dispose a string, or if they ever do such action.
In general, cannot comprehend how much of it is from instinct, learned skills, or "intelligence"; but it surely is an amazing animal.
Its filament production organ is not related to 'intelligence' , but what a great material !
0 -
-
jeremyjr,
I was watching one of your youtube videos and saw the one from 8/22/14,
I took some screenshots from it to show here.
You can see the balloons pretty clearly.
As the balloons rotate the mylar begins to reflect the Sun.
You can even make out the wrinkle and the seam in this one.
Does this look familiar?
That yellow one down at the bottom looks like one of these.
Probably this one.
http://missionlocal.org/2010/11/balloons-fly-by-law-right-into-electrical-wires/
"balloon sales in California generate nearly $1 billion a year, including sales of peripheral items like gift baskets, flower bouquets and stuffed animals that often are attached to balloons."
You are not going to run out of things to watch thats for sure.
1 -
Why cannot life be the "offspring" of earth? Why does offspring have to "resemble" the parent,
We are like the seeds of earth who will one day travel to the stars and and carry earths/our/lifes dna to other worlds that we will terra form, Passing on earths dna, which as far as we know is unique to earth.,
As for "homeostasis" The earth balances multiple systems, Some we understand and others are still beyond our understanding, Ice ages have been mentioned but who is to say these are not an important part of this system, perhaps to lower the temperature so earth did not overheat or to allow different species to thrive while others die of, Some grand design we are yet to understand.
We still do not completely understand how life began, Some prefer to think it was a random coming together of elements/rna etc, But perhaps it was not so random/by chance, but earths ways of reproducing. Along term plan, that would eventually spread her dna to new worlds.
Battle of the planets, to spread their seeds to worlds yet claimed. We are "intelligent seeds" with a built in urge to expand our territory.
Don't you realize how jealous you are making the Sun. Giving all this adoration to such an obvious interloper as the Earth. Without the Sun this charlatan Earth would never have coalesced from the primordial solar dust. Try practicing your misguided adulation without its light, heat and gravity. Away with you and your beloved rock to the vapid cold of interstellar oblivion!
But seriously, its a rock, a rather nice rock, but still a rock. It has no innate ability to interact with you or any other life on this planet in any manner resembling a symbiotic relationship. It does not have any capacity to interact with the mirid of critters that inhabit its surface. It will digest eons of their skeletal remains though tectonic processes and return their carbon back to the system to be used again. Not because it needs to, but because it consumes its surface layer through plate tectonics. It will process anything that falls into the jaws of a convergent boundary, sand, mud rock, coral reefs, anything. The same thing would occur if you fell into a woodchipper, and I am pretty certain it doesn't care either because its not your mom and neither is the Earth.
Would your mother do a thing like this;
These are the catastrophic eruption events that are seen in the geologic record;
1. During the eruption of the Siberian Traps at the end of the Permian geologic period around 250 million years ago 1 to 4 million cubic meters of volcanically erupted basaltic lava poured out over the Siberian landscape and covered an area possibly as large as 7 million sq. km., an area roughly equal to the size of Europe. This eruption of flood basalts has been put forth as the cause of the catastrophic end-Permian mass extinction. With more than 90 percent of the planet’s marine species and 70 percent of its terrestrial species becoming extinct.
2. At the end of the Triassic period some 200 million years ago, environmental devastation by almost continuous volcanic activity eliminated half of all species that lived alongside the early dinosaurs, including most of the large amphibians and around one-fifth of marine organisms. Most of the land on Earth was locked up in the Pangaea supercontinent, but this broke apart when the North American and African tectonic plates parted. The separation of the plates created a basin that became the Atlantic Ocean and opened up fissures in the Earth's crust, triggering volcanic eruptions that lasted for 600,000 years
3. The Ontong Java Plateau was formed 125–120 million years ago in Lower Cretaceous Epoch, one of the largest volcanic events on Earth in the last 300 million years it covers an area of approximately 2,000,000 km2 (770,000 sq mi). Almost the size of Alaska with a thickness of up to 30 km (19 mi), the volcanic plateau is mostly composed of flood basalt's from 100 million cubic km of extruded magma that covered approximately 1% of the Earth's surface. It is considered a likely cause of the early Aptian anoxic event, a massive die off in the oceans. Some early research suggested a meteorite impact as a cause but current studies do not support this as a possible trigger.
4. The Deccan Traps were formed at the end of the cretaceous period 60 - 68 million years ago at which time it was estimated to cover 1.5 million square kilometers possibly half the size of India. Most of the volcanic flood basalt erupted near the area of the Western Ghats and continued off and on for maybe 30,000 years forming multiple layers of more than 2,000 m (6,562 ft) thick. It is considered one of the largest volcanic features on Earth. It is considered by some to be the cause of or played a role in the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event a.k.a. the K.T. extinction event or K-Pg extinction when large groups of organisms became extinct, most notably the non-avian dinosaurs.
I understand where both sides are coming from,
It is not about a grand design that will "automagically" sort itself out, To me it is all about caring for earth and when you care, you take responsibility. There is no magic quick fix.
To think of Earth as only a rock saddens me, which I find unhealthy, Earth is more than a rock more than a home, Earth is the "womb" where life began, it is up to how you define that life.
Unless you know without a doubt why and how life began on earth?
There is nothing unhealthy about seeing earth as a living organism, Quite the opposite, It makes you realize how precious and connected the earth and life is, Which can only be a good thing.
We seem to be stuck "defining" life to fit around our simple biological forms, Which we still do not understand yet, So I suppose earth as a living organism will not truly be answered until we have a better understanding of life.
I don't think you realize how much in common you have to primitive religions that made human sacrifices when the nearby volcano erupted.
1 -
Why cannot life be the "offspring" of earth? Why does offspring have to "resemble" the parent,
Um . . . giving everyone the option to redefine the bodily function of expelling unwanted or unneeded bacteriological waste in regards to using a restroom as "I'm having a baby" may not be the right direction to "go" in this debate.
3 -
Lance,
Strange defined what you are mistaking.
Bold mine.So we can add "organism" to the growing list of words you have redefined.
No, a cell (in a multicellular organism) is not an organism.
Lance, the goal for science is to describe the cosmos, and all that is in it, as accurately as possible. Thus there is the long tradition of classifying what is studied, everything in its proper place, so to speak. When I was a kid there was a show called "The Incredible Machine"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incredible_Machine_(film)
The Incredible Machine, which included some of the first pictures taken inside the human body and presented on film, using some of the earliest film that medical researchers had taken inside the human digestive tract and bloodstream. It ranked as the most-watched program in Public Broadcasting Service until 1982, when it was overtaken by The Sharks.
If animals were classified as machines would this help in their understanding anymore than is already known? It may be novel to re-categorize biological systems to highlight their amazing adaptations but would it really help in the study of the natural world and all that is in it?
Life through adaptation has taken advantage of mechanical concepts. From simple appendages to more complex mechanisms like pumps, levers, bellows, pipes, wings, the list goes on and on.
The Earth has electro-mechanical systems from its magnetic field generator to its plate tectonics, the oceans drive thermo-mechanical weather systems like hurricanes and El Nino. And huge volumes of water are moved around the globe in the great ocean conveyor. Even the stars and our own Sun could be described as massive nuclear driven electro-mechanical machines.
If all these systems; cars, animals, planets, anything that flies from bugs to birds to bats to planes, stars, anything that crawls, ships, anything that swims etc. etc. can be re-classified to one single category called "Glorious Machines" why don't we do it? Probably because it would not add anything to understanding the cosmos and all that is in it.
There is a need to have a logical order of things to efficiently study such massive systems containing what seems to be endless discoveries down to the minutia.
What would happen if overnight your grocery store reorganized the shelves according to price. Aisle 1 bottom shelf is the cheapest item in the store, aisle 30 top shelf all the way at the end the most expensive. Wouldn't that be helpful.
2 -
Maybe this will help.
There are planets like Mars, Venus, Mercury and undoubtedly countless others across the cosmos that do not have life clinging to, let alone thriving, anywhere on or within the planet. They are just rocks in orbits around a star. Earth on the other hand is ideally suited and situated to foster and maintain life. I think all could agree with this so far.
The Earth's magnetic field is to a large degree responsible for this "oasis in the desert". Earth also orbits its star in what is described as a Goldilocks orbit, one being just right. Rocks seem to have a uncanny ability to attract life if the right conditions exist. In water environments algae will find a niche on a rock out of the harsh stream flow , the "shady side" so to speak. Or even up on the surface a "little world" can find a home on a rock in a Goldilock location;
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=lichen
A lichen (/ˈlaɪkən/ or /ˈlɪtʃən/) is a composite organism that emerges from algae or cyanobacteria (or both) living among filaments of a fungus in a mutually beneficial (symbiotic) relationship. The whole combined life form has properties that are very different than properties of its component organisms.
You notice though the rock is not considered part of the lichen combined life form, because they would undoubtedly grow on other surfaces if the rock was not available. This rock we live on is just that. An ideally suited rock just the right distance from a star, that is itself also of the right size. A civilization with enough technical know how and where withall could build one of suitable materials. An artificial magnetic field and all, and it too would be a home but not the life that lives within its shelter away from the harsh stream flow outside its walls..
1 -
interestingly enough, we now have the question of whether conditions apply.
i suggest a gandy experiment... (thought experiment)
i would first consider eliminating your forces that are possible.
make a list of all the forces involved
make both surfaces as smooth as possible.
start with as simple of an experiment as possible trying to exclude each force involved such as deciding to use material that has no charge build up.
you will be left with only one or two basic things that are directly affecting your measurement.
if you want to see how it works, then you have to take it apart into its most basic pieces.
many think that ideas are created and become stagnated stumps in the process of having that ultimate answer.
the answer will always be in front of your face.
experiment wirth it.
I doubt this can be simplified that much. Imagine the dynamics involved in aviation. The range in speeds from takeoff to supersonic and the pressures that are involved everywhere in between these two boundaries. Materials change and respond greatly due to the degree of energy that is being transferred. A jump off a dock as compared to one from a high bridge for example, the same water, two very different results. Materials can stiffen with increasing pressure while others will deform and still others will disintegrate. The considerations of varying temperatures and pressures for each material and their VERY particular and unique dynamic interaction with all other materials . . . . well, just staggers the mind.
0 -
Nicklaus Cage in left behind...
I really could have lived the rest of my life without seeing that!
0 -
No in relatively recent history more and more odd colored animals are starting to appear in the wild. From Deer to Turtles unusual color sports are starting to become more common, you can see it very easily in populations of deer, that is the fist wild adult albino sea turtle i've ever seen but it made me think of some other odd balls that have been showing up, whales, dolphins, alligators. Most of these are animals who populations were decimated in the recent past and are now regaining numbers. I think it represents the results of the genetic bottleneck of low numbers.
For it to be driven by natural selection it has to provide an advantage of some sort. Inbreeding because of less genetic variation in a wild population would still require it to have some positive feedback in the first place to concentrate the trait within the select group to make it available. Are you suggesting a new unknown mechanism hidden within the genetic protocol that responds to environmental stresses, producing these anomalies.
0 -
-
http://www.space.com/27059-jupiter-moon-europa-plate-tectonics.html
Very interesting article. I would like to see your comments. How did Europa formed in the first place and how is this possible?
If that can be considered plate tectonics then what would you call drift ice, pack ice and its many related structures such as pressure ridges?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_ridge_(ice)
Image by Lusilier and provided through Wikimedia Commons.
The blocks making up pressure ridges are mostly from the thinner ice floe involved in the interaction, but it can also include pieces from the other floe if it is not too thick. In the summer, the ridge can undergo a significant amount of weathering, which turns it into a smooth hill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_ice
Image by Lusilier and provided through Wikimedia Commons.
Though they share similar terminology and maybe even some of the same mechanics they are vastly more different than the same.
I for one would want plate tectonics to refer to processes that result in the many surface and subsurface structures like mountains, basins, valleys and extensional features like the Basin and Range area. And also the very many types of materials that result from those processes, tectonics on earth are a veritable factory where all of the terrestrial building materials are made or processed. That ice on Europa seems rather two dimensional, rather uniform when compared to what terrestrial tectonics can deliver in terms of grandeur.
Its just ice after all.
0
What problems does philosophy solve
in General Philosophy
Posted
I like what you did with that. I might have to borrow it sometime.
But the first and last sentences don't fit very well. And the middle is a little awkward. How about;
Science resembles a post game commentary on what should have/could have been in our understanding of nature. It dwells on the shortcomings of our experiments, and for those that believe in its usefulness to overcome the difficulties to understand our observations, presumes it can or does influence the later outcomes of the sport, be it the triumphant wins or the tragic losses. And in this regard appears to be going on to a much greater understanding than any previous discipline.
The reason for my criticism of philosophy, "And in this regard appears to be going down the same dead end road as astrology." is its inability to constrain its content. To put it another way, it leaks like a sieve. We had a thread recently http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86097-earth-is-a-living-organism/
It was a rather generic replay of the "we are just the cells of a larger organism - the Earth" concept or something similar. This idea is the result of our culture mixing philosophical ideas, many old with many new, without the benefit of any rigorous boundaries, into still newer hybrid concepts.
I have no doubt I would get a large "yes" response if I asked random people on the street if the Earth was/or is like a living organism. Pop culture has been pushing this idea for at least four decades. From Star Wars;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_%28Star_Wars%29#Midichlorians
The Force is a binding, metaphysical, and ubiquitous power created by Midichlorians, microscopic bio-organic entities.
"Without the midi-chlorians, life could not exist, and we would have no knowledge of the Force. They continually speak to us, telling us the will of the Force. When you learn to quiet your mind, you'll hear them speaking to you."
Midi-chlorians were intelligent microscopic life forms that lived symbiotically inside the cells of all living things.
Now, don't get me wrong. I love Star Wars, always did. But people over time start to naturally mix concepts together, they always have and always will. Star Wars borrowed heavily from eastern culture, religion and philosophy, the jedi, their dress, their fighting style, even their names as seen above, it is a wonderful construct.
And then there's the hugely influential movie Avatar, a tour de force of a planet being an organism concept, borrowing heavily from indigenous culture and religious beliefs. Blending all life together with the planet in almost seamless symbiosis.
And in fashion with popular culture we have the quasi scientific Gaia movement that borrows heavily from all these philosophies, concepts and constructs to create a hybrid idea for the current sensitivity about the environment.
Philosophy may be constrained within academia, but step outside the door and it is a free for all.
Science on the other hand has the discipline and rigor to continually check its progress, stay on track so to speak. How do we know this? Because most things made from its efforts work. Airplanes fly, mag trains glide, electric cars roll, GPS works everywhere and so on and so forth.
Does philosophy have proof of such rigor? Will philosophy run head on into science's possible invalidation of gaia theory?
The question for Philosophy may not be what problems it solves, but how many of the distractions it makes for science is to many.