Leaderboard

Perhaps some musician could slip a nasty note into a record sleeve? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_Stalin On the night of 1 March 1953, Joseph Stalin calls the Radio Moscow director to demand a recording of the just-concluded live recital of Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 23. The performance was not recorded; not wanting to anger Stalin, the director hurriedly refills the now-half-empty auditorium, fetches a new conductor to replace the original one, who has passed out, and orders the orchestra to play again. Pianist Maria Yudina initially refuses to perform for the cruel dictator, but ultimately is bribed to comply... ...When the concert recording arrives, Stalin finds a note Maria slipped in the record sleeve, admonishing Stalin and expressing hope for his death. He reads it, laughs, and suffers a cerebral haemorrhage. Despite hearing him fall, Stalin's guards, fearful of being punished for disturbing him, do not enter his office.

Scientific progress is often seen as a linear path toward truth. Each discovery builds on the last, bringing us closer to a complete understanding of the universe. But is that really the case? Philosophers of science, from Thomas Kuhn to Karl Popper, have debated whether science moves forward objectively or if it's shaped by shifting paradigms. Kuhn argued that scientific revolutions don’t just add knowledge but replace entire worldviews. Popper, on the other hand, believed that falsifiability—the ability to prove theories wrong—drives true progress. But what if science isn’t leading to ultimate truth at all? Some argue that our theories are only approximations, useful but never final. The history of physics illustrates this: Newton’s laws were replaced by relativity, and quantum mechanics challenges even deeper assumptions. Will today’s “truths” be tomorrow’s misconceptions? How do you see scientific progress? Is it a straight path to understanding, or are we simply refining models that will one day be replaced? Let’s discuss.

I recently read a suggestion from someone that instead of "DEI", people should be forced to use the full term "diversity, equity, and inclusion" so that when they say they are against diversity, equity, and inclusion, they are making it quite clear that they are an arsehole.

If something is hotter than air, every atom on the surface emits energy into the air through infrared radiation or convection. The simplest way to dissipate energy is to increase the area that is in contact with the air. This is done by introducing partitions, irregularities, etc. Calculate the area of this thing if it did not have partitions compared to partitions like the one in the photo: It has a couple times higher area than without partitions. Radiator + air exchange fan is a typical configuration. The launching rocket does not need fans, as the air is replaced automatically. Increasing the area of contact between something that needs cooling and the air will result in faster cooling. This makes sense for a thing that is moving fast, such as a rocket taking off. Fossil fuel cars also do not need a fan on the radiator cooling the engine. The air coming into it from the front of a car going fast enough is enough. Your laptop will be accelerated to an abnormal speed while being thrown in the trash garbage can. If your question was whether it would be enough for me to statically cool my laptop using a heatsink when playing 3D games I would say that this is a rather poor idea. Unless you want to burn the CPU/GPU.

I can see that my understanding is not good enough to understand this. Where did you start when you were learning about these concepts? Can you recommend any books that might help me move forward a little? thanks again to you both

If you ask a question and nobody has the answer, it won’t get answered. So if you want a useful answer you have to ask one that can be answered. (you can get responses that are not answers, as you can observe) If you propose new things, there has to be a scientific basis for the proposal.

I suggest a better way to think of the maths/physics of these matters is to understand that we recognise three basic quantities, which we call dimensions, that can be combined to explain, describe and work with what we observe in the universe today. These are Mass, Length and Time , given symbols M, L and T. Very simple combinations are length squared, (written L2) which gives us area. and Length cubed (written L3), which gives us volume. Energy can be described in this way (written ML2T-2) Notes There are a couple of other basic 'dimensions', which I won't introduce at this point. The use of the word dimension in this way is perhaps unfortunate as it is quite diferent from common perceptions of dimension but it is well embedded in Science.

A good idea to stick to the OP. One topic per thread is preferred at SF. My aim is to encourages participants to look much further back in history and much mor widely geographically when discussing progress of Science. I think the picture looks very different from an expanded point of view.

I commend your unwillingness to adopt black and white judgements, but I do think there is a danger, in what you say in your previous post, of Polyanna-ish passivity. Here in Europe, many of us are aware that many educated Germans told themselves that maybe Hitler would turn out to be mostly bark and no bite and might do some good. (In a narrow economic sense he did, of course.) Whilst I don't intend to draw an over the top parallel between Hitler and Trump, the danger of the phenomenon of hoping for the best is similar, in my opinion. We have plenty of evidence that Trump et al are indeed intent on establishing autocracy in the United States. - There is Project 2025: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025 , which actually sets out a road map for doing this, by a purge of federal government, including the Dept of Justice, and replacement of those purged with Trump loyalists. - One of the authors of Project 2025 , Russell Vought: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Management_and_Budget, has been appointed head of the Office of Management and Budget. Vance wrote the forward to the document. - There have already been purges, both in the DoJ and FBI, of professionals assigned to to the criminal investigations involving Trump. The politicisation of the FBI in particular is a cause for concern, as this organ of state security can easily be used for surveillance and persecution (cf. J Edgar Hoover), in this case of those who challenge Trump. In particular it could be used to intimidate unhelpful judges. - The access of Musk, not even a government official, to the Treasury payments system creates conflicts with his business interests and invades the privacy of individuals. - The dismissal of the 17 Inspectors General removes independent oversight, which will enable corruption and malpractice to flourish. - There are well-established links between Viktor Orban and Republicans. Prominent Republicans have visited Orban to learn how he managed to turn a liberal democracy into what he himself proudly calls "illiberal democracy". They see Hungary as a model. This is now a country in which Orban's Fidesz party controls much of the media, the judiciary and the universities and is considered by many observers to be well on the way to autocracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Fidesz - Since Trump's inauguration, there has been a blizzard of executive orders, many exceeding presidential authority, at a rate far exceeding the rate at which they can be challenged in the courts. This blitzkrieg approach certainly looks as if could be intended to overwhelm challenge and establish "facts on the ground" before it can be stopped. Evidence mounts by the day that is consistent with the hypothesis that the objective of Trump's administration is to bend formerly independent institutions and indeed both legislative and judicial pillars of the constitution, to the president's will, enabling autocracy. Perhaps the most important aspect of this is that autocrats find ways to stay in power indefinitely, by suppressing the opposition and/or bending the electoral system. So the biggest risk of all is that, even if the public decides it has had enough of this approach to government, they may find themselves powerless to throw these people out - which in the end is the crucial advantage democracy has over other systems. So, looking at this in a scientific spirit, it reminds me of climate change: how much evidence does one need, before seeing an imperative to act? There's always a temptation to leave it a bit longer and see, but the process - if the hypothesis is right - has an irreversible quality to it which makes that a dangerous attitude. I take note of what you say about Congress providing safeguards. As of now there is little evidence of this. One can hope that in the mid-term elections there could be a rebalancing towards resistance to an out of control Executive. It seems to me that if this is to happen, people need to start objecting and highlighting the dangers now, before the population becomes acclimatised to the outrageous things being done. (One also has to hope that over the next 2 years Trump and his team don't find a way to neuter, or delay, the mid term elections. For instance declaring - or even engineering- a "state of emergency" is always a good old favourite with autocrats.😉)

Since on another thread I pointed out that this admin. may have already met 2 of the 3 criteria for "dangerous leader disorder" in less than a month in office I don't think I am "blissfully unaware". However, I do always try to avoid dichotomous (black & white) thinking that can be seen in groups under pressure that some call "group think". If you watched the movie about the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy was pressured to attack Cuba by hawks who saw that as the "only alternative". Kennedy resisted & found another way. In contrast, in the run up to the 2nd Gulf War, the same dichotomous rhetoric was noted (by me) in US officials who said things like "attacking Iraq is better than doing nothing", as if those were their only choices. Thus, I always look for more possibilities without discounting evidence (not proof) of the worst possible scenario that should be prepared for. The defenses in the US currently is more than the judiciary. The Congress is heavily influenced by public opinion & the Rep could get massacred in the midterms & even the perception of that can swing the Congress if they sense losses on the way. Scotus also does not always rubber stamp DT & will also respond to changes in public opinion or even to their own sense of morality. There may be other safeguards. Hopefully, we won't be heading for the scenario acted out in last year's movie "Civil War", but even then the tyrant lost in the end. Of course, Hollywood needs a positive emotional outcome to sell movies.

You are forgetting that much if it is no longer hypothetical. They are enacting things that they outlined in project 2025. This is less an educated guess, but simply just listing what they do now. What is your evidence that they will actually give up power and stop doing what they are doing now. Or do you not read the news and are merely blissfully unaware? Weimar failed because it had insufficient checks and balances. And in US only the judiciary remains. But even that is undermined by SCOTUS. As it turns out the pigeon chess strategy is superior.

All of this could be true, & the US could be on the brink of fascism -- or not. There are many possible futures at any moment in time. Someone else noted the possibility of "JFK'd". This is a possibility & could even be a false flag if someone wanted to trick the US into attacking another country that the event could be pinned on. Or DT could do what many of his voters hoped & voted for, & just clean up waste, solve problems, & eliminate perceived Dem extremism. Unfortunately, human nature often replaces unpopular policies with even worse. The Nazis replaced the Weimar. In support of the "hoped for" category is the observation that sometimes DT backs off in response to feedback. This is a good sign & points to the possibility of reversibility. For example, the airlines developed training for controlling authoritarian captains to prevent accidents & the training worked. This suggests that authoritarianism could be reversible. If not, and popularity falls like a rock, there is a chance of impeachment. So there are many possible futures & all we can do is make educated guesses & try to contribute something positive if the opportunity arises.

I would say that science is progressing, but not in a straight line and likely not in the best way forward. This means that critical areas of science may be getting neglected because other areas are easier to generate $. A neglected area may be the soft science of human behavior. Personally, I believe the answer to the Fermi paradox is that a lot of intelligent life destroys itself before advancing to FTL because technology advances faster than the science of understanding and preventing group violence. This likely occurs in the nuclear age and protects the galaxy from aggressive cultures. Defense companies make money selling weapons, not by selling harmony. So, because we race ahead with technology with little comparative effort to understand and prevent aggression, this flaw in human pursuit of science places humanity at high risk of getting "filtered".

A laptop is not a good device for playing games. Not even a so-called gaming laptop. It's just silly. Buy/build yourself from parts a normal desktop computer. You can then replace the CPU/mobo fans with water cooling systems. https://www.ebay.com/b/Computer-Water-Cooling-Equipment/131503/bn_661884 If this is not a satisfactory answer, try a laptop cooling pad. https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=cooling+pad They have many external fans that dissipate energy from the laptop better than a table. Fans can run at lower speed so they are quieter. At least until their bearings break down. A good laptop has a processor connected to the entire body, which is made of metal, usually magnesium alloy (e.g. AZ91D 9-10% Al, the rest Mg). Energy is dissipated over a large area.

Dimreepr; It doesn't happen often that you help me, but the information about Maimonides was very helpful and informative. Thank you. Gee It is NOT all the same. I have wondered for a long time what the "Phi" in your name stands for as it is very clear you are no philosopher, so the "Phi" can not be short for philosophy. Will you tell me what it stands for? Gee I am going to guess that a few hundred years ago, if a person turned a cup of water upside-down, let it drain, then turned it back upright, it would be assumed to be empty. So nothing would be in it. Right? But science knows that is not true, as there is, at least, air in it. But I suspect that Trurl was actually thinking of philosophy, rather than science. Isn't it philosophy that says one can not prove a negative? Does that mean that we can not describe a negative? Hmm. I seriously doubt that "nothing" existed before the Universe. Gee

Where?

exchemist, I disagree the laws of nature are man-made but have been found by man and as you say this argument can't be swayed one way or the other yet. "Just is" isn't a scientific statement but you are correct there are no observations to prove what I've speculated, this is something I shall continue to work on, hopefully working through equations and formulas should give insights into these speculations and I can find the answer to what I seek. The big question for me is how the laws of nature which are in the realm of the mental/conscious could possibly create the material, it's said pulsars can directly create matter from light and also light is information as are equations, my answer may come from thought experiments thinking on such things. San Miguel go to your refrigerator and get yourself another bottle, after a little more intoxication you may come back with words worth reading.

Your words have no value so why bother typing them?

It doesn't, actually. It needs flavouring and cooking to be palatable. The need for nourishment is inborn; food preference is acquired. True, desire is a non-ethical reason - in fact, the main reason - humans eat so much meat, fat and sugar; even if it kills them, it does so slowly and pleasurably. If people keep craving meat, and having obligate carnivors for pets, there is no theoretical limit to the quantity that could be cultured from a single cow or goose. I didn't make that error. I'm supposing that if - IF - the demand for animal flesh decreases, that happens gradually. Since domestic livestock is deliberately bred by humans, as the profit from breeding decreases, so do the numbers of various food animals. Humans would presumably keep slaughtering them as long as there's a market, and some would keep their own private supply of domestic rabbits and fowl. I also don't doubt that, if the commercial value of beef suddenly dropped, some ranchers would just set their herd free on the prairie or in the woods. And some die-hard carnivorous humans would hunt them. Following that hypothetical scenario, a few hardy cattle would escape predators and start an evolutionary tend to revert to their natural version. Goats certainly would; they haven't far to go. Pigs might, too, if the environment were favourable. The same with fowl: sometimes you see a domestic duck or goose among a flock of wild ones, just as budgies and canaries will sometimes escape and join the sparrows. Of course. And we also know that in North America at least, the vast majority of food is produced by agribusiness on immense scales. I've given due consideration and respect to the exceptional farmers and crofters who treat their livestock well. Their prices reflect that extra care, and the chickens are still dead by 10 weeks; the lambs at eight months.) There isn't room for kindness in a factory; it's unprofitable. The raw materials, the product - and very often the human workers, too - are mere commodities. Nothing works as an absolute. It's not an absolute world, nor are any of the biota in it capable of absolute adherence to an absolute rule, nor absolute divergence from its nature. Ethical standards are what we ought to aspire to, not what we can achieve. The argument is that causing pain and distress to other sentient beings is wrong and should be avoided as much as possible.

Go to the link and quote what you think is of interest or delete my account.