mothythewso

I started to say, as was stated above, that because of virtual particles, there is no "true" vacuum. And I wondered if a real photon can interact with a virtual anti-photon and annihilate if they should somehow "meet"? But first, I decided to research virtual photons (having been a former biology major and not wishing to make a fool of myself), and now my head hurts! Is there an explanation using words of no more than five syllables?

Well, it's snowing outside, lacrosse practice was cancelled, and as I have nothing better to do, I guess I might as well face the music again. IPCC 2013 conclusions, based on CO2 concentrations doubling by in 50 yrs. Worst case, +4C, (range, 2.4 - 6.4C), best case, +1.8C (range 1.1 -2.9C), change assuming constant CO2, +0.6C. Sea level change, worst case approx. +1m, +/- 0.2m. Temps lowered about 0.9C from 2007 report. EPA estimates, increase of 2.0 - 11.5F, same time frame. Prof. S. Sherwood, U of New South Wales, +4C, again same time frame. Compare to overall temp increase, roughly 1850 til 2010, 0.74C. The consensus is that temp's are increasing, but there's significant disagreement about by how much. Already agreed to that, except that I prefer the term "climate change". Hardly makes me a Luddite! Now as to solutions. Do you have a problem with nuclear power? (By the way, I'd be embarrassed for you if you didn't bring the spent fuel rod storage problem, I've although that one we don't have to solve immediately.) And the point about increasing the use of fracking, increased use of natural gas, is they're much cleaner than coal, which I think is still our major source of energy. Have you ever been to a coal-fired power plant, an oil-fired plant, a nuclear facility? I've been to all three; nuclear's much preferable. How about personal responsibility: change your light bulbs to pigtails, turn off your lights when you leave the room, don't heat your house to sauna levels, don't cool it down to 65. How about increasing automobile mpg (NOT with ethanol), carbon scrubbers, other emissions controls? Oh, the "gummint ' already mandates those. Maybe I, as a conservative, should be out there protesting my neighborhood gas station. Isn't that how us evil dullards act? How about new technologies. Carbon sequestration? Giant reflective satellites to divert the sun's total energy from the Earth's surface? Seeding clouds over the oceans with remote-controlled ships to promote cloud growth, again causing the sun's energy to be dissipated? And who's to say what science might come up with by 2050? Technologies totally unknown to us now, like nanotech was in the 1960's. Or cell-phones, for that matter. And if you can find anything I've mentioned in the above that contradicts anything I really said in my previous posts, instead rather than what you, in your narrow-minded, reflexive attitude against those who disagree with you, who can think for themselves, thought I said, please tell me, and I'll publicly apologize to you in this thread. I will grant you that the biggest problem Earth faces in solving this problem is government intransigence. Not particularly the U S, or Northern Europe, but Russia, China, the developing world, etc. Have you ever been to Beijing? I was there once for three days, and I only saw the sun for 5 minutes because of the smog. And that's not going to change anytime soon.

Perhaps General Philosophy.

Ah, Overtone. And my morning seemed to be starting out so well. You've set me quite a task. I won't be able to complete it off the top of my apparently Neanderthalish forehead; give me a day or two to get back to you. And I promise to work on my vocabulary. How about "...nattering nabobs of negativity..." Now there was a man with a flair for words. And I will expect you to have your shi..., sorry, facts together for my assault on Mt Sacred Cow. Hey, I just made that up. Pretty clever, huh. Until then, I have a lacrosse to watch. Got to keep my priorities straight. >

Nah, you're off the hook on the citation; I'd be real suspicious of the source, anyway. Maybe we can pose a new question; would you rather have an IQ 170, vast wealth, and be miserable, or an IQ of 100, barely getting by financially, and be ridiculously happy. Personally, I could settle for an IQ of 135, half a million bucks or so in my IRA, and the occasional LOL moment. Good health would be nice, too. Don't think it's an appropriate topic for this venue, however.

" A fetus is part of organism and only becomes an individual organism when it is capable of carrying out its biological functions independently. So a human begins when a fetus can survive independently." I hope you realize that you've just agreed with me; in fact, you've gone further than I ever would. The individual I'm referring to has never been able to exist independently, neither as a fetus, nor after birth. If at 21 chronological years, he had to live independently, he couldn't. He would most likely starve, and assuredly die. He's not SENTIENT. If you want to believe that at birth he was human and has lived a meaningful human life for the last 40 years, be my guest. Your logic, however, escapes me and further correspondence with you would be difficult.

Mais oui. Seems to be a wide selection, any particular expression?

Addendum: I do find that my relatively imminent demise (haven't set a date yet, could be measured in weeks, more probably in months, certainly not in years) endows me with a certain sense of freedom. I don't want to be thrown of Science Forums for being a troll, participating in intelligent conversations here has become a passion, but neither do I feel any compelling reason to be polite in the face of obviously politically-motivated arguments, attempts to intellectually browbeat me, posters with no sense of humor, who take themselves far too seriously, posters who can't even use spell-check or ignore the basics of English grammar and/or usage (non-native English as a second language speakers excepted, of course), and just plain idiots, of which there are far more than I would have expected considering the overall tenor of the threads. In the immortal words of The Who, "I'm Free. And I'm waiting for you to follow me."

Mr. reeper: Don't think petruska's original question mentioned anything about contentment. And as I have been admonished so many times in these threads, where's your citation. That's a pretty astounding conclusion, can you back it up with scientific fact? FYI Psychology Today says that "intelligence" is a construct that " includes problem solving abilities, spatial manipulation, and language acquisition." It also goes on to say that research can't come up with a correlation to a persons' success or general well-being, that's a far cry from your assertion. But there isn't a generally accepted scientific definition of "intelligence", the closest I was able to find is a pdf file listing about 50 accepted definitions(look under 'scientific definition of intelligence' in your browser) . Cleverness is generally defined as mental quickness, it's associated with high intelligence, but it's not a necessary nor sole attribute. I'm content in the knowledge that I helped to clear up any confusion on your part.

Now you sound like someone I could share a beer with. I highly recommend Tripel Karmeliet. I guess I could have toned down some of my more over-the-top sarcasm. Truce?

The first time I posted on Science Forums, on Jan 11, I started a topic on the Quantum Theory board, "Is gravity one of the fundamental forces?". I freely admitted at that time that I had no expertise in Quantum Physics, or Physics in general, that in fact I got D's in college physics. Nevertheless, I've taken an interest in Quantum Theory over the years, and I learned enough to pose my question with enough intelligence that you, Strange, posted the first response. You also responded, quite helpfully, to my queries concerning dark matter and dark energy. Now when I question (NOT deny) one of the current sacred cows of science, you quote me as saying "I prefer my own opinions, thank you.", and from that quote you infer that I've admitted that I don't know anything about the science, and ask why anyone, including myself, should take me seriously. I could point out that I have a degree in biology, with a minor in chemistry, plus coursework in geology, oceanography, and the Spirit of the Renaissance, but that would be bragging. By the way, I attended a fairly reputable university, with a lacrosse team that consistently played for the national championship. Just saying. And why should anyone put particular value in your opinions. I'm not aware of any special expertise, any credentials you've put forward, at least on this board. And don't treat this as a personal attack, don't ding my reputation with your -2. Treat it for what it is, me defending myself from intellectual bullying, although the attempts have so far been pretty puerile.

Wolfhnd: With all due respect, "If other people view the individual as human you may want to as well." doesn't move me at all. I am no more, nor do I wish to be, anyone other than myself. I am quite capable of forming my own opinions; I respect or reject the opinions of others as I see fit, without questioning the intelligence of those who hold those opinions. As I suspect you do. I do not claim a "higher moral imperative". In my view, this is NOT a question of morals, or ethics, or anything other than the question of whether or not the individual I described is a "human being" in any but the taxonomic sense of the word "human". Perhaps I should have used the phrase "sentient being". It's more accurate as to my meaning, and definitely more palatable to most sensibilities. So I guess the more pertinent question is: "Is the individual I described 'sentient' within the accepted meaning of the word? And then the logical follow-up would be "Is sentience a prerequisite to be considered 'human' in a truly valid description of the term "human being"? I say "Yes"; you may disagree. Doesn't give your opinion the moral high ground any more than make mine despicable. It's not a question of ethics as I've posed the question. Should the individual be euthanized? Way to late to even consider. If the individual's condition could have been diagnosed during the first trimester, should abortion have been considered? That's a moral question. Should the individual, if diagnosed as profoundly retarded, have been given life-sustaining care after birth? Glad I didn't have to make that hypothetical decision. Does the individual's life have meaning? Who's to say. Does the individual have an existence that could be described as human in a truly meaningful sense? No. Should he be treated with the dignity and respect due any human individual? Yes. This was posted after a lot of soul-searching, and a 6-pack of Tripel Karmeliet. If you're not familiar with Tripel Karmeliet, you haven't experienced BEER!

Overtone: ?

Overtone, I wasn't quoting you, I was quoting StringJunky. Unfortunately, my quote function isn't working. I would point out, however, that "standard opinions" once, and not that long ago, included as fact that blacks were sub-human (I believe the proponents of that particularly noxious view even supported their theories with "scientific" evidence), Creationism explained thenvision in the e origin of the Universe, homosexuality was an abomination against nature, etc. Not that I'd imply that those opinions reflect your beliefs. But maybe your prejudices? Perhaps "standard " opinions appeal most strongly to "standard" intellects? I prefer my own opinions, thank you. And you have no better idea than I do as to "...how long we as a civilization most likely have." And what do you mean by "if we are lucky". "Luck" only occupies the thoughts, such as they are, of fools and gamblers. Please give me one shred of evidence to support your opinions; even I can do that much. "... to forestall various degrees of disaster."; beyond vacuous drivel. I "... have no idea of what would need to be done..."?. Really! I have lots of ideas. France makes much greater use of clean, non-polluting nuclear power than the US, and last time I was there, the French weren't glowing in the dark. Greater use of oil shales, fracking, solar, geothermal, what have you. Some aren't popular with environmentalists, but they appeal to me much more than living without indoor plumbing, air conditioning, radiant heat, etc. What do you envision in the next, say, 25 years? Do you really believe science won't make any new discoveries, that the world's best minds, far better than yours or mine, won't come up with any new ideas, that humanity will just roll over and play dead? You, my dear Overtone, and those of your ilk (it's a descriptive, not necessarily pejorative word, unless you choose to make it so) are so boringly, so conventionally, so predictably negative, you even discourage me. And that's not easy.

Could you be more specific as to "the extent predicted ". I'm not aware of any consensus opinion, other than "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!". And I think a lot of the problem is the influential yea-sayers who are more concerned with their political agenda than actual solutions to what I've already agreed is a problem. I just think we as a species have the intelligence and time to solve it. Humanity isn't ready yet for one world order, which I think is the political agenda here. Not saying it's not essential sometime in the (probably relatively near) future for our ultimate survival as a species. We do seem to have an inexhaustible talent for self-destruction, but it's going to take awhile. I guess you can tell I'm somewhat conflicted here. But consider, one of the greatest science-fiction novels of all time (in the opinion of people more erudite than I) is "Earth Abides", written in the late 40's. Very optimistic, highly recommended.

Going to have to look for my old copy of Sears and Zemansky and figure this out for myself. Though I really didn't get much out of it when I was an undergrad. Probably explains why I never made it to grad

Speaking as one who is actively, albeit slowly, dying (Stage IV Colorectal cancer), I have a particular interest in in this topic. First, the heat death theory of the end of Universe, my personal favorite, will occur in about 101000 years, give or take a few millennia. That isn't nearly long enough for probability to reproduce my structure atom for atom, even if one discounts the possible effects of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle over that time frame. Can't back this up mathematically, but I assert it nevertheless. Secondly, I think you're getting of topic with esoteric musings. I think Skeptic 143 has it just about right. Thirdly, death's just one of those things you have to deal with in life, like global warming or Vladimir Putin (or Barack Obama, for that matter). Wishing it away is a waste of what little time any of us is allotted on this Earth; to savor the sheer joy of living, of new things to experience, of new countries to visit, of new people to meet. To share time with, to cherish, someone you love, and who loves you. If you're lucky, Death's no big whoop.

Think the Roche limit applies when 2 bodies are significantly different in mass, for instance the Earth-Moon system. If the Moon's orbit should decay to inside the Roche limit, the Earth's gravitational pull would rip it apart, perhaps forming rings. Swansont, I'm having trouble grasping the concept of 2 orbiting, equally massive bodies having a separation of their centers of mass independent of their density, or "surfaces would be closer". If the densities of 2 objects of equal mass were sufficiently different, couldn't the smaller body have an orbit inside the surface of the larger body? Or am I phrasing this wrong?

I think you meant to say "Which of the two is the more clever?" Cleverness does not equate with intelligence. Weird Al is clever, Al Einstein was a genius.

I also said "If climate change is anthropocentric, surely it's anthropo-reversible." Didn't say throw up your hands in despair, bury your head in the sand. I think I was pretty positive about humankinds' potential to solve the problem. There have been lots of extreme changes in climate over the eons, by the way. Not to mention the odd mass extinction event. None of which were anthropocentric; we weren't around 80 million years ago. Stuff happens.

Don't think you'll find many doctors, MD's or PhD's, with IQ's below 100.

There are no moral or ethical dimensions to the statement: 'An anencephalic baby is not, nor will ever be, a human being'. Perhaps the word "baby" throws some people off, but the strictly scientific point of view should be no cerebral cortex, no consciousness, no self-awareness, and no possibility of ever achieving those human attributes, then it is not a human life. "Human" is far more than a question of taxonomy. [These statements obviously reflect my personal opinions; I am not a scientist nor a theologian] I apologize if my discussion about mental retardation offended anyone. Again, my statements reflect my personal beliefs, not any accepted scientific opinions. But I intended to completely divorce the discussion from any moral or ethical component. I guess in this case you can't. But I still believe questions of what it means to be "human" are scientifically valid, if also morally discomfiting.

Wouldn't density play a role? I would think 2 dense iron cores could orbit closer than 2 gas giants of equal mass. But then, biology major

Polar bears have been taxonomically distinct for about 200,000 years. I'm sure they've witnessed lots of global climate CHANGE (I will not say 'warming') over that time span. The most recent being from about 1000AD, when the Norse settled Greenland, til about 1400 AD, when they couldn't hack the cold. Polar bears just hang tough. And they didn't even have polar bear Climatology PHD's to help them out. Maybe they ate them. Couldn't hurt to get some pointers on the subject of adapting to the climate you have, as opposed to the climate you hope for. Might not be doable. Seriously, if you accept global climate change, which I do, which includes both warming AND cooling, why are some people so desperately afraid of a warming trend. If climate change is anthropocentric, surely it's anthropo-reversible. We are smarter than polar bears. Good lord, look at the progress humanity has made in just the last 50 years, the scientific breakthroughs our parents couldn't conceive of. If Earth should dip into another Ice Age from purely natural causes, which is in the realm of possibility, we'll just have to deal with it. If it's naturally caused global warming, the same applies. If mankind can't figure out how to cope, then it's just another example natural selection. I'm sure SOMETHING will survive either eventuality. Question for possible future posts: Which is more survivable, warming or cooling, and why?

You people must have a death wish