gcol

Botheration. I'm curious now. I have found a statement in relation to the theory of DC motors that said repulsion was marginally stronger than attraction. A statement during a laymans explanation of magnetism that said attraction and repulsion had the same force, and an explanation at quantum level that seemed to say that at "normal" distances they were equal, but at "atomic" distances things were not so simple. Expert help required, please.

Here's another way: GET RELIGION! See the amazing flying nuns, visions of paradise, learn the ultimate secret of everything, how to solve all the worlds problems, and more! Incredible bargains on this product from e-bay. Get some today while stocks last!

Magnetic wood Wood, as nature grows it, is not pure cellulose. It contains mineral impurities. Some of these impurities may have magnetic properties. Irrespective of the intrinsic hardness of the wood, these minerals can blunt sawblades rather quickly. A really strong magnet may attract these minerals, thus drawing the wood with them. I would be surprised if attraction really is stronger than repulsion. It is relatively easy to measure attraction using a simple spring balance, where the maximum attraction is at the point where the magnets are in physical contact. Much more difficult to measure pushing resistance, and to stop at exactly the point where the surfaces just meet, so that physical force does not add to magnetic force. Just ideas, I'm no expert.

My joke seems to misfired; think quantum mechanics, uncertainty principle and Schroedinger's cat.

A couple of quotes to stir things up a bit. (Quotations are a well used expert ploy, being well-read can be an excellent camouflage for a lack of objective analytical skills. In my case, at least): Politics, and the fate of mankind, are shaped by men without ideals and without greatness. Men who have greatness within them don't go in for politics. Albert Camus. Political language-and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists-is designed to make lies sound truthful, and to give an appearance of solidarity to pure wind. George Orwell. Those of you who regard my profession of political life with some disdain should remember that it made it possible for me to move from being an obscure lieutenant in the United States Navy to Commander-In-Chief in fourteen years with very little technical competence. John F. Kennedy. I conclude with this one, lest you think I am biased, but it did make me snigger: With all the temptations and degredations that beset it, politics is still the the noblest career that any man can choose. F.S.Oliver, Politics and Politicians.

An alternative hypothesis: A bus at rest and unobserved in the depot, has no known numerical value. When in motion, its designated numerical value may or may not be true. This value may be arbitrarily changed at any point of its journey. The correct value may only be deduced by following its total path from source to destination. The number of buses in motion at any one moment can never be predicted, neither can their direction of travel. The best one may say, is at large scales, there is merely a statistically small probability of the correct bus being available at any one moment.

Exactly. Which is why, my dear "pcs", in these forums at least, you will get more "politico-bashing" and "ignorant lay ranting" than you hope for. Are these not, in any case, rather over-arching terms beneath the dignity of a political scientist? ( refering to our little spat in another thread).

I noticed that the activity of politicians brainwaves was the main datastream, so not much evidence to go on. A bit unfair for Republicans and democrats to be singled out, I suspect the experimental results could be reproduced using any politically opposed subjects. I was only surprised that anyone thought that reason, fact, and learning ever played a part in the political process.

pcs: A quiet and reasonable post. All points well taken. Enjoy your reincarnation.

Aguy2: That seems fair. If, for my own clarity of thought, I tidied it up a bit by saying; "The human organism alone has the ability to change its environment, and therefore its behaviour norm (and vice-versa). This, if nothing else, makes humans different". Would that do? I could tack that on my original hypothesis. Even if I say so myself, it seems to hang together well. But if it is any good, someone else is bound to have said it before, and better?

Another little "party trick" is to wet your hand, with a pool of water in the palm, pour a little methylated spirit on the pool of water and light it. If you dont use too much meth, it will burn off before the water becomes uncomfortably hot.

Superheated gasoline? Did you really mean that? The mind boggles....

I presented a logical argument, resulting in a considered conclusion. You are free to question any or all of it. Alternative hypotheses eagerly awaited as a contribution to the debate.

An organism has a behavioural norm when acting in its natural environment. Its natural environment is the environment in which it evolved to its present form. If its natural environment changes, stresses will cause its behaviour norm to change, until a new new norm evolves. A behaviour norm is only valid for any one time segment of an organism's evolutionary lifespan. Therefore, all norms are temporary. You will all probably think and behave differently tomorrow!

I think our little spat about tribal loyalty has now petered out. How about 'clan politics' instead? Can't find anything to disagree with in your post, although I was initially tempted to ask what on earth science has to do with sociology in general. Then I checked up on the real meaning of "science". Surprised to find Many definitions, synonymns, and quasi-synonymns which effectively remove the burden of proof so often assumed by "real" scientiststo belong to the word. I liked this: "Think of it this way, the actual study of GR is a lightweight course in differential geometry (often absent a topological foundation). The same mathematical tools can be applied in quantum physics. GR as scientific theory isn't the Einstein equation, but inferences drawn from solving it with certain principles defining boundary conditions (i.e., the energy conditions)". I have only a laymans overview of this, so make no comment at all, but I would love to see the reaction if you made that statement in the appropriate forum....

Philcandless: Tribal loyalty: o.k., start again: I take tribal to mean "people of the same family or race, or a division of a race. (from printed dictionary). Loyalty ( same source) can be obedience to law (which, in this context, I take to be 'tribal' law) or faithfulness to duty or to friends. ( again, tribal duty or duty to friends). On reflection, tribal appears to have lost its original purity of meaning. It can now include special interest groups, political parties, religious groups, or even street gangs, which move it far outside the original boundaries of family or race. When allied with loyalty, which I think still has its original meaning, I cannot find a single word which carries the nuances of the phrase. However, having so many shades of meaning, the contextual meaning is all important, but may be misconstrued. Given, therefore, all the phrase implies, It ought to be meaningful within the social sciences. Outside the social sciences, which can usefully allow for its effects, It is more difficult to grapple with militarily or politically, although they may try to use it to their advantage. To their cost, they often find it is a lion grabbed by the tail. There. how was that? Perhaps I should have gone fishing instead.

I liked the question, but I think you could have picked a much better "for example........."

Back at you, sir! if you hear a strange noise, it is me laughing. I fear I may continue for a week.

Sorry, lightwave, you have not actually read the rules, although your suggestions are all worthy in general aeromodelling terms.

It makes perfect sense to me, in the same way that we recognise the properties of light by measuring against dark, right against wrong, moral against imoral. It is the process of haggling over the middle ground that makes discussions fun.

Vale, Valete I retire from fatigue. A parting shot: When you have run out of masochistic patsies willing to engage in your sadistic pedantry, how will you "get your rocks off"? ( another coloqial populist phrase which of course you will not understand).

I suppose, at 63, I am an old fogey. But it does mean I've been around while a few politicians have come and gone. If their actions over the years have left me a touch sceptical and cynical, that's just the way it is. I make no apologies. The list of truly moral and ethical politicians is, I would guess, considerably shorter than the other kind. Tribal loyalty: Using just those terms, Google came up with 840,000 hits. adding political, sociological, and even biblical, in various combinations still yielded at least 80,000. It does seem to be well established in common usage. Coming back to Iraq, in a roundabout way, I wonder if its significance in ethnic and religious differences has been overlooked by politicians?

Philcandless You seem particularly interested in my use of the phrase "tribal loyalty". It appears to be used often in relation to indigenous, nomadic, tribal cultures, and perhaps surprisingly often at the moment when discussing Islamic history. It crops up so often I am surprised you have some difficulty with it. Naturally, with this quote I have been selective, but it is in a political context: "Without a degree of 'certainty and tribal loyalty', there can be little coherence or conviction in politics." From: "The Hansard Society" I can use this illustrate that tribal loyalty is an important factor in the "science of politics" (deliberate sceptical oxymoron). I am beginning to wonder two things: 1. Any opinion or discussion point is unreasonable if it is contrary to yours. 2. You get extreme pleasure from argument for the sake of argument. I am broad minded, that's o.k., but best not do it by the window with a strong light behind you.

Philcandless: There is a fine line between cynicism and scepticism. I will gladly be labelled a sceptic. As for cynic, which means "one fond of finding fault or taking a mean view of life", have you not made that slur based upon rather scanty evidence? Or perhaps as my ol' granpappy may have said in his tribal vernacular, "have you looked in the mirror lately, my old sunshine?" The paper you quote is rather lengthy so of course you have been selective. That allows me the same privilege. So the very next sentence: "Furthermore, because we also tend to overestimate the reasonableness of our own actions, we also overestimate the probability that others would do the same as us". I cannot imagine myself ever overestimating the reasonableness of your actions. (That was sarcasm, add it to the list). But as the first line of the next paragraph has it "This, of course, is entering the realms of post hoc speculation......." My conclusion, based purely on speculation of course, is that cynicism, scepticism, sarcasm, and here is another, irony, are effective cleansing agents when a bovine fundament has soiled itself.