Bender

I find the hypothesis of a metaphysical consciousness useless. Can this hypothesis be used to make predictions? It doesn't even present a mechanism. Neither does it present a way to fit in evolution theory. Which animals are supposedly "receptive" to consciousness? Why did it evolve? The materialist view is a lot more consistent : as brain functions became more complex, higher order functions evolved to keep an overview. The only reason we are conscious could be to organise and prioritise all the subroutines in our brain. Much like Windows or Gnome organises all processes on a computer, so we don't have to care about all the low level calculations. No further explanation is required. Finally, this thread lacks a proper definition of consciousness. To be useful, such a definition should not depend on other vague concepts, such as "intelligent" or "aware", and should not contain human exclusivity. I maintain my claim that given a concrete definition and sufficiently complex computer, I can program that computer to comply with that definition. If a computer can be conscious, that consciousness clearly originates from matter, since no weird receptors were included in its design.

The problem as presented is highly nonlinear and depends on the shape and thickness of the object you want to pick up. The problem with studiots notes is that B varies greatly with magnetic resistance, which is very large in air. In the configuration shown in the notes, the magnetic field has to curve from the top all the way down through air. You will get a higher force with a U-shaped iron core, on the condition that the distance between the legs of U is bigger than the distance to the object. Otherwise you loose too much flux lines. Thick or thin wires don't matter for the strength, only for the type of power supply, as it is the current density, which is important. Heat production can easily be calculated with the resistance of the copper wire. Cooling can increase the max current density, but also takes space. It depends on how long it needs to operate.

Wood is strongly anisotropic, which means it can be much stronger in the direction of the fibres. In your tests, you are using load cases which are very unfavourable for wood, which makes the comparison unfair.

It can't conduct a hole, because there are no holes to conduct. Even when an electron is knocked out of the valence band to leave a gap, it will be filled by one of the electrons in the conduction band before much gap mobility can happen.

I don't have time to work out the details, but here are some hints: - Heat transfer is proportional to surface area. - heat transfer is proportional to temperature difference - materials with a good conductivity will have a more uniform temperature - at equilibrium, energy input equals energy output - for the transient behaviour, you need to take the specific heat into account. - convection depends on the orientation of the plate and on anything that can obstruct or guide air flow - transient heat transfer problems are very complex without finite element software. A decent approximation of the equilibrium situation can probably be reached by asuming uniform temperature.

What do I call the carrot I ate today? Do you tell your children eat the carrot on their plate because "she" tasts great? What do you call with animals of which the sex can only be determined with surgery or a DNA test? (In Dutch calling something "he" or "she" depends on the gender of the word, not the animal, so the argument doesn't really apply. Some animals, such as a horse, pig, sheep or kitten are "it" because the word is genderless.)

"Evil" is a self-eliminating evolutionary feat for social organisms. Doubly so for evil acts against in-group individuals. The in-group category seems to be growing. Possibly because people live closer together, possibly because tribes who prefer peace with other tribes are more successful on the long run. Evil individuals can only thrive if they are a minority. If the evil group becomes too large, the group dies out.

You could start out with arms stretched and legs curled up, so you have a fast pitch but a slow roll. Mid air, you can stretch your legs and bring your arms together. This will slow down your pitch and speed up the roll. When acrobats or divers do this, the slower rotation can be slow enough compared to the short air time that they appear to have stopped. That way, a diver can appear to be Rolling during the first half of a dive and pitching during the second while the angular momentum remains constant.

Neat. I'm also amused by a tiny stream tunneling under a channel (perhaps even in a tube at the bottom of the channel). Otherwise there are no spectacular bridges here. Pretty flat and no wide rivers.

According to this article, which is the first on the subject I can access, humans make errors discriminating lines with an angular difference of 3 degrees. Granted, in the study the lines where only shows very briefly. I find it hard to believe you can see an angular difference of 0,01 degrees or 1 part in 4000, especially for lines 10 times shorter than the distance between them. Perhaps lines in the trees or the field created an optical illusion?

Can you see a 36 mm difference on a 2000000 mm long bridge? I'm not surprised you didn't find a 60000 pixels wide photo of the bridge, required to have a difference of one pixel (which would be overwhelmed by the aberrations on even a very good lens).

Real logic gates cannot yield perfect square waves and introduce harmonics of their own. If you want a pure sine, go analogue ;).

The obvious solution is to stop smoking. Apart from not having lit cigarettes to deal with, there is a good number of additional benefits.

Step 1) find out why there are metal particles in your product Step 2) eliminate source It seems easier to prevent contamination than attempt to remove it afterwards. Also note that a magnet will not remove aluminum nor most common stainless steels. Have you checked that your metal particles are magnetic?

We do. By electing representatives.

Getting vaccinated requires very little effort, so the infringement on personal freedom is minimal. Also, human intuition is horrible with statistics, which is why things like insurance, personal safety or vaccination are regulated in many countries.

Putting the strongest and stiffest material in the middle is, from an engineering perspective, a very odd thing to do. Putting a wooden beam between two steel plates is a lot stronger (about the same as an I beam with similar dimensions). You also don't need that much bolting all over the length of the beam, since the only purpose of the wood is to keep the steel plates apart.

It is not unheard of that one author comes to the wrong conclusion, or oversimplifies a conclusion and then others copy it without further thought. I have encountered other examples of such (such as plain wrong examples on Newton's third law in several mechanics textbooks), and these seem to get more common as the level gets more basic and more simplification occurs. A second effect is that one oversimplification might have caught your attention, and now you put additional weight to secondary or out of context comments on the subject whenever you encounter them. It can be tempting to miss the nuance of the text when you already made up your mind. Now I can't remember reading about such rules. I'm also no expert on material science. But I tend to agree with you that ductility or brittleness, which can be rather vague concepts to begin with, depend on too much factors to be cast in such simple rules.

Why an intelligence? You are simply moving the problem. It answers nothing.

This premise is flawed, so none of the following holds.

There is nothing special about islam. There are plenty of people (some of which are muslims) who don't respect Christians, Jews or atheists. A difference might be a different sense of humour or lack of self relativation, which causes a larger public outcry when someone "offends" islam?

And so it should be. We can't simply throw out everything whenever someone has a new idea. Once the evidence for a refinement is found, it can be accepted. "Refinement" describes more accurately how science works than "alternative". It is silly to call the current models, such as the standard model, wrong, since they are very effective in making predictions within their applicable area.

"What is real and actual nothing?" A useless concept, since we don't know whether it exists or has ever existed and have no way of finding out.

The metal plate would push against the ground exactly as hard as when the magnets are switched off. Likewise, you do not start hovering by attempting to lift yourself off the ground.

Resignation is the answer. Whenever something bothers you, there are two, and only two, options: 1) do something about it 2) accept it and move on Since death is inevitable, there is nothing you can do about it, so just forget about it and go on enjoying your life. You can of course do some things to prolong life, such as not smoking and eating healthy, but those fall under category 1 (unless you choose to forget about that too). (there is of course a third option, which is often taken: fear, anger, resentment, jealousy, despair... none of these leads to nice places) I think your feeling describes nicely why religion is so popular.