OldChemE

+1 I'm not convinced that conquest and expansion are always factors (the last paragraph of your post), but the geometry view (above) seems to me to be spot on. While it is somewhat removed form the morality question originally posed, I.m intrigued by the similarity to the origins of the US-- which started as a loose confederacy (more horizontal) but voluntarily switched to a more vertical arrangement as governance got more complex.

I think horizontal vs vertical morality is also a function of scale. To Peterkin's point, the vertical component is, I believe, reflective of such large groups of people that they cannot all know the other members of the group well, so that they resort to judgements, rules, and such, while in smaller groups of people, such as mentioned by Peterkin, a situation more akin to horizontal morality prevails. I'm reminded of my college days where a small group of students (including myself) worked together on our studies. I am firmly in the camp that believes horizontal morality is preferable, but think there may be some critical point where our inability to personally know everyone leads to vertical morality.

Two events at the same location could have different combinations of pressure temperature and volume, but have the same total energy. Energy alone is not sufficient to uniquely define an event. For example, an adiabatic process would go through many different states without exchanging energy with the environment.

That's an interesting idea. If we are trying to identify the "properties of an event" it seems to me we are heading toward identifying all the characteristics that make the event unique, which is somewhat beyond dimensions. It brings to mind thermodynamics where we can define an event in terms of equations of state. This introduces other variables such as pressure, temperature, volume, mass, etc. I think I'm drifting away from your initial intent and will have to think some more about it.

So-- I've read it all. and I do see some interesting points. However, I think the reason for a lot of bad feedback is that you are attempting to cover so much with so few words and lots of symbols. Just as an example, the sentence "Society (should/would/could) Service (a/the/those........" puts together many permutations of potential meaning all crammed into a singe sentence. For you this makes sense as a way to say much in little space-- for me it becomes a huge chore to separate the potential meanings, and even when the potential meanings are separate I can't be sure if they are the ones you meant to convey. Similarly, when you use two words with an equal sign in between "Individual perspective = reference" you are saying something that is obvious to you because you know the context in which you are making the statement. However, that context is in your mind but not in the written word. If you want others to understand you need to explain the context. In simple terms, if you want others to understand what you have to say you have to take the time to write whole sentences and explain things more. Try breaking the thing down into many parts a taking on only one part at a time.

I don't know how to do the potassium chloride part, but if you are thinking of doing this do not go for a standard clock mechanism. Instead, look up "Anniversary Clock." An anniversary clock is a delicately balanced mechanism inside a glass housing that uses metal balls that rotate around a thin vertical flexible shaft. They rotate in one direction until the twist of the shaft stops them, then rotate in the opposite direction, etc, etc. The very tiny energy loss from the back and forth rotation is made up by the battery. With an ordinary "C" battery the anniversary clock I have has been keeping correct time for several years now without a battery change. With a better battery system you might achieve the "perpetual" goal.

Yes-- both parties in America are getting down to that level. Whether or not it will continue will depend on voters (which includes my wife and myself). The really disgusting part is that all my life I have registered to vote as a Republican, because I prefer lower taxes, less centralized government, and a closer adherence to the US Constitution (which of course means all should be able to vote). Nothing that is going on now seems to align with my political preferences.

Math is a generic word for many different uses for numbers; arithmetic, algebra, geometry, calculus and others. Having spent years as an engineer using different types of math, and also some years teaching math, I think the best way to look at math is that it is a set of tools. Just as a carpenter has tools (hammers, saws, etc) and a mechanic has tools, and a person who makes quilts has tools, so also there are many jobs and hobbies where you need tools using numbers to be successful. Which number tools you need depends on the job or hobby. In some jobs, counting (one, two..) is about all you need, in some others, the tool is extremely difficult math. So-- don't think of math as one thing just for irrational people (or some other set), but rather as a set of tools. Whether or not you need those tools, and which of the math tools it might be, depends on what you want to do.

Geometric isomers are situations where the order of the atom bonds are the same, but where there are more ways than one from a geometry standpoint. Try this on a piece of paper: Draw a picture of 1,2,dichloroethane. 1. start in the middle with two carbon atoms in a double bond: C=C 2. Add chlorine and hydrogen to both sides: they have to connect either above the C=C or below Cl\C=C/Cl or Cl\C=C/H Notice that I can put either both chlorine atoms above the C=C pair or one chlorine and one hydrogen (the bottom would then be either two hydrogen atoms or a hydrogen and a chlorine). Thus, we can build the molecule two geometrically different ways. Does it matter? Well, for example, natural unsaturated fats are mostly one type of geometric isomer (cis). When manufacturers hydrogenate fats like vegetable oil to make things like margarine, the process tends to create trans isomers instead of cis isomers-- and there are health risks associated with trans fatty acids.

Difficult subject, so lets start with the easiest part: There should be an "Unlimited" class for every sport, in which superior ability is the only thing that matters. For example, in the US, the National Football League should be open to all genders. Same for Baseball, Golf, etc. BUT in the unlimited class there should be no adjustments. For example, the NFL limits the number of players on each team (49 if I recall correctly?) so, regardless of gender a player would have to make the cut by being better than the 50th best. Below the unlimited class I have trouble imagining anything that will seem fair to all involved. A skill/ability division, with its faults, is still probably the best.

To the specific point of the OP, if we consider the God of the Bible, I think it could be argued that the books of the Bible, from Old testament through the new testament, could be viewed as the progression of the creation of that god. That is, over time, the definition of that particular god developed as more people wrote about it. Admittedly, it is difficult, if not impossible to define exactly how that progressed, particularly since the Bible is an anthology, not a single book, but it appears to me there is a trend from a God of Wrath and War toward a God of kindness.

While lighter people might like it, there is no sense in an airline doing it unless it benefits the airline. Statistically, when you consider the entire planeload of people, the added income from the heavier people will be offset by the reduced income for the lightest-- so it is not clear there is a financial benefit for the airline. Add in the large number of online ticket sales, and the difficulty of weighing the people and it becomes a burden for the airline with no financial benefit.

It can be a bad thing due to disruption of other lives. I had a boy in Junior High math class that was very hyperactive--we had to remove him from class because his constant talk and action was preventing the other students from concentrating on learning. The interesting side to this instance was that the boy had a good mind for math. We took him out of the classroom and let him spend his math time doing an equivalent online course-- and he mastered a semesters worth of math in three weeks. In the meantime, with him out of the classroom, the other student's math scores went up.

Thorium can also be used in a breeder reactor context-- as was done at the Shippingport power plant in the eastern US years ago. The breeding ratio wasn't terribly good as I recall-- but it worked. However, while some people talk about fear of nuclear, and while some think nuclear power is either dead or close to dead, the reality is that ever since about 1975 roughly 20% of US power generation has been Nuclear-- and still is today. I spent 40 years in the nuclear industry and certainly a good way to generate electricity safely when done right (as it has been in the US). However, I do believe it makes sense to pursue newer technology as well (fusion, wind and solar, for example). Wind and solar, in particular seem to have a faster response time from identifying a need to producing power than can be done in nuclear. The differences in response time from need to delivery make a mix desirable.

Somewhat off topic-- but I find it interesting how the concentration of population (cities and such) by necessity makes topics like this important. We are very rural, high desert, and do rainwater conservation and recycling without even giving it thought, Our land is flat, unpaved, porous, and the soil is dry on the surface. When it rains there is no stream for the water to flow into. Instead, the water soaks into the ground fairly quickly (with some evaporation loss, of course). This feeds our groundwater, and we pump it out with a well. After we use it it goes into the septic system, from which it percolates back to the groundwater system.

Not only does social media allow reality to be distorted, it also removes some of the historical limitations. Historically, it took effort to get anything published. This tended to limit the influence of nut cases. That is no longer the case.

Having worked on Nuclear plant design in the past I agree the steam idea would be neat. Diesel generators are used because regulatory agencies require protection against multiple failures. Typically this means two or three separate systems separated so that no single accident can prevent all from working (unless, of course the designers totally underestimate the potential of a tsunami). I think steam would be great for one of the systems-- provide the steam is not radioactive. I do not know if the Ukraine plant has radioactive steam. Typically, Pressurized water reactors have clean steam-- at the expense of the complex pressurization system that has its own drawbacks. Boiling water reactors, being simpler, derive their steam directly from the reactor-- at the expense of having radioactive steam.

Yes we have freewill. Our internal brain structure and brain chemistry drive what we do, as well as our environment. But-- ultimately, the things happening inside our brains leads to the decisions we make. We could argue about how inevitable our decisions are, and how much they are influenced by things we are not consciously aware of. and how much we are manipulated by outside forces, but in my opinion anything that ultimately arises from the functions within our brains constitutes free will.

"How can so many numbers of nature, the constants and relationships of physics, be so spot-on perfect for humans to exist? Because they provide the boundary conditions that happened (by chance) to allow humans to exist. If nature were different, likely any life that evolved would also be different-- and some of those living beings would likewise be amazed that nature just happened to be perfect for them to exist.

Mostly-- but I know of a minor overpass (over the railroad) in rural Pennsylvania that was mis-aligned because the two construction companies building the road from two opposite directions both agreed that the left edge of the road should be on the reference line for the overpass.

yep

overly complicated. To make a committee of 3 from 8: You have 8 choices for member #1, then 7 choices for the next member, then 6 for the third member. 8 x 7 x 6

Oh my!! Definitely. I'm glad to find out I am not the only one. When I drive on US highways I am constantly reminded of the question of meaning because of the road sign that says "lane ends merge left." I cannot decide if this means that the lane I am in is ending and I am instructed to merge to the left, or if it simply means that the two lanes are merging in a leftward direction. This bothers me! More significantly, I once had a job of helping my boss prepare for quarterly meetings with a very volatile leader. I would spend days struggling to 'spin' the presentation in a way that would assure that the volatile leader would receive the meaning we wished to convey.

Well, OK-- one attempt: A Model is an artificial construct, often mathematical, which represents a real world phenomenon, and which predicts the real-world outcome that is expected to result from a real-world input.

Not intending to be particularly contrary-- but in the past 15 years or so the math books and science books I used for teaching at the high school level have seen a huge increase in pretty color pictures and large diagrams, etc-- and that is a GOOD thing. Older textbooks with printing only tended to overlook the variations in learning style of different individuals. Not everyone learns well by reading only the printed word. Textbook publishers have gotten very good at creating textbooks that are educational for a wider range of learning styles.