Area54

I suggest there are two kinds of integrity - basic integrity and learned integrity. Scientific training is replete with emphasis on integrity. One could say that science is a discipline that seeks the truth through objective investigation. We know that some scientists fake their results. We also know this is done against the principles and the practice they have absorbed during their education. The vast majority of scientists display integrity in their work because they have spent years having integrity hammered into them directly and indirectly.

I just note that while Texas was suffering from the polar vortex my wife and I were almost snowed out of our house as we returned from our Covid injections and our neighbouring village was completely isolated for four days, the first time this has happened since 1983. Clearly your choice of Somerset was more sensible than our retreat in the highlands of Scotland. As to the main thrust of your thread, the arguments of the anti-green lobbly evoke the same question as usual - "Are they really this ignorant, or is this cynical dishonesty?"

I am no fan of the robustness of many aspects of the social sciences, but I think your attribution of the likely cause is flawed. If what you say is true we wouldn't have the numerous building collapses, bridge collapses, Chernobyls, Bophals, flammable cladding on high rises, structurally unsound supertankers, and on and on and on. Humans make errors (and sometimes lie about them) regardless of which discipline they are in. I suggest the uncertainty (or unreliability, if you prefer) of some aspects of the social sciences is generally down to the very large numbers of variables that are present in many of the behaviours under study. You need to demonstrate that the example you have given is representative of the approach of the social sciences. Are you suggesting that a study of the impact of alcohol upon reaction times of individuals of varying ages and genders is incapable of generating meaningful and accurate data? If so, you are mistaken. Moreover, in the case of the political polls that you reference, warning messages accompanied the data. And you have offered no evidence that more accurate polls would have led to a different election result. You have not demonstrated that "people" sugar-coat correspondent's likelihood to lie. Your comparison is not about the social sciences, it is about the strong selfish character of humans, and that is something that has been well documented and demonstrated by thousands of social science experiments and observations. Edit: In regard to your major thesis, as a member of the public I am undoubtedly partially responsible for global warming. However misapplication of social science "products" does not enter into the equation in any meaningful way. If you think it does you have yet to demonstrate it.

Homework Help is where members guide other members towards deriving answers to their homework. It is not where members provide full answers to members too lazy or indifferent to at least make some effort to answer those questions. Perhaps, if you make an effort now to describe what work you have done to attempt an answer and what uncertainties you have, then some members may be willing to offer you help. That's "help", not "complete answers".

As long as you don't mix up AC-DC you should be fine.

Two weeks is more accurate. Because of libration (a wobbling motion) of the moon we can, over time, see about 59% of the lunar surface. Ice is confirmed in craters at the lunar south pole. The presence of this water is the primary reason this is targeted for visits and base contruction in NASA's Artemis human landing program.

Is it my arithmetic, or yours that is at fault? 1200 years before 1400 AD is 200 AD. But Eratosthenes did his calculations around 250 BC, some 1650years earlier. Or have I misread something?

Probably not, but if you did it seems it would be an improvement.

Am I wrong in thinking that the American revolution could not have taken place without violence? From the little I know of it violence was definitely involved. This violence seemed to begin against the legitimate authorities. Does this mean you disapprove of the manner in which the revolution took place? I'm not trying to trap you, or trip you up. I am genuinely puzzled and seek clarification. Just to anticipate possible questions, I believe there are times when violence is justified. I haven't decided whether such justification exists, on either side, in the USA today. I merely note I don't place an eternal embargo on violence.

I can see I need to work harder on making it clear when I am criticising an OP with gentle irony, rather than asking an actual question. (Or give up critiques entirely. I imagine that would top any poll.)

A demonstration that not all posts in Science forums need contain science?

This presumes that psychopathy is an illness in need of a cure. Your note that there are many occupations in which a psycopath can thrive, to the benefit of society, is an implicit acknowledgement that such is the case. And yet your question also implies that the net consequence of psychopathic behaviour is negative for society. Ought we not, then, to focus on the behaviour, distinguishing positive from negative, and seeking ways to ehance the former and mitigate against the latter?

Things would, perhaps, not have turned out so badly if the one typing the 280 characters had one of his own.

I find this sort of research intrinsically more interesting than the outcomes of LHC experiments, or investigations in cosmology. I can understand that some are more attracted to investigation of the fundamentals, but as my intellect is a product of emergence from those fundamentals I am more engaged by phenomena at the same level. (And I think my intellect just about on a par with a jellyfish.) So, thank you for the link.

Optic delay lines? Hmm. I didn't see this when it was first posted.

His finger is loaded and cocked.

His book, Dark Sun - The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb, is also excellent, but is much more a historical story than a scientific one, not that the science is ignored. I notice that his earlier book won Rhodes the 1988 Pulitzer Prize for non-fiction.

I guess you do horoscopes. How much do you charge?

If all you are going to do is make claims then you will be rightly ignored. You need to do as @Klaynos suggested and demonstrate the correlation. That is only the starting point, but without that all you have is an idle speculation.

From your document: "We believe that with the combination of the above factors and conditions in the interior of the planet, a thermonuclear fusion reaction is quite possible, capable of causing a deep-focus earthquake, the nature of which is still unknown." The cause of deep focus earthquakes is very well established and has been for several decades. The vast majority of such earthquakes occur along subducting plates. This is one of the core observations of plate tectonics, which the soundly estsablished paradigm of Earth science. You error here, asserting the cause is unknown, calls into question anything you may present relating to mantle geology. You also state: " Diamonds are known to form in magma." No, they are not known to form in magma. If you think they do you should have no problem providing a citation. There is a host of other faulty material in your paper, but I'd like to see your responses to these first before investing any more time on it.

I did not offer an opinion. I offered a suite of substantive objections that, seemingly, you are unable to refute. My 'arguments' are reasoned objections, I leave demagoguery to those who are short on evidence or conscience. There are many people who were born with fewer than five fingers , or who have lost one or more by accident, while there is the occassional six fingered person. As to interest, accuracy should always be of interest to serious enquirers.

Except: How does one ensure a comprehensive and objective analysis of the videos? How does one ensure one has selected a representative example of of accessible videos? How does one ensure that the accessible videoes are fully representative of all the videos? How does one ensure that the producers of the videos have not been selective of their shots? In short, while videos would be a good potential source of data, to declare that "there is nothing more reliable than this" calls into question your ability to carry out a scientific analysis.

Science is about discovery. A substantial proportion of scientists are it because they are intrigued by discovery. So science certainly leads to a gain of knowledge. I hope you are not offended by the notion that scientists also welcome a salary for the work they do. Invention lies much more in the field of engineering where profit and gain are what powers further engineering developments. Not in any significant way. No idea what you mean? Of course the application of some scientific discoveries have had negative consequences. That is more in the hands of politiicians, businessmen and the general public than it is in the hands of scientists. And the vast majority of discoveries have been beneficial, or at worst neutral. And yet, while I maintained contact with my parents during the occassional letter when I was on the other side of the planet I can use the internet to video visit with my children and granchildren every week. Science has identified global warming and offered solutions. Famine would be infinitely worse without scientific developments in agriculture. Climate change, as for global warming, which is just a synonym. Application of science can often best be achieved via business model. Do you think that is a problem. Finally you ask a good question. Answer: pretty much.

Salik, in your pdf you open with these sentences: "The speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s. When we move our hand, we see the movement straight away because of the close distance that the light has to travel between the hand and our eyes. We also feel the movement straight away as the speed of the nerve impulses are very quick: they are not that quick compared to light." Based upon other remarks later in your pdf I don't think you actually mean what you say here. But I'm going to assume, for the moment, that you do think these statements are accurate and I am going to correct them. We don't see the movement of our hand straight away. The distance is small and the speed of light is large, as you say, but it still takes a finite time for the light to reach our eyes. It then takes time for the signal to be converted, sent down the optic nerve and interpreted by the brain. So, what you may have meant was "for all most practical purposes we see the movement straight away" Equally we don't feel the movement straight away, though you say we do. (And there are multiple possibilities as to what you might mean by "feel".) Before we proceed further with your ideas would you comment on these contradictions between what you wrote and reality.

A useful and effective analogy. I am now better informed. Thank you.