Area54

A sense of guilt is largely determined by the environment in which one is raised, both the close environment of family and friends, and the wider cultural environment of the society one lives in. I would argue that some of this guilt is rather trivial and silly. As an example I recall an Australian friend being deeply offended by the occupants of high rise flats in Singapore actually hanging their washing out of the flat windows to dry. "That would never happen in Australia!" We need to be careful what we believe justifies a feeling of guilt lest we be guilty of intolerance.

You may have a point, but so far, as presented, it is not convincing. Specifically: You have claimed that "About every metallurgy textbook has a crystallography chapter that reproduces this nonsense", but have offered zero evidence that this is the case. How many metallurgy textbooks are currently extant? How many of them have you examined to reach this conclusion? How definitively is the "nonsense" repeated in each instance. Your table of Brittle and Ductile metals in the OP is far from comprehensive. As such it is not clear that the exceptions will actually be almost as numerous as those following the rule. Much of your material is anecdotal and includes more than one expression of personal disbelief. (Hardly scientific.) While you mention the significant effect that impurities and alloying may have on the metal properties, you appear to ignore the fact that this may be largely responsible for the percevied exceptions. A comparatively minor point - you have failed to structure your argument, but rather presented it as a series of apparently "off the cuff" comments. That tends to create the impression that your belief lacks appropriate objectivity. As I noted, you may very well be correct, but I believe you need to address the points above if you are to convince this skeptic.

I share your concern, no matter how small the chance may be of a hostile civilisation discovering them. Paranoia may be a form of madness, but it has survival value. On a side note, I liked the observation by Feynman who thought including recordings of Bach would "just be boasting".

I followed quite a few threads before joining and read some older ones that seemed interesting. I noticed one thing that may be discouraging some members or potential members from participation. There are several threads where posters clearly lack a good foundation in the scientific method. Unfortunately some of the corrections to their thinking by established and knowledegable members may come across as aggressive and even elitist. Now the correction is very necessary and it is often offered in positive manner, but not always. If that positive and encouraging approach could be used consistently in addressing what may rightly be seen a "silly" posts we might see individaul improvement and a growth in active members and quality posts.

The record of the Voyager probes is certainly a magnificent one. Thank you for the timely reminder. Here are some corrections to and comments on your list: 1. Pioneer 10 was the first spacecraft to reach Jupiter, while Pioneer 11 also visited Jupiter ahead of the Voyagers and was the first to reach Saturn. 2. Pioneer 10 determined that Io was orbiting within a hydrogen cloud. I believe (but have to check) that this may be related to the vulcanism you mentioned. 3. Titan was known to have an atmosphere since the 1940s and suspected to have one since the early 1900s. Also, the Pioneer craft were the first to leave the solar system (based on a definition that views the Voyagers as having left the system) although they have been overtaken by at least one of the Voyagers. The Pioneers lacked the Golden Records of the Voyagers, but they did carry the Sagan inspired plaque.

I'm pleased it was of some use. Maybe even finger-picking good.

Fisrt item on Google Scholar search [nail structure] is "On the Structure of the Normal Nail". Abstract A scanning electron microscopic (SEM) study of cut surfaces in normal human nails have confirmed the previous description of nail structure, i.e. the hard dorsal nail plate supported by the plastic intermediate nail plate. Unfortunately locate behind paywall - £35. From page 3 of the aforementioned search is this item - "Histological structure of human nail as studied by synchrotron X-ray microdiffraction" Abstract Three layers (characterized by different orientations of the keratin molecules) from the outer to the inner side of human nail were observed by synchrotron X-ray microdiffraction. These layers are associated with the histological dorsal, intermediate and ventral plates. The hair-like type alpha-keratin filaments (81 A in diameter), are only present in the intermediate layer (accounting for approximately 2/3 of the nail width) and are perfectly oriented perpendicular to the growth axis, in the nail plane. Keratin filaments of stratum corneum (epidermis) type, found in the dorsal and ventral cells, are oriented in two privileged directions; parallel and perpendicular to the growth axis. This "sandwich" structure in the corneocytes and the strong intercellular junctions, gives the nail high mechanical rigidity and hardness, both in the curvature direction and in the growth direction. Lipid bilayers (49 A thick) parallel to the nail surface fill certain ampullar dilations of the dorsal plate and intercellular spaces in the ventral plate. Using X-ray micro-diffraction, we show that onychomycosis disrupts the keratin structure, probably during the synthesis phase.

No it isn't. It is an old method of thinking, with incidental variation, that I have heard people argue the case for in pubs and promote on forums such as this. Lord Antares described it as "complete rubbish". I disagree slightly. I think it is incomplete rubbish and suspect, given the chance, you could add to it with more word salad, vagueness, silly ideas, false logic and an inflated sense of its value. I suppose those comments might strike you as cruel, but shouldn't you be using your obvious interest in philosophy and metaphysics to acquire a sound knowledge of the field that might enable you to offer some useful and promising concepts rather than exude nonsense.

Mike, what is it you don't understand about the request, from Moontanman and myself, for evidence of your heirarchy? We have both asked repeatedly and you have failed to provide such evidence. I don't like to do this, but unless your next post shows a sensible effort to meet that request I shall ask that the moderators lock this thread. (And please don;t launch into a bunch of irrelevant word salad, or I shall be forced to assume you are taking the piss. My reaction then will be even more severe.)

Rubbish! Your suggestion that all animals are at the same level in this heirarchy is patently wrong. The idea is easily demolished by noting two words: predator, prey. Further, if you had any knowledge of ecology at all you would not make such a silly pronouncement. The network of relationships in any environment is rich and complex and captured as a heirarchy only by gross simplification. You like artistry. Consider the artistry of Darwin with these words from the final paragraph of Origin of Species. " It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us." You just quoted from an edition of New Scientist. Here's another from the same edition. (First item on the Letters page, p.52) "Higher plants, Earth's dominant life form, continue to develop in the face of variable and usually unpredictable environment." You see Mike, alternative views of the nature of any heirarchy. Heirarchies are relative, not absolute. Despite repeated requests you have refused to offer any evidence to support your view. Simply repeating your beliefs not only fails to address the requests, but when done as often as you have done it becomes offensive. FFS, provide the flaming evidence now! @Moontanman, your argument is crystal clear.

I'm not going to fall for that one, no matter how attractive it seems!

Fine, but for the third time of asking, would you answer my question please. Do you think that some, any, most, all scientists believe in science?

Fine, but would you answer my question please. Do you think that most, any, all, some scientists belief in science rather than accept it?

So are you suggesting that most scientists do, or do not belief in science?

Sorry mate, Neither of those sentences makes any sense. Perhaps get a hold of a native English speaker, explain your idea to him and have him suggest how best to express it.

I hadn't even considered that possibility. More fool me. +1

I am thoroughly confused. I (mis)interpreted the OP to mean something I have seen various people state on various forums and other media. Namely, that good scientists accept the findings of science, rather than believe in the findings of science. That seems a very reasonable position to take, but perhaps it is not what the OP intends. PGJ, is that what you were trying to say?

Nice one dimreepr. I'm giving up on Iotero. He's not worth the effort. Good luck if you choose to continue.

It seems likely that it is more difficult to retrofit such a system than build it in from the start. Consequently we would expect to see the technology appearing on new rail systems. I believe most new rail systems are MRTs. When we look at such systems we find many of them do use driverless trains. Our suspicions are confirmed.

Here is a link to the article.

Hello Tube, I regret that my reply will not be helpful to you in the way that you wish, but - nevertheless - it is intended to be helpful and I hope you will see it that way. I want to offer you two statements and ask you one question. Statement 1: Despite decades of investigation by many able invesitgators no unequivocable evidence for psychic abilities has been found. Most studies reveal no such abilities whatsoever. Most of the handful of studies that suggest possible success have later been shown to use flawed statistical methods, or be badly designed experiments, or to be cases of fraud or hoax. The overwhelming considered opinion of the scientific community is that such abilities do not exist. Statement 2: Crystal meth may cause hallucinations. This is certain. There is no doubt about it. There is sound evidence to support it. There is essentially no evidence to the contrary. Question: On the basis of these facts, which do you consider the more likely explanation: you have achieved what no other person in human history has been shown to have achieved and do have a genuine psychic ability; alternatively you have experienced what is a common, known side-effect of crystal meth and are experiencing hallucinations? I hope another member will be able to offer you suggestions on what experiments you might perform to satisfy you and others which explanation is the correct one.

For every 100 people, the total number for 25% of them is 25 x 80 = 2000 For every 100 people the total number for all (100%) of then is 100 x 95 = 9500 Therefore the total number for 75% of the people is 9500 - 2000 = 7500 The average number for each must be 7500/75 = 100.

Initially you attributed that different view to Christians in general and implied it was a view held my most/many of them. Then you attributed that view specifically to YECs. That is a perfect example of moving the goalposts. Since you refuse to acknowledge this I shall leave you to your own devices. I was looking for an honest discussion.

Mike, you seem to be entirely missing the point. You have not demonstrated that any part of your heirarchy is valid. You just keep repeating what it is and what you believe about it. That is about as useful as a chess set in a rugby game. If you cannot at least make a serious attempt to justify your claims I shall have to conclude you are just trolling and I really will be out of here.

Valid point, although your mistyping in the second sentence just before the words "the US" was very arsenal.