Area54

"Let me answer your question with a question. Are you seriously suggesting that an officer in the US military, who has taken an oath, should choose to disobey a legal order of the Commander in Chief of those military forces? I am here to answer serious, informed questions, not assanine trivia. Next question please." As to your first question John, the function of nukes is for them not to be used; a function they have discharged admirably for approaching three quarters of a century.

I have removed saddle and bridle, brushed them down, given them some fresh hay and secured them in the stable. When you get around to presenting your thesis with clarity and completeness I shall be pleased to return to the discussion.

I just tried to explore one possibility of what is going on in the mind of the sender. He has a friend. He has developed, over time, an understanding of the friend's interests attitudes. He sees a video that amuses him and a photograph that he thinks is very artistic. He decides to share them with his friend (and perhaps other friends, besides). Unbeknown to him the friend is convinced she is being sexually harassed and is discussing it with anonymous persons on the internet. When he is finally confronted by an irate friend he is horrified that she has misinterpreted his intent and,more importantly, deeply hurt that she thought so little of their friendship she was not prepared to raise her discomfort at the outset. As noted, it's just one possibility, but given the general absence of data it is one that deserves at least passing consideration.

I have noted, over the years, that people identify problems and solutions on the basis of their experience and knowledge. That's hardly surprising, but it is rare that they then modify their conclusions in the light of this specific knowledge. Shorter version: "Yes, but...."

Are you suggesting his thoughts may be half-baked?

@Doctordick I note that Strange has found, as I did, that your writing is sometimes ambiguous. Ambiguity is not unusual in forum posts; we are not writing papers for Nature. However, you are seeking to present/develop, if I understand you, a fundamental concept relating to language, communication and explanations, amongst other things. Given that ambitious intent it behoves you to post with more precision and care than the typical forum post. Your have failed to do so. I shall continue to watch this thread, but if you continue to redefine your meaning each time you are questioned I shall rather rapidly abandon the effort. If this comes across as aggressive I apologise. I think I am partly influenced by your comment in the OP - " It also points out a few minor errors in modern physics not realized by the professionals." This has echoes of the internet trolls who "have a theory" based upon the fact that "science has got it wrong". I hope I am mistaken and this is just another example of you not wrting what you meant.

Thank you for your reply. On this particular point I must have been unclear. My point about global warming is that if we fail to counteract it and the worst case scenarios are realised there will be no civilisation to practice space exploration and thus your claim that economic matters will not stop that exploration is faulty.

Disclaimer: I'm overly influenced by pop science explanations, but I'm confident others will correct any nonsense in my post. We do not know what preceded the BB, but it entirely possible matter/energy were present in some form before the expansion of the current universe began. So,something coming from something else, not something from nothing. Or, as the quote notes, "nothing" in physics is not quite the same as absolutely nothing. (There is an ongoing discusison about this somewhere on the forum,) We know that virtual particles can and do emerge from "nothing" then disappear. Some have suggested that the universe is just a large scale blip of virtual particles. Again, not something from nothing, but arguably something from "nothing". Hope that clarified rather than confused.

Just a bunch of minor points. Not evaporate, but burn up, or incinerate, or volatilise. For an explosion of the magnitude you appear to be envisaging having it on the far side would not stop some of the "chunks" striking the Earth. A blast poweful enough to move the moon any signficant distance from the Earth would destroy the moon. I'm at a loss as to why an explosion on the moon is going to influence aurora, but perhaps I haven't read all the posts closely enough. Good luck with your writing.

I am in agreement with several aspects of what you have said here and in other posts in this thread, but I have two counterpoints for you. I think it is inappropriate to suggest that those who express concern for the poor, the sick, the disenfranchised are simply peddling "bleeding heart sob stories". I will go further. Making such an accusation tends to cement the opposition the of those are concerned about these matters and see space exploration as an unwelcome distraction. Using such rhetoric may make you feel good, but it does nothing to persuade the opposition. If manned exploration and colonisation of space is important to humanity it is important that we have the support of the majority of humanity in that endeavour. "One small step for a man, . . . . " You discount the "variable economic circumstance(s)", yet our civilisation is perilously close to disintegration. Global warming, nuclear holocaust, falling spem counts. The list is a long one and that's without considering a chance encounter with an asteroid or stray comet. We'll probably make it through, but your absolute belief goes further than the facts warrant.

Remove the entire tectonic plate? That would then expose the mantle at a depth of between 100-200 km. Massive earthquakes as the sides of the chasm collapse. Pressure release from already partially molten rock and you have an eruption that makes the Deccan Traps look like a child's firework. Tsunamis sweep deep into continents, then oceans evaporate, the atmosphere fills with noxious gases and particulates, Dante's Inferno looks like a holiday camp in comparison. Things are so bad the cricket at Lord's is cancelled.

Thank you for the link beecee. Very interesting. Given the variety of organic molecules present in GMCs and the ISM these results are not surprising, but nevertheless welcome.

Thank you imatfaal. I did get the reference and my wayward attempt at humour was a way to subtle dig at the Infinite Improbability Drive which, I am confident, must rely upon irrational numbers, not primes. (I won't give up my day job.)

You specified "language" and not the more general "communication". Language is a form of communication. Photographs can be used another form of communication. My objection stands. You seem to be attempting a tightly argued thesis, yet you have - in your first substantive assertion - been loose and imprecise in your terminology. That does not bode well for success.

Re your first "fact". As stated, it is not a fact. I can present an explanation of events to myself by visualising it. Perhaps you meant to say that no explanation can be conveyed to another without the use of a language. However, the manufacturers of flat pack furniture can explain to me how to assemble it through a series of photographs. Are you asserting that photographs constitute a language? If so I should like to see some citations from linguists to that effect. Your second and third facts appear sound. Since one of your "facts" is thereby invalidated I have not proceeded to consider the notions you build on a flawed foundation.

Florence Nightingale, Albert Einstein, Mohamed Ali, Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, Queen Elizabeth II, Marie Curie, Charles Dickens. I can make my list much longer than yours. As to the OP. The idea that the meaning of life is improvement is a very common one. Ultimately, unless someone discovers the Rule Book, the meaning of life is what each individual chooses it to be. (As an aside it is certainly not 42. The meaning, if numerical, is bound to be a prime number!)

That would certainly help us spread the word.

Hello Eclipse, when I read only the title of your thread my immediate thought was "No way" because of the high and persistent wind velocity. I see you had exactly the same thought. That said, I should like to see some comprehensive modelling to convince me that it was not a viable option. I suspect the work hinted at by Moontanman may have been somewhat simplified and limited in scope, as most early modelling of any problem necessarily is.

In that case perhaps it is not as simple and transparent as you imagine. Implicitly they do. For successful reproduction, of original or accidental structure, to occur natural selection is required. Natural selection determines whether the original, or the accidental structure are more favoured in the lottery of reproduction. And that evolution is governed by natural selection. I am generally quite dense. I still have no idea where you are going with this.

I think I am missing something here. Perhaps you can help me follow your point. You suggest Monod's ideas may "throw light" on junk DNA, but you then (apparently) make no mention of what light is thrown and how. Would you explain? The observations of Monod do not seem qualitatively different from how evolution was perceived a couple of decades, at least, before he wrote them. As I said at the start, what am I missing?

America lost through an abyssmal strategy and questionable tactics.

I'm sorry your humour circuits were not engaged this morning. I expect you can find errors in the few posts I have made here. I would be happy to have any and all of them pointed out, even although none of them were in formal presentions. Clarity and a respect for the language make me demand it of myself. I'll gently chide oversights by others if they are in banner headlines in a title and the correction can be applied with some light humour.

And that reasoning is flawed. I, and others, have demonstrated this. You have ignored the demonstrations. You have failed to address the objections, You have simply continued to assert your belief and your flawed reasoning. Your premises are wrong! Your evidence is absent! Your logic is faulty! Yet you continue to assert your belief. This is faith, not science. It is religion, not spirituality. Mike, that is just silly. The antics of a bunch of jumped up monkeys on a lump of debris floating around one of half a billion stars in a galaxy that contains at least half a billion more galaxies is hardly going to be in the spotlight. "Seagull poops on pensioner" might get a one paragraph mention in the Whitsatble Gazette, but it will never make the New York Times.

The universe is indifferent to your incredulity.

Seriously misplaced apostrophes.