Area54

I hesitate to perpetuate this thread necromancy, but your comment could not go unremarked. Lightning involves plasma. The ionosphere is, I understand, a plasma, thus plasmas have been present on the Earth, probably from the beginning. I see this is your first post, so welcome to the forum.

How the heck you see that in @Curious layman's posts is beyond me. He has simply voiced the opinion that, with the ongoing changes in society regarding our view of gender, sport will be impacted. He is interested in what these impacts might be and how we might most effectively handle them. If you don't want to be viewed as a politically correct evangelist then stop saying things that sound like you won't tolerate honest questions.

No. A pound or two of acceptance and understanding. An ounce or two of hostility.

I think it is a "bad thing". I can't envisage how ignorance and misinformation can ever be a good thing. I doubt you place any value on fake news. I hope you find its existence abhorent. This is no different. You ask what harm can having odd ideas do. Ask that of the families who lost members to covid because they thought it was all a big conspiracy, or that mask wearing was an infringment of their civil liberties. Science is under attack by segments of society who seem to glorify ignorance and sneer at the educated. I think such an attack on one of the cornerstones of civilisation merits an ounce or two of hostility. I think my earlier words show I am in broad agreement with you, except on this point. You need to reset your hostility meter. Several posts in this thread are hostile to the OP. It is a hostility I support. You may wish to call it a genteel earth moving implement, but it reads like a ****ing spade.

It is, perhaps, a pleasant thought. Unforunately belief in what lacks significant evidence is a form of self deception. You doubtless detect a measure of seeming hostility in replies from other members. Rather than hostility this is more in the way of frustration at yet another new member arriving with the same tired ideas to challenge science, thinking they have arrived at something original and penetrating. You have not. There is, however, a great oppotunity for you, through dialogue on this site, to gain improved insights into the nature of reality. To do that you will have to open your mind and cast aside your ill informed notion of the nature of science. I hope you make the right decision.

More than three quarters of a million people commit suicide every year. That's three quarters of a million people who will never have another conversation, enjoy a meal, take a walk, view a sunset, have an idea. I think, in its most generally understood sense, that is three quarters of a million dead people, that is death.

Plouging generaly involves a single pass of each portion of land; two, if you are harrowing; a third pass for planting. During the March to September interval there are multiple passes with weedkillers, pest killers and fertilisers. Then comes the harvesting. Combine harvesters use a bunch more fuel than tractors.

The journey.

1. A journey occupies time; a destination is but an instant. 2. Journies are variable; destinations are fixed. 3. Journies require observation, analyses and decisions; destinations are content with observation alone. 4. Journies have multiple possible routes; destinations are fixed. 5. Why not?

The journey is more important than the destination.

I'm going to disagree with you here. All attempts have been successful, in that 80% - 90% of the test objectives have been met in each case. and each test has progressed further, with the cause of failure beng eliminated in the subsequent test. Such engineering development as I have been involved in had the same pattern of failures, just not so spectacular, or public. As I noted earlier the patient did die, but the important point is that the operation itself was a success. The consensus view of commentators in the hour following the explosion was that the failure was of the landing legs. These had already been identified as potentially inadequate and are being redesigned. SinceSN11, already on the pad, has the same design it will be interesting to see what Space-X do. Replace the landing legs with the new design? Fix the leg deployment mechanism, if that was the cause of the failure? Launch as is to confirm all other sucesses can be repeated? Go straight to SN15, with new legs, which has a host of new features?

I concur with @Bufofrog and @joigus. Your posts make no sense. If you are unable to post a clear, unambiguous statement of your concept, along the lines joigus suggested, I shall recommend to the moderators that the thread be closed. That would be a shame, if your idea actually is interesting. However, if you are simply trolling, or inept, it would be the perfect solution. I look forward to a positive and understandable reply.

A. Indeed, the landing was sucessful, but the patient subsequently died. . . Post landing video. B. If you watch the "community" feeds, multiple cameras are in play, with diverse viewpoints. Without knowing which feed you were watching I can only suggest a possible explanation for the apparent constant perspective . . perhaps it is only apparent. I don't entirely rule out a chase plane for some of the shots, but suspect a very high end camera is the correct explanation. Regardless, they are damn good shots.

I recall de Gaulle's inflamatory speech in the 1960s while visiting Montreal when he addressed the crowd with "Vive le Québec libre!" I'm much more of a Cuba Libre man myself, ideally accompanied by nachos. Fusion sustenance.

I realise that you do not respond well to criticism. That is unfortunate. You post a great deal that deserves criticism. Your post here is a good example - almost everything you have said in it is nonsense. If you disagree then post sound evidence that supports your claims.

This is very useful. Thank you.

I'm not clear if your current system costs are purely running costs, or if they include the capital cost of the heat pump and, if the latter, over what period you have amortised it. I'm interested since I'm considering installing such a system.

My maths is weak. That may account for my next observation. I have no idea what you are trying to assert/define/explain/postulate. An alternative explanation for my lack of understanding is that you have, thus far, done a poor job of presenting your hypothesis. Until you have addressed that possibility I cannot asses the third option - that you are posting nonsense. I look forward to your clarification.

Aren't you rather too close to Quebec to risk making remarks like that? I'm just concerned for your welfare.

Your overview seems merely a stating of the obvious in an imprecise and exceedingly general manner. I can see it might be a useful loose structure to which to append a personal appreciation of nature, but nothing in it appears either original, or useful to a wider audience. I would challenge another's observation that you have not presented a model. I think you have, but it is just so trivial as to be of no obvious practical value.

You may be correct, or you may be overly pessimistic. Here are two contrary thoughts. You seem to have excluded the possibility that the moon of a giant planet could not approach (or even exceed) the size of the Earth. Do you have specific research that justifies that view? We have no data (that I am aware of) as to the physiological effect of gravity intermediate between the microgravity of the ISS and Earth normal. It may be that a surface gravity of, say, 0.2g coupled with regular, moderate exercise and appropriate diet would be sufficient to eliminate, or substantially minimise the negative effects. Perhaps we will have a better understanding once we've had astronauts spend a year or so on the moon.

@Sensei has dealt clearly and terminally with your argument in the post above. This is a common misunderstanding. Strength can be a notable survival characteristic, but so too can speed, or agility, or adaptability, or intelligence, or . . . the list goes on. Those best suited to their environment stand the best chance of survival, but Lady Luck also plays a hand. Just ask the non-avian dinosaurs. Classification systems are artificial, so there is nothing inherently wrong with yours (other than the fact that all living things move to some extent), but is it useful? Nothing useful springs to mind when considering it, especially when compared with the more traditional classifications. Even unconventional systems, oflimited use, may have other specific advantages. (e.g. There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.) Aside: since isolating myself during lockdown I've stopped shaving and don't wear clothes. Many animals are completely unaware of humans. Many animals are fearful of humans. The majority of animals are not carnivores. While I've been attacked by sheep, I've never been eaten by one. Do you have sound evidence to support these statements. They look very much like over-simplified generalisations and as such have little or no value. You have almost redeemed yourself here with these valid observations. Unfortunately the weakness of the earlier statements leave the overall conclusion negative. I offer you some an observation and some advice. The observation - you seem to be genuinely interested in the world and in science. The advice - rather that make unfounded claims that appear silly, why not ask questions, the answers to which will enhance your knowledge and understanding?

I suspect it as one of these two: You are obviously an anti-communist. I shouldn't have eaten chilli rellenos for breakfast.

I can't agree with you. Fairy tales are interesting and often have an important moral message.

Now, why not take the time to answer my first and more important question. (The one you quoted along with the one you did answer. Thank you for the latter. I look forward to the later.