forufes

CLARIFICATION I replied to two posts in my post #151. I retract my reply to the second post, and any defense thereof.

What I'm saying (in effect); either show that someone is stupid, or move along and ignore them. But to call someone stupid because they are so in your head, without showing why, is unacceptable. And the nice thing is, once you show and explain why someone is stupid, calling them so explicitly becomes unnecessary. Just look at it, a long post of arguments and opinions, and a short reply of "you're stupid, you and your like, i.e. the majority of people in the world, and are not worth arguing with. Yeah... thanks for...uh... enlightening me.. I guess.. I'll be sure to come here more often to get more wisdom like that, and to show my thankfulness, I'll give you a green arrow, keep up your hard and well-thought work.. Venom is dripping from this thread.. I liked it better when religion was off limits on SFN. But I think it was unhealthy for all the members to keep all those feelings welled up inside of them..Poe's law indeed. Non-sequitur, IMHO. I agree with you that empathy is ingrained in us, but I find religion and the belief in the supernatural, especially when it comes to matters about our origin and mortality, also ingrained in us. Both can be overcome, but how did you decide which is more deeply rooted? And you know, I might even ask "does it matter?" If humankind didn't have such strong susceptibility to religion, then why did they make it up so long ago and stick with it all this time? Do human societies need habituation or conditioning to be religious, or to be atheistic? Yet that hasn't stopped any of you to oppose your societies and upbringing and recondition yourself with science to overcome the "natural" religious root in humans. Why can't I do the same about empathy?

In the religious society which is the majority of human society, what is the ratio of evil religious people to moral laymen? And considering that religion and god are the number one source for morality in theistic societies(otherwise atheists wouldn't be battling the concept so strongly, including this thread), can't we say that religion has managed our societies more fine than not? What I'm saying basically, is that in current societies, religiousness is still strongly related to(not exactly synonymous with) morality. And look at us, we're doing just fine. And I don't understand why you posted that picture, to reaffirm your self given superiority to yourself and your colleagues? What value or merit does it add to this thread? What discussion is there in it, than dismissing attempts for discussion; "I'm right and you're wrong and I don't need to tell you why because I'm too smart to do so". When I get baffled by someone's ignorance or lack of logic, and I don't have the time or patience to call them out, I move along or put them on ignore.

If you say science disagrees with me then you don't understand my position. I am not saying empathy doesn't exist in living beings, including humans. I'm saying we can transcend it, logically. Those who are reformed with religion, were bad due to a lack of it, and tell of the many good who are such because they had enough of it. Also, when religion says "do not steal" and a person of a religion steals, isn't that because they aren't religious enough? the original quote is what's absurd. Maybe, religious people can be bad. But that just makes them less religious. It is not because of religion that religious people are bad, it's for a lack of it. That combined with empathy, empathy is also a source of morality for religious and atheist people alike.

I don't. I find empathy an illogical emotion which can be overturned by logic. Just like fear or disgust, it's a choice. I am however, religious, and like single cell organisms, I am driven by pain and pleasure, and no pain is greater than what is promised in hell, and no pleasure is greater than what is promised in heaven. I see no real reason to attach myself to what other people feel. Although I recognize the natural allure to do so. Sociopathy is deemed a sickness by a society, not a surprise. Simply wrong. To clarify needlessly; many people are good because of religion, and bad for a lack of it. Also, lack of religion caused more people to do evil things, than an abundance of it has.

philosophy is the highest and most basic logic, it's the ability to go long distances back and forth between thoughts and conclusions using logic. however, a characteristic of philosophy is that it is useless, as in it doesn't produce well-defined outputs, it's the realm of all logic half cooked, once it's something systematic and clear, it becomes a field of its own or a science. it's kinda like mathematics, useless in itself and formless, with no direct impact on our lives, but its bits and pieces are used in all practical fields of our lives.

i think the egg will withstand an unimaginable amount of pressure, since it's applied evenly from all sides. no, this is extremely inaccurate, when you put weights on an egg you're multiplying the stress into a concentration factor, a big one. when the egg undergoes pressure from all sides only normal stress will be developed, however when you apply a weight or hit it against something there will be shear stress, and that is what will break the shell. it's like the difference between trying to crush a wooden plank under even weights and fixing it from the sides and applying the same weights to its middle.

because it's easier to twist this than to twist this . even in the solid bone, the closer you get to the core the less torque the material is withstanding [stress]. because stress here is a function of torque, and torque is a function of the arm length, which here is the radius. if the hollow and solid bones had the same radius then the solid one would resist slightly more torque.

possibility percentage of it exploding in your hand?

my guess is that the battery will run out before that happens . hmmm, to know you have to compare the battery's energy to the energy needed to take the paper clip from solid to liquid state[refer to phase diagram?]... and i'd estimate the latter to be more. also, i think you can't neglect the cooling of the paper clip, or it's thermal conductivity. a material can have a low melting point but transfers heat to air quickly. as for batteries exploding, i'd imagine it's because the material of the battery decomposes into gases in the batteries sealed package, builds pressure, boom. which is i think why you're not supposed to dispose of it in a fire[speculation].

the function i know of flywheels in cars is to start them up. an inline crank rocker four bar mechanism can maintain its motion from a linear force input, however, starting its motion from a linear force input might get troublesome since the crank rocker can be in its toggle position, which is why they have the flywheel. think of it this way; you can't get your bicycle moving if the peddle you're pushing is in its lowest position, you have to bring it to its mid position to be able to turn it by pushing it. your leg is the bar connected to the piston cylinder...[hope i made it clear] but what i had in mind, is like a mechanical battery, big or small, to which you input mechanical work then retrieve that mechanical work, i didn't think of fluids really, but more of a solid mechanism. something like this: i also didn't mean 100m\h as a velocity, but just 100miles as a distance before needing to wind up the mechanism.

easy. check "Brinell's hardness test", it's the inverse of what you want. but it'll give you what you want pretty much directly. yay i'm useful

a mechanism to store mechanical energy then release it, like wounding a giant spring then having a full seize car go 100 miles. the closest i found was NASA's human powered plane. did you hear of anything similar?