Charles 3781

iNow, I respect your intelligence, but you do seem to think that "off-topic" means anything you don't personally agree with. All I'm saying is this: If we can't quickly invent a vaccine against CV-19, we'll have to develop a natural immunity. This immunity will come about, by getting everyone exposed to the virus as soon as possible. I can't see why you're fighting against this obvious fact. Of course it isn't a pleasant thing. but that's how the biological world operates. Trying to deny it won't help.

I think it means " going in a certain direction". Why giving it the name "vector" makes it more scientific, I'm not so sure about.

Then isn't the word "acceleration" being used differently in science. It properly means to speed up. Like when you "accelerate" your car. Your car increases its speed. If you claimed you could make your car increase its speed, by driving it round in a circle with no change in speed, that would not make sense. So I think the word "accelerate" is used differently in science, from what it is in the real world.

Surely the White House is pursuing the only rational policy. In the absence of an effective vaccine against Covid-19, the speedy establishment of "herd-immunity" is the best response.

geordief, on reading your post, it brings to mind a point that I never quite understood - when I was doing a Physics course, my tutor insisted that the Moon is constantly "accelerating" as it orbits the Earth. This didn't seem convincing to me. Because as you say, "acceleration" - ie, an increase in speed, surely requires an increase in energy input. Whereas the Moon, when it orbits the Earth, isn't getting any energy input. it just travels round in a a constant orbit, So how can it be "accelerating"?

iNow, What you're posting makes you sound a bit mental.

I haven't posted a crude cartoon, on this scientific forum, of President Trump looking at graves of Covid victims. You have. That looks like off-topic politically-biased drivel. Don't you think? Perhaps you should consider your position.

Thank goodness this a science forum without any political views intruding on it

Well of course it was. But please understand my position. When one has acquired a -25 rating, and faces the danger of getting booted off, a degree of unctuousness is called for.

You're right. My post was definitely off-topic, Apologies for derailing the thread.

Thanks Dord. On your remark concerning the outdated "nor", I think you raise a valuable point. Consider these two lines: "Water, water, everywhere, nor any drop to drink" - (18th century original) "Water, water, everywhere, and not a drop to drink" - (revised 21st century modern) The modern revision gets rid of the awkward " nor". Replacing it by the much smoother, and more natural "and not". A definite literary improvement. In a similar way, Science is always being revised and improved. For example we have improved our understanding of combustion, by replacing the 18th century "phlogiston", with "oxidation". Shouldn't such scientific principles be applied to past literature, so as to update and improve it.

Science and Religion are both attempts to make sense of the world. For that, they both deserve praise and credit. Humans like to make sense of things. But isn't the essential difference between Science and Religion this - Science employs mathematics. This is seen In any book of Science. Whether the book is about Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Geology, Sociology, or any other scientific study. Always, in the book, you will find maths. In the form of precise numerical data, detailed tables of figures, . Which prove, or at least lend substantial credibility to, the assertions made in the book. But is this case with religious books, such as the Bible. Are there any mathematical data contained in the Bible, which enhance its credibility?

Thanks swansont for clarifying that point. I used to wonder how sailors could die in agony of thirst when surrounded by water. I thought: "Well, even if the sea-water has got salt in it, surely a little bit of it, would at least help relieve the thirst". And you know - I still kind of think that way! But, as you explain in your post, both science and maritime experience testify to the contrary. From the point of view of long-term survival, that is.

Do you really think the root problem is "extremist billionaires"? I very much doubt it. There are deeper forces at work.

Reading Tyler's and Endy's excellent and informative posts, I wonder whether any research has been conducted into how marine organisms, such as fish and cetacean mammals, cope with living in the seas and oceans. In these aqueous environments, there would seem to be no effective gravitational force acting on the organism's body. The body is being kept in a neutral state, where any downward gravitational pull, is balanced by an upward push deriving from buoyancy. Doesn't this mean that the organism is effectively, in a state of "zero-G" - just as it would be, if it were floating in outer space. You can see where this is going! I mean, how do dolphins and whales manage to survive in this zero-G situation? Without suffering the bone-loss, muscle atrophy, and other concomitant detrimental effects which Tyler and Endy rightly cite in their posts as afflicting human astronauts?

But aren't those qualities what appeal to people? Because he's so utterly different from all the other run-of-the-mill politicians who just make people feel fed up and sick and tired of the whole lot them.

Possibly, we are faced by a Universe with an infinite "onion" effect. Where, however deep we penetrate into the scheme of things, layer upon layer, elements, atoms, nuclei, quarks - we will reach no ultimate truth.

If you were dying of thirst, wouldn't sipping salt-water in modest quantities relieve dehydration?

We live on a planet which has ~70% of its surface covered by oceans with an average depth of~ 12,000 ft of water. Given these facts, doesn't it seem strange that we're worried about water-shortage?

Isn't the Periodic Table founded on this proposition: that the nuclei of atoms are composed of sub-atomic particles - ie, protons and neutrons. And by counting the number of protons and neutrons in each atom, we arrive at an arrangement for the Table. That was very reasonable idea, when we thought of protons and neutrons as "indivisible". But nowadays we know that they're not indivisible, but made of smaller components - the "quarks", which come in different varieties. Therefore I wonder whether a revision of the Table based on the quark components of the nucleus, might offer advantages and provide deeper insights.

I offer this thought, in all humility - if Special Relativity theory can generate the above 6 long, complicated pages of debate among highly intelligent people, without their being able to reach any agreement about what it actually means, as appears to be the case - could this be because the theory isn't right? (mod: reference is https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/105185-time-dilation-dependence-on-direction/ )

Is it - a Liberal?

I don't remember that when I was a child, I got taught any lessons at all from my parents about caring and getting along with siblings, and other people. I was horrid to my younger sister. I had to figure out the correct operating principles for myself, in later life. This was accomplished by reading loads of books. Mostly science fiction books. Especially Asimov's "Foundation" series, which reveal invaluable lessons about human behaviour. I could go on to explain further. But who cares? This forum is about hard Science, not fiction! I never go into bars, as they tend to be full of drunks who start fights.

🙂 .🙂