deepend

In a word, no. Might I recommend a song by Frank Zappa about the power of television called "I'm the Slime." To have free will you need a free mind.

Right now there is more freedom of speech in Russia concerning the Ukraine than has ever existed about most things here in the U.S. For just about everything you think you "know" about anything, just the opposite is probably the case. In this regard, the U.S. is worse than North Korea. But don't take my word for it on the North Korea topic. Take the word of an expert on the matter. www.foxnews.com › us › north-korean-defector-ivyNorth Korean defector says 'even North Korea was not this ... It would appear that I'm not allowed to say anything about the Ukrainian war around here without getting the troll treatment. So I figure, what the hell. I may as well tell you the truth on the matter and go out with a bang. The Ukrainian people have suffered a long and bloody relationship with Russia. That is why the person I will show you a picture of is widely admired there. Because contrary to what you've been brainwashed to believe, he wasn't an invader to the Ukrainians. He was a saviour! To the brainwashed As I said, the Ukrainian people have suffered greatly in the past at the hands of the Russians. Because of what you have been brainwashed to believe, some of that blood is on your hands. You claim to support the Ukrainian people? What a laugh!!! You are enslaved by and support those at who's hands they have suffered. Here is a meme that tells the real history and the reason for it. It is interesting that the current president of the Ukraine is also Jewish. As far as I know, contrary to this meme, Lenin was only part jewish. But the Bolshevik's were indeed mostly if not completely made up of jews. I have a picture of some of them. One of them was a jew named Genrikh Yagoda. He was the head of the NKVD and is said to have personally orchestrated the untimely deaths of at least 10 million people. I will show you a meme of him and what he said. I looked it up myself. He actually did say that. Here is something else to desuds your brainwashed minds. It is a statement by a Nobel Laureate named Alexandyr Solzhenitsyn. Now sometimes winning the Nobel Peace Prize is nothing more than a popularity contest. But Alexandyr Solzhenitsyn was an actual intellectual. He was a Russian Historian and novelist. Still having trouble believing your own eyes? That Stockholm Syndrome thing sure is a bitch, isn't it. You would probably flip out if I was allowed to prove to you that the holocaust was a hoax. The Russians were indeed the actual bad guys. And this person knew it. So if you have any doubt in your mind as to why the Ukrainians are so fiercely opposing the better equipped Russian forces, you now have your answer. I support them. You should to. The first step is in understanding them. And understanding their history is a big part of that.

You seem to disagree with me. In both bacteria and humans there is one driving factor. The need to reproduce. No matter what. You could call it an inherited trait. Inherited brain wiring or brain chemistry. It could very well be that you will develop health problems if you don't breed. Any of the philosophies any philosopher has ever come up with throughout history doesn't stand much chance against this inherited physiology. (But mine could) And any of the kinds of science discussed at this forum is only likely to exacerbate the problem. Also, as I was telling somebody else, this is the main reason behind religion. It gives people the ability to do whatever in the hell they want and justify doing so. What is the end result likely to be? Ever see the movie Soylent Green? Would you like to know the answer? That would require speaking the truth. Which the vast majority of people avoid like the plague. And the vast majority of forums won't allow to be spoken. Jesus was EVIL! Maybe not as evil as mohammed, but evil enough. To rearrange an old saying, you can commit more evil with honey than with vinegar.

I spoke of the main reason. None of the others compare. But feel free to mention the "other reasons" if you want to.

Though this is a science forum, I wonder if there are any HCGW deniers around here. They always amuse me. That aside, there is nothing amusing about HCGW. And what I find most troubling about it is that not even science programs seem willing to speak the truth about it. Maybe it is yet another case of scientists basically having to kowtow to those who pay their salaries. Universities who get much funding from big business or to big business directly. Such as our political leaders do. I recently watched a couple different programs about HCGW. One spoke of a feedback loop and another spoke about the exponential increase in HCGW. But neither stated plainly exactly what that meant. Which is that HCGW is speeding up. The warmer it gets, the faster it will get even warmer. There is one program I saw that told some truth on the matter. It was hosted by Bill Nye and was called Global Meltdown. In it he interviewed an ex college or university professor. This professor had been studying the problem for something around 15 years. What he found out caused him to quit his tenured professorship and start preparing for doomsday. Which he figured could happen in the next 20 years. The main thing that brought him to this conclusion was the exponential increase in methane release. Because methane is 86 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2. Though in my opinion, we have a little longer than 20 years. I figure that it will be a miracle if any humans will be around to see the year 2050.

Of course I am speaking of the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. Most wars have been fought for the same reason. It is one group trying to take what another group has. It is no different with Russia's invasion of the Ukraine. Because the Ukraine has much that Russia would like to have easier access to. One of which is that the Ukraine produces more food than any other European country. Oh how right George Santayana was when he said, "Only the dead have seen the end of war."

For those who don't believe in human caused global warming, this is a topic that probably has little meaning. Hopefully there aren't many of those kinds of people around here. After all, this is a science forum. On the topic of free energy, the question to be asked is if the engineering aspect of it possible. From something I found, it seems to be. I will post a link to another forum that goes into the matter. I guess it will be up to the mods to decide which is more important. Free energy or that this topic was brought up in another forum. One that for the record I am not endorsing in any way. I guess we will find out

Ok. I've had enough of you. Apparently a rational discussion is beyond you. Go haunt somebody elses thread. It is interesting how much effort some people will put into being wrong. I never said that religions didn't exist in the far past. In fact, in a reply to someone else I pointed out that religions of sorts probably existed before there were any humans around. I brought up a creature that I saw on an old nature show that appeared to be worshiping. And though I tried, there is no way to find out exactly what that creature was. Next, you don't need to spout a load of BS to try and explain the human condition. I will explain it as concisely as possible. Humans behave the same as bacteria. Basically, that makes us bacteria. So there it is. Does that simplify the situation enough for you?

You know how I can tell you are full of crap? By reading what you type. You brought up Aristotle by mentioning a quote of his. I told you what I thought of Aristotle. You didn't say you wanted an opinion on your quote by Aristotle directly. If you want an answer, ask a question. But I will now answer it as if you were seeking an opinion on his quote. It is a load of BS. Without having a rational mind, he can offer no opinion on what a rational mind is. So he was wrong. He may have tried to do the best he could, but there are aliens from other planets who would be dismayed by what the vast majority of people even today would view as rational. Let alone over 2000 years ago. Next, only a fool would "entertain" any sort of thought. You can think about any sort of point of view. Making a judgement based on all the pro's and con's of any topic. But to me that isn't the same as "entertaining" any point. To me, entertaining a thought is akin to putting yourself in the shoes of somebody who holds a certain point of view. That to me is getting too personally involved in it. Which isn't a good position to be in to make a dispassionate judgment from. Don't put words into my mouth. If somebody hits you on the toe with a hammer, it doesn't require any study to know if it hurts. Next, why start another thread about discussing religion. That's what this one was about. What you speak of has nothing to do with religion. Things like bees, ants and termites have had societies of sorts for over one hundred million years. No sort of religion is involved. And your opinion as to why religions exist is wrong. One of the reasons why they exist is that when the reality you live in can't produce hope, you are likely to seek help from the paranormal. Or in another word, fantasy. I also seem to recall telling somebody around here the main reason why religions exist. It is because if there is a way in which one human can control another, there are many who will try to do so. Especially when it is something that has been done successfully in the past. Which is the case of religion. Next, I say to hell with "leaders" and what they might inspire their people to do. Because most if not all leadership is corrupt and an ego trip for the leaders. You also speak of going in a direction that make societies strong. If such a direction has ever existed, I've never heard of it. Our society is weak and getting weaker. What most people would call strength I would call filth. In the past 20,000 years, humans have lost an amount of brain that is about equal to the size of a tennis ball. We aren't evolving. We are de-evolving. And it is highly unlikely that any humans will be around to see the year 2050 due to human caused global warming. Next, you are probably right that humans are incapable of beliefs that are based on rationality. I'm sure the concept has existed. But from what I have seen, most people want to be led. They have enough on their plate in just day to day existence. They would prefer somebody else take on the bigger problems. Also, most don't really give a damn what happens. As long as it happens to someone else. Religions are crap. The reason why they exist is basically meaningless. They are either crap or outright evil. Evil to the extent that the truth isn't even allowed to be spoken. I know of one forum where it can be done. But because it is a forum where truth can be spoken, it is practically a ghost town. Why? Because the vast majority of people want absolutely nothing to do with the truth. The REAL truth. Is that preaching? No. It's the TRUTH. So don't tell me what I know or don't know. For what I might say, you aren't allowed to hear it, you don't want to hear it and this forum wouldn't allow me to speak it. "Cult" isn't a crutch. Either something is right or it is wrong. For the vast majority of people, what they think is wrong. So they are cultists to me.

In a way, yes. But an opinion on a flavor is hardly a matter worthy of a cult label. Now if you want to bring up a topic besides religion, such as history, race, economics or politics, those are issues where the term "cult" can be applied. For a couple of those topics especially, in going into them I would be going up against the cult of forums. Which is to deny the basic human right of freedom of speech. And in my case, the freedom to speak the truth. It is pretty difficult to speak about a cult from within the rules of a cult.

Well, if there are any electrons that orbit within the nucleus of an atom, that's news to me. Next, I wasn't saying that protons and neutrons directly influence the ability of atoms to chemically bond with other atoms. But the number of protons and neutrons in a nucleus has an effect on how many electrons an atom has. It is the electrons, as far as I know, that enable atoms to form chemical bonds with other atoms. You also forced me to find out that a nucleus with a different number of protons and neutrons is known as an isotope. All very interesting. But all this has fallen down a rabbit hole in relation as to whether or not uranium could be used instead of lead in a battery. This thread has lost my interest.

Anything that isn't supported by evidence is a cult. It doesn't have to do with the paranormal. Next, Aristotle said that everything was made up of earth, water, air and fire. Was he right? I wonder what he thought about the orbit of planets too. Whatever it was, he was probably wrong. People can have various philosophies. But when you speak of nature as it is, you are either right or wrong. Next, some things just don't need study. You can go on and on about why religions exist. But then the fact that they are nonsense gets buried in the mountains of pointless debate. Next, the truth is the truth. I don't give a flippin flying fuck what people think of it. It is what it is. Reality. I am also reminded of something Samuel Clemens once said. He said, "It is easier to fool people than it is to convince them they've been fooled."

In other words, metals aren't chemicals. Thanks, but I already knew that. If you're going to start telling me things I already know, we aren't going to get very far. Also, protons and neutrons are part of what makes up an atom's electrons. So protons and neutrons are part of how atoms arrange themselves chemically. I just don't happen to think that all the same kind of atoms could be classified as a metal. Metals have very specific characteristics. I have heard that at the center of Jupiter, because of the pressure it is under, hydrogen becomes so dense that it will form a metal. But to me, that isn't the same thing. Are all atoms metals? No. That proves nothing. Is carbon a metal? I don't think so. But it is an atom that can be widely found in many kinds of molecules.

Oxygen isn't a metal. My thread was based on a metal. Though with other elements that constitute gases, maybe it is possible to make some sort of battery out of them. Though I don't know how it would function. If you think a metal is a chemical, tell me all about it.

No study of the irrational is necessary. It is just irrational, the end. Next, if the answer to any natural phenomena is wrong, then it isn't rational. As an intellectual exercise, there may be some purpose to it. Or rational if you wish. But apart from that, there is no purpose to it. And when the conclusions you gain from it are wrong, that makes it even worse. Aristotle is famed for having been a great thinker. But I don't think he was ever right about anything. As for most (if not all) the people around here being Atheists of various flavors, I have never encountered any atheist that wasn't a follower of some cult. I have been to every Atheist forum out there. And have been banned from them all for daring to speak the truth. And worse yet, proving what I had to say. In that, I would say that it's a safe bet that everybody here, to some degree, follows the cult of being a liar. Willingly duped. Brainwashed. Victims of a sort of Stockholm Syndrome. And worse yet, will fight like hell to remain mentally enslaved.

What I saw was that I wasn't a scientist. I was just wondering if uranium would make a good replacement for lead in a lead acid battery. After all, they are both heavy metals. And uranium has more electrons. Without any doubt some atoms are more resistant to chemical processes than others. Such as gold. It never oxidizes. Though overall, I did get the answer I sought. Which is that using uranium in a way that lead is used in a lead acid battery wouldn't work. So for all who contributed to that answer, thank you.

Sorry if I piss you off. But unless there is some written language to explain the creation of a religion, anything about it is just speculation. Though with what religions do exist and there is a written language to explain them, you can extrapolate the reason behind earlier languages. That aside, I already know the reasons. One is stupidity. Another is that if there is any way in which one human can exploit another, you can bet that it will be done. It's all voodoo horseshit. Sure, paranormal things may happen. But it's basically meaningless as far as our physical world is concerned. For example, look at faith healing. If there was anything to it, modern medicine wouldn't need to exist. Also, in my lifetime I have seen thousands of houses and other buildings. I have also driven down thousands of miles of roads. I have also eaten many plants that were grown in plowed fields. Not one house, not one inch of road, not one plowed furrow in a field has ever been miracled into existence. They are all the work of humans. That is the weight of the paranormal. Now in the past religion may have caused some societies to create some pretty impressive engineering feats. But it was people who accomplished it. Not a religion. Mental illness is a phenomenon and it can be rationally studied as such. But that doesn't make mental illness rational. And for the vast majority of humans, they have a term for mental illness. They call it "Normal." You wrote quite a bit. Which I don't have much interest in answering. Getting into lengthy discussions is a good way to get away from the point. It is like when a government doesn't want to change something that needs changing. They will say that the issue needs more study. If there is one thing above all others that you think I am wrong about, just start out with that. Once that is ironed out, we can move on to the next. But I will answer where you said I was wrong in saying that you were wrong. What I said that you think is wrong. Which is that religion has no basis in reality. Religion itself is real. But what it is all about isn't real. That makes it unreal. Or to put it more simply, stupid. Also, you are correct in saying that religion goes far back. But I wonder if you know how far back. It goes back before there were even humans. I contend that for any creature where some level of higher thinking and emotions exist, a religion to some degree probably exists too. Also on that point, I remember something I saw on a nature show long ago. They showed some creature up in a tree that looked to be something like a cross between a possum and a lemur. I don't know what the creature was. I tried to go to a zoological forum and described it and its behavior. Nobody could tell me what it was. But this creature held it's hands - front paws together and slowly circled them a few times in the direction of the cameraman. Then it bowed. It then sat up again and repeated the process. To me it looked every bit as though it was showing the cameraman worship. I tried to look such a creature with that behavior up. But found nothing. I think I saw it on an old Disney nature program decades ago. I will probably never know what it was. But if it treated humans like that, it is probably extinct by now.

Metals aren't chemicals. They are metals. So as metals, they have nothing to do with chemicals. Now if they are part of a molecule, that is a different matter. Next, lead by itself isn't a chemical. But sulfuric acid is. As for sound traveling through water supposedly being a chemical reaction, don't blame me for the statement. That is just what some scientist on TV said once. This may support that statement some. schools.look4.net.nz › science › chemistryEnergy Transfer in Chemical Reactions — Schools at Look4 Next, I said that DU has more electrons than lead. I said nothing about the nucleus. Next, John Hutchinson is said to have created a forever battery. Believe it or don't. But you can look it up. He called them Crystal batteries or Hiroshima cells. Maybe they are something like this. greenrhino-energy.com › crystal-batteriesCRYSTAL BATTERIES™ - Green Rhino Next, you can call Hutchinson whatever you want. But he did at least videotape some interesting effects. If they are fake, nobody can figure out how he did it. That in itself is an accomplishment. Also, though he could never reproduce the effects with other people around, I did see something interesting once in his lab where he was being interviewed. In the background, for no apparent reason a sponge flew up toward the ceiling from where it was sitting. This is more in the realm of poltergeist activity. But that it should have happened in his lab is interesting. Ok. Sorry about the "smarty pants" thing. I was just trying to have a little fun. Not insult anybody. As for the rest, I see that posts aren't numbered here. But if you look, you will see a reply of mine to exchemist with a couple of links to websites that might interest you. 1. Well different lead compounds. 2. The point I was making was that the metal lead itself isn't a chemical. In combination with other atoms in a molecule it is a chemical. That is all. Also, in another thread I mentioned a name that got an interesting reaction. John Hutchinson. He claimed to have created a "forever battery." Which may not actually be "forever." He called them Crystal batteries or Hiroshima cells. Apparently they do exist. One person experimenting with them said that strangely enough, hooking them up in series caused the voltage to drop. I don't know if it is true or not, but another website speaks of them. Here it is. greenrhino-energy.com › crystal-batteriesCRYSTAL BATTERIES™ - Green Rhino

You are wrong in thinking that religion has some basis in reality. It doesn't. At least not to any degree that matters. For example, I believe in ghosts and the paranormal. So to me, such things are a reality. Does that mean some god created you and controls your life? Not in the slightest. Also, I saw some female black doctor on the news once who was a Trump supporter. She must have come from Africa. Because on the news they said that she had said that she believed that diseases were caused by evil spirits. That isn't a "reality" worth mentioning. Next, in regards to the christian religion, you can't BS me. I read the bible. If they were mentioned at all, the bible had nothing correct to say about astronomy, genetics, geology, paleontology, geography, zoology, electricity, chemistry, microbiology, mathematics, etc.etc. etc. As far as evolution goes, Pope John Paul II is reported as saying that evolution was more than just a theory. Pope Francis believes that both evolution and the big bang theory are a reality. How these leaders of christianity can support something that isn't supported by the bible is beyond me. As I said, religion has nothing to do with reality. It is faith that matters. Faith in what is a different matter. Are you kidding? Most religions began before there was even a written language. So how can you say why they were formed. That isn't rational. I guess you are a true believer. Also, for believers there is no difference between believing and knowing. Samuel Clemens once said, "It isn't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you're sure of that just isn't so." Being beyond responsibility isn't rational. Maybe it is to a member of the Mafia. But to normal people it isn't.

What would that "rational" foundation be.

I was watching some science show long ago. A scientist said that sound waves traveling through water was in fact a chemical reaction. That's what he said. I never looked it up for myself. There may not even have been an internet at the time to do so with. Next, of course there would be fewer atoms for a given amount of mass compared to lead. But I don't know if that would really matter. You have fewer atoms, but more electrons with DU. Also, apparently the lead anode and lead cathode in a lead - acid battery are made up of different kinds of lead. Somehow, the sulfuric acid causes a transfer of electrons between them. I don't know if something similar has ever been tried with two different kinds of DU. And maybe it would take a stronger acid. 1. Maybe the government has enough of it on hand that they don't need to make any more. That aside, if it was efficient enough over a lead - acid battery, maybe the cost of producing DU would be worth doing so. 2. What I read about how they create DU is nothing. I don't know how they do it. It just seems unlikely to me that they would refine uranium ore just to make DU. It seems more likely to me that they were seeking enriched uranium and DU was just a useful byproduct that the military could use in projectiles. 3. I said DU was safe to handle. Apparently just plain uranium is safe to handle. Powders and uranium oxides are a different matter. Each day humans consume around 1.1 micrograms of uranium.

After decades of a nuclear weapon industry, the government probably has LOTS of it on hand. As a byproduct of uranium enrichment. Certainly enough to make projectiles out of it for the military. Which by the way, I am not a fan of. Because the things it hit and causes the DU to fragment makes it more radioactive than it is in it's natural state. From what I hear, in its natural state it is safe to handle. Because in it's natural state it isn't all that radioactive.

If I was a "smarty pants" in this regard, I wouldn't have been asking the question. As for chemistry, a metal has nothing to do with chemistry. Apart from it's reaction to chemicals. To me, chemistry is more in the realm of molecules. But maybe that isn't accurate enough. Because I have heard of sound waves traveling through water being called a chemical reaction. When to a laymen like me it would seem to be a matter of physics. A simple transfer of momentum. Next, DU is heavier than lead. But being denser, maybe that just means less of it would be required. It is also radioactive. But not overly so. I doubt if it is radioactive enough to qualify as nuclear waste. Though I have heard that when it becomes fragmented as a projectile it can cause higher amounts of radioactivity. But I don't know if that would be from the DU itself or the energy it was exposed to in becoming fragmented that was the cause of the higher radiation. Lastly, I doubt if it is possible to turn DU into lead. No matter how many steps it takes. It seems to me that such a process only can come about after millions of years of natural decay. Where through radiation loss the uranium atom loses a certain amount of protons and neutrons. And of course, some electrons. The whole point of all this is to make a battery that might last long enough to replace fossil fuels. There is an amateur physicist named John Hutchinson who became rather infamous for making videos of strange physical effects that he was somehow able to cause to happen. Though for some reason he wasn't able to replicate them with other people around. From a television show I saw about him, he was able to make a battery that he claimed would last forever. It was made by using layers of naturally occurring crystals. According to the show, he sold the patent to some Japanese company. I don't know whatever became of it.

I could hardly believe my eyes when I saw that this religion section was for discussing the rational foundations of religion. There is nothing rational about any aspect of religion. All religions are cults. They have no basis in reality. Except for maybe the reality in which deception is sometimes used in the animal kingdom. In the case of religion, the deception is mostly self deception. Religions are based on faith. Not reality. Their purpose is to give answers that are often incorrect. As for the christian religion, (which I am most familiar with) it is a tool used to alleviate followers from responsibility. One way in which is to call something god's doing. Worse yet, it is sometimes used to actually justify evil deeds.