michel123456

There is a wiki entry that explains it is a hoax. And I see no mention of the german story.

During my strange peregrinations on the web, sourced by a thread on this forum I hit on the Wikipedia article about Archimedes Eureka. At the end of article 2, we can read the following My question is: is that correct? In the source link [4] (from Galileo’s treatise) , we can read the full concept and in-between the following: Which looks more correct to me. Your opinion?

I got the impression you didn't watch my video till the end

Terrific avatar. Where did you find it?

I was answering to your post. You wrote : and I answered: Isn't it? (asymetric). I think, following existing theories, it is fundamentaly asymetric. _time is asymetric (the arrow of time) _gravity is asymetric (gravitation is only attractive) _even space is (considering that negative distance do not exist)

I answered too fast, I am really sorry for that. I doubt any one of the list has a conference center on the minus 5 floor. Anyway I cannot judge something I have never seen the plans, it like judging a book you have not read. You can consider the "yes" answer invalid. As I wrote before, the only one from the list i know something about has nothing to do with my example. It is not the place here to begin a diatribe about security of underground spaces, just think that vertical distances are very different than horizontal ones (1 metre in height, that is 6 steps of stair) is very different than 1 metre horizontal (about 1,5 normal steps), that stairs are kind of bottlenecks in fire exits corridors, that smoke is the main killing factor in a building fire, and that smoke goes up faster than you. After that I think that it is maybe easier to understand why seismic regions are not suitable for nuclear power plants than to explain why deep sub-basements are not suitable for public spaces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Treaty

Yes. ---------------------- edit: I visited The CityLink Mall mentioned above in Singapore. It is not 5 floors underground, it has a lot of escape routes very close or directly to exterior. It is well-done. I suppose the others on the list too. Architects tend to be responsible.

Now I see there are two Yes and one No in this poll. It is unfair. I would suggest a 4th option : No, I never had personal experience with them. Just to make it more stupid, because a single affirmative vote from any hurluberlu (crank) will make the decisive entry.

Thank you. If a client ask me to design a conference centre for a thousand people 5 floors underground, there are 2 ways to solve the security question: 1. put a fire extinguishing system, alarm system, calculate the width of corridors & staircases, put signalization, backup lighting, smoke exhaust, etc. 2. tell the client it is bad idea and propose another location on ground floor (with all the above precautions). Point 2 is empirical. Point 3 is to take responsibilities and refuse the job.

Crystals precede thunder gods. We need a supernatural crutch because we are afraid like little monkeys.

Isn't it?

We have seen that. Correct. Yes. No. They are doing that very scientifically and caught wrong in the specific case. I do that very empirically and still living so far.

Isn't it about Attention Deficit Disorder, ADD?

I have absolutely no idea. Natural selection is supposed working on individuals. The new concept would be to consider each individual as part of something bigger, and that this "bigger entity" (specie?) is evoluting. The link between the entity and the individual would be a code (DNA?). A male is nothing without a female. And without children the specie won't last. Without parents there is no individual too. So, considering the individual as the source element on which evolution works may be inadequate. Just a thought. No support. Forget it.

Say that to a politician and he will agree to build on an erupting vulcano. Or was that sarcasm?

It is a schmilblick. Or a frying pan handle.

Agree. But location in this case propulsed the risk. If you go as a tourist to Japan or any other seismic region, the risk to encounter earthquake is quite low. If you stay there upon a ridge waiting for 40 years, the risk is high. Don't you agree? it is like playing the same number at lottery for 40 years, though I think the odds for the quake are bigger than the lottery. Sure. I thought it was evident. The risk is the same for any location. Inhabitants made the free choice to live there, and to build their house in wood (why do they do that?). I guess inhabitants of Fukushiyama-town were never asked if they want a nuclear power plant next to them. Do you want the next nuclear power plant to be build next to your home? Will you agree with the risk assesment some other people will decide for you in your place? That is a tragic euphemism. There is no nuclear plant in the country I live . Come to Greece! The culprits are not the users. Users pay for their electricity. Japanese payed for electricity with yens, some of them will pay with death electricity they will not consume.

Natural preprogramming.

If it is plated brass it is unlikely to be a tool IMHO. -------------- the materials make me think of plumbing. ------------- maybe part of an old garden watering system

You are misunderstanding my comments. What I say is it would be insane to build a nuclear power plant upon an active vulcano like Etna, isn't it? So, why building upon a ridge? It is statistically sure that a seism higher than the recorded ones will happen. We don't have records that stand for that many time. The same goes for the coast of California.

What is the probability for you to take your car tomorrow, broke your tire and kill someone by accident, I guess much more than any of the probability for a Fukushima to happen. Well, what will you tell the judge: it is in the probability, Your Honor? No. You will be judged and condamned for homicide. For only one death. Not for 10 or 30000. The ones who decide to construct Fukushima decided to take a risk, their tire broke and they killed. Yes. One death is too much. It seems evident that you don't feel concerned, you are measuring deaths of other people, you are not part of it. If you had to play your own life at russian roulette, will you do it? Even in 1 chance over a billion? (actually 30000/7billions or 1 over 233 thousands if I am correct)

Playing with numbers: these are human lives. Earth population is about 6,917,375,600, roughly 7 billions. With a life expectancy of 80 years for all (that is unlikely), we can estimate that 7 billions people will die in the next 80 years, that makes an average of 87,500,000 deaths/year for mathematical reasons. Mathematics are killing more people than Chernobyl, about 3000 times more. The question is that 30000 deaths is not to be allowed for an accident. I am tired of being reassured by technocrats who got it wrong, I understand plently Jamies concerns, and IMHO the price to pay being warned by moderators here is very small in regard with deaths of innocent people. I don't understand the point of vue of defending TEPCO and the Japanese policy. To build a nuclear power plant in a seismic region is criminal. The power plant did NOT stand, the accident happened, people will die, there are responsibilties, responsables exist, they have names and address. I don't want to be their advocate. There are plans for building a nuclear power plant in Turkey, in another well known seismic region. It is criminal too.

I always wondered why there is no model of collapsing atom. Why do all models have to be in a state of equilibrium? If the atom was indeed collapsing, and since we are made of atoms, why not? That's all relative.