Sisyphus

! What makes you think that can happen so soon?

I thought he was actually starting to make some real progress, in which case this couldn't happen at a worse time. What could follow but less stability?

100 digits? So, let's see, if we use that degree of accuracy to draw a circle the size of the entire observed universe, it will deviate from a perfect circle by less than the quantum uncertainty. So why are we trying to memorize more than that? Don't tell me it's the love of math, because rote recitation of digits is not math. I smell an obsessive/compulsive.

I don't get it. You're not asking a question, right?

Well, that certainly highlights the problems with just letting the market take care of itself. Sure, there will be alternatives out of necessity, but who is to say the alternatives won't be even more shortsighted than fossil fuel consumption, and dig us into an even deeper hole? Even worse would be the switch to nonconventional oil sources, as it would destroy the immediate incentive to find renewable alternatives, and just let us become even more dependant on nonrenewables.

Does anyone have any idea how much agriculture would have to be dedicated to producing biofuel for it to fully replace fossil fuels? Would we have enough to eat?

If put under pressure that is greater than electron repulsion, I don't see why it would ionize. Wouldn't it just act like a neutron star, such that the atom collapses, and protons combine with electrons to form a core of pure neutrons? And since this pressure is exerted by the surrounding atoms, they too collapse, being under similar pressure, and the two nuclei merge into one. The core of a neutron star is assumed to be essentially one gigantic nucleus consisting entirely of neutrons, hence the name. So I guess the answer would be that the only limit is where the compressive forces become so great that the mass collapses into a black hole... or very, very large.

And I agree with that, and I think the dangers of dehumanizing the enemy are greater than the dangers of making someone who can't hold two ideas in his head at once (terrorism is bad, but there is a reason for it other than being "evil") think that terrorism is a good thing. I thought that's what you were saying, which is why I was confused when ecoli applauded you, as earlier he seemed to be saying the opposite. Or not the opposite, but maybe "There are shades of gray, but people shouldn't be allowed to know about them, because they'll be confused." I guess it's a minor point, really...

Wait, that's well said, but a movie about the danger of dehumanizing your enemy is excusing terrorism? I'm greatly confused.

Faster than light travel is always impossible. But it might be theoretically possible to take a shortcut across other dimensions, in the form of "wormholes." If there are, in fact, all these other dimensions, it might be possible that 3D space is "folded," in much the way a 2D plane could be folded in 3D space. If a 2D person in that folded 2D plane was able to travel in the third dimension, he could travel a short distance and show up far away on the 2D plane by moving between touching points on different folds of his plane. It's still probably just sci-fi, though.

Well he should certainly apply for a patent, then! The energy crisis is solved!

Or MAYBE it was written by someone (or, more accurately, a tradition of people) who meant what he (they) wrote but had a somewhat hazy knowledge of biochemistry and geological history. But I guess that's too far-fetched... Insisting that the Bible means other than what it says is kind of a pet peeve of mine. What's more likely, that the authors knew all about the formation of the universe and the evolution of human beings, and then decided to write about it in an obscure and needless figurative way? Or they really thought the world was created in six days, and used that myth as a vehicle to pass on wisdom about human beings? Reminds me of the "Bible Code." You can find anything you want in it, after the fact and if you're willing to twist to any degree whatsoever. Spinoza >>> Thomas

Generally, when I say "creationist," I mean someone who takes the Bible as literal truth. The Earth is 6000 years old, etc., and all that stuff which contradicts science, and puts up as science that which is not, like all the theories about dinosaurs still being alive in Africa, the "ice canopy," and all that fun stuff. I think most people mean the same thing when they use the word. I think that's an accepted definition, and if you're going to try to co-opt it for some other use, you should at least not get all touchy when others use the common definition. For my part, I'll just avoid the word entirely, since it's obviously the cause of much confusion.

Anyone can say anything racist at all as long as it's clear they're kidding. That makes the racism - not the race - the object of the joke. Boondocks is like that, and so is Family Guy and Chapelle's Show and South Park and countless others. Most bad stand up comedians rely on this. I really don't see white people more condemned for it than blacks, and so I think if there's a double standard, it's a very subtle one that I don't understand. Of course, for those who are NOT kidding, there does still seem to be a double standard. Both whites and blacks are rightfully condemned, but whites usually more harshly. Also, politicians can't say anything, since no one has a sense of humor in politics.

I don't think that's at all apparent.

Certainly. But what's the double standard here?

I agree it was a major blow, and everyone should be made to study Euclid if they want to call themselves educated. It has only been in the last hundred years or so that any text aimed at an educated audience stopped assuming a familiarity with the Elements, and I agree that's a terrible thing. On the other hand, I don't think there's ever actually been a point in human history where faith/mysticism didn't have the upper hand...

So you're contending that blacks are evolving to be as smart as whites by 15 IQ points in a couple generations? I mean, really? Actually, you said I was out of my mind. But that seems to show pretty conclusively that it's entirely environmental, don't you think? Or, if there is a difference, it is statistically insignificant, and well within the margin of error in measuring such things. I guess you'd just have to look at the facts. Sure, and if there's a nuclear war, it will be very undesirable to live in a city. And if France is destroyed by a giant meteor, it will be very undesirable to be French. But none of those things have happened, and it doesn't matter whether they will or not. Selection works on the individual level, and it doesn't plan ahead.

Why are you arguing about falling in a vacuum? The first post made it clear that that was a given. The question is about falling through air, for which both density and aerodynamic properties most definitely affect the outcome. Obviously we have to take hindrances into account. Acceleration due to gravity is NOT constant, because I'm an object, and I'm not accelerating due to gravity at all, although it's certainly acting on me. The resistive force of the floor is countering it. What we CAN say is that the FORCE of gravity acting on an object is proportional to its mass, which means that UNHINDERED, acceleration will be constant. That was the original question, and he's right, as any experience at all could confirm.

...but highy unlikely. My bet is he's full of it.

Of course they don't. Objects of different densities have different bouyancies in the air. Drop a helium balloon and a rock shaped like a balloon. Also, as you say, there is air resistance, which is dependant on shape and is proportional to speed, and works against gravity, which is constant for the object's weight at a given altitude. Thus it can fall only as fast as the equilibrium between these forces, which is obviously greater the more weight (and less surface area) the object has. However, before this maximum speed is reached, the effect is barely noticeable with similar objects, like a wooden sphere and a metal sphere, which is what Galileo was demonstrating, that unhindered acceleration is not proportional to weight but is equal.

It most certainly was new. Descartes solved a lot of ancient problems that no one else could by algebrizing geometry, and thus by finding a way to express geometrical lines as the loci of points in a specifically varying ratio of distances between two other given lines, which eventually evolved into the Cartesian coordinate system that everyone learns in school. Euclid had nothing whatsoever like this, in fact keeping any concept of number away from geometry, and certainly not having a coordinate system. You should find a copy of Euclid's Elements to see how it works. Everyone should, in fact, as it is arguably the most influential book ever written in the course of Western thought. (Some others say the Bible.)

Define "most fundamental principle of life." By this I take you to mean that cells with different functions in our body have the same DNA. True. And that what form the cell takes is dependant on factors besides the DNA. Half-true. A cell's function is determined by it's place in the development of the organism, but that development is determined by its DNA. Is that all you're saying? What it sounds like you're saying is that different DNA doesn't cause change, it merely records it, or something. That isn't true. You change a gene, you change the trait. This is demonstrable. If you meant something else, please explain. This still doesn't make any sense. What does hydrogen bonding have to do with anything?

Sure I read it. I just don't know what laws are being violated. Especially since, apparently, money is considered speach in this country.