mr d

Hello I thought that should be only 20 risers. The first would be 18.5 cm above the floor, the last 18.5 cm below the upper landing. meaning duction of 37 cm from height. Probably thinking stairway construction. Mr D

Hello To Martin (hopefully you are still reading). I thank you Sir for your gracious apology, though feel I owe one to Transdecimal for side tracking his question so. And yes I understand your defense of science, as we are apt to see a 'pop-culture' view of it at the moment. But to ask and indulgence to explain. I titled my first responce 'Just to be different.' As I believe it important to at least voice the other non (lay) scientific view at times, inparticular when a question is open to wider interpretation. I find distrubing a trend amoung many in science to dismiss such views without taking into consideration that ultimately that it is the non-scientific masses are the ones who will put to use the knowledge gained by men of science. And it will be their views\beliefs that direct the uses to which it is engaged. I almost feel by your vehement defense that perhaps you yourself may have had work corrupted or bastardized by those non-scientists around you. Also on this site I see student espousing to the worthlessness of sociology or history. Believing somehow science stands alone and untainted by such common matters and people. That the purity of imperical data is uncorruptable, yet it is corruptable and quite malleable to manipulation in the hands of non-scientists. So I at times choose to voice an opinion from that side, I may at times not hold much validity to those views, but voice them in the hope that it may cause others to pause a moment to look at the question in another way. Sometimes I think it's useful to see from another eyes, as you can learn things you might now of through your own. And it will be those masses to which your hard one knowledge will be presented. Best to have an understanding of how they will except and prosper from it. Again apologies to Transdecimal, and I promise to divest myself of this post. Mr D p.s. to Martin: I would think from your posts you could quite well reason out questions from various viewpoints. Perhaps sometime you could 'Just to be different'. Start a little fire under Scientific complacency you might run in to.

Hello I must admit I have no understanding of Martin's responce. The original question dealt with whether there can be made a comparison between faith in science and faith in religion. And I believe I was discussing based on that, and the question did not phrase that responces could only be made from a scientific point of view. Excluding conclusions made from a generalized interpretation of the meaning of faith, religion, and scientific theory. He seems to be taking my responces as a personal attack somehow against his own believe system. Understanding this is a science site, and this particular forum is designated for question of Physics. Is it wrong to reply to questions based on how they are posed? Or is it one should only respond in tepid concurrance as stipulated by adherance to a science-centric point of view in this forum? Or is it that the original question should be considered best relocated to as Martin suggests the Polit-Relig forum? Since Martin politely declines to futher conveyence of discussion on the matter. Perhaps one of you can inform me as to why my responces could have drawn, what I tend to view as a rather fanatical diatribe, from Martin. I truely do not understand. Thank You Mr D

Hello I think if you reread what I wrote, I was merely comparing faith in science to faith in religion. Not religious faith. Stole this from Wikipedia (always be objective of info found here). Er.. wait a minute I'm currently an American, so I liberated it from oppression. Religion: a system of social coherence based on a common group of beliefs or attitudes concerning an object, person, unseen or imaginary being, or system of thought; considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine or highest truth, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, and rituals associated with such belief or system of thought. Which if you consider science a system of thought, and believe science laws and theories the highest form of truth. Then a case could be made that amoung certain people who hold faith in science above all else, their beliefs could be considered religious in nature. For do they not have quite a number of Institutions dedicated to their followers, and to the promotion of their beliefs. Not quite sure who their Pope is though. Maybe Professor Hawkins? Mr D

Hello again I still think there can be drawn a comparision in the belief in string theory to religious faith. In that faith is at base line defined as 'Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.' Now most persons visiting this website are more attuned to science and how it would interpret string as related to scientific testing of a theory. But to the broad lay public they will never conduct tests on string theory. They just accept on faith conclusions drawn by the scientific community. Their belief in the 'truth, value, and trustworthiness' is based only on faith in those making the statements regarding the theory. Not on the theory itself or it's scientific validity. Mr D

Hello I get the feeling, maybe incorrect here, that Bascule was pointing out how individuals like conspiracy theories attempt to manipulate images and the like to support their view. Toss in a bit of truth and facts, such as how controlled explosions can collaspe a building, and package it up so that it sounds plausible with a few well selcted images. There we be those who are willing to believe. Helping point it out helps exposes it for what it is before it can become more aceptable to others. Mr D

Hello Just for fun, i'll play conspiracy theorist for a moment. Debris from the structure would be traveling fast than the collasping building if. The debris is castoff from the inital explosion used to remove the underlying superstructure supports of the building. Second - top of the upper collasping structure is angled. If sequenced detonation is used one side of the structure will collaspe more quickly, with the rest following in sequence giving a slanted appearence. This is done to control the direction of the structures fall. It is not always the most fesible to drop the struct straight downward, sometimes buildings are dropped along sideway angles as more open space maybe available along a certain path. That said to me it's much easier to dismiss such claims as in structure collaspe demolition, one of the first things a team will do is remove the underlying support of the building. All interior walls come out, as much of the support that can be savely removed is, with large steel cables strung between remaining support so that as one support begins to bend and break it takes out the next one. You don't attach explosives to every support, only certain main ones, then let the building's own weight bring the structure down (the Science Chanel is fun to watch). You'd think people walking into the building, or arriving by the underground subway might have noticed all the inside walls were missing. Or thought 'hey why are all these cables strung between the pillars. And even more obvious, watch a control demolition on your local news. Try never will be the times you see them explode the top of the building, hoping it will then collaspe the lower sections. Mr D 'We're all just figments of the imagination'

Hello In the broadest sense, using common lanuage definition of the word, I'd say yes. However when using the term religious, it indicates the presence of a deity(s) to be included in the equation. And so far as I know, science has no standardized symbol for the representation of such deities within and equation. If such a symbol exists please inform. Mr D

Hello I believe I recall a TV program stating his family, inparticular mother, were practicing catholics. Through they could not say if Adolf Hitler had been brought up as such, or held any religious beliefs in his life. Mr D

Hello Bored and having morbid thoughts about if I died today what would I want on my tombstone. Hey, most times people leave it up to those left behind to come up with something. So why not write your own when alive. For me I think this will suffice. 'Was here, didn't really hurt anyone, and manged to provide a fun laughs. Now split for parts unknown. However for my eulogy, think i'll write that too. And lie my ass off about my whole life, I'm dead what do I care, figure why not have fun with it. So what do you want on your tombstone? Mr D 'I'd never belong to a club that would have someone like me as a member' G. Marx

Hello Heard once, TV/Radio, it's because the child wants to stay up regardless of the need for sleep. And when you pick them up and put them in their crib, crying and fussing about helps raise body activity enough for them to fight off sleep for a while. Analogy. Your in your favorite comfy chair late at night kinda half asleep watching the tele. Your wife comes by and says 'Why don't you go to bed.' 'Leave me alone I'm watching the show.' 'No your sleeping, I'll be back to check on you in a bit.' She leaves and you get up to do a few jumping jacks to help waked you up (notice your child kicking and thrashing when you put them down). Then you sit down and start dozing off again, but want to see the end of the show so you fight to say awake. Now your wife comes by and carries you off to bed and tucks you in (robust wife needed), and you lie there and curse and complain how your not tired right before you pass out. I guess we don't grow up that much after all. Mr D

Hello A quick clarification. When I stated no one thought how English might not my be my native language, that merely ment just that. That no one thought it. I would have to say English would probably be considered my native tongue, though when young I spoke a mixture of Jersey and South Philly, and upon moving West many people thought I was speaking a foreign language. 'Yozzz.. Luts youse say we blow Joysee, head da Philly, chutes some poole and mabs slaps down a pear of hogie dings. no whut's I mean, cuz dats freakin fun'. Somewhat like that. Though for some odd reason people now tend to think I have a Southern Twang, most often asked is what ward of New Orleans I'm from. Even by people from New Orleans. Lazy english for a lazy fellow, natural adaptation as and old English Professor once informed me. Though living in the Southwestern United Stated for a time, I did pick up a smattering of Navajo, Hopi, and Apache. Nothing I could say here. But great when saying things to your obnoxious boss. 'What was that you just said?' 'Just said for you to have a nice day.' 'Didn't sound like that to me, write down what you just said.' 'Affraid I can't, Navajo is not a written language.' 'I'm going to find out what you said.' 'Oh...do you know some Navajos living around here.' Hope that cleared that up, and hoping you have your own Navajo to speak when needs arise. Mr D BTW: Do not be fooled by people who claim they make sub(marine) sandwiches, that are the same thing as a hogie. no such animal.

Hello Ou.. look capitol letters. Hey I'll let you in on a little secret. Could have done this for a while, but I chose not to. Why 1: I chose not to comform to how you wish me to be. 2: Helps me get a better picture of the people I'm speaking with. I noticed complaints about my non-capitol use for some time, and found it amusing. Free thinkers that you are seemed highly threaten by this lack of proper writing structure. But rules of writing are just conventions, more important is what is written. I claim no great insights into the world, but if you are looking to gain knowledge by conversing with others, you should allow for the fact that others may not choose to or are incapable of writting as you do. It requires some effort on your part. Of course you can to ignore such people as many do, and you can enjoy and ignorant life. In all that time done considered that English may not be my native language, or that i may be someone who is handicapped; and must use an input devise where by extra effort is required to manipulate such a devise to switch back and worth between caps and non caps. And no I'm not. All I heard was why can't you write like us, don't you know how to use proper punctuation (hey must admit not that good at such). If you are trying to form a web site that hopes to encourage conversions with people from different lands and backgrounds. Why maybe you should extend courtesy to allow for mistakes in writing. Often I notice new comers to this site, who by their style of writing are obviously not native English speakers, almost ridiculed not by what they are saying; but by how they are able to convey their ideas. Give it a try, see if you can understand them. When I read above on this post's topic and writers here say 'I don't understand these people', I can only guess at the effort applied. Hoping off the soapbox. I shall endeavor to express myself in a more grammatically proper tone in future postings. So not to offer offence to your wondrous sense of propriety. You wild and wacky conformists. Mr D Ou... more capitals.

hello so how about simple scientific curiousity? you mean no scientist in th area had no curiousity even over this animal. and a carcus is more than a tale. does not need to be a full on scientific expedition, but how about if your in the area drive by and take a look. in the past few decades several new types of insects, fishes, antelope, small primates have all been discovered in areas scientists already considered explored and catalogged. also as i stated above some type of investigation should occur to see if this is a possible a natural(feral occurance) or man made animal. such animals, especially if a breeding population does exist can have possible consequence to the native ecostructure. or are we looking at some type of breeder experimentation that may need to be halted by authorities. mr d

hello though numbers of rockets might not be as significant , the fact that they could continue to launch during the intensive isreli bombardment shows growing complexity amoung the hezbollah fighters. for those of you who know katushka rockets are not very complicated affairs. fins-body-warhead. main targeting, you point it in the direction of your target. that's why you can fire hundreds of missiles and still do relatively little damage. most never hit anywhere close to their intended target. most missles hit short or long or just fall somewhere. which is why reporters don't say hezbollah lauched a rcoket attack against the isreali barracks in haifa. if they hit it its by luck. which is why its called a weapon of terror. since you can't aim at a specific target, anywhere in the range is a target. with more advanced weapons you stay away from certain targets and you stand far less chance of becoming collateral damage (fun term). but with these you don't know where is safer. for the isreali's they attempted to destroy the launch sites, that's not launchers. a launcher for a katushka is a nice long section of pipe or rail into which the weapons is placed or rested on for aiming. plus a hundred feet of straight view to place your pipe in facing the direction of the target. that can be a field, street, or even roof top. in the past one of the first things the isreali's did was take out the c&c (command and control)of their opponent. making it difficult for the people maining the rockets to co-ordinate amoungst themselves. hence a rocket launches and survailence picks up the launch and quickly calls in a retalitory strike usually air launched. taking out rocket launcher and crew. but this time hezbollah managed to use more common communications tools like cell phones to keep in touch. so you start launching rockets, the isreali's determine your position, but now a hezbollah fighter located a ways away keeps watch for that f16 and notifies the missle launchers when it's inbound. giving them time to clear the area. what gets destoyed, a bit of pipeing plus maybe a missle still sitting on the launcher. so now all the hezbollah needs do is going get some more pipeing and their back in business. the loss for isreal here is that they've figured this out. no need for cumbersome military gear which they can't afford much of and can't replace quickly when destroyed. a $50 dollar cell phone works just as well. could isreal take out a cel phone communications satelite. most likely. but the hezbollah don't own one. they're using common phones that use bandwidth that lebanon rents from some major western nations satelite. and somehow i think most people reading this would be a little peeved if they took out that satelite and you lost use of your cel for the next 1/2 year or so. mr d

hello i think the point for me is how easiley dismissed the tales of the beast of the woods were by scientists. true it was in all likelihood only this cross bread animal. but helps goe to show there may be truth in a number of old tales and stories. perhaps not what the story portrays it to be, but there might be something to them after all. so keep an open mind. my questions here would be if this is the animal of the stories where did it come from. feral animal escaping from an owner, or dumped in the wild, breeding with a wolf. the animal does not appear to be fifteen years old, which is around how old the stories are. does that mean there is a breeding population out there in the wild. or is some person breeding these animals for whatever reason, or bred the original which escaped. i remember the arguements over the wolf-dogs thatwere the trendly rage a few years back. half wolf-half sheppard or husky in most cases. fine pet in most cases, except it had a certain instability and was prone to turning unexpectedly on its owner and everyone else around. ended up be banned in a number of cities, which helped kill off the craze. so keep an open mind, and ask futher questions. you might not find a monster, but you might find something even more interesting. mr d

hello in a above post wrote the sunni hezbollah. should have remembered they are shi'ite. if your back by iran your shi'ite, if by saudia arabia and egypt (also formally iraq) your sunni. heard on the radio this morning that hezbollah already has their bulldozers out clearing rubble in their areas, and are bringing in relief supplies. winning hearts in the south, through some lebonese in the north are stating resentment for hezbollah dragging them into a war. also has any one heard more on a story that was briefly on bbc radio of a high ranking isreali military commander caught trading stocks right after attending meetings on isreali's responce to the original kidnapping of the soldiers. perhaps their learning even more things from the americans than we suspected. mr d

hello as i said in another thread. main winner hezbollah. no not a millitary victory. but when you opponent states they will destroy you and you means to wage war. and at the 'present' end your still there, and still able to carry out operations you won. won what may be another matter. their main victory however was the propaganda war. at first moderate arabs did not support hezbollah, but due to the intensity of isreali's attack and the high death toll of civilians many did come to support them. viewing isreal and the western nation, mainly the u.s. that supports isreal as the aggressors. during the peak of the war the shi'ite muslim and christian lebanese in came out in their paper supporting the sunni hezbollah which has not happen before. isreal gains a victory of time. hezbollah needs time to rebuild and rearm, as does isreal. hopefully they'll find some other means of displaying their differences in the time bought. the shear numbers of rockets launched by hezbollah demonstrates they were building up supplies. yet it seems isreal was caught off guard by that build up, meaning they need to recheck intelligence gathering. if they knew about the build up of rockets they should have had a better understand of their location and been able to conduct operations to destroy ordinance depots before the missle could be used. also shows a better understanding needs to be developed as how current technology can be used by a more poorly financed faction like hezbollah to offset weapons superiority of isreal. very bad that isreal could be percieved a vunerable because of this. winner iran. got to test there new toys in war condictions, and stood up to both isreal and the u.s. in their open support of hezbollah. inhances their stance as a leading islamic country. losers the lebanese people. weren't looking for a war, didn't want one, but suffered the brunt of the isreali incursion. the isreali inhabitants of northern isreal. same sort of reason but replace with hezbollah and rocket attacks. the u.n. shows their of little effectiveness, though it is hoped they can somehow now manage to bring peace to the region with support from the lebanese army. but that's not what they were designed for (see movie hotel rwanda for reference). the u.s. if there was any good will left amoung muslims it's about dead. saying you support isreal but how you don't want to be involved, then get caught sending shipments of those wonderful laser guided bombs that where shortly there after dropped on the lebanese kinda makes it had to believe you. the rest of us. open the gates, plenty of new recruits to join the ranks of terroists already out there. plus as we can see by the greater knowledge used in bombs in iraq, the new toys provided by the iranians in lebanon, and the creative liquid explosives planned to be used in britian; many of the newer individuals joining bring many wonderful new talents to the table. mr d

hello saw this http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060815/od_nm/mideast_implants_dc just goes to show humor can still survive even in a time of war. and a laugh is sometimes still the best medicine mr d

hello for the moment the cease fire seems to be holding, for what it is worth. but what does it all add up to. was isreali actions wrong? no, if you are a sovernd nation you can not allow attacks on your troops or civilians to occur unchallenged. is hezbollah wrong? if they truely believe in their cause then no. if there is no way to negotiate the situation, and use of force is your only option than you use force. do i lend some creedence to hezbollahs claim that they siezed the soldiers hoping to exchange them for their fighters held by the isreali's. to a large extent yes. kidnapping by both sides to bring about prisoner trades has been going on for decades. did hezbollah make a greavous miscalculation over ireali's responce. quite obviously. did isreal make a miscalculation over hezbollahs abilities to continue operations even when under heavy attack by a large mechanized force aided by air superiority. the fact hezbollah could continue firing rockets at about the same rate reguardless of the bombardment demonstrates a greater level of command and control that what the isreali military probably believed existed. remember one of isreali's first stated objectives was to take out hezbollah's c&c infrastructure. destroyed a huge amount of communications capability throughout lebanon. but what they failed to understand is in a world of mordern commuications with wireless laptops and cels phones, rganized forces trained to use such do not need the traditional equipment that they destroyed. so how do i see it stacking up so far. main winner hezbollah. not that they did any great battlefield deeds, but they did not have to. isreali's stated oal was to destroy them and their infrastructure. they survived and the infrastucture still holds. plus they won the propaganda war, which in reality was probably more important than the ground war. though many moderate muslims at first held hezbollah more to blame for the shelling, the intensity and high causalty amoung civilians lead many to change their support to hezbollah. as they saw their cities destroyed and people killed, by what they percieve (and to some extent true) a western/u.s. backed force. nations that came to save their civilians but did nothing to prevent the isreali's from carrying out the war as they saw fit. what does isreal win. time. in a war that is for the survival of your nation, any act that prolongs your existance is a victory. also the fact that hezbollah could continue to launch as many rockets as they have shows that there was, and still is, heavy buildup of weapons in the area that truely do pose a threat to them. their biggest loss. public opinion. biggest loser. the rest of us. unfortunately this little conflict probably just swelled the ranks of terrorist organizations around the world. many islamic believers now see this as futher proof that west, especially america, cares little about muslim people. also this war and that little affair in iraq shows that both the u.s. military and the isreali defense forces can be taken on. they are no longer are the 800 pound gorrillas fear. what's left isreal and hezbollah will make a trade for fighters for soldiers. remember that little raid isreal conducted into northern lebanon. mainly for intell' but do recall they went out of their way to sieze fighters. their trading tokens. why do i think that a trade is what hezbollah originally intended. how many of you remember see those two soldiers being decapitated on some nice webcast. no, hezbollah wanted them for some other reason. well until the next time mr d

hello yes i'll stick with the crackpots. true their ideas do lead at times to unfortunate deaths due to their ideas. but when i see what 'sane' scientist do with their 'correct' knowledge of science. and purposely design devises that can kill thousands and millions at one go. well maybe having crackpots working in military developement, might be a far better then having those sane folks. besides think how much more enjoyable the world is with them in it. the amusement they provide, the inspiration they give to others (perhaps even yourself) to help push them to disprove crackpot theories still aids in the advancement of scienctific research. what a world of mediocrity and tedium it would be if only scientifically approved ideas and thoughts were allowed. what is your fear of the absurd? doth thou protest to loudly. got to go out now. need drop my white canvus coat with the wrap around arms off at the cleaners. mr d ps. as stated before in the u.s. most people consider the term of crackpot as a ill informed but still harmless individual (kinda like the character of doc brown in the back to the future movies). notice for a number of you blokes in the u.k. there seems to be more of a feeling that crackpots are dangerous fellows. just wondering if that is how you feel about the term.

hello what if the woman is young and ill equiped to care for a child, but believes in a childs right to life. would you consider the cloned child to be the first terminated child. mr d

hello a third time lets try this. reality exsists in a number of forms, two of which are. 1) scientific - actual hard data, formula's.etc... 2) percieved reality - or how you percieve the world, what you in your mind believe to be real. most people do not live in the scientific world. you live in your own percieved world. reality is what you believe it to be. a person you call a crackpot in a lot of cases actually believes what they espouse to is the real scientific fact. and to them it is because their percieved reality says that it is. as stated above reasons may vary, comfirmation of beliefs, ego conflicts, etc. but they percieve their own scientific facts are reality. and for them it is. remember the world is what you believe it to be, not what it may in scientific reality actually be. example: i percieve you to be a person, perhaps a student, interested in science who comes to this forums to discuss your area of employment or study. that is my percieved reality of you, and i respond to you based upon that perception. you may in reality be a 60 year old woman confined to a mental hospital somewhere in canada. but i base my world on what i believe you to be, not scientific fact. i need that belief to function in dealing with you on this forum. they need their beliefs to function in their world. it is how they explain what they, again, percieve the world to be and in so doing it is reality to them. so basically they are people who for some reason, mental - emotionally..., need this reality of their's to exsist for their ability to function in life. mr d

hello yes i know under current acceptable data there has never been civilization on mars (irrespective of the mars face). but as the last time the was free flowing water on mars suffcient to support life and civilization was around 1.5 billion years. unless they had some dam fantastic build materials, four thousand for our old stone ones, and a modern building perhaps 200 if not maintained. any structures once existing on the planet would have disintigrated hundreds of millions of years ago. so how would you even begin a hunt to find if a civilization had existed. best guess i could make would be radio spectrography. a scan for areas where elements that might have composed processed materials could be found. but that would have to mean the civilization would have to had develope some level of metalurgy. strange thoughts mr d

hello again perhaps it's your use of the term 'crackpot'. i believe most people still consider a person referred to as a crackpot as a rather harmless individual. as opposed to your lunatics, nut jobs, and run of the mill wackjobs. as to their theories or statements, most people will dismiss them out of hand, perhaps a few will agree, but if they hurt no one so what. are you expressing the belief all people should only believe excepted scientific doctrine. personally i find that more frightening then a crackpot and his bizarre theory. plus who knows what may come of a crackpot idea. just look at doctor kellogg and his ideas of heath and abstinence that lead to the invention of kellogg's corn flakes. not to mention their suger coated descendant frosted flakes. they're greaaaat! http://www.encyclopedia-online.info/Corn_Flakes mr d