zapatos

Haha. As I said that thread was probably the most fun I've had here. And that comment certainly was not directed at you or meant to imply that thread was entirely unfair. But as I asserted multiple times in that thread and elsewhere, it seems clear to me that in general the people here are less critical of statements that support their position and more critical of those that do not. Given that there appear to be more atheists than theists on this site, the theists seem to be treated with less, um, consideration than the atheists. It is usually a small thing, but people who agree with the majority tend not to call out things like unsupported assertions that they would never let go in a discussion of, say, QM. But no surprise really. Join a discussion board about the Kansas City Royals and you'll find that the umpires in the World Series did a pretty good job and can't be expected to get every call just exactly right. Umpiring is hard! But join a similar discussion board about the New York Mets and it becomes clear that the quality of umpiring has been in a death spiral for years, and that something has got to be done! When you have no skin in the game (I'm from St. Louis) it is easier to tell when people aren't treating both sides of an argument with complete fairness. Not many people here are unfair to a great degree, but when you are on the receiving end of those discussions, it sure feels like we're not yet totally fair and balanced.

I remember a thread called "People who believe in God are broken" that went on for four months and over 1600 posts. While it is still one of my favorite threads, it seemed to me that characterizing theists as a whole as 'broken' based on knowledge of a subset of those people was not only NOT called out, but applauded by many people on this site.

Once a bullet leaves the end of the barrel, it falls to the ground at the exact same rate as a bullet you dropped from your hand. The fact that the bullet travels so quickly simply gives you the impression that it is at a steady height. EDIT: Sorry, cross posted with swansont.

The sword shown in the OP looks to me like a Kukri. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kukri

The kind of site we want is one where people primarily discuss the topic at hand instead of constantly complaining about how they've been mistreated. I count six posts by you in this thread and not one addresses "evolution and creation as one". When you find yourself in a position where most people you are talking to think you are in the wrong, you may want to at least consider the possibility that you are indeed wrong.

Great links, thanks. So it seems like climate change is primarily a problem for humans not so much because warmer weather is 'worse', but because we've invested our capital based on the way the climate has been in recent centuries. Farms set up for the best utilization of seasonal patterns, cities built close to the water's edge, etc. Had civilization grown up during the most recent ice age, the climate we are experiencing now would likely have been the nightmare scenario.

I have a bad back and so use the snow shovel you have pictured. Exactly as ACME stated, I can pick up a load of snow with only a minimal bend in my back. It is an excellent tool for that purpose.

That seems to imply that if we were aliens and we were free to choose for earth any climate we wanted, ranging from what the earth has now to any warmer climates, that the very best choice would be the climate the earth is now experiencing. Is it that simple? Is any climate warmer than that which we are now experiencing, worse than the current climate? Was the earth (or people, or life, or whatever other criteria you are using) worse off (from a climate perspective) during all previous warmer climates?

But it is not a given that the above is true. I would go so far as to say you have that exactly backwards. I didn't actively choose a God to believe in; my parents did that for me. I don't think it is a stretch to say that the vast majority of people believe in a God because their parents chose that God for them. Atheists on the other hand were often once believers. For them it takes thought, logic and debate before they choose to disbelieve what was spoon fed to them for the first portion of their lives.

In GrandMasterK's scenario, he was no longer in the spacecraft when he threw the screwdriver. Do you suppose the difference in size between him and the screwdriver will still result in enough additional drag to cause him to hit the earth prior to his screwdriver? I would have thought that the drag on the astronaut (or the spacecraft for that matter) would not have been enough to cause him to catch up to the screwdriver that is traveling at 20m/s toward the earth faster than he is.

Yes, it would keep going if you had adequate fuel. But, that is of course not the way they launch rockets because it is inefficient. What they do is get it up to the speed they want as quickly as possible. When someone speaks of escape velocity, they are saying that if you reach that velocity, you will never have to fire your rockets again and you will never fall back to the body you have left. I don't know the exact distance you would have to be from earth to shut off your engines while traveling 1 mph to not get pulled back to earth, but it is the place where the escape velocity is 1 mph. In other words, since the earth's gravity is strongest at the surface of the earth and weaker as you move away from the surface of the earth, the escape velocity at the surface is 25,000 mph, and the further from the surface that you start your trip from, the lower the escape velocity. There is some location far out in space where your escape velocity is only 1 mph. Yes, you are still stuck around the sun. There is an escape velocity to escape the sun too (or any body for that matter). No, not for these purposes. The shell will begin to slow down as soon as it leaves the barrel of the cannon, but if it leaves at 18,000 mph, it will reach space. Friction from the atmosphere slows it down, which causes its orbit to degrade. The screwdriver would eventually hit the earth just as you would, only a bit sooner. And remember that most of the motion of the screwdriver is around the earth, not toward it from you throwing it. So it is still going to orbit the earth for quite a while.

And I am not arguing that focus on the upside of climate change should equal the focus on the downside of climate change. I am simply saying that no aspect of climate change should be dismissed or ignored, which is what a couple of earlier posts seemed to do.

(Edit: This was in response to michel's last post) And the assumption is their acceleration is continuous? If so, then I agree the distance between them will increase. In the first second, object A's average velocity is greater than the average velocity of object B. In the second second, object A's average velocity is again greater than the average velocity of object B. And so on. Therefore the distance between then will increase.

What would be the benefit of not telling someone with stage 3 colorectal cancer that they are going to lose weight in the coming weeks and months? I imagine that businesses and governments are not simply going to throw in the towel and shut down due to the problems that will be caused by climate change. In order to make the best plans for the future you need to mitigate the risk of climate change. Leaving out of the discussion information that can help mitigate the downside of climate change seems short sighted to me. If the US government (or ConAgra) is going to address decreased food production in the corn belt, it would be helpful to know if there are other areas of the country that can be utilized to fill the food gap. If honeybees are going to decrease in number in areas of the country, it would be nice to know if that area of the country is now fit for a different type of pollinator. The more information we gather about climate change, the better off we will be. Data is data. We shouldn't ignore some of it simply because we find one type of data distasteful. I'd be surprised if people were not already making future plans for business endeavors that were once considered untenable due to current climate conditions.

What do you mean when you say 'there is a delay'? A delay between what and what? Are you talking about a delay in the time it takes for a signal to be sent from object 1 to object 2? Also, are you talking about objects that are starting with the same velocity?

If there are positive effects to climate change and recognition of those changes are ignored, this will simply give the doubters ammunition that climate change is either a hoax or that its negative effects are being overstated. If a farmer must relocate due to climate change, surely they will offset the cost of moving with the income generated by selling off their unproductive farm. Similarly, good politics and good science demands we study all effects, not just those that we personally wish to emphasize.

I believe a 'right' is a human concept, and would not exist if not for humans. If a 'natural right' is supposed to come from outside the human mind, I would like to hear how natural rights are viewed by people who believe in them. In addition, rights exist for some people but not for others. I say this because unless a right can be enforced for an individual, it does not exist for that individual. Rights may have been defined for all in the U.S. Constitution, but if I could not exercise them due to the color of my skin, how much money I had, or because I squat when I pee, then what you might call a 'right', I would call a waste of ink on paper.

According to the study you linked to, "The study found that a large number of individuals in the United States self-report patterns of impulsive angry behavior and also possess firearms at home (8.9%) or carry guns outside the home (1.5%)." How do you know this 8.9% of the population owns "the vast majority of the guns". Asserting that "the vast majority of guns are owned by NRA brainwashed nut jobs" without providing solid evidence to support the assertion causes me to question your motives as readily as I question the motives of those on the right who claim there is a secret 'gun confiscation force'.

Any particular reason you chose not to answer my questions?

Have all the current regulations found their way to the Supreme Court, or are they on the way? Do you think regulations like background checks, limits on automatic weapons, limits on magazine sizes, etc. are likely to be overturned eventually?

Unless things are different in Minnesota than they are in Missouri, a concealed carry permit means that a person is 'registered', not a gun. When I applied for my concealed carry permit I was not required to register, or even acknowledge ownership, of any guns.

Can you expand on that please? Are you saying that physics can't say what a black hole is composed of? Or that the definition of a black hole does not describe the matter that is in it? I would assume it is made of something, perhaps some version of what went into the black hole.

I really enjoyed this one! Thanks!

It would take three people full time for a week, and one person for a couple of hours per day. You could do it for under $100.

Move the Earth into a very close orbit around the sun that results in the Earth turning into a molten blob.