Cap'n Refsmmat

Generally you send me a private message, but timo is right: this is the easiest way: http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=core&module=usercp&tab=core&area=displayname Note that even if you change your display name, you should still log in to SFN with the same username as before. Display name only changes how it is shown to other users.

You make a fatal assumption that reality is wholly three-dimensional. The three-dimensional shapes of objects change depending on which slice of four-dimensional reality they are contained within; the Lorentz transformations of relativity reflect a rotation in four-dimensional space. This would seem to imply the opposite of subjective idealism: that reality is objective, but we perceive different slices of it.

Mass and energy can be converted into each other according to the famous law [math]E=mc^2[/math].

You should be more careful making blatantly spiteful threads; you tend to make embarrassing mistakes, like blaming people for statements they did not make. Now, I suppose I should adjust the statement I made that you seem to take offense to. There are wildly varying estimates of the maximum sustainable population of Earth, depending on the underlying assumptions used. Certainly present resource usage is not sustainable for decades or centuries. However, there are a number of industries waiting for another Green Revolution moment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution For example, some estimates of sustainability predict the depletion of fossil fuels removing a prime energy source, but new alternative energy sources and the discovery of new fuel reserves have rather disrupted those estimates. Similarly, clean water supplies are only becoming cheaper; medicine is becoming more widely available; new crops and agricultural techniques will only increase yields; and new technology is getting more energy-efficient, not less. There may be some resources we use unsustainably and are not making progress towards improving upon; perhaps you had some examples in mind. Do you have any further information on the subject? Also, is twelve hours too long to wait for a response? I have a full-time job to attend to.

The difference between reference frames is merely a change of coordinates, not a change in reality. The weird effects come from the coordinates being four-dimensional.

Are you sure that the book doesn't instead state "KE of gas > KE of liquid > KE of solid"? Perhaps you could quote that section; maybe it words things strangely.

That is an assumption with no basis in reality. As I understand it, length contraction is a logically necessary consequence of the universally constant speed of light. (The speed of light is constant as measured in any reference frame, and this has been verified repeatedly.) The constant speed of light requires that lengths contract to make physical sense. There is also an experimental confirmation of length contraction based on the flow of currents through macroscopic wires at relatively slow speeds. Any good book on special relativity will explain how length contraction can be derived from the postulate that the speed of light is a constant, along with the postulate that laws of physics apply in all inertial reference frames.

But desalination and water treatment can become more efficient. If desalination were cheaper, massive water consumption would not be a huge problem. But yes, putting 600 billion humans on Earth would likely be unsustainable. Fortunately, most countries are nowhere near their maximum sustainable population sizes.

A human population could asymptotically approach some maximum value which is still ecologically sustainable. Asymptotic growth, while constrained, will result in indefinite growth -- though that growth will never result in a population exceeding a certain value. For example, in this graph, the line asymptotically approaches the upper boundary, and will continue to approach it without ever reaching it: But that's a pedantic argument. The practical argument goes like this: As humans advance, they consume more resources. However, they also devise ever more clever methods to use existing resources more efficiently; genetically-modified and specially-bred crops have made possible our population of seven billion, and further research promises further advances. We certainly cannot reach an infinite size, but a naive assumption that "growth is bad" will fail, because growth is countered by innovation.

In the Earth's reference frame, the predictions of: Earth science: Nearly spherical Earth. Newtonian mechanics: Nearly spherical Earth. Relativity: Nearly spherical Earth. So how do the observations of Earth science contradict relativity?

How exactly does one claim "scientific superiority," and when has that happened on SFN?

At what point did I state that you had "perpetrated" a logical fallacy? I have not followed your discussions in great depth. Others could address this issue better. Logical fallacies are not necessarily based upon universally agreed-upon facts, and in fact most aren't. A logical fallacy indicates any kind of error in reasoning which causes a conclusion to be unsound; the link I gave provides some common examples. When facts are not in universal agreement, the arguments we make with the facts we have -- and the soundness of those arguments -- is all the more important. Clear reasoning is essential if you intend to convince anyone or hold a reasonable discussion.

Greg: This discussion is off-topic for this thread, and I suggest you take it elsewhere. Regardless, we do hold political debates to a higher standard of evidence, and you are required to provide evidence for your assertions. We also ask that our members avoid logical fallacies in debate. DJBruce: That may be a good idea.

All accounts of Earth science at rest with Earth could say anything and they would not contradict what SR or GR predicts about Earth in a different reference frame. At rest with Earth, SR and Earth science agree splendidly.

Our forum rules do indeed apply to the Politics forum. We have just been lax in enforcement. I apologize; this is partly my fault for not responding quickly enough to reports and issues in the Politics forum. We'll work on stepping up moderator notes and interventions. Part of the problem is a requirement that staff not intervene when they're already involved in a discussion -- they have to get a second opinion, and often there's no other staff willing to jump into Politics.

You questioned how much modification can be credited to natural selection. My examples do not have to falsify the theory of natural selection entirely -- merely show it is possible to determine if natural selection applies in certain cases. There's not much point falsifying the hypothesis "natural selection occurs" because we've seen it occur. The question is a matter of scale.

Nor does an incorrect understanding of the physics of space, time, or spacetime.

Generally, increasing the number of blades or the blade area gives relatively little extra energy but makes the turbine heavier and more expensive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine_design#Blade_count

I think Acts 5 is a bit suspect, although it's his disciples rather than Jesus himself.

You could compare the modification to know facts about the environment and other species. If the fossil record shows that an animal developed thick, heavy fur, and various techniques (tree rings, ice cores) show that global temperatures rose rapidly around the same time, you start thinking about other possible mechanisms. With inheritance and selection you have to consider that a trait is introduced by mutation in only one animal, and grows more prevalent as that animal's descendants outcompete other animals. A trait that appears within an entire population faster than enough generations can be bred cannot have occurred by natural selection. Certainly it would. It would tell us that selection is not what's causing the toe to be cut off. By examining the environments they've lived in, and how similar organisms in those environments have changed.

Do you just need different colors to do that, or do you also use different fonts?

Godwin's law proven true by post #30? That's just sad. Civil debate does not include comparisons to Hitler's henchmen. If you want to make a point, make it through argumentation, not through insult.

Suppose DrRocket wants to cash in on his investments some years from now. Why should he sell investments now, when they're down, when a crash would be temporary and the companies may recover within five or ten years?