Phi for All

If you could generate that much power with a punch, you have to also pretend you had a body that could use it. If your arm were traveling fast enough to deliver a blow like that, your fist wouldn't survive the trip. It would have to be moving so fast that, for a jab that's only going a few feet, you'd probably leave everything but bone behind, all the soft tissue would stay at your side while your skeletal arm slid right out. The bone wouldn't survive much longer. I don't think the punch would ever land, but it wouldn't have to.

In a Red Herring sort of way, or did you have something specific in mind?

In a discussion, a basic premise is that your viewpoint might be sound enough to convince someone it has merit and should be considered. When we talk to people about a subject that offers a perspective that can shade opinion, a reasonable person keeps an open mind. You often discuss religion with others while making it clear that your mind is already made up, that GOD IS THIS, GOD IS THAT, THIS is the WAY things are! This is known as preaching, or soapboxing. Like anyone else discussing religion, you have nothing solid, no evidence that supports your stance more than any others, yet your claims are adamant and assertive, like you're stating Truth. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you seem to be saying there's no way you aren't right. Rational discussion assumes you're willing to be reasonable and listen without automatically dismissing other stances. I don't think it helps anyone's understanding when you treat your viewpoint like plate armor, and everyone else's viewpoints like arrows.

HEY! When you're discussing something with a group of people, what would you do if one of them suddenly blurted out such a preachy, soapboxing statement like this? You can't discuss it with them, since they're so adamant about it they don't even seem to listen. You assume so much about something few people know anything for sure about. THAT'S why soapboxing is against our rules. We can't talk to you when you're like this.

--from Words Can Change Your Brain by Andrew Newberg, M.D. and Mark Robert Waldman ! Moderator Note Please don't copy/paste copyrighted material without a citation, or a link to the original work. Otherwise, it looks like plagiarism to us, and that's against our rules.

! Moderator Note This is a science discussion site. Driving traffic to your blog is against our rules. Is there something about respiration you wish to discuss? Otherwise I'll have to remove this post. Thank you for understanding.

As long as you aren't speculating on some kind of anti-gravity based on not knowing where your feet are, it should be OK in the mainstreams.

Bruno da Silva has been suspended for a week for his fixation about doing a favor for all of us suffering creatures by destroying Earth, since it sort of violates our rules about the discussion of committing a felony.

ROFL, I thought for five minutes trying to come up with something like this, and was just overwhelmed by the options. Excellent Choice! I think J.C.MacSwell should open a thread on Warner Bros Physics.

Et voila!

New stuff that goes up has to have an exit strategy for when they reach the end of their usefulness, but you've put your finger on the real problem. Nobody wants to pay a penny to clean up the old stuff if it means admitting you might be liable. An international fund that removes debris based on which bits represent the biggest dangers would probably help a great deal. I just feel like if we don't keep working to fix it, we're inviting all those horrible movie plot tragedies along every time we use space as a resource. Murphy's Law rules supreme out there among the multi-million dollar investments and the little bits of junk.

I know, and part of me feels horrible about a situation where ignorance of science is being used in such a plug-ugly way. I thought at first it was just because I favor expansion and exploration for the human race, but now I realize it's because Bruno da Silva has such a hideous approach to one of the most beautiful things I can imagine. He asks questions about science the way someone would ask about the Mona Lisa if they just wanted to wipe their hands clean on it.

We've discussed it here. Iirc, the best of the "sidle up to it" scenarios involved attaching a tail to the debris so it slows down due to drag and eventually burns up. I liked that one because it seemed like you could re-use the craft instead of having them latch on and drag the debris down with them.

Probably straying over into Psych, but is there more to it than "you need to suffer so you appreciate happiness more"? There are many opportunities for understanding and knowledge when we're suffering, if we can see from that perspective. But is there a physiological reason for dwelling on the suffering, for allowing it to consume your thoughts (assuming you aren't actively being tortured or something)? I suppose I'm referring to the average person who claims life is all suffering and pain. Great example. And smaller amounts of fear can keep us on our toes, keep us wary and watching for interruptions in normal patterns. So there are physiological benefits to emotional pain and fear.

There might have been some paint incidents since. That was one I remembered because it seemed so bizarre at the time. Btw, you aren't old, you're experienced and wise. Together, we put the "sag" in sagacious! The energies involved in these bits of debris are staggering when you think about it. Imagine getting hit with a steel bolt traveling so fast it turns to plasma! And you're right, the "splash" would just freeze there into the metal. I used the think the vastness of space was a bit scary, but that's what protects you from the real dangers of the unfamiliar energies out there. We definitely need to figure out how to clean up this resource. Space should be treated like fresh water and breathable air.

Here's a nifty little tool, using Space Tracks data from the US military. Have fun! Wow, you're thinking of the Space Shuttle, iirc. That was 30 years ago, wasn't it? I remember a fleck of white paint poked through the outer layer of a window. Very scary. And the stuff they can track now has to be much bigger than that. Although I'm less worried about the pieces we can see, that we can track. It's the little bitty ones you can't see that will cause more problems.

I was going to start this thread, in response to a recent rant about annihilating the whole planet as an end to pain and suffering. Presumably, there's a difference between physical pain, which is actually beneficial in a lot of ways, and suffering, or emotional pain. We have a lot of ways to approach this discussion, physiologically, psychologically, philosophically (is life worth the suffering?). Physiologically (since we're in Anatomy now), it sounds like there are some overlaps with emotional distress. Pain can lead to suffering, or exacerbate it. We know that physical pain does lots of beneficial things (it makes you remove your hand from the really hot thing, it reminds you not to touch a hot thing like that again, and it keeps you from using the burned hand while it heals), but are there any physiological benefits to emotional pain?

What does this mean? Why do you have "no way to actually do this"? How much math and physics have you studied? Is it enough for you to be able to "tinker" with them? What does "theoretical" mean to you? Theories are the strongest statements science makes.

Even a bit of debris or a meteor the size of a hex-nut from a bolt can be devastating to a body in orbit. The impact usually vaporizes the small bits to plasma, which can damage onboard electronics. I attended a seminar a couple of weeks ago on Space & Disaster Risk Management. All satellites have a bit of maneuverability, and the various space agencies track meteor showers and compensate as much as they can. Still, while space around the planet is really huge, it's almost inevitable there are going to be collisions and impacts. The ISS got hit a few years back, a small bit of something put a chip in the outer of four panes of fused glass on the cupola. This was from a MMOD (Micro-Meteoroid and Orbital Debris) which was too small to track, but did visible damage nonetheless.

Simple. But not easy. Classic example. OK, now that we know what you want to do, we can start paring away at the task. Single-celled organisms, do you really think they feel pain? Or are you just wiping them out too because they might evolve into something that feels pain? In five billion years, before the sun goes red giant, that could certainly happen. Let's look at this from another angle. Removing the Earth as a habitable place is probably beyond your means. You'd have to recruit an army of minions who also hated life because of the pain, and would agree it's OK for you to make that decision for everyone and everything. Sooooo, if you could talk people into that, why don't you just convince all the people that life is too painful and we should all work together to destroy the whole planet? The toughest part would be historical precedence. What you describe is pretty much the definition of Evil, and I think people will be suspicious and defensive when you first start talking to them. DO NOT GET A CAT. Don't give up, and if you find a few people who think the pain is worth it, well, nihilism isn't for the faint of heart. I will say this, if you can't destroy the whole thing, don't destroy any of it. You'd just be creating more pain. Edit to add: Hey, if you're serious about this, have you researched pain at all? Do you know why we feel pain, why it helps, why it's absolutely necessary to human life, or have you just decided pain is only painful and unnecessary?

I thought you said you were serious about this?! Every answer you've had so far tells you the answer to these two questions. You're wasting time we could be spending at the beach, before the world ends. The only place we know for sure that life exists, and you don't want it around anymore, not even a speck of it. OK. You'd have to go with one of the more complete scenarios, something that prevents the planet from forming again. Something massive you could do in your lifetime. Do you have a limit on resources, or can we assume you've taken over the world and have access to everything? If you're trying to be remembered as the guy who destroyed the Earth and all its life, you may want to rethink this scenario. Leave some to tell the tale.

You've had several. Perhaps you could contribute a bit more, and clarify what you're really looking for. From the couple of bits you've posted, you sound like someone who's angrily walked into a pawn shop, red in the face, asking to buy a gun, and are demanding to be taken seriously. We know you have an extremely low probability of destroying the Earth, but I'd sure like to know I'm not helping to destroy even a little part. How about some serious clarification?

Your equipment limits your ability to provide links to evidence? That rather makes you inconsistent with our purposes. Considering your current reputation, I think this inconsistency is detrimental to any discussion in which you're involved.

Insult Vogon poetry.

In that case, I would prefer that Mr Rayon keep his underpants on.