Phi for All

See, jorden? With a million scientists like baric watching every word, every tiniest bit of evidence, Big Bang has to be the absolute best explanation out there. I was thinking about the explosion problem. The Big Bang was more like an air bag going off, except the universe is on the inside, and its still expanding. Rapid expansion that continues today. Does that help? Is that OK with you, baric?

In science, we don't call something a theory with only "minimal facts and proof supporting it and nothing saying otherwise". A theory is supported by massive amounts of evidence and is constantly being tested by experimentation and observation. Trust me, there is almost as much fame to be had from being the person who finally disproves a theory as in proposing the idea that begins one. Nothing ever starts out as a theory in science. NOTHING. It's only after an idea has gone through all the steps of the scientific method many times and been discussed and reviewed thoroughly that scientists start to refer to it as theory. As far as "nothing saying otherwise", an idea HAS to be falsifiable to even be considered. One of the first tests you have to pass is, "could this idea be wrong?" In other words, if we start with an idea that all men are mortal, we can't test this because we can't know that someone alive today may live forever. The idea is not falsifiable, therefore we can't form a Theory of Mortality, despite all the evidence we have. If we start with all men are immortal, the idea could be falsified by producing one dead guy. Big Bang theory was developed over time by observing the structure of the universe. Every time we find something new it's checked against past theories. Everything we've learned continues to support BB, so literally nothing IS saying otherwise. BB continues to be the best explanation possible. Your "outside force" comment leads me to believe you've been talking to some creationists about evolution and abiogenesis. I hope you look at the links moontanman gave you on basic cell biology. I would also direct you to TalkOrigins.org for solid science presented with no agenda.

! Moderator Note Even in Speculations (perhaps especially here) you don't get to make up your own facts. If you continue to misuse established terminology and refuse to answer direct questions, you will risk suspension and/or banishment. People have been very patient but you take up valuable time refuting assertions that can't be left uncorrected.

If population control becomes necessary, I have no ethical problems with a voluntary program. It's easy for me, I've had my one child. An involuntary program is different. I'd have to face that in a context that doesn't exist right now. Your arguments are like those of a creationist who constantly quotes Darwin. They don't reflect the reality of the times. You complain that current technology won't be enough for the future, arguments usually made by someone with an agenda who needs to win an argument at all costs. So we use hemp seed oil to save the food crops. Diesel is a good transition from IC engines to the next generation. So once again, your need for population control may be a bit exaggerated and premature. Not to say it will never be necessary, for now the need is for renewable energy. We do have choices. Lots of them. Start another thread to talk about alternatives to forced population control. Godwin's Law?! Is there any depth to which you will not sink? Given the arguments I've made, this is a pathetic rebuttal and you've proven beyond a doubt that there is some special agenda you are hyping. Let's see some evidence for this "absolutely required" necessity. This is the last entry I'll make responding to your claims, Greg Boyles. I find your arguments weak, you can't seem to remember when you've been proven wrong and you use logical fallacies to the point of distraction. You aren't worth the time it takes to keep re-rebutting you. First, again, your "Malaysia claim" exaggerates the area required by a whole order of magnitude, as swansont has told you now in two different threads. Second, again, you forget that your equations are based on future population numbers but use current solar panel numbers. This is not only a basic mistake in math; it proves that you are pushing an agenda steeped in deception. This has been pointed out to you numerous times but you keep doing it. Third, I'd like to point out that some of the most hopeful new technology uses quantum dots to drastically reduce the surface area required for solar cells. It even increases the output. And it's main problem right now, releasing the electrons before they dissipate, seems solvable with materials as common as copper. There is even hopes that quantum dot augmented solar cells could be formed on thin sheets so they could be placed virtually anywhere. I bring this up to show that area required as well as output are being addressed now that the cost of oil has made it imperative to find alternatives. We've relied on oil for a long time. Now it's evident that we'll have to replace that dependence with a variety of alternatives and we have a great opportunity to invest in some that don't create the kind of pollution that oil has. It will be difficult but it will have its transition periods. We'll make mistakes and we'll learn. That's science and that's life. We just need to ignore those who pretend to heed reality but are, in fact, heeding some special interest. It's easy to spot these people; when you break down their arguments, you find a lot of obfuscation and logical fallacies, and they tend to forget facts in favor of rhetoric.

Like most things, I'm sure it's a combination, but I doubt people will admit that what they watch biases them that much. People are reluctant to admit that advertising affects the way they purchase. They mostly insist that they weigh the pros and cons and make an informed choice, when the truth is they've usually already made up their mind in the first 6 seconds and then use rationalizations to justify their purchases. It's probably the same way with political persuasion. Polls can be twisted easily, so that's not a great device to use. What if you exposed them to some unraveled stories, the kind that tend to make you change your stance as you learn more about the story? Are you familiar with the Baltimore Needle Program of the mid 90s? They started giving free needles to addicts who turned in dirty needles and conservatives freaked out. Then it was proven (and reported) that the program actually helped an STD epidemic they were having and suddenly the conservatives were OK with it. Then it was found out that some people were collecting bags full of dirty needles, swapping them for free clean needles and selling them to the addicts for a buck each. Now the conservatives were really in an uproar. Then it was pointed out (and reported) that these guys were finding the addicts who were too wasted to find the mobile needle clinics and actually improved the distribution system at no extra cost to the taxpayers. They went on to use these guys to hand out pamphlets on drug rehab and the whole thing was hailed as a great success. If you could get people to change their initial conservative stance on the subject of the government handing out free needles to drug addicts, you could prove that people can be learn from the media rather than just have their beliefs confirmed. Shell Oil in Nigeria is another good unraveled story that starts from a conservative perspective.

Is this homework?

Is this homework?

Is this homework?

I didn't agree that we must "reduce our numbers". Perhaps you could explain what you mean by that, because it sounds like you want to kill off a few hundred million extra mouths or so. I resist your assumptions because you say it is "unlikely to be economically viable". I think the economics is more of a political topic. Scientifically, there are many advancements which may benefit when oil becomes so scarce that alternatives become more attractive. Right now the oil lobbies are exerting a powerful push to stay with existing technology and hopefully that grip will loosen and research funds will flow in a different direction. I've said this many ways many times but you continue to insist I'm being unrealistic. Please, Mr. Tiptoe, speak its name. Tell me what I don't want. Are you possibly suggesting that oil is good because it promotes war which reduces population? There is always the possibility that our civilization will collapse. I maintain that it's more likely to happen the longer we wait for the inevitable without preparing for it. We need to stop subsidizing oil and gas and we need to start using those funds for research into alternative sources. No fanaticism, no misplaced beliefs. Pure and simple, if we continue to use oil at our present rate and don't start to switch to something renewable as soon as possible, we are more likely to risk a total collapse. And let me make this perfectly clear, Greg Boyles. You are perilously close to a personal attack when you compare my assessment of current technological advancements to a belief in God. You push it even further by calling me out personally with phrases like, "you simply cannot see yourself for what you are". This is a personal judgement on your part and I feel it has no place in this discussion. You keep ranting against gambling on technology, so perhaps you could tell us why you don't support efforts into renewable energy like wind and solar. Scientifically speaking, not politically, what are you proposing? Having failed to push through your other arguments, you are moving the goalposts quite obviously towards over-population. Please start another thread if you want to discuss that. How will alternative energies cause less pollution of water and air? Less oil being pulled out of the ground. Less burn off, or flaring, of natural gas. Less oil spills. Less refinery waste. The list is very long. I'm sure alternatives will create their own by-products, but as far as I've seen in the studies done, wind and solar are much more environment-friendly alternatives. And perhaps places like Nigeria will be able to focus their efforts on maintaining a livable population once the corruption their oil creates is gone. They have vast wealth but seem to keep losing people to famine, infections, poor health, neglect and steel poisoning.

This is a straw man, since I never said anything about solar, wind and geothermal being equal to fossil fuels. We have no idea what the future holds, and I don't think it will be anywhere near as bleak as you propose unless we dally and delay like we are being conned into by the oil concerns. Every day we fund oil with taxes while not funding alternatives is another day in the future of $20/gallon gasoline. Oooooh, very vivid. But I don't need faith like the zealot. We can see that the technology continues to improve. History tells us that there will continue to be breakthroughs if we bother to fund the research. Only because that remains the cheapest way to do it right now. When that changes, we can switch to many other alternatives. And those will probably become cheaper without oil competing against them. There's that straw man again. We all KNOW there will be significant change, and most of us actually welcome it. I'm tired of hearing that Shell Oil in Nigeria flares 95% of it's natural gas extracted (compared to 0.6% in US oil fields), which actually contributes more to global warming than all other oil fields in the world combined [1], to say nothing of the health hazards to the Nigerian people. Yes, we will have to consume less. Unlike you, I think that's a good thing. I'm a free market person, but scientifically it makes little sense to decrease efficiency of production and waste resources on so many choices of every product. This may be an opportunity for the market to actually demand that there be fewer choices of toasters based on available resources. As has been pointed out, you put these words in our mouths. There will be change. We will have to adjust. There will probably be less pollution. Water will probably be cleaner. Perhaps this may lead to space-based solar power, which will lead to transmitting power long distance via microwave, which could lead to a need to clear out all the satellite debris floating in LEO, which could allow us to re-purpose the weapons manufacturing we won't need since we're not invading for oil, which may make us all feel a lot safer. Optimists and pessimists alike.

! Moderator Note Thread moved to Psychiatry and Psychology from Evolution, Morphology and Exobiology.

"100km, or what ever"?! How do IC trucks avoid stopping every 100km, or what ever? Bigger multiple tanks. Maybe someone will come up with a way to put bigger multiple batteries on a big truck, or figure a way to recharge the batteries when the driver steps on the brake going downhill. You seem so sure that the technology won't get better and you're positive the "cost of living will increase massively". Why can't we continue to use cryogenic fuels like LH2 and LO2? Who said we get to carry on business as usual? It will require change. Whether it's good or bad remains to be seen, but I think it's a great opportunity. I think the change will be like discovering we don't have to track mud around the house, then go to great lengths cleaning it up. We can just take off our shoes before coming in.

I've used this one before. It's a bit pricey but it's belt-driven so the motor is quieter than a direct drive, and it's got a huge blade to displace a lot of air without the steep bevel that makes the blades loud. On low it can be used indoors to move the air from room to room. On high you better make sure everything is secured to the walls. But it's great if you set it so it can circulate air from upstairs to downstairs, or in an unused bedroom aimed down the hall towards the main part of your habitat. Fans work best if they've got a lot of clearance behind them, say 18" or so. That's one of the things I don't like about ceiling fans in an 8' tall room. They work better on cathedral ceilings, but they're better than nothing. Much better than cooling with air conditioning, imo. I like the breeze that michel123456 mentioned, and he's right, it may be psychological but it seems cooler to feel it.

When I was a kid, maybe seven or eight years old, a bunch of us found a Phidippus audax in my sister's family room (they're fairly common where I live). We all gathered around it and moved in as close as we dared, not really knowing what kind of spider this hairy little thing was. As we stared at it, suddenly it vanished. We were all stunned and no one said anything for a couple of seconds, each of us convinced we were the only ones who couldn't see it. Finally, one of us said, "Did it just disappear?" We all looked at each other in disbelief and then I saw it on top of the head of my cousin next to me. Everybody freaked out! We were told later that it was a jumping spider. Man, that thing didn't so much as twitch a muscle, I'd swear it!

Most people search Google about equipment before coming to a discussion site. My guess is that a sockpuppet will join to send us a link.

I would think that any difference in infrastructure requirements would be offset by the fact that the energy is renewable, it doesn't require massive tankers risking massive spills requiring massive cleanup, and it won't get harder and harder to find. And at a certain point, space-based solar technology could take all the collection problems off-planet, where collection will be 144% better. I doubt the "foreseeable" part. When GM tested its first electric car 15 years ago, the range was about 70 miles. The 2012 Tesla Model S can go 300 miles on a charge. The oil and gas people use this same argument, and so many people listen to it, ignoring the fact that IC engines have had more than 100 years to get where they are today. It's an unfair argument. Since the Tesla Model S could take you 300 miles of your 565.2 mile trip to Sydney right now, how many years of aggressive research do you think it will take before it can go the whole way? And remember, if you get stuck in traffic on the Hume, your IC car will still burn fuel while the electric car won't.

What are your temperature ranges, daytime and nighttime? Is this for year round use or just certain seasons? What about wind? "... forced air heat under the entire wood framed patio"? Is this vented out to the patio area or is the floor heated from below using the forced air heat from the room underneath? This may be more of an engineering thread. If it starts to head that way I may move it so you'll get more qualified attention.

! Moderator Note Please refrain from attacking another member's credibility. It is always enough to disprove a claim in science. You don't need to make it personal.

Scientifically, your equation is imbalanced. Solar hasn't had 100+ years with which to establish its energy profit delivery. To give an example of an industry that was innovative but ultimately undone by the required physics, and to try to tie that to renewable energy. I think it is irrelevant in this instance. If solar had some kind of physics problem, like the panels caused blinding glare, and used a material that was becoming scarcer and more costly to procure, then the comparison would be valid. But it's not. Again, infrastructure is required by any energy alternative. If we had been getting our energy from seawater somehow for the last 100 years and we were talking about switching over to petroleum, petroleum would still have to build an infrastructure against what seawater already had. You used the Malaysia comparison before and were corrected; I'll remind you here: Once again, you're trying to replace all oil overnight with today's solar technology. It's an unfair argument and it's a bad scientific assessment. That's not going to be the reality.

But everything that could replace fossil fuels will have a hideous infrastructure requirement. Oil has had a hideous infrastructure requirement. How could you possibly think any global energy alternative wouldn't? Despite what you claim, he is not "comparing the hideous fuel usage of the concorde to the hideous infrastructure requirements of solar thermal and voltaics etc.". He quite clearly states: He doesn't mention infrastructure, he mentions "both the supersonic boom and a substantial fuel consumption penalty compared to a Boeing 747". Inherent problems with the Concorde, problems that solar doesn't have compared to oil. The fuel consumption bit has nothing to do with infrastructure, it's an acknowledgement that the Concorde would quickly lose its viability as fuel prices rise. Please show me where. I pointed out that some of his claims lacked validity. This is not personal. It's just as invalid an argument when you use it.

Lol, arachnads!

Hey Externet! Yeah, I noticed that. I have a facility I can ride my bicycle to that manufactures solar panels. I even pursued a job there hoping I could get some at a discount. But they didn't need anyone to sell their product. Everything they made was already sold to other companies, some in the US and some overseas. I use natural gas for heating, and I don't really use my air conditioning. I'm a fan fan myself, and fans run great on DC current, and last longer than fans that run on AC. Partial infrastructure exists for DC appliances because of the recreational vehicle industry. Personally, I think having a PV array that powers a block of homes would be the most efficient use. You wouldn't need to push the current a long way and you spread out the expense of installation. Am I right in thinking you could have panels on ten homes, which then run the power to a single inverter and then back to each home?

I realize that English may be a second language for you, but it's frustrating to see you using the word "logically" so often when you are not being logical, and not putting sentences together correctly. It's not very precious of you. The scientific method (singular) was not "discovered". It was created from many techniques, put together as a way to reduce bias and opinion and, well, exactly the sort of thing you're doing when you say, "One knows that something exists, but may not know where it is exactly". You continue to add phrases that make no sense in this context and further remove this from a scientific discussion. What do you mean by short term and long term with regards to animals and humans? thinker_jeff, how can you possibly ask for evidence when you are the one who made the statement everyone is questioning you about? Where is your evidence that a line exists between animals and humans? Honestly, the cracking sound you hear is not only the thin ice upon which you stand, and the knuckles of frustration amongst the participants, it is the sound of patience drying up quickly.

It's a machine that measures light energy absorbed by molecules in both the ultraviolet and visible spectrum.

And if they did, would they cross the line and suddenly become human? That's part of the problem. You can list all the things you think make us different from animals, but if animals suddenly started doing each and every one of those things, they wouldn't cross some sort of line and become human, would they? Just because you think humans aren't animals doesn't mean there is a line that separates them. You think you're being logical but you aren't taking everything into account. You are being very simplistic about it. You are making an Argument from Incredulity ("We're different; I can't believe there isn't a definite line you can point to that shows it").