Dekan

If we try to democratically choose a leader, we're bound to get a weak person. Because this person must try to make himself agreeable to everybody, Unfortunately everybody's opinions differ. Some think this, others think that. Which makes a democratically-elected leader scrabble for some kind of compromise. And compromise is a another word for fudge As we all know from daily experience, you can't fudge decisions. You have to be strong, and decide one way or the other. Which is why we need strong leaders, such as Putin. DimaMazin asserts, in #9, that I don't know about corruption in Russia. Of course I do, but isn't there also corruption in America. Do true Americans admire their current media-elected President?

Yes, you make good suggestions. The hot air as it comes up the hole, could be used to blow windmill-blades round. But that sounds a bit 17th-Century. In the 21st Century, couldn't we just build a nuclear reactor on the surface. Then stuff all its radioactive waste down the hole. I agree, that geothermal energy could be used. However, when you say: it's completely renewable, could you clarify how it gets renewed?

I don't think we should try to "choose" a leader. The natural leader should come to the front, and impose his will on us, because he is strong. And mostly that's what we want. We want to be told what to do. Isn't it such a relief, just to obey orders? That's why the people of Egypt vote for a new Nasser, and the Russians love Putin. Such men satisfy a basic need. "Democracy" only causes confusion and discontent. It goes against nature. In nature, the strong prevail. That's how it should be. Otherwise, how could there be any evolutionary progress - wouldn't we all be amoebae?

I suppose an infinite number of choices would be possible. If the Universe were infinite, extending endlessly in all directions. Then it wouldn't have any "background". It would just go on forever, without limit. But nowadays we know that the Universe isn't unlimited. It has a definite size, about 13.5 billion light-years. This has been proved by the discovery of the Cosmic Background Radiation. The background radiation can be mapped, Some maps have been published in recent years. They show the background isn't smooth and featureless. It shows irregularities. Such irregularities seem to provide Universal reference points . Couldn't they be used to measure absolute speed within the Universe?

Every negative point is like a stab to my heart. When I see -87, it really wounds me. However, I know that most of the negs come from political-correctness, not from anything about Science.

But is that true? Surely "nothing" means there is isn't anything there, so how can it exist?

Swansont & Strange, I'm objecting to the word "Space". This word could be replaced by "Gap", and if it was, we might see that the whole argument is an artefact of language. As Strange points out in #3, we could replace "Time" by "tick", and then debate the nature of "Tick". Just as we could debate the nature of "Gap". Changing "Gap" into "Space", and "Tick" into "Time", doesn't change anything, except to make the words sound more abstruse.

Why is there a "reputation points" system at all? Shouldn't each post be looked at on its own merits. Regardless of who wrote it. Science is about truth. I can't see why posts on a Scientific forum should have labels attached to the poster, like "Good" , "Poor" or "Bad". What are the labels meant to imply?

I'm an outsider to the American political system. But I get the impression that Republicans will fund Science and Technology. Whereas Democrats will spend all the money on Welfare. Is that too simple a view?

There's no such thing as "Space"! It's just a synonym for "Separation" or "Gap". So when earnest scientific posters keep talking about "the expansion of Space" - they could just as well be talking about "the expansion of Gap" Isn't it disappointing to see how easily language stops clear thinking?

You seem to have conceded that we can't control our bladder and bowels. These are physical organs inside the human body. Another such physical organ is the brain. The brain can make us do things outside our free-will, like getting senile dementia. I suppose no-one would choose, of their own free-will, to get demented. But if our brain gets old, causing brain-cells to die off, do we have any choice in what happens? Where's the free-will then?

Yes, intelligence can give the right answer to a question. But wisdom gives you the discretion to say something else instead.

I suppose many scientifically-minded people think: Climate-change is an obvious fact. The Earth has alternated between cold and hot periods throughout its history. Long before humans came on the scene. But what some scientists seem to HOPE, is that these alternations can stopped in their tracks - simply by reducing anthropogenic carbon emissions! That rightly induces a FEAR of scientific hubris, which threatens to undermine the credibility of Science. Doesn't the emotionally-loaded phrase "Climate-change Deniers" sound unscientific. More akin to ideology, or religion, What will the next step be: "Climate-change Heretics"?

Faslan's OP envisages drilling a deep hole, then pouring water down it. When the water hits the deep levels, it gets heated up. It starts to boil, and produces steam, which emerges at the top of the.hole. The emerging steam contains heat, which can be converted into mechanical energy - by using the steam to push a steam-turbine round. And the turbine can then push a dynamo round, which will generate electric power This is good, but do we really need the water? The water's only function seems to be this: To conduct heat from the bottom of the hole, to the top. Couldn't this function be performed just as well by a heat-conducting metal, such as copper? Suppose we drilled a deep hole, then stuck a long copper rod down it. Wouldn't the top of the rod get hot, and provide energy which could be used to generate electric power?

Thanks imatfaal, but it doesn't really answer the question - what language are Quantum computers programmed in? Or do the programmers not use a language, but just put the question into the computer, then wait while the qubits manipulate all possible answers, until the right one pops out. Rather like, instead of looking up someone's phone number in a directory, you just dialled all possible numbers until the right person answered. I'm sorry if that sounds superficial, but the more I read about this, the more I get the impression that no-one knows what's going on. Which is what we should expect from Quantum Theory, I suppose!

Suppose someone decided of their own free-will, not to go to the bathroom. Their bladder and bowels would eventually reach bursting point, explode, and cause death. Has anyone in history ever committed suicide in that way? I guess not. Doesn't that prove there are limits on free-will.

Perhaps the question whether we have complete "free-will", can be answered thus - we all have to "go to the bathroom", as the admirably courteous Americans politely put it. The process is disgusting. Would we actually choose to do such a thing, if we had free-will?

How is a Quantum computer programmed? I mean, what computer language is used to program it In conventional computers, the programming languages rely on "predictability". For example, in BASIC, if you write LET X = 1 Then you know X will always have a precise value, ie 1 But in a Quantum computer, wouldn't the value of X always waver "unpredictably" between 0.99999 and 1.00001. So, if you were writing a BASIC program for a Quantum computer, you'd have to put: LET X = 0.99999 ~1.000001. That doesn't seem like it could give very precise answers. Has anyone yet invented a programming language for Quantum computers?

Well, it shows women can be good at statistics and sanitary reform, at least.

Hm, Acme's list includes the name "Florence Nightingale". Was she a scientist?

OK, let's get on denying the obvious, that Science is not a woman's thing,

Note that no women were involved.

If Galileo, Newton and Darwin had been subjected to "peer-reviewed" research, would they have got anything published?

Or, read the evidence of your own eyes, instead of swallowing media-guff?

Surely dinosaurs would be beaten by mammals, because the most advanced mammals, ie human beings, have invented guns. These mammalian guns would quickly shoot the dinosaurs dead.