Dekan

If Putin sends troops into East Ukraine, will Obama declare war on Russia?

Linker, what you say may be true, but it's not "politically correct". Therefore it will be rejected.

Suppose President Putin orders his Russian army to invade eastern Ukraine. He will get away with it. Because he has nuclear weapons that he can fire at America and destroy it. America won't commit suicide by starting a nuclear war with Russia, and everyone knows that. All this American posturing about "economic sanctions" is horse-manure. So isn't it remarkable that Putin has not yet sent his troops in?

I'm surprised the apatosaurus took so long to run out....

That's true, Bond always had a rather wholesale method of dealing with villains.

Shouldn't we also consider, the advantage Holmes received from Dr Watson, who was a trusty companion, always there to provide support. Such support was not available to Bond. He had only a series of fickle female acquaintances, like Gala Brand and Pussy Galore. These women only lasted for one story, then vanished. Whereas Watson didn't vanish, but stayed by Holmes' side throughout his career. What a psychological benefit that must have been to Holmes! He knew he had a true friend. Unlike in the case of Bond, who was always friendless, fighting battles on his own. Therefore he would lose to Holmes. Because Holmes had Watson, and Bond had no equivalent. Or is that too simplistic?

Well-said rktpro! The real Holmes, and the real Bond, of Doyle's and Fleming's books, are far deeper than in the shallow, puerile movie versions which OP seems to rely on. I get the impression that few people here have actually read any of the books, especially in the case of Bond. Is that it how it is now - books are so old-fashioned - just watch the movie, or play the video game, and form an opinion from them?

I think that's true, because the Universe does seem to run on mathematical principles. And in mathematics, there's no true randomness. 2 + 2 always equals 4, and the square on the hypotenuse always equals the sum of the squares of the two other sides. Given this mathematical nature of the Universe, any apparent randomness that we observe, must be due to the inadequacy of our observations and measurements.. For example, to take Enric's #5 analogy of the billiard table. Suppose we could make precise measurements of all the objects involved - the table, the balls, and the cue. And of the person controlling the cue. His hands, arms, his eyes, Even of his brain - with all its " little grey cells" furiously processing visual input, synapses flashing, as he eyes up the situation, and makes his shot. If such measurements could be made, couldn't his shot be precisely predicted. And then the consequences of the shot - which ball is struck, which ball is then struck, and so on. In a consequential chain reaction, like Enric said. The fact that in practice, we can't make such precise predictions, doesn't seem to mean that randomness has to be invoked. Every consequence is governed by non-random mathematics. And if mathematics governs the Universe, then everything that happens in the Universe should in theory be predictable. Thus, starting with basic particles such as quarks, we ought to be able to predict the consequential evolution of protons, atoms, molecules, DNA, living organisms, and the human brain. Such things wouldn't be the result of randomness, or guidance by some supernatural entity. Just the mathematical consequence of a chain of reactions.

Do we really care about the "things" that live in the ocean. We trawl millions of tons of them out of the water and eat them all the time. Have you ever had a tuna sandwich? I suppose the tuna was quite troubled, but you swallowed it easily enough. On the serious point about nuclear power. Pending the development of fusion-power, which seems to be like chasing the rainbow, fission reactors are the best we can do so far. They provide carbon-free power generation. Their only drawback is the radioactive waste that comes out of them. But such waste can be safely disposed in the ocean. The oceans have an average depth of 12,000 feet, that's over two miles of radiation shielding. Which is quite enough to protect all surface-dwelling creatures from harm. So, like I said, we could just tip all the waste into the ocean, and forget about it. It wouldn't do any harm to anyone, and our energy problems would be solved. That's so obvious, that it's hard to understand why there's such resistance to nuclear power. Is there a rational motive?

Would it be possible to make a computer simulation of the LHC, then you could get the results, such as finding the Higgs Boson, with less hardware?

Couldn't we build massive nuclear power stations on remote islands in the Pacific Ocean. Then all the nuclear waste could be tipped over the side into the Ocean, where it would sink to the bottom, and cause no trouble?

Considering Edgard's boat and bird analogy, don't we note this: that a resistive medium is involved. The resistive medium in the case of the boat, is the water. The water won't let the boat exceed a certain speed. And in the case of the bird, the air won't let the bird exceed a certain speed. Thus although the speed of both boat and bird, could in theory, be infinite - in practice their actual speed is limited, because they encounter the resistance of water and air. Now consider the case of the photon. It could also, in theory, go at an infinitely fast speed. . But its actual speed is limited to just under 300,000 kps.. Why should the photon have this speed limit? How do we explain it?. Do we say, "Well that's just the way things are" That doesn't sound very scientific! Wouldn't it be better to postulate that the speed limit is imposed by an Aether, which permeates the Universe, and exerts a resistance?

The male troll is necessary. Otherwise, we'd all be agreeing with each other all the time, Especially the women. Can you imagine a Science Forums with all-female participants? They'd be talking about scientific formulas for recipes, and fashions, and hair-do's. I don't believe there are any real female trolls. Women are in general too nice to be trolls Only males have the vital disruptive element, which lies at the core of original thinking. Thinking by males has energised art and science throughout history. Women just trail along. That's not to disparage them, they can write good detective stories. But even those stories are quite well-mannered, which is as it should be, for a lady.

Aren't women biologically predisposed to think tactically. They've got a baby to care for. So, when confronted by a forest-fire, they panic and scream: "My baby will get burned by the fire, so put it out right now!" Whereas a man takes his time, and thinks more strategically: "Well, even if the fire destroys the present baby, it can be replaced,in 9 months. And the replacement baby will benefit from the burning.of the forest. The burning will clear the land, Thus providing space to create fields. And these fields, when plowed and sown, can used to grow crops, which will provide food to support many future babies. Therefore, let the fire burn!" Isn't it good that this cool male strategic reasoning prevailed in human history - and enabled us to develop farming?

In the US, marijuana is now being widely legalised, so US citizens can soon be happy too. What will the world be like - with all Russians drunk, and all Americans stoned?

Your remark that Putin does his best to destroy Russia, is silly. He is showing a high level of competence. He restored Crimea, with hardly any bloodshed. That was a brilliant achievement. There was no war. This has been recognised by investors. The Russian currency has not collapsed, and trading continues normally on world markets. President Putin seems just what Russia needs. A strong leader, who stands up for national interests, without endangering world peace. I hope he continues in office for as long as possible.

President Putin does his best.. He tries to stop the abominations. He is a strong Russian leader. But no Russian can withstand Western power. Soon, there will be an annual "Gay Pride" parade in Red Square,

A good question. I live in the city of Brighton, England. The city has a yearly "Gay Pride" procession. This involves thousands of gay people parading through the streets, They wear outlandish costumes. And do weird things, such as roller-skating down the street half-naked.. And sometimes going further, like dropping their trousers to exhibit their rear ends in public. A fine example of this exhibitionism was filmed by a friend of mine, a few years ago. The trouser-dropper was a "fireman", He was part of the "Gay Fire-fighters" contingent of the parade. He had a memorably smug expression as he did the deed. One might have thought that for this offense he'd get arrested by the police. However, the parade also included a big contingent of Brighton "Gay Police", walking along in their uniforms! Can you believe it? So of course no arrest resulted. At least it provided great entertainment for the crowds of onlookers. They enjoyed watching the "freaks". But does that help the campaign for "Homosexual Equality"? I thought the campaign was supposed to establish that gay people aren't "freaks", Just ordinary persons, who happen to have a different sexual orientation. And different orientation should be a private matter, which need not concern anyone else. That's sensible. But parading around in public, runs contrary to that. It can only be due to a desire, on someone's part, to "force" gay culture on the public. As Alkis3 said, most Russian citizens don't want these parades. So why shouldn't citizens be free to reject them. And especially to reject "Pussy Riot". Even their name sounds repulsive. So to go back to the question raised in the OP, my attitude to that group of misguided puppets is an emphatic- "yukh"! l

I'm asking whether there'd be a nuclear explosion, or not?

Having read through the thread, the thing which strikes me is this: Swansont, in #14, claims that "something moving at .999c doesn't just look shortened, it actually is that short" And that seems to agreed to by Scheibster in #32 : " a stick appearing shorter or longer is not an illusion, but the actual state of affairs". Whereas Michel in #33, says that the shortening of the stick is just an illusion, caused by the way we observe things. We observe by the medium of light, and light has a finite velocity. So of course, that affects the way we subjectively perceive things. But it doesn't mean that our subjective perceptions, correspond to objective reality. Michel's interpretation seems intuitively more likely, but could it be put to the test, in this thought-experiment: Suppose the "stick" is actually a hollow tube, 1-metre long. At each end of the tube, is a lump of Uranium 235, Each lump is half the critical mass. And while the two lumps are kept separated by this distance of 1 metre, they remain inert. They won't cause a nuclear explosion. This is carefully monitored by an astronaut, who's sitting on the tube. The tube is floating in interstellar space. The tube has an ion-drive unit attached, which the astronaut switches on. The drive steadily increases the tube's speed, until eventually it's bulleting along at .999+c. This doesn't perturb the astronaut. She sees the tube remaining resolutely 1-metre in length. Which keeps the two sub-critical masses a safe distance apart. So no nuclear detonation. All is serene. However, suppose the tube encounters an alien spaceship, and rushes closely past it. What do the aliens see? Do they see a tube contracted from 1-metre, to perhaps 0.001-millimetre - the two masses of Uranium in virtual contact - violent sizzling of neutrons between the two masses - and a resultant nuclear explosion which destroys their ship? Are the aliens dead, or not? And would if make a difference if they'd evolved from a feline species. .

davidivad's posts keep referring to schizophrenia as a "disease" which needs to be treated by "drugs". But is that really what it is. Perhaps it's just a different condition of the brain. Which mightn't necessarily be a bad thing. For example, I have "Asperger's" syndrome. That causes some social inconveniences, such as shyness, Especially a reluctance to look strangers in the eye. That's why I welcomed the the introduction of "self-service" checkouts in supermarkets. They relieve you from confronting the human checkout person! But my Asperger brain has provided a lifetime's pleasure in books, literature, history, language, and scientific interests, and puzzles like crosswords, sudoko and hanjie,, and computer programming, and loads of other subjects. I certainly don't regard my brain as "diseased". Rather, as an advance in human evolution.. Perhaps so-called "schizophrenia" is another advance. So mightn't calling it a "disease" and desperately seeking better drugs to cure or suppress it, be misguided.?

It's such a pleasure to contact a mind which appreciates facts. Set out in quasi-logical order (though with some irrelevancies, such as the Earth not being as hot as the Sun) However I can't yet subscribe to the theory you seem to deduce from these facts. Which appears to be - That the reason the Earth is getting warmer, is down to us. Because we're burning carbon. So, by implication - if we stopped burning carbon, the Earth wouldn't ever get warmer, It would just stay at the same temperature.always?

If the history of Science has taught us one thing, it's this: Be wary of any idea which is said to be supported by the overwhelming majority of professional and scientific opinion. Because opinions can quickly change. Only facts are immutable.

If you'd said: "human contributions of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere are probably a contributory factor to the warming trend we are seeing", then I think everyone would accept that as reasonable. But I think what gets people's goat is this - the unqualified assertion that our CO2 emissions are the primary cause of current global warming. As Nystuul points out, many other factors may be involved - as they have been throughout the Earth's geological history. The Earth's temperature has constantly fluctuated between warm and cold. Thus, it experienced the extreme cold of "Snowball Earth" (if that really existed, which seems dubious),, and the hot Carboniferous Period (which undoubtedly was real). And all these temperature cycles happened aeons before humans came on the scene. Therefore, to suggest that recent changes must be attributed primarily to a mere 150 years of our industrial activity, seems unjustified. True, we may be adding a bit to the current warming. Eg by building big coal-burning factories in China. But AGW fans seem to go further than this. They imply that if we shut all these factories down, and got rid of industrial civilisation all over the Earth, we could absolutely prevent future climate change. They seem to think we have the power to stop the Earth from ever warming up again - so that it'll stay always at its present (humanly-convenient) temperature. Doesn't that smack, a little, of unscientific hubris?

Some people might assign the same credibility to "dark matter" as to "element 531/4"