Dekan

Your "train" comparison raises a point that has always puzzled me. Why are thin wires more resistant to current, than thick wires. Surely a thin wire should transmit the current very quickly. Consider a very thin wire. In it, there's just a single line of electrons, from one end of the wire to the other. All electrons close together. So when you a "push" an electron at one end, the push gets rapidly transmitted down the line, to the electron at the other end. Like in a "Newton's Cradle" toy - where the swinging balls hit each other in almost instantaneous succession. If this analogy is valid, then thin wires should theoretically be the best conductors, with the least resistance. However this doesn't seem to be the case in the real world. Thick wires offer less resistance than thin ones - why is that?

Thanks Joatmon and Arete, for your kind replies. The Blackpool business, shows what can occur - though it was apparently due to pumping stuff down into the Earth. It's the bringing up of stuff, that gives most concern. We are continually raising huge masses of oil and gas from under the surface. This material, once up, must press heavily on the surface. True, some gets burned, and released as gas into the atmosphere - but this only produces a similar weighty effect, as the atmosphere presses down on the surface. Won't this increasing pressure eventually produce catastrophic results - in the form of Global Subsidence? I ask this, because Global Warming seems slightly discredited these days. Even though it's now got a new name -"Climate Change", that hasn't stopped attacks from the infidel Sceptics and Denyers. Don't these people realise that we need something to worry about? So as a replacement worry, I modestly propose Global Subsidence.

For over a century, we have been drilling into the Earth. In order to suck up oil and gas. This oil and gas was underground for millions of years. During those years, it must have played some part, in supporting the ground above it - ie, the surface. When we remove the oil and gas, by pumping it up, aren't we removing the surface's support - so risking a collapse? Collapses occur, in the case of land on top of abandoned coal mines. The mineshafts, made hollow by removal of coal, are only kept up by wooden pit-props. These props eventually decay. Then the mineshafts collapse. Which causes the land above to subside. This subsidence affects houses and property built directly on top of old coal mines - ie, it's fairly localised. But the mining of oil and natural gas, is not localised. It's taking place on a huge, planet-wide scale. Trillions of cubic meters of gas and oil, extracted from entire continents, and oceans. Evacuated wholesale from the rocky strata which underpin the surface all over the Earth! Won't this lead to a weakening of the Earth's crust - with consequent global surface subsidences?

An example might be humans keeping pets, such as cats and dogs. These animals don't have much memory, or intellectual power. Yet they get guided by humans. A human guides them to food, by putting down feeding bowls for them. And filling the bowls with suitable cat or dog food. Thus the animal benefits from the food. And the human benefits from providing the food - because the human gets a good benevolent feeling by watching the pet enjoying its food. So the pet's stomach gets fed. And the human's ego gets fed. Mutual benefit to both parties. Isn't that symbiosis? Although, on a different plane to what you're thinking about, erika. We humans rip up Nature's crude rule-books.

I think that many learned and respected posters on this topic, may be getting confused about two simple things: 1. the distinction between "0" and infinity 2. the belief that the symbol "0" is a number - when it isn't . It's the absence of a number. Recall that the symbol was invented as a place-marker in decimal arithmetic. It marks the absence of something . So 107 means : 1 hundred + an absence of tens + 7 units. This would be clearer, if we used a different symbol as the place-marker, such as "-" . So we wrote 1-7. Then nobody would mistake "-" for a number. However, we use "0" as the place-marker. The "0" looks like a number, similar to "8", or "6". And so mathematicians try to treat it as a number, when it isn't. And that's why the mathematicians get confused, and see problems and paradoxes, when really there aren't any.

Shouldn't a number divided by 0, just stay the same? The symbol 0 means - "nothing". Not infinity - just "no-thing". So suppose, for example, you say: "Divide 7 by 0". Isn't that the same as saying: "Divide 7 by nothing." Which can be put another way: "Don't divide 7 by anything". Which can be further simplified to: "Don't divide 7". So the 7 doesn't get divided - it just stays 7. That seems logical. What's the supposed problem with dividing by 0 - logically it just means not dividing. Why should this cause mathematicians to get worked up?

Suppose, as an experiment, we set up a community, where none of the adults ever talked about religion. A community competely isolated from any mention of God, or religion. Self-contained, and self-sufficient. Food, water, and all other material requirements, supplied by the work of the people in the community. They would make their food, by ploughing the land, sowing seeds, and reaping the harvest. They would make their houses, by baking clay into bricks. And furniture would be made of wood from trees. The trees would be cut down by axes, made out of flint. And perhaps from bronze or iron - the necessary ores would be available for mining and smelting. The mining and smelting would of course require knowledge of how to do it. But this knowledge would be given to each generation of children, by the adults - without mentioning anything about religion. Everything would be explained scientifically. For example, the germination of seeds would be explained as a natural process. As would the origin of the rain which falls from the sky to fertilise them. These, and all other matters, would be explained in strictly rational scientific terms - with absolutely no reference to supernatural entities like Rain-Gods, Zeus weeing through a sieve, Earth-Goddesses, or anything in any way smacking of mystery. In such a community, would the children still start developing religious beliefs, or would the idea of religion never enter their heads?

A thought-provoking post - thanks! "Vulnerability", is a good word for what I was trying to get at. Suppose you grimace at a person, by drawing back your lips, in a smile which displays aggressive biting teeth. That's clearly a threatening gesture. It sends the message: "Submit to me - or I'll bite you - you're vulnerable to my strong teeth". However, what if the other person opens their lips with a similar, alarmingly well-fanged smile? Then your threat is matched. So Mutual Deterrence is established. A Balance of Toothsome Terror. You both recognise your "vulnerability" to dentitional attack. This leads to peaceful co-existence and guardedly grinning co-operation. Isn't that how history works? Instead of teeth, substitute American Minuteman III missiles and Russian SS-18's, and you got the way most humans behave. It all comes back to that horrible deceitful smile! Why can't we be unemotional and straight-faced all the time? Wouldn't it be a huge relief?

Isn't this just abstract nouns causing confusion again! If we say: "There's 93,000,000 miles of space between the Earth and the Sun" - that invites the question: what's this space thing, what's it made of, what's its structure? Is it a vacuum, what's a vacuum made of - can there be absolute vacuum? We invent an abstract noun - space, or vacuum. Then we think that because it's a noun, it must be like other nouns, such as "leg" or "bicycle". That is, an actual physical object. But it isn't. "Space" is no more an object than "Time" is. It's just a word we've made up, because we like making up words. We could express the same idea another way. Instead of saying "There's 93,000,000 miles of space between the Earth and the Sun", we could say: "The Earth is 93,000,000 miles from the Sun". Would anyone then ask "What's from made of? Can there be absolute from"? (Actually, come to think of it, Philosophers probably would )

Proof isn't yet possible, but there's some suggestive evidence. Suppose we reason thus: The only Universe we know, is the one we can observe with our telescopes, and radio-telescopes. These instruments show no sign of other intelligent beings anywhere. If such beings existed, surely they'd make their presence felt. They could do this, by sending messages to us. But our radio-telescopes have not picked up any messages. Even though we've listened quite thoroughly. As for our optical telescopes, they reveal no signs of intelligent organisation in the way the stars are arranged. The stars look scattered about at random, strewn all over the place. No sign of the orderly arrangement we might expect, if they were in the charge of some advanced alien species. So we must conclude - zero evidence of other intelligent life - in this Universe. Everything seems quite Newtonian/Einsteinian. No evidence of large-scale interference with these natural laws. However, such interference might be detectable, in the more subtle form of ghosts, poltergeists, and other so-called spirit phenomena. These seem well-reported, though so far, not well explained. What if they're a kind of "leakage", or "interference" between our own Universe, and another. Like two radio stations on a slightly different frequency causing mutual interference. Could this be evidence of the multiverse?

You're suggesting a very simple explanation of why people do good deeds - the good deeds release chemicals in the brain. These chemicals reward the brain's owner. So the owner will feel gratified. And will want to do another good deed, in order to enjoy more gratification. This sounds like old Skinner and behaviourism. Lab rats and pigeons in experimental cages. If they press, or peck, the right button, they get rewarded by a food pellet. That reward, reinforces their behaviour to press the button again. Perhaps there's some truth in that. But human behaviour is not so simple. For example - Suppose I saw an old lady standing at the side of the road. Looking like she was waiting for assistance to cross the road. I would pretend I hadn't seen her, and walk quickly past. So I imagine, would most people. Why? You tell me!

Both Aye and Bay produced genuine balls.

Well, personally I get the impression that Islam is just making a nuisance in the world. Suicide bombers - who respects them? They're not heroes. Just misguided individuals, probably rather stupid, who've been misled into believing that by blowing themselves up, they'll enter into Paradise. Could anyone really be that daft? However, Islam doesn't really matter - as long as the desert superstition is confined to its own impoverished countries. All Islamic countries are backward. They only keep going, by relying on food and medical aid, from the advanced and enlightened Christian West. The West shows enormous tolerance. However, this tolerance will only continue, as long as Islamic countries don't try to stop the West sucking oil. If any Islamic country starts getting too uppity, it'll get put in its place by the West. We've got nuclear weapons. They haven't. Sorry if this sounds a bit chauvinist. But I tried reading the Koran, and it didn't make much sense. After wading half-way through it, I gave up. I can read the New Testament, and get an intelligible message. But the Koran? No wonder the the Islamic countries are always in a state of confusion!

Do you need to be told? A scientist, or person who's interested in science, is truly joyful, by finding out something for the first time. Probably. May I give a quote from Leon Lederman's excellent popular book "The God Particle". The bit where he found out parity violation was true: "By now the machine had come up to its best intensity... zero degrees was reading 2,560, 180 degrees was reading 1,222. On a purely statistical basis this was overwhelming.... my breathing was becoming difficult, my palms were wet, my heartbeat accelerated. I felt lightheaded - many (not all!) of the symptoms of sexual intercourse. This was big stuff...new information about the world...Physics was changed." Could that justify an argument, that Science is only a kind of Freudian substitute for sexual intercourse? I hope not! But as we still feel a need to keep smiling at each other, who knows what really motivates us to construct things like cyclotrons and the LHC?

As someone once said: "Prejudice is a kind of reasoning, operating subconsciously". This prejudice/ reasoning, enables everyone in the world to recognise Western Civilisation, as superior. Eastern people are only hostile to the West, because they feel inferior, and jealous of Western Civilisation. That's it in a nutshell - isn't it?

Yes, it's a symptom of a wish. That the world, was made up of libraries and laboratories. With calm serious people, rationally discussing scientific questions. That would be true joy. Without facial grimacing!

You're right about instinctive hangovers. That could explain why you smile at the sight of human infants. It's because you see them (instinctively) as potential food. However, when the infant smiles back at you, its smile instinctively deters you from attempting to eat it. Why else do babies instinctively smile at their parents? I bet any baby which didn't smile and gurgle with apparent pleasure, when confronted by its parent looming over it, would soon get eaten, or chucked out of the nest. At least, in primitive times. In modern times, these instinctual reactions ought to consigned to the dustbin of history. Shouldn't we look forward to a world, where humans can meet and exchange rational data, without crude instinctive facial signals?

Thanks Tony, for the link. From reading it, I see that the anthropoid grin, and its toned-down version, the smile, originally displayed fear. That makes sense - a baring of the teeth when fearing possible danger - "Look what big strong biting teeth I've got - don't dare attack me!" It could explain why humans have evolved to smile at each other. By a mutual smile, we convey to each other: "We're both strong, with big teeth. We're evenly matched. So fighting will get us nowhere. Let's be friends!" But doesn't this reveal, that the whole "smiling" business is a deplorable hangover from primitive times. In modern times, surely we can dispense with it? I personally find very bothersome to keep having to smile at people. But good strategy can produce worthwhile results - to reiterate the advice I originally gave to Neob91: "When smiling - make sure you crinkle your eyes as well - this fools 'em good."

But God doesn't actually cause all the suffering in the world. The suffering results from people, of their own free-will, choosing to do horrible things to one another. Like fighting wars, and committing atrocities. God has done His best to stop us doing these things. By giving us the New Testament, and even sending His own son down to help us. Also, by inspiring us to develope Science. If Science was used properly, it could make the Earth a true Paradise. With all 7 billion of Earth's people, enjoying a decent life. If humans have screwed things up, that's our fault surely - isn't blaming God just a cop-out for our own incompetence?

That's a good question. "Smiling" seems to come naturally to less advanced people. To scientific people, smiling is more of a deliberate act. In my youth, I kept a kind of diary, to record discoveries about life. One of these discoveries was: "It is of the utmost importance to smile at people". Why that should be important, I never really understood. But it's something one has to do. Personally, I'd prefer to communicate with another person, without having to distort my lips in an upward curve. Such gestures remind one of the lip movements exhibited by chimpanzees. However, as some humans are only talking chimps, it's necessary for homo scienticus to placate them by atavistic smiling. The best advice I can give is this - when giving a false smile - also wrinkle the skin round your eyes - this makes the smile look genuine!

Perhaps we lost our human body hair, when we started to become very good hunters. As efficient hunters, we readily caught other animals, killed them, and stripped them of their body-hair, or fur. Then used it to make warm coats or clothes for our own bodies. This ability to make warm clothing, must have been a huge survival advantage. Especially in cold regions, during the Ice Ages. The Ice Ages were very strong in Europe. There, people would be glad of warm fur coats. A man who could present such a coat to a woman, would find favour in her eyes. She would regard the offered garment, as proof of the man's hunting prowess. And hence, of the man's fitness to be her mate. Just consider: what was, until recent PC times, considered an irresistable gift, to win the heart of a European woman? Wasn't it - a fur coat?

Physicists have no definite knowledge that the Higgs particle exists. They only think it should exist. Because if it does, it can explain a lot of things about the Universe. And, working along similar lines, theologians think that God should exist. For the same reason. Aren't both professions engaging in constructive fantasy?

Thanks - I'm still a bit confused though! To go back to the original Greek abstract nouns: Atheism means - No-Godness. That seems a firm stance. Agnostic means - No-Knowledge, ie an undecided "Don't Know". (I don't quite follow your point about the equation). Theism means - I'm not sure what - sort of "Godism"? That's to say, an idea there must be some God/Gods? Doesn't this whole argument get confused by one thing. The meaning of those slippery abstract nouns. Suppose we replaced them by concrete statements like "I believe in God", "I don't believe in God", "I don't know whether to believe in God or not". Then we'd all be thinking clearly. Abstract nouns are the theologians' delight. Such nouns can obfuscate, and hide shallowness of thought. Which probably helps Religion.

These abstract nouns are so confusing! Do they mean something like this: 1. Atheism : I definitely don't believe in a God. 2. Agnosticism: I'm not sure whether there's a God, we'll never know. 3. Theism: I feel there ought to be a God. Does that sum it up?

Yes. Even saying "Where did the Universe come from", implies something already there. For the Universe to come from. Some kind of starting point. But then, where did the "point" come from. Perhaps it was the bottom-most turtle in the stack. But that turtle must have hatched from an egg. So who laid the egg? An even earlier (parthenogenetic to avoid sexual complications) turtle? That would be a kind of contradiction. So perhaps the "original" turtle, didn't come from an egg. It was created ex nihilio by God. But then, who created God? And who created the entity that created God? All this is just chasing things endlessly backwards. To get an idea of the Universe, we need to accept that it has always existed. Perhaps in different states over time- expanding /contracting, 3-dimensional, higher-dimensional, made of matter, anti-matter, dark matter, or whatever. But always - in a steady state of existence. In that sense, wasn't Fred Hoyle right to deride "Big Bang" type theories?