Mr Skeptic

Once I wanted to see how high I could make a cork go, so I put a rather large firework in a champagne bottle, corked it, and lit it. The cork flew pretty good, and also the bottle exploded and sent pieces of glass half a block in all directions. Oops, I guess.

You said, How is that not a violation of the law of conservation of energy? No, you're arguing over the definition and I'm correcting you on it. Please, go ahead and try to find any scientist with a basic knowledge of thermodynamics that defines heat as you do. Or, go ahead and find any text that talks about heat engines that defines heat as you do. Why do you insist on using the wrong definitions? I mean you're welcome to if you want, but then you need to rewrite all the texts that refer to "heat" to say "transfer of thermal energy" or otherwise you'll be all confused. Why not just accept the correct definition and cause less confusion all around?

To be fair, they did do some rather creative strategy and ended up not needing to use 60 votes after all. I don't really think they could have achieved 100% agreement if it came down to it.

Hm I think you can change the skins yourself using CSS (for any website that uses CSS). You can override a website's CSS with your own, so you can change any website to your liking. It may be a good idea since most of the internet is going to be light colored pages. You can share the CSS you make with others, or with the site admins.

Well, I don't think you'll be so happy with their choice when the legal challenges fail. On the other hand, if they do manage to kill off most of the government's power I will be very impressed and would consider the healthcare bill a decent sacrifice for that.

Well if they can win the argument they know it is entirely due to their argumentation skills, rather than from "being right". There's a certain beauty in being able to get someone to admit they only really believe something as obvious and significant as the earth being round cause that's what all the smart folks are saying.

Oh, here is a list of some of the amendments that the Republicans proposed: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-mcdonald/other-gop-amendments-adde_b_512653.html Read it and laugh. Here's a few: # ban the eating and/or smelling of ones own farts, that this Congressional body assumes you find to be delicious. # prohibit the potential future election of a zombie or cyborg Hitler. # prohibit the handout of free, loaded guns to unbalanced, repeat sex offender nazis with terrific aim. I see they take compromising very seriously. The Republicans suggested 10 times more amendments than did the Democrats: http://www.slate.com/id/2223023/ Of the 788 amendments filed, 67 came from Democrats and 721 from Republicans. ... Only 197 amendments were passed in the end—36 from Democrats and 161 from Republicans. The link also contains a partial list of the amendments suggested (437/788, and description only).

Most of them are playing Devil's advocate to practice their argumentation skills. If you're not careful they might take your ice pick and peck apart your argument.

Whatever is appropriate. I think the existence of such a thread would make the place look friendlier and more transparent to newcomers, and give an impression of the mods being accessible (which they are). I'm not sure what sort of rules would be best for it.

Please answer the criticism of Republicans portion of this in the other thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=553276#post553276 But also, Republicans seem to have been using every procedural abuse possible in order to pass the bill, rather than compromising.* In all, a single Republican vote in the house (Anh Cao, R LA-2, whose vote wasn't even necessary), with every single other Republican opposed. They forced the Democrats to compromise among themselves. The Democrats did a stellar job compromising among themselves: they achieved a 95% agreement of 89% agreement necessary in the Senate, and achieved a 85% out of 85% agreement necessary in the House. Take a while to let that sink in. To amend the Constitution requires only 75% agreement. It is hard to get such high levels of agreement. Having this sort of agreement necessary means that any very small group of legislators in the party could block the bill, so that the bill may need to have special concessions just for them, if everyone else wants it to pass. Now, the above is only valid if a significant number of Republicans were willing to vote against things they believed in simply to attempt to kill the bill (possibly due to pressure from the rest of their party). Had every single Republican been willing to compromise if offered something to win their vote, rather than simply opposing the bill, the agreement level that would have to be reached would have been a much nicer 51%. The Republicans have fully betrayed their constituents in this: they failed to kill the bill, and they failed to compromise for a better bill. Note that it was squarely the responsibility of the Republicans to play the compromise game since the Democrats could (and did) do it all by themselves. Having Republicans willing to compromise would have afforded the legislature much much more flexibility in the bill, and, assuming the Republicans are representing their constituents, a much more satisfactory bill for the people. Instead they forced the Democrats to do what they had to do to reach agreement among themselves. Think of it this way: compromise is like if your toe had gangrene and you have to amputate it. If instead you stubbornly refused, you have to amputate your whole leg instead. Sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two unwanted options and make the best of a bad situation. I think the Republicans failed to do this, and failed the American people and especially their constituents. * From what I hear. I know the Republicans did suggest a few bills, but the Democrats did not accept this. I don't know whether Democrats chose their own bill because they liked it more or because it was their bill, but I think it was for both those reasons individually. Compromise is not offering an option worse than the other side can achieve by themselves -- it is offering them a better option.

Please answer the healthcare portion of this in the other thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=552957#post553277 But also, Republicans seem to have been using every procedural abuse possible in order to pass the bill, rather than compromising.* In all, a single Republican vote in the house (Anh Cao, R LA-2, whose vote wasn't even necessary), with every single other Republican opposed. They forced the Democrats to compromise among themselves. The Democrats did a stellar job compromising among themselves: they achieved a 95% agreement of 89% agreement necessary in the Senate, and achieved a 85% out of 85% agreement necessary in the House. Take a while to let that sink in. To amend the Constitution requires only 75% agreement. It is hard to get such high levels of agreement. Having this sort of agreement necessary means that any very small group of legislators in the party could block the bill, so that the bill may need to have special concessions just for them, if everyone else wants it to pass. Now, the above is only valid if a significant number of Republicans were willing to vote against things they believed in simply to attempt to kill the bill (possibly due to pressure from the rest of their party). Had every single Republican been willing to compromise if offered something to win their vote, rather than simply opposing the bill, the agreement level that would have to be reached would have been a much nicer 51%. The Republicans have fully betrayed their constituents in this: they failed to kill the bill, and they failed to compromise for a better bill. Note that it was squarely the responsibility of the Republicans to play the compromise game since the Democrats could (and did) do it all by themselves. Having Republicans willing to compromise would have afforded the legislature much much more flexibility in the bill, and, assuming the Republicans are representing their constituents, a much more satisfactory bill for the people. Instead they forced the Democrats to do what they had to do to reach agreement among themselves. Think of it this way: compromise is like if your toe had gangrene and you have to amputate it. If instead you stubbornly refused, you have to amputate your whole leg instead. Sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two unwanted options and make the best of a bad situation. I think the Republicans failed to do this, and failed the American people and especially their constituents. * From what I hear. I know the Republicans did suggest a few bills, but the Democrats did not accept this. I don't know whether Democrats chose their own bill because they liked it more or because it was their bill, but I think it was for both those reasons individually. Compromise is not offering an option worse than the other side can achieve by themselves -- it is offering them a better option.

So what if I take my skin cells and grow them in a nutrient broth or on a gel? There's no reason my skin cells need be integrated into my body either. Oh, and I'm sure you must agree with embryonic stem cell usage -- after all, it keeps these precious cells alive. So if someone amputates your leg, or gives you a haircut, you are no longer Severian, perhaps no longer own your house? Or if you get paralyzed? I simply consider my body one of my most prized possessions, but definitely not part of "me" as a person -- just the vehicle "me" drives in. Sure, having a healthy body allows me to do more things, in a sense affecting "me", but likewise replacing my ancient barely-working car with a helicopter would similarly affect "me". But I think you are speaking of the self, rather than of personhood. Were someone to transfer your essence to a different body, your self would be different even if you are the same person. Well I'm pretty sure he still has an arrangement of nerves that, given nervous impulses corresponding to various colors, would result in one being preferred. I suppose that with enough brain damage he could become a completely different person though. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Seems perfectly fair to me. I've previously considered a similar idea, that people could offer to adopt a child from an unwanted pregnancy, instead of having it aborted. The pregnancy after all is not the hardest (nor most expensive nor most disruptive) part of raising a child. I'm sure some women would appreciate having that option.

Hm, I wonder what the effect of a "speak with a moderator" thread would be?

I too like our light blue theme. Perhaps better than that would be to simply make it more clear that moderators can make exceptions for people given good behavior and contingent on future good behavior. I seem to recall somewhere that people are happier when someone does a favor to them than when they get booted off a forum they "have a right to" for misbehaving.

Ok, lets put some numbers to this. Lets say we have two cars weighing 1000 kg, traveling at 100 m/s difference (either 50 m/s in opposite directions or one at 100 m/s and the other stationary). Assume we have a 1 m perfect crumple zone on the front of each car, and that the collision is completely inelastic. By perfect crumple zone I mean it gives a constant deceleration. Case 1: two cars at 50 m/s each in opposite directions: Both cars have energy of 1000 kg * (50 m/s)^2 = 2.5 MJ each, total 5 MJ. Both cars have a momentum of 1000 kg * 50 m/s = 50,000 kg m/s, in opposite directions, total of zero. After the collision, both cars are at a standstill, with zero kinetic energy. Energy dissipated = 2 X 2.5 MJ - 0 MJ= 5 MJ. Momentum transferred: 50,000 kg m/s from each to the other. Average acceleration = 50 m/s in 1 m, each. Case 2: one car at 100 m/s colliding with a stationary car: One car has 1000 kg * (100 m/s)^2 = 10 MJ, the other car 0 MJ, total 10 MJ. One car has momentum of 1000 kg * 100 m/s = 100,000 kg m/s, the other has zero, total 100,000 kg m/s. After the collision, conservation of momentum dictates both cars are traveling at 50 m/s since the mass has doubled but the momentum is the same. After the collision, kinetic energy is 2,000 kg * (50 m/s)^2 = 5 MJ. Energy dissipated: 10 MJ - 5 MJ = 5 MJ, just like before. Momentum transferred: 50,000 kg m/s from each to the other. Average acceleration: one decelerates 50 m/s while the other accelerates 50 m/s, over a larger distance but still 1 m crumple zone for each. No difference the moment of a collision, but after the collision in the second case both cars are traveling 50 m/s (or 112 mph), one of them backward, and are very likely to flip or collide with a stationary object.

Perhaps the media simply isn't paying as much attention to Democrat hypocrisy as they are to Republican hypocrisy. Fox News might be trying, but no one here is going to consider them a reliable source, and they do have less reporters than the army of media with a slight liberal slant.

The reference frame of the person in the car is a good option. Well concrete walls don't have crumple zones (that's why I compare to crashing a stationary car, not a concrete wall with huge mass and no crumple zone).

Ah, so you are saying that because you don't believe in conservation of energy, you believe this engine will work? I can understand that, but I don't see where you got the idea that energy is not conserved. Expanding a gas changes its temperature, but temperature is not the same as thermal energy. Add one thousand calories of thermal energy to one liter of water and you raise its temperature by 1 degree C. Add the same thousand calories thermal energy to one gram of water, and you will have some very very hot steam. Touch them, and you will feel one to be vastly hotter -- because it is. But you added the same amount of thermal energy to each. I wish making a perpetual motion machine were as simple as finding some stubborn people who disagree with the laws of physics, but alas it ain't so. If they compress it fast, then it has to heat up, as there is no time to transfer the energy away. This is the same thing as the cooling when it expands, exactly the same in reverse (the laws of physics are symmetrical that way). If it cooled from room temperature, it will warm to room temperature. Where are you getting 73 degrees K from? Sometimes an expert opinion really is better than one fraudulent person claiming to have done a test. Test this: are these guys still on the grid, or are they selling electricity all over the country?

Any reasonably large black hole is currently absorbing far more energy than it might release via Hawking radiation, just from the cosmic microwave background radiation. Hawking radiation is a theorized effect, where the black hole can eat one of a virtual particle/antiparticle pair. The virtual particles are an effect of quantum mechanics, and are in a sense "borrowed" energy and usually disappear rather quickly. But if the black hole eats one of them, the other becomes a real particle. In this process, nothing leaves the black hole and yet the black hole loses energy. From the way it works, smaller black holes are "sharper" and will emit more Hawking radiation.

You really really want a thermometer if you're not going to be going to a doctor. Why do you care if this is a flu? If your symptoms are severe, you need to go to a doctor. For a fever you can take some OTC drugs; aspirin or acetaminophen can reduce fever. You should read all the warnings and such before taking any medication.

In a sealed container, I would think. Just don't then heat your sealed container.

In the case of reflections (and diffuse lighting), also light which bounced from other objects.

Taller, lower muscle mass, lower bone density. Probably larger lung capacity if you want to breathe at anywhere near current atmospheric pressure on Mars.

Just remember to not bother trying to explain anything. No one will care. Scientists care about accurate numerical predictions.

A chemosynthetic autotroph in a carbon dioxide atmosphere might be able to do it. However this might depend on there being enough chemicals around for the energy supply; and they would have to be regenerated faster than things like methane in the atmosphere get regenerated. Photosynthesis has and advantage there in that there is plenty of solar energy constantly coming in.