CaptainPanic

You're responding to a post from 2004. The person writing the post you reply to was last active on this forum on Oct 14, 2004.

North Korean state television has announced that their leader, Kim Jong-Il has died last Saturday. The big questions are of course: who will be the successor, and will that be someone who will cooperate better or worse with the other regional powers and global powers? It seems that South Korea and Japan are taking no risks, and regard the situation with caution. It seems people are worried that the someone might decide that the attention must be diverted away (scroll down to bottom of article) from the internal lack of stabilty... and what better way to divert the attention away from anything than a war?

I doubt it because he's dead. Actually, now with a new leader stepping up, there is suddenly a much larger risk. South Korea has already put its military on alert, and Japan has set up a crisis management team. But there are no signs of military activity. [edit] I think this might be worth its own thread, which I'll set up now. Sure, but you cannot prepare for every "IF"... as much as the USA tries, you can see the financial costs of such an attempt. And they're failing.

The larger the structure, the easier it is to insulate. Large objects will only suffer from temperature fluctuations at the outside, and very large structures have relatively little "outside" for its volume. Many systems become cheaper and more efficient as they get larger. There is a reason that chemical factories are generally large. It's cheaper and more efficient. (Cheap in terms of energy, materials and labor). I think the main problem of a theoretical huge spaceship is to find a purpose for it. You would need to justify the huge expenses with a good purpose, but what would anyone need it for?

I think it's the complete opposite. I think that religious organizations are so powerful, especially in the past, that they simply bargained to pay no tax, and got what they wanted from the governments. And there are so many influences of religion in governments that you cannot say they aren't involved in the government. The US president swears on the bible at the inauguration. Plenty of European parties are actually Christian parties. The Middle East and Northern Africa often have religious governments... in fact, the list of countries without religious influence in their governments might be shorter than the list with influence. My point is: they have already taken over.

If you can build a spaceship the size of a planet, you can also build a proper A/C unit. Remember that the dark side of Mercury can get as cold as -180°C... so our friends in the large spaceship will also have a dark side which is extremely cold. They can insulate the hot side, and radiate a lot of heat away on the cold side. And you can make that flexible too: place good insulation everywhere, but put lots of small radiators on the outside of that, which you only turn on when you need it... so it's not as if you always have to face the sun with the same side.

LOL But don't worry... this is SFN, and someone will disagree with us any minute now. Discussions generally don't reach consensus so easily at all. There is no question so moot that it gets no discussion.

Well, I observe that I have free will. I just decided to write this post, rather than do my work. I debated it for a moment, and made this decision. If free will is an illusion, then the illusion is complete and flawless. And therefore it is real to me, as an observer of myself. That's science, isn't it? You make an observation, to test a hypothesis. As long as the hypothesis holds, we say that's our best description of reality... There is always doubt (a good scientist is never certain), but in popular language, we call it real. The hypothesis is that we have free will. I continuously test it, day in and day out, and I have no reason to drop this hypothesis and replace it for another. So, based on all available observations, there is no reason to doubt that free will exists. The only thing we don't know is how we come to a decision when we're faced with a choice. And the determinist will say that it's just physics that leads to those choices. And I agree with that. At the molecular level, it's physics doing all the work. But at the macroscopic level, those are my thoughts. There are a lot of particles interacting with each other, and the combination of all those particles reacting, interacting... that's me. If a thought is just the interactions of some molecules in my brain, so be it. It's both those interactions, and a thought. A steel bar is a bunch of atomic cores and electrons in a huge vacuum... and it's a very real and solid bar at the same time. Which side of what fence? My point is that there is no fence.

I think the beauty of it is that something can be completely deterministic, but still be free will. We haven't figured out what "consciousness" is anyway, and until then, we cannot fully describe any potential conflict between the two. At the moment, there is no conflict between the two, and I got a feeling that there never will be. I think that choice itself is deterministic. That means that the decisions we make are fully determined by the laws of physics acting on the particles that make up our bodies. But then again, we ARE those particles, so it's us as well as just a bunch of particles. We make the choices, and at the same time, we will never violate any laws of physics.

That's no moon! Sorry... I thought that this would be on topic.

Both. You can just measure it - so by observation. But I'm sure you have enough experience to just believe me without measurements. The example I wil give below is so common that you will instantly recognize it. If you make a cup of tea (using boiling water), and you leave it... it will cool down. At first, you have heat energy at higher temperature. But that hot cup of tea will heat up the air around you and the table it is standing on, and it will cool down itself. The heat is dissipating. This goes really quickly at first (when the tea is hot), but slower at the end (when it cools down). But at some point, the tea will be (nearly) the same as the room temperature. All the heat has gone into the air, and the table it is standing on. You can do this with any object. If you make it warm, and you leave it, it will eventually cool to the ambient temperature.

In nuclear fusion / fission, a tiny bit of matter is turned into energy. Quite a lot of energy, in fact. For example, the sun, reacts hydrogen to helium. And the helium that is formed is a tiny bit lighter than the hydrogen that was needed to make it. The sun has, according to wikipedia, an overall power of about 3.846×1026 W (I'm guessing this fluctuates a little bit, so 4 significant numbers may be a little bit much). 3.846×1026 W is of course 3.846×1026 J/s. So, in one second, 3.846×1026 J is created from mass. How much mass? E = m*c2, so m = E/c2 = 3.846×1026/2997924582= 4 million ton of mass is gone every second. That sounds like an awful lot, but according to wikipedia again, the total mass of the sun is 1.9891×1030 kg, so if we would theoretically burn up all the sun (which is not possible, because helium and other elements are made, which also have a weight!) it would take 5×1020 seconds to burn up the sun. That's the same as 1.5×1013 years. If you would turn the entire earth, mass 5.9736×1024, into energy, that would be 5.3×1041 J of energy. That's 0.1% of a type 1a supernova. So, yes, there are events in the universe which convert a huge mass into energy. But you don't want to be near it.

Heat is the lowest. But high temperature heat can disspiate into lower energy heat, until it's dissipated so much that it is ambient heat. Then it stays at that level.

Simple: it's a fantastic location. You're right by the sea. Often on a main river. Such a location is guaranteed to be a harbor for transit of cargo from ocean vessels to inland vessels. In addition, those rivers have transported fertile soil downstream for millennia, which means agriculture is excellent there. It is no coincidence that some of the largest ports in the world (e.g. Shanghai, Rotterdam) are in low lands, right by a major river. What I meant is that the expenses of most governments are in no relation to the threats that the populations face. Cancer is the highest risk for almost all of us. Yet, cancer research and treatment does not receive the percentage of the tax payers' money you would expect. And a terrorist attack is actually a pretty small risk. But it receives a very large portion of the tax money. And the reason for that is that it is a very emotional shock if a city center gets bombed, and innocent people die. It is very sudden, and people get afraid that it might happen any moment to themselves (or worse, to their children). But if you look at the dry facts - the statistics - then it is far more likely that they die from cancer, or some cardiovascular disease than from terrorism. That is what I meant by emotional, not rational. I am sure that the US government was bliss of the dangers before both events (and I don't see the need to criticize that). And I am sure that they did everything to their ability right after the disasters struck. And in the case of Katrina, that was a lot harder in an evacuated flooded area, than in the downtown area of an otherwise fully functional New York. No, I meant the response weeks, months and years afterwards. The funding going into the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan is enormous compared to preparing against the next flood (which will inevitably come).

Some random remarks, not really a response to anything (it's a bit of a rant), but hopefully on topic: Maths may (or may not?) for a large part become intuitive for kids if they start early enough. I believe our brains would certainly be capable. But it seems that at lower ages, most of us only learn elementary algebra. According to standard teaching methods, anything more complex seems to require an abstract way of thinking (using variables and the concept of the X and Y axis), which means kids must be a certain age - and even then it is complicated. Why? Isn't maths meant to be used to model reality? Why can't we explain it in terms of every-day things, and go from there. I never understood why maths are made abstract to students. Reality is something that kids will understand much sooner than abstract concepts. But it seems our educational systems think it needs to be made it abstract before we can advance from simple algebra - and that limits what we can teach kids at a young age. The abstract general laws can be a nice way to summarize something, but are not strictly necessary to make a student familiar with a certain concept. Students (especially young children) may grasp something a lot quicker when it is not initially described in terms of X and Y, but in terms of a lego toy doing something, or whatever is close to their experiences in life so far. If you let kids play some game where something goes exponentially wrong (or right), they will soon enough get the whole concept of exponential growth, and might even intuitively understand its derivative for example. Likewise, Trigonometric functions are not rocketscience. Most kids have sat on a swing at some point or another. A pendulum is something which people understand intuitively. But maths had to describe the basic rules first, meaning that I my first thoughts when I see such functions are about the actual sine function on a paper. Or geometry. It all describes every day natural things, but we are explained in terms of X and Y, which we then must translate back to the real world. And it's sad to see that some students never make that step. To them, maths was never more than X and Y, until they drop out of school. What is also fascinating, is that many people need language to work with math. They will, in their heads (silently), actually say the numbers and the operations, like they would if explaining to someone else. Try it: give yourself a couple of maths exercises, and listen to what you say to yourself. I bet you use words for numbers. Obviously, that's completely unnecessary to use the exact words. I find that the length of these words actually limits to how quick I can work... The words are utterly unnecessary while I am doing the operation. I probably only need the outcome, not the stuff in between input and outcome. I can do without such words for very simple calculations, which are practically intuitive. That goes for more than just the multiplication tables and operations below 100. I just know the outcome without having to go through all the words. Make it too complicated, and I will talk to myself and go through the operations. Similarly, young people who learn multiple languages will often truly speak those languages. When you learn a language at a later age, you learn it by translating it from your mother tongue. Very often, people speak one language, and will translate into another language (which we, in popular words also call "speaking a language"). However, they will have their thoughts still in their own language. You only speak another language when you start to formulate all your own thoughts in that other language too. It can be learned, but it takes a damn long time when you're older. I really hope that we find a way to stimulate maths education at a younger age. It would be nice to know a few more concepts before going into the details of calculating the exact outcomes. Please enlist for the course "thread hijacking 101" by clicking on Phi for All or CaptainPanic's name, and send one of us a message.

I could have done with the standard structure of: - introduction or abstract - body text (with arguments) - conclusion Now, after reading 2 paragraphs, I am still not sure what the core-message is you want to convey... and when I skip to the end, to read a conclusion, I see something that is probably not the conclusion. Perhaps you write this to a hard-core astronomy audience, who only need to read the title and some keywords to know exactly which item you address... and if that is the case, ignore this comment.

Oh, lol. I use satire and sarcasm all the time myself. I guess I suspect the rest of the world to use it often too.

What's wrong with it? Some of calculus can be quite intuitive, and perhaps we all start with it much too late in our education. It's only an introduciton after all. Kids can learn multiple languages at the age of 1 - 2. Any idea how complicated that is? I am sure that the book does not start with nomenclature and an explanation of all the necessary symbols, and dig in on page 2 with an integration or two. Instead, it will take a more relaxed approach. It's worth a try... if toddlers can start a bit earlier with math because the teaching method is improving, then the next generation may be a bit better at math in general.

So, if you remove pollution from some exhaust, but it needs further processing, does that mean you don't see the point of removing it in the first place, or would you sauggest that we must find a more efficient way to remove and convert the pollution into something useful? Let's take an example of an industrial scrubber: removal of ammonia from an exhaust stream. The options are: 1. Blow ammonia (NH3) into the air. The neighbors really won't enjoy that (it really smells, and it's toxic). 2. Use a scrubber, and create a diluted stream of dissolved ammonia. Needs upgrading, but at least it keeps the neighbors happy. 3. Do something amazing, and efficient. But nobody knows how. Option 1 is not an option for obvious reasons. Option 3 just does not exist. And that leaves option 2. So... what's wrong with it?

Sound waves in your ear will dissipate, and the kinetic energy will become heat. Both the air, the ear drum, and whatever else vibrated beause of the sound will be (ever so slightly) heated. The kinetic energy is tiny, and the heat will be practically impossible to measure.

For me, the core of my love of regular old books is that they are independent, require no support, no battery, and can never really break. The only way to break a book permanently is to set it on fire. Other than that, it can still be read. That's brilliant technology, if you ask me.

Not true. I equated one sum of money with another sum of money. That's apples and apples. I'm glad to see you wish to prepare for catastrophes at least. We agree on that. Unfortunately, countries like the USA still seem to fail to understand the danger of mother nature, and they seem to spend money emotionally rather than rationally. When you look at the responses to 9/11 and Katrina, they are significantlty different in terms of money and attitude, and I just don't understand that. It is surprising that a country with the most powerful army in the world couldn't protect New Orleans, couldn't protect thousands of people. But what's more surprising is that the US hasn't declared a War on Flooding, because that at least is a war you can win. I mean, even now, 6 years after Katrina, there are large areas that are virtually unprotected against flooding, and only recently the Mississippi flooded large areas. I'm not sure anything is being done in those areas at all. If the climate changes (regardless of whether humans caused it), there is a chance that such floodings increase. Why can't the US protect its own citizens? And (to come back to the main point I made), you can compare the responses of governments, and the allocations of resources to such catastrophes and to war. The US government has a choice to spend a certain amount of dollars on war, and a certain amount of dollars on protecting its citizens. And they made a very clear choice (and a very different one compared to the Dutch). And I just don't get it.

Bah, the troops gather at the N/S Korean border at least twice per year. The only reason that they don't turn it into a regular military festival is that it would spoil whatever element of surprise there is left. There is not gonna be a war, both sides have way too much to lose. North-Korea would ultimately lose the war, that much is certain. And they know it themselves. But the South would lose its capital to heavy bombardments, because Seoul is pretty close to the border. And they know that too. The cold war in Korea is just going into the next episode of the series.

There is a reason why advertisements use one-liners, but scientists write articles.

You are completely right if they will settle for a life in prehistory. But I am not sure many people would pick Antarctica as the ideal place to go back to such a simple life. If I had to keep busy with just food and shelter all day, I would prefer to do that somewhere nice and warm. The south of France or something If I would live on Antarctica, I would want to use a bit of modern technology. Insulating lightweight clothing (think of materials like gore-tex or fleece - both synthetic). You can probably not make that locally. Or how about some decent shoes? I am not sure Greenpeace will be happy if you keep murdering seals for those, apart from the fact that modern materials are lighter for the same insulation... and therefore simply better. But you also need some other materials, for construction and maintenance, and for agriculture. And maybe some ways to communicate to the outside world? A computer with internet might be nice? What is the most basic method of transportation that is truly self-sustaining, and require no fuel, no spare parts? I don't know any. What will you use to educate children? Or to let them play? Making a snowman gets boring if it snows every day. You're gonna need to be able to write something. So, you either need pen and paper, or some replacement (a laptop? a pad?). And that list is far from complete.