Acme

Acknowledge no slip forge. As to burden, every time I drop it someone sees fit to re-saddle me with it. Like a damn booger on a finger I tells ya. How about using the meta-study title and add 'discussions on'? As in, Discussions on Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. . PS Well, I see the new title but I don't see that it helps anything inasmuch as it still has the term 'insane'. I do have to say it's disheartening that so few find the sociological aspect of little to no interest, but whatever. Stick a fork in me.

No, I will not stop correcting the misnomer. I know perfectly well what my point was and is in bringing up these studies, regardless of what you or Phi or others want to try & make of it. Were Phi or any staff member to rename the thread or take my name off it I would gladly leave it to the beavers. Point of fact, they are not my studies; they are the studies done by others that I wish to explore & discuss. At any rate you seem to acknowledge my intention, so why not respect it? And again, again, again.... the subject is not craziness. I suppose you refer to the last list that I quoted, but in any case as I continue to point out the topic is not 'craziness' or 'insanity', both of which are colloquial terms. Many of these correlations I quoted are however associated with pathological behavior, where 'pathological' refers to the psychiatric definition. source Again, in spite of the title stuck on this thread, my topic is not craziness. Moreover, you seem to imply that those few correlations that I have quoted are the sum total of Altemeyer's book and/or that you have read the whole of it. He does in fact discuss and differentiate among & between time-frames as well as cultures, something you can know by actually reading the book. As I have pointed out, we have plenty of other threads suited to the type of discourse you -and so many others here- appear to prefer to engage in.

Fooled me with the title, then. And the first postings. Sorry about that. There is a difference, though, between the question of why conservatives are conservative and the question of why modern US conservatives are crazy. Your study seems to deal with the first why only. Well, for the umpteenth time I didn't make the title or the thread. Phi split my post from another thread and borrowed the title from an article that referenced the studies. Of course reading the thread would have informed you, though admittedly your in the majority for not doing so. And yet again your post is off-topic because you aren't actually discussing the study(s) and so dragging me along with you by imposing my need to reply. Good grief. I don't particularly agree with your 'difference' comment, but 'crazy' or 'insane' are not terms used in the studies so the point is moot. I won't bother to quote any from the posts that follow yours as they are not on the topic of the studies either and concern issues we have already covered, e.g. the 'Southern strategy'. Again, reading the thread could save us the repetition. At the risk of confusing the issue with facts of the kind I intended we discuss, I'll just pop in a quote from Altemeyer's work. For those of you who haven't read the thread, Altemeyer is a Canadian researcher whose RWA [Right Wing Authoritarian] scale is one -I say one- of the 80+ studies from the meta-study. (Undoubtedly someone is going to whine about labeling people again, but Bob wouldn't know if folks were Republican or Democrat unless they declared to him they were.) The Authoritarians Continuing a bit more from that quote: Notably, as is so often pointed out in many other topics here, prediction is a keynote of reliable science. (Substitute your preferred affirmative term for reliable as you see fit.)

That's not the thread topic, or my topic. My topic is the nature of crazy that has labeled itself "conservative" in the US these days. And discussing your posts is right in the wheelhouse of that topic. ... Actually, it is the thread topic, or at least what I intended. Well, the first part woohoo says is more-or-less right, i.e. what does psychological research reveal about political conservatives. His second part is less right, i.e. the question is 'what can be done', not 'what should be done'. Of course woohoo keeps citing the topic while posting not on the topic, or at best making sarcastic suggestions ostensibly as 'what-should-be-done' answers so he's no more on topic than you Undertone. But hey, I have been told in no uncertain terms not to cite the rules and to stop reporting off-topic posts so I'm not even on the boat let alone in the wheelhouse. On the chance -admittedly that of a snowball in hell- that the thread might drift on topic, here once again is the opening salvo from the meta-study. [Bolding mine.] Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition PS Seems to me y'all would be on-topic with your...erhm... whatever, over here. >> Has the Republican party lost its collective mind?

Somehow you are not understanding how it is enough.

The solar system is only 4.6 billion years old so there is no going back to 100 billion. . Are you trying to understand what is known and how, or are you trying to contest it with your own speculation?

As the others pointed out, the relationship isn't linear. Here's another perspective. Earth's energy budget: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_energy_budget As to heat coming from the core, this: Geothermal gradient Edit: fix link

Lichens anyone? While I don't see anything specific on oxygen output for them in this piece, the co2 uptake is impressive. I never thought much about them but got a new camera over the holidays for my wildflower hobby and as no flowers were in evidence mid-winter I started shooting lichens. That led to looking for ID's which led to more reading which led to this article which led to the house that Jack built. Well, enough about Jack. >> Cryptogamic Covers Take Up Huge Amounts of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

If by "existences' entirety" you mean the physical universe then I'd say cosmology is the study you are asking about. Be patient and I expect others will offer their take on your question. Heck, some may even argue over my answer.

If that doesn't work, I found my link embedded in this article. >> Venus Too Close To Sun Ever To Have Hosted Oceans & Life, New Study Suggests Scroll down and click on the blue words Venus was probably doomed. That's a header page to the article and from that you do have to pay, however my link is a special share page set up that lets you read the paper, but not download or copy it. Try the other route I just posted. I have the paper pulled up on 3 tabs so I can't say what the problem is on your end.

Don't know why it won't work for you. ? Your link is just the abstract, mine the full paper. Try right-clicking on my link, click Properties, and copy the url and then paste it into your browser address bar.

It's real[istic], yes. I just referenced a detailed paper in another thread that has calculations for the solidifying of a planetary crust. In this paper the critical factor considered is the distance between the planet and its star. The paper is free to read online but no copying or pasting allowed so I'll give that link here. >>-Emergence of two types of terrestrial planet on solidification of magma ocean

You're welcome. I'd say metaphysics goes in the philosophy section of the forum and that science is a branch of metaphysics in the category of empiricism. However, there is much ado over such classifications and no definitive answer. In that regard I'd say metaphysics is strictly philosophy.

What is metaphysics Alex?

Scripps knows. Units and Terms

No, Earth was never a star. Here is an in-depth simulation of the core formation. >>Numerical Simulation of Earth's Core Formation

Minding that Mike's idea is completely unfounded and that he needs to actually build the oscillating device he describes and see it fail instead of arguing continually back-and-forth on the theory of it, there is a kernel of truth in the Tesla business. Tesla's oscillator was an air driven cylinder & piston job and used a clever arrangement of valves/ports to operate. Beyond that, the Jericho affair has him attaching said oscillator to a New York building with said oscillator set to oscillate at the resonant frequency of the building and after some short time the entire block was [said to be] rumbling. Whether true or no, this is no more or less than the same principle by which a wine glass may be shattered by a singer or other tone generator. If I recall correctly Nikola bragged he could shatter the Earth given enough time. Tesla also is said to have used an oscillator attached to a platform to generate the so-called brown noise and had no less than Mark Twain mount the thing and in short order Mark crapped his drawers. The moral of the story is.

Then consider rectifying it. Exactly. And at the risk of censure, dare I say that is specifically forbidden in the rules for this section?

This argument seems to question the very worth of historical documentation with regard to Jesus, which is what most people here are trying to provide as evidence for or against his being a real person. It now seems clear, twenty-six pages of discussion later, that this type of evidence is never going to be considered. ... Annnd... whose fault is that? How many logical fallacies have been pointed out here and to what end? Where's the integrity in promoting such 'discussion', let alone letting it run on like this?

I thought about mentioning acoustic levitation too, however Mike is talking about the oscillator lifting itself and that is not what acoustic levitation does. The levitators far outweigh the levitatees. Ultimately here, the idea of 'anti-gravity' drive is misbegotten. Who ya gonna call?

Roger welcome. The paper I cited -Emergence of two types of terrestrial planet on solidification of magma ocean- does discuss the greenhouse effect of the early steam atmosphere, however the greenhouse effect of the CO2 occurred after most of Venus' water was already gone. Alas, while we can read the full article we can't copy & paste from it; that capability is behind a pay-wall. Nevertheless I typed out a short bit that I think is germane to your mention of volcanos. So volcanos must follow the magma ocean solidification and as the major water loss parallels that solidification there will be scant water left to be emitted by the volcanos.

Ay and there's the rub. True believer syndrome @ Wiki

I accept that often in science the devil is in the details. I can be a bit of of pick-knitter myself when the occasion calls for it. Point of nit, they do not say it lost all its water. Well, I'm not contesting water sources, only your claim that the greenhouse effect accounts for water loss. Yes you tried to answer and clearly that's a contribution, but from what I have read your answer is not in line with [more] rigorous research. The closeness to the Sun is why Venus took longer to cool which is why no surface water accumulated, so it's a factor I agree. Moreover, recent investigation invokes your comets/bombarders and explains the water loss with no regard for the greenhouse effect. To whit: Is There Water on Venus? It is also believed that Mars either lost or lacked a geodynamo and that this also contributed to its atmosphere loss which resulted in its water loss. If you need a citation for this and can't find one I can look for you. The above article also links to a couple articles on Venusian volcanism and plate tectonics, but these are unconfirmed speculation and even if correct do not change how Venus lost its water. >> New Map Hints at Venus Wet, Volcanic Past >> Venus Possibly Had Continents, Oceans

Well, I have noticed your propensity to nit-pick -or however you once phrased it that I don't recall just now- for more-or-less the sake of it without really contending the major result so I'd say your issues are best served by taking them up with the authors of the paper and not me. In terms of the OP question, the best evidence is that Venus never had oceans and Mars did. Oui/no? In terms of the chemical/physics speculations by pieminder Sensei seems to have asked for the appropriate action, or if you think otherwise feel free to offer your own analysis on that. Good luck.

Well, if you have read very many of my posts you know how highly I regard true believers and all that.