Ophiolite

Tidak berchacup bahasa melayu. Wo pu hue chung kuo hua. Je ne parle pas le francais Ni gaberu pa russki No habla espanol. et cetera Seventeen languages attempted, sixteen failures, and I'm still working on the English.

Do a simple calculation. In the typical SF movie setting the sub-light drives accelerate the ship to near light speed in a matter of seconds. Let's be conservative and say it takes almost two minutes to arrive at 0.5c. So, we have: v = u + a.t Assume the initial velocity, u, is zero; the final velocity, v, is approximately 150,000,000 m/s (half the speed of light); the time, t, is 100 seconds. Solve for the acceleration, a. That comes out as 3,000,000 metres/second/second acceleration. That's a shade over 300,000g. Even cockroaches have difficulty when it the acceleration gets up to a mere 100g. So, we may safely deduce that our sf inertial dampers are startlingly effective: otherwise, with even a tiny amount of inefficency in the system (say .01% 'leakage', which would subject our brave heroines and heros to 30g) would splatter our crew on the floor, not just shake them up a bit. Consequently all that staggering around when two craft collide and subject themselves to a paltry 200 or 300g, or even 2,000 or 3,000, is not only abominable science, its pretty awful science fiction.

And it doesn't help starting at the end.

Reverse, I repeat my earlier observation: this approach is appropriate in some settings, including a forum like this - but it is polite to indicate your intention to proceed that way from the outset. The charges of unscientific mumbo-jumbo levelled at Metatron by others would have been muted or absent had he done this. I was sympathetic to where he seemed to be trying to go, but his repeated failure to address direct questions is not a matter of technique, it is a matter of manners, or rather lack of them.He has succeeded in alienating me. A damnably difficult thing to do..He can beat around his own bushes in future.

Well, that's almost as scary as the paradox itself.....

If all else fails become an astronaut. In zero-g everyone gains an inch or so. Thanks for posting your findings.

Yes

I believe it's of the close order of a year, but obviously there will be a spread across individuals. Try googling combinations of adolescent development growth male height duration. Let us know what you find.

No apology due. I recommended you set out your position at the start of a thread, not at post 38 or 39. To repeat a point made before: if you produce rambling, discursive posts, readers will lose the will to live, sorry, will find it difficult to stay with your argument. Everyone loses. Finally, do you not understand that many/most people approach discussion this way (i.e. praxis, praxes, whatever) in a verbal setting, but most of us are curteous enough to take a more structured, user friendly approach in writing and on forums. All you have succeded in doing is alienating potential supporters and diverting the discussion away from the central issue towards this peripheral tripe.

Metatron, in post #62 your final comment, in bold letters, was "Would you care to apologize for you obvious mistake." I do not know what mistake you are talking about. I said as much in my response, post #63. I cannot apologise for something which you have apparently identified as a mistake, but which I am unable to fathom. Rather than tell me what my mistake is, in post #64 you make a trite comment, but choose to keep silent on my mistake. I ask again, in post #65, "What mistake have I made?" Again, you refuse to answer. You requested an apology for my "obvious mistake". I am trying to give it, if you will identify that mistake. I am prepared to talk about the topic further, but really cannot do so until you have had the courtesy to refer me to 'my mistake'. I noted just a few posts ago that "Invariably you avoid direct answers to questions and spin off in an uncontrollable fashion and unpredictable direction. " You are doing exactly that now. So, please, what is the mistake I am requested to apologise for. To all other readers, help me out here. Perhaps I am just being thick, but what does Metatron want an apology for?

I take that to mean you think I'm trying to wriggle off of some hypothetical hook. What mistake have I made?

If I've made a mistake I'll gladly apologise, retract, or correct as appropriate, but I'm not sure what you are referring to.

I didn't aim for you to bite: it was a genuine observation. I base it on an interpretation of these two statements:"My purpose is to garner feed back to gain perspective and inspire thought in myself, and others." "I am attempting to gather information though investigation, by utilizing a 'praxis'." So you wish to inspire thought in yourself, and,very cleary as an afterthought, in others also. It really comes across as quite secondary to your primary goal of 'inspiring though in yourself'. The second quote, and your explanation of a 'praxis' confirms this. [by the way, that explanation, appears very much like a quote. I recall seeing similar in other posts by yourself. Am I correct? Yet you do not provide sources: perhaps that is not selfish, but it is rude.] Now, this is all well and good, but you did not indicate this was your intent in any of your thread openers. You allowed other posters to form a false impression of your purpose and to engage in discussion on that basis. I had assumed this to be deliberate, hence my characterisation as selfish. If it was indeed unintentional I apologise and reclassify it as thoughtless. Metatron I have made a sincere effort to engage with your posts on several occasions. Invariably you avoid direct answers to questions and spin off in an uncontrollable fashion and unpredictable direction. This is frustrating for some. I do not suffer fools gladly. You are not a fool, but on occasion you do a remarkably fine impression. Could I suggest that on future threads you begin you lay out your objectives with more clarity. It may improve the quality of the responses. Ophiolite

Ah, now I have it: in other words you are being selfish. I'm surprised I didn't spot it before.

If you would be kind enough to repeat that, with punctuation this time, I should be able to comment.

Flints can generate high temperatures, else striking them would not produce sparks.

I've looked at the site recommended by d1220: it has a picture of a young Albert Einstein in the side bar, so it must be true.

Sorry. I didn't hear that.

Try this link Doc: http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Chemistry/Inorganicchemistry/chemicslformula/Reaction/Corrosion/corrosion.htm

On the other hand, it is entirely possible that Earth life got kick started from clay templates that fostered replicating carbon based molecules. See here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=120281&postcount=55

Poetry and science are different Metatron: 1. Would you agree? 2. Which are you posting?

Many supposed strawman arguments are arguably just poorly presented (and condensed) rational arguments.

I thought so. Anyway, I've e-mailed the author and asked him if he has attempted this.

And physics has very little to do with the 'time' that gib65 is talking of, before the big bang, or within the repetitive cycle of big bangs and big crunches that preceded the current Universe. That area (currently) cannot be properly investigated by physics: we can use physics principles to speculate on possibilities, but we cannot (currently) test such speculations - therefore they are, in essence, unscientific. Philosophy (Johhny5 brings in Nietzsche) and religion have at least as much to say about this area, currently, as physics.