EdEarl

Hello Harpo, Ender, and Schnel. Welcome to SFN, enjoy.

Just in case, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li-Fi

I've noticed recently that reports of water shortages are more numerous than I have noticed before. Also, I've noticed this year that climate scientists predictions have been getting worse faster than previously, and I'm concerned that they are less bad than the facts. I am concerned that the situation is similar to someone smelling smoke in a crowded theater, and everyone whispers to their mate sitting next to them, "Do you smell smoke, I think I do," but they don't want to cry out, "FIRE," unless there really is a fire.

I cannot answer your question as asked, so I hope I don't confuse you. If one wants to know how much energy it takes to split water, into H and O, then it will take as much as the energy generated when H and O are combined. Thus, it is possible to burn H2 inside a calorimeter and measure the calories produced per volume of H2 burned. It is possible to convert this value to an amount per atom, and convert calories into any energy unit one wishes. It is an experimental value for the bonding energy, and not exact. Equipment is never perfect and will loose energy to the environment as heat; thus, the energy to split a compound (e.g., H2O) into atoms will require more energy than the bonding energy measured by the calorimeter. I hope I answered the question you asked.

Able to withstand a tornado or hurricane? I assume over the size of normal road traffic, or do you split rooms and assemble on site. And, what do you expect the cost to be? I think houses built similar to earthships, which are labor intensive using very inexpensive and free materials will be winners on cost, when robots do most of the work.

By all means, share it on FB. My source was http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/18/3060131/13-clean-energy-breakthroughs-2013-2/

Considering that men who return from war are usually traumatized and suffer PTSD from the things they have seen and done, one must conclude that we have some form of intrinsic moral compass. The same condition occurs whenever police person must kill someone in the line of duty. Although, some people, sometimes called sociopaths, do not suffer this kind of trauma. Thus, some people have an intrinsic moral compass and some must be taught.

A mass at length 2 will balance a 2xmass at length 1.

Welcome to SFN, Anguilla. Enjoy.

You mean something like container homes and buildings? https://www.google.com/search?q=container+homes&num=50&client=firefox-a&hs=5Ro&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=1aX-UsD0FImD2gW5goCQAw&ved=0CDcQsAQ&biw=1067&bih=544&dpr=1.5

Although not a 3D printer, another house building robot technology is being developed, tiny brick laying robots. http://api.news.com.au/content/1.0/foxsports/images/1226798960176?format=jpg I wonder if both techniques will be used, or if one will win out over the other? The 3D printer seems well suited for large buildings and neighborhood development, and the smaller robots for custom built one-of-a-kind houses.

Creationism is religion, and in the USA, it is unconstitutional for a government organization to teach, distribute information, or display anything religious. Separation of church and state is the law. Creationism could be taught in the same way that Greek, Egyptian, and Roman myths are taught, but not as science fact. That is the position of the Supreme Court, I think. If you disagree file a court case, get your friends and neighbors together and change a state law, so someone will file a court case for you, or get on a school board and adopt books that teach creationism so that someone will file a court case for you. I believe court tests such as these will always fail unless the Constitution is changed.

Redraw so that all weights hang from the top balance bar, but do not move any weight right or left, just erase the horizontal lines, except the top one, and draw all vertical lines to connect the weights to the top bar (line). You will have to extend the top horizontal line to the right.

There are good lessons about physics, including magnetism on khanacademy.org, for magnetism see: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/electricity-and-magnetism/v/introduction-to-magnetism This particular lesson is in the middle of the physics lesson, and you might need to start with previous lessons, depending no your current knowledge.

Although you are responding to John, I'm going to put in my two cents of reply. I too am a white heterosexual, who was reared in a Christian church, and don't like to think about what homosexuals do in private, but it is none of my business. Since my mid teens I have questioned the value of religion, and now believe igtheism makes the most sense. I came to that belief because of flaws I discovered in the Christian belief system. Foremost, is one that my familial religion (fundamentalist baptist) preaches that divorce is a sin; one shared with Catholics and some other religions. In general, I believe a long term heterosexual relationship is a good thing; however, not always. My mother was poor at choosing a mate. My father was an alcoholic, and she left him shortly after I was born (oops, she committed a sin). My first step father was abusive to me, and my mother stayed with him several years after he physically beat me, a three year old. Later she said she consulted with the preacher and he recommended staying married and trying to work things out...while I was abused. A problem with Christianity is that the commandments and other rules are taken as inviolate...the word of God. Religions teach faith, rather than reason so their members will not question their God. Therein lies a fatal flaw that leads members to making poor, sometimes catastrophic mistakes. For example, Ms. Pearly Christian sees a man who is about to push the button on an atom bomb that will blow up a major city, she can kill him, save the people, and spend eternity in Hell, or ignore him and continue walking to church. Does she rationalize, "No one is crazy enough to push the button. God must be testing me. I wonder?"

You may still have a choice, but you will feel differently about the choice, whether you kill or not. Your will has been affected; thus, you do not have a free will. You might say, I can exercise my free will if I disobey God, but maybe your free will would do what God wants, so you can't know one way or the other, whether you are exercising free will.

If God says, "Do not kill, or you will go to Hell," then your decisions are affected, always, your free will is changed by that edict. You will no longer do the same things you would have done if you had not gotten that message.

The Cornell, Harvard, UNCA, and UCDavis articles are work by scientists, and there are others. I agree the science is in flux and needs to be watched to determine the final result. The scientist and doctor (stars) in Forks over Knives are not the producers, and AFAIK they are not selling books. I imagine they were paid for the performance, and may get royalties, but their research and conclusions preceded the documentary. My primary care provider, who does not benefit from book or documentary sales recommended the vegan diet to me, and recommended Dr. McDougall's books. My own experience eating vegan has been improved health. I no longer take high blood pressure medicine, and can take only 1/4 per day of a diabetes pill instead of 2 pills per day as prescribed; otherwise, I become hypoglycemic. And, there are other subtle things.

Do you believe that God dictates morals to people; in other words, we do not have a free will, and our moral compass is unerringly set by God? Or, do you believe we have a free will, and that we choose our moral compass, because God does not interfere with our free will; God only asks us to follow a set of morals? If you believe in the free will idea, then God can never interfere with anything we do, ever, including never answer a prayer; otherwise, we don't have free will. Since everything we learn can affect our decisions, any message from God would screw with our free will. For example, God says do not kill. That moral affects what we do; thus, if God gives us a free will, God cannot establish our moral code. If we have free will and God tells us something, then we are just as likely to ignore the message as act on it--the same as if God didn't tell us anything. Otherwise, God hasn't given us a free will. It doesn't appear that God establishes our morals and we cannot disobey, and it seems illogical that God gives us free will and gives us a set of morals, because that action contradicts free will. I am confused, unless I believe man has a free will and establishes his own morals.

So you will provoke an argument and then not defend the provocation? Nice work!Through what plausible mechanism? The info about blood becoming acid is (I think) from the documentary Forks over Knives. Below are links to protein being the cause of osteoporosis. The last one (UNCA.edu) includes dairy as causal for osteoporosis, which Forks over Knives also claims to be true, saying that countries with the highest consumption of dairy also have the highest rates of osteoporosis. Cornell.edu Harvard.edu UCDavis.edu UNCA.edu That does not say I cannot digest protein, it says everyone increases their chance of osteoporosis and heart disease by eating a diet high in meat (protein).

I don't remember saying my body cannot properly digest protein. In fact, I eat a varied diet, including (occasionally) meat, fish, fowl, and dairy. Although, I am allergic to milk, it causes my lungs to congest. I recommend watching the documentary, Forks over Knives, for research telling why animal products can be harmful to people, reading any of the diet books by Dr. McDougall, news about diet and osteoporosis, and I'm sure you can find or already know the link between dietary cholesterol and heart-disease.

You don't ask for much:) I'll provide a link to Morals in Wikipedia, which has more to say than I is reasonable for a response in this forum, plus Wikipedia lists 69 references to books and articles. In addition, here is one dictionary.reference.com definition: "of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes."

LOL, once I liked bacon, especially a bacon cheeseburger...maybe it was another lifetime. I quit eating burgers long ago, for health, but tried a bite of one about 20 years ago, but the aftertaste was like lard on my tongue. I've had no such craving since then, and rarely eat any meat. Viva vegans.

You haven't linked any article. This is a discussion forum and your post doesn't define what is to be discussed, so I think the question is completely valid. It is against the forum rules to post opinions without inviting discussion, as I'm sue you're aware of. There is no requirement to link to articles, when one states an opinion. This is a discussion forum, which has rules, and one of the rules is to stay on topic. The topic of this thread is "You don't need religion to have morals." My post suggested that another thread be opened with another topic to discuss the issue of whether morals are subjective or objective. The moderators do sometimes split threads whenever discussions diverge from the original topic. I am not a moderator and cannot force a split, but I am allowed to steer the conversation back to the original topic, including this one, which is clearly off topic and should be discussed in another thread...except I will not continue this discussion, because I think the moderators set and enforce the rules, not me. If you want to continue this discussion, it will be with the moderators.

Yes, oldest known star. There may be several such stars in many galaxies, because many galaxies have a similar history. Telescopes are limited by what they can see; galaxies are so distant that observing individual stars is difficult to impossible.