Delbert

Gathering groups need a leader, and a leader needs to provide answers to questions to maintain leadership. And no doubt, answers regarding the sky and everything will be required. Do I have to continue? Indeed, I get them knocking on my door from time-to-time. The last time their opening gambit was: the weirdness of quantum mechanics proves god exists (think they've got me marked for such questions, or something!). My opening riposte was that that's quite interesting, since during the early part of the last century I understand Ludwig Boltzmann was considered irreligious and effectively sent to Coventry for even suggesting things are made of atoms! And at another time during a social occasion, a friend said during conversation: evolution is disproved because dogs can't talk! I thought it prudent at that juncture to offer no reply and simply change to subject.

From what I can understand the human brain evolved - like every other aspect of life - to cope with the situation at the time. The apparent situation at the time was the Earth's orbital excursions occasioning changes in climate - we needed cunning to survive. But reportedly over the last 10,000 years or so with the Earth's orbit being more circular, the suggestion is our brains have shrunk. A couple of links: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-have-our-brains-started-to-shrink/ and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_human_intelligence The suggestion appears to be that although the brain has shrunk intelligence level has remained. But intelligence is an attribute invented by humans to account for what they think they've got. To paraphrase: a self attributed attribute is no attribute. As inferred previously: what creature with so-called intelligence pollutes and poisons not only the very air it breathes, but the very things that provide it sustenance?

And plain stupid. If you doubt that just look around. Everything from polluting - sorry, poisoning - the very air we breathe, to destroying and also poisoning the very things that we rely on for sustenance. We're nothing more than primates. Sorry, simple primates. And by the way, according to research, our brains are (on average) 10% smaller than stone age man's brain.

DrP (sorry quote not working) America has chosen - just get on with it. The Sun came up, birds are singing. If he doesn't want to get kicked out in four years time he needs to do the right thing. And as for the attributes you mention and your clear frustration, from my perspective I've had to endure 13 years with a warmongering lunatic and his psychopathic clunking-fist sidekick - and he was elected three times! Did I vent my spleen? No, I believe in democracy. As previously said: democracy is a terrible way to run a country, but better than all the others.

DrKrettin That's your view. An intolerance of the view of others is perhaps not something to boast about. Perhaps unstable, narcissistic and all that is what they want, so who are you to criticize? Slightly off tack, but I can recall during the London riots some years ago two girls talking, and one commenting: I can't stand stuck-up people.

Frankly, I can't understand what all the fuss is about. The election of Trump was a democratic process involving the view of that organism called: The People. And to infer (which seems to be the suggestion) that stupidity is involved can only be an insult to the American people. Doubtless there'll be some making comments about unfairness of the electoral system. But whatever the system, such suggestions will always be from the losers.

EdEarl: "I wish US politicians were this good" (sorry, quoting seems problematic with my browser) As I've said before on this forum: we elect the politicians. The elected politician is only there as a consequence of the view of that living organism formed by the populace. We here in the UK elected three times what I believe some have suggest to be someone who pursued unnecessary war or wars - among other things. In spite of all this, he triumphed in three general elections. It's up to us to ensure we sus out the con artists, charlatans, buffoons, popinjays, Arthur Daleys, tin-pot looney-tunes and umpteen others to numerous to mention.

I don't understand controversy surrounding politicians in general. Can't understand it because in a democracy a politician has to get elected, in other words, it's the people's choice. If this chap in America gets elected, then that's what the people want, and there's certainly no reason for anyone to complain or criticise in any way whatsoever.

"Diesel creates more CO2 per gallon that petrol" Exactly! And with a lower mpg than petrol, it just makes it worse. Which is the opposite all the publicity and the apparent reason for lower taxes!! But I suppose it's the proof of the old axiom: say something loud enough and long enough and people will believe it. P.S. apologies for not using the 'quote' facility, as it doesn't work on my IE 11.

Perhaps it's my odd way of expression, as It's not hybrid or CO2 output I'm taking about, but rather the apparent promotion and encouragement of diesel engine vehicles with tax concessions and the like. To me it's absolute lunacy. The things are dirty, have always been dirty and always will be dirty. And from what I understand, the UK MOT (annual test) simply involves a smoke test for a diesel! I also understand that in contrast to a petrol engine vehicle, the catalytic converter on a diesel doesn't have to be working! And even the DPF can be non-functional as well! What sort of test is that? And as for the higher MPG, my initial comments (#1) quote 37mpg for the newspaper reporter's 1.6 diesel, whereas my 1.6 petrol job does 46mpg! So even all the talk about more miles per gallon is rubbish. Indeed, I can support the above figures, because from what I recall from a selection of vehicles during one of my employments (I kept figures at the time), I can report something similar between diesel and petrol.

Okay, my sarcastic opening remarks triggered no response, but perhaps the news items today (UK) about pollution, diesel powered vehicles in particular, seems to confirm my longstanding view that diesel engines have, and always will be, the most dirty and polluting of all vehicle engine types. Indeed, how anybody ever thought that they were 'green' I've never understood. The only way to make them cleaner is to have such a complex exhaust filter system as to be totally uneconomic, if not next to impossible to manufacture.

Frankly, apart from one or two, for me the TV programs are rubbish. And as regards the adverts, I feel like I want to through a house-brick at the TV. And I understand people and organisations actually pay money to have those adverts on TV!!! And the news programs aren't much better, appearing to consist of two presenters having a relationship, and probably playing footsie under the table - where's that brick?

"Press the button marked "Quote"" Well, I'm lost for words. Anyway, if anybody's interested it's only since I changed to explorer 11. But all this is off topic.

"Did any of them cover the use of the apostrophe?" Can't recall, but they probably did. Anyway, from your question I presume the use of an apostrophe for an abbreviation is contrary to English prose (prog's in place of programs). P.S. since changing to the latest model, quoting or copying appears to be prohibited. So apologies for not being able to use the website's quote function.

I miss the Open University prog's on UK TV.

A newspaper article last week about diesel cars (Sunday Times 24th Jan UK) caught my eye when the author reported his 1.6 TDI car does 37mpg with a CO2 classification of 99g/km. Whereas I calculate my 1.6 petrol job to do 46mpg (although the dashboard indicator says 48mpg!) with a CO2 classification of 139g/km. With the apparent drive to reduce CO2 emissions, would it be better for manufacturers to build cars with a lower mpg figure?

I've decided, I am living in a madhouse. Yes, I can recall some of my contemporises at the time attempting what I would call acts of lunacy - I further recall I just stood and watched them! Indeed, there's one occasion I can recall that possibly can't be conveyed here because of what's involved. Suffice to say it could've involved danger to others.

Perhaps it was. So how was this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcZe1_nbQfY one done?

On the other hand, perhaps setting fire to oneself isn't quite as questionable as the TV program I watched the other day. It was an old recording of a music hall variety show. One act involved an apple on the head of the requisite lady assistant being shot at with a crossbow!!! Something I can only describe as absolute lunacy. Although, whether that is more dangerous than setting fire to oneself, is probably debateable.

Read in my newspaper today that teenagers are setting themselves alight as some sort of dare. They apparently pour oil over themselves and set it alight! In fact the article continues and reports that emergency crews are warning parents to ensure that young people are made aware of the dangers!!! I'm sorry, but it's too much for me.

How? In practical terms that is.

Just been reading that besides the reported reduction in bone density, a long period in zero G (space) can lead to permanent eyesight problems and cognitive degeneration! Apparently these effects are consequent to the increase in cranial pressure that occurs in zero G. This increased pressure results in reduced oxygen uptake by the brain, which also increases pressure on the eyeball, leading to distortion and permanent retinal damage. Such that I understand some individuals returning from the ISS have now permanent eye damage. So there you have it, probably go ga-ga and blind before one gets to Mars!

I'm sorry, but it's still a pointless question. The situation today would never be for you to pose the question. It's not much different than asking what would happen if snow on mountains were made of ice cream. Or the Moon was Swiss cheese.

Well, the consequence of the Moon orbiting in the opposite direction is exactly what would happen with the Earth rotation in the opposite direction. Orbiting in the opposite direction with all the consequences. Like as I've said, the Moon wouldn't be in the position where it is now, as I understand it is currently moving away due to gravitational drag (because the Earth is tending to pull or drag the Moon faster and thus a higher orbit) the Earth rotating in the opposite direction the Moon would presumably then be slowed or dragged slower such that it would be even closer how than how close it was countless millions of years ago. Possibly to the effect that the Moon would've collided with the Earth some time ago. In other words the situation you propose wouldn't exist and the question is pointless.

Whichever,, it appears to be gravitational forces. But as said, if the Moon orbited contrary to what it does today we almost certainly wouldn't be here asking the question - along with probably every other creature; for the reason previously said. That reason being that long ago the Moon being closer and at the same time orbiting in the opposite direction the Moon would've been slowed by gravitation drag (or tides) and probably end up orbiting even closer - with all the consequences. There's also the origin of the Moon to consider. I understand the current thinking is that Moon was the result of a celestial collision, with resultant the debris condensing to form the Moon. With the debris to be moving opposite I think would require a completely different, if not impossible, scenario. Indeed, the only way the Moon could've ended up in such a retrograde orbit is if it were captured. But again, living in the form of walking and crawling limbed creatures would've endured a totally different environment to the point that they would never have evolved. The upshot is that idea of the Moon orbiting in the opposite directing in the same orbit it is today would've never occurred - it's a pointless question, if not unscientific. It seems to me the question should be consigned to the Lounge or Speculations.