Delbert

Can't say I understand this: Light emitted now will never be coincident with Earth. Am I to presume that from an earthly viewpoint the light is standing still, and for that reason will never get here? Presumably the implication is this speed business is circumvented by an expansion of 'space'. Well, have we any evidence? Like as we view stars or galaxies close to the area of disappearance (couldn't find any other way of expressing it), is the perceived or measured speed of light from these objects any different from the speed of light that we love and know? From what I can gather the answer is no. The speed of light is the same for everyone, whether or not the object is 16 billion light years away or not. I understand Maxwell's calculations are based on physics and not relative speed. Which means, does it not, it applies to anything we can experience, measure, see or even simply perceive. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this faster that light business for very distant objects appears to be an extension of classical physics into the cosmos. And as we all know, classical physics doesn't apply to the speed of light, or possibly anything else for that matter.

I think with Mr Litvinenko I recall it took quite a considerable amount of time. And what's more, did they do it by directly detecting radiated alpha particles? Was Polonium 210 in fact detected chemically? And as for the bit about variety whereby it's mixed up with beta emitters, that wasn't my query. My query was about detecting, or the impossibility of detecting, alpha radiation.

That was the reason for my query. So, if we can't see or detect them, how do we come to the conclusion that such things are not only there but moving away from us at a speed at or greater than the speed of light?

Thanks for the info. But in view of its apparent inability to penetrate even tissue paper, how do they monitor alpha emitting particles?

I understand Doppler shift is how we measure or infer speed of retreat or expansion. And according to this thread there are stars moving away at the speed of light or greater than that of light, presumably there is a frequency to which light is shifted by Doppler indicating or specifying a speed at or greater than the speed of light. Now, my mathematics is rubbish, so perhaps others might know what this frequency shift is or how to calculate it.

Didn't someone say: if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics!

Read the other day (can't recall where) about human activity in the clean-up area. They said that if it's alpha radiation it's more or less okay because it doesn't penetrate air more than about 10cm. It did mention the dangers of getting the paticles on the skin, and I think also hinted at the undetectability should they be ingested. But if they're moving or disturbing such, particles or dust is bound to become airborne and thus ingested. Is one to presume that because of the next to impossibility of detecting the stuff should it be ingested, they can claim it's not particularly dangerous? Quite worrying if such blasé approach is the norm in such an industry.

Well known form of local public organisation. As said, the fraud was blatant and involved a police raid. The sabotage was also blatant, the individual was caught on one occasion, but nothing was done. And I forgot to mention the thievery, again was blatant, on one occasion I had to make representations (company property was stolen), the thief was even observed doing it, but again nothing was done. If you're implying similar things occur in private organisations, I doubt very much if it would be so blatant and also known to the bosses - who do nothing. Such local organisations live in a different world than the rest of society. If private business is inefficient it goes bust, if public organisations are inefficient they just increase their budgets and put the bills up. And they always make sure they spend all their budgets plus a bit more (we always knew when to offer new equipment!), so that they can justify an increase the following year. The normal rules of life don't apply to them. I'm surprised. I recall it was quite a well publicised occasion. Shown on TV and all that. You know, the one that quoted 'neo classical endogenous growth theory'! You forgot: operated under a government that relaxed the regulation and changed the regulation authority - and wanted to run the country like a similar bank that also went bust for the same reason.

Again, this is missing the point. Dealing with criminal activity is a matter of law and its enforcement. The law is drawn up by politicians followed by assent to statute. And as for evading taxes a similar situation applies. If the politicians aren't undertaking such, then the people have made the wrong choice at the polling station. It's called democracy. We can come up with all sorts of excuses, like big corporations, dodgy banks or whatever. But all these things are a result of the system they operate under, which is set by the politicians. I seem to recall the last UK PM eulogising about a particular bank when opening a new branch (I think he was still chancellor at the time, I have the statement somewhere in my files, but can't find it). Even intimating that he would like to be able to run the UK economy like they run their bank! And what happened? That bank when bust and nearly brought the world economy down!! And that political party was elected into government three times!! Less employees, less army and the like occasioned by changing techniques, was the context of my riposte. And as for privatization, I've seen and experienced what goes on in public departments. I've seen from close quarters blatant fraud and sabotage, with nothing done for the clear reason of publicity should it go to court. Sorry, but I can't take comments about the wonders of public ownership. And from what I saw they embraced privatization to get rid of troublesome departments.

I said it somewhat with tongue in cheek, I wasn't really advocating such an irresponsible policy. But I think it's fair to say the Tory's have mostly inherited a financial problem when assuming power, which seems a tad unfair. Well, from what appears from today's news reports, it's shutdown time with bust on the horizon. And I don't think even Greece has declared a shutdown! It's exciting times on the financial front.

What on earth has that got to do with trades becoming redundant following emergence of new techniques? Because that was context of my riposte. Anyway, regarding the spending you mention, I think it is the case that following the post WWII spending, the UK was closing in on bankruptcy. And I think it's ditto the previous occasions you mention. And if you're bringing in party politics, it seems to me that every time the Tory party gained power they faced financial problems left by the previous lot. And on that point, I think the Tory's are playing it all wrong, as what they should be doing is spending like there's no tomorrow when in power to move phase or the point of greatest debt to when the other lot then regain power! I'm clearly not expressing my view correctly. Plutocracy, as you call it, is a result of the voting preferences of the populous. In just about every aspect of endeavour it seems the emergence of a plutocrat is welcomed. For example, just take that popular recreation of football, the emergence of a foreign billionaire taking over a club and spending millions appears to be welcomed with open arms. And I suggest such would apply to just about any area of activity, from football to industry. Take away the opportunity for some to become rather wealthy and it seems to me not much would take place. One might want to turn a blind eye to it all, but people make or do things for money. For example, the complex components of this computer I'm typing this on I doubt would be in existence if money, lots of it, wasn't made. If that's the case then they elected the wrong government. As for newspapers, how would they exist if people didn't buy the things? And bankers, if they don't lend people complain they are damaging people and the economy. And if they lend they blamed for bankrupting the country. Just trying to work out how much it costs to run one high street branch of a bank. Like how much money does it need to invest to earn enough interest for earnings to finance (say) five employees (the number I could see in my branch this morning), the building rent, business rates, heating, furnishings and all the other things? I lost count of the millions. And that's just one branch for people who want and expect free banking. As for all these comments about 'corporations', they might not realise it, but that's clearly what the people want. It might not be the ideal, but for numerous reasons, like security of employment to mention just one, it seems it's only frowned on when it suits. But in reality the advantages for employment and the products we perhaps all enjoy, that can only be designed and manufactured by a largish organisation, it's welcomed. Like even during trivial social conversation: I work for so-and-so organisation, who do you work for? I'm not trying to belittle it all, but I think it's a complex, and not always about all those nasty big businesses - it's only nasty big business and plutocrats when things aren't as some expect.

I think you will find that however far you go back in time that always has been the case. Just about whatever field of human endeavour you care to name, like the day they invented the horse drawn plough. How many scribes put out of business when they invented the printing press? In the fullness of time just about every vocation of pecuniary gain tends to disappear or become a minority venture. Although perhaps solicitors, plumbing and electricians might be more or less similar with just a few changes. And funeral directing might be fairly robust against the march of time. What do I hear of recent times? Banks should be lending to finance business and house purchase. Well, I think that needs a fairly large organisation. We can't have it both ways. Again, we can't have it both ways. Reportedly they embraced the low interest rates of joining the EU - and I seem to recall reading to the point of a bit of creative accounting! Again, it was democratic because they elected the government. And significantly, I suggest if someone came along and suggested caution, they wouldn't have got very many votes! I only saw disorder and complains when the pigeons came home to roost. It was totally and absolutely democratic. Passing the cause to others is avoiding the issue. If someone came along and advocated what you appear to suggest, with all the resulting consequences, I suggest he or she wouldn't get many votes. What we experience is the result of democracy. As I believe Churchill said: democracy is a terrible way to run a country, but better that all the others.

Money is a representation of labour. Devalue money (by printing the stuff) and labour is devalued. Everything doesn't stay the same, the value of your hard work is devalued. Ditto above. Printing money is a delusion and evil. The plain fact is we are not solving anything with todays policies. Which appear to consist of printing money, borrowing shedloads and encouraging inflation. They solve nothing. But as I've said previously regarding complaints and criticisms about governments and riots, it is that we live in a democracy and rulers rule by plebiscite. We install the leaders in office and as such we cannot complain. All we can do is reconsider our wrong decision and correct it at the next election. Riots and disorder are nothing more than the rioters complaining about their own decision.

Who or what on earth are the real rich? What's all this splitting of definitions, one is either rich or one is not. Seems to me there's an element of envy rearing it's head. As for working, money doesn't just appear out of nowhere, and what's more I think there are countless examples. And I believe at least one ennobled by a socialist government! You know, a house of the ennobled a onetime socialist government leader said, something like: such an institution should be flushed down the toilet! Presumably in your ideal world there'd be no one in a position of being 'rich' as you describe. And as one couldn't become such as you imply, we'd all occupy more or less the same place in society. Doubtless sounds good to some, but such a situation would result in stagnation and degeneration, for the simple reason there'd be no reason to do much or improve anything at all. Not to put too fine a point on it, businesses and innovation is undertaken to make money and become (as you describe) rich. Take that away and not much will get done. We'll all work for the common good, do I hear you say? No chance. It might start off with such an ideal, but resentment and envy will soon rear up because someone has a tiny bit more, and chaos will eventually result. Perhaps starting like: why is your tent positioned slightly better than mine? But returning to Greece. They followed the wonderful world of so called path of easy living, and the current situation is the result. Life is not easy, and anyone who says different and promises nirvana is a charlatan. As the drill sergeant said to the new recruits: you can have it easy or you can have it hard. Easy's hard, and hard is don't even think about it! Explain it? And what's more, with a democratic president they are up to their eyes in debt (Detroit's gone bust, along with others), such that by the beginning of next month they could shutdown without an increase (yet again) in their borrowing requirement.

I'm not justifying it, but perhaps back handers and the like are a great tempter - and I don't think socialism is exempt. And as for democratic socialism, what on earth is that? Presumably mere socialism isn't democratic. That is a terrible indictment. For which I presume you can quote examples. Examples that are unique and only undertaken by what you refer to as the 'rich'. It seems in todays world that whatever you do, don't make money if you start a business. Upon speaking to a business friend of mine and how he baulked at opening a small shop in his local high street (UK), on account of the rent being £65,000pa and business rate of £13,000pa - that's £1,500 a week! And that's over and above any running costs. I challenged you to work out how many cups of coffee he's got to sell to even start making a bob or two. And even if he did and opened several shops in various places, as was his idea, and made a decent wedge (not forgetting that a decent wedge will be taxed at 40% here in UK), he'd doubtless be labelled and categorised as one of your 'rich', ruining many lives and broken many governments. I suggest if it wasn't for what you refer to as 'rich' paying taxes, the wonderful world of those who label others in such a way would be in dire straights. Not forgetting that when they get upset about something, the modus operandi seems to be is to charge down the high street in groups smashing up your shop.

Exactly. Those rioting or the threat of rioting encourage governments to adopt policies that cause or caused them to riot in the first place! So presumably they are rioting for a situation that'll likely cause them to riot again later on. Apparently so. Up to their eyes in debt, I believe. Just some side issues: Apparently both the Blue Angels and the Thunderbirds cancelled all their displays this year. And no American contribution at RIAT this year. And Detroit's apparently gone bust.

The rules by which banks operate are formed, constructed and encouraged by elected governments. Unable to level taxes! How come? And as for 'rich' people, they seen to be the whipping boys these days. If you take, punish or discourage the goal of making money away, degeneration, if not financial chaos, will surely follow. Again: the rules by which banks operate are formed, constructed and encouraged by elected governments. Printing money simply devalues everything and is no answer to anything. If you lent someone some money which they then find difficulty in paying back, I'm sure you'd be happy if the government then started printing money to reduce the debt you're owed. And what's more, being enthusiastic to lend in future.

Very simple, they've spent more than they were earning. Or, to put it another way: they voted for a government that spent more than they were earning. Or, to put it yet another way: they voted for a government who's policies didn't prioritise aspiration, ambition and any other necessary attribute. Who wouldn't vote for cheap or free this and that? As for getting better, that's very difficult as they've got a large debt to pay off (assuming they don't try to get rid of it by going bankrupt). Like so many things in life: easy to get into, not so easy to get out of.

I don't normally like commenting on climate change - or whatever one calls it. But as for the goal of being settled, science will probably never be settled regarding climate prediction. As I've said previously (not here), because it's so complicated with so many variables, my view is we can only make a judgement - not unlike beyond reasonable doubt as in a court case. But if we wait for the so called proof that seems to be the goal, it'll doubtless be too late to worry about. There's the other aspect of should science actually be able to provide proof, would or could we do anything anyway? Like, ask yourself: if, as of today, science clearly said a catastrophe will happen in 20 years time if we continue as we are now what would we do? And don't forget, doing something doubtless means turning things off to the point of very big problems! I suggest the political ramifications would result in us simply prevaricating for 20 years! In other words nothing. It seems to me that assuming AGC is true, and whether or not science provides an answer, chances are we won't change. We don't normally change or do things until events show us which path to take.

I've only got as far as trying to decide the meaning of the symbols! Would I be right in assuming:- ' = not + = or . = and And I was trying to draw a Venn diagram for four items, but failed.

Well, perhaps it has gone that way, but for my part I was offering an answer to questions asked. So, clearly it was my fault for offering such responses or answers. Or like crossing the road without firstly looking for oncoming traffic. I don't need a comparison to know that crossing a road without looking is dangerous. Or diving into a swimming pool without firstly checking the water content first. And my dictionary makes no mention of comparisons to qualify or define dangerous. I revert to the subject matter, and ask: does anyone know about this water cooling business, like how long is it likely to continue? What are the implications regarding the water outflow storage and eventual disposal? What is the possible long term plan - if there is one?

Like dangerous as per the definition of dangerous. As in dangerous to life to the point of: don't do near the bloody thing. And if you disagree with that or feel it's evading your question, then go down to Fukushima and go near the thing. But some people are going near the thing, and by doing so they are bravely keeping the nuclear industry just about acceptable to some (not me). A power producing method that ends up as the situation appears to be at Fukushima, then it is something to be avoided like the plague. And as we know, it's not a one off, with the previous one I understand still in a serious state after I think 26 years - such that I believe they need to build yet another sarcophagus. They probably will have to into the next century. And as for Fukushima, from what I can understand they haven't even got to the state of being able to entomb it. But this isn't attending to the subject. I remind you to what it is yet again: continuing problems with Fukushima. If you're unable - or simply don't want - to address you responses to the subject, then I suggest you refrain from commenting. Anyway, I'll give you a starter for ten: if they eventually have to, how long before they get to a point whereby they can entomb it?

Well, yes, but it's not quite what I meant to say. I probably used the wrong words, as what I meant was that is was a dangerous form of power generation. And as I've emphasised all along that I'm not interested in comparisons, I'd have thought my wording faux pas would've been manifest. But give a dog a bone...

Well, you can knock me done with a feather. You've been banging on about the relationship between coal and nuclear to the point dogma. But why mention it? This thread is about the continuing problems with Fukushima. Nothing to do with the kill ratio between coal and nuclear. The conclusion can only be that you mentioned it to justify nuclear in some way. My response to that is doing comparisons is not progress, and if applied generally can only stifle human progress to the point of descent to chaos. My view is totally contrary to comparisons. If nuclear power results in accidents like Fukushima and Chernobyl, needing, as they appear to do, long term entombing, possibly for decades if not centuries, with surrounding areas rendered uninhabitable, then I think they need to be terminated. That's not forgetting the intrepid individuals brave enough to risk their future health - or possibly their life - to deal with the immediate aftermath. Then there's what I understand to be the as yet unresolved problem of waste material. If the above is the consequence of nuclear power, then as far as I'm concerned it's not an acceptable method of power generation.

Not quite sure that's right. We don't know what's happening inside the box, that's the conundrum. We don't know because we can't determine if a quantum event of the isotope has or hasn't taken place. Any other mechanism (i.e. non quantum) we'd have a certainty about the life or death of the cat in a closed box. But inside the box it's a different situation, if we were inside the box it maybe a quantum event but we'd know when it happened. Whereas those on the outside wouldn't. The point I was making was that we on earth in this vast universe of ours, is not unlike like the cat in said box. It might be a very remote possibility but I think it is conceivable that some sort of quantum event might trigger a bigger event which might then eliminate this earth of ours. So effectively we are in a box (although a very much bigger one) like the cat. So someone outside the universe (we're getting imaginative here!) couldn't tell if we were alive or dead. But were inside the universe box, so I think it's safe to say we know what's happening. In other words one of PP3s query about putting the earth into a state of superposition is that the earth is probably already in such state and we're in it and therefore know what it's like. As for this looking through a one way mirror, I can't see this destroying the superposition to the outside world. It seems to me that this superposition business is lack of knowledge. We don't know what going on in the box, and the one way mirror doesn't change that. But the cat inside the box knows what going on inside and outside - which is okay. I suppose there is a possibility of the one way mirror conveying information to the outside world. Whereby photons from outside hitting the cat's eye will have some consequence to the outside world which might be noticed. Those photon thingies are tricky chaps, like what happens with the double slit experiment.