Delbert

Undoubtedly the universe appears incomprehensible to us who think things are really solid. An atom is apparently mostly empty space. I understand that if an atom of (say) hydrogen is enlarged to the size of Wembley Stadium (UK), the nucleus would be a walnut with the electron smaller than a grain of sand in a probability cloud at the farthest reaches of the stadium. And the nucleus probably isn't solid either (quarks whizzing around in a probability dance, I understand), and therefore mostly empty space. Substances feel solid (to us who are made of similar 'stuff') because I understand the effect of the electrical force. So perhaps what we call matter is probably an interaction of what we call a force or forces (energy) in a never ending dance.

I'm sure we are. I'm just trying to look at it dispassionately. And just in case there's a misunderstanding, I hope it goes without saying I'm certainly no lover of the tactics apparently employed by the Russians. But looking at it remotely, I have to say they've played a blinder. Jumped in at a moment of weakness and out manoeuvred and out foxed everyone - and still doing it. As before, Aristotle identified one of the requirements for peace. If we forget such basics or think they are not necessary or irrelevant in our so called modern world, we do so at our peril. You point out information that Russia is apparently going into recession. Well, as previously, I think history tells us economic stress can or is one reason for the initiation of armed conflict. And sanctions might just add coals to the fire of their determination or enthusiasm.

You mean after they've infiltrated (because as far as I can see from reports, that's what they've done in Ukraine) they'll then retreat at a later time? For what possible reason would they do that? As I see it they've no reason whatsoever to retreat - in fact every advantage to remain or even infiltrate farther. No longer talking about Crimea! That's interesting. They walk in and then we say a done deal. And as far as I can see they're walking in to eastern Ukraine at the moment. And if by chance they're reading your comments, they'll be the green light to walk farther in Ukraine to make that a done deal. They're doubtless not making official statements and patrolling in tanks only because it's not yet a done deal (as you casually express it). And as for calling it off, why on earth should they do that? Sanctions one might say - just you try it and see what happens, I'd suggest the Russians might say!

1/ ...backs off. No chance. 2/ ...or even invades. You mean invasion is not what they've done thus far? 3/ ...west takes military action... Again, no chance. As I see it Russia have played a blinder. Spotted a political vacuum, walked into Crimea with troops masquerading as locals. Then claim it's the will of the people to be with Russia - signs documents to annex Crimea to Russia. And now a similar tactic in east Ukraine - with troops masquerading as before. Leaving the West protesting and running about like chickens with no heads. In view of the current state of affairs I can't see Russia stopping. Salami tactic being played to perfection. Ukraine wanted a change of government and enacted a non-democratic tactic to achieve such. And what have they ended up with? Think a Chinese proverb sums it up quite well: be careful what you wish for.

Of course not, nobody in their right mind wants war. The problem as I see it is there was no deterrent in the form of defensive capability - and consequently the enemy took advantage and simply walked in. Aristotle again (prepare for war if you want peace). I'm sorry, but that's what happens in the real world. And now the West is faced with a difficult situation - how do you repel someone who walks in fully armed when the defence is standing about with what appears to be nothing more than pea shooters. What does the West do now? That's a difficult one. Sanctions seem the tool being employed. But even assuming agreement on sanctions can be reached with other Western counties, sanctions may backfire. Not necessarily because of tit-for-tat, but because I think one reason counties have gone to war in the past, or intensified military skirmishes to the point of war, is because of economic strife.

But do not the people elect and thus choose the government in a democracy? As I believe I've said and posed the question elsewhere on the forum: If an idiot is elected and then promptly makes a horlicks of everything, whose fault is it? Is it the idiot's fault or the people's fault for electing the idiot? I say it's the peoples fault. And what's more, when on occasions the people protest, they are protesting about their own decision. Here in the UK I understand we had what I believe some have called an enthusiast for armed conflict. Elected three times with heavy majorities, I might add. In fact he wrote a newspaper article in August last year advocating involvement in Syria, entitled: 'The hand-wringing has to stop. We must act.'

I'm sorry, but all this reminds me of what I think Aristotle said: Prepare for war if you want peace. Although I think he said it as: Make war if you want peace. And I think this recent situation in eastern Europe is a classic case. They had a period of self indulgence with an internal revolution, creating a power vacuum rendering defence undirected and ineffective. The enemy jumped in without having to fire a shot in anger. Easy peasy. And so on to what we have now. And what did I read the other day? I read that a Russian Bear aircraft had to be intercepted yet again in northern UK. Quite a regular event I understand. The day we don't respond is likely be the day they encroach farther. Should we protest at a later time, the encroachment will doubtless be put down to a navigation error. They then might feel free to have navigational errors on a regular basis.

The process, as far as I can understand, consists of taking the thing to bits (slowly), breaking the bits up and then spreading the broken bits about here and there to the point that they can't be distinguished, by those looking in a different direction, from the natural contamination. You know, like certain members of society get rid of the beer can or crisp packet by throwing it on to what appears to be waste land or over the fence.

Don't think any such concerns have stopped anyone up to now. Just look around at what's been going on. As for crimes against humanity, I'm sorry but in the great big world that is irrelevant and means nothing. I read the other day about N. K. having recently executed a previous member of the administration with a flame thrower - they don't mess about with simple firing squads! Anyway, I think that's off subject. But then again if it's considered a valid danger of nuclear power, maybe not.

Any general would be failing in his or her duty not consider such a target. Just think of the disruption and chaos the enemy will encounter - they'll probably be the first identified targets.

My dictionary defines safe as: affording security or protection from harm and free from danger. I don't think a nuclear reactor can provide security or protection from harm. And as for free from danger, I don't think so. I think these things - like just about any manmade gismo - is designed within an acceptable level of risk.

Yes, I think I got a bit confused! Maybe it was the effect of liquid libation! Anyway, perhaps I should've looked at it as 20aH being 20 amps for one hour at 12 volts being 240 watts for one hour. Or 864000 joules. Assuming the thing operating at the same voltage, and if I've got it right this time, a 20aH car battery equates to 6000 hours at 40mW, which I think is just over 35 weeks. A bit different than my previous calculation! But as we know a car battery is quite bulky and heavy, and the pinger I saw demonstrated on TV a while ago was quite small, to the point whereby it would fit into a clenched hand. And the battery appeared about the size of a D cell. So the 30 days duration of the present system seems a pretty efficient piece of engineering. Anyway, hope if I've got it roughly right this time!

Unless I'm way off the mark and completely misunderstood the calculations, it seems that a 20 amp/hour battery would only last 21 days. And if my car battery is anything to go by, a 20aH battery is a fair size and quite heavy.

Well, I think the CFC problem was identified by school children some considerable time before the 1980s. It might have been in the 1980s for the science community, but can recall a TV prog (UK) whereby a school class was investigating things like hair sprays possibly affecting the upper atmosphere about a decade previously. In other words it had to continue and go to a point whereby it was blatantly obvious before anything was done. But unfortunately it seems to me that manmade climate change has a bit to go before it becomes blatantly obvious to the political elite - let alone the populous. Not forgetting that the changes required for the CFC problem probably went almost unnoticed by the populous. But it seems to me the changes that might be required for climate change would be difficult - especially if they think everything seems okay.

The title of is 'Reasons not to worry'. Well, I'm not worried - not worried one tiny little bit. Not worried not because I'm a doubter; in fact to the contrary, as my the view is that it's a manmade problem - a no brainer. My total lack of worry is occasioned by the simple fact that no matter how we argue or whatever the evidence, we won't change - won't change in any significant way. We might stick up a windmill or two, drive a one or two battery cars, but that's all. And if you want evidence of doing nothing, just look at the rush for new fossil fuels - fracking for example. How many new coal power stations are apparently opened on a regular basis? That's why, as far as I can see, it's a pointless discussion.

Yes. Although I'm not too sure about misleading the search. As for the battery business, I postulated my idea elsewhere on this site that there's a fundamental flaw in all batteries. But it was apparently dismissed some others - but as far as I could tell their objections never managed to contradict or counter my postulate. And from what I can understand Boeing haven't resolved the battery problem. Placing it in a steel box is not a resolution.

I'm sorry, but I don't know that you're on about. All I said was a cyber attack hasn't been eliminated, like all the other scenarios until they can be eliminated or alternatively identified as a cause. But there's no words available to describe the ridiculousness of including a unicorn scenario.

I think that's guaranteed since it is designed and built by humankind, operated under a manmade protocol with a human at the controls. And as for the cyber attack you appear to associate with unicorns, I suggest that's a human decision without evidence; which would undoubtedly end up as a cock-up if it does turn out to be a cyber attack. Anyway, this appears to be a link reporting on the referred cyber attack: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet . So I don't think the possibility of similar attack on aircraft is on a par with mythical creatures.

Doubtless there'll be a number of recommendations and changes following this sad event. I understand a cyber attack hasn't been eliminated. Perhaps infiltrating control software of on-board computers not like the one that reportedly supposedly damaged centrifuges in a middle eastern country a while ago. Apparently a cleverly designed computer virus wandered about the cyber world until by chance it found itself in the control software of said centrifuges. Following which it set to work and at an appropriate time destroyed said devices by speeding them up.

A finite amount of time is not what I've read thus far. Unless, that is, the lifetime of the universe one considers to be a finite amount of time. And as for fainter, it's probably also the wavelength that gets ever longer, so the photons per unit time get less as time (as we experience it) progresses. So the finite supply of photons that you suggest are effectively rationed and can last forever or the lifetime of the universe - as we experience or perceive the lifetime of the universe!

But surely that leaves the paradox of: is it inside or outside? Anyway, as for frame of reference and as you appear to infer, time for the falling matter wouldn't slow down, but would be perfectly normal. I seem to recall Prof Brian Cox describing this phenomenon on a TV prog a while ago. Whereby we see the intrepid traveller's time slow down as he or she approached a black hole (ignoring the spaghetti consequence), but as far as the traveller was concerned, his or her time was perfectly normal. What Brian Cox didn't appear to mention (if he did I missed it), was what does the traveller see when he or she looks back from whence he or she came? Presumably the opposite, i.e. he or she sees the time of the Earth bound observer to speed up. And presumably all the other things, like the Earth whizzing round the Sun in its orbit. Not to mention all the other stars if not the whole universe speeding up! Or perhaps it might be safe to say the universe speeds up so much that when the traveller reaches the even horizon he or she sees the end of the universe. I might add in regard to the traveller seeing the Earth's orbit speeding up, presumably to avoid him or her seeing the laws of physics breaking down (a speeded up orbit should see the Earth fly off into space me thinks), the Earth, Sun and whatever will be seen to shrink - to the point whereby the whole universe is seen to shrivel up and disappear, mayhap? In other words one crosses the even horizon at the end of the universe. But perhaps my imagination has run away!

I get a tad confused about black holes. Confused as to how they form in the first place. Like, I understand that we see matter that's approaching a black hole slow down due to time dilation, to the point that it becomes ever fainter and hangs forever close to the even horizon but never actually goes in. In other words as far as we see, matter never actually passes to the other side of the event horizon. Presumably the conclusion being that all the matter that supposedly passed and entered the black hole to form it never did because it's still outside on our side of the event horizon! Doubtless I'm missing something.

It seems to me some have always assigned a god to things we don't understand or fully understand - Sun, Thunder and so on. I understand when electromagnetism was discovered it was deemed to be evidence of the spirit world. I had them at my door a while ago. They started by asking if I'd seen the UK TV program 'stargazing live'? They conveyed their view of how wonderful it all was and were clearly about to convey their view of it forming part of god's works. I interrupted them and said that for about 2000 years they even denied a Sun centred solar system. We exchanged niceties for a few minutes after which they made parting salutations, which included: we're looking for people who can think.

As for sticking the thing on the outside with the crew being unable to switch off, how would it be powered? I think solar power would be a nonstarter, so presumably it'll be powered from inside the plane. If so, disconnection should be available to the crew for safety reasons. I presume the trigger for this subject is MH370, which for me the significant point is that the military apparently failed to scramble jets when this aircraft came back over land without identification.

Seem to recall someone suggesting such disappearance wasn't just a game changer, but a world changer. Presumably the world changer suggestion was made should a scenario or cause cannot be established.