19421

New Theories / Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?

« on: 08/09/2013 00:23:17 »

I don't see a problem with ambiguity. If you use a word to mean two different things, just tell us both meanings!

What I do see as a problem is that you have defined conscious in terms of consciousness and not being unconscious. So you would define a cow as exhibiting or experiencing bovine phenomena, and not being an uncow. Not a particularly useful contribution to a discussion on the evolution or ecological function of a cow.

19422

Science Experiments / Re: Vertex tower

« on: 07/09/2013 13:13:18 »

Neat trick!

Ignoring friction, if the elf weighs half as much as the man m, the net graviational force acting on the pair is gm/2 but the mass of the pair is 3m/2, so the man's acceleration will be g/3 instead of g ft/sec^2, which may be survivable - depends on the height of the tower. If not, use a heavier elf. 

19423

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: The Exclusive Biological nature of Evolution via the natural selection :

« on: 06/09/2013 23:54:23 »

Consciousness can operate beyond the brain, body, and the present, as hundreds of experiments and millions of testimonials affirm.

Good heavens! This is almost a beginning of a hint of a suggestion of a definition! Not quite a statement of what consciousness is, nor even of what it does or its domain of action, but at least a positive statement of something.

So perhaps you might enlighten us by reference to one of these hundreds of experiments, that might give us a clue as to what consciousness is or does.

Just one tiny anchor in the sand might make the entire discussion worthwhile. 

19424

New Theories / Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?

« on: 06/09/2013 23:45:19 »

We could make machines which copy us right down to the generation of fake claims of consciousness and the ability of the machines to get so stuck in their thinking that they believe non-existent feelings exist and that an "I" is in there feeling them, but they would not actually be conscious.

So your definition of "conscious" is...?

19425

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How to calculate explosive pressure in confined spaces?

« on: 06/09/2013 18:00:43 »

Apparently the human race has spent quite a bit of effort on weapons research.

....but never used a high explosive as a propellant. The rest of humanity are blind fools! Simply because there is no point or practical possibility of doing something, they have neglected to investigate it.

19426

General Science / Re: Forensic experts 'biased towards side which pays them'

« on: 06/09/2013 14:21:28 »

It is in the nature of the legal process that a court won't hear a case unless the prosecution has some evidence, so you always start with a bias, and the defence has to rebut the case, so they will call a scientist to challenge the prosecution's expert  or re-interpret the facts.

The facts themselves are rarely in dispute. You would have to be a very bold scientist to fabricate material evidence (though it happens) or to lie about a measurement that can be checked. But what the court needs is an opinion on the reliability and significance of the facts, or the minutiae of an obscure statutory regulation.

I always prefer batting for the defence. It's more satisfying than presenting a case that is brought out of malice or ignorance, but often more difficult to persuade the court that it has been misled by incompetent or irrelevant statistics - see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22310186 .

Opinions can be bought and presented or suppressed by the presenting barristers, so what happens in court may well be a lot more polarised than what happened in the laboratory. Sad, but inevitable in an adversarial system. The French procedure, using an investigating magistrate to ascertain the facts, may be less prone to bias as the experts are, I understand, hired by the court itself.   

19427

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Is carbon dioxide in fizzy drinks harmful?

« on: 06/09/2013 13:16:19 »

The key  word is "pleasant".

If you find anything enjoyable, it will be illegal, immoral, or fattening.

19428

Technology / Re: Concave glass-clad skyscraper (doh!)

« on: 06/09/2013 12:45:47 »

My mother was intrigued by a line of tiny holes that appeared in her curtains. Turned out to be burn marks from the sun shining through her collection of glass paperweights. This is the principle of the traditional sunshine recorder and the Civil Defence nuclear burst triangulator.

So art is at last imitating science.
 

19429

New Theories / Re: thrust does not work in space

« on: 06/09/2013 10:26:33 »

It's all well known and entirely predictable (apart from the occasional solar flare, but we have a pretty good idea of the maximum intensity of those). We use radiation-hardened components in near-earth satellites and design circuits to fail safe when irradiated - a common problem with nuclear power plant and some military equipment.   

Obviously the side of a spacecraft facing the sun gets hot, just like the planets do. But what do you think happens on the other side? Unsurprisingly, if you rotate a vessel somewhere near the earth's orbit, it ends up at somewhere near the temperature of the earth.

If you really are a truthseeker, try starting from the obvious, the commonplace, and your own observations. Anything else is of dubious validity.

19430

Cells, Microbes & Viruses / Re: Why do some people never catch colds?

« on: 06/09/2013 05:47:11 »

As far as the original question is concerned, the UK Common Cold Research Unit was closed after some 40 years of human subject research - all great fun for the volunteers in post-war Britain who got a free country holiday in exchange for a few blood and sputum samples (and the possibility of catching a cold).

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/common-cold-research-unit-salisbury
The unit looked like a cross between a military and a nudist camp in the grounds of Harvard hospital. They identified the general family of responsible viruses but since the bugs turned out to be rapidly evolving (one in the eye for creationists) and the symptoms are rarely lifethreatening (unlike flu) I guess there was no future in developing a vaccine.

19431

Technology / Re: Concave glass-clad skyscraper (doh!)

« on: 05/09/2013 23:37:15 »

Not sure how big the offending building is, but a crude parabola say 100 m high by 50 m wide will receive around 1 MW solar input at lunchtime. If you reflect 75% of that into a 1 square meter focus (not difficult, using ordinary builders' and glaziers' equipment to align and construct the building) you could easily barbecue a car.   

19432

New Theories / Re: thrust does not work in space

« on: 05/09/2013 23:20:00 »

thrust equals = weight

Not true. Never mind space flight, just look at an aeroplane. Thrust acts forward (assuming the propellor is in the usual place, doing its normal job), weight acts downward. Orthogonal vectors cannot be equal.

19433

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: I'm fairly certain this a physics dilemma

« on: 05/09/2013 23:13:27 »

Or save youself a lot of effort

http://www.apwcompany.com/electromagnets-for-sale.html

19434

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: The Exclusive Biological nature of Evolution via the natural selection :

« on: 05/09/2013 23:10:38 »

there are  also no such things as good and evil as such either ...

At last, a glimmer of rational thought.

19435

New Theories / Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?

« on: 05/09/2013 23:07:01 »

You are asking me about an issue which was largely debatted in that other thread " What's the real origin of the scientific method ?" you even happened to participate in , ironically enough .
So, be serious and stop this uninformed non-sense of yours ,please , if you wanna be taken seriously at least

For as long as you argue by assertion, refer to supernatural authority, or refuse to define the subject you want to discuss, that won't happen. At least not in a science forum.

19436

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is infinity an illusion?

« on: 05/09/2013 23:02:12 »

Yes.

19437

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How does nuclear power work?

« on: 05/09/2013 21:02:54 »

True, but they are worried about coastal fisheries in the area, fish being very important in the Japanese diet and psyche.

Except that the local fishing industry was destroyed by the tsunami.

19438

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How does nuclear power work?

« on: 05/09/2013 21:00:49 »

For details on nuclear fission see http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/nuclear_fission.htm

That site explains why mass is not converted into energy.

...apart, that is,  from two small problems. (a) the mass sum of the fission products depicted is less than the initial mass, so some matter must have gone somewhere and (b) no neutrons were emitted, so there can be no chain reaction and the fire will go out. Probably not the most authoritative reference on nuclear fission in power reactors.

19439

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How to calculate explosive pressure in confined spaces?

« on: 05/09/2013 19:43:15 »

Nitrocellulose as mentioned by distimpson, has a sensible flame rate which can be optimised with additives to suit the projectile and barrel dimensions

http://www.google.com/patents/EP0608488A1?cl=en

19440

New Theories / Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?

« on: 05/09/2013 07:48:28 »

Come on : if that was the case : how ,on earth , was it possible then that the early muslims "invented " and practiced science ,mainly thanks to that Qur'anic epistemology on the subject .?

"Thanks to" or "despite"?

The essence of science is that there is no supernatural or revealed authority: the very opposite of all religions.