Ask a physicist anything. (7)

[Tuddrussell]

I'm pretty sure that any side effects will hit the people who aren't in top shape a lot harder, and I see no problem with an adult making an informed decision to subject themselves to any possible side effects.

Forcing soldiers to do it is wrong, but if they want it who are we to deny them?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No, I am not saying that "governments should do more to curb the effects of climate change."

Why not?

I am saying that they are giving us a questionable reason to ket them raise Taxes.

The threat of climate change is sufficient reason to pile taxes on those businesses with dirty emissions, and tax relief on those businesses that have cleaner practices (e.g., lower taxes for those whose company cars have lower carbon emissions).

AND, they are not talking to us about how they will be restricted to use the Tax to remediate the warming problem.

Look at the budget. If the incoming taxes is approximately equal to outgoing expenses, then they've restricted themselves. If tax money from 'climate change' taxes exceeds those expenses aimed at curbing climate change, then they've not restricted themselves.

I AM implying that the private Sector is now paying 50% taxes, and that is way more than we paid the British.

So?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Isaiah 34:4 All the stars of the heavens will be dissolved and the sky rolled up like a scroll; all the starry host will fall like withered leaves from the vine, like shriveled figs from the fig tree.


What could possibly cause such a phenomena such as this?

No known phenomenon could cause these. Optical illusions and extremely advanced technology could project such an image onto the sky and give that illusion, or CGI could create a film that made it look like it happened - but nothing we know of could actually cause it.

If we move from the literal to the figurative, then it becomes more possible. The metric expansion of spacetime will, to some, lead to the entropic death of the universe - the stars will not dissolve, but will diffuse into the emptiness of space, unable to coalesce one by one. The sky rolling up, and the 'starry host' falling like leaves or figs, I don't know how that could be twisted to fit any real-world phenomenon.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Why can't we have text messages that send tastes and smells instead of just boring words?

Like, if I'm away from my girlfriend and she just showered and I want to smell her awesome cucumber melon hair, why can't she send it to me in a scent message? What gives, physicists?

Words are patterns of material that can be recreated using any sort of molecule. Smells and tastes are particular to single molecules - you can't recreate the smell of cucumber melon shampooed hair with anything other than the specific array of molecules that emanate from your girlfriend's head after application of said shampoo.

To do that, every phone would need a sufficiently large bank of every odour molecule that could conceivably be 'smell-texted' (smelted?), and since odour molecules are unimaginably varied, it would make the phone exceedingly large.

To 'text' a particular smell, you would need a way to be able to recreate at least the sensation of a very particular array of molecules (not just one, but several molecules in the right proportion). If you could do this by some other, effectively infinitely repeatable method, then you have a revolution on your hands.

Interestingly, this can be done, to a degree. Assuming the person is so trained, you can 'hit' them with an image or sound (which are infinitely repeatable) that induces the memorised sensation of a taste or smell - I've recollected a fantastic tasting dessert from the memory of potato waffles, and was baffled for years. It turned out that you can get sweet waffles made of pastry (or something), and it was that that I was remembering. Of course, it's very hard to be able to force someone to recollect a particular smell or taste using audio-visual associative memory, especially without knowing how their brain has linked the tastes and smells and sights and sounds all together.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I'm pretty sure that any side effects will hit the people who aren't in top shape a lot harder, and I see no problem with an adult making an informed decision to subject themselves to any possible side effects.

Forcing soldiers to do it is wrong, but if they want it who are we to deny them?

The same argument could surely be made for all sorts of highly dangerous drugs - heroine, cocaine, crystal meth, etc. Do you advocate the free use of these, too? Not that I'm disagreeing with you as such, I just want to see how far you'd go to get Captain America

 

[Tuddrussell]

I have no problems with people doing drugs exactly, they're free to do whatever they want to themselves. It's when this effects others that it becomes a problem.

People should have the right to engest whatever they want, and for whatever reason. However that should not excuse them from the consequence of doing so.

Hard drugs should be legalised, but heavilly regulated. Like alcohol and tobacco are now.

People cause mayhem, harm others, and destroy their bodies on perfectly legal drugs already.

The difference between the "hard" drugs and the "soft" drugs is largely trivial and dependant more on societal veiws.

Really it's a lot like the claiming that "ass" is a harder swear than "butt." They mean roughly the same thing, and ass actually has the excuse of being a perfectly acceptable synonym for donkey.

My point: It's already illegal to do illegal things while under the influence of any drug, all the drug laws are doing is wasting millions of tax dollars to kick people when they're down to no real positive effect.

Treatment is always better than punishment.

 

[mzungu]

(smelted?),

Smelled or smelt are both correct although in British English speaking countries smelt is more common! Do not confuse with the smelt as in smelting iron ore!

 

[cupid dave]

Originally Posted by cupid dave
No, I am not saying that "governments should do more to curb the effects of climate change."

Why not?

Originally Posted by cupid dave
I am saying that they are giving us a questionable reason to ket them raise Taxes.


The threat of climate change is sufficient reason to pile taxes on those businesses with dirty emissions, and tax relief on those businesses that have cleaner practices (e.g., lower taxes for those whose company cars have lower carbon emissions).

Originally Posted by cupid dave
AND, they are not talking to us about how they will be restricted to use the Tax to remediate the warming problem.


Look at the budget. If the incoming taxes is approximately equal to outgoing expenses, then they've restricted themselves. If tax money from 'climate change' taxes exceeds those expenses aimed at curbing climate change, then they've not restricted themselves.

Originally Posted by cupid dave
I AM implying that the private Sector is now paying 50% taxes, and that is way more than we paid the British.

So?

Why not?

Because we did this same thing with Soc Sec.

The Politicians spent the pensioners' money and the Politicians are now complaining it is getting too hard to pay him his benefits.

 

[Chalnoth]

I'm pretty sure that any side effects will hit the people who aren't in top shape a lot harder,

I don't see why you would think that. And anyway, the reason why we are comfortable with having medicine that has significant negative side effects is that the positives are so much better. Chemotherapy, for example, is horribly poisonous and very damaging to the body. And yet, it is very much worth it if it's going to let you survive cancer.

and I see no problem with an adult making an informed decision to subject themselves to any possible side effects.

And do you really believe that would happen? If the government and military found it useful, they would find a way to coerce soldiers to do it regardless. If you really think that the military would be honest here, you need to look at what the US military has done to its own soldiers.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I have no problems with people doing drugs exactly, they're free to do whatever they want to themselves. It's when this effects others that it becomes a problem.

People should have the right to engest whatever they want, and for whatever reason. However that should not excuse them from the consequence of doing so.

Hard drugs should be legalised, but heavilly regulated. Like alcohol and tobacco are now.

If we're going to heavily regulate them, why not ban them outright? If we want to encourage people to not use them, a ban seems like the most assertive way of saying "Don't do drugs".

People cause mayhem, harm others, and destroy their bodies on perfectly legal drugs already.

Which highlights the hypocrisy of drug laws - tobacco and alcohol are largely legal, but arguably do worse than some illegal drugs like cannabis. But that hypocrisy can be solved by the other extreme - complete prohibition.

The difference between the "hard" drugs and the "soft" drugs is largely trivial and dependant more on societal veiws.

Really it's a lot like the claiming that "ass" is a harder swear than "butt." They mean roughly the same thing, and ass actually has the excuse of being a perfectly acceptable synonym for donkey.

My point: It's already illegal to do illegal things while under the influence of any drug, all the drug laws are doing is wasting millions of tax dollars to kick people when they're down to no real positive effect.

Because those tax dollars are being pooled into fighting soft drug use and victimless crime - but hard drugs, like cocaine runs and heroine production, do cause and encourage harm. If they were legally manufactured, that might abate a lot of the harm from illegal production, but the actual side-effects of use would still be there.

I suppose it's like legalising guns. It's all very well and good to say "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", but the statistics still tell us that 'free gun' societies have much higher levels of gun crime than 'no gun' societies. So, which is better - a society where people don't die of violence, or a society where people have free access to whatever they want? And yes, I'm aware of how biased I've worded that question

Treatment is always better than punishment.

Isn't punishment always a form of treatment?

 

[cupid dave]

Zippy the Wonderslug
Isaiah 34:4 All the stars of the heavens will be dissolved and the sky rolled up like a scroll; all the starry host will fall like withered leaves from the vine, like shriveled figs from the fig tree.


What could possibly cause such a phenomena such as this?

No known phenomenon could cause these.

If we move from the literal to the figurative, then it becomes more possible.

EXACTLY.
The ideas are expressed artistically and as hyperbole:



Note: Catholic Encyclopedia:
With the overthrow of the old Roman Empire and the victory of Christianity, (legally the only church in the whole Empire by 380 AD), astrology lost its importance in the centers of Christian civilization in the West. The last known astrologer of the old world was Johannes Laurentius (sometimes called Lydus) of Philadelphia in Lydia, who lived A.D. 490-565.

Rev. 6:12 And I beheld, (in the days of Emperor Theodocius, who established the Holy Roman, Catholic, Apostolic Church, on 27 February 380), when he, (the Lamb of the tribe of Judah, the off-spring of the root of David: [Rev 5:5]), had opened the sixth seal of (scripture), and, lo, there was a great earthquake (of religious social change); and the Sun (signs of Astrology) became (as) black as (the) sackcloth of (the hood covering a nun's) hair, and the moon became as blood (of Christ, used thereafter to determine the very day of the Easter and Passover).

Rev. 6:13 And the stars' (twelve constellations of Sun Signs) of heaven fell (from popular grace) unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, (ruined), when she is (destructively) shaken of a mighty wind.

Rev. 6:14 And (Astrology) departed (from popular practice) as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every (Pagan religion, secret society, and Gnosticism) were moved out of their places (in the pagan societies throughout all the Roman World).

Rev. 6:15 And (1) the kings of the earth, (POLITICIANS), and (2) the great men, (STATESMEN), and (3) the rich men, (ECONOMIC BARONS), and (4) the chief captains, (pagan PRIESTHOODS), and (5) the mighty men, (MILITARY LEADERS), and (7) every free man, (PEASANT), hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the (institutionalized) mountains (of that pagan society);


Rev. 6:16 And said to the mountains (of the previous decadent, hedonistic social institutions) and rocks (of that wide-open, sexually promiscuous culture), "Fall on us," (help!), and "hide us from the face (of Papal judgment) of (Universal Catholicism), him that sitteth on the throne (of Christian Rome) and from the (words of) wrath of the Lamb," (the Word of the New Testament, canonized in 382AD):

Rev. 6:17 For the great day of his wrath, (the one thousand year reign predicted), is come; and who, (what other God, or religion, or denomination), shall be able to stand (during these Dark Ages)?

 

[Chalnoth]

If we're going to heavily regulate them, why not ban them outright?

Because banning leads to all sorts of other problems that regulation doesn't. Banning creates a black market, and with it lots and lots of violence. Banning eliminates the ability of the government to effectively regulate access to drugs for minors (it is often easier for minors to get marijuana, and sometimes even harder drugs, than it is for them to get cigarettes or alcohol). Banning also ends up ruining peoples' lives for no other reason than they decided to make a bad choice with their body (for example, if you ever get a felony drug conviction, such as carrying a small amount of cocaine over a state border, and nobody will ever hire you again).

Basically, banning is completely nonsensical. We should treat all drugs like we treat cigarettes and alcohol, more or less (especially considering that those two are in many instances more dangerous).

 

[cupid dave]

Because banning leads to all sorts of other problems that regulation doesn't. Banning creates a black market, and with it lots and lots of violence. Banning eliminates the ability of the government to effectively regulate access to drugs for minors (it is often easier for minors to get marijuana, and sometimes even harder drugs, than it is for them to get cigarettes or alcohol). Banning also ends up ruining peoples' lives for no other reason than they decided to make a bad choice with their body (for example, if you ever get a felony drug conviction, such as carrying a small amount of cocaine over a state border, and nobody will ever hire you again).

Basically, banning is completely nonsensical. We should treat all drugs like we treat cigarettes and alcohol, more or less (especially considering that those two are in many instances more dangerous).

Drug dealers disappear COMPLETELY from inter city muslim controlled neighborhoods.
Pwehaps what America needs is a strong and massive Christian revival that embraces and supports the example of muslim behaviors, in spite of theolofical differences?
They seem to go to the weak lazy cowardly Christian neighborhoods.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Why not?

Because we did this same thing with Soc Sec.

The Politicians spent the pensioners' money and the Politicians are now complaining it is getting too hard to pay him his benefits.

Which is a failing of the politician, not the science. Climate change is occurring, and extra funds will be needed curb it. So long as the government is enacting climate-change policies that spend a sufficient amount of taxpayer's money (as deducible from the Federal Budget), then I don't see what it is you're so worried about.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Drug dealers disappear COMPLETELY from inter city muslim controlled neighborhoods.

Such as?

Pwehaps what America needs is a strong and massive Christian revival that embraces and supports the example of muslim behaviors, in spite of theolofical differences?
They seem to go to the weak lazy cowardly Christian neighborhoods.

Why does it have to be a religious revival? Why not, as per the ideals of the Founding Fathers, a secular revival, embraced by people of all religions and none? I would have thought it's easier for a US Christian to embrace a secular idea over a Muslim one.

 

[cupid dave]

Which is a failing of the politician, not the science. Climate change is occurring, and extra funds will be needed curb it. So long as the government is enacting climate-change policies that spend a sufficient amount of taxpayer's money (as deducible from the Federal Budget), then I don't see what it is you're so worried about.

That has been my point, totally.

The Politicians are USING the science for the purpose of increasing their authority and control over our pocket books.

Good science would create a Trust Fund and start calculating costs of projects to remediate the consequences of what they predict.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Note: Catholic Encyclopedia:
With the overthrow of the old Roman Empire and the victory of Christianity, (legally the only church in the whole Empire by 380 AD), astrology lost its importance in the centers of Christian civilization in the West. The last known astrologer of the old world was Johannes Laurentius (sometimes called Lydus) of Philadelphia in Lydia, who lived A.D. 490-565.

Rev. 6:12 And I beheld, (in the days of Emperor Theodocius, who established the Holy Roman, Catholic, Apostolic Church, on 27 February 380), when he, (the Lamb of the tribe of Judah, the off-spring of the root of David: [Rev 5:5]), had opened the sixth seal of (scripture), and, lo, there was a great earthquake (of religious social change); and the Sun (signs of Astrology) became (as) black as (the) sackcloth of (the hood covering a nun's) hair, and the moon became as blood (of Christ, used thereafter to determine the very day of the Easter and Passover).

Rev. 6:13 And the stars' (twelve constellations of Sun Signs) of heaven fell (from popular grace) unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, (ruined), when she is (destructively) shaken of a mighty wind.

Rev. 6:14 And (Astrology) departed (from popular practice) as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every (Pagan religion, secret society, and Gnosticism) were moved out of their places (in the pagan societies throughout all the Roman World).

Rev. 6:15 And (1) the kings of the earth, (POLITICIANS), and (2) the great men, (STATESMEN), and (3) the rich men, (ECONOMIC BARONS), and (4) the chief captains, (pagan PRIESTHOODS), and (5) the mighty men, (MILITARY LEADERS), and (7) every free man, (PEASANT), hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the (institutionalized) mountains (of that pagan society);


Rev. 6:16 And said to the mountains (of the previous decadent, hedonistic social institutions) and rocks (of that wide-open, sexually promiscuous culture), "Fall on us," (help!), and "hide us from the face (of Papal judgment) of (Universal Catholicism), him that sitteth on the throne (of Christian Rome) and from the (words of) wrath of the Lamb," (the Word of the New Testament, canonized in 382AD):

Rev. 6:17 For the great day of his wrath, (the one thousand year reign predicted), is come; and who, (what other God, or religion, or denomination), shall be able to stand (during these Dark Ages)?

Is this commentary from the Catholic Encyclopaedia? This text seems to be from this page, so I'm not sure what's what.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That has been my point, totally.

The Politicians are USING the science for the purpose of increasing their authority and control over our pocket books.

Are they doing anything other than both raising taxes and making equal expenses in the name of combating combatting climate change?

Good science would create a Trust Fund and start calculating costs of projects to remediate the consequences of what they predict.

Science tells us what's what. It doesn't tell us what we should do if we want to change what's what. Whether or not we should create a trust fund shouldn't be determined by climatologists, but rather by economists and (in part) politicians.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Because banning leads to all sorts of other problems that regulation doesn't. Banning creates a black market, and with it lots and lots of violence. Banning eliminates the ability of the government to effectively regulate access to drugs for minors (it is often easier for minors to get marijuana, and sometimes even harder drugs, than it is for them to get cigarettes or alcohol). Banning also ends up ruining peoples' lives for no other reason than they decided to make a bad choice with their body (for example, if you ever get a felony drug conviction, such as carrying a small amount of cocaine over a state border, and nobody will ever hire you again).

Basically, banning is completely nonsensical. We should treat all drugs like we treat cigarettes and alcohol, more or less (especially considering that those two are in many instances more dangerous).

I agree. Prohibition wouldn't solve anything, and would drive the problem underground where it can't be regulated, or taxed (apparently, a massive amount of money is there to be had it cannabis is legalised).

 

[Nostromo]

Drug dealers disappear COMPLETELY from inter city muslim controlled neighborhoods.

As someone with a lot of experience living in inner city majority muslim neighbourhoods I can assure you that's not true in the slightest.