Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 26 Oct 2006 11:43 On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 08:13:35 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>Sure, it's like a higher-order polynomial being a better fit than a >>simpler one. Newton's equations lack some small high-order terms. >>Einstein's are better. > >No, the comparison of Newtonian and Einsteinian theories of gravity is >not at all like that. To say that Einstein's GR theory is "like a >higher-order polynomial being a better fit than a simpler one" of >Newton's is appalling. You could not possibly be further away from >describing their relationship. Why appalling? If you used the GR expression for the gravitational attraction of two point masses as a function of distance, and applied it to small masses at large distances (like, say, all our planets but Mercury) some terms would be so small as to be OK to ignore, and you'd wind up with Newton's equation. That's exactly the same effect as dropping high-order terms in a polynomial curve fit. OK, be appalled if it makes you happy, if indeed anything ever makes you happy. You are beginning to argue against what I say not because it's not valid, but because you don't like me. Most cool. I wonder how far I could extend this process. John
From: John Larkin on 26 Oct 2006 11:59 On 24 Oct 2006 07:40:55 -0700, "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >The nuclear power industry has a history of making false promices and >screwing up badly. As a result the idea of making a new power plant >isn't very popular. Strangley enough research into the theory that >makes them go is still fairly popular. This may be a good thing >because a "new generation of safe power plants" may just sell. Current-gen boiling water plants have been remarkably safe. I don't think a single person has been killed by nuclear radiation from a US commercial power plant; TMI was estimated to have caused something like 0.05 probable cancers. Compare that to the deaths on oil rigs and coal mines. The real deaths from nuclear plants is among uranium miners. Nukes just have an undeserved bad reputation among the public. John
From: lucasea on 26 Oct 2006 10:22 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehq4uh$8ss_015(a)s783.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <1161700163.343842.50780(a)h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, > "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> What I'm more concerned about is the Democrats' and others' complete >>> silence about nuclear power plants which is the most important >>> action that can be taken right now. >> >>.... so I type the words "democrat" and "nuclear" into google and the >>very first page that comes up reads: >>******** >>WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 (UPI) -- Democrats from Iowa to powerful members of >>Congress are endorsing more nuclear power in the United States, often >>to combat climate change or dependence on oil, but critics say it's a >>shortsighted venture. >>*********** > > Interesting. Can you do a traceback of where that item came from? > I haven't heard a single Democrat say those words. That's because you selectively choose to remain ignorant of what people (especially Democrats) have actually done and said. > Sorry. Would you believe that, before I got sick, I very rarely > made spelling and typos? No, because those usually go along with the logic errors you're also in the habit of making. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 26 Oct 2006 10:21 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehq4nm$8ss_014(a)s783.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <1161700854.976916.304350(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >> >>Eeyore wrote: >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> > "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >>> > >T Wake wrote: >>> > > >>> > >[... democrats ...] >>> > >> They don't talk about what measures they will take to prevent alien >>> > >> attacks >>> > > >>> > >If we imagine that they have some ideas, we can also see reasons why >>> > >they may not want the other side to hear of them. >>> > > >>> > >Also a great deal has been said about the risk of something nasty >>> > >coming in in a cargo container. Democrats have suggested better >>> > >inspection as part of the answer to this so it isn't true that they >>> > >haven't said anything. Unfortunately, the inspection needs to happen >>> > >at the shipping end not the recieving. The ports are places you >>> > >wouldn't want a nuke to go off. >>> > >>> > What I'm more concerned about is the Democrats' and others' complete >>> > silence about nuclear power plants which is the most important >>> > action that can be taken right now. Only the person known >>> > as President Bush is even uttering those nouns. >>> > >>> > It says that Connecticut has submitted a request for a permit >>> > to open a plant. We'll see what the will of these politicians >>> > is. >>> >>> What on earth are you talking about ? >> >>The discussion seems to have turned to the idea of making more nuclear >>power plants. One way to make the country more secure is to not have >>to import large amounts of oil. What does nuclear power have to do with oil imports? You need to educate yourself on how the US currently generates its power. > Thank you for writing this clearly. What are you talking about, he's not even thinking clearly. What does nuclear power have to do with oil? >>The nuclear power industry has a history of making false promices and >>screwing up badly. As a result the idea of making a new power plant >>isn't very popular. Strangley enough research into the theory that >>makes them go is still fairly popular. This may be a good thing >>because a "new generation of safe power plants" may just sell. > > The only person who is willing to say those "bad" words, nuclear > power plant, is Bush. And the only reason he's uttering them is as a smokescreen. It has absolutely nothing to do with oil. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 26 Oct 2006 10:27
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehq5g7$8qk_001(a)s783.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <wlr%g.21222$e66.19412(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ehkth3$8qk_002(a)s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <1161448269.254202.18890(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, >>> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>T Wake wrote: >>>> >>>>[... democrats ...] >>>>> They don't talk about what measures they will take to prevent alien >>>>> attacks >>>> >>>>If we imagine that they have some ideas, we can also see reasons why >>>>they may not want the other side to hear of them. >>>> >>>>Also a great deal has been said about the risk of something nasty >>>>coming in in a cargo container. Democrats have suggested better >>>>inspection as part of the answer to this so it isn't true that they >>>>haven't said anything. Unfortunately, the inspection needs to happen >>>>at the shipping end not the recieving. The ports are places you >>>>wouldn't want a nuke to go off. >>> >>> What I'm more concerned about is the Democrats' and others' complete >>> silence about nuclear power plants which is the most important >>> action that can be taken right now. Only the person known >>> as President Bush is even uttering those nouns. >> >>Because they're another smokescreen to try to keep people from focusing on >>the real issues. As I mentioned several times, and you've refuse to >>address, less than 3 % of our national electric power comes from >>pretroleum. >>Since we only import about 2/3 of our petroleum, apportioning imports >>across >>all uses leaves about 2 % of our electric power coming from imported oil. >>Since only about half of our oil comes from the traditional Muslim nations >>that might cause us trouble (fully 1/3 of our imported oil comes from >>Canada >>and Mexico), that's down to about 1 % of our total electric power grid >>that >>is at risk. You would truly never notice that if it went off-line, as >>coal- >>and natural gas-fired power plants would easily take up that small amount >>of >>slack. > > Those numbers sound too low. I've been paying an oil surcharge > for years (on my electric bill). Well, I can't help that. They are the numbers from the US Department of Energy, from 2005. >>No, nuclear power plants have nothing to do with petroleum dependence on >>Muslim nations, as you imply. They do, however, have to do with the >>future >>of electric power in this country, once coal and natural gas run out. > > Exactly. So why aren't politicians talking about it in their > campaigns? Because the timeline for that is something like 400 years. >>However, between them, the reserve is estimated at well over 400 years, > > What reserve are you talking about? Why are you being so totally obtuse. The domestic coal and natural gas reserves that are currently about 97 % of the fossil fuel source for electricity. >>so >>it's clearly not a big issue in this election as Bush would have us >>believe. > > Bush isn't making this an issue. ***I AM****. There's no reason to. You're tilting at another windmill. > I don't a single > long-range plan sound bite out of any of these idiots' mouths. > > Sorry, we had yet another governor debate last night. > >>Where did you get your talking points, if not from the RNC--certainly not >>from any analysis of actual information. > > I think them up. With no basis in actual fact, I see. >>> It says that Connecticut has submitted a request for a permit >>> to open a plant. >> >>Great, I'm all for it personally. However, it has nothing to do with the >>quality of elected officials. > > Yes. It does. Do you even know about long-range planning of > infrastructure? Uh...long range planning doesn't go out 400 years. > It exists. People in my state have eliminated it from their vocabulary. > I don't think they even have it in their fairy tales. What exactly are you insisting they plan for, that includes nuclear power? Think clearly--it'll help you sort out and understand all the issues that you only have a very fuzzy, cloudy knowledge of . Eric Lucas |