I fail to see this positive trend. No astronauts were killed during any of the Mercury, Gemini or Apollo space flights. (Though 3 were killed during a testing procedure in the Apollo program.) 14 have been killed in Space Shuttle space flights.
TFA is wrong when it says the black zone is the first 60 seconds. TFReport says the black zone is the second 30 seconds. 10 seconds on either side of that are the danger zones.
Ironically perhaps, this black zone is centered around the moment of maximum dynamic pressure... the same moment when the challenger disintegration began.
1) None of the accounts of Jesus in the Bible (or the accounts that were not included in the Bible) suggest that Jesus ever engaged in carpentry.
2) You are wrong to imply that Jesus in any way suggested that the Pentateuch aside from the 10 commandments is not the word from God. He taught about marriage from Genesis. He taught two of his disciples on the road to Emmaus how the things in the Pentateuch actually referred to him. When he was fasting in the desert for 40 days he defended himself against the devil using words from Deuteronomy.
This is also where some anti-creationists get confused... thinking that if the explained components of evolution can be demonstrated to produce speciation (however one want to define that), then "macroevolution" as a whole has been demonstrated. But the criticism of evolution (by creationists and non-creationists) is its ability to adequately explain things like the development of new organs. This is obviously a separate issue from the ability of two separated groups to become differently colored and stop interbreeding.
Water can also absorb and emit microwaves, radio waves and x-rays; but in the context of earth meteorology, you're probably right that water is going to be in temperature ranges where it is going to be emitting mostly IR.
I just wonder... when New York is under a half mile of ice and 100 miles from the nearest ocean again, are these same "scientists" going to pushing for carbon taxes to stop global warming.
Isn't global warming what got us out of the ice age?
It's probably better to say that global warming was the getting out of the ice age. The climate got warmer, wetter, and less icy. The problem is we really have no idea what drove that global warming -- other than it was not the accumulation of greenhouse gases.
I honestly don't worry about slow temperature increases. Sudden temperature drops are another matter.
I complete agree with that. Even the most ridiculous global warming scenario can't begin to compete with a scenario where an ice sheet covers almost all of North America and global precipitation is decreased by 90%... something that has happened in the past, as regular as clockwork.
Here's the essay that I'm pretty certain "The Day After Tomorrow" is based on; it certainly predates it.
The biggest problem on the face of that theory is it says that the interglacial periods end because of a megastorm caused by certain conditions including "that the Earth be at or near perihelion...at the time of the northern winter solstice." Aside from the question of how that condition is going cause a megastorm, that condition happens on a 23,000 year cycle. A 23,000 year cycle is indeed contained in the ebbs and flows of glaciation, however, the interglacial periods (and the ends of interglacial periods and return of the glacial periods) happen on a 100,000 year cycle. The 100,000 year cycle corresponds to the change in the eccentricity in the earth's orbit... the one orbital parameter that should have the least impact upon the climate according to our (obviously flawed) understanding.
I don't think it's a matter of tissues "adapting", but of specializing. As I understand it, there are DNA edits that take place at every step of leucocyte specialization. I'm not at all surprised that it would happen with other cells as well.
This could be the missing phenomenon behind the ice age cycle. If so, we can forget about global warming -- we're on our way to reglaciation. It had to happen sooner or later.
What is far more interesting to me about the Vinland map than the inclusion of "vinland" is the rather large island directly west of the the Strait of Gibraltar, exactly coinciding with Plato's description of the position of Atlantis.
All you need is the right kind of printer to produce a few creates of fraudulent votes in a paper-voting system.
In a secure electronic system, with a proper security protocol, you would need access to a network of supercomputers to crack the encryption algorithm.
The report does not say that an abort will be fatal any time within the first minute. It says that an abort will be fatal any time between 30 and 60 seconds. Aborts before 30 seconds are survivable -- although it says that aborts between 20 and 75 seconds are still in the danger area. The variable in question is dynamic pressure. Between 20 and 75 seconds dynamic pressure is over 3 psi. Between 30 and 60 seconds dynamic pressure is over 5 psi.
I am a rocket scientist. The Orion does have an escape motor.
Is it just me, or do other non-rocket-scientists find it bizarre to use the term "motor" for something that doesn't spin? When rocket scientists shoot off bottle rockets, do they say, "light the motor"? When they're at the target range and they have a bad round that won't fire, do they say, "I guess that one has a bad motor"? I know etymologically a motor should be able to be anything that imparts motion, but it seems odd to apply it to, say, a bow that imparts motion to an arrow by bending.
I think part of the problem is the letter "r", which gives it a feeling of roundness or rotation, like a rotor. It only exists in the english word because of the particular declination of the latin it was taken from ("movere"). In the latin, unlike the english, the "r" is only part of the suffix (which make it the present active infinitive), so it doesn't have implication for the root meaning.
Only a purely liquid propellant vehicle that could be shutdown immediately on activating of the escape motor could avoid this problem.
Why can't the direction of of main rocket be changed quickly enough -- such as by a tiny emergency redirection rocket near the top -- so that the main rocket, while still accelerating, will be accelerating in a different direction than the escape motor?
Having looked up its origins, I know that the story of the tooth fairy was not based on any real-life entity. I don't know how that is similar to knowing that evolution is not intelligently motivated. That seems like it would be extremely important knowledge. Isn't it reasonable that we should be able to ask where that knowledge comes from?
Fair enough. The OPs phrasing was poor. He should've said "there is no evidence for intelligent motivation behind evolution".
That said, God in the Gaps is not a theory. The statement "there is no evidence for the lack of intelligent motivation behind evolution", which is what you're advocating, is silly and pointless. There's also no evidence for the lack of a teapot orbiting between earth and mars, but I don't believe in that, either. It's nothing more than magical thinking. And that's what the AC I was responding to was defending, and what I strenuously object to.
I am not trying to present a theory of God. An intelligent motivation behind evolution doesn't even necessarily have to be from God. All I am trying to do is defend the idea that we should distinguish what we know from what we are ignorant of.
As for lack of evidence, the whole point of the OP making the statement was to preface what at least appeared to be indicative of that very thing. The analogy would be to say, "I know there is no giant teapot orbiting mars, but there is a giant shadow of a teapot crossing mars at the moment." The rational next question should be, "well how do you know there is no giant teapot orbiting mars?" If there is evidence for the teapot, it should then be weight against the evidence against it. At the very least, a person shouldn't restrain their thinking because of knowledge they only imagine themselves to have.
As for the term "magical thinking", I do not think that means what you think it means. It generally means applying causation without an intermediary. Claiming a belief in a teapot orbiting mars would not be "magical thinking", it would just be an unfounded belief. Claiming that events occurring on the surface of mars caused it to rain in New York today would be "magical thinking", because it claims a causal relationship without any sort of intermediary interaction between the two.
Slashdot Mirror
I see a major motion picture with Tom Hanks and Gary Sinise.
I fail to see this positive trend. No astronauts were killed during any of the Mercury, Gemini or Apollo space flights. (Though 3 were killed during a testing procedure in the Apollo program.) 14 have been killed in Space Shuttle space flights.
TFA is wrong when it says the black zone is the first 60 seconds. TFReport says the black zone is the second 30 seconds. 10 seconds on either side of that are the danger zones.
Ironically perhaps, this black zone is centered around the moment of maximum dynamic pressure... the same moment when the challenger disintegration began.
I move to amend the US Constitution to include Deuteronomy 21:18-21.
1) None of the accounts of Jesus in the Bible (or the accounts that were not included in the Bible) suggest that Jesus ever engaged in carpentry.
2) You are wrong to imply that Jesus in any way suggested that the Pentateuch aside from the 10 commandments is not the word from God. He taught about marriage from Genesis. He taught two of his disciples on the road to Emmaus how the things in the Pentateuch actually referred to him. When he was fasting in the desert for 40 days he defended himself against the devil using words from Deuteronomy.
This is also where some anti-creationists get confused... thinking that if the explained components of evolution can be demonstrated to produce speciation (however one want to define that), then "macroevolution" as a whole has been demonstrated. But the criticism of evolution (by creationists and non-creationists) is its ability to adequately explain things like the development of new organs. This is obviously a separate issue from the ability of two separated groups to become differently colored and stop interbreeding.
Water can also absorb and emit microwaves, radio waves and x-rays; but in the context of earth meteorology, you're probably right that water is going to be in temperature ranges where it is going to be emitting mostly IR.
Historically speaking, global warming generally means wetter just about everywhere. Global cooling generally means dryer just about everywhere.
I just wonder... when New York is under a half mile of ice and 100 miles from the nearest ocean again, are these same "scientists" going to pushing for carbon taxes to stop global warming.
Water doesn't just radiate in the IR frequency range. It radiates (and absorbs) in nearly every frequency range except for visible light and UV.
It's probably better to say that global warming was the getting out of the ice age. The climate got warmer, wetter, and less icy. The problem is we really have no idea what drove that global warming -- other than it was not the accumulation of greenhouse gases.
I complete agree with that. Even the most ridiculous global warming scenario can't begin to compete with a scenario where an ice sheet covers almost all of North America and global precipitation is decreased by 90%... something that has happened in the past, as regular as clockwork.
The biggest problem on the face of that theory is it says that the interglacial periods end because of a megastorm caused by certain conditions including "that the Earth be at or near perihelion...at the time of the northern winter solstice." Aside from the question of how that condition is going cause a megastorm, that condition happens on a 23,000 year cycle. A 23,000 year cycle is indeed contained in the ebbs and flows of glaciation, however, the interglacial periods (and the ends of interglacial periods and return of the glacial periods) happen on a 100,000 year cycle. The 100,000 year cycle corresponds to the change in the eccentricity in the earth's orbit... the one orbital parameter that should have the least impact upon the climate according to our (obviously flawed) understanding.
I don't think it's a matter of tissues "adapting", but of specializing. As I understand it, there are DNA edits that take place at every step of leucocyte specialization. I'm not at all surprised that it would happen with other cells as well.
Just because there is "nothing magic" doesn't imply that we will ever understand it all.
This could be the missing phenomenon behind the ice age cycle. If so, we can forget about global warming -- we're on our way to reglaciation. It had to happen sooner or later.
Global warming is supposed to make it hotter and wetter, not hotter and drier.
What is far more interesting to me about the Vinland map than the inclusion of "vinland" is the rather large island directly west of the the Strait of Gibraltar, exactly coinciding with Plato's description of the position of Atlantis.
If you reject evidence simply because it is incompatible with what you "know", how do you expect to ever improve your knowledge?
Doesn't look like Newfoundland at all to me. It looks like the Labrador Peninsula plus the area above the opening to the Hudson Bay.
Democracy is simply rule by the most effective propagandist.
All you need is the right kind of printer to produce a few creates of fraudulent votes in a paper-voting system.
In a secure electronic system, with a proper security protocol, you would need access to a network of supercomputers to crack the encryption algorithm.
The latter is significantly harder.
The report does not say that an abort will be fatal any time within the first minute. It says that an abort will be fatal any time between 30 and 60 seconds. Aborts before 30 seconds are survivable -- although it says that aborts between 20 and 75 seconds are still in the danger area. The variable in question is dynamic pressure. Between 20 and 75 seconds dynamic pressure is over 3 psi. Between 30 and 60 seconds dynamic pressure is over 5 psi.
Is it just me, or do other non-rocket-scientists find it bizarre to use the term "motor" for something that doesn't spin? When rocket scientists shoot off bottle rockets, do they say, "light the motor"? When they're at the target range and they have a bad round that won't fire, do they say, "I guess that one has a bad motor"? I know etymologically a motor should be able to be anything that imparts motion, but it seems odd to apply it to, say, a bow that imparts motion to an arrow by bending.
I think part of the problem is the letter "r", which gives it a feeling of roundness or rotation, like a rotor. It only exists in the english word because of the particular declination of the latin it was taken from ("movere"). In the latin, unlike the english, the "r" is only part of the suffix (which make it the present active infinitive), so it doesn't have implication for the root meaning.
Why can't the direction of of main rocket be changed quickly enough -- such as by a tiny emergency redirection rocket near the top -- so that the main rocket, while still accelerating, will be accelerating in a different direction than the escape motor?
That is knowledge from observation.
Having looked up its origins, I know that the story of the tooth fairy was not based on any real-life entity. I don't know how that is similar to knowing that evolution is not intelligently motivated. That seems like it would be extremely important knowledge. Isn't it reasonable that we should be able to ask where that knowledge comes from?
I am not trying to present a theory of God. An intelligent motivation behind evolution doesn't even necessarily have to be from God. All I am trying to do is defend the idea that we should distinguish what we know from what we are ignorant of.
As for lack of evidence, the whole point of the OP making the statement was to preface what at least appeared to be indicative of that very thing. The analogy would be to say, "I know there is no giant teapot orbiting mars, but there is a giant shadow of a teapot crossing mars at the moment." The rational next question should be, "well how do you know there is no giant teapot orbiting mars?" If there is evidence for the teapot, it should then be weight against the evidence against it. At the very least, a person shouldn't restrain their thinking because of knowledge they only imagine themselves to have.
As for the term "magical thinking", I do not think that means what you think it means. It generally means applying causation without an intermediary. Claiming a belief in a teapot orbiting mars would not be "magical thinking", it would just be an unfounded belief. Claiming that events occurring on the surface of mars caused it to rain in New York today would be "magical thinking", because it claims a causal relationship without any sort of intermediary interaction between the two.