Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Round Table Knights Clan. Enjoy your visit!




Username:   Password:
Add Reply
CERN scientists trap 'anti-atom,'; claim breakthrough in hunt for missing
Topic Started: Nov 18 2010, 10:36 PM (510 Views)
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

Kronos,Nov 23 2010
10:57 PM
tehReal~ChaZZZy,Nov 24 2010
03:29 AM
Kronos,Nov 23 2010
05:56 AM
Correct in what sense?

Crude Oil has been created since about 3 billion years ago from Kerogen itself created from Plankton and Algae, mainly during the period of 600m-100m years ago, starting after the end of snowball earth. Over the past 600 million years Alaska has been over pretty much the entire planet through tectonic plate movement, including the Equator and even the south pole. So how is the Congressman correct?

The point that the Congressman made was that Alaska was not always tundra. Chu's roundabout answer regarding plate movement reminded me of another stupid answer to a simple question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jkU3RSfDGE

Both seem clueless.
Pathetic...

No it wasn't always a Tundra...it was the sea floor at the time Oil was created...

That wasn't the point he was making as he clearly - like yourself do not know about plate tectonics. The answer he was looking for in an attempt to get a soundbite was something along the lines of "Alaska was once much warmer and covered with rainforests blah blah blah" from Chu that he can later use against him.

What you and the Congressman fail to understand (which is a considerable amount I'd expect someone who finished secondary school Science to) is that plant matter doesn't create Oil/Natural gas, it creates Coal, whereas Oil is created by Plankton and other marine biology:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel#Origin

So from this we can ascertain that Alaska (which is a landmass now) was once on the bottom of a sea and rose due to plate tectonics. Clearly Professor Chu is correct while the congressman is an idiot for asking such a stupid question and even more utterly rediculous for putting it up on his youtube account thinking that he was somehow correct. Yet you still blindly follow the bumbling republican fool, what a surprise....

Thank you Mr. Wiki... :D
There's several theories as to the origins of oil, but with regards to your assertions about what creates coal vs oil, the amount of heat, pressure and time are the 3 main variables that produce one or the other and that not the type of bio-mass. While it's true (according to 1 theory) that bio-mass deposited onto the sea floor in anoxic zones contributed to the formation of various oil producing zones, it's also true that much of the land masses we now see were also covered by large bodies of water as well.

Tectonic movement has nothing to do with the fact that there was simply much more water covering various continents. The earth was simply much different millions of years ago than today. Fail for both you, Chu and Mr. Youtube Ares.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dinadan of Logris
Member Avatar
Master of Spam
Lemme just point out to you that terrestrial plants do not grow underwater, because I'm not sure if you overlooked this when suggesting there are other theories about what biomass created oil.. :joker:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

Dinadan of Logris,Nov 24 2010
06:18 AM
Lemme just point out to you that terrestrial plants do not grow underwater, because I'm not sure if you overlooked this when suggesting there are other theories about what biomass created oil.. :joker:

My point was about Chu's reference to plate tectonics being the cause of moving oil to underneath Alaska. It was a simple question that could have been answered just as simply. My original point about time, heat/temperature and pressure being the primary factor about what creates oil still stands.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kronos

tehReal~ChaZZZy,Nov 24 2010
09:37 AM

Thank you Mr. Wiki...  :D
There's several theories as to the origins of oil, but with regards to your assertions about what creates coal vs oil, the amount of heat, pressure and time are the 3 main variables that produce one or the other and  that not the type of  bio-mass.

Hahahaha :lol:

WOW!

just wow....

I'd like to hear your several theories for there pure comedic value. Getting back to the Science however This should explain things nicely for you although you may find it a little complex as I presume it's intended for 12 year olds.

I would provide you with a more comprehensive link but it really is so basic that I find it embarrassing having to correct you and not something worth wasting my time, looking for a few 50 year old peer reviewed papers that you'll simply claim are incorrect and the scientists are conspiring against the public. I'll give you a hint though that the reason they know Oil is made of Plankton and Coal of Plants is because in the shales they can find remnants of exactly what creates the particular fossil fuel. Google it....

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dinadan of Logris
Member Avatar
Master of Spam
tehReal~ChaZZZy,Nov 24 2010
10:15 PM
My point was about Chu's reference to plate tectonics being the cause of moving oil to underneath Alaska. It was a simple question that could have been answered just as simply.

The congressman did receive a simple answer.. and he wouldn't believe it :D

Quote:
 
My original point about time, heat/temperature and pressure being  the primary factor about what creates oil still stands.

I suppose your using the word "origins" mislead me into thinking that your point was something else! Damn, it was so coherent that way!

Before that, you said the congressman's point was that Alaska wasn't always tundra.

Which isn't exactly a smart point if it was *elsewhere* and *underwater* when the organisms (not terrestrial plants) that later became oil lived. Not to mention that the globe has likely been everything from molten lava to frozen ice..ball during its history.

So if he's making that "point", he has an agenda.. :rolleyes:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dagonet of Rus
Member Avatar
Retired Knight of the Round Table
Morality is irrational, being as it is applied to matters not of math and logic, but those of emotion, if morality was simply a matter of logic, it would not even be a subject of debate.

Murder is by no means irrational, nor is torture, kidnap, rape et cetera.

The trouble is that 'social scientists' and the weapon-arguments of the 19th century moral awakening have convinced half the world that they can apply logic where they cannot, or more that if you spend enough time convincing yourself, what comes out must be reasoned. Driving in the wrong direction for an hour or ten, it's still the wrong direction. But until you know it to be the wrong direction, it's not rationally wrong. Now we have a world where people can write logic and ethics in the same sentence without laughing at themselves. It is one thing to understand a moral feeling logically, quite another to form a system of ethics based on logic, because the precepts of anything that resembles 'ethical' behaviour are illogical.

The use of Burka is not unreasonable, it's just part of a thought frame that most 21st century people completely fail to grasp.

See, if you don't have enough money to buy a game you want do you a: steal it, b: save for it, c: dip into your overdraft, d: convince a mate they want to get it.. or the burka option e: put it out of mind.

Seems like the original condom to me, I wonder how many affairs your average burka bride has. Not sure I know anybody over 25 who hasn't engaged in coitus outside of an ongoing relationship. Certainly have never known a couple well that stayed together any length of time without having a jealous row. A practice that would minimise this seems to have rational merit. Like the abuse of the pope for his views on condoms, the idea that somebody could simply abstain from having sex with people unless they knew them both to be out of season & free from sti's doesn't seem to enter into it. The abdication of personal responsibility.


Challenge: Give a rational argument for the 'unreasonableness' of murder, rape & theft.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kronos

Quote:
 
if morality was simply a matter of logic, it would not even be a subject of debate.


Are you sure about that?
If you watched some of the US presedential debates the defiance of logic was quite staggering, especially by one Sarah Palin.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dinadan of Logris
Member Avatar
Master of Spam
...it would not be a subject of debate, here. :P

Quote:
 
Challenge: Give a rational argument for the 'unreasonableness' of murder, rape & theft.

But try to answer this instead ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dagonet of Rus
Member Avatar
Retired Knight of the Round Table
;)

So you can see that it's not the logic used in the debate that matters, it's whether or not the precepts your argument is built on are shared by your audience or not. Logic applied to the illogical cannot force a logical conclusion.

Still, it's a good enough example, you can talk reasonably convincingly on a subject without lying or tripping over your own logic if the people you're talking to share your illogical assumptions, likewise you can talk logically with logical precepts that are different to your audience and be as convincing as an 85yr old hooker. Hence politics as a discipline.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mercurius of Cappadocia
Member Avatar
King of the Round Table Knights
Well, it is no accident that the playbook of political rhetoric reads like a list of logical fallacies.....

But Social Science research relies on efforts to find probabilities in fields where there are few certainties. The hard sciences also rely on probabilities, because all knowledge relies on probability on some level beyond "I think therefore I am". That doesn't mean 70% of SS research isn't 100% BS, but there are important findings made by SS research.... and great conversation topics.... Milgram, Kinsey, Zimbardo.

And some of that research has contributed to things most consider to be advancements in society, such as Brown Vrs Board of Education that stopped racial segregation of schools in the US. That case used the research from Ken and Mamie Clark, who did the baby doll experiment.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dagonet of Rus
Member Avatar
Retired Knight of the Round Table



To say something isn't wholly logical isn't to say it's wrong. Rather that if morality need be entirely logical, then there can be no morality.

Which, actually, is my problem with these changes to university funding in England, not that students have to pay their own way, but the system is changing to disincentivise the teaching of the social sciences, and as you say, whilst the majority that comes out might be useless at best... it's hard to fix the sink from the pub.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

If 15 people were trapped on a glacier, with no means to communicate with the outside world, assuming they were all equally healthy, and that they all would die of starvation at the same time, would it be rational to kill and eat so that others could survive? Would it be moral?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

Dinadan of Logris,Nov 19 2010
04:15 PM
Moral vaules aren't necessarily logical/rational, stem cell research is a good example IMO.

I said that laws should be able to be defended rationally and logically. Don't know that that was clear though,
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

Mercurius of Cappadocia,Nov 18 2010
09:44 PM
Matter/antimatter... heaven/hell... .this just proves the devil lives at CERN.

As Dan Brown said...


:lol:

Going to watch Angels and Demons tonight so I can get completely up to speed on all this anti-matter stuff. :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dagonet of Rus
Member Avatar
Retired Knight of the Round Table
tehReal~ChaZZZy,Dec 11 2010
09:53 PM
If 15 people were trapped on a glacier, with no means to communicate with the outside world, assuming they were all equally healthy, and that they all would die of starvation at the same time, would it be rational to kill and eat so that others could survive? Would it be moral?

Firstly, you switched the direction of argument, from which angle all action and inaction whether possible, rational, or not requires a rule to define it.

Where is this glacier? Possibly, if they have no fishing equipment it would be wise to kill a few members of the party in order to use parts of their carcass to fish with, amongst other things.

But I assume you mean a glacier with absolutely zero chance of rescue within the absolute maximum length of survival possible defined by the amount of nutrition that can be consumed by way of mruder. No threat of freezing to death etc.

Well, logically no action in this situation has any moral or rational weight unless you already define murder as wrong*. To be logical we must have a logical beginning and end to function, a logical process is not enough. We have a known past, but the situation has no knowable outcome beyond the death of the individuals, their impact on the glacier in any event will be neglible. If we're assuming no edible life then we can probably assume their impact on any local life will also be neglible, 14 bodies could sustain a person for a quite considerable time assuming they don't freeze, but I don't know how quickly meat spoils on a glacier though, tbh.

Anyway, if there is no potential for the individuals to have an impact on their surroundings beyond the simple fact that they are comprised of physical matter, when and how they die is completely irrelevant, their death has less weight than that of a cat dying ina bog 12,000 years ago, atleast the cat has been allowed the potential of impacting the future.


If a tree falls and there is nobody to hear it, does it make a sound? No - a sound is defined by the hearing - in the same way for a human act to have moral weight it must be discernible from inactivity.

Logically.

That isn't to say killing/murder is never irrational or illogical but that the act in and of itself is not innately so.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

Dagonet of Rus,Dec 11 2010
10:37 PM


Where is this glacier? Possibly, if they have no fishing equipment it would be wise to kill a few members of the party in order to use parts of their carcass to fish with, amongst other things.

But I assume you mean a glacier with absolutely zero chance of rescue within the absolute maximum length of survival possible defined by the amount of nutrition that can be consumed by way of mruder. No threat of freezing to death etc.


Let's say they do have a chance for rescue due to a regular flyover that would occur 2 weeks past their last foreseeable day of survival with no food. They currently have no food, and very little water. What is the moral thing to do? The rational thing to do?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dagonet of Rus
Member Avatar
Retired Knight of the Round Table
Quote:
 
What is the moral thing to do? The rational thing to do?




You've broadened the question again, it wasn't a challenge to myself..


Short answer: Phuck till you can't phuck no more then fight till there's enough food on the table.

Long answer:



Lack of water is irrelevant, if we assume cannibalisation the only source of food & the fact a glacier is made of

drinkable water.

Eating parts of their own bodies is not a viable option because of the consequent vulnerability to infection and

likelihood of becoming somebodyelses choice of food


At this point we have no means of making a comparative value judgement for any of the group so there is no logical

way of discerning which should be dinner, (even so that individual would in most cases disagree (logically)) a

single corpse shared between the 14 others could potentially provide the rest with sustenance for a fortnight.

Assuming the individuals in the group have no pre-existing illogical moral values and are not psychic or that there

are no parent children pairings...
For each individual there are the same four choices as ever, fight, flight, phuck or do nothing.


Fight: Kill a single person as quickly as possible, non-mortal injury sustained to self is only relevant insofar as

it makes the individual the likely candidate should a second killing be necessary.

Flight: Run, hide or establish defense until somebodyelse does the above

Phuck: Try to convince somebodyelse to help you (willingly or otherwise) with option Fight or Flight.


Realistically again we have no way of determining which of these is most likely to succeed, for the purposes of

argument we either assume everybody has exactly equivalent capabilities:

Fight- Advantage; Solves the problem
With no mitigating pre-existing factors and no weapons..chance of immediate survival is roughly 50%
If all individuals reach the same conclusion the chance of immediate survival is roughly 93% although it's possible

that more than one person could die at the same time.

If it proves that the kill is not sufficient, chances of individual survival are essentially random, by the time

that becomes apparent any number of things could of happened.

Flight: Advantage: Gives somebodyelse time to die first.
Disadvantage: Does not solve original problem.
Gives somebodyelse opportunity to successfully phuck first.


Phuck: Advantage: Potential force multiplier
If positively(allied kill) or negatively (kill allied) successful increases chances of

survival in first(win) and any subsequent deaths.
More than one person can be phucked at once.
Disadvantage: Potentially increased vulnerability to Fight option.



The logical thing to do then looks like it is to phuck, to try to convince somebody to aid you in either phucking

more, flighting, fighting or doing nothing. Assuming that phuck was the first logical conclusion, everybody phucked.

If everybody phucked we have option:

A: everybody phucked equally (repeat first phase)
B: phuck targetting, pathfinding and duration being random, the final chance of being the one to die first is still

~5%, though the chance of no death reduces with each phuck-phase but if everybodyelse phucks and you don't you lose.

Anyway, eventually the 15 is split into two unequal pairings which provides larger group with greater individual

potentials for survival and no chance for increasing those odds so fight becomes inevitable.

During any phucking phase it's potentially the case that a particular phuck failed, somebody illogically chose fight

vs a phucker or nothinger and thus somebody died = phuckerwinavg.



Ofcourse, during all that somebody could just slip on some ice and die.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

Dagonet of Rus,Dec 12 2010
03:12 AM
Quote:
 
What is the moral thing to do? The rational thing to do?




You've broadened the question again, it wasn't a challenge to myself..


Short answer: Phuck till you can't phuck no more then fight till there's enough food on the table.

Long answer:



Lack of water is irrelevant, if we assume cannibalisation the only source of food & the fact a glacier is made of

drinkable water.

Eating parts of their own bodies is not a viable option because of the consequent vulnerability to infection and

likelihood of becoming somebodyelses choice of food


At this point we have no means of making a comparative value judgement for any of the group so there is no logical

way of discerning which should be dinner, (even so that individual would in most cases disagree (logically)) a

single corpse shared between the 14 others could potentially provide the rest with sustenance for a fortnight.

Assuming the individuals in the group have no pre-existing illogical moral values and are not psychic or that there

are no parent children pairings...
For each individual there are the same four choices as ever, fight, flight, phuck or do nothing.


Fight: Kill a single person as quickly as possible, non-mortal injury sustained to self is only relevant insofar as

it makes the individual the likely candidate should a second killing be necessary.

Flight: Run, hide or establish defense until somebodyelse does the above

Phuck: Try to convince somebodyelse to help you (willingly or otherwise) with option Fight or Flight.


Realistically again we have no way of determining which of these is most likely to succeed, for the purposes of

argument we either assume everybody has exactly equivalent capabilities:

Fight- Advantage; Solves the problem
With no mitigating pre-existing factors and no weapons..chance of immediate survival is roughly 50%
If all individuals reach the same conclusion the chance of immediate survival is roughly 93% although it's possible

that more than one person could die at the same time.

If it proves that the kill is not sufficient, chances of individual survival are essentially random, by the time

that becomes apparent any number of things could of happened.

Flight: Advantage: Gives somebodyelse time to die first.
Disadvantage: Does not solve original problem.
Gives somebodyelse opportunity to successfully phuck first.


Phuck: Advantage: Potential force multiplier
If positively(allied kill) or negatively (kill allied) successful increases chances of

survival in first(win) and any subsequent deaths.
More than one person can be phucked at once.
Disadvantage: Potentially increased vulnerability to Fight option.



The logical thing to do then looks like it is to phuck, to try to convince somebody to aid you in either phucking

more, flighting, fighting or doing nothing. Assuming that phuck was the first logical conclusion, everybody phucked.

If everybody phucked we have option:

A: everybody phucked equally (repeat first phase)
B: phuck targetting, pathfinding and duration being random, the final chance of being the one to die first is still

~5%, though the chance of no death reduces with each phuck-phase but if everybodyelse phucks and you don't you lose.

Anyway, eventually the 15 is split into two unequal pairings which provides larger group with greater individual

potentials for survival and no chance for increasing those odds so fight becomes inevitable.

During any phucking phase it's potentially the case that a particular phuck failed, somebody illogically chose fight

vs a phucker or nothinger and thus somebody died = phuckerwinavg.



Ofcourse, during all that somebody could just slip on some ice and die.

I asked the question again because it's helping me to think through these issues as well. Thanks for your input Dag.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dagonet of Rus
Member Avatar
Retired Knight of the Round Table
There are several billion unstated assumptions there ofcourse, that each individual is interested in the survival of their own complex, that whoever kills dinner will share it without more conflict et cetera.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

Dagonet of Rus,Dec 12 2010
03:34 AM
There are several billion unstated assumptions there ofcourse, that each individual is interested in the survival of their own complex, that whoever kills dinner will share it without more conflict et cetera.

As I'm thinking through this I'm finding that morality, rationality and being 'logical' aren't necessarily going hand in hand here.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dagonet of Rus
Member Avatar
Retired Knight of the Round Table


Probably not. Realistically a useful moral code works backwards not forwards, you have to decide the goal and settle on some arbitrary values before you build the rule.

Which evidences most of people's attitudes, once a (value)system is in place it becomes in most cases illogical to challenge it, no matter how illogical the system.



But it's all pretty irrelevant unless you have a soul that's capable of defying the 'laws' of physx. Fortunately I do.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dinadan of Logris
Member Avatar
Master of Spam
Yea well some do say if you think something is real, that does make it real.. on a level. :joker:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Caradoc of Mercia
Member Avatar
Knight
Dinadan of Logris,Dec 13 2010
01:01 PM
Yea well some do say if you think something is real, that does make it real.. on a level. :joker:

Do you think that Dag is real? :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dagonet of Rus
Member Avatar
Retired Knight of the Round Table

Define real.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

Caradoc of Mercia,Dec 13 2010
07:08 AM
Dinadan of Logris,Dec 13 2010
01:01 PM
Yea well some do say if you think something is real, that does make it real.. on a level.  :joker:

Do you think that Dag is real? :P

At times he can be.
You however are quite the mythical one Cow. Or should I say....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hps1XcDdMXo&feature=related

Da-Iry :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Caradoc of Mercia
Member Avatar
Knight
Dagonet of Rus,Dec 14 2010
12:47 AM
Define real.

You want to argue about semantics? :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dagonet of Rus
Member Avatar
Retired Knight of the Round Table
When did I do anything other than argue about semantics?

Anyway, I like Chazz's idea. I'll be real when I'm right and unreal when i'm wrong.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
« Previous Topic · The Portcullis · Next Topic »
Add Reply

The Round Table Knights