BaalChatzaf

Excellent! Also the one before it which does not show here.

It happened last century. Look up Typhoid Mary.

Coffee in non-excessive amounts actually enhances health. Please see https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/the-latest-scoop-on-the-health-benefits-of-coffee-2017092512429 It turns out that the health benefits of coffee do not depend on caffeine. Decaf and strong coffee apparently produce the same kind of benefits.

As politicians go, he was a decent fellow. I disagreed with some of his proposals, but disagreement is a normal and beneficial thing. He seemed like a human being to me, not a synthetic plastic political entity (such as her Horrorship, Hillary Clinton).

Reply to item 490 Even in climate "science" the climate modelers sponsored by the IPCC put their models before accurate hard data. The result: models that don't predict climate outcomes well. In science there is a technical term for models and hypotheses that turn out predictions that are at odds with carefully observed reality. That technical term? "Just plain wrong"

I am just trimming a bit. I started a low carb diet. It seems to be working. Now I can get to my optimal weight. I am not grossly overweight, but I am carrying more pounds than I wish to carry. So far my cardiohealth is good. I have a resting pulse of 48 bpm and I can ride 20-40 miles on my bike w.o. stopping to rest. Not bad for an 82 year old codger.

Healthy hunger, after moderate intake should not feel like anything. You should not leave the table feeling weak or dizzy and you should not leave the table feeling stuffed up to your ears. I am on a low carb diet and I feel just fine. No weakness, no dizziness, no pangs and no overstuffed feeling either. I have dropped 22 pounds in the last six weeks (mostly water weight) and I am losing about a half pound a week by not overeating and going to the gym every day or almost every day. I exercise about an hour and half and burn 400 calories by a combination of aerobic and weight exercise. I expect to be at my target weight by next June and I will have no trouble staying there. I have said my fond farewell to bread, cookies, cake and bananas. The only part of the potato I eat is the skin and no more white rice, just a moderate portion of brown rice. Once at the target I will balance calories in with calories burned and no carbohydrates (or very little carbohydrates).

Yellow marks three times longer than the orange marks.

15/5 = 3/1

I have a challenge. Models a slipping wheel on a track. See if you can do it. I can but I will hold off until you guys try it.

Actually "concentric" is an adjective which describes a ---set--- of objects all with the same center point.

Ad hoc arithmetic? If you want to do physics, then shut up and calculate

As long as we are agreed this is science FICTION, I am willing to be amused.

Weather manipulation, at this juncture, is completely beyond any reliable technology we have. There are conditions where rainfall can be induced, but they are rare. In general weather is a chaotic dynamic process, it can be reliably predict past 3 days and it certainly cannot be controlled by any human technology.

Ask yourself what does it mean for a wheel to roll without slipping. It means that if a wheel of radius R turns through an angle A, the center moves R*A. So when A = 2*pi (one turn) the center moves a distance equal to the circumference of the wheel. (A is measured in radians).

Here is a thorough analysis of the Wheel "paradox" problem. It addresses itself to the issue of the relation between a thought experiment and a real physical experiment. Have a look: https://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~rarthur/articles/aristotles-wheelfinal.pdf

little wheel slips and drags over its track, the purple line in your diagram. By the way, the center of both wheels is one and the same point.. From the wiki article on Aristotle's wheel "paradox" --- "One way to understand the paradox of the wheel is to reject the assumption that the smaller wheel indeed traces out its circumference, without ensuring that it, too, rolls without slipping on a fixed surface. In fact, it is impossible for both wheels to perform such motion. Physically, if two joined concentric wheels with different radii were rolled along parallel lines then at least one would slip; if a system of cogs were used to prevent slippage then the wheels would jam. A modern approximation of such an experiment is often performed by car drivers who park too close to a curb. The car's outer tire rolls without slipping on the road surface while the inner hubcap both rolls and slips across the curb; the slipping is evidenced by a screeching noise" Here is the entire article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle's_wheel_paradox#Analysis

wrong. The small wheel slips and drags because the center is carried horizontally by the outer wheel. Do the math and you will see your error. Or as I sometimes say "shut up and calculate".

There is no paradox. Please see: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AristotlesWheelParadox.html The small wheel mounted on the same hub as the big (outer wheel) slips and drags.. For an angle theta that a radius turns the center is moved 2*pi*theta*R horizontally where R is the radius of the larger outer wheel. This exceeds 2*pi*theta*r where r is the radius of the smaller innerwheel. R > r so the distance that the center goes during a turn of angle theta is greater than the smaller inner wheel would have gone if it did NOT SLIP. The resolution of the so-called paradox is that the inner wheel slips by the quantity 2*pi*theta* (R-r). As the article I quoted states the appearance of a paradox is based on the false assertion that the existence of a continuous one to one function between the points on the circumference of the inner and outer wheels in implies the length of the arc on the inner wheel corresponding to a turn of d theta (in infinitesimal turn) equal the length of the corresponding arc on the outer wheel. Not so. the length of the outer arc is to the length of the inner arc as R is to r. Problem solved. It is unnecessary to fall into the philosophical tar pit of Logical Positivism which denies an external reality and asserts all we have are relations between data, i.e. perceptions of the outer reality. This is sometimes called phenomenalism. It says that either there is no outer (external) reality or all that our minds can ever get are the experience of the outer reality (if it exists). This is also the premise that Kant used. He said there is an external reality, but we only get what the mind filters in (of it). To be truthful, I do not know of a satisfactory resolution of the disconnect between the external or "real" reality and the perceived reality that our intellects can deal with. I do not resolve the paradox (I am sorry to say). I AVOID the paradox by resorting to the "shut up and calculate" tactic in which I get an answer that conforms to what I experience each and every time I make a measurement and calculate an assertion of what I will measure. This approach is never wrong, but it is totally unsatisfying to those who insist that the :"real" reality is there and can be experienced or sensed. Kant denied this. Me? I avoid the disagreement. I beg you to forgive me for not resolving the question you raised. The best I can do for you is clarify the problem, but I still leave you with the problem. Sorry about that.

quid custodiet ad ipso custodii?

Binswinger's grasp of the history of the human species is very much in error. Our kind of human did not emigrate from Africa until about 60,000 ybp. This was the second wave of emigration by homo sapien. The first successful emigration of hominids from Africa eas Neanderthal, about 300,000 ybp. Neanderthal was very successful but the Ice Age and the competition from Homo Sapien Sapien finished Neanderthal off about 35,000 ybp. Homo Sapien Sapien had a more gracile skeleton than Neanderthal and was less muscular. However Homo Sapien Sapien caught on to human networking, exchanging ideas and trading stuff so had much better hunting technology than did Neanderthal. There is evidence that limited mating took place between H. S. S. and H. N and Homo Sapien Sapien outside of Africa acquired Neanderthal genes to a limited extent. The Human Race as it is currently constituted has about 1 % of genetic material inherited from H. Neanderthal. Our kind of human survived because he learned to use his wits and indulge in abstract thought to some degree. We can tell from the cave paintings that some of our ancestors has a "good eye" and artistic imagination.

At least three genuine cheers for the rescuers he freed 12 boys and their team coach from a water blocked cave. They were volunteers. They differ from normal people in several ways. Like firemen who run into burning buildings while "normal" people flee from them, these brave souls took their chances swimming in total darkness to bring light, food and other supplies to the trapped boys and their coach. Sadly, one of the rescuers became lost and drowned. However, that unfortunate soul know the hazards before he went into the caves and went into the cave in spite of the hazard. We also note the Elon Musk proposed building a boy size submarine to get the lads out. Which is better than building a Hyperloop system to rescue the kids.

Our unaided senses can only detect the light reflecting of the H2O droplets that hang in the air after the H2O vapor flowing from the jet exhaust condenses. Basically contrails (or chemtrails as the Conspiracy Phreaks like to call them) are man-made clouds. What you don't see with the unaided senses is the CO2 produced by the burning of jet fuel and very small amounts of SO2 and N2O.

Nobody "controls" the weather. Weather is emergent from a chaotic dynamic process.

How do your reconcile this with Trump's slogan --- Make America Great Again