>> ^bmacs27: without defining the deity, you undermine your own argument. That's why I'm an agnostic. I can't make claims about undefined terms.

But you have made a claim, that for some particular X, P(X) > P(!X). On the basis of that statement, and the assumption that you are rational, I draw the conclusion that you have some concept of what X is, or at least what its consequences are, otherwise you are making a non-sequitur claim.

That is, we experience coherent unitary stream of multi-modal sensation. There is no physical reason for that.

We claim to have this experience, I consider it highly dubious to claim, as a consequence, that it actually has some basis in fact. As for reason, I'm not sure I know what you mean. If you mean no apparatus, I don't think that it can be said with any certainty, given our current working models of the brain, that we lack the hardware. If you mean need, there are many possible reason why we, or any complex organism, might need to be able to act as if it has consciousness, it might be required for, or an artifact of, predictive thought.

Before I can explain further, I'd need to know what you mean by act.

The ability to act is the capacity to intermittently convert one type of energy into another on the basis of some trigger other than the application of convertible energy. For instance, a simple example is an internal combustion engine. If the ignition is engaged, then the engine begins to generate force by converting its fuel into kinetic energy. The engine even responds to its ignition switch, or its fuel tank being empty, and could arguably be said to be "conscious" of these things. I would not venture to suggest that the engine has any apparatus to make decisions, or to attach meaning to its simple senses, but it does, as a system, respond to stimuli in a manner distinct from that of its component parts. Each of the parts is still a billiard ball, the whole does something different, but we are not want to say that this is the consequence of some unseen force or entity.

Granted, I'm able to overcome much larger energy barriers than a single billiard ball, but I'm still running down the free-energy hill, as all physical processes are.

I disagree, you, as a system, are running pulleys and shoots to move things around, you are sinking energy to get both thinking and physical actions done in ways that individual components of you could not.

There is no free energy hill. We don't live in a free energy universe. And we are constantly applying energy against the entropic tendency of our universe. We can apply force to billiard balls to facilitate this process, but billiard balls are not a member of the class of systems which do this themselves.

It's neither Harrier or F/A-18 Hornet. It's French Mirage F-1.

It's not a Harrier because there is single drop tank in the middle. Harrier's can't fuel tank in that location because Harriers don't have center pylon. Also, refueling probe is on the wrong side and location.

Harriers also have 3 pylons on each wing (RAF has 4 per wing) This plane only has 1 visible

It's not a Hornet, because Hornets have twin vertical stabilizer.

The differences I have suggested between the engines in small duty personal vehicles and large scale engines are real. You are correct that the principle in all combustion engines is the same but the issue with powering larger engines is the scale of the energy required to move them.
...
The increase of energy required to move lager and larger masses in not a constant.


Which summarizes what I was trying to explain. You are correct that energy storage is the problem. You are not correct about the scaling. Energy does scale linearly with mass, that's first year physics. Just think about the energy required to move a car 100 miles, let's say that takes 3 gallons of gasoline. Moving 10 identical cars 100 miles would take 30 gallons. 1000 would take 3000 gallons, and so on. This is true no matter where the energy comes from. If one battery stores enough energy to move a car 100 miles, then 10 could move 10 cars 100 miles. Physics also doesn't care if you are moving 10 cars, or one car pulling nine others, the energy needed is the same. Want to move a freight ship that weighs as much as 1000 cars? Then you need 1000 batteries, or 3000 gallons of gasoline. The scaling is the good news.


No matter how good the batteries get, they still require a power source.


They only need a power source to be charged, the exact same way a fuel tank needs to be refilled. The difference is if you pay for electricity or oil.


I can see by how quickly you responded to my last comment that you probably haven't looked at the references I posted for the the quotes I cited.


From a quick glance non of them appear to address or discuss the underlying physics and state of technology. Speculation on what may happen without any advances in technology whatsoever are as interesting to me as science fiction novels.

did the pilot and crew survice? Did you watch the wings fold up and disintegrate on impact? Or the huge fireball when the fuel tanks exploded?.

I'm guessing the crew didn't walk away from this one!

I think this should be a psa against unsafe car fuel tanks... I mean, really, if your car explodes like that on impact, there'd be craters all over carparks around the world

Here's the full story:

http://xmb.stuffucanuse.com/xmb/viewthread.php?tid=2971

If you just want the highlights, the pilot of this craft, LCMD John Stacy Bates failed to take appropriate action after his engine stalled, causing the craft to go into an uncontrollable spin (sounds eerily like Top Gun). Both he and his RIO ejected safely and were recovered by the ship from which this video is taken. The explosion was likely caused by a part of the engine coming loose from the force of the spin and piercing the fuel tank in the process.

Incidentally, Bates later was killed along with his RIO in another F-14 accident that also killed several people on the ground in Tennessee.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9601/nashville_plane/f14_folo/index.html

Also, he is not breaking the sound barrier in this video. The ring you see is caused by water vapor being pushed away from the aircraft (see thread here: http://forum.ebaumsworld.com/showthread.php?t=39693). That's why you see the ring form and disappear multiple times.

The second page of that thread has some interesting comments from the Navy Air Traffic Controller on duty at the time of this vid's accident.

A little googling shows this fact

"The last confirmed civilian plane crash that was directly attributed to lightning in the U.S. was in 1967, when lightning caused a catastrophic fuel tank explosion. Since then, much has been learned about how lightning can affect airplanes, and protection techniques have improved. Airplanes receive a rigorous set of lightning certification tests to verify the safety of their designs."

Nice place to put the fuel tank.

Unbelievable. I don't understand how they get away with it. 14ml black ink cartridge just cost me about $30, roughly the same amount I pay to fill up my Volkswagen's fuel tank (not from 100% empty of course). And people say gas is expensive? It makes no sense!

melting point of steel, grade 430 - 2650 degrees, Fahrenheit
max burning point of jet fuel - 980 °C (1796 °F)
diesel fuel and jet fuel are very similar.



hmmm, granted fuel could weaken the steel a little bit, but considering how many TONS of concrete surround the beams, that would soften it a little bit, its going to take more than that. Keep in mind i listed MAX temperature for the fuel. open air (or less air than would be in a building) is allot lower.

Besides, what started these fires in building 7? Anyone ever try to light diesel on fire? its a pain in the ass. a random fire coincidently making its way to a fuel tank isn't going to be easy work to ignite that shit.

I don't think the plans were stolen, just mimicked. They did a pretty good job too, their external fuel tank is reusable; ours is not.

I found a source.

October 16, 2001 - New York Times

U.S. Sent Guns to bin Laden in 1980s

WASHINGTON (AP) -- More than a decade ago, the U.S. government sent 25 high-powered
sniper rifles to a group of Muslim fighters in Afghanistan that included Osama bin Laden, according to
court testimony and the guns' maker.

The rifles, made by Barrett Firearms Manufacturing Inc. of Murfreesboro, Tenn., and paid for by the
government, were shipped during the collaboration between the United States and Muslims then
fighting to drive the Soviet Union from Afghanistan.

Experts doubt the weapons could still be used, but the transaction further accentuates how Americans
are fighting an enemy that U.S. officials once supported and liberally armed.

In a trial early this year of suspects in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa, Essam Al-Ridi,
identified as a former pilot for bin Laden, said he shipped the weapons in 1989 to Sheik Abdallah
Azzam, bin Laden's ideological mentor. The weapons had range-finding equipment and night-vision
scopes.

During the late 1980s, the United States supplied arms worth $500 million a year to anti-Soviet
fighters including Afghanistan's current Taliban rulers, bin Laden and others. The supplies included a
range of weapons from small arms to shoulder-fired Stinger anti-aircraft missiles.

Al-Ridi, an American citizen born in Egypt, testified that Azzam liked the rifles because they could be
``carried by individuals so it's made in such a way where you could have a heavy cannon but mobile
by an individual.''

While in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Al-Ridi said he saw bin Laden several times with Azzam.

Ronnie Barrett, president of Barrett Firearms, likened sale of the .50-caliber armor-piercing rifles to
the supply of the Stinger surface-to-air missiles given to anti-Soviet guerrillas in Afghanistan.

``Barrett rifles were picked up by U.S. government trucks, shipped to U.S. government bases and
shipped to those Afghan freedom fighters,'' Barrett said.

The sale was publicized by the Violence Policy Center, gun-control advocates who want for more
restrictions on the sale of high-powered weapons such as the specialized Barrett exports.

``These .50-caliber sniper rifles are ideal tools for terror and assassination,'' VPC analyst Tom Diaz said.

Firearms expert Charles Cutshaw of Jane's Information Group said he was more worried about the
Stingers than long-range sniper rifles.

``It seems to me that there are easier ways for a terrorist to get at a high-value target than this,''
Cutshaw said. ``If they wanted to bring down an aircraft, the best way would be to bring it down with
a Stinger.'' Guerrillas using Stingers were credited with shooting down more than 270 Soviet aircraft.

Cutshaw said the sniper rifles are ``sort of overkill'' for shooting people; more appropriate targets
would be vehicles or fuel tanks. But the Irish Republican Army used the weapon to kill 10 British
soldiers and policemen patrolling the Northern Ireland border in the 1990s.

The rifles could be used only with U.S.-made ammunition, but such ammunition can be obtained in
neighboring Pakistan, Cutshaw said.

The Barrett rifles sold for $5,000 to $6,000 each, and both Barrett and Cutshaw had doubts they
would still work due to dust and a lack of spare parts.

But the rifles could be functional if they have been kept in storage since the purchase, Barrett said.
The Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan months after the rifles were sold.

``If it's not used, it could work,'' Barrett said. ``Age will not bother the gun, just usage.''

---

So Bin laden may have received weapons from the CIA in 1989. But his first attack on US targets was in 1992. He was hardly notorious in 1989.

For every one fake expert in one of these videos there's hundreds with real credentials saying controlled demolition is bull. Science and facts says it's bull. If you deny science for your beliefs that makes you a religious nut. You've abandoned pro-Bush crazy for conspiracy theory crazy. With all the "Osama is about to attack" intel flying around before 9/11, it was much easier for the Bush administration to just sit and wait then to do something. Clinton launched missiles against Osama's camps before 9/11 and Bush didn't.

And every piece of "evidence" in this video has been debunked previously:

The color of smoke doesn't tell you anything about the fire.

The building collapse was explained in detail (including core columns) in a previous video here on the sift that showed close up video debunking controlled demo theories. Many scientific publications have also done a much better job then this video shows explaining the science of the collapse.

Plane crash investigations are held when you don't know what part of it malfunctioned or if the pilot was a drunk git. TWA 800 exploded in mid-air so they didn't know why it exploded. After investigation it turned out to be a short circuit that ignited the center wing fuel tank. The 9/11 planes were hijacked by members of Al Qaeda (according to mountains of evidence) and flown into buildings. Flying jets at high speeds into very large buildings tends to make 'em get "blowed up real good". And if you want a conspiracy theory to think about, ask yourself why so many Republicans help fund these Loose Change videos.

fedquip has been awarded an eternal upvote, for his quality, editorial spelunking.

Giuliani makes me wanna slap somebody.....again....building 7...the imploded one, with swamp fuel tanks inside, that ignited because of the airplane part........and brought it down in nice pile......

Ok Par, re-read the sentence carefully, it's the structure that confuses..should have used better sentence structure-
only 3 have ever collapsed due to fire-those 3

those towers were designed to take an impact of a Jumbo Jet

The fire stopped burning for the most part, prior to the colapse-

The prep for setting up a controlled demo, takes more time than was necessary, besides, part of the news reporting that cay, would have ran something like, "Demolitions crews are here, placing charges, etc., it has been determined that the building must be brought down" etc....WTC 7 was not that badly damaged, and the official story is that the debris from #WTC 1 or 2, that hit the building, ignited some fuel tanks inside the building....(non-existent fuel tanks in a building, do not cause it to buckle towards the center, sending down in a neat pile)

So it was pulled, but why is there no banter about the logistics of it, the set up, for chrissaske, NYC, broad daylight, other buildings around it...that, is complete HORSESHIT!

These responses are from that predictable portion of the human process(mental), that produces denial as a defense and survival mechanism.....i.e. Just because one refuses to or is incapable of wrapping their brain around an idea, does not mean it is crazy, wrong, absurd, etc....

"Subjected to these factors"....Soooooo, again, the "official" story, and the "EXPERT'S" explanations, are all a monkey needs to arrive at an opinion???

How insane.

....tooth fairy shit, ...Easter Bunny