That's very true. The simple fact that because the pressure of the tire off the rim is going to be normalized with the atmospheric pressure, even if you seated the tire back on manually, you'd have a zero pressure delta between outside the tire and inside. For a tire to run properly, usually you have to have a difference of approximately 30 psi. So yea, case closed. THANKS!>> ^messenger:

That might work better, but to pressurize a tire, you need significantly more gas than just the little bit that comes out of the spray can, and it must be at ambient temperature too to count. Clearly, the only reason this inflates the tire at all is the heat. Here's a thought experiment that disproves the "stays inflated" myth:
Consider that you need to have much more gas inside the tire than outside for it to stay inflated at ambient temperature. Before lighting the gas, there's the same pressure inside and outside the tire because the two areas are contiguous. When she lights the fire, the gas inside expands rapidly, and lots of it escapes, so now, while there's a greater volume of gas inside the tire than before, this is due to a greatly reduced density, so there's actually less gas inside than before, which is why there was a vacuum. Using heat, there will always be less gas inside than before. It's not even worth experimenting. The only way something like this could work is with compressed gas, which you certainly wouldn't want to do because that would blow the tire up if it were lit on fire.
I think there are self-inflating tires already on the market that have compressed gas cartridges built in, triggered by a sensor that fixes flats by spraying a sealant inside, then lots of pressurized gas, probably CO2. They don't use fire.>> ^rottenseed:
So the limiting reactant would be the starter fluid and the air in the tire. Oxygen to be more exact. Because you want enough forces to seat the tire, but not so much it removes all of the gases from the tire, maybe they should have tried less starter fluid. If that's depleted in the reaction quickly leaving enough energy to seat the tire, but also enough oxygen left over from the reaction, you might end up with a working tire.
Somebody please double check my thought process, but I think it's definitely worth more experimentation.

That might work better, but to pressurize a tire, you need significantly more gas than just the little bit that comes out of the spray can, and it must be at ambient temperature too to count. Clearly, the only reason this inflates the tire at all is the heat. Here's a thought experiment that disproves the "stays inflated" myth:

Consider that you need to have much more gas inside the tire than outside for it to stay inflated at ambient temperature. Before lighting the gas, there's the same pressure inside and outside the tire because the two areas are contiguous. When she lights the fire, the gas inside expands rapidly, and lots of it escapes, so now, while there's a greater volume of gas inside the tire than before, this is due to a greatly reduced density, so there's actually less gas inside than before, which is why there was a vacuum. Using heat, there will always be less gas inside than before. It's not even worth experimenting. The only way something like this could work is with compressed gas, which you certainly wouldn't want to do because that would blow the tire up if it were lit on fire.

I think there are self-inflating tires already on the market that have compressed gas cartridges built in, triggered by a sensor that fixes flats by spraying a sealant inside, then lots of pressurized gas, probably CO2. They don't use fire.>> ^rottenseed:

So the limiting reactant would be the starter fluid and the air in the tire. Oxygen to be more exact. Because you want enough forces to seat the tire, but not so much it removes all of the gases from the tire, maybe they should have tried less starter fluid. If that's depleted in the reaction quickly leaving enough energy to seat the tire, but also enough oxygen left over from the reaction, you might end up with a working tire.
Somebody please double check my thought process, but I think it's definitely worth more experimentation.

This thread has gotten me very curious to try all these things out for myself.

As far as equally weighted particles go, what you describe is not what we observe. We always see the same number of particles leave as came in, no matter their total momentum. A single particle going 1m/s ejects one particle also going 1m/s (I'm talking in ideal terms). A single particle going 2m/s doesn't release two particles going 1m/s, just one going 2m/s. The same particle going 100m/s likewise doesn't release 100 particles going 1m/s, nor 50 going 2m/s nor any other combination. As the force passes through the stationary particles, there's nothing to say what the mass or velocity of the striking particle was, just what the product of those two things was.

As for different sized particles, not having seen this done, if a solid (I mean a single piece, or welded together) 2kg particle came in at 1m/s, I predict a single 1kg particle would be ejected at 2m/s. My reason is the same as above: that when one ball strikes, the only information transmitted through the stationary particles is the total amount of force, not the velocity or mass of the striking object. Thus, the force transmitted through the stationary particles would be identical whether a 1kg ball struck at 2m/s or a 2kg ball struck at 1m/s. All this force is transmitted into the last ball which leaves with the same amount of force in the form of velocity as a factor of its mass, whatever that may be.

I think fusing the two balls together would fundamentally change their behaviour. I think when two loose balls hit together, the first one hits the stationary ones, bounces back towards the second ball which then stops, sending a second shock wave through the stationary particles, thus sending two signals very close together, and releasing two particles out the other side.

To continue the thought experiment, what if it were a 1.2kg particle striking a row of 1kg balls? I think it would be one particle going out at 1.2m/s, rather than 1 particle at 1m/s and a second at 0.2m/s or two of them together at 0.6m/s.>> ^heathen:

As you said momentum is mass velocity, and force is mass acceleration.
It's the mass of the particles entering that determines the mass of the particles leaving.
As the balls in a Newton's cradle all have equal mass it's tempting to restate that as the number of particles rather than the mass of the particles.
However if you designed a cradle to have four 1kg balls and one 2kg ball then swinging the 2kg ball would cause two 1kg balls to be displaced. (The same effect as taping or gluing two 1kg balls together.)
In a normal Newton's Cradle the acceleration, due to gravity, is constant.
The constant mass and constant acceleration cause the predictability, as the only energy lost is to air resistance and other negligibles such as sound or minimal compression of the balls on impact.
The forces introduced by the magnet scale inversely with distance, making the outcome a lot more unpredictable.

>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:
Y'know, your concept of absolute nothingness doesn't actually exist, insofar as we can show it to exist, right? I mean, how would we? Material existence is what there is.

Yours is an abstraction, a theological/philosophical concept of the human mind, a thought experiment, in no way amenable to actual experiment or observation.

This assumes that there ever was or is such a thing as "absolute nothingness".


Directing you to a general reply to this, here:

http://videosift.com/video/Richard-Dawkins-and-Lawrence-Krauss-Something-from-Nothing?loadcomm=1#comment-1443305

>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:
I also don't see how positing a complex being as the cause of a supposedly simple beginning simplifies matters. At fucking all. You're simply slyly inserting god just beyond reach of humanity's current epistemological horizon. This begs the question, well, where did your god come from? It's a superfluous and unnecessary (not to mention completely evidenced) addition to the regress and reeks of special pleading/wishful thinking. It's crass and obvious and, quite frankly, fucking stupid.


I'll let John Lennox answer your questions:



>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:
I won't even address the arguments from DNA and fine-tuning, as the mental gymnastics required to leap even to the most generic of gods from either just blows my mind.


I didn't say they would necessarily prove any specific God as true, but rather, they are evidence that the Universe was created by a higher intelligence. It is more circumstantial evidence than direct proof, but establishing either would be a death blow to materialistic naturalism.

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^eric3579:

Blah, blah, blah... start watching at 11:30.
>> ^Deano:
I was wondering when you'd show up.
As for something from nothing look up quantum electrodynamics.
You obviously haven't watched this splendid video or have even a basic grasp of physics.
I covered these in my response to Gallowflak.

Y'know, your concept of absolute nothingness doesn't actually exist, insofar as we can show it to exist, right? I mean, how would we? Material existence is what there is.


Yours is an abstraction, a theological/philosophical concept of the human mind, a thought experiment, in no way amenable to actual experiment or observation.

I also don't see how positing a complex being as the cause of a supposedly simple beginning simplifies matters. At fucking all. You're simply slyly inserting god just beyond reach of humanity's current epistemological horizon. This begs the question, well, where did your god come from? It's a superfluous and unnecessary (not to mention completely evidenced) addition to the regress and reeks of special pleading/wishful thinking. It's crass and obvious and, quite frankly, fucking stupid.

I won't even address the arguments from DNA and fine-tuning, as the mental gymnastics required to leap even to the most generic of gods from either just blows my mind.

>> ^messenger:

@Deano
A thought experiment should have valid parameters. To me, it fails the moment it makes all those dubious assumptions about DNA differences.
I did love his point about Mars though. That's spot on. What scares me is that if true, it would Scientology look more reputable.


Well except for the Overlord, his large economy flier airplanes, and bombing volcanoes (plus there are only a few volcanoes that he can actually bomb in the first place; they just are not built ALL like the Hawaiian chain open caldera type of volcano). Plus I have to wonder, how did our primitive species as we were slowly migrating upwards in the DNA chain deal with all the bad juju stuff that was injected into the DNA sequencing line--and then eventually ended up in ours...?

I really don't think you have to worry at all. Except for the stupid people, they amazingly will believe ANYTHING and often do; like Obama's birth certificate not really being one.

/I actually know a birther here in Utah and I can tell you that I can give them ALL THE PROOF on why their belief is incorrect, including evidence. Yet they will not believe me; BUT if I change my STANCE in the middle of my proof and make something up ON THE SPOT instead supporting them--they believe me!!! So I know what you believe is far more important than the truth and this is true EVEN for smart people. It's rare to find people that will switch positions on the spot--I think due to a lot of pride.

@Deano

A thought experiment should have valid parameters. To me, it fails the moment it makes all those dubious assumptions about DNA differences.

I did love his point about Mars though. That's spot on. What scares me is that if true, it would Scientology look more reputable.

>> ^messenger:

Of course DNA determines everything. The difference is Neil is suggesting there's a 1% intelligence difference between us and chimps because there's a 1% difference in DNA, and that this ratio has a "direction", so all other changes in that "direction" would have equally significant impacts on our intelligence. @Enzoblue is saying that the development of human language is by far the most significant advantage caused by the 1% difference in DNA, and the advantage is much more than a mere 1%; an additional 1% along that "direction" wouldn't necessarily allow us to learn some other skill that would give us as great an advantage.
Personally, I think Neil's idea of the 1% difference being ratio-able (rational?) and describing it as having a "direction" is silly.>> ^vaire2ube:
I don't understand; The ability to have the capability for language comes from our genes. It is the reason, just as he says... what sort of sciences do you study where DNA isnt everything? it is.
>> ^Enzoblue:
To me it's a mistake to blame our advantage over animals on a 1 percent genetic difference and he seems to be stuck on this. The difference between us and animals is language - that ability to abstract, replacing things we see in the world with words that we can then manipulate in our own minds. This gives us consciousness. It's a big leap. It's not like you can then scale that, make a 2 percent difference, and think that it would double that leap.




Having just watched the video it was my impression that he's articulating an assumption, an assertion and is not claiming it as fact. It's closer to a thought experiment than making a definitive statement about the precise gaps between species and the subsequent implications.

@dystopianfuturetoday I'd like to help you visualize what I understand a free market is or ought to be. When you say free markets are impossible, I tend to compare that to someone saying, "free speech is impossible" while holding an extreme or maybe unrealistic interpretation of what free speech ought to be as well.

Imagine when freedom of speech was first proposed, "What if we had a society where people could say whatever they want without fear of censorship or oppression?". Before we had a country where freedom of speech was in the first Ammendment of its Constitution, I'm pretty sure we didn't have freedom of speech anywhere, or mostly in any time in history. Someone could have replied, "A free speech society is impossible, which is why one has never existed, and why you were unable to come up with any working examples". Sure, because there would almost always be some asshole, usually a king, a despot or church, telling people what they could or could not say, and punishing them for it.

Now, do we enjoy absolute freedom of speech today? Not at all, and I'm fine with that. There are laws against libel, hate speech, obscenity, incitement to commit crimes, etc., which are all restrictions imposed on that very freedom.

However, all things considered, I think freedom of speech is mostly free. I don't know of anyone who advocates "restricted speech" or "highly regulated speech" as an ideal. More importantly, whenever censorship is reported or witnessed, everyone is instantly indignant and sometimes outraged, because we are all aware of how essential freedom of speech is to a free society, a freedom that should be cherished and protected.

Now let's take a look at the dynamics of free speech in society.

Just because people can say whatever they want, doesn't mean there won't be millions of people lying, deceiving each other, spreading ideologies that are COMPLETELY WRONG, etc.

Does that mean we should have laws banning ideas that are wrong? Not easy to do, because it is common sense that no one has absolute authority over truth, so such laws would hardly be fair.

Instead, we resort to letting ideas compete, letting people select for themselves what is true or not. That might doom society to eternal stupidity and ignorance or to a gradual process where truths will be preferred, and lies will tend to be exposed or ignored. Which outcome do you think is more likely? It takes time, but a free society matures with such freedoms. When abuses happen, society learns and deals with them without immediately resorting to laws and restrictions, because that would be considered censorship, and, therefore, usually unfair.

Now when it comes to economic freedom, liberals treat it as a whole different ball game, when I don't think it should be. First off, "free markets" = obscenity. They learn to understand it like you do, "absolutely free of government intervention, chaos everywhere, society is doomed", when in fact the proponents of free markets recognize that the State is necessary to enforce contracts, punish fraud and protect private property.

Liberals are mostly influenced by the socialist interpretation of capitalism as an inherently unfair system. Whenever any perceived abuse happens in an economy, they see it as resulting from an imbalance of economic power, so they rush to demand laws and regulations to forcibly correct them.

How about letting these abuses happen, and let society learn to deal with them, select them, and evolve? Just like what happens with free speech. Sure, if it's blatant fraud, theft, breach of contract, etc. the State can and should step in. Otherwise, let people come up with their own solutions. It will be a painful process, but it's better to let a free society mature by itself than oppressing it into behaving well.

Besides, if you think about it, politicians aren't any better than anyone at judging what economic practices are right or wrong. So the laws they make are usually unfair. They have the same kind of presumptuousness of someone who would claim authority over truth, and want to create laws censoring "wrong" ideas. Like keynesian economists who try to plan and steer economies because they have little theories where they claim it's smarter to use other people's money than letting people make decisions with their own money.

We would never put up with people trying to engineer society/culture through censorship. Why do we put up with that when it comes to economics?

About the thought experiment (hoping it's not a trick question), I don't see why there should be a limit on how much property a person can own, as long as the property is honestly obtained.

I don't think it's an injustice when someone owns more than others, maybe there are other factors to be considered? Forcibly redistributing property is usually more unfair than just letting society deal with any problem arising from someone having property that others want or need.

@blankfist I think you are playing a more serious game here than I am. I'm not trying to intimidate you. Just making a point and having a hearty discussion with my arch nemesis. It is kind of awesome to have an arch nemesis, just like the movies. Good clean fun.

Might as well have this conversation here too in case others want to partake....

@progressivevideo A free market is impossible, which is why one has never existed, and why you were unable to come up with any working examples. I understand the distinction, my point is that markets don't want to be truly free. Whenever there is a power vacuum, someone will fill it, which is why democracy came into being.

Let's do a little thought experiment. You support property rights, no? Do you think there should be any limits on how much property a person can own?

@renatojj A free market is impossible, which is why one has never existed, and why you were unable to come up with any working examples. I understand the distinction, my point is that markets don't want to be truly free. Whenever there is a power vacuum, someone will fill it, which is why democracy came into being.

Let's do a little thought experiment. You support property rights, no? Do you think there should be any limits on how much property a person can own?

Sorry, I just saw your post today!

Ron Popeil. Invented the Pocket Fisherman.


In reply to this comment by dag:
Just as a thought experiment - can you name one who was well thought of as an all-around nice guy? Edison was an asshole. I've heard that Da Vinci was a real prick.>> ^quantumushroom:

But do geniuses need to be assholes?
No. No they don't.

Ron Popeil. Invented the Pocket Fisherman.

>> ^dag:

Just as a thought experiment - can you name one who was well thought of as an all-around nice guy? Edison was an asshole. I've heard that Da Vinci was a real prick.>> ^quantumushroom:
But do geniuses need to be assholes?
No. No they don't.

>> ^shinyblurry:

"God doesn't listen to half-hearted prayers," when xxovercastxx asked.
I find a related thought experiment disconcerting. I picture a child upset because god hasn't come to her. She is honest, kind, lives by the bible, but she has not felt the touch of God. She asks the religious men why and they say "god doesn't listen to half-hearted prayers." From that day on, she spends her entire life praying, for 6 hours every single day, waiting for the touch of god, yet never feels it. And on her deathbed she dies knowing that she has not been accepted by god, and will not see heaven.
How do you know whether xxovercastxx was being sincere or not? You're so quick to assume not. She/he could honestly and openly invite god into her/his heart every single day and never feel god's touch. Would you sit there over the child from before, telling her "no, still not sincere" as she wastes her life in god's service?
If such a person feels no touch, then they are either insincere or god does not exist.
Your story is clouded by all sorts of assumptions. You're working from the premise that God does not exist, so you don't expect anyones prayers to be answered. I know that He does exist, and that people fall away because they decided to go their own way instead of trusting God. A person who can walk away from God and totally reject Him just like that obviously did not have much love for Him in the first place. It's like being married to someone in a deeply committed relationship for many years, and then suddenly walking away from it because someone else gave you some flowers. Obviously, to these people, God was never personal, and was simply a tradition they followed.
What God wants is a total committment. A half-hearted prayer is seeking something from God and giving nothing in return. It is to be double-minded before God, and see Him only as the great ATM in the sky, who can fulfill your dreams of living a life without Him interferring in it. If you're unwilling to submit to the Lordship of Christ, I wouldn't expect to hear anything. This isn't to say God wouldn't answer even a half-hearted prayer, but you definitely shouldn't expect much when you give so little.
There may be millions of people that invite god into their heart every night.. some may even repent their sins for safety. In fact, i'm sure there are many people who identify as religious and feel like that. People who, unlike you, are not able to convince themselves that they feel god, but live religiously because they can't bear the alternative and desperately WANT to feel god.
Would you say that they are all insincere, every single one?
I fear the answer will be simply "yes." Anything else must surely make you question your faith, that god could ignore an honest soul asking for help?
I haven't convinced myself of anything. I was secular when God knocked on my door, and I wasn't even looking for Him. What I know is that religion doesn't get you close to God, and neither is it based on feelings. To know God is a personal relationship. It is based on love and trust. A person who is unwilling to change their life and serve God is probably going to be in a perpetual crisis of faith. A person who is willing to change, willing to humble themselves, will most certainly get an answer.
>> ^dannym3141


You say i am clouded in my assumption that goes does NOT exist. Yet you work from the assumption that god does exist. Are we not, in that respect, equally flawed? If it is a flaw in my argument, it must be a flaw in yours and i think that might be unacceptable to your point of view and certainly would require you to make a new reply to my comment in lieu of that. If it is not a flaw, then it can't be a flaw in mine surely?

Hopefully you'll be able to answer my question now we have that cleared up. I have a feeling you will extricate yourself from the responsibility of equality though, and you will say that the assumption of god existing is not flawed. Yet assuming god doesn't exist is flawed.

"God doesn't listen to half-hearted prayers," when xxovercastxx asked.

I find a related thought experiment disconcerting. I picture a child upset because god hasn't come to her. She is honest, kind, lives by the bible, but she has not felt the touch of God. She asks the religious men why and they say "god doesn't listen to half-hearted prayers." From that day on, she spends her entire life praying, for 6 hours every single day, waiting for the touch of god, yet never feels it. And on her deathbed she dies knowing that she has not been accepted by god, and will not see heaven.

How do you know whether xxovercastxx was being sincere or not? You're so quick to assume not. She/he could honestly and openly invite god into her/his heart every single day and never feel god's touch. Would you sit there over the child from before, telling her "no, still not sincere" as she wastes her life in god's service?

If such a person feels no touch, then they are either insincere or god does not exist.

Your story is clouded by all sorts of assumptions. You're working from the premise that God does not exist, so you don't expect anyones prayers to be answered. I know that He does exist, and that people fall away because they decided to go their own way instead of trusting God. A person who can walk away from God and totally reject Him just like that obviously did not have much love for Him in the first place. It's like being married to someone in a deeply committed relationship for many years, and then suddenly walking away from it because someone else gave you some flowers. Obviously, to these people, God was never personal, and was simply a tradition they followed.

What God wants is a total committment. A half-hearted prayer is seeking something from God and giving nothing in return. It is to be double-minded before God, and see Him only as the great ATM in the sky, who can fulfill your dreams of living a life without Him interferring in it. If you're unwilling to submit to the Lordship of Christ, I wouldn't expect to hear anything. This isn't to say God wouldn't answer even a half-hearted prayer, but you definitely shouldn't expect much when you give so little.

There may be millions of people that invite god into their heart every night.. some may even repent their sins for safety. In fact, i'm sure there are many people who identify as religious and feel like that. People who, unlike you, are not able to convince themselves that they feel god, but live religiously because they can't bear the alternative and desperately WANT to feel god.

Would you say that they are all insincere, every single one?

I fear the answer will be simply "yes." Anything else must surely make you question your faith, that god could ignore an honest soul asking for help?

I haven't convinced myself of anything. I was secular when God knocked on my door, and I wasn't even looking for Him. What I know is that religion doesn't get you close to God, and neither is it based on feelings. To know God is a personal relationship. It is based on love and trust. A person who is unwilling to change their life and serve God is probably going to be in a perpetual crisis of faith. A person who is willing to change, willing to humble themselves, will most certainly get an answer.
>> ^dannym3141