Leaderboard

1)I have seen no evidence of purpose in evolution. 2)Irrelevant as long as purpose is not demonstrated 3)You keep linking to the Wikipedia article, which clearly states "apparent" purpose. Despite your earlier claim of the contrary, the context makes it very clear that "illusionary" is what is meant here. 4)I can only guess at the relevance. 5)This makes no sense at all. Religious people dislike those things "because" they like purpose. In fact, a desire to find purpose is what drives a lot of people to religion.

Clearly, your purpose is to obsess about shit that doesn't really matter, the entropy of which will probably end in the same way your previous identical thread did.

A room (8 m X 6 m X 4 m (height)) with hard sound reflecting surfaces is to be decorated for meeting purpose. The reverberation time is measured and found to be 3 seconds in a particular octave band. Calculate how much extra sound absorption must be provided to reduce the reverberation time to 0.8 s, that is suitable for speech and discussion. Assume that a carpet is added on the entire floor with the value of absorption coefficient = 0.2 in the same band and sound absorbing panels are added to cover areas of the wall and ceiling with the value of absorption coefficient= 0.4. What is the area for these panels required? You may assume that the absorption coefficient of the hard sound reflective surfaces is negligible and other settings (e.g., equipment and furniture) inside the room is the same. My work: for the first part: Calculate how much extra sound absorption must be provided to reduce the reverberation time to 0.8 s, since by the following equation for T=3, aisi=10.24 m2 sabins and for 0.8s , aisi=38.4 , so the extra sound absorption is 38.4-10.24 =28.16 m2 sabins (Is that correct??????any missing data I didnt use???) for the area for these panels required? (my work is as follows) (0.4*(8*4*2)+(6*4*2))+(0.2*6*8)+(0.2*8*6)=73.6 m2 The answer of this question is 59.7 m2 , can someone point out my mistake????

Hi Lasse: No one is trying to take away any belief but one needs to accept that any supernatural/paranormal answer as a "final solution" is simply unscientific. I see you as a reasonably reasonable bloke/sheila, unlike many others that come to science forums, with a "chip on their shoulders" or to see the need to conduct some evangelistic crusade against the supposed evils of science, that has deposed any need for any deity of any description into near oblivion. I'm not sure that science can ever be able to answer the question/s of how we, Earth, the planets, stars, spacetime etc, all evolved from essentially nothing or if you prefer quantum foam. But the investigations and research always continues with no short cuts as beautifully summed up by the greatest educator of our time [in my opinion]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag6fH8cU-MU While the Catholic church has wisely accepted the validity of the theory of evolution of life, along with the BB, they then, not unexpectedly fill in the missing part/s with their "god of the gaps". In summing up my thoughts, science, particularly cosmology and Astrophysics are powerful domains, and its rather refreshing seeing some one such as yourself, who it appears still has religious beliefs of sorts, at least recognise that fact.

The decision to break light up into seven colors was artificial. Three would also be artificial, and since the light is a continuum of wavelengths, it would arguably be a worse representation.

That should be quicker.

You can also select some text in a post and then then a “Quote this” button should appear next to it. Clicking that copies the text into a quoted box in the reply

I agree in principle, though it has to be clear that classifications have to be scrutinized and heavily contextualized. For example, most of the time it is meaningless to put all black folks into one category, as they are incredibly genetically diverse. Much of the health info regarding black individuals is derived from Afro-Americans, which are of of course not representative of the diversity in, say Africa, and have a higher proportion of mixing with e.g. Europeans. Due to the traditional misuse of the classification, plus how folks tend to mix up the race theory stemming from the enlightenment era with modern knowledge of genetic diversity it can be difficult to implement these classifications accurately. Ideally one would eventually go away from using, e.g. skin colour as proxy for certain allele(s) that are associated with higher risk of certain diseases. With regard to glaucoma, there is speculation that there may be additional genetic factors. But it is not clear whether it is something found in African American communities (which have a limited genetic diversity) or something common to all Africans. And that is an issue that also makes a simple coarse classification problematic. Are health issues found in African American who are descendant of slaves also found in more recent immigrants from Africa who came from other regions? IOW are classifications like e.g. Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, etc. actually useful? Or are there better alternatives for different purposes? As already mentioned, all these classifications are artificial, but which are useful and which are potentially harmful?

Older mothers have a higher risk of delivering a child with autism. That doesn't make older mothers there own race. Every little difference doesn't require subdivision. We can acknowledge that race is a social construct while still understand different people are more prone to various alignments based on sex, gender, height, weight, age, and etc.

Emphasizing the underlying point Phi made, the key distinction here is between trust and faith. Trust is generally earned and only provisionally held, wherein faith is generally demanded and impervious to reason or validation.

Not really. A candle flame is a weak plasma- at about 1400C Most of the plasmas in laboratories throughout the world are contained in thin walled glass tubes coated on the inside with mixtures of rare earth silicates etc. These devices are called... Fluorescent light bulbs Y0u may also find this interesting http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/720/1/012038/pdf

The apparent problem with Trump, is that he appeals to the lowest common denominator.

That is such a broken chain of reasoning! You link to a jobsite for jobs in economics, and claim SOME teachers of economics make a living teaching, and you think that, plus Trump's income means he's smarter than the teachers. Your argument tries fallaciously to equate the achievements of "some" with "all", and your extreme reach to this conclusion is invalid. I've been far more successful in terms of money than many of the teachers in my life, but I would NEVER claim to be smarter than they are/were. What an absurd idea! And why would you come to a science discussion site and disrespect people who read?! Book worms are using their time more wisely than you, sir!

lol. I eat sushi all the time. There are some beneficial parasites though. https://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2014/07/intestinal-parasites-are-actually-beneficial

Your link is in Russian. Sorry, I'm not able to read Russian. And of course you have been put on the right path, a path that has been tried and tested over centuries and stands as solid as any scientific model would wish.

The point isn't really what you know. The point is that religion uses faith, a strong belief that doesn't need anything but a strong belief. Science uses evidence to ensure that our explanations for natural phenomena are the best currently available, and always subject to change when new evidence is uncovered. Scientific explanations can be trusted, and I think that's a stronger form of belief than faith or wishful thinking.

And the current conventional thinking with regards to tides has also been verified many times, and also explains why the Moon is moving away from the Earth and the Earth is slowing in its rotational rate.

If tides were not caused by gravity, then one would have to explain how all of Newtonian Gravity and GR are wrong and yet still seem to work.

Umm, no. The tides are simply a result of the gravitational attractions of the Moon and Sun. The actual effect is called tidal gravitation, and also explains why the Moon is very slowly [a couple of centimetres a year] moving away from Earth, and why the earth's rotational period is gradually slowing down and seeing the length of a day increasing very slightly.

I am just going to copy the answer to this from another forum: All of those examples are due to the shape of the bays and seabed. Something that is obvious if you look at locations near those measuring points:- Edgartown, near the Bay of Fundy (tidal range about 1m)- Cherbourg (5m) near Mont St Michael- Swansea further out on the Bristol Channel (8m)- Bukhta Podkagernaya (7m) in the Sea of Okhotsk- Arkhangel'sk (1m) near Mezensky Bay.NOAA address your claim about tidal ranges in their FAQ with a couple of counter-examples - https://www.co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/faq2.html#27

Ten oz' prior words: " Guessing, even educated guessing, is a subjective endeavor. " My earlier response simply underlined that science seeks to be objective, rather than subjective. Alex Wissner cross underlines some connection between entropy maximization and intelligence. In a similar way, I underline a potential connection between entropy maximization and AGI (a type of intelligence, akin to human level). Before the atom was empirically observed, the atom had been "apparent" mathematically. You ought not to conflate apparentness, with illusion. 1.) You are still attached to the teleological argument, and regardless of your opinions, teleonomy concerns non-theistic paradigms, in the realm of science. (There is a difference between science and non-science/non-falsifiable concepts) 2.) Sample of teleonomic purpose: Richard Dawkins described the properties of "archeo-purpose" (by natural selection) and "neo-purpose" (by evolved adaptation) in his talk on the "Purpose of Purpose". Dawkins attributes the brain's flexibility as an evolutionary feature in adapting or subverting goals to making neo-purpose goals on an overarching evolutionary archeo-purpose. Language allows groups to share neo-purposes, and cultural evolution - occurring much faster than natural evolution - can lead to conflict or collaborations.

As far as my awareness of evidence goes, particular teleonomic purposes are maintained as systems evolve towards more entropy production. This means that entropy maximization paradigms may occur as functions on the aforesaid purposes, including processes regarding evolution.

What a joke, "he is clearly not smart in terms of academic standards.", lol Some Economics Professors are only able to make money by teaching Economics . They are only able to read book. Trump made a lot of money, he is far smart than those book worms.

There is a type of purpose that is said to contrast randomness or pseudorandomness in evolution. That purpose is teleological or religious purpose. (See Wikipedia/teleological argument) However, pseudorandomness does not oppose teleononomic purpose. (See Richard Dawkins' work in Wikipedia/teleonomy) Excerpt from Wikipedia/randomness/religion: "If the universe is regarded to have a purpose, then randomness can be seen as impossible. This is one of the rationales for religious opposition to evolution, which states that non-random selection is applied to the results of random genetic variation." This means, a religious person may likely find purpose to be infeasible given religious aversion to pseudorandomness/randomness/evolution.