Leaderboard
Popular Content
Showing content with the highest reputation on 06/07/18 in all areas
-
Except ... it isn't true: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=((radius+moon%2B+radius+Earth)%2Fradius+Earth)^2 If you choose from enough possible numbers and you allow things to be "close" to any arbitrarily chosen number, then you can "prove" anything. You can probably find Beyonce's birthday in the dimensions of the Great Pyramid. Or, at least, another day in the same month. Or maybe the same day in a nearby month. Or something. The same is true for your "nearly 1000" example. You can probable find the value of pi "encoded" in the planets if you look at enough different diameters, masses, orbits, ... You will find it eventually. Well, something close definitely. OK, you might have to multiply it by something or take the square root. But you will certainly find something that has some loose connection to pi. Or maybe e. Or the speed of light. Or something, anything! Like all numerologists, you don't understand how arbitrary you are being in your choice of numbers and the range of errors you allow. So you can't see how meaningless your results are. Because you are only doing this to support something you already believe (I may have said that before. A few hundred times.) Any normal person who doesn't already believe this will just see that you are being ridiculous and not "proving" anything. At its kindest, this is an example of apophenia. More realistically, delusional thinking.3 points
-
https://www.sciencealert.com/deep-unshakeable-fear-spiders-no-random-quirk-fate-born-arachnophobia https://www.livescience.com/9808-fear-spiders-develop-birth.html https://phys.org/news/2015-04-human-spiders-scientific-focus.html At worst it appears that any inherent fear is debatable. I would suggest that asking for a citation may mean that you find the statement doubtful or questionable at best, wouldn't you agree? Yep certainly and thanks for the info. I had only heard of the phenomenon called de-evolution, which is why I asked the question in the first place. I certainly accept the view of yourself and others..something I have learnt today gladly.2 points
-
2 points
-
I think this is an overly positive self-view, which is ignoring actual issues. It seems to be prevalent in much of Europe, we do not talk about racism in the open, hence it does not exist. Part of it is that much of the public broadcasters such as BBC and the German equivalent for example have a attenuating effect on public discourse. Economic anxiety has also been put forward as why Trump was voted in. In both cases (Brexit and Trump) subsequent studies have found that xenophobia and racism the actual driving factors. For Brexit check de Zavala et al (2017, Front Psychol). This is misinformation. The European Court of Auditors is the formal independent audit institution, and they publish regular audit reports. The issue is that many folks do not inform themselves how the EU works and are easily swayed by misrepresentation or outright lies by the leave campaign. I do think those folks that think themselves most resilient to this kind of propaganda and racism are among the least likely to notice when they are being influenced by it. And I am talking about subtle misinformation especially in complex issues not outright hatred. One has to recognize that the most common form of racism is not the full on neonazi-type ideology, but rather the subtle feeling of otherness or vague threat of ones own identity, for example. En masse, they can have massive influence on the political landscape as folks like Bannon found out. Almost everyone has some sorts of prejudice and one has to slow down and navigate those in order not to trip oneself up. This is especially relevant when one has some power over others, but also collectively as a society.2 points
-
Sounds like Cyclosophy... The original article is in Dutch: Velosofie. Maybe you can use some Webtranslator to read it. What he derives from his bicycle: distance sun - earth vacuum velocity of light constant of gravity fine structure constant age of the earth age of the universe (which was estimated at 18 billion years those days. The article is from 1990. But it surely is possible to get at 13.8 billion years) Praise the holy bicycle!2 points
-
Not really any such thing as de-evolution. Evolution is change. The "opposite" of change is not change, it is stasis.2 points
-
It's unscientific because you are not using scientific method. You are looking at random facts and measurements and jumping to extreme unsupported conclusions that just fit with your taught view of how reality is. You could draw 1000 different conclusions from the poor data you provided. You can't just make stuff up - that isn't science. You can't just show a few ratios and warp to the conclusion that it is designed - the only conclusion I can draw from that is that you would make a seriously inept detective.2 points
-
Here is a plot: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+y+%3D+-1+%2Fx^2 This is infinitely deep and, as you say, approaches zero at infinity. What is y in this graph? I assume x is distance from the particle? What does this mean? What is the size of the particle? How does this relate to the value of the curve at infinity? Does the size of the particle depend on distance? That is easy to answer: what value of spin does it have? Don't bring irrelevant nonsense like your belief in the steady state universe into the discussion as it is likely to cause unwanted distractions.2 points
-
Yes. For example, the theory of evolution by natural selection is (in the general principles) "certain" (as in your definition). The important point is that it is in principle falsifiable and so it still counts as a theory. The fact that it would require something close to divine intervention to falsify it at this stage means we can be certain beyond any reasonable doubt that the theory is correct. (Of course, "certainty" is not a binary property; it is a spectrum.)1 point
-
Let me answer your last query first....scientific theories do gain in certainty over time andas they are continually making correct predictions. Do you doubt evolution? Do you doubt Abiogenesis? No, I'm not muddying the waters as you suggest, I'm simply showing that this "inherent fear" is just not as certain as evolution and Abiogenesis. So yes, the certainty of evolution and Abiogenesis remain as theories, simply because the "possibility" can exist that they maybe falsified. Do you believe they will be? For all intents and purposes, they are certain. I've sited articles that agree with my statement..others do not. I'm prepared to agree that there is some debate on it. I'm siding with the positive, you seem to be siding with the negative. So no, no moving of any goal posts and certainly statements I have supplied support my opinion. Posted 21 minutes ago (edited) That's your perogative and opinion. I disagree. From the articles I find there is still an unknown factor and that the situation involving "inherent fear" is at best still debatable. We are certain of many scientific theories as I'm sure you will agree, evolution, Universal Abiogenesis are of course two prominent ones. In other words perhaps you are wrong? or alternatively, perhaps I am wrong? Will we ever know? Here's some more to illustrate my point...... https://phys.org/news/2015-04-human-spiders-scientific-focus.html A fear of spiders, arachnophobia, is in our DNA. You don't learn to freeze at the site of these creatures; you're born with the fear. Even the sight of hypodermic needles and houseflies does not trigger a similar response. Scientists pin that fear on survival instinct. The theory goes like this: Humans evolved in Africa where being able to spot a spider was of necessity. extract: The results, they said, supported the hypothesis that humans "may possess a cognitive mechanism for detecting specific animals that were potentially harmful throughout evolutionary history." Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-04-human-spiders-scientific-focus.html#jCp https://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(14)00103-2/fulltext Spiders at the cocktail party: an ancestral threat that surmounts inattentional blindness Abstract The human visual system may retain ancestral mechanisms uniquely dedicated to the rapid detection of immediate and specific threats (e.g. spiders and snakes) that persistently recurred throughout evolutionary time. We hypothesized that one such ancestral hazard, spiders, should be inherently prioritized for visual attention and awareness irrespective of their visual or personal salience. This hypothesis was tested using the inattentional blindness paradigm in which an unexpected and peripheral stimulus is presented coincidentally with a central task-relevant display. Despite their highly marginalized presentation, iconic spiders were nonetheless detected, localized, and identified by a very large proportion of observers. Observers were considerably less likely to perceive 1) different configurations of the same visual features which diverged from a spider prototype, or “template”, 2) a modern threatening stimulus (hypodermic needle) comparable in emotional salience, or 3) a different fear-irrelevant animal (housefly). Spiders may be one of a very few evolutionarily-persistent threats that are inherently specified for visual detection and uniquely “prepared” to capture attention and awareness irrespective of any foreknowledge, personal importance, or task-relevance. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: https://thehumanevolutionblog.com/2014/10/08/are-humans-predisposed-to-fear-snakes/ Some animals are genetically programmed to fear their predators. Mice naturally fear cats; fish naturally fear birds. But what about humans? Are we naturally disposed to fear certain dangerous animals?1 point
-
Implausible? I never stated, claimed, nor implied that I 'think this is so implausible'. I merely asked for cited supporting evidence for the stated claim that : "Many animals are born with an inherent fear of known predators." Many of the Posters on this Site, and even those Posting in this Thread, have repeatedly stated that "claims require evidence". Strange, is it incorrect that Lamarcks theory was rejected because it was found that it is not possible for an acquired or learned behaviour to change an individual's genes?1 point
-
I think the main driver of Brexit was that many don't want total integration with the EU, which is is what France and others want.1 point
-
Sounds like some work by Jarry. He describes a time machine, which some have interpreted as a description of a bicycle. He also wrote an essay describing the Crucifixion as a bicycle race: http://evergreenreview.com/read/the-crucifixion-considered-as-an-uphill-bicycle-race/1 point
-
Yes, it's not labelled a 'black problem'. because, at the end of the day, they are British and it is therefore a British problem.1 point
-
Sadly, the media is often complicit with this. White shooters are often quiet, misunderstood loners.1 point
-
I'm not sure why you think this is so implausible. Far more complex behaviours are inherited. Evolving the ability to avoid predators would clearly be advantageous and therefore selected for. However, it looks like there is (as is often the case) both an inherited and an environmental component. They have evolved the ability to learn fear of predators but need exposure/training to actually express this behaviour. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-predators-study/fear-of-predators-is-not-naturalstudy-idUSN2136840820070621 https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bd96/173020c76cdc78fbab30f70a89aa93aeac15.pdf1 point
-
I am pretty sure that animals are born with 'instincts'. I have never seen a citation for that - it something we learn at school and from watching wildlife programs. Rabbits are known to be skittish of shadows and things that move fast over their heads... this is to avoid being eaten by hawks and things.... do they learn this or is it instinctive? I am pretty sure they do not go to rabbit school where they all learn the names and shapes of the shadows of predator birds.... I think they are born with a genetic instinct that most prey animals have.... horses will skit at virtually anything... paper bag blowing in the wind? Your horse will either ignore it or jump sky high - they are naturally skittish from being prey animals in the wild. Do I have a citation?... no, sorry. Could I be wrong? - of course I could, but I am just repeating things I have learnt from years of school and watching nature programs, not reading wildlife study publications.1 point
-
The minimum rate to keep a cell functioning. A 250Kg bodybuilder is going to have a higher demand, even when resting, than someone smaller simply because he's got more cells to keep alive even without exercising.1 point
-
Hey Buster! Some news for you...The onus is on you to explain yourself scientifically, with empirical evidence. So far you have dodged, twisted ignored and been obtuse in everything asked of you. You certainly have posted some cringe worthy posts, totally lacking in discipline, evidence, and science of course.1 point
-
HCl is soluble in ether, however it is also quite volatile. Vacuum would have removed it.1 point
-
A tensor is strictly a mathematical construct, a means to organize scalar,vector and spinor relations. It has no peak. QM is part of the standard model but I suppose the terminology your looking for is classical physics as opposed to quantum physics1 point
-
https://phys.org/news/2018-06-horizons-historic-kuiper-belt-flyby.html New Horizons wakes for historic Kuiper Belt flyby June 6, 2018, NASA NASA's New Horizons spacecraft is back "awake" and being prepared for the farthest planetary encounter in history – a New Year's Day 2019 flyby of the Kuiper Belt object nicknamed Ultima Thule. Cruising through the Kuiper Belt more than 3.7 billion miles (6 billion kilometers) from Earth, New Horizons had been in resource-saving hibernation mode since Dec. 21. Radio signals confirming that New Horizons had executed on-board computer commands to exit hibernation reached mission operations at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland, via NASA's Deep Space Network at 2:12 a.m. EDT on June 5. Mission Operations Manager Alice Bowman of APL reported that the spacecraft was in good health and operating normally, with all systems coming back online as expected. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-06-horizons-historic-kuiper-belt-flyby.html#jCp <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What a great success this mission has been. I must admit something though. When this mission was first proposed, it was along side another proposal for a mission to Europa and if I recall correctly, a landing? At the time budget restraints meant that only one could be realised with the other abandoned and/or pidgeon holed. I was at the time bitterly disappointed that the Europa mission was the one that was pidgeon holed. New Horizon's has had stunning success and I followed it all the way, but I still sometimes think that maybe they pulled the wrong reign? Perhaps my thoughts on the possibilities of finding some form of life in the sub ice covered Oceans of Europa was the reason for my preference. Obviously the ideal position would have been to undertake both.1 point
-
Impressive for you and me? Maybe. Impressive for someone divine? For God's sake my friend, he either can't do math or he doesn't check his work. Very sloppy if you ask me.1 point
-
How do you adjust for pareidolia? Science has methods to deal with our confirmation bias, but you seem to have no such filter, so the "evidence" you claim is suspect.1 point
-
Stupid question I am not religious BUT please can someone define what religious folk think god is or does on this thread An easy explanation of weird shit happening to a flat lander would the concept of god did it. A mathematician might explain weird shit with a probability function. A being that experiences another dimension might think weird shit is explainable to flat landers only if they could understand extra dimensions. At the end of the day ALL things are just automatons responding to external inputs(teslaish), from inputs experienced in flatland or inputs from multiple spacial dimensions. A very clever person on this forum stated all things are quantum fluctuations or excitations. I am getting into string theory now and would reduce this even further all things are vibrations. My personnel opinion is religion is nothing about the concept of god and more about control of people. Science is more about trying to understand the mind of god which we may all be a part off anyway, depending on of course if you have a definition of gods.1 point
-
God I write some S**t, but then so it seems does everyone else. On this thread people claim to believe in god others not, but no one is prepared to define god thing they do or do not believe in. You are all talking S**t just like me.-1 points
-
Ah So! you have an open mind about a god concept but dont believe god created the universe, or any of the egyptian/greek gods etc existed and you do believe in something you think might be god. Can you define what you believe your version of god maybe in your open minded way? Do you perhaps think god is an separate entity from you, or a part of you or etc etc etc.? Do you hear voices?-1 points
-
Nope You clearly post a lot on the religious thread, so must have some beliefs along religious lines. I was merely asking you to define your beliefs more clearly and how they are related to the thread.-1 points
-
How about something like the moon and earth creating a phi ratio triangle with their combined dimensions? Or the fact that adding the orbital periods of the 3 other rocky planets in the solar system results in almost exactly 1000 earth days? Mercury: 87.97 days Venus : 224.70 days Mars: 686.98 days 87.97 + 224.70 + 686.98 = 999.65 Everything is created in a divine order, and the evidence is all around you. You only have to look a little further.-1 points
-
https://www.sciencealert.com/deep-unshakeable-fear-spiders-no-random-quirk-fate-born-arachnophobia " As for how such a hypothetical mechanism could exist, the researchers don't know for sure, but the idea is that somehow, over countless generations in ancient times, our human ancestors evolved a trait "that ensures special attention and facilitated fear-learning for ancestral threats in early human ontogeny", the team explains in their paper. In other words, even though our sheltered, modern lives mean most of us rarely come into contact with dangerous snakes or spiders, our long-forgotten forebears weren't so lucky – and the fear and disgust some of us feel today when we encounter these critters could actually be a hangover from a survival instinct that evolved in ancient times. " A "hypothetical that could exist" does not support your claim : " Many animals are born with an inherent fear of known predators." https://www.livescience.com/9808-fear-spiders-develop-birth.html "Scientists figure humans may be born with a fear of spiders and snakes, healthy phobias that up the odds of survival in the wild. It's not known how such an inborn fear might develop, however. Scientists aren't sure how the fear is passed down, but they speculate that stressful events like predator attacks trigger the release of a hormone in the mother that influences the development of the embryo. " Again, a "may be born with" and what "Scientists...speculate" does not support your statement : " Many animals are born with an inherent fear of known predators." https://phys.org/news/2015-04-human-spiders-scientific-focus.html " A fear of spiders, arachnophobia, is in our DNA. You don't learn to freeze at the site of these creatures; you're born with the fear. Even the sight of hypodermic needles and houseflies does not trigger a similar response. Scientists pin that fear on survival instinct. The theory goes like this: Humans evolved in Africa where being able to spot a spider was of necessity. The results, they said, supported the hypothesis that humans "may possess a cognitive mechanism for detecting specific animals that were potentially harmful throughout evolutionary history." " Once again, a "theory" or "hypothesis" does nothing to very little to support your claim " Many animals are born with an inherent fear of known predators." beecee, I would NOT AGREE that asking for a citation may mean that I find the statement doubtful or questionable. I asked for a citation simply because in all my years I had never read or heard it stated that : " Many animals are born with an inherent fear of known predators." I have actually been taught and learned that any fear of predators is a Taught or Learned behaviour. I have not been Taught or Learned every possible or conceivable bit of information on the subject, so I merely asked for a Citation to support your statement or claim.-1 points
-
So, you cannot Cite any articles to support your statement or claim : " Many animals are born with an inherent fear of known predators." Now you "Move the Goalposts" and state or claim " there is still an unknown factor and that the situation involving "inherent fear" is at best still debatable." ? Then you choose to 'Muddy the Waters', so to speak, by making another statement or claim : "We are certain of many scientific theories..."? beecee, if a theory was certain (free from doubt or reservation; confident; sure: established as true or sure; unquestionable; indisputable:***), would it still be a theory? *** http://www.dictionary.com/browse/certain-2 points
-
And I provided two. Which were ignored. Bu there you go. I didn't say they were. So...I asked for cited supporting evidence for the stated claim that : "Many animals are born with an inherent fear of known predators." StringJunky replied "You asked for evidence and I have provided a link for it..." Then, in reply to StringJunky, you stated "And I provided two. Which were ignored. Bu there you go." ? Edit to add - my first quote attributed what I had Posted to StringJunky - I was not able and I am still not able to change that. My most humblest apologies to StringJunky...please accept my apology.-3 points