Leaderboard

Having re-read the posts in this thread my personal summary is, I need the Earth, sadly the Earth does not need me.

Perhaps joigus cannot dispute the correctness this statement, for he is a Physicist. But I can because it is just plain wrong. To the best of our knowledge Paleoclimatology tells us that the Earth has only had its present nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere for less than half its existence. And the oxygen was not a component of the original atmosphere. The oxygen was actually released as a waste product from lifeforms that existed before oxygen for example stromatolites. Naturally the climate was also different then. So if the climate changed again, so would 'biological life', but it would probably still thrive, just as it has done before.

John, it's not my intention to prove you wrong, any more than it's very often my intention to prove myself wrong, for the sake of clarity and accuracy. Very often I take a back sit, click on the "follow" button, and try to learn from others, as you can easily check on the website's interface. There are many threads on which I'm just a follower. I strongly recommend you to carefully distinguish hostility towards you from rejection of your ideas, or even just honest intent to clarify your expression so that others can understand you.

John, Just how easy do you think it is to realise that ambition? The heart of your OP, the nature of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics, wasn't even a recognised field of study until the the work of the Russian chemical engineer Ilya Prigogine was brought to general attention with his award of the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1977 - that's half a century after the first firm principles of quantum mechanics and general relativity were established! It isn't an easy subject. Do you really expect to become fully conversant with it with a few brief exchanges on a general science internet forum? I was a first year chemical engineering student when Prigogine received his recognition, and it was something of an inspiration to us at the time. But mastering just standard thermodynamics is a major undertaking, and after a 40-odd year career development mainly focused on its application in the energy sector, I still often feel that I've only scratched the surface. Can you see how the assumption of being able to pick it up in five minutes might rub some people up the wrong way? Never mind ignoring any content that didn't quite fit in with your preconceived ideas. That level of understanding takes work, A great deal of work. And if you request help, as we all should do when we can't see the wood for the trees, then you really need to be switched to 'receive' rather than 'transmit'.

I’m not sure how to find the list of people following me.

Like this ? Maybe @Sensei has some ideas ?

A real cool customer he was! Saw Lainie in Sydney many years ago!

Actually joigus, the Oxford English Dictionary makes it quite plain that the verb 'needs' can be applied to a person or a thing way back to medieval times. There is no special distinction so your example is perfectly correct common English ie not very special. It is, however worth pointing out to the OP that on a technical site like SF, many words do have a special technical meaning. And many disagreements and misunderstandings arise from folks not being careful to distinguish. I do not know of a special technical meaning, so I think that your use of the common Englisn 'needs' is fine, but it would be unfair to knowingly misdirect someone whose first languauge is not English by misuse. Even someone whose Engish is as impeccable as that of joigus.

No problem. And be sure to keep us informed of your progress. Goodnight, John.

Thanks Sir

PS, if the tendency to disorder builds upon itself as entropy grows, what does that say about the future of homosexual percentages in our society? They are going up, and they will go up everywhere as humans evolve in a fight with natural order. But that's only if you understand entropy and disorder and have experience transformation the model into psychology and future's prediction Oh jeez, I have gaslighted your topic. I am really sorry. This other guy followed me wherever I go to start arguments. Thanks for allowing me to do this! Great subject! Good luck with your explorations!

A masochist may never back down, no matter how much they are proved wrong, and put on the spot. Its considered anti-social behavior because it never leads to any pro-social results. It's also supposed to feel bad, but they can ignore those feelings, to stay in apparent control. Yknow, people who wont agree that man made industry is probably warming the climate to some degree. Itll be very anti social when the atmosphere loses it's ability to support life. You believe you are being the sadist, you feel powerful, as you question and discuss a topic which I understand much better than you. But you dont have the power, or the knowledge, or the perspective to be in control of the understanding of this topic. That is why I am guiding it and you are flailing around subjects, never addressing the OP. Thread hihacking. But it's really an anti-social drive used to oppose things we dont like. What have I done to make you dislike me so much, and believe I dont have years of experience and knowledge in this field, that you may not have? The love of another mans body is the same as the love for another mans personality? Did you love your father? Did you want to have sex with him? Jeez. Love has many definitions and perspectives. Im sorry its not a black and white subject, but can you take your frustrations out elsewhere? May I suggest a subject which can be seen in black and white. Like math? I dont really think you believe love can be more than one thing, but since it is subjective, it is never any one thing. I dont think you like that reality and you dont seem to work well within those borderless views of understandings on many levels beyond black and white. BUt all you do is mock them. Thats how people act when they dont like something. Do you think it represents a disordered behavior that many people use? I know it is.

I believe that two things happened here 1) did not understand my text 2) or I expressed myself poorly Anyway, what I say, briefly, was: Homosexuality is largely influenced by the environment, despite having a genetic basis, genetics is not a good explanation at that time. That is why I criticize people who think that Homosexuality is 100% or largely influenced by genetics / Biology, disregarding major factors such as the food hypothesis I mentioned. There are many more things in the family / social environment that influence this, than genetic things themselves. Beautiful reflections. And they make total sense, I had never looked at that perspective. Thank you very much.

Mars needs global warming more badly than Earth. Some comments here strike me as very discriminatorily anti-Martian. And Venus could use some air-conditioning.

I have a perspective on homosexuality and trans folk which has a more anti-social implications from the world of psychology. When you get deep into the study of anti-social behaviors, they all become linked by a rebellion. A rebellion against outside rules and norms, and it even becomes a rebellion against their own brains and emotions. They simply refuse to be controlled by any system, even their own emotions and the emotions of others. This is in deep cases of anti-social disorders. The disorder literally rearranges how the person feels pleasure or non-pleasure. This is the very nature of anti social personality disorder. Homosexuality is also based in how the person feels about the sexes, and a disorder could rearrange how they see pleasure in the different sexes. An anti-social wants their objectivity to be the highest objectivity, so in denying that, as an anti-social, a male can turn his natural drive to be attracted to women, into his own pleasure hunt to deny the power of the natural drive. Seeking power over the things that wish to control our decisions, is an oft used human behavior. So, an male anti-social person could feel like society, or their environment is pushing them to desire women. To feel free from this push and to have power over it, the person could decide to be attracted to men and male characteristics. That is how anti-social behaviors work, when applied to homosexuality. It could also easily be seen as sexual narcissism. A sexual narcissist would be aroused by their own bodies. And if a man is a sexual narcissist, he may seek what he is, in others. If you examine the gay community, you find different segments within it. SM, Muscle, leather, feminized, etc. They often do not inter-date, and even have their own social events. This really gives homosexuality the look and model of different approaches to solve the same issue. Most of those approaches could be seen as disordered, even the hormonal or gene driven ones. A disorder in the genes or hormone process, may create disorders brains. Isnt that the point? What we need to do is remove the stigma from the word disordered. I have yet to meet one single person without some type of behavioral disorder, and I'm sure that means, I have yet to meet anyone with a perfect system, brain, genes and hormones. But subjective solutions and reactions to the models we encounter (heterosexuality), that simply do not appeal to us, for whatever reason, may be replaced by our own subjective solutions (homosexuality) that take offense with being directed. Because a subjective solution is not truly subjective, without a perspective. And a person who is very aware of control, is aware of that.

I have been wanting to use the acronym LOL for a while so here goes. I think that coming to a Science forum and opening a question in the Physics section entitled Questions on Thermodynamic Free Energy and then complaining there are other uses for the word Law is equivalent to me taking my book of Mathematical Tables off the shelf, opening it at the table entitled "squares, roots and reciprocals" and complaining that it doesn't show the sine of the argument (do you know what an argument is in mathematics ?). You say you have an interest in Earth Science. Do you know what the word Law stand for in the home of Earth Science, Scotland ?

I think you'll find having proficiency in math will help a lot with being able to work chemistry problems. Good luck!

Oh thanks to both of you, I further understand the role of the constant now in mathematical terms based on what you've written it Sir Studiot and thanks for further elaborating Sir Swansont. I think I need to polish my fundamentals especially on my math more now that I'm pursuing a science course. I'm planning to take chemistry for my MA and PhD so I really need to understand such basic concepts. Forgive me for lacking mathematical skills as I need to improve more on it. Also, Sir Studiot, I searched for the Environmental Theory is it by Florence Nightingale? is that what you're referring to? Forgive me for my English as I'm not yet quite proficient with it as a second language here in the Philippines. Also thanks for the warm welcome.

John needs to stay here or we may miss the arrival of the package. You cannot just take one part of a sentence to find meaning. That is not how sentences work. They become one unit of expression. John does not need to stay anywhere and we have no idea about John's needs, but the sentence still contains "John Needs". Im done too. You also used the statement "earth needs".

I didn't say you did, I just thought you'd both benefit; wiv a lickle toke...

Thank you! But hopefully they are not only pleasing, but truthful approaches. Its so nice that someone understands my words and doesnt accuse me of being a whacko or uneducated. Im writting a book on this subject, which covers universal behavior. Its hard some some folks to grasp it.

I hate to be the voice of disagreement, but even biases towards flavors will be influenced by the environment and genes. Or is there another factor that contributes to our consciousness and how we perceive the outer world? Outside our Markov blanket, obviously. Maybe the spirit, or the soul. Or maybe you just believe there is any part of you that i'snt a factor of genes and environment. But taste? I highly doubt it. Every human behavior and experience and opinion is formed in the same way. That doesnt mean you actually had any control over it. A schizophrenic may think chocolate and vanilla and monsters. Its the same as you thinking one tastes better than the other.

DId that last post help you see?

Well, I didnt tell you that I allready notified the moderators, using the report features. When you don't know all the information, you really look like a fool. It's a valuable lesson to learn, for us all. I ran to mommy, and mommy didnt help. Ill probably grow up to have personality disorders. Hehe

Do you detect any natural order in sex between opposite sexes? Think long and hard. IF you dont see any natural order to sex between opposite sexes, in this evolutionary world, you have missed he point allready. Disorder is not a put down. It is a fact of the universe. We all have it, get over it. I love gay people. Their sexual personality disorders means nothing to me, so I dont judge them at all. Disordered and perfect. Thats the difference between the reality of homosexuality, and my equilibrium with it. I am fine with it.

Yes, I do have bad faith in you. You never addressed any issues you had with the OP that I didn't dismiss with proof. It has shown me that you are not an expert of psychology to the degree that I am, and you obviously assume you are. But you dont have the working knowledge and understanding to comprehend the points I make, and you mock them. Im sick of it, but Im learning so much about how to handle people. I have had no difficulty in reading. But i've pointed out plenty of difficulties you have understanding psychology. Its like me saying to you..."Its an example of free energy dude"...and you go, "which kind?". You arent being unkind, I am uneducated in seeing all the expressions of free energy. I am not uneducated in how to see love. That's what I study. You thought it could be seen as a single thing in psychology? An expert on love would know.

Oh right, since love isnt one thing to anyone, it doesnt matter if you specify what type of love. Do me a favor and put nuts on that? What kind of nuts? Thats unrelated to using nuts. I love you man. You show me so many different levels of human decision making when humans are trying to prove themselves, instead of a point. Bless your heart! IM sorry Luiz, did you ask iNow to stop hijacking your thread? It worked with mw, until he continued to display the disorder of his thoughts. I wont respond to him again on this thread!

No, you didn't show anything, you just took specific parts of my topic to say that you were disregarding other factors, which in fact you weren't. And I’m not even taking it personally, I’m just answering anyone who doesn’t read it and has no interest in it. What other data? Bailey? Ganna? For the rest, I only saw a scientific babble, already answered in the topic above.

Fatherless kids is now a specifier for ASPD. Always has been. But I have no psychopathic traits. None. I cant charm anyone, no one likes me. I cant manipulate people. I cant even get you to believe I have an expert perspective of psychology! haha. I have a past of anti social traits, and none from psychopathy. If something drove me to kill, it would be my ASPD, not my psychopathy. There are plenty of non psychopathic, masterminds, who went on killing for years because they were just anti socials with a drive to hurt. I dont lie, I dont have to exaggerate my own points, and Im not engaging in any of the head gams you try to tempt me with. I am a well adjusted anti social. Recovered anti social. And now, with honesty, I can spot anti social behavior quicker than you could make up that bullshit about psychopathy fillings the gaps in my topic. Ad Hominem...say hi to Ayn Rand in your dreams.

Nothing about this conversation has to do with anything relevant as far as I can tell. I am using it to examine your behavior. But go on asking questions. What is your goal of the relevance of any of this? Especially in relation to the OP, unless you just want to break the rules of hijacking without it being acknowledged by you, but I must acknowledge the rules. Im not anti social anymore.

Be honest now...use the little modelling machine you inherited from the universe and figure it out. Nevermind that, it has no importance. I was simply fascinated. Thats all you need to know. again, What do you think the relevance of my comment is? If you had to interpret it, without my help, which is where you are, what would you think? Do tell...I must know how you see it. I can learn so much, please, be honest. Man, some people never learn to model anything on their own. They spend their time, dedicated to learning some system. Some systems have such rigid restraints on how they figure objectivity, that could be all they learn about trying to achieve objectivity. Cuz they never had to model anything on their own. So how could this person have creative thought, and truly analytical thought when their analytical and creative abilities were never truly challenged by any other system of finding objectivity? Our environment truly says everything about our perspectives, dont you agree?

Yes, you have never been willing to share any of your thoughts, about the OP, the thread or anything else. Did you want to achieve the intimacy of understanding, or was your only purpose to destroy any possibility for intimacy by closing your outflow of expression? Cuz thats one real easy way to do it. Humans figure it all out before the age of 2. Its a very elementary approach to destroying intimacy.

Oh yeah, it also drives all personality disorders. Just a coincidence, I suppose.

Maybe you should use my examples of context of the "John Needs" analogy. People in these forums never want to find a common perspective they can both debate from. I offered one. And you came back with, OK. Ill assume you know I am correct now, and theorize that i may be using a figure of speech in which an abstract thing is personified. I have no opinions or cares about that. Or the judgement itself means nothing to me. I explained what NEED is and how it is used in our language. Ignore that, and make any adjustments you need to justify another subjective view. Or address my points, and lets decide if I was right about the application of the word needs. You assume needs creates a position of needing or being needed. It does not. No, I know that rooms have no needs unless they have a purpose to fulfill. So any particular room has no needs to me. IN that sentence, who needs the room to be painted? The room doesnt need it. But who does. Its not even in your sentence. But still, your sentence says that the room needs to be painted. Who thinks so? You? Its not implied is it? because you do not need to imply what needs the room to be painted. YOu just made a factual statement of need about the room, i didnt. Does the room need to be painted? If you say so. Now I am living on planet earth as a biological life form that needs the sun to keep its climate favorable for my survival, I don't need it. My survival needs it. I didnt demand this need, i evolved into the need. The sun also evolved into the process of this need, without wanting to, but it is still there, being needed, and i am still here, needing it. The only reason I need the climate to remain as it is, is because my life is a factor of needing sunlight. And there is nothing that exists that doesnt need to be used. Need has no direction of flow as a verb. It simply makes necessities, as a verb. Blame the people who thought we needed rules to guide definitions, and then you can continue to be confused by how need is not want, or a reward. It takes 2 things for anything to be possibly needed.

Ok sure, but the sentence, "Earth needs to preserve it's climate or biological life will encounter difficulties with survival" is still 100 percent true and accurate. Congrats on your experience with your experience. It has nothing to do with mine, and no objective rule over anything.

The only one who appears to have a severe functional difficulty to interpret a minimal reading, is you. And the evidence contained in the link below (which you have not read, will not read and will have a deadly hatred for those who read) does not point to any environmental variant. A His intellectual incapacity, mixed with his over-inflated ego, creates a mental and ridiculous atrophy comparable to that of an autistic child. Consider the evidence raised in my topic, and then you refute something. Or simply accept that homosexuality is influenced primarily by the environment rather than the other way around. Otherwise, if you do not have the capacity to accept such a real-life blow to your fantasy and egalitarian boy. You simply do not have the ability to prove otherwise, and by the way, that but it seemed to me to cry than a scientific argument to the study mentioned, but really, from you, I do not expect anything "scientific".

No, and here you demonstrate once again your deficiency in the incapacity of textual interpretation. What I said was that ignoring my data is irrelevant in this discussion, and if we continue like this, we will have a fruitless debate. I have already reviewed some of your data, and I can safely say that some have already been refuted by recent studies. Why do I speak of them openly on the topic that you probably will not read. Yourself, and it's not an "idiotic and silly" attack, I'm just reporting an axiom. On the contrary, we would both be right or in agreement if you had the cognitive capacity to interpret or at least read, even if it is a mere two lines.

I know, but i didnt want you to think just because you see something doesnt mean anyone else does. So congrats on seeing something. What did you add to the thread at all with that observation? I guess thats what IM wondering. Yes, well you still havent proven me wrong, so once again, congrats. "Earth needs to preserve it's climate or biological life will encounter difficulties with survival" is still 100 percent true and accurate. You can talk till the cows come home. You cannot tell me that the statement is not accurate. But I will enjoy seeing you try. I should thank you once again for providing the answer i was looking for in this thread, about the OP. I am grateful.

Welcome to your world... 🤣 Come on over and help me smoke this wicked chronic, you'll see what I mean... 😉

This is an unacceptable position to take. We expect arguments to be made in good faith, and declaring you will not answer questions does not comply Are you allowed to ignore questions? But you cant tell them that you are ignoring them? Makes total sense. Inow refused to answer my questions throughout this entire thread. But he didnt openly refuse to, he just ignored them, so its ok....LOL! hilarious... Brilliant! If you dont know what is being taught, how do you know modern mainstream? This is hilarious! No, they cant be argued. to argue them you will need to find facts to disprove them. You cannot find fact to disprove them as they are facts. You will have to read the entire DSM V section on personality disorders, if you want to confirm what I say about it. And it is true. And if you had the read the DSM V, you would know what Im saying is true. So thats my citation. Go read the DSMv if you want to know what I said about it is true, but you cannot just tell me it isnt true without doing that.

Instead of admitting your personal attack on my intelligence, you double down. And you mean to say that my behavior in other threads could create a bias against me? You already have one. I dont think you can now go on without this bias effecting the way you see everything I say. It's impossible that you haven't made a judgement about me. It is subjective and lacking in any real merit. Because I am not an advanced mathematician does not make me less intelligent than any mathematician. It means I chose to focus my intelligence in other areas. Thats all it implies.

Im sorry, you didnt achieve your goal. That must suck. Gosh, I guess all those dinosuars just couldnt adjust fast enough to the changes that the asteroid brought to the earth that killed them. We all know that can happen, besides you, apparently. See. when the asteroid changed the earth's climate, the earth needed to retain its climate, or the dinosaurs would die. It could not, so they died. Anyone want to argue that reality or the way I expressed it? Step right up folks, This thread is now about proving if dinosaurs died, because the earth failed to meet the needs of biological life, due to an asteroid impact.