Leaderboard

Except, it is. What you shared are world records… examples of ONE runner being best… basically, anecdotes. What Charon shared, however, was based on the largest ever study done on trends in ultra marathons over 23 years across over 15,000 events and it included over 5 MILLION results. But yeah… I agree. If you look at just ONE runner in the top record holding spot, then the claim doesn’t “SEEM” true.

He needs to put his DVD's in an opaque, gas-tight box, full of inert gas, suspended from the ceiling of a cryogenic freezer with elasticated string.

And just to be safe, he should get inside the box himself so that he can properly monitor the situation.

The answers are the same as when you asked these questions 7 months ago: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/124030-question-plastic-bag-and-humidity/ And when you asked again 5 months ago: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/124463-question-sound-hammer-damage-objects-in-room/ And then when you asked yet again 4 months ago: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/124507-question-light-and-uv-and-cardboard-box/ And just in case that wasn’t enough, when you then asked again 2 months ago: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/125099-question-plastic-rubber-and-low-humidity/ Twice you asked 2 months ago, in fact: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/125100-sodium-or-calcium-hypochlorite-is-related-to-25-active-chlorine/?tab=comments#comment-1177266

The maximum current between any two points in any circuit flows along the path of least resistance. When an unintentional low resistance path occurs between two conductors (perhaps one being earth) a very large unintentional current can flow. This develops a large amount of heat as the heating effect is proprotional to the square of current. So (metal) conductors can get very hot and if theya re touching something flammable they can start a fire. Does this help, ask for more if you did not follow any part of it ?

To the first part, I do not think that any of us without deep reading into the biology of long-distance running can really make but the most superficial assumption on what traits are really critical for ultramarathons and how that relates to gender differences. To the second part, having a lot of data is exactly the point. If your hypothesis is that men have categoric advantages over women in the performance of anything, we want to get large data sets and look how the distribution is. For example if the top 0.01% is all men but we see large overlap in the rest of the 99.99% of the distribution then we can not clearly conclude that men are biologically advantaged. Rather, it points to a fact that there is a small group of men (over all women and most other men) that might be . And then it would make much less sense to exclude transgender women in that given category. Conversely, if we got a large or at least clear separation in performance then one might conclude the opposite.

More of a postulate of science. Not invoking things that can't ever be experimentally confirmed.

Dragging a BB from one's arse sounds rather painful. In terms of Karl Popper's criterion of falsifiability, religion has no "black swan, " and cannot be in the domain of scientific inquiry. Why do message boards devoted to science almost universally contain religion threads that seem to never end and let Popper have the last word? I think it's the seductive hope that somehow superstitions can be given a sheen of respectability by somehow making untestable conjectures testable. If I had a nickel for every time someone posted on the Web "perhaps some future technology will find a way to detect souls or God bits or angels..." I would have enough money to join Jeff Bezos in outer space. I have no problem with meditation, contemplation, prayer, or other inward means of comforting the spirit, calming one's thoughts, developing compassion, and gaining introspective insight, but when people start insisting on their metaphysical fantasies and harming others who disagree, it's hard not to see organized religion as a memetic poison. I would go further than saying scientists can't believe in a religion: I would say scientists really should avoid beliefs generally. I think expectations, based on probabilities, are as much as we can get away with in our limited epistemic domains. I'm not an atheist, which implies belief, but am agnostic in the common sense of seeing god(s) as unknowable and incapable of verification. Or falsification. As Descartes pointed out, we are easy to deceive.

Not answerable unless you can tell me what the difference is between a non-self-aware machine and a self-aware machine.

Not sure that having wet biology is the key, @StringJunky, although it may be a factor. To me, and I'm speaking from intuition alone, the key would be having algorithms cooperate with other algorithms, and compete against still other, and produce offspring algorithms whose success is measured against relatively slowly-changing environmental conditions (as compared to the reproduction rate of such algorithms, so that anything like 'adaptation' even starts to make sense). IOW, a dynamics of competition and self-replication that mimics that of living organisms, and dispose of those organisms that don't fit the bill, so as to guarantee they don't have offspring algorithms. Given that we know for a fact that evolution of cognitive organs came about in the context of evolution of sufficiently autonomous structures in such a way at least once, it's a reasonable guess that something similar would likely happen again. Introduce cooperative self-replication (AKA sex), and evolution would speed up considerably. It is arguable that algorithms already have "awareness": Being able to probe the environment and store information about it however ephemeral, is some kind of primitive 'conscious' process. Self-awareness is just one step ahead: Being able to recognize clusters of data as other instances of algorithm and infer, by some kind of division self/other that the invisible 'self' variables (invisible because they're sacrificed to represent the universe outside) must be. Is awareness, consciousness, you name it, some kind of universal principle that operates in general; but in a very diffuse and ineffectual way mostly everywhere, while only in the way we experience it when a certain division inside (self) outside (universe) is established as a relevant "state variable" of the system, and cognitive connections as well in the internal states of these specially sophisticated physical systems? We don't know. I digress. The upshot (my guess) is: Let algorithms compete and cooperate among them, and have sex, and be anything like successful/unsuccessful, and there will be (some kind of) self-awareness at some point. In fewer words: Let there be Darwinian algorithms and there will be self-awareness.

I thought I had added in the example using space and time. In quantum mechanics by themselves, neither space nor time are emergent as they are a necessary part of the fundamental principles and equations. However the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is emergent from this Mathematics as the matrices involved ar non commutative. ie A.B is not equal to B.A where A and B are the relevant matrices, involving space / time. So (B.A. - A.B) is non zero and gives us the Uncertainty Principle

This would not be a short circuit however. It is an example of an overload condition, nor is the intentional use of the heating effect of cuurent in electric heaters, light bulbs etc. Peter has asked specificially about the relationship of short circuits, which are unintentional connections, to heating. There are other undesirable effects of short circuits (without necessarily causing large currents) but which can cause danger to life. This happens when an exposed conductor becomes unintentionally connected to a live supply and then a danger if touched. Metal cases, knobs suffer from this.

It is only a nitpick, but I would qualify this by stating that anatomy becomes an issue on the mid-high level of competition and that the difference depends quite a bit on the type of running. Obviously some training often beats out no training at all in most types of races. But also look at this : Sure, it still means that in the vast majority of types of races men outrun women, but obviously the anatomic advantage does not translate universally. If it was that easy one could e.g. make hip-distance based leagues for example. Then the question could be expanded to other issues regarding fairness. Competition on the highest levels often requires a lot of money for highly technical training. Or perhaps the ability to enhance athletes without being found out for doping. So wealth (of the organization) can skew results. As others have mentioned, height differences are not considered an issue and so on. So I am wondering what specifically makes this case so much more egregious that it needs to be looked on specifically over other issues. Let's say for example there are cis-gendered women with high testosterone levels and which have some increases in muscle mass among their peers and a transgender woman who, due to early transition has similar levels and performance. Who gets to perform in which group?

Yes i understand, But reflection for 8 mins is only half of the problem. The 16 mins of delay are not going anywhere, as me sitting there and watching on the moon from that start point. As i understand that two objects on the equal distance from the point of my view (wich is the source of light #1) get 8 min difference in time, because the smaller Sun that is next to the Moon, its light travels towards me and reaches me in 8 mins, but the Moon (that is actually on the same distance from me as the smaller Sun) i will see with 16 min delay. So 2 objects that are on the equal distance from me are actually in two different timeframes (for me). Cause in the start point i will see smaller Sun in 8 mins and the Moon in 16 mins (beacuse light needs to travel to the Moon, from my Sun, and back). I am really sorry if its confusing, its really hard for me to explain myself on the language that is not my primary one. Thank you Regards Ohhhh, Yes now i see... ok thanks for the answer

The roots of science as we know it, I think, are already present in Roger Bacon and Galileo. It's this emphasis on observation and careful measurement that really did it. I see some kind of fruitful meandering from the empirical side (Francis Bacon) to the mathematical/rational part (Descartes). Advances have come in successive emphasis on one and the other. Aristotle (empirical emphasis) got his physics badly wrong. Much later, Descartes (pure reason, mathematics) got his biology of sorts badly wrong. I think this tension echoes through the centuries even today (cosmology; multiverse, pre-big-bang scenarios). "Greater" as more efficient, more influential at the grassroots level, more present in people's minds if only to the effect of disagreeing with it, or setting in motion waves of counter-opinion, or even just wondering what it means or implies, I think science is more influential than philosophy. I can hardly think of anything like the denial campaigns on global warming and the possible human influence on it would have happened had it been a question on purely philosophical epistemology.

I appreciated the MSN article's observation that "correlation is not causation." My testosterone is likely to be considerably higher than that of the two Sub-Saharan women, yet I'm entirely sure they would complete any footrace with me laps behind them. (unless the starting gun contained live rounds and was fired directly at them) The multitude of physical factors is so large -- skeletal proportions, ratio of fast-twitch fibers, hormonal balance, variations in mitochondrial DNA (yes, some folks do have better mitochondria for certain sports where endurance matters -- we're not sled dogs, but there's a variable range in the human species), allergic responses, erythrocyte count (do you live above 2000 m.?), innate joint flexibility (woman do better than men, on this one), and so on. In some competitions, like running, specific physical factors are strongly linked with cis-gender and are understood to relate to the mechanics of running. Narrow hips allow for more efficient bipedal running. Paired with a deep chest, you get the classic physique of the long-distance runner. All the training and fierce spirit in the world is not going to make a cis-female competitive in that particular sort of competition, because race outcomes are so dependent on anatomical factors. It's not like basketball, where a short man can get onto a team with speed, lightning=fast moves, and amazing outside shots (Nate Archibald is the classic exemplar). So, you would be left with two choices for aspiring female long-distance runners. One, you can compete, but you will probably lose all the time. Two, you can compete only with people whose bipedal mechanics is somewhat similar to yours, which would be the traditional women's event. So, where do the biomechanically-different trans-females go, then? With larger chest cavities and vital capacity, and narrower hips, they would seem to be competitive in the men's event. Does the problem then become one of nomenclature? (forgive my longwindedness, and my likely rehashing aspects of this discussion that probably were already covered somewhere back in the 17 prior pages of this thread.)

Arguing , discussing whatever. You are putting your points in the proper way. 🙂 It is not, however, my understanding of the meaning of the term, 'emergent'. We do not consider heat, resulting from friction to be 'emergent', although it is the result of that friction. There has to be something special about the circumstances that allows or brings about 'emergence', so that it would not happen in different circumstances. Consider a pile of bricks for instance. If you stack them in any old random way, the pile will soon fall over. But if you configure them in one particular way you will achieve a very strong and stable self supporting structure called an arch. This property sensitive to configuration which is the controlling circumstance in this case. Configuration is not more, or less 'fundamental' than the bricks themselves or their other properties.

You didn't show anyone's reply to be wrong. Examples were given. Nobody conceded that atomic particles cannot be identical. You're just making all that up. Or is it that you just didn't understand the answers? It occurs to me that you haven't presented anything here that's an independent thought, based on an understanding of science. You've been parroting what others have said, and quite obviously with limited comprehension. Your prowess in Googling and copy-pasting doesn't measure up to people who have actually studied science, and have an understanding of it. Things were OK when you asked the question, but to reject responses because you don't like them - they don't fit your worldview or whatever, rather than pointing to established scientific concepts - that's not OK. Oh, the hubris to think this.

I am not sure if I can go alone with this random error analysis. For example, viruses and bacteria, are always in a state of change that goes faster than 1 in a million lpng shot. These smart little bugs are improving as fast as we can create medicines for them. This would appear to imply something else creating the potential for change. I view the whole environment setting the needed potential. The bubonic plague in Europe centuries ago resulted from a chain of events stemming from the overcrowded and unsanitary conditions. It was not just a mutate strain randomly appearing that randonly cooincided with the overcrowded and unsanitary conditions.

Seems I have more than you ?

others questions

Please delete my account, this is quite ridiculous. This is how Tom Swanson conducts himself in public, apparently Prof. Brian Cox if full of XXXX http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/11081 Just scroll down to see Cox's own responses to Swanson's waffle, e.g.