Leaderboard

What is a fish in the most interesting of those questions. Depending on how you define "taxon" we either are fish or fish is not a meaningful label for vertebrates. https://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Taxon_types.htm

https://johnhawks.net/weblog/why-anthropologists-dont-accept-the-aquatic-ape-theory/

Random quotes from random people is not evidence. The aquatic ape theory doesn't hold water (pun intended).

Ah-ha, another conspiracy by the new world order. The skulls were deformed purposely by binding the skulls of the children in some early civilizations in South America.

I sincerely hope it is not too complicated for us since it human input needs to be resolved urgently. I hope you understand the difference between weather and climate. Weather is what happens on a day to day basis at a particular location. Climate is the yearly pattern of weather across large regions of the Earth. You are also correct that human generated pollution has become a major problem in other ways than climate change and also need sorting out. But that is not the topic of this thread and should be discussed in a thread of its own. This also applies to your other geophysical questions, which again merit their own threads. There have been many attempts to explain the Earth's magnetic field and we are getting nearer one that fits all our data as we learn more. Do you have access to library facilities ? If so I can recommend suitable sources from modern researchers. But please start your own thread about this.

! Moderator Note This is just for your first day, to prevent spamming from bots. There is no limit for you now.

I'm not sure how this relates to the post you're quoting? Besides, apathy within our sphere of influence is, I think, just another word for contentment; and within our societal norm's, is desirable. Apathy, when one can positively affect an unjust situation, is deplorable. So apathy is yet another yin-yang of humanity. Every true authority figure would be humble, by definition (because a true leader, leads by example); authority figure does not equal authoritarian.

It seems you did not understand Swansont's point: Let's try again with your laser and a train. On the very fast moving train, a light clock is clicking with a vertical 'bouncing' light ray from the laser. In the frame of the train the light clock of course stands still. That means the light beam always goes exactly vertically, because from the frame of the train the light clock is in rest, i.e. it is standing still. Now you, on the ground frame, you see the train passing by at high speed. This means you see a zig-zag line. The laser has not to point in another direction. E.g., imagine that the mirror is very small. In the frame of the train there is no problem: adjust the laser so that it points exactly at the small mirror i.e.the the laser is pointed exactly vertically downwards. As the train is standing still in its own frame, this can easily be done. Now you, from the ground frame, do you think you would see that the laser beam would miss the mirror? Of course not, that would be inconsistent. All observers agree on what is occurring physically, they just do not agree on when and where physical events happen, but they see the same physical events. That means for you,that you still see the laser is hitting the small mirror, just as for an observer on the train. But for you the train is moving, so you will see a the beam in a zig-zag line. And because this zig-zag line is longer than the vertical distance between laser and mirror, and c is still c, you see the light clock ticking slower. As Genady showed, you only need x = vt and Pythagoras to derive the correct formula for time dilation. And this time dilation is experimentally tested to the bone.

No, you need a lot better designed experiment than that and begin by showing that what happens with a glasshouse is the same thing (at smaller scale) as The Greenhouse Effect. It is not. What you will "prove" is that a glasshouse does not work like The Greenhouse Effect. Both get their heat primarily from visible light heating light absorbing materials - ground, water, plants etc including in the TGE case, absorption by clouds. A glasshouse works primarily by confining heat transfer by convection to a small volume, preventing loss of that heat to the greater atmosphere by that route. The Greenhouse Effect works by absorbing Infrared and re-radiating it. At the bottom of the atmosphere radiated heat is absorbed in the atmosphere above it, with about 1/2 of that radiating back downwards; more GreenHouse Gases means it is absorbed at lower altitude and down radiation is increased. At the top of the atmosphere the IR out to space is slowed by increased by more GHG's - it has to radiate from higher altitude to escape to space but the air is colder and it radiates less. A few metres of optical depth within a glasshouse is not equivalent to 20,000m in the atmosphere, even at 3,000 ppm of CO2. You would need concentrations in the hundreds of thousands of ppm to have equivalent IR absorption - and you still have to address the differences from convection. The question remains - why do you assume decades of top level science based studies and reports are wrong?

You know it's all about that bass, no treble... lol

Yes. If you turn up the bass.

I've interpreted this dance as a "war dance" rather than a mating dance:

If I understand correctly, there is nothing immobile in the universe?

! Moderator Note One of the reasons that we require text descriptions to be posted, rather than relying on videos The temperatures (using an absolute scale) give the efficiency, but I don’t see how that gives you the heat rejection to complete a revolution.

Sure, there's always a chance of misclassifying an individual fossil, just as any individual piece of scientific data can be in error or misinterpreted. That's why we don't base our theories around single interpretations of individual fossils.

Yes. With the stipulation that the person is of 'sound' mind. Whatever that means. I've not thought through the details.

A sound mind is how we define it. As I said it needs to be worked out, but it won't be determined by comparing what your family says vs what everyone else says. We need to come up with a well thought out, generally agreed up, measurable definition. I'm pretty sure this already exists in places, I just don't know the details. Assuming you meet the criteria, then yes, you should be able to kill yourself with a clear conscience and free from unreasonable criticism.

The question you're asking is "When is it OK to take a life ?" And the qualifier you're using is 'when it's your own ? ' Should the answer not be that it is never OK to take a life ?

Suicide is wrong because it is the act of deliberately taking a life.

No, actually I would just keep my eyes focused on the moving light clock and see the beam going straight up and down like always. I wouldn't see any zig-zag. You could imagine a zig-zag but the light beam obviously wouldn't be propagating along the slanted lines, because the laser was never aimed on a slant and neither was the mirror. The cycle would take the exact same time to complete and there would be no reason to think you needed to imagine time going slower than normal on the train, and if you did, then light would be seen to be traveling at slower than normal speed, so why would you want to do that? Nobody here, including you, have explained how a laser beam directed vertically could have its beam emitted at an angle of about 40 degrees from vertical, in the case of the diagram I showed, and the mirror also magically adjust itself to the same angle. Why don't you do that now, I'm interested to hear the tale of the magic angled beam laser and the self adjusting mirror. Of course, the clock would have to catch up to the angled beam in time for it to hit the mirror. What if the clock stopped moving right after emitting the beam, the beam would miss the mirror, right? Or would it stop halfway through the trip to the mirror and adjust itself to going straight down? Yup, I'm very sad about that. Now why don't you also do as I invited Eise to do? Maybe one of you can provide a logical explanation.

“Anyone defending the viewpoint that it was human thinking in and of itself that generated our bigger brains around back 2-3mya is resisting the fact that total iodine-deficiency in a fully thinking pregnant mothers diet still can/will bring about in the worst case scenario a fetal neuro-developmental condition known as cretinism (to mention the extreme) so iodine (and DHA) in seafood is very much a pivotal subject when it comes to braindevelopment, as Stephen Cunnane aswell as many others has written a great deal about.” ~ Michael (WTM Forum – Aquatic Ape) https://www.humancondition.com/forums/topic/loveindoctrination-and-the-aquatic-ape-theory/ “In What Darwin Got Wrong, authors Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini discuss “master genes” that regulate multiple traits and so force those traits to evolve together. In their example, the traits regulated by a particular master gene, designated Otxi, seem unrelated to each other, but as a group the linked traits are oddly suggestive of an aquatic episode in humankind’s past. The authors write, ‘. . . in particular, since the Otxi ‘master’ gene controls the development of the larynx, inner ear, kidneys, and external genitalia and the thickness of the cerebral cortex, selective pressures sensitive to changes in the functions of the kidneys (due to bipedal station, or different liquid intake and excretion resulting from floods or droughts), or the fixation of different sexual patterns, may have had in turn secondary effects on the expansion of the cerebral cortex and the structure and function of the larynx.’ This set of traits, under the control of the same master gene, plays a foundational role in the aquatic ape hypothesis. Fluid/salt regulation (kidneys), 3D proprioceptive orientation (inner ear), breath control and speech (larynx), ventro-ventral copulation (genitals) and development of a complex cerebral cortex turn out to be fated to travel together, all being regulated by the same master gene, and all being components of the aquatic ape scenario. Certainly not conclusive, but suggestive.” ~ StarLarvae (ScienceForums.net) “Baby’s under six months, have an unconscious reflex called a bradycardic response. Causing them to instinctively hold their breath and open their eyes underwater. I think you can actually take a mommy/baby class, with no floatation devices. Sort of like, pre swimming lessons. Their only under for a few seconds.” ~ Sarah Tucker

Bulbous (ie Boskop) or Elongated Skulls are now being considered a new species of hominid called Homo Capensis, but it has not been embraced by academia. The mention of these skulls being deformed is likely a coverup as many individuals in the World Banking Organization that rules World Politics as an unseen power (headless knight in heraldry & vexillology) have elongated skulls (ie Jacob Rothschild & Shimon Peres + a Basque Actuary) & rH- blood. These individuals have IQ’s off the charts & deformation is usually accompanied by disabilities. One tell tale sign that they are a different species of hominid is that they do not have Sagittal Sutures & their Cephalic Capacity is 25% larger or higher.

Valid point about it not originally being a laser, which wasn't invented until 1958, which may have been a prime reason why Einstein was susceptible to misconception, and why he could pass off his theory as plausible in those day, but since that time it was easy to see that his thought experiment couldn't work if it's a laser in the clock. Einstein's logic would be valid if photons were physical objects and the clock was analogous to a river. In that case the velocity would be the square root of the sum of the squares of the vertical velocity of the photons and the horizontal velocity of the clock/river. Can a moving clock apparatus continuously impart its horizontal velocity to photons after they leave the emitter and after they bounce off a mirror? Obviously not, because photons are not physical objects and therefore nothing physical can impart its velocity to it as it travels across it. If that were the case, shining a laser crosswise through moving water would deflect it in the direction of the moving water, and that has never been shown experimentally to occur. The only other thing that one could postulate could cause the photons to move horizontally with the clock is inertia, and obviously photons are not subject to inertia. Why would you and Einstein think photons would behave exactly the same as physical objects when they're not physical objects? There simply is no horizontal velocity being imparted on the photons because there is nothing known in physics that could cause it. So how is it that light can bounce up and down in a moving frame and not appear to bend in the rearward direction? Because a frame moving at uniform straight line velocity is exactly the same as the frame not moving at all, that's why. In fact, light doesn't even have velocity, it only has a rate of electric and magnetic field propagation, we just perceive that as velocity but it's not the same thing because no force is involved and no mass is involved, therefore no velocity is involved, it's a misconception. Maybe you just perceived it as a vertical beam moving 200 miles NE but in fact it was a series of photons being produced, each slightly NE of the previous. None of the photons actually moved 200 miles NE at all. You can't just have a self propagating light beam bouncing back and forth for 200 miles with the emitter turned off. Why does a beam not just keep bouncing back and forth for a long time after an emitter is turned off until it dissipates from energy loss? Nobody knows but it doesn't.