Leaderboard

To your first point, I think it the term hardwired or innate does obscure some of the mechanisms surrounding sexual orientation. Most likely it is a developmental mechanism where genetic factors contribute, but not necessarily determine sexual orientation. What we do know is that typically it is fixed at an early age. However, one should contrast them to sexual preference, which might be finer grained. I.e. the attraction among the perceived sexually compatible partners. These are much clearer to be learned, but are likely also heavily influenced by child-hood learning. There are several mechanisms described in psychology in that regard where childhood might influence partner selection. There is for example a hypothesis in psychology, called the Westermarck effect which assumes a form of inprinting in which folks tend not to be attracted to siblings, if they have lived together at a young age. It is an attractive hypothesis as in contrast to what is under discussion here, there is a path to selective advantages (i.e. avoiding incest). The problem though is if experimental data does not really support such a mechanism. What has been found is that e.g. disgust with incest is more related to social and cultural cues, though the debate is not fully settled yet. So even from a perspective where at least theoretically there could be strong selective factors and which appear to be a automatism, the underlying mechanisms are apparently far more complex. And obviously there is not really a good argument to made for strong selection on mutable traits. As with many things, I think the somewhat unsatisfactory answer is that most behaviour, even many unconscious ones are learned on one level or another. Our brain requires constant feedback to develop and some behavioural traits (such as sexual orientation) can be fixed very strongly, whereas others remain malleable. The OP was talking about selection and as such the traits that are malleable are not under selection. However, the basis for such traits (e.g. the mechanisms which influence how we develop sexual preferences) might be. And I think in the discussion so far, both factors have been mixed up.

So you agree that homophobia is unique to humans, a learned behavior based on our brainpower, and something that requires indoctrination into a particular set of societal norms. Not natural, but rather nurtured by fear and misunderstanding. Sexual orientation seems to be fairly fundamental to the psyche that picks on those who are different, and they behave with open hostility about it. Being from a different country is probably a core fear as well, based on how foreigners are treated. I wonder if these same feelings are present (though watered down) even in mundane differences. Do homophobes also harbor bad opinions of those who prefer chunky peanut butter to smooth? Do they ridicule those who face the toilet paper the wrong way?

Just an addition to the previous post. In the Classical Doppler shift equation, vo and vs refer to the velocity of the observer and source with respect to the medium through which the waves are propagating. As result, you get a different answer if you have the source moving with respect to the medium than if it is the observer moving with respect to the medium. Whereas with the relativistic equation, there is no medium and the answer only depends on the relative velocity between source and observer. Also, There is a typo in the equation given for Relativistic Doppler shift. It should be v-c for upper part of the fraction. You will often see this equation written with 1-ß and 1+ß instead, where ß = v/c

! Moderator Note This is a discussion board for science, not semantics. This would be a discussion of whether “non-mathematical” means absence of math, or having elements that are not mathematical. Surely one can introduce a topic that is less trivial.

BDDE isn't going to be very stable- because of the two epoxy groups. It's likely to forma a mess of different product when heated. But "stable" is a difficult thing to define. Stable for how long?

It is an effect you get with any propagating wave. All that matters is relative motion between the source and the receiver. (It is in any case arbitrary which of the two you say is "stationary", since that depends on the frame of reference of the observer.) The maths works a bit differently for light, since that travels at c, necessitating use of the relativistic Doppler effect. But the effect is qualitatively the same as with the classical Doppler effect, which one uses for sound waves for example.

The acceleration vector due to the Suns gravity is in the opposite direction at the sunny side than on the dark side. Centripetal force is towards Earth on the sunny side (and if I'm correct cancels the force from the Sun exactly), while centripetal force is away from Earth on the dark side. Thus the object would be lighter on the dark side. Yes. The Moons gravity was neglected.

As far as I know the answer is yes to all. It's known as the relativistic Doppler effect to give it it's full title. And light IS electromagnetic radiation, and you do get a red/blue shift effect because of Doppler, which is useful in cosmology telling us the relative motion of certain stars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect

I just want to add that group selection has been in discussion for a long time and despite some resurgences, most evolutionary scientists find it problematic, as other than just-so stories, it has not been useful in explaining persistence of traits. Moreover, many social traits can and have been explained in the context of "regular" selection more efficiently. The whole idea kind of nosedived together with the sociobiology and evolutionary psychology.

I suspect the answer here aligns quite well with the idea of Maslows hierarchy of needs. If me and my kids are starving, the only future we care about or have the mental capacity to consider is our next meal, as well as where and how we will find it. If we’re dying of thirst, then the entirety of our future thoughts become contained within a glass of water. Thinking beyond today is, put simply, a luxury. Thinking beyond the winter about the pure potential of and plans for a coming spring is a luxury. Thinking beyond the current year or about the possibilities life might introduce to us a decade from now is a luxury. Thinking beyond my current life is an escape, a distraction that takes conscious effort and transports us into a fictional land safe from the very nonfiction problems of today. Thinking beyond my great grandkids and their lives? That’s also an escape, and it‘s the type of escape which requires a manner of forecasting that itself requires practice and training and reflection. Generally, we think about the things which will bring us calm and comfort. We chew on cognitive puzzles in our minds and sort their pieces into stable buckets and compartments. Put simply, we think the themes which squeeze our dopamine machines. If you find yourself having the time and energy to think about a future world left to your great great grandkids, though? Well, then I hope you’re also finding time to feel grateful for experiencing such a convenient life of luxury without scarcity in the today. With all that said, IMO the very best of people are those that plant trees whose shade they’ll never sit in, so let’s do more of that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogacy#Gestational_surrogacy

Globalization is bad ?? It has improved the living conditions of countries like Japan, South Korea, China and Taiwan, Singapore, etc., that were considered 3rd world countries 70 years ago. It is improving the living conditions ofEastern Europe after 50 years of oppressive dictatorial Communism. It does this by industrialized countries becoming 'consumers' that outsource 'production' to lesser developed countries, until they too become consumers, and production shifts somewhere else, eventually bringing the playing field level for all. You guys are speaking in terms of abstracts; let's look at real world situations. The UK had a referendum against a form of globalization. BREXITwas a retreat from a more global organization; how did it work out for them ??? Instead of the 300 million savings per year, advertised on the sides of buses, they are losing Billions. It is the only country in the Eurozone experiencing a large negative economin growth. And it can't be attributed to bad governance, because there are many countries with incompetent governments.

If it is inherited I wonder why so many people are NOT homophobes. Or how you can 'grow out' of your genetic predisposition to be a homophobe.

In quantum models you need an exchange particle, and GR has singularity issues, so we know it’s not a complete theory.