Leaderboard

The Misanthropocene could work

I'm a bit puzzled scanning through this thread but there are a few points I'd like to add. The first is obvious - Right angled triangles have sides that comply with Pythagoras theorem. The second, once you have your triangle you cannot multiply different sides by different amounts - in effect you would be altering the shape of the triangle. Each side must be multiplied by the same amount. Lastly such a triangle represents either constant forces or if forces are changing it can only represent a particular instant in time. I'm retired now but my speciality was electronics and our main complication concerned sinusoidal forces (voltages) where appreciating the difference between instantaneous value and a steady state equivalent was necessary. I don't know if this helps, but it's my two pennyworth

Plasmodium, snakes (lost all limbs), Axolotl... the ostrich, emu, dodo and kiwi bird have lost the ability to fly... yeast, horses lost their thumbs and all but their middle fingers... the examples of evolution favoring simpler over more complex are literally endless. The core point is you're representing a false version of how it works. There is no direction in evolution, and definitely not toward more complex (even though that is one possible outcome). You can dig your heels in all you want, but you're wrong and I'd advise you adapt your understanding to a more accurate one. Perhaps it is, but it's not one necessarily favored by evolution

Yeah, we truly are stuck in the stupid timeline.

You read my mind. I'm not one of those people who can dash off a quick essay over the cellular. I remember having thought of "wannabe philosopher". Quotation marks would have done the job. And your expression certainly does it. The truth is we get a lot of this. People who think they can do philosophy, and by means of their philosophy of sorts, clinch the case of the most difficult (and long-standing) scientific problems: What is time? Did the universe have a beginning?, etc. The truth being they don't even get started doing science. They do very poor philosophy too. Yep. There are several problems to call OP's musings 'philosophy'. But the main problem is that one tries to solve an empirical question by pure logical means. And thereby using 'logical' where in fact it means 'according to my intuition'. Recently I saw a new one: What kind of vehicle has four wheels and flies? What moves in a muon, when it decays? (I think it was Swansont that one gave this as an example that we should talk about 'change', not 'movement'. Every movement is a change., but not every change is a movement.

If time passed, yet absolutely nothing moved, there’d be no change. Ergo, you’re wrong and it is motion that is the essence of change Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

The ramifications are pretty bad and not only for the Jan 6 lawsuits. From Sottomayor's dissent: So for all intents and purpose it seems that the US has now executed a critical blow against functioning democracy. As step, no doubt, other countries will look at very carefully (and probably promptly find ways to emulate).

Biden should use old age to his advantage, leverage his newly confirmed immunity re: exec actions as per SCOTUS decision today, and send Seal Team 6 to turn DJT into a wet spot. By the time they rethink their ruling and sort out whether or not it’s really truly okay for our prez to do this, Biden will be long deceased. Win/win

Is time something that exists on its own ? Of course not. That isn't described by physics to start with. Time is a property describing rate of change nothing more. One certainly doesn't require any papers to describe the above. Just a clear understanding of physics to start with.

I note that ISROSET stands for the "International Scientific Research Organisation for Science, Engineering and Technology", which is an Indian "journal" that appears on Beall's List of potentially predatory journals: https://beallslist.net. So quite likely scammy and without competent peer review. Come back to us when your ideas have been published in a journal with some credibility.

You read my mind. I'm not one of those people who can dash off a quick essay over the cellular. I remember having thought of "wannabe philosopher". Quotation marks would have done the job. And your expression certainly does it. The truth is we get a lot of this. People who think they can do philosophy, and by means of their philosophy of sorts, clinch the case of the most difficult (and long-standing) scientific problems: What is time? Did the universe have a beginning?, etc. The truth being they don't even get started doing science. They do very poor philosophy too.

The 737 MAX is a third generation 737. The 1st generation used low bypass engines, but the new fuel efficient high bypass engines of the MAX require much more space under the wing than is available. Boeing solution necessitated a very short engine pylon, such that the engines are not underslung, but almost level with the wing surface. This generates the very dangerous situation of 'pitch up', which can cause wing stall, and the plane just drops out of the sky because of no lift. To remedy the situation Boeing came up with the MCAS system, which forces the nose of the aircraft down when it detects this pitch up moment through twin pitot tubes. This system overrides the control stick inputs from the pilot. What happened in the 737 MAX incidents is faulty data from the pitot tubes activated the system, and the pilots could not pull the nose up and avoid crashing into the ground. There is a switch to turn off the MCAS system but none of the pilots were trained in this. I'm not sure what Boeing has done to remedy the situation after the 737 MAX grounding and investigation. Either the system has been modified, orbetter pilot training has been introduced. More and more planes are being designed to be unstable in flight, to take advantage of the efficiencies of better aerodynamics, and only the flight computers make them controllable. I remember an interview with one of the designers of the flight control system of the Eurofighter Typhoon where he states that flying the plane manually would be like'holding a bike backwards, by the handlebars, while sitting on the hood of a car moving at 100 m/hr, and trying to keep it going straight'. That being said, I have flown in a 737 MAX, and would do so again; it is still safer than riding in a bus. But we train would be terrorists well enough to hit buildings.

I don't think so. I read a lot and I've not seen such phrases frequently. Certainly no one in my circle uses those phrases frequently when speaking .

Biden had a cold. Kindly stop with the GOP lies/talking points https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4744889-joe-biden-has-a-cold-debate/ Nobody. It’s too late in the process, and you’d be throwing away the advantage incumbents have (name recognition, track record)

We are both. A typical ice age consists of glacials and interglacials, which add together to be the actual ice age. So although we are in a warm interglacial, we are still in an actual ice age. Hence the ice sheets at the poles and Greenland and mountain glaciers.

"...I feel there is a fundamental point here. I feel helpless if I'm taken around a strange town of which I can't form a picture. We all need a mental map of the world showing where we are. Of course our picture will have many layers of which the physical description is only one. Nevertheless it is the bed rock on which all other structures are based. If we have secured the foundation, we have a measure of control over the higher levels. The physical laws that govern the universe are usually expressed in the form of mathematical equations. For most people , this has created a great barrier to understanding. But equations in physics are like the financial appendices to a budget: important if you are an accountant concerned with the details but unnecessary for general understanding of what is going on. The basic ideas in physics can be explained in words and pictures. I personally don't like equations: it is hard to keep track of all the term's in one's head and I find it cumbersome to to write them down(though I can do so on my computer using a language called TeX). I'm therefore always looking for ways to treat problems geometrically so I can see the answer in pictures, though that to has its difficulties: it is difficult enough to imagine objects in the three dimensions of space and one dimension time that we are used to, let alone the seven or more extra hidden dimensions that may be there, according to our unified theories of everything. Still, one can generally ignore most of these dimensions and and just picture things in the two or three dimensions that our brains are capable of visualizing. So I believe it is possible for everyone to understand the basic laws and forces that govern and shape the universe". STEVEN HAWKING Cambridge, July 28, 1997 It would be arrogant, if not absurd, to pretend that I singlehanded, could have put together a complete picture of the nature of the universe. That's your job. I'm merely here to point you in he right direction. You are barking up the wrong tree! Your big bang foundation is weak. My concepts are very simple and easy to understand if you would open your mind to them. No need for a complex specialist language yet. We can and I hope we will soon learn how to control earth's gravity and save ourselves. If not now when?