joigus

Monitor the trend of the averaged temperatures of a turbulent gas measured over wide spans of time and space which have highly heterogeneous pressure and surface conditions. Exactly. Of the average temperatures of a turbulent gas measured over wide spans of time and space which have highly heterogeneous pressure and surface conditions. You seem to have a very basic problem of understanding. And @VenusPrincess, don't go further in that direction, because I can see very clearly now how much you ignore about ergodicity and the role it plays in physics. Doh!

A statistical distribution is made up of an infinite series of statistical moments. What you're saying is that the first statistical moment is not significant. Never mind that reports of global temperature are meant to monitor general trends, not to build a rover to operate here or there. @Area54 has seen your strawman miles away. I was distracted. <T_Mars> = -63 ºC <T_Venus> = 453 ºC So this is utterly useless even to build a rover? I don't know why you want to build a rover in order to monitor Earth's global climate, by the way. If you wanted to build a rover, it would be silly to rely only on average global temperature as "the" parameter. I wouldn't describe the behaviour of an ant's colony only in terms only of its average position either.

Not everything that's useful or meaningful as an average must have a valid thermodynamic definition. The average receding speed of the galaxies is increasing, yet the universe is not a thermodynamic system. The concept of temperature that's used in these atmospheric models is more akin to the concept of temperature in the heat equation. It is not the thermodynamic concept of temperature but for small cells of material that have a definite specific heat. Do you suggest the Earth's atmosphere does not have a useful concept of specific heat?

You already said. Sorry.

Glycine has been found in asteroids too. It's the simplest amino acid. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17628-found-first-amino-acid-on-a-comet/

You make a good point here, but there are other factors. I can imagine no epoch in human evolution in which planning for the future, interpreting other people's intentions, guessing the best solution to a domestic problem --all of which is achieved mainly through language-- did not play a major role in women's lives. It is generally assumed that high-brow intellectual activity was what led to developing big (energetically costly) brains in humans. But the big pressure, the day-to-day strain on the brain to be able to develop more sophisticated cognitive abilities, is social, not inventive. That's what most anthropologists say. I may be able to provide more info about it later. It's been estimated that the main focus, by and large, of human language throughout the day is gossip, not the realm of 'big ideas.' And that goes for women and men alike.

This is known to be false. https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/64249main_ffs_factsheets_hbp_atrophy.pdf https://aging.ufl.edu/files/2011/01/deconditioning_campbell.pdf

Exactly. A person with few glicolytic fibers, a person whose body cannot synthesize myoglobin properly, etc. But also a person who doesn't exercise properly. The women that you're showing in the video --I haven't watched it either-- both are genetically conditioned to be that way, and have exercised to be that way. So it's a combination of both factors. Having a certain genetic make-up favours you being more muscular, but it doesn't determine it.

You've read a tad too much into what I've said. Some conditions are necessary. Other conditions are sufficient. Still other are necessary and sufficient (those are the terms in which you seem to be thinking.) A further category is when conditions are neither necessary nor sufficient: They are statistically correlating conditions. You say genetics determines what you are. I say genetics is affects what you are. See the difference?

Probably. And probably comes from a very ancient obsession with fertility. Hunter-gatherer societies were thin on the ground. And they needed manpower as any other. In northern Spain there is a Solutrean cave in which lots of vulvas are depicted. And fertility statuettes all across Europe. I don't think the motivation for that was ancient pornography.

It's a snowball phenomenon. And well known. And all evidence contrary to OP's premise. This is a very interesting conversation, but it's spilling over into wider aspects of anthropology.

Well, nomads are a bit of an exception. They are more pastoralists than agriculturalists. But they depend on agricultural societies to obtain the grain. Or move for pastures new, which leads to waging war again, when there are pastoralist agricultural societies claiming the land. Whether these and other similar societies used the bow and arrow is secondary. Agriculture brings conflict on account of claiming the land for yourself, and thereby war, which was the point. Yes. Agriculture is known to result in larger families. That's part of the equation. So we don't have 10,000 years of less war. It's just the opposite.

By the way, all the Bactria-Margiana area is full with evidence that these societies were agricultural, and also were very military-minded. They had to move because their rivers changed their courses. And conquered new land, south-east of Andronovo. According to Viktor Sarianidi.

Of course they're found in Andronovo. They're found in the Sahara too. And they made their way to America through the Bering Strait. It's one of the oldest techniques that comes from hunting and has been used on and off in warfare. You don't think it's true that I mentioned bows and arrows in connection with hunter-gatherer societies? I did. I know what I've mentioned, and in connection to what.

That's very well known. The Tuthmose pharaohs brought it to Egypt. The Romans also copied Carthaginian ships. So what? What's the point? The point is military build up (resting on both professionals and part-time soldiers) seems to be a requirement of agricultural societies. Agriculture brings large-scale war and preparation for war for obvious reasons. Although this is lateral to your reasoning, it's one of your premises. That's why I'm dwelling on it.

No. It is a universal phenomenon: Hittites, Egyptians, the Mitanni, the Hycsos... Quite simply: agriculture implies warfare on a grand scale. Study some ancient history. Bows and arrows I mentioned in connection with hunter-gatherer societies. They sometimes are present in agricultural military societies, sometimes not. Moot point. The Luwians, the Spartans,... it goes on and on. The Spartans are an interesting case: They managed to enslave a whole population to do the agricultural job, while they indulged in their militaristic activity.

Here's your claim: Large-scale military activity came about because of agriculture, not in spite of it. Hunter-gatherer societies are involved in periodic squabbles, rather than military power build-up. In hunter-gatherer societies, the same bow and arrow, slingshot, etc. that are used for hunting are put to alternative use in those squabbles. Agricultural societies, on the contrary, nurture specialists: artisans, peasants, blacksmiths and potters, textile workers and administrators. Your premises are plain wrong. The famous fyrd that Harold Godwinson mobilised against Hardrada and William the Conqueror were peasants.

Nobody's saying you haven't. And stop playing straw-man, please. I can see right through it. And if you have, then you know, no doubt, that once an organism's genetic makeup is set in motion, so to speak, developmental biology takes charge to determine how it's going to develop, right? The environment interacting with this genetic conditioning does that. Right?

That's why I didn't do that. Apparently you need some help to read and understand simple sentences in English. Maybe repetition can do the trick:

Of course not. Many genetic conditions can affect your muscle composition. But the cases of women looking more muscular than in previous generations --that you brought up-- is easily explained by factors having to do with a person's lifestyle, not with evolution. IOW, you have not proven that we as a species are evolving towards sexual dimorphism. People are changing their muscular development because of the gym and the diet.

My emphasis. Be careful with what is 'generally accepted.' And we didn't even start talking about the effect of hormones.

You missed @Prometheus's excellent point about hippocampi. The answer to this is a similar argument applied to muscles. Although muscles can change more easily than nervous tissue. Even for hippocampus. In fact, the kind of muscular tissue you get depends very directly on the kind of exercise you do, or whether you exercise at all. Astronauts that spend a long time in outer space suffer a rapid deterioration of their muscular tissue if they don't exercise regularly. That has nothing to do with evolution, but with adaptation of your tissues to varying environmental conditions.

It could be a value not accessible by elementary operations. It could be pi, or e. In that sense, it's at the core of space, rather than at the edge. The "camera lens" is made of deltas and epsilons that I defined for you before. Calculus allows you to forget about the lens and operate with the points.

Exactly, you're getting closer. Literally. Calculus is about formalising the operation of "getting closer." You can use it to calculate the gentlest slope on a mountain, where the summit is, etc. It's not necessarily about "orbits." It's no coincidence that KE=(1/2)mv2 (Newtonian kinetic energy) reminds you of E=mc2 (Einstein's kinetic energy). One is obtained from the other by means of... guess what. Calculus!

The ancient Egyptians used a primitive version of calculus to make the pyramids, rather. (Small incremental sums.) Maybe you mean "similar to KE=(1/2)mv2 Or perhaps F=ma? F=mv2 is no standard physics.