StringJunky

It's a parameter that's added later?

Quark-gluon plasma is hugely dense though isn't it, measured/calculated at some-exponential-number/g? How can it be massless? Edit: Should have read your last sentence, which doesn't make sense to me because quarks are fundamental, aren't they?

We need something with discrete units to count time but time itself is a smooth continuum.

It is what clocks measure. It is a measure of change and no change. A radioactive atom will spontaneously decay/change at any point in time but time is still occurring in the absence of that change. Time occurs in the absence of matter; it's a part of space as well, so, no movement is needed.

Plus you'll only be given no more than 5 erroneous attempts and the card will be blocked.

"What? Me?", Pot said to Kettle.

Aye, we had at least three people recently pursuing a relationship between race and IQ by people that turned out, in the end, to be clearly racist. I'm not going to comment because I think it needs Arete, CharonY and anyone else with a strong grasp of genetics to define the terms and how proper biological scientists actually view the subject in dispassionate terms based on the evidence; it deserves no less.

ScienceFactSeeker wrote: "For the past few months, I've been thoroughly studying the Race-IQ debate; being black myself, I wanted to be armed and ready to confront any racialist I might happen to debate with, using cold, hard facts. But along the way, I found myself on a rather contradictory roller-coaster. At several points, I was forced to question the things I'd learned about race and equality for my entire life; of course this was uncomfortable, even devastating for me; psychology, a topic once so engaging and fascinating to me, became tinged with the darkness of what I'd read. The search for objective sources was endless, and mostly unsuccessful. At times, I believed the hereditarians; then it seemed I would come across one more piece of evidence which would invalidate or weaken their position. Having been raised myself in a middle class environment, home schooled and surrounded by education, environmental explanations seemed even more likely to me from personal experience. I score on average, 105-106 on IQ tests, which I've learned is apparently the east asian average. It made sense to me because the traditionally asian "tiger-mom" stereotype has always strongly resonated with me, as I relate to the obsessive prioritizing of education. My mother was highly engaged in japanese culture to be specific, and studied it extensively in college. It wouldn't surprise me if her parenting was influenced by that. Alas, I realize that my case is an extremely specific anecdote. It is to my understanding that controlling for SES eliminates 5 points of the gap between 'Blacks' and 'Whites' (using the US definition of these groups). I have also read that some early educational interventions have successfully raised the black IQ by 4-5 points; gains which lasted into adulthood. I think this is another way of correcting for culture, so accounting for SES and culture would wipe out 10 points; that's roughly 2/3's of the gap that exists. Having calculated this, it didn't make sense to me how anyone could possibly think it was genetic. The last 5 points could be anything; the african-american diet, racial stress, lack of motivation, negative external influences (anti-educational peer culture, low expectations, and stereotypes). It's quite possible that no amount of correcting will ever completely eliminate environmental differences between blacks and whites. However, despite this evidence, I did find some studies which made me yet again, doubtful. Twin studies have found IQ to be highly heritable, even when raised apart. Adoption studies have shown adoptive siblings to be no more similar in IQ than strangers. I've even seen a blog attempting to show that IQ is equally heritable in both blacks and whites, though the data they pulled had small samples and was highly selective. Even so, it recently came to my attention that the term "heritable" has been severely misused, seeing as it measures what percentage of variance in a specific population is due to genetics, and not how much of the trait itself is genetic. This was a big blow to most hereditarian arguments for me, and because adoptive families tend to be primarily upper middle class, twin studies didn't convince me as much as they used to. It also stands to reason that the IQ differences between adoptive siblings would be more jarring due to their regulated, high SES environment, which leaves little room for environmental differences; therefore heritability naturally increases; or a higher percent of differences is due to their genetic makeup. Raising both the adopted child and the biological child in a low SES environment could quite possible make their IQ's more similar, as the environmental factor grows. All this taken into account, it seemed to me that IQ differences between blacks and whites were entirely environmental; or at the very least, genetics played a very small role. Even the gap between whites and east asians could be explained easily by cultural differences in the approach to academics, and ashkenazi jews score no differently than high SES whites; ashkenazi jews are already a largely high SES group. I've seen those who argue that IQ linearly predicts SES; but to say this is to argue that the only reason one might become poor is due to stupidity (for lack of a better word), and the only reason one might become rich is due to academia. In reality, there are a multitude of complex factors which lead to one's social economic standing; not all of which are based purely on the career you were cognitively prepared for. This pretty much settled it for me; until I decided to investigate a claim written on a blog which stated that there were differences in intelligence-related allele frequencies between races. Seeing as how the Flynn Effect proved that environmental sophistication by the decade could raise the mean IQ (both fluid and crystallized), this finding was immediately suspect to me. I am unsure of their methodology, the legitimacy of the researchers involved, and the implications of the results. What I am wanting to know is on average, how much of an effect does each allele, individually have on IQ? How much would 14 of them collectively have? Are there any problems with this study as far as you can see? See for yourself: https://lesacredupri...ection-copy.pdf If you run the google search 'race differences intelligence allele frequencies', it yields a few meager results, though many seem to be from questionable sources. I would appreciate it so much if someone would evaluate the paper itself as well as the source claims and let me know what this means for the debate. Oh, and; for the sake of this discussion, we are operating under the notion that IQ is the best means of measuring intelligence that we currently have, and the idea that racial constructs are in some cases, biologically useful. Thanks!" Hi. I hope you don't mind but I've split your post up into more paragraphs to make it easier to read... Big blocks are hard to read.

If the universe is infinite then it's always been around because it would take an infinite amount of time to become infinite in extent. It wouldn't have come from a source since it was always in existence. It is still banging; that's what the expansion is. There is no edge. If, as you say, you believe it to be infinite, how can it have an edge? Your life would be far more enriching if you read some real science.

The dishonesty of people is only limited by their imagination. It sucks.

The Moon causes Earth tides.

I can envisage that tides allowed evolution to produce land-borne organisms by creating a band of cyclic saturation and drying around a land-mass so that some of them evolved to breathe air directly; tides probably provided a crucial intermediate step.

CO2 + 2H2O ---> CH4 + 2O2

Damn!

Looks like a title for a fetish page.

These harness the thermal energy with mirrors focusing the heat from the light on the towers There's a massive one in a America somewhere. Edit: It's in Ivanpah:

Then, I think, you are talking about abiogenesis; how life started.

It is the changes in allele frequency over time.

It's time for:

Critique is not bullshit or insulting. If you put up an idea before scientists expect it it to analysed; inspected and broken down. If it fails in the details it fails as an idea.

"The more I practice, the luckier I get".

Love Will Tear Us Apart When routine bites hard And ambitions are low And resentment rides high But emotions won't grow And we're changing our ways, taking different roads Then love, love will tear us apart again Love, love will tear us apart again Why is the bedroom so cold? You've turned away on your side Is my timing that flawed? Our respect runs so dry Yet there's still this appeal That we've kept through our lives But love, love will tear us apart again Love, love will tear us apart again You cry out in your sleep All my failings exposed And there's a taste in my mouth As desperation takes hold Just that something so good just can't function no more But love, love will tear us apart again Love, love will tear us apart again Love, love will tear us apart again Love, love will tear us apart again http://songmeanings.com/songs/view/16871/ Reading the comments may give you some idea. I don't know the song but I think the idea is that the closer you get, the more familiar you become with each other, so, the more 'warts' you eventually see in each other. The love both causes discontent and inability to separate; a conundrum that many experience. I find it wryly amusing when one falls in love how a person who was originally just "ok" suddenly becomes perfect and the way they look causes one to wax lyrical and the heart sings when they speak; a vision of beauty/handsomeness. Then, as time passes, and the 'honeymoon' period wanes and commitments have been made, the wallpaper of romantic love slowly peels, revealing the true person underneath. It is then we slowly realise they might not be suited to us, yet, we hang on to that vision of past beauty and it is that, along with the desire not to be alone, which keep them together. So, it's a song about opposing, internal emotional forces causing a state of pernicious, emotional ambivalence between two people. This is my interpretation.

That's why they are called 'dark'. They are placeholder names until they have some idea of their nature.

If they didn't know what was going on they wouldn't have given them a name.