lemur

Generally, any time you encounter claims that humans are radically distinct from other species, it is based on failure to identify analogous aspects of other species. Human learning is really not that different than other animals. Human cognition and emotions may seem to differ markedly from other animals only because these aspects of learning are not directly observable externally the way that behavioral learning is. You can argue that human learning enables much more complex activities, but who is to say that is more special than, say, and elephant's ability to drink with its nose? Generally, it would help objectivity to control for anthrocentrism in species comparisons, but that is nearly impossible if not completely since we cannot study organisms from any perspective that isn't human.

Dipole-dipole interactions sound like magnetism. Horza also mentioned hydrogen bonding but I can't figure out how that relates to surface tension. So should I read this to say, for example, that NH4+ has more oxidation potential because its number is relatively low, or the opposite? Is HNO3 stronger somehow because it is high on both scales? What does it mean for H2PO4 to have a high oxidation state and low voltage potential (or whatever it is the left axis describes. I appreciate you posting this but I'm afraid I'm having more trouble reading it than you probably thought would be the case.

Without looking up the specifics of what torque and HP refer to exactly, I'll just go ahead and post how I think of these things intuitively as a bicycle-rider. Torque I think of as the amount of force put into pushing the pedals. E.g. higher gear and going uphill without downshifting requires pushing harder on the pedals. When shifting into a lower gear that requires faster pedaling, or just when going at top speed in a gear where you're "spinning" the pedals, this is where I think of HP as being high despite lower relative torque. I know that I'm generating torque at every pedaling speed, but when it's slow cranking with a lot of effort I think of this as torque. I hope this isn't incorrect in some way. I like have intuitive experiences that involve "feeling" forces in different situations because I think it gives you a good basis for understanding the physics and interpolating diverse mechanical situations as a result.

It sounds so counter-intuitive to use heat when it's hot to lower the relative humidity, but it does make sense that sweating would be more effect and your skin would probably have a higher "net dryness" than without the heating and air movement. Air condensation and sensitization to heat are two aspects of air conditioning I don't like. If indoor areas were slightly warmer than outdoor areas when it's warm, it would actually feel nice to go outside relative to the indoor temperature. I wonder if the hot air blown in would absorb humidity and then carry it out if you had high ceilings with good ventilation at the top? Does damp warm air rise as easily/fast as dry warm air?

I think it has to do with the way modern bureaucratic economics have evolved. Whereas there used to be a lot more jobs extracting raw materials and working in industrial factories to process them, much of this work as been taken over by machines and more efficient systems, so much more bureaucratic and service work was developed to spread the prosperity and keep people busy. However, because people felt vulnerable on some level because humans were less necessary in a highly automated economy, they began to argue over who was more important/central to the post-industrial economy. Some people thought that surplus labor/time should be devoted to cultural and social progress, but others preferred the safer route of inserting themselves into expanding management structures of corporate control-systems for economic production and distribution. They did this because they wanted to be part of the supply chains from production to consumption. Then, they argue for social status by claiming that their work is more important or "real" than the work of innovation and charting courses for future developments. As a result, they generate their own economy of people managing people for the sake of controlling distribution and the means of consumption.

Would surface-tension in water be an example of intermolecular bonding that sets water's boiling point at a certain level, for example? Or if this is false, could you give an example for reference? Are all liquid/solid densities the product of intermolecular bonding? Wouldn't the triple-bond of nitrogen gas also produce more energy as other molecules fragment and recombine into N2? Also, does the triple bond structure result in stronger electron-exchanges during the chemical reaction, since I'm guessing more bond-energy has to be displaced elsewhere to generate the resultant nitrogen triple bonds? Sorry if I'm speculating too wildly, but it seems like there is logic to this.

So acidity is due to a concentration of electric charge as a result of ionization the distribution of the "charge surplus" throughout the molecule? Ok, so what determines the density of a given substance then? Not the size or shape of the atom/molecule? Is one mole of anything always the same volume in the same phase-state, just with different masses due to the atomic weight? Or is their something about the way the particles relate that cause them to form a certain volume? Also, what causes atoms/molecules to be crystaline or ductile? I've read a little about lattice-structuring but I don't understand how this emerges from the (sub)atomic level. Are the substance and molecular levels related in some way? I've read this about nitrogen and it makes sense to me. I don't know why weak bond strength would make something explosive, though. I would think it would just make it break down at a lower temperature. I would think stronger bonds result in more explosive bond-breakage because more energy could build up before the bond broke to release it. Isn't this why nitrogen is used in explosives? This is somewhat of a tangent, but it is also interesting to me that nitrogen is so useful for plant-growth. I wonder if this is also related to bond-strength.

By phase-switching, I mean inversion of wave-directionality. I.e. a peak switching to become a trough. It's as if the wave propagates by the energy of the peak transmuting to become its own trough and vice-versa in a linear direction. So it seems as though electron spin is like a non-propagating EM wave oscillation. Then it's as if it propagates as an EM wave by propagating directional-switching of the spin. So the spin would be like actual moving charge that creates current to generate a combined electric-magnetic field. Then that combined field can propagate by oscillating along its axis of rotation. I wonder why electron angular momentum would propagate in that way. It's like it is extremely prone to motion but that its motion is constrained by some internal containment force that requires it to stick to itself whether rotating, propagating, etc. Maybe I'm reading too much into all this, idk.

Why is the important thing to see it as a wave and a particle at the same time? Because they interact with each other as if they were multiple points of repellant force simultaneously within the wave distribution? What do you mean when you say the "size" depends on energy and mass? Are you referring to the volume of the atom as it relates to the density of a substance? It almost sounds as if "spin" refers to phase-change in an EM wave. If Planck's constant refers to the amount of energy in an EM wave and a wave consists of peak and trough, then changing phase could be viewed as the propagation of the peak to the trough. I know this doesn't make sense in terms of other waves, like ocean waves, but if you looked at a photon in its own frame, couldn't it be seen to oscillate by phase-switching and wouldn't this correspond to 1/2 of Planck's constant? Maybe this is straw-grasping because I want to make sense of the relationship between the electron and photon in terms of their common relation to Planck's constant. It just seems like such an otherwise impossible coincidence that both phenomena are quantized and related in such a simple ratio.

I can't remember exactly. There was short clips explaining particles and a six part series explaining everything from energy quanta according to color/wavelength to how the quarks that make up a proton interact and exchange states. I liked it but I will probably only process the concepts over time as they become relevant to my slowly evolving mental model of sub-atomic physics. I have gotten confused by the different approaches to talking about electrons. I originally assumed the Bohr model idea of point-particles that orbit around the nucleus, although I never assumed they moved in perfect circles and didn't change direction. Later I learned that they are described as "clouds" but I still thought of the cloud as something like a point-particle that moves around so fast that the net result is similar to that of molecules making up a cloud. Now I have learned that people don't even call it a cloud or orbit or shell or anything and just refer to the whole field surrounding the nucleus as an electron - but then I don't know what happens to the idea of the point-particle(s) that have no volume. I assume that it is the point-particles that are volumeless centers of the various field-forces surrounding them and that these tunnel around and appear and disappear anywhere but with a higher probability of showing up within a certain wave-pattern that does orbit the nucleus, orbits it in fixed quantities of waves, and is fixed to certain levels that it can climb and drop to when absorbing or emitting energy/photons. In the graphic depiction in the movie, I believe it was the entire exterior of the atom that appeared to be rotating and creating a directional axis that could reverse but always had the same quantity of momentum (which Swanson said was 1/2 but 1/2 of what exactly?

Of course it is natural or people wouldn't do it. But it is also natural to kill someone and take what they have instead of trading them something that you have for it. Groupist behaviors, ideologies, cognition, etc. are imo maybe the greatest hurdle to achieving decent civilization. Europe prior to WWII was host to probably the most civilized and technologically advanced culture in global history yet it couldn't overcome ethnic tribalism, and still today we struggle with this in developed economies. Although certain niches are living well and innovating new technologies, cultures, etc. a great deal of political/social/educational structuring is devoted to grouping people into exclusionary systems. Imo, people need to shift more from seeking structural position in lucrative corporations and investment networks to utilizing their individual labor in efficiently productive activities. Exactly. People need to learn how to better cooperate in ways that aren't dependent on managed structuring and inclusion/exclusion in institutionalized organizations. Policing is only necessary to the extent that individuals abuse and exploit each other. When they effectively self-govern, policing and statism become relatively less important. Yes, and drugs are used as a tool to make people physiologically dependent on the dealer, which the dealer uses to exploit the users for money. Drug users may engage in legal methods of attaining funds to pay as "tax" to the drug dealer but sometimes can be driven to illegal/unethical money making activities as well. Ego is another instrument used for social control. People naturally desire social contact but it doesn't necessarily require institutionalized group-membership. People can also just network as individuals with other individuals without engaging in inclusion and exclusion. They do this out of fear that if they don't engage in exclusionary elitism, that others will do so and exclude them from social contact. Georg Simmel is the classical social theorist who wrote about a "web of group identifications." I forget the name of the book but he basically looked at how individuals combine multiple group-associations to form complex personal identities and networking. Words like "cohort," "generation," etc. are all cultural ideologies produced to allow people to orient toward other individuals in inclusionary/exclusionary ways. People exploit imagined kinship with others in "their generation/cohort" or they exclude various interactions because they view others as naturally/culturally excludable on the basis of perceived lack of affinity/kinship. "Individual" doesn't refer to a status devoid of any inter-individual associations. ALL individuals engage in various forms of social interaction. Life involves a constant series of interactive negotiations with other people, institutions, and objects. All these forms of social knowledge are culturally malleable. Anthropology finds enormous diversity in cultural and social-organizational practices. No form of culture, identity, or interaction is perfectly natural or universal. People need to overcome habits of thought and materiality that constrain them to unconstructive life patterns. Forgetting or distancing themselves from various aspects of their selves and lives may help developmental processes in many cases but that doesn't mean that the past ceases to continue in the present in various ways, though transformations do occur through time.

It wasn't claimed. I was just describing the visual representation used in the video to depict electron behaviors. I don't know how accurately the image was intended to represent the various attributes/behaviors of the concept. What you say sounds similar to what I've read from other sources. I think the ising diagram shows how the spin directions of the electrons orient into patterns of attraction and repulsion. I suppose that ferromagnets are special because they can cool down and lock in a pattern of same-direction spins. In other materials, I guess the spins create patterns of orientation-shifts and these would act like lots of little contradictory magnetic currents that cancel each other out at the macro-level. What I find curious is how the magnetic field of an electron can extend beyond its electrostatic field. This actually confuses me because the positive pole of the magnet would seem to be related to positive electrostatic charge of the nucleus, but I don't think this is the case. On the other hand, a positively ionized particle does theoretically exude positive electrostatic force, but is its range less than that of a magnetic field caused by multiple electrons spinning together?

I'm not quite that old yet, but rate of age-change speeds up as you get older, doesn't it? Anyway, I notice that while I can appreciate new pop music, I am not driven to listen to music as much as I was when I was younger, so the number of songs/artists I consume are less than they used to be. I have finally checked out Lady Gaga after successfully avoiding the buzz until now. I got hooked on Born This Way because of the theological mythology at the beginning and something about the song that I couldn't figure out at first that caused me to keep searching my mind for what it was. Finally, I figured out that it sounds like Express Yourself by Madonna. Has anyone else noticed this similarity between these two songs?

I think I read about this in another book as well. I think I also remember it saying that delocalization of the bond in this way strengthens the overall molecule by making it more intradependent (or something like that, that's my word). Because acidity is caused by bonding-behavior tendency due to electron configuration? I know that electrons have insignificant mass compared to the nuclei. What I meant was that the structuring of the electrons as they configure molecularly would seem to influence the distribution of nuclear mass within the molecule. Then it seemed like this might determine the way the molecule behaves and its characteristics as a substance. It sounds like the relationship between bond-strength and length has to do with the tendency of force to increase with proximity, such as in the case of electric charge voltage, magnetic attraction, gravity, etc. This would seem to cause molecules to be denser where stronger bonds are found and less dense where weaker bonds are, unless the bonds were arranged in a way that prevented stronger bonded atoms to be direct neighbors. Bond-strength also seems like it would influence the way that molecules break down when heated, e.g. because stronger bonds would withstand more heating. Is this intuitive reasoning leading me away from factual findings, though?

Thinking in wholes bodies makes it impossible to begin to approach how aspects of that body are related to other aspects. It is useful to look at how an individual muscle cell works, how it stretches and contracts and generates heat, and how it connects with other muscle cells and bones, and then use that knowledge to understand various functionalities of the body. I.e. gaining a total understanding of the body as a whole should be a far-off goal if you even make it a goal at all. You don't read a book by reading every page; you read a page or paragraph to get information and process it to get as much out of it as possible - then based on your insight, you can try to navigate the book to mine it for more such insights. In my experience, you get a lot more out of research by doing it that way than burying yourself under the daunting task of understanding everything about everything, or a whole body (i.e. body of knowledge). I assume that is a joke. Be careful, though, because people actually get so attached to their minds and control of knowledge that they become obsessed to the point of serious insanity. You have to balance your focus on science with other simple everyday life activities that remind you that life is more than one kind of knowledge or labor, imo. That's interesting. Your "construction of a personal mental concept for intrinsic spin of the electron" sounds promising. I watched a youtube video made by something called cassiopeiaproject. where spin was depicted as literal rotation of the probability shell as the electron points did their "dancing" within the rotating shell. But I don't know how effective a model it was if you can't dissect it to get some kind of mechanical insight into how it influences interactions with other electrons and/or other particles. You'd be surprised how much comprehension relies on general levels of intellectual development. I did graduate work in a relatively non-scientific field but I have always maintained scientific interests and dealing with conceptual complexity in social-political theory actually helps in wrapping my head around "foreign" conceptual complexities and engaging them critically in a way that generates comprehension. I think it's like the sport-analogy you mention, which applies to things like playing musical instruments and learning languages, etc. As you develop the basic body fitness, coordination, skills, logic, etc. to perform well in one sport, these skills are somewhat transferrable to other sports, albeit with various forms of interference due to differences as well. That's interesting. I wonder what would govern "the time required for a spin flip to occur." Surely it must have something to do with the relationship between the size of the electron and the speed of light, no?

For example, what is the relationship between electron orbital shapes and molecular behavior, e.g. substance density and melting/evaporation temperatures as well as crystallization, etc.

Fans simplify everything. They cool and dehumidify purely by air-movement.

That sums up my whole problem with the emphasis on the math. To me, the big issue lies in the relationship between photon frequencies, electron frequencies, etc. . . not in the calculation of predictive amounts. Those predictions could come in handy if I had a practical situation to deal with or plan, but for theoretical purposes I want to understand why these various quantum phenomena are related to one another and how they influence the behavior of matter-energy at observable levels.

sperm + egg = zygote. If homosexual couples have sperm or egg, they can seek the other ingredient and produce zygote if they have an 'incubator.' That assumes that homosexuality and heterosexuality are genetically separate propensities. I tend to believe that sexuality in undifferentiated in terms of its target(s) until culturally developed via various interactions. But, no, I don't think that it is any more difficult for homosexuals to have sex with the opposite sex than it is for heterosexuals to have same-sex sex, if sufficient reason was present. Agreed, except that I think there are less sexual or non-sexual forms of homosexuality. I don't think you should assume that sexuality-development and gender-orientation are either mutually exclusive or totally correlated. They can influence each other in various ways. Beliefs about sexuality has been skewed by obsessive heteronormativity.

"Physics combined with math?" This is making me think about starting a thread about what math actually is. Is it a means of representing quantifiable relationships in an exact manner or something else? And would it be possible to do math if something unquantified would be the basis? E.g. if photons were the basis for force, force could be quantized. But force turns out to be the basis for photon energy, and force-fields turn out to be malleable without constituent particles, how do you deal with that mathematically?

How are #2 and #3 consistent? If consciousness creates reality, how can the universe have any essential reality that is not rooted in the conscious subject?

If the big bang emerged from something besides an antecedent contraction of a similar universe to the known one, it could either be part of a larger cycle or part of an endlessly evolving linear progression. Why would either possibility be more logical than the other? What's more, why would you assume that the two possibilities are mutually exclusive. After all, if significant changes occurred in the substance of the big bang before it began to expand as spacetime, then couldn't those changes have occurred in some dimensions of existence unrelated to spacetime as we know it? That doesn't mean they would be any less meaningful evolution than what occurred once spacetime began expanding, but it does probably mean that we would have trouble contemplating the significance of the dynamics of what was going on. After all, if a lot is going on but not in terms of spacetime dimensionality, how would we interpret that in the context of human consciousness?

I took "delocalized" to refer to the distribution of electrostatic force and thus mass throughout the molecule; i.e. a relatively non-dense molecule. I wonder about the relationship between phase-change temperatures and molecular structure. Then I wonder about the relationship between molecular structure and quantum structure. I've never really understood relationships between element traits and the characteristics of the molecular compounds they constitute. It just seems arbitrary and random to me. I would like it if I could see some logic in the relationships between sub-atomic forces, molecular structuring, and substance behaviors. I suppose that's a tall order, even at a well-stocked bar. So "single" and "double" bonds don't directly correspond with some interactional behavior of electrons according to their shapes in certain states?

Zombies probably aren't susceptible to nausea or diarrhea considering they eat rancid corpse flesh, right? Obama would probably be less interested in getting your guns than insulating your house. He might try to fiscally stimulate you though, which could be considered rape or at least very serious sexual harassment.

Who do you expect to attack you and why?