lemur

Doesn't an asteroid exert more gravitation than an electron or neutron? I guess what you're saying, though, is that an electron traveling under its own momentum with no added force would orbit the sun more or less parallel Earth whereas photons don't. Still, couldn't you say that this is due to the escape velocity of a photon being the speed of light, and other particles/objects have lower escape velocities because they have mass that absorbs energy to accelerate? Particles with mass may have the same or similar escape velocities from a gravity field, but their "escape energy" would vary greatly according to their mass, right? In this sense, wouldn't the geodesic path of an electron with a certain amount of energy be closer to that of a photon with similar energy than an asteroid? I don't do math to any significant degree, but I can see why you would just use a simpler equation/formula when the results are likely to be practically comparable. However, I'm not talking about which math to use as much as I'm trying to get at the basic logic of the relationship between forces and "space." Basically, I'm interested in how space only exists as the interplay of forces (instead of being a container for them). The universe as a spacetime entity seems to be expanding due to the gravitational interplay between matter changing. Likewise, I think you can say that spacetime within the atom exists of interplay between the electrostatic force binding the electrons to the nucleus and whatever energy or force prevents them from collapsing into it. The concept of a geodesic path seems generally relevant to me as the universal method for things bound by attractive forces to avoid collapsing into a singularity. Does any of this make sense to you?

When national governments maintain or intensify exclusionary policies for migrants lacking national citizenship, people can be deported or leave voluntarily to avoid persecution. The question is whether such people should then participate in economic activities that benefit the economies they have been excluded from. Consider, for example, anti-immigrant campaigns against North and South Americans without US citizenship. Is it reasonable for migrants pushed out of the US to seek work in industries that supplies US consumers with food and other products? If people don't want you in "their country," why would you (want to) serve them from outside it?

related question: does myelin increase the signal-speed of nerves? Does it determine it?

They dry out, in my experience. You try to inflate them and they pop easily. I think it's because certain parts of the balloon become more brittle than others, thus making that part of the material more susceptible to breakage. Fresher balloons are more uniformly elastic, I think, and you can enhance their elasticity by stretching them in various directions before inflating them. Think of elastic materials like chains. The weakest link breaks, and the more force the other links can take, the more the force the weakest link is going to be subject to.

Only to the extent that multiple points are viewed as a single "field" of force. It's like saying that if the Earth and moon were isolated, they would be surrounded by a more or less perfect sphere of force vectors, but if they are not isolated, their fields will interact and neutralize conflicting vectors. With magnets or atoms/molecules, you could also say that when they are lumped together, their fields merge and strengthen. That could also be a product of overlapping/interaction. So, for example, if the Earth and moon stay in their current configuration, they neutralize gravity where their fields intersect, but if they would merge into a single mass, their gravity fields would merge and intensify into a single field resulting from mass = Earth + moon. Earth orbits in a certain geodesic around the sun, correct? Light, however, would not orbit in the same geodesic as the Earth, right? So doesn't technically every object/particle have certain specific paths that are available to it when traveling under the force of its own momentum? Why wouldn't this be as true for an electron or a neutron as for an asteroid?

Please try to remember that all statistical conclusions are loose correlations and do not explain causation. "Factors associated with" may include actual causal factors or they may simply be links in a chain that leads to the ultimate cause(s). Obviously teenage bodies are not naturally more hostile to fetuses than adult bodies, so other factors are involved.

So you are saying that if there's a lagrangian point between the Earth and moon where gravity is zero, and then another point at the same distance on the other side of Earth has non-zero gravity, that Earth's gravity field is not "intersected," "overlapping," or otherwise "co-constituted" by that of the moon? Why should curvature only be used to describe geodesic paths of motion through gravitational fields? Why can't an electron follow a geodesic path through electrostatic fields, for example? Why couldn't chemical reactions be studied in terms of re-configurations of electrostatic topography among atoms?

How can you assume this without knowing what actually constitutes consciousness? Maybe consciousness is a result of patterns of electrical waves through the nerves and has nothing to do with the brain structures other than the fact that each structure allows the signals to process in a certain way. Who's to say that totally disembodied consciousness isn't possible and doesn't happen without knowing how it DOES happen in conscious bodies?

This is a good point. I would say that intentionally causing sexual frustration by any means would be more like a form of sexual harassment than rape, even if it occurs during consensual sex. In the same light, I'm not sure that failure to disclose HIV-transmission risk prior to sex is so much rape as it is assault with a deadly weapon. Does the fact that assault occurs with consensual sex as the method of delivery make it sexual assault? This seems like saying that trying to kill someone by poisoning their food is somehow different than by rigging their car to crash. I suppose the big difference with the HIV example of sex is that the person's sexuality is impaired along with their contracting a deadly disease, but how do you distinguish between sexual harassment and rape when both involve consensual sex? By the amount of trauma sustained? Even if it occurs, "on the verge of orgasm," the situation could still be rape, in the sense that withdrawal of consent can't be disregarded willfully without intent to violate the other person's sexual autonomy. What makes this question so complex is that because sex involves two people, the pleasure of one or both can cause pain for the other. So, theoretically, a person withdrawing consent could have a sexual-harassing effect on her/his partner, yet if the partner failed to respect her/his wishes and withdraw, it would be rape. Technically, the sexual harassment charge would be defended on grounds of the person's reason for asking for withdrawal; while the rape would also have to be defended on the grounds of the person's ability to cease and any intent present. I think the ideal situation would involve establishing sufficient communication and respect before initiating the sex act to establish that each partner cares about the other's experience and feelings enough to either proceed to completion, stop, or otherwise change course in a way that minimize suffering for everyone involved. Of course, how many people are considerate, self-aware, mature, and wise enough to engage in sex this responsibly? Most of the time sex involves some level of power-play and exploitation on the part of both/all partners, just because the participants don't really know anything except power-games and exploitation in most aspects of their daily life. What if she sees men as piggish sex-fiends that deserve to be sexually tortured by any means possible? What it comes down to is that abused people tend to abuse. If a man has been exposed to belittling in situations where he ran out of steam or was otherwise pushed beyond his limits, he may develop a general attitude that people shouldn't complain and ask to stop when they're tired. As a result he could take this same attitude of intolerance during sex. Obviously, treating people this way is illegitimate whether it happens as part of sex or some other activity, but why is it surprising when people disrespect each other's limits in various ways all the time, that this culture of abuse wouldn't spill over into sexuality and sexual intercourse itself? edit: suddenly I'm reminded of Andrea Dworkin and others who write about rape culture - which is not just about sex but about a certain attitude toward domination more generally in culture.

The OP raises an interesting question of why pedophilic feelings are taboo, even when not acted on. I think this must have to do with a desire to control action at its roots, in thoughts/feelings. I'm not sure whether the taboo on pedophilic thoughts/feelings/fantasies does more to promote or prevent pedophilic sex/rape (it's always rape to have sex with children because their consent would not be considered valid consent). According to Foucault's repressive hypothesis, sexual repression has the effect of titillating and enhancing pleasure. I think it may also have the effect of preventing people from exploring and practicing inclinations (and thereby preventing practices/habits from developing). Probably sexuality is infinitely diverse, since I think it ultimately comes down to the projection of physiological desires (libido) onto some (fetish) object deemed to offer the prospect of satisfying those desires. I have recently read some claims that repressing forms of inter-adult sexuality may have the effect of causing some people to seek sexual gratification with children but this may be popular speculation without validity. Freud believed (I think) that sexuality could be generally repressed and sublimated into other activities that have nothing to do with sex. This was/is called "sublimation" and was thought to be healthy, I think. I have also read that some people who are celebate believe that their sexual energy has become completely sublimated into non-sexual expressions. It is an interesting topic. Just please don't promote pedophilia - it sucks for children.

I was under the impression that the explanation is simply that particles don't have to move (as much) as waves that travels through them. E.g. an ocean wave does not carry its own set of water molecules. The water molecules push each other transmitting the energy of the wave through the water as a medium. I thought that electrons in a conductor work as a medium for the current, only I think gas molecules are more accurate analogy than water waves because the waves of electric current travel as pockets of compressing and decompressing electrons, much like a sound wave travels through air. Is this false?

This doesn't make sense to me. By trajectory, you mean tracing the path of the circle? Are you calling the orbit an angular momentum of a circle? So a certain amount of energy results in a certain speed at a given radius, i.e. the parameters are fixed relative to each other because of conservation of energy and momentum? Why does the classical trajectory go away in "the wave regime?" So the electron is modeled as a sine wave, or rather a chain of sine waves that connect in phase around the nucleus (without interference)? Does that mean that the quanta of energy are akin to adding waves to the loop/orbit? Does this also mean that each additional wave causes the radius to increase according to the wavelength of the additional wave? Is this related to the (variable) frequency of the atom? Am I mixing up concepts?

I think it helps to look at the specific microdynamics of information supply-chains. The only reason it would be unethical to use information from research/experiments is if it would have a promotional effect on future ethics-sacrifices in the interest of data/knowledge-production. The operative question should be what can be done to prevent and/or discourage unethical research/experimentation and who has the power to stop or control such research in the first place. Ultimately, control is in the hands of the researcher and participants, imo. Various policies or censorship can discourage their work but if they truly believe what they are doing is worth the risks and/or sacrifice, they will proceed. The question must also be asked when research censorship goes too far in exercising power vis-a-vis research. E.g. if some government believes that theoretical physics is responsible for the development of WMD, do they have the right to assume their analysis is correct and act accordingly? What if someone dissents from their view and claims it was not physics theory but rather military engineers, commanders, and workers responsible for applying and deploying physics knowledge as weaponry? This example is maybe hijacking the thread since it was not the research itself that was unethical but the application of the knowledge gained. In cases of mentally ill persons suffering from their condition, the most ethical approach is to attempt to consult them (i.e. acquire informed consent) with the (good faith) intention of minimizing the possibility of their suffering. So, for example, you would attempt to discuss with them your idea for confronting their psychosis with a reality you believe could help them recognize the delusional nature of their belief. You would probably want to assure them that if they understand the treatment and still prefer not to proceed, their wishes will be respected. It would also be a good idea, imo, to explain to them why/how you believe they and their condition will be affected by the treatment. They may be able to understand and cooperate, even offering advice or insight into how/why the treatment will or won't work and what effect they expect it to have. You should only violate a person's right to consent when the benefit to them outweighs the risk and disrespect entailed, and when the effect of the treatment is deemed to be sufficiently harmless. In the case of the person fearing spiders, you would not confront them with spiders but you might talk with them about when they begin to feel anxiety, e.g. when seeing photos or video footage of spiders, when seeing a spider in a terrarium, etc. Then you could talk with them about what kind of situation might be tolerable or even comfortable and see if they want to try that first and then repeat the process with other instances they are more sensitive to. In the case of the three Christs (I haven't read this book, btw), I think you could talk with them about their feelings about what it means to be Christ and whether they think it is possible for multiple Christs to exist simultaneously. You might find that they wouldn't be traumatized by meeting each other at all. They might even look forward to the theological interaction. Really, you need to understand the details and contours of a person's belief before assuming anything about them. This experiment of bring three together sounds more like a joke from the perspective of the therapist than a serious approach to understanding the patients' thoughts.

Is there any reason given for the presumed fact that electrons can appear anywhere but have a higher probability of appearing in some places more than others? Also, when people are calling it a "standing wave," does that mean they are referring to the totality of what would be called an "orbit" in the Bohr model, except the entire "orbit" is viewed as a single hollow sphere-ish type shape that expands and contracts at a certain rate around the nucleus?

Actually, I don't even know what flying fish do that warrants the title, "flying." The original Super Mario Brothers video game is the closest I've come to seeing actual flying fish. Do they just jump very high out of the water? Are there shrimp that jump out of water? This discussion is quickly degenerating into what could be accused of as hijacking, but I'm really curious now if shrimp can jump out of water. Even if they do, I don't see how this would make them prone to evolving wings and/or lungs. If anything, they would get eaten by birds easier . . . unless they were able to maneuvre using their tails . . . which could evolve into wings! (my belief in evolution has returned).

Maybe they meant to say "re-photonned sequences."

I get defensive about math because it seems like it always becomes an issue to exclude me from thinking about science if I don't practice equation discourse. Anyway, don't worry so much about misleading - math illiterates are at varying levels of critical rigor and any descriptions that mislead us should get criticized by someone else in a way that gives us a good lesson. I am much more comfortable with the simple elegance of physics than the complexity of configurations in chemistry, but it would be my greatest dream to be able to understand any and every possible chemical reaction using only my intuitive sense of how subatomic particles interact. Probably that is impossible, but chemistry is the practical holy grail of particle-physics, imo.

Were flying fish then?

God is a personification of a metaphor. It is a way of expressing the idea that creative power occurs in diverse realms, including nature and human thought and action. Any specific descriptions of God or philosophizing (theologizing?) about what He/She/It/They are is an expression of the creative power that God represents as a personified metaphor. Therefore, how can you say that the metaphor doesn't exist when it is an example of what it describes in and of itself? The only way that you can really insist that God doesn't exist is if you insist on a very narrow materialist definition in which the personification of God as a human-like conscious being is taken literally. If you take the personification as simply a human/spiritual tool for expressing something that is otherwise difficult to relate to, it's not hard to see how God exists in the manifestations humans attribute to Him/It/Them. If you define God as creation, it's hard to insist that creation does not exist since things are being created and re-created/transformed all the time by humans as well as nature.

This leads to a discussion even more interesting than the possibility of salt-water insects: flying crustaceans.

Good point. I just mentioned the explanation I've heard for the term, "gay," and obviously sexual pleasure and relationship pleasure are not mutually exclusive, one-dimensional, or exactly the same for any two individuals or couples.

I don't think in equations OR language. I think in concepts and I use language to describe them. I am not skilled or practiced in the language of math so I usually use English. By thermodynamic favoring, it sounds like you're talking about the tendency for energy to disipate in the direction of less energy. You basically are saying that a chemical reaction is prone to react due to something that could be described loosely as potential energy, which has a tendency to become kinetic and chain-react once initiated/catalyzed, no?

Sorry but this sounds like you are promoting this other website. If you take informtion from a site in a discussion, you should cite it. You shouldn't, however, be using websites to promote other websites, imo. Doesn't light only scatter when there are numerous density-changes within the medium? If gravity-fields were abrupt, like magnetic fields, I would expect more scattering of light within or among galaxies. If gravity just curves space in gradual curves, the light would not diffract in a way like the scattering of clouds or the atmosphere generally. What do you say about the experimental evidence for Einstein's theory in which stars were observed to shift positions as they pass behind the sun? What caused the light to bend but remain coherent enough to recognize the stars instead of scattering their light?

Imo, financial investment is an interesting situation. People want guaranteed secure investments but don't they often secretly hope that those who manage their investments to take risks to their advantage? Of course, they also want someone else to be responsible when their money gets lost. In other words, they just complain when the risks don't pan out, although they're happy to take the money when the payoff for the same risks turn out big. Then, look at the whole mortgage meltdown. When the securities started failing, it was like the investors and banks were playing musical chairs to avoid getting stuck with the "toxic" assets. How is it fair for the last person to sell to have to pay the bill for all the speculation that drove up the market values so high above equilibrium values? Basically, commodity trading in any form allows people to profit off of market trends that have little if anything to do with the real value of the assets. And that's THE WHOLE GAME with speculation-trading. Ultimately, what would have been fairest would have been to simply distribute the toxic properties directly to investors and let them deal with them. It's simply not fair for people to expect others to manage their investments for them so they don't have to. Direct investment allows individual investors to be responsible for their own business.

The issue here is whether people (whether human or not) ever overcome the will to secrecy and invisibility (covert power) once they have attained it. Many people do not feel that "honesty is the best policy" and they avoid it at all costs, thinking that it makes them unnecessarily vulnerable. Such people have little if any faith in others and view social-interaction as a competition for power/domination. They hide to avoid being dominated and maintain secrets that give them a leg-up in dominating others. This is an everyday phenomenon; not limited to aliens or various forms of high-stakes political/corporate espionage. It occurs everytime someone secretly fantasizes about someone other than their partner, for example.