Phi for All

! Moderator Note OK, so not a physics observation, and not about acceleration. I'm going to close this so it's not confusing for future readers. If you want to pursue this outside of physics, please start another thread.

How can you say our intelligence isn't "an evolutionary thing"? The combination of opposable thumbs, bipedalism, cooperation, fire use, communication, tool use, and high intelligence are most certainly traits that were selected for along our ancestry. When you realize this, you also realize how silly it is to say "we have nothing to fight back with except our superior brain power, clubs, and rocks." Except we did defend ourselves successfully. We used our big brains and our tools, we banded together in tribes to overcome problems other animals didn't have the brain power for. I'm not sure why you feel the need for extraterrestrial intervention in your explanation when it's very clear that we have MANY ways "of defending ourselves against them". If you really want great evidence that humans originated on Earth, go back before our primate common ancestry, all the way back to the tiny fish that were the common ancestors of ALL vertebrates. Research "laryngeal nerve", and how it started as part of a gill function that later became the "voice box" for those many vertebrate species. Over millions of years, the nerve that connects the larynx to the brain got wrapped under the heart as those organs moved and shifted. Today, every vertebrate on Earth has a laryngeal nerve that's unnecessarily long, considering it's not far from the brain to the throat. The poor giraffe has one that's 5 meters long! Humans have the same weird physiological setup, and we have the most complicated vocal communications on the planet. You did very well. Your post had some great science with cited evidence to support it. Well done.

The claims show a distinct ignorance about evolutionary processes. Perhaps I'm being oversensitive to the current plight in the US, where many of its citizens are too undereducated and underinformed to understand many social, economical, and political processes, but I also dislike this type of sensational garbage that appeals to conspiracy, anti-intellectualism, and lazy reasoning.

! Moderator Note Then this is a pointless thread for a discussion forum.

Nothing is ejected from a black hole once it goes past the event horizon. Past the EH, the curvature of spacetime is so severe that nothing has enough energy to move on a path other than straight into the degenerate matter.

You have time for what you make time for, and no more than that. Everything important enough to warrant your time needs to be considered. If you give all your time to one subject, I think you'll reach a point where it will be necessary to know about related subjects in order to advance in your main one. Does that make sense? Knowing some chemistry can only help a focus in marine ecosystems. I'm not sure there's a general rule for how many peripheral studies you should have to enhance your primary study. It feels like it should happen organically, where the scholar chooses an interest and also picks related subjects to learn about in a curriculum designed to satisfy that interest, and let's the research and study guide their curiosity. If you have more time, you can keep drilling down in your main or add more related subjects to study. Hopefully you've already factored in the time you'll need for work, family, and friends. If you still have time left over, you can pursue a hobby maybe. But if you don't make time to practice your French (for instance), you'll probably lose some of that language over time. It's probably that way with most knowledge. Use it, or you might not remember you know it.

As in any pursuit of knowledge, peripheral studies can only help broaden our understanding. Maintaining expertise is normally part of a specific course of study. If you want to know more about why humans run so fast using a backbone better designed for quadrupedal locomotion, you'll need some biology and some physics knowledge. Knowing some nutrition and chemistry is only going to deepen your grasp of the subject, as would knowing some history and some medicine. Are you basically asking which is better, a very specific skill set involving focused (and therefore perhaps more valuable) knowledge of a single subject, or a broader and more connective approach that offers more potential for shared information? I think that will vary by individual. The web is a good example of what you're talking about. There was probably a time when you could have seen half of what had been posted to the internet. Now it's so vast it would be like reading every book in a thousand libraries and just scratching the surface. The key is to figure out what you want the knowledge for. I have this overall impression that the beginning of the 20th century was also a time when we were adopting better communications and cooperative techniques, ensuring that the best ideas were shared more effectively among the global scientific community. The industrial age was a big success, and science was a big part of that, and a big part of science is sharing with colleagues.

If you take any science subject, each field of study shows how the subject relates with regard to how we observe the universe to be. If you want to learn about black holes, starting with the chemistry of fusion shows how stars are formed, and how they can collapse. Physics and the accompanying mathematics will show how gravity is affected by the hyperdensity of the degenerate matter of a black hole, causing severe spacetime curvature. If you want to learn about vampire wasps, studying evolution helps connect the way traits manifest themselves in biological processes, and chemistry helps us understand how those processes function. Studying how agriculture and animal husbandry completely changed the way early humans functioned in groups will lead you to many different fields of study. Geography, biology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, and others all cover parts of the explanation. And the height of the scientific methodology is in using experiment results to predict the results of other experiments. Einstein was able to predict, using previous experimental data, that light would bend when subjected to a strong gravitational field, long before we had a way to test it. Darwin was able to predict the presence of certain animal types based on plants in the environment (a deep spur in a flower requires an animal with a long nose to pollinate it).

It's just the way knowledge is layered. I think you won't get an objective answer because you're talking about individuals vs broad areas of expertise. There was a time when my best friend knew everything there was to know about Macintosh computers. He bought the original in early 1984 that came with a backpack, and he had every piece of software made for it. It took less than two years before he could no longer keep up and had to specialize in more focused areas. But this is the way with human innovation. We devise ways to specialize so fewer people have to guard the village, or hunt and gather food. The key with science knowledge is to learn what connects the bits together. It's all layered like an onion, and one discovery leads to more, which eventually gives you predictive power, science's greatest gift.

We know a LOT about the human mind, despite not knowing everything. And I disagree about not being able to adapt (you used a really limited computer analogy that's bound to lead to sloppy thinking). The human brain is one of the most adaptable on the planet when it's given valid information. I would challenge you to learn more about the functions of our minds, since you're basically criticizing religion and science without offering anything more detailed to replace them (that we process our explanations of various phenomena through the brain isn't a big revelation). This assertion can be shown false. I can bump a vase accidentally, altering it in several ways during the process, without any knowledge of the object whatsoever.

We're on the same page completely. The differences between her arguments and the JWs are like light and dark ages.

I know, right? It's also impressive that someone your age appreciates the passion and sense of justice this young woman possesses, and is willing to fight for what she knows is right. I remember not being taken seriously at that age, and I'm starting to see how being too old makes folks see you differently. I'm so glad critical thought knows no age. A sound and reasonable argument is still sound no matter who voices it.

Also a note that she's at about the same place on the autism spectrum as Mark Zuckerberg, Isaac Asimov, and Andy Warhol.

I think this argument is unsophisticated, and doesn't belong in your hypothesis. For instance, there is absolutely no purpose to the path the recurrent laryngeal nerve takes in vertebrates capable of vocalization. It's a short distance from the brain to the voice box, yet the nerve loops down below the heart before going back up to the brain, simply because it got caught there as our original common vertebrate ancestor evolved. The poor giraffe has to carry around an extra 5 meters of nerve. There are quite a few design flaws that have no purpose. Human eyes are fantastic, but have obviously been adapted from more primitive origins. We could now easily design an eye that overcomes all the individual shortcomings, but the eye had to evolve as a unit. Sometimes that means adaptations are carried over for no purpose other than it would take too many resources to correct them. Or better yet, the discussion can take place in this thread and involve even greater levels of interaction and broader opportunities for learning.

Are you building a Nautilus machine, or is this to help get you up off the couch?

And that's their perfectly valid opinion, but... ... this is none of their business. People should learn the difference. Conformity is the main driver perhaps, but I think there's also an attempt to eliminate surprises by using a dress code. If your company says it's OK to wear piercings that can be easily removed, SOMEBODY is going to show up with huge dildo studs and gauges that play ice cream truck music. Same reason an HOA has an acceptable paint pallette as a guideline; if you don't, SOMEBODY is going to paint their whole house fuschia. Often, there''s a need to be specific and strict.

Religions often stifle secular education, so perhaps it just took time before people knew better. The more our intelligence increases on a diet of good knowledge, the less we reach for wishful thinking, and the more we require our explanations to be reasonable.

I think you need to give us what you've got so far, because this sounds like homework.

Still, huh? Dude, you are profoundly frustrating in your ignorance. No offense, really, but ignoring that we're talking about only two of a sphere's three dimensions when we talk about the surface is just... ludicrous. You can keep it up, but it's not science, it's not learning, and it's not meaningful in any way. Have a great day, or not.

This is NOT a definition of Humanism I'm familiar with. Humanists favor a focus on the observable universe, its inhabitants, and their behavior over supernatural beliefs and pursuits. Is this a translation issue? Thank goodness stifling scientific truths is like therapy for me. Every day, in every way, I'm getting better and better.... You do pick up some interesting tidbits now and then though. Oh yeah, you're the one who spent so many pages obtusely arguing that spheres must have 3 dimensions when everybody kept telling you we were talking about the surface only. Shit like that will definitely get you locked down. Nobody has time for that. Nobody.

If you reply to a mainstream thread with an explanation you're still speculating on, you're breaking the rules. Mainstream only in mainstream sections. Unlike a lot of discussion forums, we allow a whole section for speculations, but you have to keep them there until they have some evidential support. You need to persuade people, using the scientific method and reasoned arguments, that your idea has merit. Until that's been acknowledged, please keep your unfounded ideas away from where students go to get explanations they can pass classes with.

! Moderator Note Moved from Astronomy & Cosmology to Suggestions, Comments, and Support.

Avril just wants everything back but you.

And apparently T felt the need to lie and claim he fired him last night. The way Bolton tells it, he offered to resign last night, and T said, "Let's talk about it in the morning". He has no spine for face-to-face responsibility.

We don't get in anywhere? We spend most of our time? Again, how does it help to mischaracterize the situation? We do progress, we spend time improving, but a LOT of progress is stifled because so many people claim we aren't doing anything, and they ignore the good that IS being done in favor of complaining.