MigL

A sphere does maximise volume, concetrating the greatest amount of volume, and therefore mass, into the smallest radius/dimensions. Which is what gravity tends to do. And all static, non-charged, Black Holes are perfectly spherical. IOW, if something is big, and massive, enough, all other factors, like fluidity of material, don't matter;it will be spherical.

That's even more far-fetched; that a baby is born knowing that pink is associated with girls, and blue with boys. Or do you think they gather this information during their formative years by associating colors with the gender of their parents or siblings ?

Depends on what is producing the 'noise'. Electromagnetic radiation can induce 'noise' in nearby structures.

I don't understand this. Children less than 2 years of age are basically a set of eyes. They see the world around them and make judgements about themselves in comparison. ( whatever they don't understand by looking at it, is picked up and chewed on ) The 'world' aroung them consists mostly of the parents ( and possibly siblings ). They are influencing the child's gender identity simply by being in the child's line of sight. It would be interesting to see studies done on baby boys ( possibly artificially inseminated ) into the mother of a lesbian couple. Would the baby boy have issues identifying as male without a 'reference' in his formative years ? ( if there is such a study, I'm sure haronY will reference it ) Clearly you've never worked with a bunch of women before. They can be rather ... 'catty'. ( no offense to cats 😄 )

Please keep in mind that most of us come to SFn for reasoned discussion relating to science. If I was looking for 'titillation' and wives boobs, I would visit PornHub. I don't expect that kind of content here.

That's really interesting. Can you explain in more detail, without re-using the same words over again, and show some mathematical predictions of power output ?

It does. Thank you. Except for this I am of the opinion that we should be talking about it even more. Understanding the reasoning behind other's viewpoints is the path to mutual respect.

The quote from Mirror.Mirror was Capt Kirk : "In every revolution there's one man with a vision" Bearded Spock : "Captain Kirk. I shall consider it" ( sorry, I'm a Star Trek geek )

And I've never said I was disgusted by homosexuals. But I could be disgusted by sodomy, the act, no matter who does it. Or some people may be disgusted by other forms of sex with a same sex partner. Why are you conflating disgust, or hatred, of homosexual people, with disgust of homosexual acts ? If a homosexual man is disgusted by the thought of vaginal sex with a woman, would you consider him a heterophobe ???

hold on a minute, INow ... You previously agreed with others, and yourself stated, that gender identity is a learned trait at a very early age, and probably picked up from parents and siblings who may influence you at a very early age. Yet now you clain that the child has innate gender identity and, what is abusive, is if the parents don't accept the child as they 'are'. How exactly 'are' they without an environmental influence to their gender identity ? Pick a side, and have some logical consistency in your arguments. I realize you're passionate about the subject, but don't let that passion cloud your thinking.

So parents who have a child of a specific biological sex, and then re-enforce the opposing gender identity on that child, should be held criminally responsible for any emotional hardships ( up to including suicide ) suffered by that child throughout its life ? Or should we just give them hormone blockers and sex reassignment surgery, and ignore the root cause ?

So you're saying it is perfectly acceptable to be disgusted by the practice of sodomy, which causes excessive bleeding, and was a major contributor to the AIDS epidemic ? And where did the OTHER PEOPLE come from ? Exactly. Personal distaste means something I myself, would not engage in.

I find it distateful to discuss my sexuality on a public forum, so let's stick to food ... I have always liked Italian food. I grew up with it,and it was the first food I tasted other than mother's milk. I suppose my sexuality developed the same way. The first people I wanted to hug, other than my parents were girls. And I still remember my first kiss, even after all these years. ( I know, I'm a sentimental softie 🙂 ) Who knows how things might have turned ou thad I hugged a boy ... As for other foods, if I didn't find them too distateful, I tried them. And no, I don't mean sexual experimentation, but I assume it works the same. If I am allowed to think certain habits, like spitting, coughing without mouth covering, picking your nose, or scratching your balls is distateful, why am I not allowed to think certain sexual practices are distateful without being branded a homophobe ?

Maybe I'm nor explaining myself well enough ... Exchemist said that he personally found thoughts of same gender sex, or being 'approached' by a same sex suitor, distasteful, not that he disliked others who engage in such. He was told this was a learned response. If personally disliking the acts, or unwanted same sex approaches, is a learned response, why is liking those acts, and 'flattering' same sex approaches, an innate response ? liking, or disliking, the same thing is either innate to a person, or is learned behavior. You guys seem to be picking and choosing which is innate to a person and which is learned, in order to suit personal beliefs. I emphasize that I'm not talking about disliking other people for their behavior, but a person's personal likes and dislikes. My thinking is somewhat along the same lines as CharonY's post above; like, and dislike, are both learned behavior ( it took a while for me to like lobster and Indian food, and I've learned to dislike Chinese which I used to enjoy )

But we are not discussing 'homophobic' sentiments, which most of us can agree are wrong; there is never a reason to hate others. I am wondering how liking something can be innate, but disliking the very same thing, be a learned behaviour.

I find it funny ( rather strange, actually ) that sexual attraction to your own gender, along with preference for homosexual sex, is considered innate, or even genetic, by some, yet a distaste for homosexual acts is considered 'learned' behaviour, and deserving of the 'homophobe' term. Maybe someone could explain the 'logic' to me, Exchemist, and others.

Globalization is bad ?? It has improved the living conditions of countries like Japan, South Korea, China and Taiwan, Singapore, etc., that were considered 3rd world countries 70 years ago. It is improving the living conditions ofEastern Europe after 50 years of oppressive dictatorial Communism. It does this by industrialized countries becoming 'consumers' that outsource 'production' to lesser developed countries, until they too become consumers, and production shifts somewhere else, eventually bringing the playing field level for all. You guys are speaking in terms of abstracts; let's look at real world situations. The UK had a referendum against a form of globalization. BREXITwas a retreat from a more global organization; how did it work out for them ??? Instead of the 300 million savings per year, advertised on the sides of buses, they are losing Billions. It is the only country in the Eurozone experiencing a large negative economin growth. And it can't be attributed to bad governance, because there are many countries with incompetent governments.

Yhe phenomenon of 'touching' is a lot simpler to understand by considering the potential fields, as they give rise to the forces and resistances we 'feel'. The particle view will just confuse you, even though the particles are, themselves, a manifestation of the quantized field. If one could somehow remove the manifested particles, and leave their respective fields intact, you would have what sci-fi calls a 'force field' that would still provide forces and resistances ( which would be neat, if it were possible ). Reminds me of an Asimov story. How do you levitate an egg 5 miles in the air ? Place it on Mt Everest, then remove the mountain from under it. ( the science is easy, the engineering difficult )

From research by W Huttner, of the Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics ... "This changed in the last decade when scientists successfully sequenced Neanderthal DNA from a fossilised toe fragment found in a Siberian cave, paving the way for new insights into how Neanderthal biology differed from our own. The latest experiments focus on a gene, called TKTL1, involved in neuronal production in the developing brain. The Neanderthal version of the gene differs by one letter from the human version. When inserted into mice, scientists found that the Neanderthal variant led to the production of fewer neurons, particularly in the frontal lobe of the brain, where most cognitive functions reside. The scientists also tested the influence of the gene in ferrets and blobs of lab-grown tissue, called organoids, that replicate the basic structures of the developing brain." Ths suggests that Neanderthal's brain may have been larger, but not as efficient as Sapiens. The fact that Apes are bipedal in shallow water is due to the bouyancy provided by the water. IOW, they got smarter and recognized that standing in water is easier. Or do you expect hippos to evolve into nimble sprinters becausethey are more bouyant in water ?

Thanks for the breath of fresh air, Eise. In case it is still not clear, Everett's Many Worlds is an interpretation of Quantum Theory. There are many such interpretations, but none are 'theories'. See here Interpretations of quantum mechanics - Wikipedia

It may be 'inoffensive', but it does do this ... Instead of this ... Which we would all agree is the preferred outcome.

It seems that even institutions like a science forum can have biases. Some may be biased in seeing biases where there are none; more and more common, these days. I grant that the teaching and interpretation of the science, in a way that is understandable to the student, may have cultural, and other biases, but that is not what I understood of the OP either. I am inclined to agree with Studiot, Exchemist ( there is no subjectivity in the repeatability of an experiment, no matter who performs it ), and Arete.

It seems, no one has a clue, nor understands, your thinking ...

What is the point of this mental exercise ? Live plants cannot be used as structural components because they need delicate appendages, only a tree trunk would provide the required strength. At best, they would be a 'novelty' add-on, still needing the underlying structure, and adding nothing but weight. This added weight, along with much poorer aerodynamics, would be catastrophic for fuel burn in any commercially viable enterprise, or, if the purpose is simply 'greening' aviation, counterproductive, as it requiresmuch more fuel ( fossil ) for the wquivalent ( where possible ) results. You will note that many of the answers are ridiculing in nature ...

Most new planes have a high content of carbon fibre composites; carbon which, at one time, used to be living. How would you water a plane made of living plants ???