ronians1

a) The mutation that begot higher intelligence b) The sudden increase in brain size some 1.5 - 3 million years ago

Surely apes have not developed tools to the extent that humans have done because they have not experienced the mutation that enabled humans to posess the higher intelligence required for this feat. The posture adopted by apes does not release the hands to manipulate things such as tools etc to the extent that the upright posture of humans does. Thus this increased use of the hands resulted in greater experimentation with tools in humans which in turn resulted in more sophisticated implements.

Considering the fact that the Universe is principally made up of Dark Matter, how is it that the spacecraft Voyager that started its journey about forty years ago and has travelled a billion or so miles in space has not hit/encountered Dark Matter?

OK that goes for the laws but how about the forces? Could say, gravity be subject to eventual entropy/disorder/decay? But isn't the generally understood wider sense of entropy disorder? Could the forces of the Universe be in the process of losing their potency over time in the smallest, undetectible scale or degree? entropy genera

Sorry for the typo - yes, entropy

Are the forces of the Universe and the Laws of Physics subject to entrophy? If not why not?

I don't understand why there should be an overload problem. As far as I gather the epigenetic switchboard is not unlike any other switchboard which only deals with whats already available in the (gene)pool. Even if there is a succession of many environmental changes why should this pose anything but a temporary hiccup in the epigenetic process? The process cannot deal with every element of change anyway can it? How can the control system transfer the job of enviromental adaptation to the gene sequence itself if the required mutation has not yet already happened? Humans and apes may still be able to interbreed to some extent in spite of some hybrid breakdown. 5 million years or so may be enough time for their respective chromosomes to have mutated enough for reproduction to be virtually impossible.

I agree with your point. So what has happened to Aids? I suspect that under the veneer of containement, there is a latent beast awaiting its time. Just recently the BBC announced the findings that there are thousands of people walking aroung the UK unbeknowingly infected with HIV, Why aren't these people sick? Firstly there is the incubation period and secondly it appears that Aids does not develop unless one's immune system is compromised by malnuitrition, poor healthcare or a growing ineffectiveness of one's biochemical remedy in terms of drugs. However, the epidemic is young. The "HIV" generation has yet to grow old and with old age will come the gradual breakdown of the efficacy of one's immune system........Will this be when we find out that indeed, "nothing has happened to Aids"?

As far as I am aware the rudimentary porn films of the 70's scarcely featured anal sex at all whereas these days, if one listens to the youth of today it is most certainly mainstream and it appears that if females insist on desisting they can come under some pressure from partners to comply. Yes I was and I did not say that that anal sex was more prevalent then than now, quite the reverse. I said that anal sex was a taboo subject prior to the 70's.

Unfortunately this headonism has gone a little too far these days with the proliferation of the proclivity for anal sex amonst the young - no doubt fuelled by the prolific depiction of such by the pornographic industry. Such practice was virtually taboo prior to the seventies, a practice which, by nature of the physiology of the gastro-intestinal tract, makes the transmission of HIV much easier to achieve as is born out by Wikipedia statics.

We have indeed changed our behaviour. The prophylactic in terms of the condom has been very effective against the HIV virus and since the virus is is not that hardy, a significant dose/inoculant is apparently needed before infection is incurred.(according to a urologist friend). The condom, although nowhere near 100% effective appears to be effective enough because what percentage of the virus that may get through by contamination and/or misuse is generally not sufficient for infection. Perhaps both changed behaviour and drug therapy explain the hedonistic attitude to sex by the youth of today?

I believe the biochemistry for detecting an HIV infection requires about 3 months to elapse after the inoculant is absorbed for it to be able to detect the virus. Isn't this rather late for individuals who live a promiscous lifestyle with multiple partners? And yet, and yet there seems to be a certain confidence amongst youngsters these days that thay are somehow immune from the virus.

In the eighties we were inundated by government advertisements predicting biological armageddon if society did not change its sexual behaviour. Today we are inundated by pornography from every source depicting sex with not a condom in sight. What has happened to Aids?

Before the Big Bang and After Are you sure? Why is that? How does one arrive at an explosion without energy? I presumed that since e=mc2 nothing could exist or happen without energy Surely we must presume thus as we can only go by what scientific evidence we have. The word is used metaphorically for something that " is and always has been".

Does the existence of Energy both within and without the Universe violate causality? Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. It can only be transferred hence it represents an "effect" without a cause does it not?

As far as I know there are millions of extant examples of where an organism has mutated to the extent of being a different species. Just look at the chromosomes of lions and tigers. Sufficent mutations have resulted in the fact that the two species experience offspring hybrid breakdown when they copulate. Their respective chromosomes have mutated to such an extent that that there are significant crossover difficulties during meiosis. In time the mutation will be so great respectively that their chromosomes will not line up at all - and this is when a definitive species in terms of biology will emerge.

Believe it or not I've come across scientists who actually believe that time dialation does not happen in one's own frame of reference - something that only happens in frames of reference other than one's own. There are others who are convinced that everything must always be normal in one's own frame of reference and that the astronaught twin actually lived an existence at a normal rate during his journey at the near speed of light when clearly he didn't. Then there are the ones who do not accept the fact that when travelling at the near speed of light, a second may still be a second but it takes longer to pass. The fact that one could be moving in slow motion on Earth (albeit minimally) has been questioned. There has been argument over whether Engery is scalar invariant and so on....... Whilst such disparity of perception exists and added to the fact that General Relativity cannot be reconciled with Quantum Theory so that science is incomplere, how can one blame anybody for being slightly sceptical when some scientific postulates seem beyond the realms of reality? I know the problem of reconciliation lies with General Relativity and not SP Relativity, but surely there is a relationship and in life it is often through the smallest inconsistancy in a remote corner of a discipline that greater problems are solved. Why aren't scientists obsessivley scouring the depths of science theory in search for that elusive Holy Grail that is the reconciliation of GR and QM, something that has eluded science for more than forty years and something that might be picked up through a slightest inconsistancy in a remote place? Surely the rewards would be great?

As matters are getting a little convoluted I'd like to get back to basics if I may. The scenario is thus: The astronaught twin comes back to Earth many years younger than his twin on Earth. Intuition, something evolved over thousands of years by natural selection as opposed to a theory created by one man over a lifetime albeit successfully..... Intuition tells us, from an Earth frame of reference ( I call it reality) that this is impossible. Scientists tell us that this is possible by a scientific sleight of hand (special relativity). The layman is told that he just has to accept it.........well I am reluctant to accept it! Common sense tell me that the only way the astronaught twin could have come back having aged less is by living in slow motion in space. I feel that this fact has been proved on this thread. It appears to me that science in general believe that the astronaught led a normal life whilst in space. Who is correct? What are the implications on relativity theory if the astronaught did in actuality live in slow motion during his journey?

I have been told that the law the "does" say energy will be the same when measured in different frames as it is a scalar invariant.

A ball bounces more slowly on the spaceship than on Earth say. There must be some equivalence factor to equate both measurements of the energy used if the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames. That's just the point...... in one's own frame of reference it isn't -just look at the clocks. A second on the spaceship takes longer to pass = slow motion in one's own FOR.

Take two caesium clocks, synchronise them and put one in the spacecraft travelling at the near speed of light and one at its base on Earth. The clock on the spaceship will run slow. Running slow = slow motion (a second may still be a second on the spacecraft but that second will take longer to pass) At the near speed of light the astronaught would be running so slow that he would be virtually frozen in time. You can't deny the saga of the two clocks Gravity, relative movement......how many more exclusions is one going to incorporate? What is more important is does SP relativity predict the "reality" of the situation? If not why not?

It seems to me that matters are not relative between frames of reference because time dialation can actually happen in one's own frame of reference (contrary to popular perception) hence slow motion in the case of the astronaught twin. How can the laws of physics be the same in all reference frames when velocity and time can change the dynamics of the laws of science in all timelines?

Thank you for your most erudite reply! I note that in reality I will see the people on board moving in slow motion and that in the timeline of the train, I in reality am moving in slow motion. This is a huge point and an issue that has caused a great deal of agrument. Please correct me where I am wrong: When we take into consideration that time dialation is applicable to every move we make on Earth it becomes obvious that dialation does not just apply to other parties in other reference frames as proposed by some who follow science but applies to all movement in the Universe, it's just that that on Earth the speeds concerned are so small it is physically imperceptible - but at near light speeds the slow motion is considerable, patently obvious and actually happens. This is where the disagreement lies. . Since time dialation is inherent in the Universe, there must be a velocity/time differential in all movement. If there is a velocity/time differential in every frame of reference that is not inertial how can all frames of reference be comprable/relative? When in reality a ball thrown in the air moves more slowly in one frame of reference compared to another depending on the speed of travel, how can the laws of physics be the same in all reference frames?

Thanks. So if it were possible for a train say to travel at the near speed of light on Earth its occupants would actually and physically be virtually frozen in time. Why, when I try to explain this, why am I shouted down?