Strange

No it isn't "well known". Round here, it is well-known that models predict a range of outcomes (because that is how modelling works) and that the mid-range forecasts have been in line with what has happened. That is why you need to support your claims. For example: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly-3c0854932a4a

The entire reason for the scientific method, with its reliance on objective measurements, testable predictions and blinded trials is to eliminate (or minimize) this sort of personal bias.

That implies that general relativity, quantum theory and most of thermodynamics are wrong, just for starters. Can you provide any evidence for your beliefs? Or is this a kind of religious thing: not letting the facts get in the way.

You can't say all of physics is wrong just because of your intuition about "luck". You need to try and quantify your scepticism, at least. It doesn't seem particularly lucky. The rest of the universe has been visible for many billions of years. And will be visible for hundreds of billions more. Life appears to start almost as soon as conditions are available. And the circumstance for life to evolve have existed for billions of years. And intelligence takes just a few million years to evolve. So there are potentially enormous numbers of intelligent species that will be this "lucky".(*) (*) Assuming life can happen easily anywhere and will, in a relatively short time, lead to intelligence that can look out at the universe. Neither of which we can be sure of from a sample size of 1. Your argument in that other thread seems to rely on it being "unfair" that future observers won't be able to see what we can. But we cannot see the earliest life on the planet. We cannot see the immense variety of life that existed for hundreds of millions of years (we are closer in time to T rex, than T rex was to the Stegosaurus). We can reconstruct a tiny part of it from the minuscule number of fossils we can find. But the vast majority of it will remain unknown. We cannot know how human language arose, or what the earliest languages spoken in Europe were (is Basque a remnant of that, or was it a late arrival that replaced older languages - we will never know). None of that is "fair" but that is the way the universe is. All things will pass. Most (nearly all) will leave no trace.

Hmmm. I'm not one to argue with the experts who write dictionaries... BUT I don't really see any of those as being uncountable, except the police one, possibly. After all, if you can prefix it with "a" then I think it is countable. You can't (normally) say "a bread" but you can say "a beer" when it is being used as countable ("I'll have a beer", "we'll have two beers", etc. as opposed to just "I'll have [some] beer"). Maybe the concept of uncountable shouldn't be applied to abstract nouns?

I'm afraid I can't see it as anything but countable. Can you give an example where you think it is uncountable? But the division into countable and uncountable is fairly arbitrary, especially for abstract nouns. (And let's not mention "data", which some people wrongly(😈) think is countable.)

Actually, I almost never dream (remember my dreams, more accurately) so I struggled to think of something suitable bizarre! Well, let's hope that is in your future 🙂

No. Is the future going to be full of surreal scenes of cats playing chess while the postman pushes ice-cream into a wood-chipper? Really?

! Moderator Note Homework Help Rules A simple reminder to all: this is the "Homework Help" forum, not the "Homework Answers" forum. We will not do your work for you, only point you in the right direction. Posts that do give the answers may be removed. So @specumikel would you explain where you have got to in solving this problem and what has stopped your progress - hopefully members can then help you to overcome your difficulties yourself. ! Moderator Note Tell us about your solution and why it was rejected.

Uh, OK. Did this answer help more: (I thought it was spot on.)

Can you explain why not? Or ask your question more clearly

This illustration of sine and cosine curves might help: https://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/trig-sin-cos-tan-graphs.html

! Moderator Note Similar threads merged.

@Mordred It seems that domain has expired. You might want to see if the site has moved elsewhere. Or just remove the link from your sig.

! Moderator Note That's just the way we do things round here. Sometimes we add a more descriptive prefix. Sometimes we can't be bothered. Especially when it is a junk thread like this one. But feel free to start a thread in the appropriate forum if you want to suggest a change. I'm not sure why you think it was confrontational. I was just amused by the fact that people who deny climate change (which I admit is not the case here) reject the title "denialist". It was just a side comment, so let's not waste time on it. Yes, maybe plants would be happier with higher levels of CO2. And would eventually adapt to the higher temperatures and more arid and/or wetter conditions. But many animal species would be forced into extinction by the ecological changes. And there would be vast amounts of human suffering. As I say, an odd stance from someone who complained that Greenpeace as too "anti-humanist".

! Moderator Note I think you should stop spamming links to your YouTube channel.

Aren't they a Bachman-Turner Overdrive tribute act?

Really? "I submit that much of society has been collectively misled into believing that global CO2 and temperature are too high when the opposite is true for both." (Nice crossover the with racial language thread here as he preempts accusations of "denialism" by claiming that is an ad-hominem.) It is not at the expense of the ecosystem. The current ecosystem has evolved to (something close to) the current (well, recent past) CO2 levels. Global warming (plus ocean acidification[1] due to CO2) is a contributing fact in, for example, the dying-off of corals. [1] "It's not 'acidification', it's 'less-alkalinisation'" they say. What, so it doesn't matter then? I gave it a more accurate title, initially. Then decided I should be polite. The title is "Split from ..." because it is off-topic (and pretty nonsensical).

I suspect it is the sort of thing that is close to find evidence for the origin of (I haven't looked to see if their research does show any theory of mind in (other) apes. But if it arose in humans (and is related to our human understanding of intelligence) then perhaps the prehistoric art (whether abstract or realistic) is the earliest hint we can get.

Or is it just a nice illustration of Argument from Authority as a fallacy?

Odd that he left Greenpeace because he didn't like their 'belief that humans are the enemies of the earth' and yet he is more concerned about the success of plants rather than the negative effects on humans. And, of course, he is ignoring the effect of increased temperature and other climatic changes (too much or too little rain, depending on location, for example) on important food crops. Rice yields, for example, are reduced by relatively small increases in temperature.

! Moderator Note Hijack split off to here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/122404-nonsense-split-from-climate-change/

To answer the question in the title ["when was the word intelligence first used"]: late 14th century https://www.etymonline.com/word/intelligence#etymonline_v_9381 That is a very different question. And probably impossible to answer. As long as intelligence has existed, I would guess.

Excellent answer. Thank you.

As the lifetime of the black hole is related to temperature, this means that the lifetime is observer dependent. Which shouldn't be surprising. But, is that change in lifetime (and temperature) consistent with a simple calculation just using SR for time dilation? (It feels implausible that it would be but essential that it should be!) Also, an observer in free fall does not see Hawking radiation, and so does not see the black hole evaporate. Does this mean that, from the point of view of an external observer, someone in free fall towards a black hole must always reach the event horizon before it disappears, however fast the black hole is evaporating?