All Activity

I would quibble slightly with this, in that there is also the matter of surviving long enough to actually reproduce, although I think high reproduction rates definitely are a major positive contributor to a species survival in most cases.

I tried to edit the previous comment, but it didn't work. I think that with this data you will be able to verify the matter: 1. https://mynutritionscience.com/exerciseweightloss/ (26% extra adjusted to the proportion of body mass discarding fat-free mass.) 2. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0040503 (The study in question. Find fat percentages in graphs (table) What I found is that the difference could be explained by the greater proportion of muscle mass of the Hadza, although there is the possibility that there is an extra expenditure for exercise of approximately 8% of the total calories burned in 24 hours. https://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article folder/metabolismcontroversy.html (I used this information for the rough estimate) It seems to me that there is a lack of data to reach a more concrete conclusion. But, the evidence seems to point more to the version of Pontzer's studies. Regarding exercise, I have maintained that it helps you lose weight, but not necessarily because it burns more calories. But because long-term cardiovascular exercise, like that of the Hadza, induces catabolic processes and net burning of calories through oxidation of adipose tissue.

“From 1960 to 2015, there were 35 major bridge collapses worldwide due to ship or barge collision, with a total of 342 people killed” https://apnews.com/article/bridge-collapses-barges-list-1f2d6261d523ddc625aaaf3b32c626bc#

Agreed and that's precisely my position. If we agree that evidence of mind is inferred by behaviors that suggest a thought process, then those thoughtful behaviors should be the antithesis of instinctive behaviors. Indeed, evidence of mind could be suggested by other behaviors but, in view, no behavior consistently provides the clearest evidence of mind as those that are clearly contrary to reflexive, preprogrammed behaviors. Indeed, they very definition of thoughtful behaviors could be those not "bound by instinctual constraint." As I've observed in assessing the likely evolutional path of sensory acquisition in the human brain, much of its early sensory developments appear to have been devoted to various forms of tactile perception (touch, taste, sound, etc). In ancestral animals, tactile perception likely necessitated and promoted reactive, reflexive behaviors because of the very real and immediate survival impact or threat associated with physical contact. When these animal sensory perception diversified into visual sensory, they evolved a means to assess the survival impact of their environment and experiences without the level of threat to their physical well-being posed by just tactile perception alone. The enhancement visual sensory acquisition gave ancestral animals likely allowed them to better mediate their instinctive survival responses, which infers the primal emergence of mind-the emergence of behavioral expressions not bound by instinctual constraints.

It seems to me that there is an error. Zoonosis refers to transmission between species, it seems to me. Although it is not yet so dangerous for humans, it can affect food production by infected animals, both birds and mammals. However, in the news that I published, the concern presented by the WHO representative is because it could become a direct danger to humans.

Sorry, I must be more careful next time. Now maybe I'll go to sleep, so I would put the data that I consider relevant, God willing, or maybe a copypaste.

I think you missed a critical word in the statement. They said it was an animal pandemic, as in it is a pandemic among animals (specifically birds). It is not a human pandemic as human-to-human transmissions have not been documented yet, I believe. There are quite a few diseases circulating among e.g. migrating animals that are spreading, but most are not yet relevant to humans.

You know it's funny to declare GR cannot solve the twin paradox when it's in nearly every textbook on GR. Acceleration is easily handled in both SR and GR. It's simply a type of boost called rapidity. You can alternately use instantaneous velocities.

That comment makes no sense but so far without seeing your math. Nothing you have stated makes much sense. The CMB is literally everywhere in our observable universe you can even hear it's static on older radios that don't filter it out. It may surprise you to know that expansion has little to do with gravity but rather it's due to thermodynamics via the equations of state for each particle species. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) If you take a uniform mass distribution and apply Newtons Shell theorem gravity is zero.

Where weight gain is a chronic issue, it seems to work better to take the draconian step of just eliminating sweets. That seems to go better than repeatedly venturing out on the slippery terrain of moderate sugar intake. There are lots of delightful flavors in this world that are not sweet. Savor them. JMO.

Hence why I stopped adding to the mix. Once I saw you were progressing from their comments I didn't want to add any potential confusion. Threads can get too easily derailed.

There were very helpful comments today.

No you get a daily allotment

Thank you. Anyway, I hope there's nothing stopping me being able to do it tomorrow.

! Moderator Note Please review the rules you agreed to follow when you joined. Posting to link to your own blog is expressly forbidden. Material for discussion must be posted here (rule 2.7)

I gave them the +1 each for you.

Depends on the asteroid composition. The usefulness of a laser is to generate outgassing. For example an icy asteroid if you shoot a laser at it would more readily generate water vapors which would then provide thrust.

Hey, at least he hasn't eaten the rinds - yet. Maybe they take too long to turn into chewing gum.

! Moderator Note We don’t care what you’re doing elsewhere ! Moderator Note Material for discussion must be posted here. Please review our rules, particularly rule 2.7

You observe a Doppler effect with no acceleration. If an object is accelerating the Doppler shift will change, as the relative velocity changes. You don’t need to manufacture a new explanation for the Doppler effect for accelerating objects. If you want to invoke an ether, you must come up with some independent evidence of it. The Doppler effect was present before the acceleration, so acceleration does not produce it. Yes, it’s symmetric, and does not rely on acceleration. The Earth will experience a Doppler effect if the space twin sends a signal. The fact that he experiences it instantly just means photons were en route, and the relative velocity has changed. Einstein’s theory works just fine with accelerations. There’s a Mössbauer experiment (late 50s or early 60s, IIRC) with a centrifuge that confirms it. Relativity doesn’t discuss a “jump into the future” - that’s your misinterpretation of the result. Relativity gives you clock results, and you have to disentangle what you observe from what’s happening with the clocks. The clocks are running at different rates; they are not synchronized once the experiment starts, nor are they recalibrated. Time isn’t physical, so “no physical jump” is not a revelation since it’s not part of relativity. You are debunking a straw man of relativity and the twins paradox, rather than the actual material.

As the title says, the WHO has considered bird flu a zoonotic pandemic. https://odishabytes.com/who-sounds-alarm-over-human-cases-of-bird-flu-flags-global-zoonotic-animal-pandemic/ Let us remember that the coronavirus pandemic has not ended, but rather the alert level regarding it was reduced, if I am not mistaken. Now we have a second pandemic, it seems, in about 4 years. Avian flu can affect in many ways, such as affecting food production. But, it has also been mentioned that there is a risk that it could end up being a direct threat to humans.

Hi, all, I am interested in the mathematical foundations of theoretical physics and gave been posting pdf's to the url deleted I just discovered this forum, but I can try to keep it updated as to progress if allowed (It is too much to duplicate posts; i'm 83+ and don't have much time left. A documenet that has most of my current links is available at: url deleted Chuck

Hi, blessing in the name of Yeshu. (It's my way of greeting, it's not exactly procelytism) I have been analyzing an article published by a man called Shaun Ward which is a response to studies on the Hadza by Herman Pontzer. I'm not very good with mathematics, I admit it. I do not rule out that there could be some errors in the text I published. url deleted In the first link of the article is the study I used, which is one of the oldest published by Pontzer on the subject. In that study there is a table with the percentages of body fat for each group. The conclusions I reached are that the amount of calories burned with exercise is very low, but it seems that it would not be zero as I understand Pontzer has suggested. However, I mention here (although it is in the analysis I do in the article) that I saw the basic data to question Pontzer's version of daily energy expenditure in the article published by Shaun Ward. However, it seems to me that there is a lack of data to be able to determine the matter more precisely, so it cannot be assured that H. Pontzer's position on the matter is wrong. If you could help me by reviewing my analysis, if you want. It's not that extensive.

Look, from all your posts it is plain you have a really unhealthy relationship with food. That previous picture you posted on the 14th of March was positively disgusting. And now you ballock on about eating whole lemons and limes on their own, which is nuts and certainly nothing like part of any reasonable, balanced diet. The acid alone will screw with your stomach. I don't know what you are doing on this forum. You've been given all the advice you need long since. Go and talk to a dietician and act on what they say. Stop trying these random daft things and then coming here to obsess about it. I'm sorry, but I've really had enough of this crap.

The first relativity never used the ether for the observer nor the emitter. It used the ether to describe how photons travelled between the two prior to proving ether wrong through the Michelson and Morley experiments. Those experiments are far far more precise in modern tests. Either way if you look at SR the emitter isn't ether and the observer isn't ether. Nor did Galilean relativity which the Lorentz transforms is simply an extension of (the Gamma factor constant of proportionality)