Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 02/16/19 in all areas

  1. 4 points
  2. 3 points
    Alrighty, I have a reasonable level of experience as a phylogeneticst and systematist. In contemporary systematics, the word race is generally used to describe different karyotypes within the same species. As humans are generally all 2n=46, the use of the word race to describe phenotypically or genetically distinct groups of humans is somewhat antiquated. Subspecies is a bit of a squishy topic, insofar as it is more a categorization of convenience than one with objectively defined characteristics. Generally, it defines a group with some diagnostic molecular or phenotypic characters, or groups with allopatric distributions, but some degree of admixture between them. One could pose an argument that different populations of humans are "subspecies", but there are a number of reasons why not: 1) Humans are a very, very recent group with very limited genetic diversity. 2) Genetic differences between human populations are generally clinal (with some exceptions of course). 3) Phenotypic traits are generally not fixed between groups of humans, and exist in a plethora of intermediate states. 4) The argument is all too often underlain by some sort of racist pseudoscientific motivation. While there is certainly valid population structure within Homo sapiens, and one could make an argument to taxonomically split the species into subspecies, I would imagine that such a designation would be of limited practical utility, fraught with ethical dilemmas and unlikely to be widely adopted. Edit to add: People publishing novel taxonomic arrangements that no one else agrees with happens all the time. If it's bad enough, scientists in the field will simply ignore the erroneous classification, then get super annoyed that when you do revise the group properly, the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature code dictates you have to use the existing names the crackpot registered.
  3. 3 points
    Matter and galaxies do not expand, their binding energy is far stronger than the energy supplied by the cosmological constant. So no this is inaccurate to describe why the universe expands. lets try a little lesson. Pick any number of arbitrary points, as expansion occurs those points gain separation distance. However and this is the critical part, the angles between any two or more points do not change. This describes a homogeneous and isotropic expansion. So there is no flow of matter from some centre to the outer regions. Expansion occurs in all directions equally. If you think about this then consider the directional direction component of how forces work, then one also has to realize that no force style effect can be causing expansion. Take an object such as a star, or galaxy. Apply equal amounts of force on every side and angle from other objects gravity etc. That star or galaxy will not move as the net sum of forces at any given angle is zero. This is because the mass density distribution on all sides of the star or galaxy is equal so any force they may exert is also equal on all angles. In regions where there is zero to minimal binding energy expansion occurs as the extremely low energy density of the cosmological constant term roughly [latex] 7.0*10^{-10} joules/m^3 [/latex] has no binding forces to contend with, however neither does it have a directional component. It is only in regions where there is minimal matter/mass that expansion occurs (without any inherent direction). Now keep the above in mind for any speculation you may have. make sure your speculation can match the above criteria and furthermore match the criteria of no net inflow or outflow of mass/energy leaving or entering the cosmological event horizon. (limit of our Observable universe) simply we cannot get signals beyond this point as it takes time for signals to reach us. Both due to the speed of light as well as expansion rates. These criteria will greatly limit the options that one can speculate on that will fit the observational data. A great deal of professional models were discounted simply due to the extreme uniformity and homogeneous and isotropic distribution of matter. The second criteria can be tested by temperature measurements, so models such as Universe in a black hole/white hole has great difficulty meeting the first two criteria. With the uniformity and non directional component of expansion, the process causing expansion must occur everywhere equally. It can be overpowered in localized regions of matter and still occur (that region will simply not expand as a result). This is the conditions you must match to have validity. The process cannot be from localized sources such as galaxies etc as it takes time for signals to reach other locations limited by the constant c. For this reason must occur at al locations in some process. (simply overpowered by other binding energies in those localized mass densities). There is nothing wrong with speculations, however its a real time saver to know the criteria that one needs to meet and match in observational data.
  4. 3 points
    Originally, there are two major divisions of science - Natural sciences and Social sciences; Natural sciences are disciplines designed to predict and explain events that occur in our natural environment (Physics, Biology, Chemistry...), while Social sciences are usually fields of academic scholarship which explore aspects of human society (law, history, sociology...). From this, it is clear enough to state that natural sciences study the psychical world, and social sciences study human behavior. This being said, we can easily decide in which category does Linguistics fall; Linguistics is known as the scientific study of language and its form, meaning and structure, including the study of grammar, syntax and phonetics. However, Linguistics is a rather vast field of study and it can be divided in specific branches, such as psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, computational linguistics, etc. According to this official and standard definition, Linguistics seems to fall under the category of Social sciences - since it studies a certain aspect of human behavior. However, linguistics tends to have different aspects of which some of those aspects belong to natural sciences, while others belong to social sciences. For instance, the aspects of linguistics that are related to natural sciences are neurolinguistics or biolinguistics. I think that this mix does not make linguistics and entirely social science, nor an entirely natural science, making it an interdisciplinary subject. But the fact that linguistics not being an entirely social science is not the problem here. The problem is the attitude that people have towards the two main divisions of science; Namely, the majority of people don't really value social sciences as much as natural sciences. And since most people put linguistics under the category of social sciences, they tend to automatically doubts its scientific credibility. But, i don't completely blame them, as they might have a good reason for their opinion. Another important argument as to why some sciences or disciplines of study may not be considered as "real sciences", and that has nothing to do with the fact that one particular science is considered as social or natural; A scientific study must have a valid approach and methodology, based on strong evidence, and not some claims or theories that cannot be subjected to an observational state. And only when these standards are met and achieved, the field of study that is in question can be considered as a real science that has some sort of validity in the overall scientific community.
  5. 2 points
  6. 2 points
  7. 2 points
  8. 2 points
    I prefer to learn from discussions. Or rather, learn more. If we all only shared our opinion about things we know for certain, a place like this would be very silent.
  9. 2 points
    I think that they are downgrading I.Q. of humankind and embarrassing humans in the entire galaxy...
  10. 2 points
    ! Moderator Note If you want discuss your idea, do it here ! Moderator Note You need to provide evidence for your beliefs/delusions. There is no requirement for others to explain reality to you.
  11. 1 point
  12. 1 point
    Why would anyone want to discuss a "theory" of yours that was based on misinformation? If you want to continue talking about an idea like that, just 1) fix the mistakes, 2) gather more supportive evidence, and 3) open a new, better thread! We close the bad ones so we don't waste time on the under-supported and poorly founded concepts. These are easy to spot because the poster starts soapboxing and repeating the same poor points. Petty reasons? Having bad information and trying to build a theory from it is hardly petty. You don't build a house on a poor foundation. Instead of crying about spilt sour milk, you should be figuring out a better way to present a fresh, thoughtful, rigorous approach that might better persuade skeptical science-minded folks your idea has merit. If at first you don't succeed... remember that one? Only a fraction of human ideas are right, after all.
  13. 1 point
    I can honestly tell you the mods on this forum are far less rigid than many other forums I visit. On forums with less rigidity the posters run amock with all sorts of rules violations and a total lack of any actual science. I find this forum has a decent balance between enforcing the rules, and allowances depending on the nature of the posts. It is the primary reason this forum is my preferred choice.
  14. 1 point
    Hi Michel, I do not see your problem. Everytime when one extends the set of numbers you get surprises: N: 1,2,3,4,... When multiplying 2 natural numbers the result is always >= both numbers. Z: ... -2,-1,0,1,2... Ups, the above rule is not valid anymore: -2 * 4 = -8: the result is smaller than both numbers! Same if you use Q+: 0.1 * 0.2 = 0.02: again, the result is smaller than both numbers. Now with imaginary numbers you get the next surprise: where in the above sets at least the square of a number is always positive, this is not so with imaginary numbers. (i)2 = -1, as is (-i)2. So rules that seem general (plus times plus makes plus, minus times minus makes also plus) for a subset of all numbers (Z, Q, R), is not valid for C anymore. And as Studiot also explained, the principle of ordering (greater, smaller) in C does not work. The question if i is greater than 1 does not make sense. Therefore C is depicted in a two dimensional plane.
  15. 1 point
    ..download Visual Studio Express, and write some C/C++/C# app..
  16. 1 point
    Do you know what 'arbitrary' means?
  17. 1 point
    Actually your attitude to your speculative scenarios and the ensuring criticism have been like a breath of fresh air, in that it seems you are recognising some of the short comings in your many hypotheticals, and accept them as speculative, rather then blasting your way onto the forum, demanding with utmost certainty that you have invalidated many decades of cosmology as so many do. While apparently still stubbornly holding onto the basis of your idea, you also do appear to be listening and learning particularly from the many good points put in the last few hours. While many aspects of cosmology appears counter-intuitive on face value, the foundation fact is that the universe is not obliged to align with what we see or don't see as intuitive or otherwise.
  18. 1 point
    While I am not for BUI I think grading limited trials like the in Finland is difficult. Your link points out that success is determined by the metric one is using. If the goal was for individuals to find jobs it was a failure. If the goal was to improve peoples quality of life it was a success. This is a point Andrew Yang hit on a bit both on Sam Harris's and Joe Rogan's podcasts. That our current economic metric is GDP. However by that metric everyone is inferior to automatic/AI.
  19. 1 point
    ! Moderator Note My opinion is that you should not be hijacking a discussion to talk about your personal “theory”
  20. 1 point
    Wow! where to start. Firstly the DE that is causing the universe to accelerate in its expansion rate, is a property of spacetime, and acts as it does because it remains a constant so that as our cosmos grows bigger it continues to expand faster. We have no reason to believe or hypothesise that DE has anything to do with mass/matter. Our knowledge of BH's is rather scarce, although our best assumptions should align with Einstein's GR. From any outside perspective, nothing is seen to actually cross the EH of any BH, rather as it is time dilated towards infinity, and the light continually redshifted as the EH is approached, we would see any image approaching the EH as continually redshifted until beyond the capabilities of any viewing apparatus that we had and just fade from view. Also the process known as Hawking Radiation that you discuss does not involve any particle crossing the EH from inside to outside. It involves virtual particles where one positive escapes before annihilation takes place and one negative gets sucked in, and in doing so, to maintain the law of conservation, subtracts from the overall mass of the BH. Matter that does get sucked in, as you say, is spaghettified and gradually ripped apart into its most basic fundamental parts as it approaches the singularity at the core. In other words the effects of tidal gravitation, overcomes all the other forces including the strong nuclear force. That's about all we can reasonably assume based on current laws of physics and GR. Anyhthing else, like BH's leading to baby universes and the like, is pure unsupported speculation at this time. Note: Nothing physically crosses the EH from inside to outside...nothing.
  21. 1 point
    'Cock'', 'Knob' and 'Dick' are used here in the same way, and they refer to male genitals, so it's all fair and square gender-wise.
  22. 1 point
    Exactly!! No one knows the answer, particularly in the circumstance someone used re children being marched in front of advancing troops. How could any reasonable decent Soldier handle that! I can thank my lucky stars that I was born at the end of WW2, obviously too young for the Korean war, just missed out on conscription for the Vietnam war, and was too old for any participation in the Iraqy war. Truthfully, I don't know how I would act with bombs and bullets flying around me...I hope responsibly and if necessarilly, heroically, but I just don't know. Two points, most all wars are immoral and wrong, and with regards to WW2 the Allies really had no alternative with Hitler, Mussolini and Japan, other then to do what they did. The only question I would raise is the dropping of the Atomic bombs...just questioning though. The worrying thing for me is how close the Allies [Europe and the British Empire] came to losing the war....if the Brits had not invented radar, If the Luftwaffe had continued bombing military bases instead of switching to surban targets, if Hitler had not invaded the USSR, if Japan had not bombed Pearl Harbour, if Hitler or Japan had of perfected the bomb first, if the Japanese had not been stopped on the Kokoda trail...the list goes on and on.
  23. 1 point
    To add: The glaciers accumulate mass at the highest level and basically slide down under their own weight to the warmer lower level and melt, supplying the rivers.
  24. 1 point
    I'll stick to the general meaning of my whole statement thank you. "But situations do exist when one has no choice in the matter, and any moral concern need to be put in incubation for a period. As mentioned, the declaration of war by the British Commonwealth that commenced the WW2 is an example of an evil that was spreading and needed to be excised".
  25. 1 point
    Do you need a hand moving those goalposts, they look heavy. Waves contain energy. That energy can be transmitted to something that absorbs the wave. In some cases, there is sufficient energy to change the shape of the molecule, this can then affect its chemical behaviour. Ultimately, this leads to the release of a neurotransmitter that allows a signal to be sent to the brain. And so on. But, really, you should take an organised course of study rather than trying to pick up bits of information piecemeal and then trying to fit them together.