Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

34 Good

About sethoflagos

  • Rank
  • Birthday 10/10/1958

Profile Information

  • Location
    Lagos, Nigeria
  • Interests
    Classical Music, Natural Science, Food Preservation, Games Theory, Laughing, Ladies, the Geological Record, Deep Time, Beer and species Rhododendron.
  • College Major/Degree
    Chemical Engineering - UMIST
  • Favorite Area of Science
  • Biography
    As far as I remember, I got very drunk in all sorts of different places.
  • Occupation
    Government Advisor

Recent Profile Visitors

3496 profile views
  1. I set up an excel spreadsheet to integrate the following system by first order forward difference equations: 2/(k-1)*dc/dt + du/dt = 0 in direction dr/dt = u + c 2/(k-1)*dc/dt - du/dt = 0 in direction dr/dt = u - c With r=0 boundary conditions u=Asin(wt), c = c0, I got a solution that was a very good fit to u=Asin(wt)cos(wr/c0) which is the expected result for a standing wave in a cylinder. How good a fit? Well the integration yielded maximum variance values of 0.5 in both r and t trends over one wavelength, and subtracting the above expression reduced this by 99.9954% in the r trends, 99.99902% in the t trends. A pretty good fit. However, looking at the residual and experimenting a little, I found that adding a further term wr(A/c0)^2/pi*sin(2wt)cos(2wr/c0) removed 99.75% of the r, and 98.97% of the t remaining residual max variances. This term may have a very small value over one wavelength, but the proportionality to r means that eventually the second harmonic will dominate the waveform, and the proportionality with A^2 means that it's proportional significance increases with input amplitude. Any suggestions as to how I might go about determining whether this term is no more than an artifact of non-linearities in the forward difference method, or if it really is a true component of the system? In passing, the small residual that remains is almost equal to a simple product of sin(2wt)sin(2wr/c0), leaving something closely proportional to r^2sin(3wt)cos(3wr/c0). And still, little sign of randomicity. Many thanks in advance for your time, Seth
  2. We're getting too hung up on t=0 here. Question 1) is really a general question about whether the quantum fields for a finite system at any particular instant extend throughout spacetime (even if the precise future geometry of spacetime were somewhat indeterminate).
  3. The Big Bang says nothing about T=0. It only describes what happens once expansion begins. I don't know what your first statement means, maybe you could re-frame it ? Difficult to rephrase it without presupposing part of the answer. As I picture it, it's a Schrödinger equation describing the time evolution of the universe (or all possible universes courtesy of the superposition principle of quantum mechanics) in some kind of primordial Hilbert space. Don't know where 'preferable' came from, Your invention not mine. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics favours such outcomes. I guess I'm looking for some parallel between the 2nd Law and the time evolution of superimposed quantum states. They are both essentially statistical in behaviour after all,
  4. Three questions have recently been bothering me. If the universe originated (as I read on a lavatory wall somewhere) as a field of superimposed probabilities of all possible futures: 1) Would that field be necessarily bounded in any dimension before any 'actual' future began to unfold? 2) Is there any damning reason why the fundamental constants of our universe could not be quantum variables, initially indeterminate? 3) Would combinations of fundamental constants that led to eternally expanding, species diverse universes have more 'quantum votes' (ie a higher probability of manifesting themselves) due to their greater number of permutations than those combinations that led to finite universes supporting a low diversity of elemental species? Many thanks in advance for your considered points of view.
  5. Dissociating water requires an energy source. A block of tungsten heated to say 3,000K, will cause water molecules at and around its surface to dissociate until the system comes to thermal equilibrium and rates of dissociation/recombination equalise. The choice of tungsten is purely to meet your requirement for the agent to be a solid at temperatures where the degree of water dissociation is significant. EDIT: Okay reread the OP. Looking for ionic dissociation rather than H2 and O2. Hence off-topic (I think).
  6. Okay. How would a Neanderthal react to you informing him that he appeared archaic? Would he have you before, after or with the wild garlic and chives? Yes, I'm bored at last, No sign of any counter-argument worth thinking about.
  7. Grow a spine and answer for the consequences of your stated beliefs. Or retract them. Simples!
  8. I'm happy to accept the moderators considered opinion on this. Either way. Feel free to report. The verdict would be interesting. I look, but I see no empirical evidence to support these claims. Quite the opposite.
  9. Like it or not, these are the logical consequences that must be taken on board if we were to accept the speculations that you have been bombarding us with lately. So either present us with a convincing dataset demonstrating that extant basal lineages such as those occurring in high frequency amongst the Khoisan and Nilotic populations, for example, can be characterised by a suite of 'archaic' physical characteristics (such as heavy brow ridges, receding chin, sloping forehead, occipital bun, supraoccipital crest or whatever) that average so far beyond the phenotypic range of all other extant human lineages that they should be considered as taxonomically distinct: ...or Accept that any reasonable estimate for the appearance of 'anatomically modern humans' must predate any significant isolation or divergence of those lineages and withdraw your uncorroborated contrary assertions without reservation. There is no option 3)
  10. No. But I was watching most intently for what you didn't say (which I often find to be more informative). In particular, it was your deliberate sidestep of this key question. I even gave you two further chances to declare that your (apparently arbitrary) choice of N-MtDNA Cro-Magnon as the common ancestor of all modern humans, excluded the vast majority of extant sub-saharan Africans from that category (not to mention M Haplogroup Indians etc etc). You chose not take those opportunities either. I take your silence as strong indication that this is indeed what you believe, coupled with insufficient spine to admit it explicitly. The final straw was your derisory hand-waving dismissal of the recent MSA advanced culture evidence from Blombos Cave, Still Bay etc. strongly indicating that you hadn't the slightest interest in counter-evidence to your speculations. I see no science in what you write. But I do detect an attempt to abuse taxonomic classification for purposes of racial discrimination. At which point it ceases to be a scientific argument, and becomes an ethical one.
  11. So everything and everybody was archaic until one small, select band left the dark continent, and in a sudden blinding flash turned spontaneously into modern 'Cro-Magnons'. Smacks rather of divine intervention, doesn't it? I guess it's clear that we both find each others point of view morally repulsive. Sleep well.
  12. So a 28,000 year old skull from France appears to be a little more modern than a 160,000 year old skull from Ethiopia. This is hardly earth-shattering news is it? Maybe greater insight can be gained from evidence lying between those dates, Are you referring to http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Sci...330..659M? Very exciting stuff going on at Blombos Cave. A benchmark technology of undisputably modern human behaviour at 75,000 years BP. That puts your 'cultural revolution' back 30,000 years, deep into the Middle Stone Age and most definitely in sub-saharan Africa. (Incidently, rather early for the birth of Haplogroup N to have any conceivable involvement). I don't believe any reputable scientist would dream of calling this a Cro-Magnon site, though. Way too eurocentric a concept. But I'm quite comfortable to see sites such as this as indicative of the activities of the common ancestors of all of us. Besides which, it places my wife and I back in the same taxon. Which is nice
  13. Cro-Magnon1 is only 28,000 years old - it is not especially representative of our species at that time. Haplogroup N pretty well excludes all Africans. Just where exactly are you setting the boundaries for our species? And I do not need you to tell me what I mean by the first arrival of early moderns into Australia (ca. 50,000 +/- 10ka BP).
  14. Cro-Magnon isn't even a taxon. It's a somewhat mixed bag of exclusively European early modern human fossils. You cannot reasonably propose them as a credible common ancestor of all extant members of our species. We were in Australia even, long before the earliest Cro-Magnon date. And to suggest that BB King is even slightly more distantly related to our common ancestor would put him into an outgroup would it not? Is this really what you wanted to say? I really do hope not.
  15. Cro-magnon? Really? Well, that blows the 'out of Africa' theories right out of the water, doesn't it. Trailer parks across the US will be rejoicing at that astonishing revelation! PS George Dubya was renowned for his distinctly simian facial expressions when faced with a difficult question. Wonder how the trailer trash school of anthropology explain that little factoid
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.