Intoscience

My understanding is that J.P is arguing for nurture to combat nature. He recognises that we have genetic evolutionary traits that are inherent and instinctive, some that are negative within modern civilised society. the argument is that we should consider these traits and recognise that because they are natural instincts we should investigate ways in which nurturing them will help to control the negative ones in a positive manner. As apposed to relying solely on "intellect" and suppression, but to channel the instincts in a productive manner. For example, Some kid is aggressive and struggles with behaviour. He may have home or upbringing issues that require addressing, or he may to some degree, just be naturally aggressive. Rather than teaching him just right from wrong and persisting that he refrains from violent behaviour, or continuingly punishing him. Consider introducing him to a sport, maybe even a combat sport, where he can positively channel the aggression. This nurtures the natural instinct that he was born with, in a way that he can learn to control and positively channel his aggression, without the need to continually suppress it. Where without this nurture, even with good education, as he grows into an adult it may have an adverse effect, possibly leading to criminal or violent activities and a possible threat to society. Obviously this is not exclusive to children per say, and can be useful for adolescent and mature men who struggle with controlling aggression. The argument is, intelligence and education are only part of the solution, understanding the basic inherent instincts and dealing with them positively, both for society and also the wellbeing of that person, is also a major part of the solution and should not be ignored.

I never said he was being or should/shouldn't be ignored, I like, Peterson is saying that we should not ignore instinctual traits that date back thousands/millions of years of evolution when considering behavioural situations. In that, to be able to better control these inherent instincts, the ones especially bad for modern society, it pays well to consider them, what they are and where they come from, then work towards ways to control them in a positive manner. Suppression of these can be as harmful in the long run, as allowing them to act out in a negative way. Finding ways to control them without prejudice and suppression in an acceptable manner is a positive approach, in my humble opinion. Regardless of intelligence, we all bare our ancestral instincts some more or stronger than others, we all deal with them in our own way, some positive some negative. Anyone who ignores this fact is either lying or naïve. This is one thing which I agree with Peterson on. So who doesn't, if they have the opportunity? Every celebrity in the public eye does the same. Doesn't make them wrong or right, or any more or less an expert or professional in their field. Its down to the individual in the audience to decide on whether they agree, disagree or get convinced or even brainwashed into believing something or not. I watch and read many of the "pop" science books, YouTube videos and pod casts. I'm not naïve enough to fall into the trap of assuming everything is correct and also appreciate that many things are sensationalised or written in an analogous way to gain more interest or appeal to the layman.

Agreed, however some have "grown up" more than others and there still remains evolutionary traits that date back thousands of years. Evolution is a long slow process comparatively. So I don't disagree that humans are evolving, of course they are, more civilised for one we could argue. No, you completely mis-interpret and mis-represent what I'm saying. Myself, and I believe Peterson is saying that certain traits/instincts observed in males still exist that date back thousands of years and are likely inherent of the evolution process. No one, not even Peterson is saying that some of this behaviour is acceptable or uncontrollable. He is saying that to aid in controlling these urges/instincts understanding why they exist and what may trigger them is useful. On a recent thread about punishment, folk on here were advocating that rather than punishing criminals they should be either rehabilitated or efforts made towards prevention. Yet here we are slating a Phycologist for suggesting that some unacceptable behaviour is evolutionary, and should not be ignored, so that it can be addressed in a positive manner.

I don't believe this is true. I don't agree with everything Peterson says, in fact much of it is his own opinion which as we know is worthless. However I think he makes valid points on behavioural trends due to gender and evolution. I don't think he is saying that some male behaviour is ok or acceptable, just that he is pointing out that behavioural traits found common in men are due to evolution. Therefore when he says "men cannot really help themselves in being men" he is talking about the natural instinct to act in a certain way. This doesn't mean that some of this behaviour should be acted out or indeed be acceptable in society. What he is saying is that these urges to do certain things should be channelled in more productive ways so that men who suffer from strong urges, or at least difficulty in controlling them can be helped. For instance, men in particular through evolution have the tendency to be competitive, which can lead to aggression, sometimes uncontrollable aggression. So by channelling this competitiveness in a more acceptable productive manner can help reduce the tendency to act in a non acceptable manner. Ultimately modern society expects a certain level of behaviour (rightly so) which means that some males have to control or supress urges/instincts "men being men" that come natural to them them in order to maintain a safe and healthy society. This is my interpretation of what Peterson suggests.

I certainly wouldn't want the job at the moment, that's for sure. Maybe others shied away, who could blame them, this however doesn't mean Boris is an idiot. He could just be a brave person who is happy to face adversity even at his own demise.

How do you know all this about him? Do you know him or any of his peers, family or friends personally? I doubt you become the leader of a political party, then on to be prime minister, without some intellectual attributes. He may not portray himself in a way that is fitting for his position, maybe for a number of reasons. But you cannot judge his integrity and intelligence based on his public appearance or media portrayal. Just saying that's all.

As Swansont states, A point is not a Planck length. A Planck length is the smallest possible measurable distance of space, a point has no physical dimension.

Relativity deals with this. Your relative position, speed and distance determines what information you receive and when. If the separate observers are viewing from different reference frames then they may experience different situations to each other, or the same situation at different times etc... There are no fixed times or points in space for any observer, only what they experience relative to something else. For example; I'm sitting on a moving train reading my book, I'm fixed in position relative to the train and my clock reads a certain time. As we pass a platform a person observes me sitting on the train whizzing by. Relative to that person I'm moving and also our clocks will tick at a slightly different rates (in reality almost negligible since the train will be travelling too slow for our clocks to measure the difference, however lets assume for this analogy the train is travelling fast enough for the clocks to measure the difference) so the observer will experience time slightly differently relatively to me.

Many people, maybe the majority are inherently selfish. The natural instinct for survival evolves into greed and/or gluttony, for some more so than others. Couple this with a "free" society and there you go. The rich oppressing the poor is nothing new though, probably dates all the way back to very ancient times. Probably got worse when monetary systems were introduced over goods trading. All of a sudden it became easier to gain wealth unfairly, illegally... The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, not much has changed really. The question is, how can it be changed?

It gets worse, we pronounce many words dependent on the region, often have unrecognizable slang unique to each region. In some areas you can travel just a few miles either way into different towns to find the dialect very different. Some areas drop the pronunciation of letters from some words and others even drop words from sentences. Then there is the Northern English, the Midlands and the South where there can be many differences with lots of words, sentences and sometimes meaning. All this within an area of around 50,000 sq miles. In the region I live there is a unique slang that is used which is almost its own language. It is however slowly being filtered out as the older generation pass, the younger generation are not using it as profoundly or as often. I remember working with a local elderly fella who was born and lived his entire life in the city centre. He used the traditional regional slang to its full entirety for every conversation, anyone outside the region would not be able to understand a word he was saying, even me myself as a local would have to listen closely and try to discern some of the words he used. I did do some research on the origination of the slang and it turned out that it was a derivative of a language style used by Anglo Saxons.

Unless it hits something and sinks.

I'm sure most political systems are full of corruption. I'm sure there are many politicians in the back pocket of many wealthy people. It's not just the individuals, but also the corporations, companies that boast massive profits where the profits are only filtered down to a select few. There is definitely a moral issue when a company boasting a profit then decides to cut costs by making people redundant. Unfortunately they can afford to pay the top legal people to find loop holes, avoid tax and hide investments. I know of one billionaire, I don't know him personally, but my father does. He started out as a dodgy salesman, dealing in anything, mainly illegal stuff. He approached my father years back to invest in a business deal that was very illegal and corrupt, my father declined. The guy ( I won't mention his name because he is well known) found other people to invest and went on to make his fortune, at the cost of many people's livelihood. He made enough money to be able to hide his corruption and provide himself with indemnity, buy political friendship and security for his business and fortune. I don't think there is a clear answer to how a system can policy against such. iNow stated very nicely in his post and I totally agree with him. Efforts should be focused on how the fortune of the wealthy can be filtered down to the less fortunate in a true and meaningful way. Now, I've written this post I'm just off on my private jet, with my $250,000 bottle of fizz, to view a couple of yachts and villas...

@inbreeding You are now just spouting off and preaching. To suggest you would rather be in Afghanistan than in the west (I assume from this comment that you live in an affluent western country) is an insult to the people who are currently fighting for real freedom and independence, with many innocent people dying in the process. If my assumptions are correct then this is a childish shameful comment to make.

Depending on the size that the sun gets to and the new orbit of the earth? Is the Earth situated in such a position that it could go either way, or is it more likely to get engulfed like Mercury and Venus?

It's not a simple as space warping. There is another thread currently discussing this https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/125700-is-gravity-a-force/page/9/?tab=comments#elControls_1186227_menu

Yes it is a poor analogy as you stated Studiot I think the idea behind this analogy was to try and get people who have no scientific knowledge or education to attempt to conceptualise how gravity works in the GR model. Once you start realising, or rather delving into deeper understanding of GR gravity, it soon becomes apparent that this image analogy is misleading. I guess, since it is a difficult one to imagine, each individual will have their own concept of how to visualise it, some more accurate than others. I try to steer clear of this analogy, using or thinking about it, as it does impose on my conception, even though I know it's inaccurate.

You sound extremely low based on your post. Please seek some support or counselling, it really does help. I can see your frustration, but I think you are being over paranoid. Most of your claims, (though in some minority sectors maybe true) in general are heavily exaggerated at best, and mostly unfounded in reality. Life can be and is unfair at times and so can people also be cruel, at times. But life is a wonderful gift and one that, as a whole, should be cherished. Unfortunately as with all things some people are more fortunate than others, but people find happiness in the simplest of things not the wealth and prosperity they desire. One thing that always reminds me of joy and sadness, is when my son was seriously ill and I attended a children's hospital. Walking down the corridor between wards I passed by a little girl, no older than 12 being pushed in a wheel chair. Her head was bald and she was painfully thin. But her smile lit up the corridor like a little angel from above. I found out later from her parents that she was indeed terminal and that all that was being done to prolong her life was ongoing. It struck me at that moment, she was smiling with joy, yet faced the most horrible of fate. Please find help my friend.

Interesting, thanks for the insight.

This is interesting, how is it so that it is almost exclusively time dilation? My understanding is that objects follow a curved path in space.

I don't take it too personal, some do. I've not used the down vote yet, because I would rather reply with my disagreement, since just voting doesn't really clearly define your feelings. I would only use the down vote if someone posted something vile, or very offensive etc... It seems each forum I attend, people tend to have differences on the interpretation of each option. It can create a stigma. There is one forum that I'm a member of where there are multiple options to express your feelings by vote buttons: like, dislike, agree, winner, funny, optimistic... This seems to work pretty well since people can get an idea of what your feelings are if you have nothing to add, i.e. whether you agree with what is said or whether you just like the post...etc. I find the system on here a little ambiguous, because you are relying on the poster's interpretation of the vote much more so. So for me personally I would prefer more options with clearer intent, so avoiding creating stigmas.

Yes, I always enjoy threads that teach me lots of new things, so thanks folks for your much appreciated inputs! Regarding time, I mentioned earlier in the thread about maybe focussing more on what space-time is, rather than what gravity is, which may yield the answers we are looking for. I think, for me at least, if space time can be curved, warped... then it must "be" something physical in a sense. Or perhaps rather, space itself is physical, since time can be deemed a coordinate much like the 3 dimensions of space. So in my mind it's space that is warped not time, per say. So, the coordinates of time like the other dimensions change due to the warping of space. So, its the physical interaction between mass and space that causes the warping thus producing the gravity. I'm sure I'm way off with this line of thinking, but maybe I can learn from it.

So far this has been a very interesting, informative and often over my head discussion! Some great posts from the resident experts and our honoured guest! Being a Layman (or at best a novice) I have limited understanding of the subjects I enjoy, space-time, gravity and the speed of light. Reading through the posts, the discussion has often diverted off track from the original post. One of the diverts was the semantics of terms and phrases. One which I commented on way back in the discussion as a sort of dismissal. Since then I have come to realise that in fact the importance of the usage, meaning and context of some terms and phrases used have a profound effect on my preconceived understanding. In pondering the original post - "Is gravity a force?" and the phrase so often used - "the force of gravity" I started to consider the meanings behind both. The force of gravity: The interaction between 2 or more objects resulting in a mutual attraction - Newtonian The curvature of space-time - GR (Einstein - preferred model) These 2 descriptions appeared to me to be conflicting. Then I had the idea to split the phrase into 2 terms - gravity & gravity force. Gravity - space-time curvature Gravity force - the interaction between mass, space and time From this I realised that we are dealing with 2 separate, but related entities - cause (gravity force- interaction) and effect (gravity - spacetime curvature) So, based on this premise, going back to the original question - Is gravity a force?, makes no sense, rather the question should be - what is the gravity force? or, to stick with the often used phrase, - what is the force of gravity? WARNING! wild speculation and imagination alert!!! - So considering gravity within this new context, I had no problem imagining a consolidation between GR & QM model's of gravity. In my imagination I consider the "force of gravity" to be a quantifiable interaction between space- time and mass where the interaction is.. , maybe using force carrying particles (gravitons) similar to the other kwon forces within the standard model. In GR the math describes the possibility of singularities forming at the extreme small scales and high densities. In my imagination, at such scales the force carriers become intensely active, however are unable to operate below the Planck scales. Such that this tiny region of space is just too small for force carrying particles to operate in. Therefore the curvature of space-time ("mutual attraction") ceases to operate at Planck distances, resulting in the impossibility of singularities forming. So I can image at the centre of BH's for example an object extremely dense, extremely small but larger than a Planck volume.

This is just semantics, the use of the term force in certain situations is to grant the reader/listener context of the scenario. For example one might say "The force of gravity is nothing more than the curvature of space-time" You may use such a sentence to very simply describe the GR model of gravity to someone learning about gravity. So it is relevant to ascertain what the accepted definition of what a force is, however this may also depend on context and language used, as already been pointed out previously in this thread. Professor Lincoln appears to have a clear understanding and belief of what the "force" of gravity is, be interesting to see his take on how this fits in with the quantum model.

To put it in layman's terms this is my understanding: Newton (Newtonian gravity) - gravity is a force that causes objects of mass to attract each other. Einstein (General relativity) - gravity is not a force but the curvature of space time caused by the presence of mass (also energy but lets keep it simple in this context) where objects follow this curvature resulting the appearance of attraction. Quantum Mechanics (Quantum gravity) - gravity is a force/field where gravitons are exchanged between masses resulting in interaction causing mutual attraction. The Newtonian model works very well for general predictions and suitable for most applications. The GR gravity model has been confirmed to produce more accurate predictions than the Newtonian gravity model, therefore supersedes as the best model of gravity we have. The GR gravity model predicts absurd results when used at the quantum level, predicting things like singularities... The quantum gravity models (hypothesis) solve this issue, however do not (as yet) consolidate with GR which has been verified as the best model of gravity we have. Maybe we are looking at this from the wrong perspective? Maybe focussing on "what gravity is" is not the answer to solving this dilemma. I think learning the nature of "what space-time is" will reveal what gravity is. Please jump in and correct my understanding! this subject is one that is most intriguing to me, and one I want to learn much more about.

Apologies, yes it was a snippet from Wikipedia.