Agent Smith

Looks like a good place to build a launch pad.

What's this unifying psychological theory you refer to?

So Newton is inconsistent with Einstein. So, depending on the theory we use, either no work is being done or some work is being done. 🧒 Thank you for the reply

Some of these galaxies are moving away from us at speeds exceeding the speed of light I believe. Does that mean anything? Hence the space stretching patch I suppose. From Newton's perspective then the kinetic energy of some of these galaxies = [math]\frac{1}{2}mc^2[/math] which in Einstein's theory should be impossible.

So, from a Newtonian perspective, dark energy is a wild goose.

From a Newtonian perspective yes. Kindly go through the thread, it's short.

Could we be on a wild goose chase?

I would like an intuitive explanation also please, if possible. I've noticed the word "independent" appears in almost all answers to this question. What does it mean exactly and how does [math]F \propto m[/math] independent of mass and [math]F \propto a[/math] independent of acceleration lead to the conclusion that [math]F \propto ma[/math]

Can you explain a little bit more about how the constants being independent of acceleration and mass matter to understanding this rule that if ... [math]n \propto q ~ \& ~ n \propto r, then ~ n \propto qr[/math]

Thanks a million. I got most of what you said except the part quoted above.

Okay Work = Fd F = ma Work = mad The expansion is acclerating, but there's no mass i.e. Work = 0 × a × d = 0 joules.

From what I know, dark energy is the posited energy driving cosmic expansion. This seems to imply cosmic expansion is work (requiring energy), but then I was told cosmic expansion is the space stretching and space has no mass. How is work being done in cosmic expansion when no mass in involved, a work that requires dark energy?

Last I checked, they reproduce by budding.

Heat denatures proteins i.e. it disrupts their structure which as you know means proteins lose their function. HSP's, probably by binding to proteins, make them, in a sense, heat-resistant. Que sais-je?

DD & dd OR Dd & dd 1. DD & dd: Dd or Dd or Dd or Dd (all Rh+) OR 2. Dd & dd: Dd or Dd or dd or dd (2 Rh-) P(Rh-): 2/8 = 1/4 = 25%

We'd have to first work out what mental illnesses are. Then see if fear fulfills any criteria for a particular psychiatric malady. Diagnosing physical illnesses is much easier and more precise than mental ones.

I have some idea how schizophrenia was/is diagnosed. Look for cardinal symptoms like, as per Eugene Bleuler, autism, ambivalence, inappropriate affect, loosening of association. How exactly these are determined to be present in a suspected schizophrenic is an unknown to me. Indeed!

Interesting. Pathophysiological description of mental illnesses consist of many claims that could be, in principle, rephrased so to speak in terms familiar to a doctor/nurse. This however hasn't happened.

I know what the OP means by suicide prevention - taking one's own life is a (mental) illness.

That's news to me! Gracias. Any ideas as to what actually happens to the brain in coprolalia?

🙂 Spoken like a true psychologist. In me haste I failed to recognize the complexity of the subject and give due credit to the dedication and brilliant work of psychologists the world over. Gracias. I'm not as up-to-date with psychological techniques as I'd like to be. I'm sure there are well-tested methods in use in the diagnosis & management of mental illnesses. Do you know of any, other than psychometrics? An excellent observation. It'll be interesting to watch how neuroscience will get along with psychology.

I only wrote what I read but what I read could've been biased. So yeah. The issue, to the extent I can tell, is the greater degree of subjectivity involved in psychology as compared to the other subfields of medicine. For instance there's no lab value from (say) a blood test that could zero in on an ADHD patient. That said, I must confess my ignorance of the accuracy and reliability scores of the staple of psychology, to wit psychometrics.

Interesting take ... ADHD is classified as a disability last I heard. There are so many ways it can disrupt an afflicted person's life that it's not surprising at all that psychologists have given it some much attention. Gracias for the link.

Psychology is, at the end of the day, a soft science, a very, very soft science. Some say much of its findings can't be replicated which is a serious setback to any field wanting to claim the IS A SCIENCE badge. If I'm way off the mark, please someone do kindly educate me!