Sisyphus

There is no such thing as an evolutionary scale, we did not "ascend," and we are not the pinnacle of evolution, because there is no such thing. We are not "more evolved." The most you can say is that we (that is, humans) are currently the smartest living members of the family (that is, living things), under the sorts of definitions of "smart" that we generally use. Really, though, we consider ourselves different from "animals" the same way we consider family members different from strangers. I'm sure in a squirrel's mind, limited as it is, it's "squirrel" and "other" that are the big categories. I do agree, of course, that just because something is natural doesn't make it desirable, and just because it is unnatural doesn't make it undesirable. We have minds that let us decide what we want to be, and that is one of the things that does make us special.

Complete (all standard and mainstream proposed) current human classification based on descent (as opposed to just similarities like the Linnean system), from broadest to narrowest, with "non-scientific" name and/or explanation in parentheses: All life-like structures (including viruses) Cellular life Eukaryota (have complex cellular organelles, specifically a nucleus) Unikonta Opisthokonta Holozoa Filozoa Animalia (animals) Chordata Vertebrata (vertebrates) Mammalia (mammals) Theria (non egg-laying) Eutheria (placentals, i.e. not a marsupial) Exafroplacentalia Boreoeutheria Euarchontoglires Euarchonta Primatomorpha Primates (primates) Haplorrhini Simiiformes (simians) Catarrhini ("old world" monkeys and apes) Hominoidea (apes) Hominidae ("great apes", includes orangutans) Homininae (includes gorillas) Hominini (the narrowest classification for humans that includes other non-extinct species, specifically chimpanzees and bonobos) Hominana Homo (includes several species such as neanderthals, but all except humans are extinct) H. sapiens H. s. sapiens So, not only are we animals, but we're apes, technically. Albeit profoundly pretentious ones. In common speech, "ape," as in "planet of the," generally means non-human ape.

No, not in any other frame of reference. In our FOR and in the FOR of most objects, the CMBR is approximately at rest. But if you accelerate enough, the CMBR "ahead" will be blueshifted and behind will be redshifted. The curving happens on both sides of the "curtain." That's how it can be that that the space where it came from was only 40 million LY away at the time of emission.

That depends on what you'll accept as "proof." I can videotape some matter if you want. In seriousness, no, you can't prove to yourself than an external world exists. But if you posit that it does not, one wonders to whom you are offering a reward.

I don't know what this has to do with the rest of the thread, but: That's not a violation of conservation of energy. Conservation of energy applies within a frame of reference, not between frames of reference. That's a bit like saying you can spin the world upside down by holding a map differently.

It seems incumbent Alaska senator Lisa Murkowski, who lost the Republican primary to Tea Partier Joe Miller, has won as a write in candidate, defeating Miller and the Democrat Scott McAdams, who came in third. Remarkable news from Sarah Palin's home state. Christine O'Donnell predictably lost 56% to 40%, a wide margin but not wide enough not to be frightening, frankly. This election seems like a defeat for the Democrats more than a victory for the Republicans (or the Tea Party!), much like 2006 was a defeat for the Republicans more than a victory for the Democrats.

There are other kinds. There is deterrent: I promised to hurt you if you hurt me, so I have to in order to be credible and deter others from hurting me. That's not pointless. This is only one of many views. And it is a minority one. It also assumes there is a "nature" that god does not control. Quite a few of them are. All of this stuff about Christianity and the Bible seems rather off topic, though, doesn't it?

If I know what decision you made after the fact, does that excuse you from blame? Why would knowing in the past be different from knowing in the future? And how does that differ from the definition of "random?" I don't think there is a coherent mainstream definition of free will.

No, you are saying that the world population is shrinking ("bigger in the past"), because you have more letters from a week ago than you do from yesterday. It was already explained how the universe became transparently nearly simultaneously all around. There is nothing in that that contradicts relativity - relativity merely states that events simultaneous in one reference frame are not simultaneous in another. Yes, and most of your letters were written before yesterday. I do not understand why this a problem for you.

I think that "racist" is a huge oversimplification, and I'm sure most tea partiers don't think of themselves as racist. And I think that calling them that doesn't help anything - since they don't consider themselves racist, being accused of racism just makes them think their opponents are foolish and/or trying to bully them into silence. All that said, I don't think it's entirely wrong. It's an angry populist movement of "the real America" to "take our country back." I think it's more about culture and class and anger/fear of change than it is about race (or, you know, policy), and I think the mentality is flavored with and has a lot in common with racism.

Deplorable, sure, but how would it be actionable? I don't see how that's illegal.

If things are made cheaper elsewhere, then that means I'm getting them for cheaper, meaning I have more money to spend, meaning I buy more things and create more jobs. What is the difference between free trade between countries, and between states? Or between towns? Surely most of the things you buy don't come from your own town. Would the people of your town be better off if they weren't allowed to buy and sell things with people who didn't live there?

Yes, the picture. We get to see a larger portion of the universe as it was early on than we do as it was more recently. To continue the analogy, suppose everyone in the world sends starts sending you letters every day. From the people in your own town, you get them the day after they send them. For nearby towns, two days, and so on. For most international mail, it takes a full week. You look at your pile of billions of letters. Only a few thousand are from the day before, and the vast majority are from a week ago. "Wow," you say, "the world sure had a lot more people in it a week ago! That theory that the world's population is growing is ridiculous!"

If I write you a letter and you receive it a week later, does that mean I "am" a week in the past?

That depends entirely on how you define "free will." IMO, most of these questions arise from overly vague or self-contradictory definitions. But, do you have a choice? Yes, you have a choice. That some hypothetical being knows what choice it is beforehand doesn't change that, any more than knowing what it was afterwards would.

That is a statement that requires support.

"The way forward?"

Mostly because it's "empty" calories that don't make you feel full.

If food is scarce and sugar and fat are scarcer, making sure to eat what little you find is good for you. Only now that a Big Gulp or triple cheeseburger is always within easy reach do the "fat fat fat you'd better eat it now" instincts become kind of problematic. If you think about it, it's actually pretty strange that we're in a situation where having too much energy (that is, calories) is a significant problem. Also, remember that being chubby has benefits - like surviving a famine - as well as drawbacks that mostly don't apply in a world where almost nobody lives long enough to be killed by clogged arteries.

Yes, exactly. The early universe was too hot for atoms to form, and was densely filled with free electrons that prohibited photons from traveling very far before being scattered. It "scrambled the picture." It was effectively opaque. As it expanded, it cooled, and when it cooled enough, atoms formed and it became transparent, at which point the universe would be gradually revealed to an observer. That it continues to expand complicates this picture, but does not change that basic description.

Nobody is turning Euclidean geometry inside out. You're making this a lot more complicated than it is. Let's ignore expansion for a moment. Suppose over time, every object maintains a constant distance. Suppose the universe is opaque, and then it becomes transparent. At first, an observer won't be able to see anything despite the transparency, because light hasn't had time to travel from other objects. Soon, nearby objects appear, and then farther and farther away objects, as their light has time to reach the observer. As time progresses, the observer will be able to see more and more of the universe, in a region of an expanding sphere. Ok so far?

The CMBR does not grow. The red rings in the drawings are not actual objects, but the view from Earth. Think of it as an event, that occurred simultaneously throughout the universe. As you move farther into the future from that event, you will have to look a farther distance in order to see it, because the light emitted from the nearby parts of it will have already passed.

Fire is not a plasma. Plasma is often the result of a fire, but the fire itself is just a chemical reaction. Another common place you'll see plasma is in fluorescent lights, which shows that you don't actually need all that much energy. The electric current (flow of electrons) knocks electrons off the gas atoms, which in turn knock electrons off other atoms, and so on. Incidentally, argon is one of the gases they use in fluorescent lights. It's the blue parts of "neon" signs. (The tubes that are actually filled with neon only glow orange.) As for making plasma just by getting something really hot, I don't think there's a minimum temperature. It's not a phase change like melting or boiling that happens at a specific temperature. Just, the hotter you get it, the more atoms will be ionized.

In a way. Hence why the CMBR is visible in both diagrams, despite being in the past of both. What part of the drawing do you object to?

Well, you didn't explicitly attack it, so what is it that needs defending? I'm assuming you're implying it's especially extravagant (and dangerous?). How much does a major Presidential diplomatic tour of Asia usually cost? I don't see any comparative figures. I also don't see any substantive argument that it isn't worth the cost. (Not saying it is, necessarily, just that I haven't seen anyone say anything relevant to the contrary.)