MigL

While I apprecate the amount of work involved in posting/typing all that crap, I have to remind you, this is not a mental exercise. The Earth has been measured and observed to be approx. spherical. IOW, NOT FLAT !

I don't think you really know how theoretical Physics works. Someone doesn't just pull equations out of their a*s. Maxwell |( and Einstein ) based their work on years, if not centuries, of observational and experimental evidence. You would have someone tell J C Maxwell, and A Einstein, "Your equations might describe the workings of reality, but they don't make sense to me, so they must be wrong." ??? I will, however, admit that in the latter half of the previous century theoretical Physics has, in some areas, far outpaced the abilities of experimental Physics to verify. Areas such as string theory, LQG, GUTs, Cosmology etc.

Sttill not an expert in biology, but Phi's quote in the spun-off thread indicates that it is an area of ongoing research. Maybe 'certainly' is too strong a word to use until further research clarifies the matter. I did, however, learn ( relating to Studiot's comment ) that lobsters may never have evolved the ability to feel pain; as they are usually swallowed whole by their predators, the ability to feel pain in a particular area so as to protect it, has no selective advantage.

That would be why I put lobster "brain' in quotations. Arthropods don't have a brain as we know it, rather a bunch of nerve endings ( ganglions ). Neurotransmitters such as dopamine, adrenaline and serotonin are common to arthropods and primates ( us ), and serotonin is highly connected to dominance and aggressive social behavior. ( that last bolded part is what JP claims, but I don't know enough Biology to know whether it's true )

I stand by my 'cruel' assessment of Psychology. It is not quite a science. At best, what JP sells is opinion, not facts. You, as a biologist, would know that what we consider the 'brain' of a lobster, is actually still incorporated into a part of our brains. This purely instinctive, hard wired, response mechanism is controlled and kept in check by the rest of our brain ( which allows for thought and social behaviour ). The Psychologist's job is to determine when a 'thinking' individual loses control to the base, instinctive part of their brain, and engages in anti-social and physically aggressive behaviour. JP is entitled to his opinion as to when that happens, as are other Psychologists you may actually agree with. The 'error bars' around these opinions are huge.

The astronaut actually 'grew' 3 inches, but the inch unit stayed the same; there was no dilation of length in lessened gravity. What actually happened is that, his body, exposed to a prolonged period of lessened gravity, de-compacted, and his joints moved apart. I myself am usually 1/2 inch taller in the morning ( after having slept horizontally )than in the evening ( after standing most of the day ). Sometimes the difference is enough that I have to adjust the rear-view mirror in my vehicle.

I, OTOH, see a difference. It seems as if most, if not all, of German society ( excluding of course, the persecuted and exterminated ) was ready to follow their leader's ideology, even sending their kids fo fight in the war. Italian Fashists, not so much; they simply went along for the ride until the tides of war changed, then they switched sides. Even the US, over the past 5 years, although heading in the wrong direction, it is still only a minority that support MAGA/Trump. If half the eligible voters ( 240 million ), voted in the 2016 election, and roughly half of those voted for D Trump, that gives roughly 1/6-1/5 of the total US population supporting D Trump; almost a fringe element ( although it increased slightly in the 2020 election ). You seem to think these kind of things ( totalitarian, auhoritanianism ) only happens in fashist/capitalist states. Tell me how equal were/are people under Communism ? Or do you want to compare the number of people that their ideologies have killed ? ( just Mao Zedong killed more people than the NAZIs in WW2, don't even need Stalin and Pol Pot's numbers ) Ideology can be a dangerous thing; all people who have one, are convinced it is right, and will do whatever it takes to acheive that end.

The science I'm familiar with tests for repeatability. A Psychologist can take any two subjects, and the same stimulus will produce differing results. The best outcome expected is a statistical correlation ( because it is almost impossible to isolate other variables ).

All of those elements existed in many countries in those times. Even in Canada, we had the Residential Shool System for native children at the time. The difference is, that in a lot of countries, these elements simmered under the surface of society; and in some cases, still do. In Germany ( and some other places ) these elements actually boiled over into mass exterminations and genocide, requiring a world war and millions of casualties to restore ordered societies. I find it beyond belief that so many people could have been so easily convinced that hese elements were/are a good thing. It would be interesting to hear the opinions of a 1930s era NAZI, understand their motivations, and see where we are in danger of repeating those mistakes.

Well, he is a psychologist. At the risk of offending some people, it is a fair stretch to call Psychology a science.

Who says discussion is overrated ? It only took 33 pages to realize we agree on more things than we disagree on. Maybe we're just too passionate ( about certain things ) for our own good ?

If light gives up energy due to universal expansion, only red shift is evident. If light gives up energy due to other interactions, many more effects are evident and can be observed. None have been. I was going to give you +1 for that statement, but then I would have had to give you -1 for the rest of your uneducated post. You're still even; which way you go is up to you.

If you feel strongly enough about it to compare the US to NAZI Germany, it may be time to move. Canada's nice this time of year; we just had our first snowfall in Southern Ontario, today ( didn't stick ).

One could take the cynical view that he has found how to make large amounts of money by being controversial. Or you might think that the Canadian Government is too controlling of people's lives. In Canada ( Ontario ) we are required to show a double ( approved ) vaccination passport to dine in restaurants, attend sporting events/concerts, or have a drink in a bar. If I cross into the US and stay longer than 72 hrs, I am required to get tested before entering the US, and again within 72 hrs of re-entry into Canada ( at my own expense for a PCR test ) even if doubly vaccinated, and having had Covid. Things like this would undoubtedly lead to gun shootouts in the US, wouldn't they ? I myself think the Government has every right to be controlling in public health matters, where your illness could affect many others who are unknowingly exposed to you. The Government has every right to control what you DO. They have no right to control what you THINK. And should control what you SAY, only in cases where it can directly affect public health/safety. In case I wasn't clear, I don't agree with his 'politics' on vaccinations/public health measures.

As you probably did for that reply ...

Not to belabor the point, CharonY, but the passages are clearly and accurately quoted, 5 posts back, and 15 hours ago.

I just substituted old people for people who demand others use preferred pronouns. I used similar arguments as have been used to defend the demanding of preferred pronoun use. There is such a thing as age discrimination, you know 😄 . And old people die in greater numbers than the general population 😁 .

I don't see what any of the other issues you feel strongly about, have to do with the fact that you brought up how the social backlash against the professor was just one isolated incident. Then you, again, complained when I gave another example, indicating it isn't an isolated incident. You opened the door; I walked in. Please keep in mind that this is an ideological discussion, and it doesn't change the way either you or I live our lives.. If I, or others< should stress you out, go grab a beer and relax, knowing that I do use people's requested pronouns. Our discussion isn't going to change the world one way or the other.

Less than a quarter of the price of a Mac, and better spec'd. I have fond memories of it also.

You said To which I replied "No it isn't" and provided today's example, with a link. You then said So why would you have brought it up in the first place ???

Oh, I see. Old people are not allowed to voice their view of the world. They are simply angry old men/women who resist change. A young person would say they are almost 'delusional'. How is that for youth privilege ? Again, does a person's subjective world view only count when you agree with it ???

There are plenty of examples of 'social backlash' on university campus. Not all have to do with pronouns or gender association. Here is one from today ... John Cleese pulls out of Cambridge Union event over ‘woke rules’ | John Cleese | The Guardian ( though I'm sure you will claim J Cleese quit, and circumstances/pressures had nothing to do with it 🙂 )

i2 = -1

The term (ic) has to be appended to the t term for calculating the interval length, which has to be a 'distance' in space-time. It does not need to be appended to a space-time diagram, as it will not change the shape of any 'curves' plotted in your space-time diagram. Try it with X and Y on graph paper, then substitute 2X for every X value. The only thing affcted is the spread along the X axis. The difference on a space-time diagram would be that the diagonal ( representing the boundry between spacelike and timelike motion ) has a slope of 1 instead of c .

Like, within the last 2 hours, or just today? Maybe you mean how many have I done since last week? Please clarify. You are perfectly capable of getting onboard the train of thought that Trans people commit suicide in much higher rates, not of their own volition, but due to the external pressures of oppression and bullying. Yet you can't grasp that the professor quit because of those same external pressures, and keep insisting that she quit and was not fired ? Maybe I should have asked "Do you choose to apply root-cause analysis only when it suits your argument ?"