MigL

No, Dr Kaku is an actual Physicist. I just make up stuff as I go along.

Thanks for the elaboration Eise. But it does sort of prove the point about free will. Quantum Mechanics has multiple interpretations also, but, of a single, well defined, mathematical model. Free will only has multiple interpretations.

So you have evolved past instinct and hard-wired brain function, Dim ? Try to stop breathing. Or involuntarily kick when your knee is tapped. Or yawning when you see someone do the same. Or recoiling after touching something hot. Or ... J Peterson is being criticised for comparing one ( or more ) human traits to that of lobsters. Meanwhile Dim thinks comparisons to amoebas to prove his point, are acceptable. Oh, the hypocrisy ! Of course he is. I have stated that numerous times already. He has been able to quit a tenured professorship and a clinical practice because of the amounts of money he is earning from his notoriety. He has that other instinct we all possess; greed. But I was talking about OUR discussion, when you said you ween't a fan, and I replied it isn't a popularity contest. You don't have to like the man to agree with some of his views.

I'm sure J P is disappointed, and I'm sure it isn't a popularity contest. Sometimes honest opinion and facts, can be hurtful, offensive and come across as 'snide'. Wait a minute, J P has said that also !

Since we all seem to have differing interpretations of what J Peterson says, I shall present my interpretation. we have different methods of dealing with each other socially. For men dealing with men, these interactions span the range from civil discourse on one end, all the way to the physical on the other end. The 'physical' end of the interactions is usually limited to dealing with anti-social men. The 'crazy' men, if you will. In modern society, that end of the interaction spectrum is no longer available for men dealing with women, as anything even approaching the physical is severely frowned on. Since there are also anti-social women in this world, the 'crazy' women, if you will, the problem is then, how do you deal with them ? Having never been married, I cannot comment on what my reaction would be to a persistant/annoyingsuitor to my wife. As for girlfriends, I've always preferred very assertive women, who would quickly tell an unwanted suitor where to go, and i've only ever needed to step in if there was the threat of violence. But getting back to J Peterson, I especially liked this debate ... It is kind of long, but very interesting. I was particularly impressed by Stephen Fry, just an actor/director/comedian, but very sharp.

Sampling only that particular post, from your many excellent ones, informs me that you are a negative person, who sips gallons of sour milk. Do you see how 'sampling' a snippet of a conversation ( and out of context ) is not a good idea ? I'm glad that yu're proud of misunderstanding, and taking things out of context. I wouldn't be. Maybe you should find the whole interview, not just the particular section you misinterpreted.

I don't doubt that J P is using his new-found notoriety to increase the amount he can eat ( wealth ), Dim. So he is greedy, like the rest of us. That makes no difference to the argument being presented.

Quantum Mechanics is clearly defined and mathematically consistant. It somewhat difficult to understand, but, once you do, it is not strange or ambiguous at all. Free will ( and consciousness ), on the other hand, is not clearly defined, nor consistant. So which of the two is strange ?

El Salvador is the nly one I know of. El Salvador's world-first adoption of bitcoin endures bumpy first day | Reuters

My opinion is that your biases are showing. He says that when dealing with 'crazy' men or women, once civil discourse has come to an end, the next step is physical. And that can be done with 'crazy' men, but obviously not with 'crazy' women. Don't hear or see what isn't in the video. Well that explains things. I've never read his self-help book. ( being the Clint Eastwood type, I've never needed help ) And I hope I wasn't too rude when I asked about your area of expertse. It was rhetorical; I know full well what your expertise is. But I have to ask, if you wrote a book on genetic sequencing, meant for the general public, would you include some sensationalist elements to make it more 'interesting' for the lay-person ? Might you include a chapter on how similar human genetic structure is to a lobster ? And does that one specific similarity make us and lobsters the same ? Do you think a pop-sci book is equivalent to J P's actual research and expertise ? Do you also dismiss all of Michio Kaku, Brian Green, Stephen Hawking, and other's work, because they have written pop-sci books ? Again, don't get your information from pop sci books, or, snippets of interviews on YouTube, taken out of context.

And I can cite the bowling ball on a rubber sheet analogy from any elementary book on GR. An analogy is only useful in demonstrating one particular effect, and is meant for lay-people. But space-time is not a rubber sheet, and lobsters are not people. More specifically, where has J P said that male aggressive behaviour should be excused/tolerated because of its evolutionary nature ?

All fine and dandy. But I asked for proof that J P has actually said that, not an explanation of how the argument works ( or doesn't ).

I thought it was enough for a 'point' to be defined as dimensionless. If Conscious Energy wants to define something else, with physical extent, he should call it something else.

Getting back to J Peterson, somebody is going to have to post a clip where he says males are competitive and aggressive due to evolutionary factors, and their behaviour should be excused because they can't control themselves. Every interview/debate I've seen involving J Peterson, it is the people arguing against him who are aggressive, and tend to lose their shit, while he remains calm and collected.

So far, CharonY, all you've mentioned is that J Peterson gives Professors a bad name, and preaches nonsense as it is ouside his field of expertise. Yet I notice you haven't submitted any evidence opposing his ideas. Maybe you should be held to the same standards as J Peterson. What exactly is your field of expertise ? I don't know what J Peterson has to do with the attitude of Australian men that Beecee and Phi are carrying on about, but it seems to be related to something from another thread. As for Phi, I find this laughable ... That 'chock full of lawyers' association is chaired by the Honourable Bob Runciman, a provincial politician for about 30 years before being appointed to his Senate position. The very funny part is that B Runciman is a CONSERVATIVE. ( a canadian conservative, but nonetheless, conservative ) Does disagreeing with a conservative, now make you conservative ?? ( notice I used 'the Honourable' when addressing B Runciman; I didn't want to be charged under Bill c-16 )

Jordan Peterson's qualifications ... 'After graduating from Fairview High School in 1979, Peterson entered the Grande Prairie Regional College to study political science and English literature,[17] studying to be a corporate lawyer. During this time he read The Road to Wigan Pier by George Orwell, which significantly affected his educational focus and worldview.[17][3] He later transferred to the University of Alberta, where he completed his B.A. in political science in 1982.[15] Afterwards, he took a year off to visit Europe, where he began studying the psychological origins of the Cold War; 20th-century European totalitarianism;[17][18] and the works of Carl Jung, Friedrich Nietzsche, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn,[10] and Fyodor Dostoevsky.[18] He then returned to the University of Alberta and received a B.A. in psychology in 1984.[19] In 1985, he moved to Montreal to attend McGill University. He earned his Ph.D. in clinical psychology under the supervision of Robert O. Pihl in 1991, and remained as a post-doctoral fellow at McGill's Douglas Hospital until June 1993, working with Pihl and Maurice Dongier." and career ... "From July 1993 to June 1998,[1] Peterson lived in Arlington, Massachusetts, while teaching and conducting research at Harvard University, where he was hired as an assistant professor in the psychology department, later becoming an associate professor. While still at Harvard, he switched his primary area of research from familial alcoholism to personality. After the change of focus, he has published extensively.[24][25][26][27][28][29] Author Gregg Hurwitz, a former student of Peterson's at Harvard, has cited Peterson as an inspiration of his, and psychologist Shelley Carson, former PhD student and now-professor at Harvard, recalled that Peterson's lectures had "something akin to a cult following", stating, "I remember students crying on the last day of class because they wouldn't get to hear him anymore."[30] Following his associate position at Harvard, Peterson returned to Canada in July 1998 and eventually became a full professor at the University of Toronto. Peterson's areas of study and research within the fields of psychology are psychopharmacology,[32][33] abnormal,[34] neuro,[35] clinical, personality,[36][37] social,[37] industrial and organizational,[1] religious, ideological,[17] political, and creativity.[38] Peterson has authored or co-authored more than a hundred academic papers[39] and was cited almost 8,000 times as of mid-2017; at end of 2020 almost 15,000 times. All from Jordan Peterson - Wikipedia While I don't doubt that his popularity provides a large revenue stream that has allowed him to quit his teaching and clinical duties, I really don't think you can accuse him of over-reaching his area of expertise. My opinion is that your comment about him giving professors a bad name, as well as Phi's penchant for labelling people, is out of line.

Too much of anything is always bad. The difficult part is agreeing on the right mix. As for J Peterson, his ideas are certainly well thought out, and the fact that he has a large following, from all parts of the political spectrum, allows certain people to bring up his large RW following as proof that he is evil/incompetent/opinionated/etc. He is not just another opinionated guy with a YouTube channel, he is actually a tenured profesor at the University of Toronto in the field of Psychology. He is not right wing at all, as a matter of fact, his notoriety began when he opposed a law that would have forced Canadians to use people's preferred pronouns, which is totally absurd. In your own fantasy, and sometimes demented mind, you can use any pronoun you wish, but forcing others to do so , and live in your reality is something not even G Orwell considered. If I should want to be referred to as, "His exalted royal highness", should people be jailed if they don't do so ?? He has no problem complying with requests to use preferred pronouns, and has often done so in interviews and debates; he has a problem with being forced by law to do so. I suggest getting less information from YouTube.

In addition to what OldChemE has said, I remember reading an article ( in a bodybuilding magazine, so I can't vouch for its rigor ) in the 1980s, that Black people ( African descent ) tend to suffer from small calf development. And this was examplified by a cross-section of professional bodybuilders of that period ( again, in no way representative of the general population ). As human calves and forearms havee higher proportions of slow twitch cells, this would seem counter to OldChemE's observations, as that would make those possessing those genetic markers ( large muscular thighs/underdeveloped calves ) better sprinters than long distance runners.

Again I defer to Eise on this. He once tried to explain the usefulness of Philosophy with regard to science ( which resists all my attempts to be found ). My simplistic interpretation of what he said, is that Philosophy teaches one how to think about a problem, but this is not nearly nuanced enough. Perhaps @Eise will join this conversation, and offer up a more elaborate explanation.

I would have put this in the thread about B J but that was prematurely closed. You can think, judge, and have any opinion you want; don't let anyone tell you otherwise. This is not G Orwell's 1984, and there is no thought police. Society does, however, have rules, and you cannot act on those thoughts, judgements or opinions in manners which are deemed illegal. This site has similar rules of posting behaviour, which you agreed to, when you joined; maybe you should read those rules. Oh, and if you expect others to respect your right to your own opinions, even those concerning B Johnson, you should then respect their right to have a possibly unfavorable opinion of you.

Mathematics aside ( because we know GR is incomplete, and all its predictions are not consistant with scaling effects ), while I agree G cannot be variable locally, or wrt time dilation ( ? ), there is the possibility that G is a global variable, and in a Machian manner, could depend on the size, and/or energy distribution, of the universe. You would then, have G evolve with the evolution of the universe such that earlier eras of the universe would have differing values of G. Examining far-away ( and therefore, much earlier ) parts of the universe has yielded no variation in the value of G. And observational evidence, not pretty mathematics, is the final arbiter.

One could make the argument that a politician's most important job is to get elected, otherwise they are useless. re are many ways to get elected. Your dad, the bootlegger', and the 'mob' could buy your election. You could be vice-President when the President gets assassinated. You could wiretap your opponnts offices in the Watergate building complex. You could be vice-President when the President quits to avoid impeachment. You could tell 'folksy' tales to connect with common folks, even though you were a rich ex-Hollywood actor. You could promise "Read my lips, no new taxes", in order to get elected, then raise taxes You could argue about what the definition of 'sex' is, in order to get re-elected. You could take advantage of a dispicable terror attack, and call yourself a 'war President' in order to get re-elected. Etc.. Heck, you could even incite a bunch of idiots to attempt the overturning of an election that you lost ... You want me to do Canadian PMs next, Peterkin ?

Probably not the answer you're looking for, but why not cut a cga850 and a cga870 adaptor and have them welded by the machine shop. ( I don't think an adaptor is available commercially ) Any coupling disc you have made will more than likely leak, and will still need to be replaced every couple of fills. For filling hi-pressure, hi-purity Phosphine we only use coupling discs once at our plant. Then again, you don't really want 600-700 psi Phosphine leaking; Oxygen may be different.

I know what you mean Beecee, America's most beloved President, J F K, was a womanizer who had very little respect for his wife, and banged more women than Bill Clinton could ever dream of, or Donald Trump could ever hope to pay for. In my own country, our PM, while constantly preaching gender equality, is condescending towards women, and kicks them out of cabinet if they won't lie for him. The only female Canadian Prime Minister was a Conservative, not a Liberal. All the Presidents mentioned in the OP were 'right for their times', but also flawed in many ways. Same as some current Presidents. All are human, and have good and bad qualities; but there is never a right time for a D Trump.

IIRC, when there is enough angular momentum, the event horizon disappears, leaving a 'naked', ring singularity. " When {\displaystyle r_{s}/2<a} (i.e. {\displaystyle GM^{2}<Jc}), there are no (real valued) solutions to this equation, and there is no event horizon. With no event horizons to hide it from the rest of the universe, the black hole ceases to be a black hole and will instead be a naked singularity." From Kerr metric - Wikipedia AS for the OP, the 'rubber sheet with a bowling ball on it' is a visual model, and just like all models, even mathematical ones, it is not applicable in all situations, and some predictions are non-sensical. Just like GR, our best model, makes some non-sensical predictions, the visual rubber sheet model makes many non-sensical predictions. Such as the 'force' pulling the rubber sheet down. Or that the mass is not intrinsic to the spacetime, but sits above it. Or that there is an 'exterior' to space-time. Or that the warping of spatial dimensions is responsible/equivalent to gravity. Or many others where it ceases to be applicable.