aguy2

I think it would be possible if rewinding the existance of some thing as large of a entire solar system was possible. (which I don't think it is)

Wouldn't you be just making the same problem bigger. The problem being 1 thing existing 2 times at once.

aguy2

If one where to physically travel back in time your constituents could not displace your constituents as they where then, due to conservation.

aguy2

By 'Wernicke's area' do you mean that liitle walnut shaped gizmo that looks like it was pinned on the left side at the last minute?

aguy2

That would sure seem reasonable to me to. The only problem is all the empirical evidence says 'genetically transmitted information' is all about structure' date=' structure, structure.

 

Just because lots of soup comes in cans, doesn't mean there is any causal relationship between cans and soups.

[/quote']

 

Is this better?

aguy2

bascule,

Thank you very much for what seems to be validating information.

You might want to look in the 'Classical Mechanics' forum, 'A.M. Conservation?', post #13

This new evidence reeks of a pulse/jet cosmological model.

aguy2

It seems reasonable that there is a genetic link at the foundation of behavior.

That would sure seem reasonable to me to. The only problem is all the empirical evidence says 'genetically transmitted information' is all about structure, structure, structure.

Just because lots of beer comes in cans, doesn't mean there is any causal relationship between cans and beers.

aguy2

I am under the belief that the importance of genetics only goes so far

One can be genetically predisposed to stutter

do not seem to be true.

Do you agree?

aguy2

I think we're slowly starting to learn that a MAD policy is no longer applicable nowadays.

Doesn't a diluted version of MAD seem to be working in regards to India and Pakistan?

aguy2

Has 'genetically transmitted information' proven not to be the 'holy grail' most had been hoping for; particularly when it comes to behaviors?

aguy2

How would you calculate the speed of time? Normally to calculate the speed of something you must calculate the time and distance it travelled but how can you calculate a distance that time travels?

Are you concidering the 'speed of time' to be something akin to a 'flow' of time?

aguy2

"the question of the source of conserved quantum and macro angular momentum"

But as Severian explained, conservation of angular momentum stems from rotational symmetry. It need not be addressed elsewhere.

Severian's explaination would seem valid if the question only concerned 'macro' or 'cosmolgical' angular momentum. Admittedly I might be the only one asking questions like, "Have we been wasting 80 years of time and resources searching for the connection between quantum and cosmological gravitational effects, when we should have been looking for why the very big and the very small do not seem like direct expressions of one another?", but 1 is enough.

The question involved certainly would make a good topic for another thread.

aguy2

IOW, there is no evidence that the angular momentum of the big bang was different from zero.

Yes. I am presenting no direct evidence of a rotating BB event.

A good theory of the BB event must 'accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and must make definite predictions about the results of future observations'. I am contending that in light of these requirements the cosmological models that presume a BB event with zero angular momentum are beginning to break down. They do not answer the question as to why the universe is not half matter and half anti-matter. They do not answer the question of the source of conserved quantum and macro angular momentum. In order to explain the probability that there was such a thing as an inflationary era the models need such things as temporary reversals of gravitational effects, and in order to explains such things as the observations that seem to indicate that the expansion of the universe began to accelerate 3 1/2 billion years ago the models need 'fudge factors' like 'dark energy'. I think I am making a rational contention that these questions can be adequently addressed with an assumption that the pre-inflationary era was rotating.

aguy2

1) at inception the BB event displays a high degree of angular momentum

What is your evidence that this is the case?

Direct observation of the of the nature of the universe previous to the 'inflationary era' may prove to be impossible. As far as I know the 'cosmic microwave background' is as far back as we can see, and the CMB is likely a post inflationary phenomenon.

It may prove possible to determine that the visible particle universe is a result of a 'jet' or 'pulse'; although if the resulting 'conic projection' was sufficently large, it would prove to be very difficult to tell the difference between it and an 'isometric expansion' from a non-rotating source.

aguy2

I don't know if that's a correct statement' date=' and I'm not the right person to ask to see if it is.

 

All I'm saying is that there should be a mechanism to transfer the angular momentum. But if you have the rotational symmetry, angular momentum will be conserved. This is a consequence of Noether's theorems.[/quote']

 

swansont,

Sorry about 'cranking it up a notch'. I realize my 'speculation' concerning the possibility that the possible angular momentum of the early universe could be 'bled' off (transfered) during the process of sub-atomic particle formation is pushing the envelope.

 

The information you gave me concerning the possibility that the a.m. of the system could have been transfered to the new formed sub-atomic particles and anti-particles through the auspices of 'classical mechanics' is at least a partial validation of the possibility that my proposed 'model' might be representative of the actual case.

 

Thank you for your input.

aguy2

bascule,

Thank you for addressing my 2nd question in post #13, but what about the question I raised in question 1 plus 3?

Okay' date=' here it goes, the universe is like a giant video game, when you get to the end and beat it it just starts over again.

 

Essentially, the universe is made out of two things: evolution and chaos.

 

we increased the [i']evolvability[/i] of the system.

 

We're constantly evolving to become a better and better problem solving machine.

 

Game over man. Reset.

 

Maybe the universe plays out the same way every time, or maybe it plays out differently each time but inevitably does the same thing over and over again.

 

Yup. More of a thought experiment than anything else.

I realize that this is only a thought experiment on your part, but without addressing the 'problem' of the origin of the oscillating/cyclic universe isn't the 'game' rather pointless?

aguy2

That just restates what you've already said. I'm asking where did you get the idea for that operational sketch? It's a subtle hint to try and justify it.

I've made some tactical contacts in regards to adding 'military' and the other 'social (soft!) sciences' to sfn, so I guess I asked for this:

The majority of Iranians are of military age and they represent an abnormaly large demographic 'bump'. They have been decently fed and decently educated, and although I rather think they would rather 'bump and grind', if they accept 'conscription' and try to be good soldiers any 'adventurism' on the part of the US could get in real trouble.

So your hypothesis is that Turkey will initiate hostilities with the US if Americans cross into Iran?

We have no idea what a 51% majority of their parliament would decide. It would be a good bet that they wouldn't be 'happy campers'.

Why do they tolerate an invasion and continued occupation of Iraq?

I bet they think they made a good decision when they didn't get involved.

And what could Turkey possibly do to oppose an American attack on Iran?

I rather suspect their armed forces would do their duty.

aguy2

WiSci.

What is 'WiSci'?

aguy2

Bascule,

You seem to readily respond to 'trolling' but seem ignore legitimate questions like the ones I asked in post #13.

What's up? Are you pretending that if you ignore such questions they will somehow go away?

aguy2

This thread is about the evolutionary role/purpose/value of homosexuality, whether social or biological. If your post is not intended to address that topic then you could make it more clear by putting it in a different thread, one where it will not be read in a context that you did not wish to use.

My post was meant to be generally supportive of 'sunspots' secondary observation. I contend that it was well within bounds of the questions raised by the initiator of the thread.

The implication of "deteriorative evolution" is that genetic changes oppose the demands of selective pressures. It does not suggest that they fail to meet those demands.

I'm sorry, I still don't seem to understand what you mean here.

Your definition falls apart the moment one considers any species with a vaguely organised social structure.

Are you saying that human cultural communities seem to be acting as if they are 'mini-species'. If you are I would tend to agree with you on this point. I was using the definition of 'species' in its strictest 'biological' sense.

Like many before you, you continue to ignore the fact that massive numbers of "homosexuals" have - and will continue to have - reproductive sex, they donate sperm/eggs, and lesbian mothers abound (whether surrogate or not).

I didn't mean to seem to ignore this fact. I personally know a lesbian couple who are exemplary parents to their 2 adopted children.

Anyway' date=' after all that, you totally didn't answer my question:

[b']"what has deterioration got to do with homosexuality?"[/b]

My point was that 'deterioration' generally has to do with "the achievement of an 'ideal state of perfection', which I contend can only lead to stasis or deterioration, both of which can 'dead end' the macro-process we are involved in." Sunspot and I contend that some homosexuals seem to closely approximate this state. The 'deterioration' I was alluding to had nothing to do with 'homosexuality' per se, but had everything to do with my contention that 'ideal states of perfection' are 'illegitimate and counter-productive goals'.

aguy2

I think an overall policy of legalizing them while restricting them would be the best choice. No advertisements' date=' stiff tax, age restriction, heavy penalty for secondary crimes, funding of treatment facilities and more funding on prevention would do more in 5 years than the "Drug War" has accomplished in its entirety.

 

Self-destructive behaviour is its own punishment and jail time isnt necessary or helpful to anyone engaged in it. Our time and money would be much better spent on prevention and treatment instead of seeking to punish people that cannot possibly be placed in a worse situation.[/quote']

 

We spent 200 years showing the world that, 'Free choices by free men in free markets works, while no other system seems to be workable.', and 2 weeks latter turn around and place cohersive constraints on a free market and then wonder why this is creating problems!

 

Are these the acts of 'wise men' (homo sapians)? One would think that we would either need to change our economic policies or our genus species name.

 

aguy2

Where did you get that idea?

Once they have acquired a stockpile of weapons grade material, occupation would be the only way to stop them from assembling functional weapons.

Which proved not terribly important in the final calculus. Besides, why would we need Turkey in an attack against Iran? We have force--battle hardened force--already in place in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Turkey is a functional democratic/republic. We were precluded from using Turkish territory by a parlimentary majority. This majority might not stand idle if we invaded yet another neighboring Muslim nation.

aguy2

I found my car this morning blanketed by frost. After cleaning it, I started driving and thought if heat is a source of energy, what is “COLD”? is it negative enerty?

Normally 'cold' is not concidered a 'thing', while something like 'heat' is concidered a 'thing'. If cold where to be temporarily thought of as a thing, we might see cold as a thing that tends to 'attract' heat. Carrying this analogy further we might see 'stillness' as being attractive to 'movement', 'dark' as being attractive to 'light', 'vacuum' as being attractive to 'air', ect.

Is this something like the line of reasoning you experienced?

aguy2

It is an assumption on my part that they will use their nukes as soon as they get them either through a terrorist network or directly.

I think the above assumption is wrong, but nonetheless the fact remains that short of indefinitely occupying the Iranian Plateau with a multiple million man army, if they insist there isn't much we can do about it.

aguy2

Ps. You do remember the Turks won't let us use their territory to even invade Iraq?

I don't know if that's a correct statement' date=' and I'm not the right person to ask to see if it is.

 

All I'm saying is that there should be a mechanism to transfer the angular momentum. But if you have the rotational symmetry, angular momentum will be conserved. This is a consequence of Noether's theorems.[/quote']

 

Here is my line of reasoning:

1) at inception the BB event displays a high degree of angular momentum

2) due to its temperature and pressure the universe slowly expands

3) when the lower temperature and pressure permit, the formation of particles and anti-particles begins to slow the rotation till the universe partially collapses

4) during the partial collapse the newly formed particles and anti-particles are forced into contact with one another and most of them are annihilated

5) the resulting explosion is expressed as 2 jets (or pulses) erupting from both poles, this represents the inflationary era

6) one of the jets contains a small remnant of particles and the other a small remnant of anti-particles

7) the particle jet or pulse developes into what we see as the visible universe

8) as it egresses from its point of origin it expands in relation to itself

9) over the next 10 billion or so years the egression and expansion slows till the egression ceases altogether

10) in a process analogous to a collapsing fountain of water, the expansion of the visible universe begins to accelerate while at the same time it is regressing back towards its point of origin

 

What do you think? Am I just another crank or could I be on to something?

 

aguy2

The inherent angular momentum, no

Are you saying 'no' because of the observed differences between the a.m. of sub-atomic particles and the a.m. of macro-structures? Seeing, that at least initially, the pre-inflationary BB event was not composed of particles, might not its form of angular momentum been more akin to that which observe in sub-atomic particles?

but it could conceivably change their state. i.e. not giving an electron its [math](1/2) \hbar[/math'] but putting it into a different state

I take this to mean that it still might have been possible for the a.m. of the pre-inflationary BB event to be reduced to the extent that it might partially collapse?

aguy2