Strange

This article suggests there is a link between the structure of the brain (more specifically, why neural networks can be effective) and the physics of the real world: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602344/the-extraordinary-link-between-deep-neural-networks-and-the-nature-of-the-universe/ Maybe that goes some way to answering the question. I also think it is related to our language ability: that appears to build on other skills that exist for good evolutionary purposes: the ability to relate signs and meaning (important to know which plants are edible or poisonous, for example), which means we can relate words to things or concepts; being able to organise and recall that information rapidly so we can understand and create sentences; a theory of mind so we know it is worth trying to understand or create sentences ...

Really? In my experience, they are offered help. Maybe it is different where you live.

Only if the binary string is an address.

Was the first thing I thought of as well. There are is a huge demand/market for expertise in this area and it is increasingly important in areas like drug discovery, simulating cell behaviour, etc. It is somewhat outside my area of expertise as well, but modern physical chemistry uses and overlaps to a large extent with quantum theory. (Some of the best answers related to quantum theory on another forum have come from a chemist rather than a physicist.)

Because they are gravitationally bound: they are all in (complex) orbits around one another. The presence of this force between them stops them drifting apart (which is what things that are not gravitationally bound do). If matter is moving then it will carry on moving unless something exerts a force on it. Matter may have a resistance to changing its state of motion (which is its mass) but once it is moving it is happy to carry on.

It is a generalisation of the fact that systems try to reach the lowest energy state. This is, for example, why bubbles and planets are (roughly) spherical, for example. And why apples fall on heads. I don't know if that needs explaining at some deeper level, or if it is just the way the universe is, or if it is "obvious" and couldn't be any other way.

Because we have already seen the difference they make. And we understand the reasons why they make a difference. And they are worth doing anyway. I realise you think it is hopeless and there is nothing we can do because it is impossible to predict the future and we should just let nature take its course (whatever that means). But luckily, there are people with a more positive and constructive outlook who are willing to try and make the world a better place.

What are you talking about? You ask a fairly meaningless question, get some replies that are far better than it deserves, and then dismiss everyone's comments. Such pointlessness.

There is an element of human nature. Some people are very resistant to paradigm changes (and some people are overly enthusiastic about novel ideas). But that rarely has any significant effect on the acceptance of new paradigms (otherwise science wouldn't progress). The fact that science is resistant to new ideas is what gives it whatever "authority" it does have. The fact that hypotheses have to be tested repeatedly in different ways before they become accepted as new theories means that those theories are robust. Until proven wrong, of course. But you don't want new theories being adapted each year like fashion trends. You need them to be well-supported and stable so they can be used for the development of the next generation of new ideas.

It certainly exists for changes in gravity, like that example. But the overall "static" curvature of spacetime within the observable universe does (I think) still depend on the mass outside the horizon. This is why measures of the overall "flatness" of the universe give us a lower limit on the total size of the universe. I'm not sure why. Remember that the distant objects will have their own horizon, the same distance around them. So a galaxy 13 billion light years away, will have a cosmological horizon that extends 13 billion light years around it. So it will have the same gravitational environment as galaxies that are nearby. Good point.

The equation is our description of motion. Why would an object need an equation?

That is why you need to look at calculus and the theory of limits (and why it resolves Zeno's paradox). "In the arrow paradox (also known as the fletcher's paradox), Zeno states that for motion to occur, an object must change the position which it occupies. He gives an example of an arrow in flight. He states that in any one (duration-less) instant of time, the arrow is neither moving to where it is, nor to where it is not.[13] It cannot move to where it is not, because no time elapses for it to move there; it cannot move to where it is, because it is already there. In other words, at every instant of time there is no motion occurring. If everything is motionless at every instant, and time is entirely composed of instants, then motion is impossible." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Arrow_paradox

It sounds exactly like a version of Zeno's paradox ("if we look at them at an instant of time then they won't be moving" IS a statement of Zeno's paradox).

If you freeze them, then they are not moving. You need to observe their change in position over time; that is what define movement. But perhaps you are thinking of something like Zeno's paradox. Which is largely resolved by Newton's (and Leibnitz's) work on calculus and limits.

It is up to you to provide some better evidence than "it looks like it to me".

I don't think anyone is being dismissive. People have engaged pretty well for an idea that is not well explained and appears to have no basis. Perhaps you need to be a bit more specific about your ideas. For example, what is the relationship between motion and information? What is the relationship between knowledge and motion? What is the relationship between coding and motion? Why do you think information is required for movement?

I don't understand why you think there is any information, code or knowledge needed for motion to occur. The information only exists in our minds when we make some observation about it. It is not inherent, or required, for motion to happen.

So which is it: fear is the mind killer? Or we should be inspired by fear? I don't think choosing either of those platitudes is as effective as getting on with the tasks we know will make a difference. On Earth? I doubt there will ever be that number. Really? How many people emigrated? What proportion of the population was that? I don't believe that had any effect on population levels in the Old World. We have made massive improvements in tackling poverty in the developing world in the last few decades. This doesn't require the money to come from the wealthy (economics is not a zero sum game). Although many of the wealthiest people are helping to fund and promote these programmes.

Asimov, I think. Or maybe not: http://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/03/02/eureka-funny/

I'm not sure it helps, anyway. It isn't feasible to ship millions or billions of people off Earth, so it won't help here.

You only have a limited time to edit posts. That may have expired. You could add more information below...

Especially as the only reference to the "Climatic Variability Hypothesis" that I can find is this thread.

As the future is not unknowable (but it is uncertain) this seems a fairly negative reaction. You seem to be saying that because there is uncertainty, we shouldn't even attempt to predict what will happen. On that basis, if we see one case of Ebola, we shouldn't be frightened by "unknowable" predictions that (just like previous epidemics) if it will spread throughout the population and kill thousands. A large amount of effort is going into the study of population growth. It is quite possible to predict this because, for example, future population depends on current birth and mortality rates. And it also depends on the trends in those figures, which are not completely random. That sounds a lot like you are suggesting doing nothing. We shouldn't attempt to improve health and education in developing countries, then? Even though we know it has benefits an d will also reduce population growth? So we should do something? Like, for example, tackle poverty and education, maybe?

Is anyone here advocating a one child policy, or something like it? However the changing age profile is an inevitable result of any policy that will reduce population growth. (Well, any reasonable policy; obviously, such an imbalance could be avoid by culling people of all age groups. But that is even less acceptable than a one-child policy.) So we are seeing the same thing in a number of European countries. The same will be seen in other countries in future. It is a problem, but it is a short term problem (one or two generations) and can be managed in various ways (migration, for example). I don't know what "let society evolve naturally" means. We should never have domesticated plants? But that was a natural thing for us to do. We shouldn't use technology (e.g. fertilizers) to improve agricultural efficiency? In which case we could only sustain a fraction of the current population. Or we shouldn't provide improved health and education to developing countries? In which case there will be massive numbers of people living in poverty and dying prematurely, and continuing population growth until there is mass starvation. So what, exactly, is your solution? Just sit back and wait for disaster to strike and solve the problems for us?

Note that gravity does not propagate as waves. There are no waves involved in pulling an apple to the Earth, for example. But waves can be generated by specific types of moving masses. 1. Yes, I think so. (To gravitational waves, at least) 2. Gravitational waves are, yes. (This had to be taken into account in calculating the actual orbiting frequency of the black holes that generated the decade detected waves) 3. I assume you mean the speed at which gravity propagates. This is implicitly taken into account as it is part of the same theory used to describe expansion. 4. I don't believe so (see 3) BTW, gravity waves are something completely different (to do with fluid dynamics).