Just like (whatever non-liberal ideology you subscribe to) apparently doesn't tolerate reading comprehension or critical thought. I suggest you actually read the politifact link.
Do you feel that the brain is more than just a electrochemical analog computer, running a simulation of the world in your head using some pretty weak inputs?
Your final sentence may sound insightful, but it's really not.
A simulation of vocal cords may produce no sound, but if you attach that simulation to some piezoelectric crystals, shaped to cause vibrations in the air, you may find that the line between simulation and work is simply a function of the outputs attached to the simulation.
Understanding that space and time are inseparable dimensions of the Physical Universe will help you understand why your proof is not incorrect, nor a falsification of any currently accepted cosmological evolution theory. The real question, is what kicked off space-time's expansion. We don't really have an answer to that, but it's also not fundamentally important to understanding the universe today. It could end up being some day, especially when we decide that our view of the Universe is fundamentally limited in the 3+1 coordinate space we use to describe it.
I also have a fundamental disagreement with your assertion that Science is amoral, as if morality was some magical quality that confounds explanation.
I can give you plenty of scientific reasons for the existence of morality, and why not to build a bomb. I think you're trying to conflate the amorality of a discipline with the morality of the person practicing the discipline, disingenuously so.
In short, you may be right, in the same way that it's right to say that writing is amoral, and thus one cannot write about morality.
GR does in fact explain what causes gravity, and is still the theory of the day with regard to gravitation. Just because some people would like to see it reconciled with the Standard Model and Quantum Mechanics doesn't mean the theory is wrong.
Sounds to me like you're talking about epigenetics.... Which doesn't really alter the DNA coding itself, but can alter gene expression in a heritable fashion.
So, really, the evidence for your given hypothesis is pretty much nil.
Epigenetics however are very real, and part of genetics and evolution, not at all contrary to it.
A species that allows for epigenetic modification to gene expression is fitter than one that does not (as long as it functions in a way that increases fitness), and as such, is more likely to pass off that ability. Keep in mind the scaffolding for epigenetic gene expression modification is also encoded in the DNA.
I feel like that might be splitting semantic hairs...
Certainly one can't say "The Special and General Theories of Relativity are fact", but the experiment does show that certain tenets of the theories are irreducible fact, and as such one could possibly reasonable say "Special Relativity is fact", where what that means is slightly ambiguous
He never suggested that the fitness/utility evaluation process was boolean, or even that it gives a rat's ass to the things *you* consider important.
If you inherit a mutation that causes you to die of Parkinson's disease, in a culture where older people have little or nothing to do with fitness of younger generations, then there is almost nil negative fitness to that mutation.
On the other hand, if you inherit a mutation that causes you to die of Parkinson's disease, in a culture where older people have much to do with the fitness of younger generations, then there is a very real negative fitness to that mutation, but still not a boolean all-stop in its passage to progeny. (Especially since you've already had, or not had any)
Finally, to really hit what I think you're trying to imply- there are genetic diseases (trains) that are absolutely *not* spread, because they cause death before fertility. They are caused by all-too-common natural mutation to an important section of a gene, for a variety of different reasons, depending on the disorder and where it exists within the genome, and the genomes ability to correctly copy that portion.
The fitness/utility form is a fact. It's also as far as I can tell obvious and self-evident. You're objecting to a definition of fitness/utility, or possible values of it that no one you're arguing agrees with.
GPS requires GR and SR corrections. So radioactive decay is also apparently influenced by relative velocities between frames of reference. Those are some very aware nuclei.
Right- I meant it doesn't accomplish the (vast majority of) delta-v under its own power. It hits the atmosphere at ridiculous speed and lets it shave off the velocity until it can fall in.
I think I overestimated the size of the sun, and underestimated our distance from it. I figured it wouldn't be too bad to reach a distance from it where drag would quickly come into play. At ~200 solar radii to the sun, I guess it would still take a large portion of orbital velocity to even brush its atmosphere.
Solar orbit != LEO. Thank you for the quick primer on orbital mechanics!:)
On the contrary, everywhere in the known universe (according to the cosmological principle) that formula holds true.
The formula describes the relationship between rest mass (invariant) and rest energy. Obviously it gets more complicated if you need to handle different frames of reference, and even then not really importantly until velocity approaches that of light.
Certainly. I don't think anyone rational or sane questions whether or not the Earth will find new equilibrium. The question is if the new equilibrium will support our civilization's population and resource requirements within our adaptive abilities without a massive die-off of humans.
I'm sure some would argue that's not such a bad thing, but ultimately, should the trend continue, the US isn't among the newly minted prime real-estate barons.
No quotes required on green house gas. Water vapor is one, just like carbon dioxide.
While the system itself may be vastly complex, ultimately, it's massive black body encased on a thermally non-conductive substrate.
Its only real way to cool down is via radiation emission. Swing it however you like, throwing infrared favoring radiation absorbing agents into the outbound radiation path is going to alter the radiative flux of the system, and it's going to do it by way of increased energy of the system. That is, decreased outward emission. Fundamental physics and thermodynamics require this. Certainly you're correct that we are using some pretty complicated guesses to figure out how the system will react to the increased energy, and how and where it will find new equilibriums, but the overall model used in the experiments is completely correct for showing the Earth's dynamic energy flux.
You seem to be a rational person.
You really believe Citizens United was based on indisputable fact that had anything to do with what was written in the Constitution other than the rather limited text of the First Amendment? An Amendment whose application is pretty questionably applied to non-persons? A Amendment that I don't think ever had anything to do with money? Or are you equating PACs as "the press"? Are we no longer allowed to regulate our public airwaves? No regulation of commerce? Perhaps we start knocking these bastards down for broadcasting manipulative and slanderous content in the hope of disassociating voters with reality?
How, realistically speaking, are we going to get a Constitutional amendment passed and ratified that is going to render a whole metric shit-ton of political incumbent oligarchical sock puppets utterly redundant? Come on, man. Many Constitutional scholars disagree with the Court's assertion, and that's pretty natural given it has a predilection of stretching the shit out of the Constitution to fit the status quo. If we want to fix this, we do it at the Court first, then once we've cleaned house of a Corporately ruled country, we then amend the Constitution to set it in stone.
I think you are very confused about Fourier's theories on the greenhouse effect...
Fourier always knew that his friend's experiment formed a real greenhouse. His postulation was that the atmosphere, and "greenhouse gasses" within it could function to similar end, with various gasses of various levels of opaqueness to light wavelengths forming the stable barriers that the glass did.
That theory is in fact not discredited one bit. Space is the glass. It very efficiently prevents the convection of the atmosphere with the non-heat conducting void beyond. What you cited as being discredited is the theory that physical greenhouses retain their temperature because glass blocks long-wave radiation. I'm not really familiar with this theory, but it's pretty ridiculous on its face. Anyone with elementary understanding of thermodynamics can tell you that the lack of air exchange will greatly outweigh the radiative energy. But the best part is- that has *nothing* to do with the greenhouse effect. It's some kind of weird red herring straw man to distract someone from looking up what the greenhouse effect really is, and to see that you have absolutely no clue what the hell you are talking about.
The basic physics behind the greenhouse effect are so damn settled, that you have to undo our entire knowledge of the universe, relativistically, and quantum mechanically to alter them. The spectral absorption lines of various molecular gasses are *known*. Some simple thought experiments will lead you to the correct conclusion. Short-wave solar radiation hits something, say the ground. The ground absorbs it, heats up, and emits appropriate black-body radiation (long-wave). In a happy, greenhouse effect-less world, that emitted black-body radiation goes back out to space, and the Earth is a very fucking cold place. In our (thankfully obeying the laws of physics) world, a percentage of those long-wave photons hit something that is opaque to long-wave radiation on its way back out to space. Let's call this substance a greenhouse gas, since its existence will make the Earth retain heat- like a greenhouse retains heat. It is then refracted, with some of the incident photons going back to space, and some going back to the ground for re-absorption. The Earth just netted some thermal energy. It's a good deal for us, and it's entirely necessary in order for this planet not to be a spherical skating rink.
To call the "greenhouse effect" discredited is to claim that thermodynamics, relativity, and quantum mechanics are all wrong, and everything we know about heat transfer, photon absorption and emission and energy are all wrong. You must be some kind of fucking genius. I can see why you don't appeal to authority- you *are* the fucking authority.
That isn't even close to what I wrote. Trying to put words in other peoples' mouths is not logic.
I never claimed it was what you wrote. It's an analogy demonstrating the absurdity of the logic behind what you wrote. Why did you defend an assertion not made? Lack of understanding, or an attempt at constructing a straw man?
And I saw Megyn Kelly once, on YouTube. I don't remember what it was about. What does she have to do with anything?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=megyn+kel...
If you need additional help understanding the reference, I'd be happy to oblige, but to summarize: you are presenting a false equivalence between two very different things in an attempt to make the moral difference ambiguous and subjective.
OkCupid has no force of law, they have attempted to use no force of law. Hell, they haven't even attempted to force users of their service to adhere to their view. An appeal for social action against someone who would harm an affected minority is not coercion.
An attempt at codifying legislation that would in fact ban a populace from doing something, and strip them of the status they already obtained is in fact, upon success, coercion. Upon failure, attempted coercion.
Lobbying to make your marriage illegal? It's a boycott, essentially!
So what? You're saying that our culture should be just like historical cultures? We should have slavery? There should be no equal rights for women? It should be perfectly legal and acceptable to beat our children or wives bloody for misbehaving?
I think that is actually what he is going very far out of his way not to say, even though it's precisely what he desires.
I think even saying he supported his speech with money doesn't tell enough of the story.
The money was intended to cause action, the action may have failed, but I still find it valid to judge someone on an attempted-action.
Financing a campaign to enact legislation that binds the state to bar a specific class of people from enjoying a right/privilege enjoyed by you is attempted disenfranchisement.
It's attempted action. It was an attack that was thwarted, but an attack none-the-less.
Given the perspective of what he hoped to accomplish, I would say the non-legislative social action being taken against him is quite well measured.
You must be right, your logic is simply undeniable.
Coercion is coercion.
Asking a man on the street for a dollar, and holding a gun to his head and asking him for a dollar are essentially the same thing.
Can I get a Megyn Kelly meme?
If a married homosexual person molests a child, then yes, he's sub-human.
If a married homosexual person rapes someone, then yes, he's sub-human.
If a married homosexual person kills 8 million people in ovens and gas chambers, then yes, he's sub-human.
We can certainly argue over what comprises the less-literal definition of "humanity", but I'm sure we could all agree that physical violence against another non-consenting human being is not analogous to doing something you disagree with in their home that has precisely 0 harming effect on the protected rights of your self, or anyone you know, or know of.
Slashdot Mirror
Just like (whatever non-liberal ideology you subscribe to) apparently doesn't tolerate reading comprehension or critical thought. I suggest you actually read the politifact link.
You didn't actually read that politifact link, did you?
You missed the big blaring "false" thingy on the meter.
Do you feel that the brain is more than just a electrochemical analog computer, running a simulation of the world in your head using some pretty weak inputs?
Your final sentence may sound insightful, but it's really not.
A simulation of vocal cords may produce no sound, but if you attach that simulation to some piezoelectric crystals, shaped to cause vibrations in the air, you may find that the line between simulation and work is simply a function of the outputs attached to the simulation.
Understanding that space and time are inseparable dimensions of the Physical Universe will help you understand why your proof is not incorrect, nor a falsification of any currently accepted cosmological evolution theory. The real question, is what kicked off space-time's expansion. We don't really have an answer to that, but it's also not fundamentally important to understanding the universe today. It could end up being some day, especially when we decide that our view of the Universe is fundamentally limited in the 3+1 coordinate space we use to describe it.
I also have a fundamental disagreement with your assertion that Science is amoral, as if morality was some magical quality that confounds explanation. I can give you plenty of scientific reasons for the existence of morality, and why not to build a bomb. I think you're trying to conflate the amorality of a discipline with the morality of the person practicing the discipline, disingenuously so.
In short, you may be right, in the same way that it's right to say that writing is amoral, and thus one cannot write about morality.
Excellent post.
Erm, Einstein would like a word with you.
GR does in fact explain what causes gravity, and is still the theory of the day with regard to gravitation. Just because some people would like to see it reconciled with the Standard Model and Quantum Mechanics doesn't mean the theory is wrong.
Sounds to me like you're talking about epigenetics.... Which doesn't really alter the DNA coding itself, but can alter gene expression in a heritable fashion.
So, really, the evidence for your given hypothesis is pretty much nil.
Epigenetics however are very real, and part of genetics and evolution, not at all contrary to it.
A species that allows for epigenetic modification to gene expression is fitter than one that does not (as long as it functions in a way that increases fitness), and as such, is more likely to pass off that ability. Keep in mind the scaffolding for epigenetic gene expression modification is also encoded in the DNA.
I feel like that might be splitting semantic hairs...
Certainly one can't say "The Special and General Theories of Relativity are fact", but the experiment does show that certain tenets of the theories are irreducible fact, and as such one could possibly reasonable say "Special Relativity is fact", where what that means is slightly ambiguous
Nonsense.
He never suggested that the fitness/utility evaluation process was boolean, or even that it gives a rat's ass to the things *you* consider important.
If you inherit a mutation that causes you to die of Parkinson's disease, in a culture where older people have little or nothing to do with fitness of younger generations, then there is almost nil negative fitness to that mutation.
On the other hand, if you inherit a mutation that causes you to die of Parkinson's disease, in a culture where older people have much to do with the fitness of younger generations, then there is a very real negative fitness to that mutation, but still not a boolean all-stop in its passage to progeny. (Especially since you've already had, or not had any)
Finally, to really hit what I think you're trying to imply- there are genetic diseases (trains) that are absolutely *not* spread, because they cause death before fertility. They are caused by all-too-common natural mutation to an important section of a gene, for a variety of different reasons, depending on the disorder and where it exists within the genome, and the genomes ability to correctly copy that portion.
The fitness/utility form is a fact. It's also as far as I can tell obvious and self-evident. You're objecting to a definition of fitness/utility, or possible values of it that no one you're arguing agrees with.
GPS requires GR and SR corrections. So radioactive decay is also apparently influenced by relative velocities between frames of reference. Those are some very aware nuclei.
Right- I meant it doesn't accomplish the (vast majority of) delta-v under its own power. It hits the atmosphere at ridiculous speed and lets it shave off the velocity until it can fall in.
:)
I think I overestimated the size of the sun, and underestimated our distance from it. I figured it wouldn't be too bad to reach a distance from it where drag would quickly come into play. At ~200 solar radii to the sun, I guess it would still take a large portion of orbital velocity to even brush its atmosphere.
Solar orbit != LEO. Thank you for the quick primer on orbital mechanics!
Is this really correct?
The shuttle didn't have to drop all of its orbital velocity in order to de-orbit....
If orbital velocity for given altitude is X, certainly a velocity of X-N, where N is non-0 will result in eventual de-orbit... ?
On the contrary, everywhere in the known universe (according to the cosmological principle) that formula holds true.
The formula describes the relationship between rest mass (invariant) and rest energy. Obviously it gets more complicated if you need to handle different frames of reference, and even then not really importantly until velocity approaches that of light.
Then we simply use E=m(relativistic)^2
Certainly. I don't think anyone rational or sane questions whether or not the Earth will find new equilibrium. The question is if the new equilibrium will support our civilization's population and resource requirements within our adaptive abilities without a massive die-off of humans.
I'm sure some would argue that's not such a bad thing, but ultimately, should the trend continue, the US isn't among the newly minted prime real-estate barons.
No quotes required on green house gas. Water vapor is one, just like carbon dioxide.
While the system itself may be vastly complex, ultimately, it's massive black body encased on a thermally non-conductive substrate. Its only real way to cool down is via radiation emission. Swing it however you like, throwing infrared favoring radiation absorbing agents into the outbound radiation path is going to alter the radiative flux of the system, and it's going to do it by way of increased energy of the system. That is, decreased outward emission. Fundamental physics and thermodynamics require this. Certainly you're correct that we are using some pretty complicated guesses to figure out how the system will react to the increased energy, and how and where it will find new equilibriums, but the overall model used in the experiments is completely correct for showing the Earth's dynamic energy flux.
Firefox
You seem to be a rational person.
You really believe Citizens United was based on indisputable fact that had anything to do with what was written in the Constitution other than the rather limited text of the First Amendment? An Amendment whose application is pretty questionably applied to non-persons? A Amendment that I don't think ever had anything to do with money? Or are you equating PACs as "the press"? Are we no longer allowed to regulate our public airwaves? No regulation of commerce? Perhaps we start knocking these bastards down for broadcasting manipulative and slanderous content in the hope of disassociating voters with reality?
How, realistically speaking, are we going to get a Constitutional amendment passed and ratified that is going to render a whole metric shit-ton of political incumbent oligarchical sock puppets utterly redundant? Come on, man. Many Constitutional scholars disagree with the Court's assertion, and that's pretty natural given it has a predilection of stretching the shit out of the Constitution to fit the status quo. If we want to fix this, we do it at the Court first, then once we've cleaned house of a Corporately ruled country, we then amend the Constitution to set it in stone.
I think you are very confused about Fourier's theories on the greenhouse effect...
Fourier always knew that his friend's experiment formed a real greenhouse. His postulation was that the atmosphere, and "greenhouse gasses" within it could function to similar end, with various gasses of various levels of opaqueness to light wavelengths forming the stable barriers that the glass did.
That theory is in fact not discredited one bit. Space is the glass. It very efficiently prevents the convection of the atmosphere with the non-heat conducting void beyond. What you cited as being discredited is the theory that physical greenhouses retain their temperature because glass blocks long-wave radiation. I'm not really familiar with this theory, but it's pretty ridiculous on its face. Anyone with elementary understanding of thermodynamics can tell you that the lack of air exchange will greatly outweigh the radiative energy. But the best part is- that has *nothing* to do with the greenhouse effect. It's some kind of weird red herring straw man to distract someone from looking up what the greenhouse effect really is, and to see that you have absolutely no clue what the hell you are talking about.
The basic physics behind the greenhouse effect are so damn settled, that you have to undo our entire knowledge of the universe, relativistically, and quantum mechanically to alter them. The spectral absorption lines of various molecular gasses are *known*. Some simple thought experiments will lead you to the correct conclusion. Short-wave solar radiation hits something, say the ground. The ground absorbs it, heats up, and emits appropriate black-body radiation (long-wave). In a happy, greenhouse effect-less world, that emitted black-body radiation goes back out to space, and the Earth is a very fucking cold place. In our (thankfully obeying the laws of physics) world, a percentage of those long-wave photons hit something that is opaque to long-wave radiation on its way back out to space. Let's call this substance a greenhouse gas, since its existence will make the Earth retain heat- like a greenhouse retains heat. It is then refracted, with some of the incident photons going back to space, and some going back to the ground for re-absorption. The Earth just netted some thermal energy. It's a good deal for us, and it's entirely necessary in order for this planet not to be a spherical skating rink.
To call the "greenhouse effect" discredited is to claim that thermodynamics, relativity, and quantum mechanics are all wrong, and everything we know about heat transfer, photon absorption and emission and energy are all wrong. You must be some kind of fucking genius. I can see why you don't appeal to authority- you *are* the fucking authority.
That isn't even close to what I wrote. Trying to put words in other peoples' mouths is not logic.
I never claimed it was what you wrote. It's an analogy demonstrating the absurdity of the logic behind what you wrote. Why did you defend an assertion not made? Lack of understanding, or an attempt at constructing a straw man?
And I saw Megyn Kelly once, on YouTube. I don't remember what it was about. What does she have to do with anything?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=megyn+kel... If you need additional help understanding the reference, I'd be happy to oblige, but to summarize: you are presenting a false equivalence between two very different things in an attempt to make the moral difference ambiguous and subjective.
OkCupid has no force of law, they have attempted to use no force of law. Hell, they haven't even attempted to force users of their service to adhere to their view. An appeal for social action against someone who would harm an affected minority is not coercion.
An attempt at codifying legislation that would in fact ban a populace from doing something, and strip them of the status they already obtained is in fact, upon success, coercion. Upon failure, attempted coercion.
Lobbying to make your marriage illegal? It's a boycott, essentially!
So what? You're saying that our culture should be just like historical cultures? We should have slavery? There should be no equal rights for women? It should be perfectly legal and acceptable to beat our children or wives bloody for misbehaving?
I think that is actually what he is going very far out of his way not to say, even though it's precisely what he desires.
I think even saying he supported his speech with money doesn't tell enough of the story.
The money was intended to cause action, the action may have failed, but I still find it valid to judge someone on an attempted-action.
Financing a campaign to enact legislation that binds the state to bar a specific class of people from enjoying a right/privilege enjoyed by you is attempted disenfranchisement.
It's attempted action. It was an attack that was thwarted, but an attack none-the-less.
Given the perspective of what he hoped to accomplish, I would say the non-legislative social action being taken against him is quite well measured.
Remarkably insightful with the Gandhi reference.
Sadly, I used my mod points in a previous thread.
You must be right, your logic is simply undeniable.
Coercion is coercion.
Asking a man on the street for a dollar, and holding a gun to his head and asking him for a dollar are essentially the same thing. Can I get a Megyn Kelly meme?
Damn good reply. I see your point.
If a married homosexual person molests a child, then yes, he's sub-human.
If a married homosexual person rapes someone, then yes, he's sub-human.
If a married homosexual person kills 8 million people in ovens and gas chambers, then yes, he's sub-human.
We can certainly argue over what comprises the less-literal definition of "humanity", but I'm sure we could all agree that physical violence against another non-consenting human being is not analogous to doing something you disagree with in their home that has precisely 0 harming effect on the protected rights of your self, or anyone you know, or know of.