01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 |
61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 |
121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 |
<= [821][822][823][824][825][826][827][828][829][830] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
821) Arminius, 10.09.2015, 01:35, 01:58, 02:24, 02:30, 03:42, 04:12, 12:02, 14:13, 14:17 (3732-3740)
Phoneutria wrote:
Really? .... Please name them (in tabs and with the solution process.Thanks.James S. Saint wrote:
Well, who is the third one, James?James S. Saint wrote;
Are you ugly as sin, James? ... I have some objections ....Please name the third one (in tabs and with the solution process ).Thanks.
James, please! Note: Phyllo is right. You have to admit that you made mistakes in the said case.
Kant was an enlightener before he overcame the enlightenment; so he was a rationalists before he curbed the superior power of the rationalism and became an idealist. But then the idealist Hegel came and campaigned again for the rationalism. .... Hey ....
Phoneutria wrote:
Yeah.Phoneutria wrote:
Okay. .... And ... : Who is it?Who are the three persons? Please give the answer in a tab (because of Carleas [?]). Thanks.
James S. Saint wrote:
Yes. It is okay
Phoneutria wrote:
No. .... I am sorry.
James S. Saint wrote:
No. .... I am sorry.
So you (**) want a fourth hidden person in that picture. .... Interesting ....But unfortunately there is no fourth person in that picture.
Phoneutria wrote:
Yes. |
822) Arminius, 11.09.2015, 15:09, 21:12, 22:41, 23:06, 23:31, 23:58 (3741-3746)
Okay. I give you a hint:
The title of this thread is: The Great Musician Frank Zappa and His Philosophy (**|**). Unfortunately this thread is derailed:
Are you (**)
saying that concepts like male and female depend
merely on the subjective interpretation of that concepts?
|
3744 |
3745 |
Excuse Arminius for the interjection, my proposal. Me in at the wrong time. But to matters of hand, the pejorative is that, in the construction of personality, feeling like this orphan gender, may go am,omg ways in determining what gender You would like to be. in other words, let's say you feel receptive,mor like a female one day, but aggressively male another day, can not there be established a cozy agreement, and sandwich yourself betwen the two concepts? Or, in all,actuality,mthose need gombe established a clear definition of what it means,? nowadays in the marketplace, I am. Sure You can find some sloul as divided as that,many form a perfect partnership. After all isn't that what Plato suggested,way back when? **
Literally , to answer that, yes, it may very well be a subjective determination. How You do that? many ways, too numerous to mention, but the entry point is what You wish for, and out focus upon, personality , as transcending gender, or the other way around. then after the primary difference has been set aside, then can start worrying about, hey, are there any secondary propositions You may wish to augment?
it is I believe, within the boundaries of the controllable. course, there may be a lot more to it then that. **
3746 |
823) Arminius, 12.09.2015, 00:08, 01:02, 01:04, 01:22, 01:48, 02:12, 03:18, 04:12, 12:25, 12:29, 13:25, 21:33, 22:21 (3747-3759)
Please name your solution and your solution process!
I agree (**).I am saying: The life of a human being begins with the origin of a human being, and the origin of a human being is the zygote. Additionally the decision whether one is a male or a female has a biological basis too, and this basis is most important.
Phoneutria wrote:
And what kind of body do you prefer?
This is a very good opening post.Now the discussion can start.
Phoneutria wrote:
I guess that it is like this:
Each of the originals was used three times:
I want to come back to the tectonic plates and introduce the supercontinent cycle.
Wilson cycle.Wilson cycle.Wilson cycle.** **
The next riddle:In a cellar there are three light switches. One of them turns on the light of the first floor. You do not know which one it is. You may go but only once in the first floor to look up. How do you find out which one of the three light switches turns on the light of the first floor?
James S. Saint wrote:
No. That is impossible. You are alone in the said house. There is no help.
Phoneutria wrote:
No. That is no solution of the said riddle.
Zinnat wrote:
I thought so.Zinnat wrote:
But humans do not as much depend on nature as animals do. Humans are relatively free. So they can partly live against their nature. They do not have to completely live according to nature. If a man wants to be a woman, then he can choose to medically cut his penis. Men have penises, women have vaginas. This is a knowledge that a 2½ years old child already has.
Mithus wrote:
That is right.So now we can go on with the next riddle.Are you ready for the next riddle?
Two Liars.Five persons A, B, C, D and E chat:
B: If C is telling the truth, then either A or D is a liar. C: E lies, and also A or B lies. D: If B is telling the truth, then A or C too. E: Among the persons A, C and D is at least one liar. |
824) Arminius, 13.09.2015, 01:06, 02:23, 02:29, 03:15, 03:56, 14:33, 15:21, 16:05, 16:49, 20:59, 21:46, 22:09, 22:36, 23:29 (3760-3773)
The Earth's longest mountain range (chain) is the Ocean Ridge. In the following picture the Ocean ridge is red coloured:
What is your (**) precise answer?I guess that your red and blue coloured letters have a meaning. What is your conclusion, your exact answer?
The rock cycle describes the dynamic transitions through the geologic time.A diagram of the rock cycle. Legend: 1 = magma; 2 = crystallization (freezing of rock); 3 = igneous rocks; 4 = erosion; 5 = sedimentation; 6 = sediments and sedimentary rocks; 7 = tectonic burial and metamorphism; 8 = metamorphic rocks; 9 = melting.
I am not the only one who reads your (**) posts.It is no problem to interpret your diagram, but: I am not quite sure whether all ILP members are capable of understanding your diagram.
James, the following quote is your post that can be found on page 1 of this thread:James S. Saint wrote:
Yesterday I found the following opening post of your thread: Infinite Regression:James S. Saint wrote:
Can you put your statements about the arrow of time and the infinite regression of those two posts together in one statement?
Phoneutria wrote:
That is also false.In your previous post you were saying that A and B were liars, but that is not possible that both A and B are liars. Now you are saying that A and E are liars, but it is also not possible that both A and E are liars.Please try again.
That does not prove anything? That proves a lot of things. The statement that does not prove anything - except the fact that you just only deny anything and everything - is your statement.
Zinnat wrote:
Your answer is false. Unfortunately. It is not possible that both B and C are liars.
This riddle is logically flawless. You merely have to use logic.One hint is (for example) that logic contains different types of implication.
James S. Saint wrote:
I am saying that there is no understanding problem. So if you do not understand a word or some words or many words, James, why do you not tell me what you do not understand?
What about the infinite regression (**) then?
Your statements do not prove the theory of the Earth's expansion:
It is - for example - not proven that the equator region splits during early planet formation, a rift forms around the equator, this area fills with water ... and so on.I am not totally against the theory of the Earth's expansion, but the theory of the Earth's continental drift (plate tectonics) is more plausible and can prove more.Here comes - for example - the mountain range argument again. And the Earth's longest mountain range (chain) is the Ocean Ridge:
James S. Saint wrote:
Yes, I know, but they can ask, if they are not sure, or/and guess and try till such time as they know the solution.
Orbie wrote:
Yes. You are on the wrong riddle.Orbie wrote:
No. You are notclose.Orbie wrote:
No. I am sure that you were not referring to the first riddle (**|**) but to the second riddle (**|**). |
825) Arminius, 14.09.2015, 04:09, 04:51, 18:33, 22:56 (3774-3777)
Wikipedia wrote:
JUST TO START:Translation of:
Source: **
That two-buckets-riddle (**) is a well-known one.I'm still waiting for the answer to my last riddle (Two Liars [**|**]). Can you solve that riddle? Or shall I already post the solution?A simple and promising advice:Go through all ten examples. Look what logically happens (a) if the five persons are no liars and (b) if the five persons are liars. Then you will ascertain that only two and who of the five persons are liars.
The cause of the Earth's plate tectonics is the Earth's hot inner core (it is radioactive). |
826) Arminius, 15.09.2015, 02:06, 02:51, 15:55, 17:20, 18:10, 18:14, 18:30 (3778-3784)
Carleas wrote:
War has much to do with the market and is one of the most profitable businesses, probably the most profitable business.And:
Carleas wrote:
|
3779 |
What always murmurs but never talks, always runs but never walks, Has a bed but never sleeps, Has a mouth but never speaks? **
3780 |
Phoneutria wrote:
»I just noticed that the statements are things that the people themselves are saying. That changes everything.« **
Yes, that changes everything. But, it is not clear from the language of the riddle whether one should take the statements in that way or not. One may also think that they are talking about any past event but not lying now in those statements. That is how i considered that. **
The fact that you used a tab is evidence that you Googled the answer. The riddle was really a test of honesty which you failed! **
Ok. Right. Arminius I tied one one the night before. It was the second riddle, now, am I »close«?
In addition: I would like to post a riddle of my own, but here is the thing, about clarification of rules pertaining to this. Must one poster participate in a previous riddle, before asking questions about that or any riddle posting?
Can one post a new riddle, without participating in one or more or all riddles?
In other words do the rules of propriety prevent a poster or any other ILP member, who may or may not have followed some or any post, to post a new riddle?
This is why, I felt reluctant to even ask about the outcome or riddle number two.If all of the above apply, then it could be assumed that all of the points made could be answered with a»yes«. **
And if so, again, is »Leibniz« the proper answer? **
Obe you can be so adorable sometimes. **
Arminius I have a question, does a lie mean that the opposite of the statement is true, or simply that the entire statement is struck out? **
3781 |
Answer:
D: »If B is telling the truth, then A or C too.«
If that is a lie, then if B is telling the truth, both A and C are lies.
We know that D is true because if it was false D, A, and C would all have to be lying and that makes 3 liars, not 2.B: »If C is telling the truth, then either A or D is a liar.«
If that is a lie, then if C is telling the truth, both A or D are true.
Since D is true, then IF B is true, either A or C is also true. But then IF B is false and C is true, A and D are true. We already know that D is true, so we need to look at A for the possibility of being true.A: »B lies if and only if D is telling the truth.«
If that is a lie, all you know is that B is independent of D.
If A is true, since we already know that D is true, B is required to be a lie. So A can be true IF B is a lie.Again, if B is a lie and C is true, both A and D must also be true. We know D is true and are confirming if A is. But that is only a concern IF C is true. If C is a lie, B requires nothing further.
C: »E lies, and also A or B lie.«
If that is a lie, either E is true or both A or B are true.
C demands that E is a lie as well as either A or B. We need to confirm if that is possibly true which would mean that A, C, and D would be required to be true.E: »Among the persons A, C and D is at least one liar.«
If that is a lie, A, C, and D are true.
We know that D is true and are suspecting that A and C are also true. If E is a lie then we have two liars and our suspicions are right about A, C, and D.Thus by B lying and E lying, we can have two liars only. **
Well, logically, whenever you have two switches, you have 4 states:
A off B off (that'd be an NOR)
A off B on (that'd be an OR)
A on B off (that'd be an OR)
A on B on ( that'd be an AND)So when you say that A on B off is a lie, that still leaves you 3 options. **
This riddle is logically flawless. You merely have to use logic.
One hint is (for example) that logic contains different types of implication. ** **
3782 |
3783 |
3784 |
827) Arminius, 16.09.2015, 01:06, 01:06, 02:08, 03:54, 17:21, 17:54, 18:27, 18:54, 20:23 (3785-3793)
James S. Saint wrote:
You know from the text that they are 100 pessimists, that they have written 100 sentences, and that each of these 100 pessimists has written one sentence.So you should refer to the time after all sentences were written; but if you refered to both the time of the writing and the time after all sentences were written, then it would be no problem too.
James S. Saint wrote:
You are allowed to choose the least size of the sides of each square, but the size should be integer, thus a whole number.Choosing the least size is actually part of the task. But kmnowing you, I am sure that you are going to find the right number for the least size.
James S. Saint wrote:
As I alraedy said in the Riddle thread:
|
p | q | p -- q |
T | T | T |
T | F | F |
F | T | T |
F | F | T |
3788 |
I have just stated that uranium has a half-life of 4.47 billion years and the age of the Earth is 4.7 billion years. Thus, you can't use radioactive elements as a means of heating the Earth because according to accepted scientific theory, all the uranium has been depleted. **
The fact that the Earth still has active uranium after 4.7 billion years means that the current theory of planet formation is wrong. **
3789 |
Logic truth tables require that conditional statements be valid to begin with. You have to have a valid connection between p and q regardless of their truth status. You can't validly say:
»The statement, If a trees are blue, then rocks are yellow is true.The proposed statement is not logically valid (a non-sequitur. p has nothing to do with q), thus the truth status cannot be assessed at all. **
The truth table associated with the material conditional p?q is identical to that of ¬p?q and is also denoted by Cpq. It is as follows:
p q p -- q T T T T F F F T T F F T .... **
p | q | p -- q |
T | T | T |
T | F | F |
F | T | T |
F | F | T |
I don't understand your symbols in » p || q « and can't find any reference.
There is logical implication, » | «.
And there is semantic entailment, » |= «.
Either could apply depending on the exact nature of M, P, and S. If semantically S is implicit in M (eg M= all men. And S= small men), then the syllogism could be called a »semantic entailment«. **
3790 |
I believe in trinary logic: True, False, and N/A (or "invalid"/"irrational")
Each sentence is contradicting itself and thus is an invalid statement. Logic doesn't apply to invalid statements. They are neither true nor false.
»This statement is wrong (untrue/false)« is an invalid, irrational statement, neither wrong or right.
So actually none are wrong and none are right. **
Lemme have a swing at 100 pessimists:
If dude x says exactly x sentences are wrong, and we are to take the opposite of what he says, then there are 3 alternatives:
exactly x sentences are NOT wrong;
NOT exactly x sentences are NOT wrong;
NOT exactly x sentences are wrong.Of the three, only the first one is determinable, since removing the exact portion makes the result indeterminable.
So I'm going to go with all sentences are correct.
3791 |
No. It isn't false .... **
And in that case, the sentences being irrational .... **
I have no idea what ... answer you would be looking for. **
3792 |
The material conditional (also known as »material implication«, »material consequence«, or simply »implication«, »implies« or »conditional«) is a logical connective (or a binary operator) that is often symbolized by a forward arrow »-«. The material conditional is used to form statements of the form »p-q« (termed a conditional statement) which is read as »if p then q« or »p only if q« and conventionally compared to the English construction »If...then...«. But unlike the English construction, the material conditional statement »p-q« does not specify a causal relationship between p and q and is to be understood to mean »if p is true, then q is also true« such that the statement »p-q« is false only when p is true and q is false. Intuitively, consider that a given p being true and q being false would prove an »if p is true, q is always also true« statement false, even when the »if p then q« does not represent a causal relationship between p and q. Instead, the statement describes p and q as each only being true when the other is true, and makes no claims that p causes q. However, note that such a general and informal way of thinking about the material conditional is not always acceptable, as will be discussed. As such, the material conditional is also to be distinguished from logical consequence .
Venn diagram of A - B.
If a member of the set described by this diagram (the red areas) is a member of A, it is in the intersection of A and B, and it therefore is also in B. **
3793 |
1. Why are there large rocks in the Kuiper Belt? How did they get there? Where did they come from?
2. Why is there ice in the Oort Cloud? Where did it come from? How did it get there?
3. How did the Earth get hot to begin with?
4. If the core of the Earth contains a 5 kilometre diameter sphere of pure uranium, then, why isn't there a big nuclear explosion which blows the Earth to smithereens? Note - Uranium under pressure is basically how you make an atom bomb. **
Uranium has a half life of 4.47 billion years. Thus, all the radio active elements should have turned into lead by now. Thus, aether flow is what causes the centre of the Earth to remain hot. **
828) Arminius, 17.09.2015, 01:06, 01:36, 01:43, 02:45, 03:03, 03:12, 03:29, 04:23, 04:40, 15:19, 18:17, 18:37 (3794-3805)
Phoneutria wrote:
Aeon (xfzgrwql) wrote:
Zoot Allures wrote:
Carpophorus wrote:
The probability is not high but also not zero that some ILP members with more typically male usernames are females and some ILP members with more typically female usernames are males.The only ILP example I know for sure is the one who claims to be a relatively young woman but is a relatively old man.
Phoneutria wrote:
Phoneutria wrote:
So one would have to get after the perpetuation itself in order to get the knowledge of «the fittest«; but it is not possible to get after the perpetuation itself; thus according to your own words it is not possible to know anything about the fittest; and that means, for example, Darwin's survival of the fittest is nonsense.
Three Ladies.Three ladies gather for a meeting: Mrs. Red, Mrs. White, and Mrs. Green. One of the ladies says: That's strange, one of us is wearing a red, another one a white, and the third one a green blouse. This is really amazing, said the lady with the red blouse, because no one of us is wearing the blouse which corresponds to her name. That's right, Mrs. White adds.Which lady is wearing which shirt?
Platospuppy wrote:
Your questions were not addressed to me, but nevertheless ...:1. There are two possibilities for the reason why there are large rocks in the Kuiper Belt: (a) they were formed when our solar system was formed, or (b) they got there because of movements of neighboring solar systems or other objects.2. Basically there can be ice in many areas of the universe; hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, and oxygen is one of the most abundant elements in the universe.3. The Earth got hot because of the circumstances during the early time of our solar system and the radioactive elements in its core; both facts made the whole earth hot during its early time (about ½-1 billion years).4. I anserwed this of your questions in my last post, but you obviously ignored it - as usual. So again (and try to not ignore it):I wrote:
5. The convection currents are not necessarily symmetrical; they are not more symmetrical than those of your cooking tomato sauce.Why are you so convinced that the Earth's expansion theory is right or at least more right?
Fractal is a mathematical concept, thus very theoretical; so it is a very reckless idea to believe in it as if it were a physical fact.
Zinnat wrote:
Yes. That is right. Can you also give the rationale? If yes: please use a tab - because of the other ILP members. Thanks.
Platospuppy wrote:
Let me guess: It looks like this:
One orbit around the galactic center of our sun takes about 250 million years. This is called a galactic year.So the following picture shows about 42 miilon years more than 2 galactic years (about 500 Million years):Frequency distribution of extinctions on Earth in the last 542 million years (1 galactic year = ca. 250 million years).
Copied post in another thread.
The riddles have different degrees of difficulty. They belong to different levels of difficulty.Here they are again:1) The Bridge (**).
|
DEGREE | LEVEL |
1 2 |
VERY LOW |
3 4 |
LOW |
5 6 |
MIDDLE |
7 8 |
HIGH |
9 10 |
VERY HIGH |
3804 |
Do you believe that the statement, »This statement is false« is a valid statement? Either true or false?
It is not. It is an irrational, self-contradicting, statement.The statement »Every sentence on this page is wrong«, when there is only one statement on the page is the same as the above statement, irrational and self-contradicting, and thus neither true or false, but rather irrational. **
After all of the statements have been written, the rationality of the statements changes because each statement had referred to only the statements that were already written at the time that they each were written, but after all of them are written, each statement encompasses all statements.
That is why I asked to which time you were referring, before all were written or after. **
After they are all written only the last statement, 100th, is self-contradicting and thus irrational (not wrong). For it to be right, all statements have to be wrong including itself. The other statements assert that some of the statements, possibly other than themselves, are false/wrong, but they claim an exact amount of wrong statements.
The statement claiming 99 wrong statements would be either including itself, making it irrational, or including the 100th statement that is irrational. If it includes the 100th, it is wrong for claiming an irrational statement as being wrong. And if the other statements are also wrong, there would be 99 wrong statements with 1 irrational statement. And that would make the 99th statement right because it wasn't including the irrational statement but rather itself. And then it being right would make it wrong again, and thus actually irrational. So the 99th is either wrong or irrational depending on whether the lesser statements are wrong.
If the 98th statement turned out to be wrong, it would cause the 99th statement to be irrational, but that would make itself irrational and thus turn the 99th to be wrong. And if the 99th is wrong as well as the lesser 97 statements, the 98th would turned out to be right. If the 98th is right, the 99th is definitely wrong (with 98 wrong and 1 irrational).
For the 97th to be right, the 96 lesser statements must be wrong as well as only one of those above it, such as the 99th. But the 98th depends upon the 97th to be wrong, thus if the 97th was right, the 98th would be wrong. And that would make two above the 97th wrong .. one too many. And that demands that the 97th be wrong, which returns the 98th to being right.
The 96th requires that all lesser be wrong and only one above it being wrong. But there are already 2 above it that are wrong; 97th and 99th. That makes the 96th wrong already. And it being wrong allows the others above it to remain as they were.
From there on down to the first statement, each will have to be wrong for that same reason - too many above it are wrong and thus it must be wrong also.
============================
So in the long run, after all of the statements are written, only the 98th can be right in claiming that there are exactly 98 wrong statements (with one irrational). **
3805 |
Arminius wrote:
»That is also irrelevant, because there is only one answer possible ....« ** **
That is not true. **
829) Arminius, 18.09.2015, 01:07, 01:25, 02:19, 02:55, 03:15, 04:05, 04:14, 23:40 (3806-3813)
Phoneutria wrote:
Not only.This thread is about the Darwinistic selection principle. Its title is a question: »Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?«. There are many selections, for example: natural selcetion, sexual selection, kin selection, social selection ....Carpophorus wrote:
There are many selections, for example: natural selcetion, sexual selection, kin selection, social selection ....Phoneutria wrote:
This thread is about the Darwinistic selection principle. Its title is a question: »Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?«. There are many selections, for example: natural selcetion, sexual selection, kin selection, social selection ....Phoneutria wrote:
We select. Of course we do. Duh!Phoneutria wrote:
Not only. And even a Darwinist does not deny this fact.Phoneutria wrote:
Again:Arminius wrote:
Phoneutria wrote:
Or it is not, because the »selectors« contradict it, they »select« against the »natural selection« (cp.: »handicap« - it can also be interpreted in the opposite way as it is by Darwinists).Carpophorus wrote:
This is another example of the so-called »social selection«, thus the selection with some of the humans as selectors. Humans have always »selected« (more appropriate is the word »breeded«) humans.Carpophorus wrote:
She says this:Phoneutria wrote:
Phoneutria wrote:
The conclusion is that the Darwinistic »survival of the fittest« must be nonsense, because Darwin claimed to know something about the »fitness«.James S. Saint wrote:
Yes.Phoneutria wrote:
Yes.Phoneutria wrote:
Not only. Humans do as well.James S. Saint wrote:
Yes.Phoneutria wrote:
Yes.Phoneutria wrote:
Yeah, ... man, oh, man.Phoneutria wrote:
Yes, it can but does not need to.Carpophorus wrote:
In the past 200 years! If you consider 250 years, then it is the 9 fold population.Phoneutria wrote:
If you mean the Darwinism or other evolutionary theories with the so-called »evolutionary standpoint«, then it is very problematic, because the Darwinism and other evolutionary theories claim to be »objective«.Phoneutria wrote:
The evolutionary process is not capable of having an interest and of explaining (remember your own words: »It does not have a mind«).And remember too:Arminius wrote:
Aeon wrote:
Yes. It is symptomatic for the majority of the modern people who are influenced by the modern media.Zoot Allures wrote:
But that definition is problematic, if you can never know what »fit«, »fitness« , and the »fittest« are, as Phoneutria herself said:Phoneutria wrote:
Phoneutria wrote:
Arminius wrote:
James S. Saint wrote:
The transition from animals to humans is an important boundary mark, because no animal and no other living being except the human beings are capable to live against the so-called »natural selection«, for example by their own »selections« (»social state« as »social selection« and so on and so forth).
Aeon wrote:
It is "fitted", it fits modernity.Phoneutria wrote:
Ah, yes, not four years ago but 4 pages back from here.
Carpophorus wrote:
That is the question. The social state as the selector according to the social selection does select against the Darwinistic selection principle, thus against the natural selection.
Oh, sorry, I meant frequency distribution of extinction events.
Orbie wrote:
Nobody said that humans are independent of nature. Knowing me, you should know that I never said that humans are absolutely free, but that I always say that humans are relatively free. They can do something against nature, they fight gainst nature, they destroy nature, and they select against the natural selection. But this does not mean that they are at last more powerful than nature. Humans are no gods but want to be (like) gods.
Phoneutria wrote:
We all know this examples, Phoneutria, but I do not want to go in too many details again, because I have already mentioned those and similar examples in other posts. But sexual selection and social selection are different types of selection. Animals have no politics that can destroy the whole planet or eleminate some other animals just because of their social status or their color of skin, hair, eyes and so on and so forth.Phoneutria wrote:
As I said several times.Phoneutria wrote:
Of course, they would, but they do not. It is a question of quality. And there is no other living being that is capable of acting against nature in a threatening extent. Only human beings are capable of doing that. In that case the difference between humans and animals is more than huge. Humans are the only creatures on this planet that can be so much threatening that they even accept to murder 99% of them or to completely die out.
Orbie wrote:
Never mind, Orbie.
There is not much uranium needed.The whole dynamics of the Earth's core are in some way linked to plate tectonics. The Earth's inner core is a ball of solid iron (about 80%) and nickel, surrounded by a liquid and highly dynamic outer core, a highly viscous mantle and a solid crust that forms the surface. Over the 4.8 billions of years, the Earth has cooled from the inside out causing the molten iron core to partly freeze and solidify. The heat given off as the core cools flows from the core to the mantle to the Earth's crust through a process known as convection. Like a pan of water (my last example was a cooking tomato sauce [**]) boiling on a stove, convection currents move warm mantle to the surface and send cool mantle back to the core. This escaping heat powers the geodynamo and coupled with the spinning of the Earth generates the magnetic field and - as models can show - also the plate tectonics.The thermal energy which is delivered continuously to the Earth's mantle,
comes
|
830) Arminius, 19.09.2015, 01:44, 03:55, 04:59, 05:41, 21:32 (3814-3818)
Pink Floyd - live at Pompeii:- Pink Floyd (Waters, Mason, Wright, Gilmour), Live at Pompeii, 1972
Weekday.Seven people, A, B, C, D, E, F, G discuss which weekday is today.
B: No, today is Wednesday. C: You both are wrong, Wednesday is tomorrow. D: Today is not Monday, not Tuesday, and not Wednesday. E: I am pretty sure that yesterday was Thursday. F: No, yesterday was Tuesday. G: All I know is, that yesterday was not Saturday. |
3816 |
Kant's theory about the emergence and development of planets has been true since 1755 when he invented this theory by thinking about it - without science, because the scientists knew nothing about it at that time. Compare: Immanuel Kant, Allgemeine Naturgeschichte und Theorie des Himmels, 1755. ** **
James S. Saint wrote:
»What was Kant's theory about the emergence and development of planets?« **
And of suns!
Immanuel Kant was sure that (1) the sun emerged from a cosmic cloud, that (2) a dust disk with floating particles was formed by the centrifugal force of the still rapidly rotating sun, and that (3) the planets were »glued« in this dust disk with floating particles. According to Kant suns and solar systems originate in a rotating cloud of gas that has thus become dense so that it collapses, and planets originate as »collections of sun durst parts«. ** **
James S. Saint wrote:
»There are two apparent options;
1) forming from a cloud, as suggested.
2) stemming from an explosion, perhaps black holes colliding.« **But black holes could not be known at that said time, thus: were not known at that said time.
James S. Saint wrote:
»There must be a continuous source for such events, but either of those could be eternally occurring and perhaps both are eternally occurring. But at least he didn't proclaim that the entire universe arose from a Big Bang.« **
Yes. Probably Kant would not have accepted it as we do not accept it. However: No human of the 1750's was talking about a »big bang« ().
Kant said, for example, one should overcome dogmatism by using the own intellect.
The hypothesis of the »big bang« has much more to do with dogmatism than with science. ** **
3817 |
Even »solid uranium« wouldn't explode. It would have to be weapon's grade, purified, and under explosively extreme pressure. Uranium isn't the only thing down there:
»Based on the relative prevalence of various chemical elements in our solar system, the theory of planetary formation, and constraints imposed or implied by the chemistry of the rest of the Earth's volume, the inner core is believed to consist primarily of a nickel-iron alloy known as NiFe: 'Ni' for nickel, and 'Fe' for ferrum or iron.[11] Because the inner core is denser (12.8 ~ 13.1)g/cm³[12] than pure iron or nickel at Earth's inner core pressures, the inner core must contain a great amount of heavy elements with only a small amount of light elements, mainly Si with traces of O.[13] Based on such density a study calculated that the core contains enough gold, platinum and other siderophile elements that if extracted and poured onto the Earth's surface it would cover the entire Earth with a coating 0.45 m (1.5 feet) deep.[14] The fact that precious metals and other heavy elements are so much more abundant in the Earth's inner core than in its crust is explained by the theory of the so-called iron catastrophe, an event that occurred before the first eon during the accretion phase of the early Earth.« **
3818 |
According to Gauß (Gauss), who first described it, it is the »mathematical figure of the Earth«, a smooth but highly irregular surface whose shape results from the uneven distribution of mass within and on the surface of the Earth. It does not correspond to the actual surface of the Earth's crust, but to a surface which can only be known through extensive gravitational measurements and calculations. Despite being an important concept for almost two hundred years in the history of geodesy and geophysics, it has only been defined to high precision in recent decades. It is often described as the true physical figure of the Earth, in contrast to the idealized geometrical figure of a reference ellipsoid.
The surface of the geoid is higher than the reference ellipsoid wherever there is a positive gravity anomaly (mass excess) and lower than the reference ellipsoid wherever there is a negative gravity anomaly (mass deficit). **
==>
|