pantheory

The theromet Don't know much about a Penguin's body temperature or excretions but I do know that most Penguins live in Antarctica. As to thermometers, they were invented in the early 1700's in the middle of the little ice age in western Europe. This new invention probably came in handy during the winters, for those that could afford them, and for their servants who had the decision making task of when to stoke the fires.

As a result of global warming funding, an ancient rocky structure related to a major newly discovered geologic fault line and zone has been discovered at the heart of the Ross ice shelf in Eastern Antarctica. This discovery will help geologists determine where ice will melt and where it will stay frozen. The additional ice melting and possible sea rise as a result of this new-found fault and related ice fractures and splitting, would be unrelated to any global warming. But for global warming estimates an adjustment would need to be made to any possible ice loss in this area thought to be the result of global warming. Whether this newly found fault line and zone is more active now than it was in known geologic history is still unknown. This discovery is related to, but separate from the well-known volcanic activity under Antarctica. There is still debate as to whether Antarctica is gaining, losing, or having about the same amount of ice over the recent decades as more accurate measurements are made. This can relate to the global warming debate when some highly respected scientists of NASA are predicting global cooling in the coming decades instead. "According to new research published May 27 in the journal Nature Geo-science, this boundary protects the ice shelf's grounding line, the point at which it is thick enough to extend all the way to the sea floor. The geology created by the boundary keeps warm, melt-promoting ocean water away from that part of the shelf. But the ocean circulation driven by that same geology drives intense summer melt along the shelf's easterly edge." "We could see that (this) geological boundary was making the seafloor on the East Antarctic side much deeper than the West, and that affects the way the ocean water circulates under the ice shelf," study leader Kirsty Tinto, a research scientist at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, said in a statement" concerning the related study, paper, and photos. Antarctica: The Ice-Covered Bottom of the World] https://www.livescience.com/65588-ancient-rocky-structure-beneath-antarctica.html https://moneymaven.io/mishtalk/economics/amidst-global-warming-hysteria-nasa-expects-global-cooling-SJDpCv3V4EqKSOY11A378Q/ https://cornwallalliance.org/2019/02/climate-reality-forces-doomsday-alarmists-to-restructure-warming-narrative/

Yeah, pretty interesting stuff, I never really bought into the idea of our earliest ancestors being big hunters. I think it was more like chimps today in that they mostly gathered like chimps do today, and were predators only of small animals, grub, reptiles, things that we could catch on the ground, and scavenging carrion from other animal kills and natural animal deaths. Some humans today, especially children, teenagers and young adults, can climb trees fairly well. Our early ancestors were probably better at it than modern humans. Maybe not as good as chimps since there climbing muscles were not as big as chimps, their arms not as long, but they still could probably climb better than modern humans on an average. Climbing is a good defense against many larger predators, up trees, climbing rocks and steep hills and rock faces where they could grab on. Like small animals today, hiding is also a good defense against predictors, such as in caves, holes, a thicket, and elsewhere. Being able to throw rocks well and fashion spears not only enabled early humans to hunt bigger game, but it also would have been a good protection against other humans trying to steel food, women, territory, or to cannibalize. Looking at modern and ancient jaws and teeth, we see the dental structure of grinding teeth like an herbivore rather than big canine and other sharp teeth of a carnivore. Human jaws also can move side to side for grinding what we eat, like herbivores and chimps.

The Delusion of American Religion. This link talks about religion but it's more a debate concerning the correctness of religious social ideas, which is more political rather than science. Not at all sure how politics might fit into this forum or where different ideas of it should fit or be allowed. But I'll take a short stab at it anyway in this science vs. religion forum. Unfortunately the U.S. does not have a clear separation of church and state in its constitution, even though many believe it does. Neither do many other big counties. For this reason religious zealots get involved in governments around the world and often screw things up that IMO would most often be much better off without them. In the U.S. I disagree with right wing governmental religious ideas, and left wing spending ideas. I would like to see less military spending and more NASA spending. I look at religion as a minus and science as a plus, although I think both have goods and bads within them Religious thinking is often more than a hundred years in the past, and science thinking looks forward to a better future and understanding for humanity -- far better IMO.

Musicmatters, I looked at your links. They are not directly related to any identified scientific studies. I think that it is important to realize that the paranormal is not accepted by mainstream science, especially quantum entanglement or anything in physics. Even if there were such research, nearly all in science, and most in psychology would consider a paranormal conclusion as bogus. I believe there are far better and realistic conclusions to synchronicity than the paranormal. I would expect this perception directly relates to intrusive thoughts, as you identified this symptom of your psychological condition.

After you post for awhile and there are no problems with your postings, the moderators will allow editing for a limited time after each posting. A moderator or somebody else might be able to tell you how long it takes before you can edit. I expect that somewhere in the "rules of the forum" you can find out. Good Luck.

I agree with you in every respect you discussed. IMO. Three of the four foundation pillars of the present Big Bang model are not testable: Inflation, dark energy, and the expansion of space. Although most think there is evidence to support these hypothesis, all are seriously questionable if none can possibly be confirmed by observation. The Big Bang therefore then would be a theory founded upon three untestable hypothesis. The fourth foundation pillar of the model is dark matter. So far they have come up with nothing concerning its reality. All four of these hypothesis have more likely alternative explanations IMO. Other supposed evidence for the "theory" is that the observed microwave background is a remnant of an original BB, and that the abundance of light elements cannot be explained by stellar synthesis. But there are also good alternative explanations for these observations. I think the James Webb will put an end to the BB model, when old appearing galaxies and galaxy clusters are observed at the farthest possible distances. Maybe 2-3 years after such observations the search will be on for alternatives. Unknown to most astronomers, mainstream theorists, and the public in general, there is a great multitude of such alternatives that cannot be disproved by these, or any other observations to date -- and which have equal or better explanations and interpretations for all observations to date IMO.

Yup, far better

Of course the Big Bang is off topic but somewhat related to a possible theory of everything. Observation of data is what science is all about, so nearly all agree that the Big Bang is a proper theory. The problem is that what you are observing must be interpreted correctly. From the definition of a scientific theory given above, a theory "must make testable predictions, (and) must be falsifiable. In this way IMO the Big Bang model is not very good. Many ongoing predictions of the Big Bang fail in logic, have been contradicted, or many observations seem to be complete surprises. These failings have led to two relatively new hypothesis that were added to the theory ad hoc, which means they were made so the theory might continue to match observations. The new hypothesis have been named Inflation, dark matter, and dark energy. Most believe that the Inflation hypothesis is not testable, the dark matter hypothesis have led to many speculations as to what dark matter might be, and many of these ideas have been experimentally tested, but to date science has come up with blanks -- no promising leads as yet. Although the Nobel Prize was given for the discovery of dark energy, they still only speculate as to what it might be. Because of observations they have been incorporated into the Big Bang model. It is now called the Lambda, cold dark matter theory. Lambda stands for dark energy, and cold dark matter is the preferred model for the possibility concerning the speculated temperature of hypothetical dark matter. But a Theory with 3 of its 4 foundation pillars based upon unknown hypotheses, is not a very good one. The 4th foundation pillar is that the universe is expanding. For this the primary evidence is the observed redshift of distant galaxies which can be readily explained by a Doppler redshift, meaning that the light that galaxies emit as galaxies move away from us would redden. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect Today the original BB explanation of Doppler galactic redshifts has been replaced by the expansion of space idea, the idea being as space expands the light waves within it lengthen and therefore appear redder. But Expanding space is again another untestable hypothesis, and there are dozens of other explanations for the observed galactic redshifts. There are many known problems with the Big Bang theory, the most notable of which an associate and I explained about 4 years ago. Here is the press release to it: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/problems-with-big-bang-cosmology-300107094.html And here is the paper. https://www.aijcrnet.com/journals/Vol_4_No_9_September_2014/2.pdf Mainstream astronomers and theorists may have heard of just a few alternatives to the Big Bang Theory. Here are just a few of many that have not been disproved. Few if any of them are considered mainstream theory since such a theory should have more than just a few mainstream adherents. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alternative_cosmology Maybe the most well known of these alternatives is called tired light. As light waves travel through space they accordingly would be stretched out by interaction with a cosmic medium. Such proposed mediums today are dark matter, dark energy, the Higgs field, gravitons, the Zero Point Field, etc. The interaction with any of these hypothetical mediums could stretch light, redshifting it. Another more well known phenomena is called gravitational redshifting. This is not theory but a known phenomena. Here is a link to it. https://futurism.com/gravitational-redshift-the-universe-in-motion Light in its travels across space must resist its encounters with gravity on its entire trip as it passes by countless stars and galaxies. We know that light can be bent by gravity, called gravitational lensing, but we also know that it can be stretched out by gravity. For instance, we know that the light coming from the center of the sun, where gravity is at its strongest, is observed as being redder than the light coming from the sun's periphery. So gravitational redshifting could explain the galactic redshifting we observe. And again, there are many other possible explanations for these observed redshifts. If any of these other explanations were somehow shown to be valid then the observable universe may not be expanding and the Big Bang model would likely be replaced by a far simpler theory. When the James Webb space telescope goes up and is properly placed, now predicted to be March 2021, the Big Bang model and other models that predict an older or infinite universe will be tested. The Big Bang model predicts that in its beginning the universe contained only small, young, newly forming bright blue galaxies. No very large appearing red galaxies, or very large clusters should have existed at that time according to the Big Bang model. If this is what is observed at that time then nearly all alternative models of an older universe would be wrong and generally would be disproved. But instead, if these galactic pictures instead look very similar to the Hubble Deep Field pictures, with galaxy clusters containing what appear to be very large, very small, both young and old appearing galaxies, they will have to fiddle with the Inflation hypothesis to allow for a much older universe. If this happens many will consider that the Big Bang model has been disproved and will start carefully looking for alternative models, of which there are almost countless to choose from. So it may not take that long for the validity of the present cosmology to fall into doubt.

JohnnyWishbone, This Link is neither religion nor science, Just comedy -- and a somewhat crude, prejudicial version of it, right? Yes, a little funny IMO but don't think this is the right sub-forum for it. anyway

Yes, it was believed rather than being science theory, not only because of its assumptions, but also because none of its assertions have ever been observed, and it never was a scientific theory in the first place. Instead string theory is a mathematical theory which follows math-logic protocol, which often has nothing to do with known reality. Now there are only a slim few theorists that believe in it at all. Even more so for M-theory since it is more complicated string theory requiring super-symmetry, also entities never observed.

Maybe the prevailing opinion at this time is that no mathematical formulations, separate from scientific theory, could ever become a theory of everything. Many or most theorists at this time no longer think that string theory has any chance of being a correct. String theory requires too many pillars of support that probably can never be observed since they probably don't exist -- such as 7 additional unobserved dimensions which have never been observed. IMO there will never be a mathematically based Theory of Everything. Instead such a theory of everything must be first founded on both science and logic confirmed by observation, and its mathematics will instead be a generally unrelated ensemble like the mathematics of physics are today.

Mental conditions related to Obsessive, Compulsive, Disorders (OCD). An expert on this subject, clinical psychologist Dr. Steven Phillipson studies intrusive thoughts and brain signals. In particular, Dr. Phillipson studies the Amygdala. This part of the brain constantly sends messages to another part of our brain that does the cognitive thinking and makes autonomous decisions. For someone experiencing unusual amounts of intrusive thoughts, the most common place where these thoughts are created and developed, is not a part of the brain that reflects character development or autonomous decision making. These mental intrusions usually enter the mind in the part of the brain where you define yourself, the Amygdala. This process is what makes intrusive thoughts seem so contrary to who you believe you are as a person. According to Dr. Phillipson, intrusive thoughts are a mental disorder, not a mental illness, but they can be disturbing or debilitating none the less. When an intrusive thought hits, Dr. Phillipson calls it a spike. The mental rituals that result from such a condition are called the rumination. The rumination is where a person gives undo importance to such thoughts. These people rather than dismissing such thoughts out-of-hand before they have time to develop, instead dwell on them and cannot easily ignore or discard them. Through this distinction, Dr. Phillipson has defined the brain’s signals in a way that’s more meaningful for someone who experiences and gives undue importance to intrusive thoughts. Such ruminations relate to a similar phenomena called day dreaming and can relate to a person's lack of focus concerning their daily and over-all objectives. "If you are a person that believes intrusive thoughts could be affecting your ability to lead a normal life, contact a local psychologist to start on your personal path toward the correction of this mental disorder." https://www.intrusivethoughts.org/blog/causes-of-obsessive-compulsive-disorder-in-the-brain/

Yes, M Theory is neither science, nor science theory. Here are a number of definitions relating to scientific and string theories in general . --------------------------------------------------------- A scientific theory is a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. A scientific theory must make testable predictions, must be falsifiable, and embody scientific knowledge. The primary method of reasoning for a scientific theory is abduction. ------------------------------------------------------------------ String theory is a theoretical framework in which the point-like particles of particle physics are replaced by one-dimensional objects called “strings.” It is a theory in a mathematical sense rather than a scientific one. It proposes as many as 7 additional unobserved micro-dimensions totaling as many as 11 dimensions in all. It describes how these hypothetical strings and their additional dimensions propagate through space and interact with each other. Superstring theory is an attempt to explain all of the particles and fundamental forces of nature in one theory by modeling them as vibrations of tiny super symmetric strings, whereby such super-symmetric particle partners or their counterpart strings have never been observed. M-theory is a mathematical theory that claims to unify all consistent versions of super-string theory and has been called a Theory of Everything, claiming that all of physics could have its basis in this one all encompassing mathematical super-string theory. All three of the above are string theories of one kind or another. String theories collectively have been called: “The most ambitious idea(s) ever outlined by scientists (but since 2014) has suffered remarkable setbacks. It has been dismissed as a theoretical cul-de-sac that has wasted the academic lives of hundreds of the world's cleverest men and women." "This startling accusation has been made by frustrated physicists, including several Nobel prize winners, who say that string theory - which seeks to outline the entire structure of the universe in a few brief equations - is an intellectual dead end.” https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2012/03/whats-wrong-with-string-theory.html https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9375 https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/12/23/why-string-theory-is-not-science/#246b10d86524 http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9817 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0610/0610168.pdf There is no end to the criticisms of string theory and M theory, although many still argue in their behalf and continue to consider their possibilities.

The old adage is important. "If it works, great; If it doesn't stop doing it; " try something different. Seems like you presently are on a good path. Keep it up Debilitating ideas are difficult for most anyone to overcome.