How hot would it have to be?

I just watched the recent video from Stephen Milo on human life 1 million years ago. He mentions cannibalism evidence across multiple events. That has me thinking about morality in isolated groups and how it might have evolved or could evolve differently.

This is the paper reference for Atapuerca – human cannibalism 1 million years ago

• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248412001406

This is Stephen Milo's upload to YT and relevant time stamp for the article:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRnQrvi6N0M&t=1490
• https://piped.video/watch?v=MRnQrvi6N0M&t=1490

I'm curious about how human morality evolves in isolation before external influences cause an averaging effect. Do the rough edges get knocked off in a predictable fashion, taming the most eccentric behaviors over time until we reach peaceful cohabitation, or do we simply partition our animalistic stupidity and become far worse in the duality of civility and the barbarism of a primitive sub-sentient species with War?

I have a question I need to ask but I want to do it privately as the topic it correlates to is pretty taboo. Please comment or dm me, and I'll dm you back.

Mars influence on the Milankovitch cycles:

• https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-46171-5

Anton Petrov's summary:

• https://piped.video/watch?v=DZnN2mPkoT8
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZnN2mPkoT8

I imagine there is a significant potential interaction over long time scales due to lunar position and orbital plane. If Mars has a measurable impact on Earth, the reverse must be true as well, and Luna is the primary anomaly IMO.

Since we know that it isn't constant with time, how can we be sure that it is constant with space? This might be a reason the variability in our measurements which seem to disagree.

Put another way, why couldn't the universe expand in one direction preferentially compared to another?

Was thinking about interstellar travel and the ability to provide artificial gravity by using a smooth acceleration and deceleration across the journey, changing from acceleration to deceleration at the halfway mark.

If we ignore relativistic effects, with smooth acceleration of 9.81 ms^-2^, you'd be going 3.1e8 ms^-1^ after the first year (3.2e7 s), if I'm not making a mathematical blunder. That's more than the speed of light at 3.0e8.

My main question, and the one that I initially came here to ask, is: if their ship continues applying the force that, under classical mechanics, was enough to accelerate them at 9.81 ms^-2^, would the people inside still experience Earth-like artificial gravity, even though their velocity as measured by an observer is now increasing at less than that rate?

A second question that I thought of while trying to figure this out myself as I wrote it up, is... My understanding is that a trip taken at the speed of light would actually feel instantaneous to the traveller, while taking distance/speed of light to a stationary observer. In the above scenario, would the final time taken, as measured by the traveller, be the same as if they were to ignore the speed that they are travelling at according to an outside observer, and instead actually assume they are undergoing continuous acceleration?

For example, why did zinc, of all things, start getting utilized by brain and prostate tissue in humans?

Tectonic activity bends rocks all the time, even hard ones like granite. That takes a ton of heat, pressure and time. It also makes sense that in the right conditions, sheets of rock simply don't have the room to shatter so they must bend.

Have we been able to do the same in a lab and would it have any commercial use? Bending a random bit of hard rock would be an interesting novelty, for sure.

I've been learning some about rabies and learned about rabies causing hydrophobia. This is just a theory, I'm not saying I know anything about this topic to be knowledgeable, but if we could get someone with rabies to not fear water, could they survive?

This was a SpaceX Falcon 9 Block 5 launch from Cape Canaveral that occurred around 1900 local time on March 4th, 2024. The photo was taken from about 65km from the launch site. The rocket was in the 2nd stage.

Here's a video of the launch, but you can't really see the aura since the video is taken from the ship pointing at the rocket nozzle.

Just as an example, there were evidently reports during the 2007 Glasgow airport attack that someone attempting to subdue the assailant and assist police kicked said attacker in the testicles… but somehow managed to do so hard enough to injure one of their own foot tendons.

I'm in NorCal and the weather has been all over the place this winter. It is hard to get a reliable forecast, sometimes even for the same day. I was wondering if it has something to do with the weather prediction models that were built before the climate change?

I saw something yesterday talking about how Australia is geologically dead with the lowest tallest mountain range of any continent due to no landmass collisions. Does that make it the last visage of a supercontinent that everything else broke away from?

I wonder of Australia's relevance to the mantle anomalies speculated to be part of the Theia collision.

Geology Hub (active geologist/mantle anomalies possibly relevant to magmatic activity): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdCckYI62yM

Anton Petrov (cites valid sources/mantle anomaly research summary): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0utwP9J6mA

Atomic Frontier (journalist?/source of quote about Australia being geologically dead/not a valid source reference and nothing cited): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v29ou094luc

I'm just curious.Strange matter, according to my research, is a perfect state of matter with perfect density, etc. If it is like this, does that also mean that it violates the law of entropy?Because let's see, if it converts matter around it into stranger matter, and after that it doesn't react with anything else, I mean are we going to reach a point where there is no more entropy to grow?Or worse is it decreasing entropy? Since it converts everything to a type of matter that does not seem to interact with itself.

I don't know much, so thank you for being patient in reading in case I have some absurd misconceptions =D

I unfortunately live in a very polluted area, one where air quality apps mark in red and recommend that I never get out of my lair.

When it rains enough the air quality becomes more bearable and here comes the question: where does pollution go when it rains hard? Does it get pushed to the ground and stays there? Does it get embedded in the water (so instead of breathing it, I get to drink it later in the tap water)?

I'm curious to know where it gets dispersed or stuck (to possibly avoid it)

I'm curious what your take is on the finite nature of Science. I imagine the fractal "edge" will always remain illusive, but when do we hit 98% or 99.999% documented confirmed, distilled, and well explained? (Centuries? Millennia?) When does it become an engineering corpus?

(thinking of SciFi futurism as a much needed pick-me-up rn, please be kind)

You dirty dirty... It's time to show off! What is the most extreme cleaning you've ever performed?

I am creating a simulation to evolve simple, multi-cell organisms. (Just for fun!)

Neural networks are fairly easy to evolve, even more so when it's done by random mutations and not actual training. Build an ANN at random and introduce mutations with every generation. The ANNs that accomplish simple goals (by pure chance) live to duplicate with every evolutionary cycle. Fairly easy stuff.

I am stumped when it comes to creating something that would simulate the genes that represent a body. After some reading today, there isn't much info on how cells form into specific shapes for arms, hands, organs, etc. (I am sure there is a ton of data, but I don't know what subject to Google.)

Genes can create the patterns for specific chemicals and cells. How to cells then develop into functional body parts? What makes a heart the shape of a heart?

I think that having a better understanding of that concept can help me develop a framework for physical evolution, even if it as a very tiny scale.

(Putting the ANN in charge of controlling those different body parts is also easy. It's just a matter of allowing those physical traits to evolve first.)

Is the CMB only red shifting in frequency or is there more to it, and over what time scales and distances would one notice a significant difference?

I recall an explanation of the formation of Jovian moons on the Harvard Smithsonian "CfA Colloquium" YT channel that casually mentioned how various elements freeze out of the solar wind forming ices, and this is the mechanism that allows formation of moons with large amounts of water and elements that are not found in larger quantities within the inner solar system.

I will admit I have a strong bias where I want to believe Theia was an ejected first generation Jovian moon. I don't like the idea of planets (Theia) forming around Lagrange points as it feels like fitting a theory to the evidence. There is apparently evidence of an earlier generation of Jovian moons and it is the most logical source for such a rogue object traveling slow enough on the solar plane.

With that aside, Earth's large amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere seems weird. Not that Earth has it as much as why Venus and especially Mars do not. I understand Mars lacks the gravity to hold onto gaseous hydrogen that is stripped away by the solar wind over time, but it can hold onto carbon dioxide. So shouldn't Mars hold onto nitrogen too?

IMO scientific explanations of Earth's formation seem to lack the broader perspective of Earth among the solar system as a whole. Earth should look like a Venus:Mars hybrid. Theories seem to start with Earth as a baseline and explain away Venus and Mars as exceptions. It is like we are taking a sample size of 2 and throwing it away in favor of a (much more thorough) sample size of 1, when that sample of 1 has an enormous error source in orbit around it, which most old theories have simply ignored. Like the water isotopes on Earth do not match the comets/asteroids theory, but do match a Jovian source.

So how does Earth acquire a bunch of nitrogen when it is well inside the nitrogen ice line of the solar wind and how does this account for Venus and Mars?

I'm curious about building cat toys that are impractically over complicated with Arduino/Maker stuff. Thus the casual curiosity about persistence of vision. I wonder if other animals have something like a different internal clock frequency where the image only forms at higher (or lower) frequencies than most humans.

In physics, it's common to develop a formula and then stick a constant to explain the unknown. For example, Newton's theory of gravity uses the gravitational constant G on the formula F = G * m_1 * m_2 / r^2, later on Einstein gave a more accurate explanation with the theory of relativity which does not rely on a constant E = m * c^2. Constants provide a good enough explanation of the laws of physics that's useful for centuries.

I was wondering what's the equivalent in social studies? How do researchers deal with the uncertainty of human behaviour?

Edit: Comments made me remember how much I don't understand the theory of relativity, terrible example, sorry for the confusion. I need to rephrase the question but I don't know how.

I am looking for "glue" concepts, things that help connect observations with theory, aka if I calculate m_1 * m_2 / r^2 the result is slightly off but if I account for G, an empirical constant derived from observation, then everything makes sense for the observable universe.

Also, as someone said, I am referring to social studies.