Should modern physics be taught in high school?

On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 21:53:34 -0500, Herbert Gray wrote:

Alfonso wrote:

um, can anyone here predict the characteristics of a new species evolved
from human beings,
but which is no longer able to mate and produce offspring with human
beings?

No, because if the new "species" is able to produce viable offspring with
the old species, it is not a separate species. Different sexually
reproducing species cannot interbreed by definition.

True enough that the communist corrupted the word species; their use of
the word makes as much sense as calling redheads a different species from
blonds. Literally, such superficial distinctions as that was the
difference that made one species of snail darter a separate endangered
species - and they did it for exactly that purpose - to put a crimp in
American industry.

On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 18:03:54 -0800, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 3, 5:24Â*pm, John Gogo wrote:

snip

Our tilt is not the product of impact phenomena. Â*Remember we are
polarized to the North Star.

You're suggesting the North Star established our seasonal tilt?

In answer to the subject line, apparently not.

I mean, if John thinks that the earth is "polarized" to the north star,
then CLASSICAL physics has not been successfully taught in public
schools.

And you goobers want to teach modern physics - relativity and QM. What
part of "the prerequisite physics has not been taught" do you people not
understand?

I mean, the O.P. must be some sort of clueless puts to even ask the
question. To have asked if modern physics should be taught in high school
means the questioner thinks that all the prerequisite physics has been
taught,and you're no where near that.

Marvin the Martian wrote:

On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 21:53:34 -0500, Herbert Gray wrote:

Alfonso wrote:

um, can anyone here predict the characteristics of a new species evolved
from human beings,
but which is no longer able to mate and produce offspring with human
beings?

No, because if the new "species" is able to produce viable offspring with
the old species, it is not a separate species. Different sexually
reproducing species cannot interbreed by definition.


the question suggests a truly new species that is
"no longer able to mate and produce viable offspring"

so can you predict the characteristics of a new species
which may evolve from human beings?




True enough that the communist corrupted the word species; their use of
the word makes as much sense as calling redheads a different species from
blonds. Literally, such superficial distinctions as that was the
difference that made one species of snail darter a separate endangered
species - and they did it for exactly that purpose - to put a crimp in
American industry.


can you predict the characteristics of a population of creatures
which will have diverged from human beings?

On Dec 4, 6:50*pm, Herbert Gray my-email-is-unpredicta...@this-
place.org wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote:

On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 21:53:34 -0500, Herbert Gray wrote:

Alfonso wrote:

um, can anyone here predict the characteristics of a new species evolved
from human beings,
but which is no longer able to mate and produce offspring with human
beings?

No, because if the new "species" is able to produce viable offspring with
the old species, it is not a separate species. Different sexually
reproducing species cannot interbreed by definition.

the question suggests a truly new species that is
"no longer able to mate and produce viable offspring"

so can you predict the characteristics of a new species
which may evolve from human beings?

True enough that the communist corrupted the word species; their use of
the word makes as much sense as calling redheads a different species from
blonds. Literally, such superficial distinctions as that was the
difference that made one species of snail darter a separate endangered
species - and they did it for exactly that purpose - to put a crimp in
American industry.

can you predict the characteristics of a population of creatures
which will have diverged from human beings?

We can’t predict evolutionary changes. Just look how SR topic of this
thread evolved in to genetics.
Any way, since biologists believe in reality and unlike idiot
physicists, do not feign ignorance about it, they have their feet
solidly on ground and what they are doing is real and mind boggling.
Humans have already stopped evolution by eliminating the basic force
behind natural evolution by stopping war. Survival is possible even
for the unfit. But what is most important is that, biologists are
taking over the job of nature by manipulating genes. They are able to
take out gene from bacteria and are able to implant it in a plant.
Within few years they will have complete control over the human genome
and they will decide how future generations should look like.

In a way whatever we do becomes senseless as all this is being done by
chemicals on chemicals. We are just chemicals, aren’t we?

Vilas Tamhane wrote:

On Dec 4, 6:50 pm, Herbert Gray wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote:

On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 21:53:34 -0500, Herbert Gray wrote:

Alfonso wrote:

um, can anyone here predict the characteristics of a new species evolved
from human beings,
but which is no longer able to mate and produce offspring with human
beings?

No, because if the new "species" is able to produce viable offspring with
the old species, it is not a separate species. Different sexually
reproducing species cannot interbreed by definition.

the question suggests a truly new species that is
"no longer able to mate and produce viable offspring"

so can you predict the characteristics of a new species
which may evolve from human beings?

True enough that the communist corrupted the word species; their use of
the word makes as much sense as calling redheads a different species from
blonds. Literally, such superficial distinctions as that was the
difference that made one species of snail darter a separate endangered
species - and they did it for exactly that purpose - to put a crimp in
American industry.

can you predict the characteristics of a population of creatures
which will have diverged from human beings?

We can’t predict evolutionary changes. Just look how SR topic of this
thread evolved in to genetics.
Any way, since biologists believe in reality and unlike idiot
physicists, do not feign ignorance about it, they have their feet
solidly on ground and what they are doing is real and mind boggling.

Humans have already stopped evolution by eliminating the basic force
behind natural evolution by stopping war. Survival is possible even
for the unfit. But what is most important is that, biologists are
taking over the job of nature by manipulating genes. They are able to
take out gene from bacteria and are able to implant it in a plant.
Within few years they will have complete control over the human genome
and they will decide how future generations should look like.

In a way whatever we do becomes senseless as all this is being done by
chemicals on chemicals. We are just chemicals, aren’t we?


It seems that the precise predictions that are afforded about ballistics
measurements and gravitational attraction and electromagnetic machinery
and chemical kinetics and thermodynamic behaviors and quantum mechanical
phenomena and the like tend to verify and authenticate the validity of
our information gathering techniques and the interpretations there of
while the lack of predictability in evolutionary changes leaves
such as a matter of story telling.

Should modern physics be taught in high school?

If you can't take a student into a laboratory and show that
student examples of the phenomena being discussed, perhaps not.

"Vilas Tamhane" wrote in message
...



In a way whatever we do becomes senseless as all this is being done by
chemicals on chemicals. We are just chemicals, aren’t we?

================================================== =
No, we are not. A TV is "just" transistors, but the picture it displays
isn't; it is the ever-changing picture that holds our interest, more so
than a picture that is "just" paint. A dead body is just chemicals, a living
body is chemicals in action.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

On Dec 4, 9:20*pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
wrote:
"Vilas Tamhane" *wrote in message

...

In a way whatever we do becomes senseless as all this is being done by
chemicals on chemicals. We are just chemicals, aren’t we?

================================================== =
No, we are not. A TV is "just" transistors, but the picture it displays
isn't; *it is the ever-changing picture that holds our interest, more so
than a picture that is "just" paint. A dead body is just chemicals, a living
body is chemicals in action.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

In what way chemicals in action are different than non acting
chemicals. Which part of genome or the cell is not chemical?

In article ,
Herbert Gray wrote:

um, can anyone here predict the characteristics of a new species evolved from
human beings,
but which is no longer able to mate and produce offspring with human beings?

That sounds like a fun discussion to have, but this thread has already
drifted so far off topic for the groups it is posted to that I'm going
to restrain myself. If you really want to discuss it, take it to some
place like rec.arts.sf.science.

--
iPhone apps that matter: http://appstore.subsume.com/
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, theremailer.net,
and probably your server, too.

On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 09:11:01 -0800, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

In what way chemicals in action are different than non acting chemicals.
Which part of genome or the cell is not chemical?

What part of roadkill is alive? Do a little research.

In article ,
HVAC wrote:

On 12/3/2012 1:23 PM, Doc O'Leary wrote:

Sounds quite racist. Tell me, how would *you* react if some unknown
tribe with "technological developments" popped up on your horizon and
started killing your people with their non-violent, "selected against"
superior firepower? Tell me, if Iranians are savages for seeking
nuclear weapons, what does that make those countries which already have
*vast* arsenals of nuclear weapons?


So according to your way of thinking, it's BETTER if Iran has nukes?

No, that is according to your straw man. To my way of thinking, an
argument must be consistent. You don't get to demonize an enemy when
they're just doing what you started doing long ago. If you must
continue to have an enemy, pick a different, better reason to hate them.

--
iPhone apps that matter: http://appstore.subsume.com/
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, theremailer.net,
and probably your server, too.