You say:

You will have to explain why your comment makes any difference to my comment. — apokrisis

And then:

I asked what difference did your comment make. I did not say your comment was no different. — apokrisis

And I write weird? I think you are intentionally being dramatic because if now, apparently, you claim that my comment was a non sequitur as far as you could see it, where, exactly? I think you just want all the glory or something, hence why you are trying to answer questions directed to me. Alright, if you want to be ungenerous, let's do this.

What we know for sure is that the Big Bang did not start from just a single of Planck-scale point right at the beginning. And indeed, something like inflation is needed to guarantee that the initial region that "banged" was already humongously large. — apokrisis

Since we're talking non sequiturs, what is this "humongously" large you are speaking of? What are you comparing it to, exactly? Your shape and size of the universe is the observable universe of 46gly from earth and just to help ameliorate your understanding, the singularity - whilst it does not reference a single planck point - is a physically impossible point that we use to explain how the universe came to be. So the assumption is that the early conditions were infinitely dense at the size of 10^-28cm (with energies at 10^16 GeV) and that would mean that anything larger or smaller would blow the universe apart or suck it away.

So the eternal and infinite version of inflation depends on an inflation event that spawns an unlimited number of big bangs. Ordinary inflation says our Big Bang suddenly took off and inflated a split second after it was first born. It wasn’t born inflating, but then inflation came along to make the universe sufficiently big and ensure that any local wrinkles were smoothed out and make the whole thing look as if it started off as perfectly flat and thermalised as possible. — apokrisis

What? First of all, inflation is pushing omega to 1 and the asymptotic curvature would therefore be flattened by the expansion, thus the curvature would equal 0 or at least be very close to 0 and this would cause infinite expansion. The symmetry between these points is explained by fluctuations in the anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background and so the universe is isotropic and homogenous; the best way to explain thermal equilibrium (actually the only as far as I know) is inflation.

How is it that you don't understand and yet claim that it is no different to your comment?

Postcolonial structural violence can be traced back to the epistemic consequences of imperalism where the social conditions of uncivilised 'savages' attempt to redevelop their lost ontology by reforming the conditions of being that attempt to trace back their identity to what they were before the imperialism along with the current sociopolitical conditions; it is like attempting to force democracy on peoples who are largely used to tribalism. It doesn't make tribalism a shithole.

how can a universe that has expanded from a point explosion be anything other than a sphere, — T Clark

It was not from a point but a volume of points. Or rather a volume of points changed their scale. They always had a size (and an energy density) from the start. Then that size expanded (and cooled). — apokrisis

Depending on the mass density, it could force omega > 1 and would therefore make the universe a closed system like a sphere or reduce omega < 1 and therefore the curvature would open and this is problematic viz., euclidean geometry. Flatness problem is when the geometry is a 1 exactly and perfectly between the two.

It seems that, by current findings, big bang inflation + expansion does not account for the spatial extent of the universe. Admittedly I haven't gone through the motions/calculations myself, but that was my thinking with the opening post. — jorndoe

The idea in inflationary terms is that the total energy at the beginning was 0 where the negative contribution to the energy of the cosmic gravitational field - as in gravitational repulsion where the energy density produces these gravitational fields - cancels the energy of matter or the positive energy. Inflation thus becomes eternal because as mentioned earlier the matter is being created by the inflation but controlled by the non-uniformity. It would mean the pre-big bang would have been this singularity, where the big bang would occur and then inflation would drive exponential expansion and dark energy smooths the inflationary transition. There is no real answer as far as I know what the original value of omega actually is but inflation solves this problem as the universe is expanding faster and this exponential rate of expansion means that omega could be any number but that it will reach 1.

Einstein would agree that universe doesn't need to be Eucledean and why in general relativity cosmological constant can explain the flatness problem or the uniformity issue. Basically, if the universe is uniform or homogenous and cosmic microwave background is kind of proof of that, therein develops the geometric limitations and one of them is the flat universe. In general relativity, the flatness problem is calculated according to its mass density and critical mass density and this latter 'critical' or constant depends on universal inflation (that is, if the universe is flat (k=0) it is because inflation pushes omega to 1 (anything greater or smaller would make the universe curved or closed) and thus the curvature of the universe is being flattened by the expansion and this occurs a fraction of a moment after the big bang). The critical mass density makes the universe flat and the problem here is that pushing omega to 1 is actually unstable and it needs to be exactly 1 and even being off infinitesimally would mean that we would probably experience a crunch or infinity or basically there wouldnt be a universe, the conditions would not have allowed it.

The paper you have attached attempts to measure the universe as finite and this could be a problem with the big bang because it started with chaos and eventually smoothened that may contradict the second law. But, if we assume the big bang occurred as a ‘fluctuation’ and therefore an addition within one meta-system where there are a number of universes, this somehow resolves our problem (well, in a way). Have you heard about the possible reversibility of statistical thermodynamics with mirror universes where time can move both forward and backward? So cool.

We've already established how I best sleep, nestled in a warm embrace, serenaded by giggles at my jokes, with my head being petted slowly. Doesn't that work for everyone? — Hanover

What about what I want? Why do you never think about what I want? You throw spark plugs at me and then expect me to cuddle you warm, to crawl all over you like a little, furry kitten? You know, they say that love is like an ache that X-rays do not show, but you know it's there.You know. And it hurts. :’(

My dream home; a little cottage with a yellow door.



And a little backyard greenhouse where I can grow flowers. Gosh, I hate being poor.

Ok back to trying to sleep for me. Night. — Posty McPostface

If you have trouble again, just let Hanover know and he'll whistle you a lullaby. His angelic lips sing as sweet as a siren.

Then through the nettle to the stars it is. — Posty McPostface

I said silence!

And you'll watch as he uses the instruments of death on my cute tiny ears? :-O — Agustino

One compliment and you're hooked.

How dare you. I'll be chilling at the pearly gates while Beelzebub will be introducing you to the various instruments of death.

Shut up, we're talking here.

Vat? No, my brain isn't in a vat if that's what you're asking... — Agustino

Of course it is. I mean, in what world could I possibly harbour any affection for your cute little ears?

Horse riding? — Agustino

Vat?

It was salty, that is all. — Posty McPostface

I ate a pickle. — Posty McPostface

Is that a phallic Freudian slip or something?

You guys are weird. — JustSomeGuy

No no, it's just Agustino. We take pity on him by making him believe he is our resident mascot. He has a bad lisp and one leg longer than the other, so give him a break OK.

I think zero energy with the cosmological constant allows matter to be created by the inflation but controlled by non-uniformity in perfect harmony; repulsive gravity drives inflation and according to Gunt it decays at t=10^-33 seconds after the big bang with the continuity of inflation faster then the metastable rate of decay. This is why thermodynamics is relevant viz., how new universes are apparently formed. I am unsure what you are suggesting though, Jorn, with the title and all...

I didn't think you'd be able to impress me more than you already have. You know who Dan Quayle is? Maybe that's not impressive. Maybe it's obsessive compulsive. You know too much. Stop. — T Clark

Nothing to be impressed about; there is no effort at all in what I know so I can't actually stop, you judgemental gobermouch.

But based on previous interactions in this discussion, I would brace yourself for incoming "slut-shaming" accusations. — JustSomeGuy

I think that your preferences should remain isolated from such discussions for this reason, because it can easily be interpreted as suggesting how women ought to be. I have chosen - independent and irrespective of religious or social determinants - to voice my own decision to not have sex until I fall in love and so am waiting to find the right person I am compatible with, but there is no morality there, nothing that makes me 'pure' or better than other women who choose to be promiscuous. It is just my independent choice and so I should refrain from bringing this up in discussions especially ones like this unless, for instance, the topic is about whether there is morality in decisions like promiscuity or monogamy. What would be the point if I were to say that I prefer men who exhibit strength by showing kindness and friendship over those that exhibit strength physically because the latter is brute and lacks intelligence? None.

You are free to--science is not absolute and can always be proven wrong--but we have strong evidence that more testosterone does indeed cause more aggression or tendency towards violence. — JustSomeGuy

What I am attempting to convey is that this aggression can also be influenced by oestrogen. While I agree that testosterone can be a mediator for male aggression, oestrogen and its metabolites can also stimulate or inhibit neurons that make one more or less sensitive to stimuli from other neurons and thus can change ones mood (what you have referred to as 'irrational' whereas the word you probably should be saying is 'irritable'). It actually remains unknown as to the extent of the effect between either physiological/biological and social on our aggressive behaviour. Poor sleeping patterns can also amplify aggression through fatigue and even depression/anxiety. While molecular mechanisms can underlie aggressive behaviour, my concern is sociological and not biological.

Just as much as drugs and alcohol can exasperate the symptoms of someone who has pre-existing mental health condition, both men and women are impacted by hormonal and other physiological fluctuations because of defective neural circuits psychologically; regions like the prefrontal cortex, amygdala, hippocampus, hypothalamus, ventral striatum and other areas of the brain that regulate emotions are not male only or female only. Any functional abnormalities increase the susceptibility for impulsive aggression and violence and this is gender-neutral considering both men and women have the same brains. How these brains develop - our childhood, upbringing, diet/health etc - together with the social and environmental impact can influence or moderate our aggressive behaviour. A man who punches a man is no different to a woman who slanders a woman; both are forms of aggression.

My problem is how this aggression can manifest and that latter is largely social. Men somehow appear justified for being aggressive and women are justified for being irrational and it is this that I have a problem with. First of all, I believe the word we should be using to justify women' behavioural changes due to menstrual cycle as irritable and not irrational, as per the following definitions:

Irrational: Not logical or reasonable.
Irritable: Having or showing a tendency to be easily annoyed or made angry.

But this is not a linguistic problem in my opinion, it is a cultural one where people generally respond to women' emotional changes as lacking any rational 'ought to be' behaviour. Women are not supposed to present themselves as feeling agitated in as much as men are supposed to; it is not the way women are supposed to behave (so unlady-like) just as much as men are feminine and weak if they are pacifists. So aggressive women can appear - socially - to be calm, respectful and lady-like but underlying their behaviour is nasty, vicious and aggressive because the social conditions allow it (office gossips, for instance). Conversely - and more problematic - is when you look at clusters of behaviour in demographics where women experience hysteria where the prevalence of somatization disorders tend to be aligned with high levels of domestic violence, both of which are 'normalised' behaviour. These pathological symptoms and even other concepts like masochism or neurosis become attributed exclusively to women rather than as a result of other culturally entrenched behaviours such as discrimination, violence, lack of education, restrictions of movement etc. So, the woman is temporarily 'irrational' which is merely a way of silencing her way of attempting to articulate her frustrations.

For what it's worth, though, I've had long-term romantic relationships with 4 women in my life who I have lived with for varying amounts of time, and every one of them displayed what I would characterize--and what they also referred to--as irrational behavior.
I also grew up with a mother and three sisters, and every one of them have many times addressed the fact that when they have PMS, they are irrational. Their words. — JustSomeGuy

You said it yourself, 1 in 4 of your partners have behaved differently and while it can certainly be biological; i.e. that girlfriend could have had endometriosis and so her hormonal fluctuations could have been extreme, this is not the case in general. Also, note the following quote:

"Listen to people when they are angry. Because that is when the real truth comes out."

Although, I kind of saw an image of you with a quizzical look being surrounded and sandwiched by so many ladies. :P

The ideal relationship would be simultaneously the ideal sexual relationship and the ideal friendship. But there is a tension here. Sexual love is possessive. Friendship recognizes the freedom and equal status of other. — dog

Which is why it is perfect; friendship reduces the possessiveness that is usually formed by an immature attitude toward love and you see the person as an embodiment of an individual who distinctly represents someone that you admire. Hence, through them, you become a better person because you identify with the virtues that they represent. They are an individual, separate to you, that you do not seek to possess or want to change, but equally individual who in mutual return does the same to you, admires you for your qualities and respects you as an individual. You both, being mature enough, share sexual intimacy as a type of celebration for this friendship. It is a mutual choice and not a symbiotic attachment because you are lonely, desperate or because you are told to.

And even if the sexual intimacy ends, the friendship wont and as such this type of love is eternal. It never ends, they are both 'forever' in their care for one another.

I read Darkness Visible many years ago. It's a beautiful little book. Styron was there. That's an example of a married, successful, respected artist wrestling with this stuff. A great example. — dog

It is also the ending that is interesting; that life is about those memories we create and nothing more. That is why we need to create them, make an effort. I was once profoundly afraid of being alone that I intentionally sought isolation as a way to overcome this intense feeling, only I came to realise that the fear was actually a fear of abandonment because I had been previously and I was avoiding contact with others to avoid experiencing this again. I came to see that we destroy the prospect of creating, of actually living life, because of fear. Fear of disappointing our family and friends, fear of trying something new, fear of getting hurt, fear of disobeying etc. While most of our fears are imbedded into our psyche from childhood, our failure to overcome it correctly is the cause for most of our grief.

Those are the eyes I see whenever you loose your wrath on me. — T Clark

Correct approach.

If so, that wasn't how I understood it. I thought you were just asking if it was justifiable to say men have a biological tendency to be more violent than women. — JustSomeGuy

I disagree with this; men are more capable of inflicting physical violence and not that they are more violent. Violence can also include bullying and harassment, gossip and slander, ostracising and even getting others to do physical harm for them and it makes women just as capable of being aggressive as it can men. We often assume that since men are biologically stronger that it somehow equates to biologically likely to be aggressive but again, aggression is not physical. It is a subjective disposition and if men act on this, they do so for mostly social and environmental reasons and not because they are genetically predisposed.

I was called every name in the book--pussy, faggot, loser, wimp, etc.--but I didn't let any of it change my mind. So, I have a hard time blaming society for any violence that men commit. We're all responsible for our own actions, and can easily choose to go against the "norms" if we want to. — JustSomeGuy

You are exactly right that violence is both unpleasant and primitive, but it is used as a form of power and when reflecting on statements relating to assertiveness and how women apparently respond to this, it is all really just socially constructed nonsense, automatons behaving in ways that they think they are required to in order to be categorised into a fixed archetype. When I think of power, I think of someone who can go against the norms despite the pressure, who can identify with what they actually want and not follow because it pleases others, who stands above the herd; to turn the other cheek requires more greatness in character, when most would assume it to be a form of weakness.

It is absolutely not irrelevant how things affect our rationality, but other than that, what you say here is the exact sentiment I was trying to convey. Men and women are different biologically, and this results in various effects that each sex has to deal with more or differently than the other. To deny that the hormonal changes during a specific period of the menstrual cycle do not generally make women more irrational is a denial of science. Ironically, it is itself an irrational claim. — JustSomeGuy

The word 'irrational' is a strong word to use for fluctuations in hormones that - depending on the woman - has a minor or temporary affect, just as much as a bad night sleep can have. Can you show me this scientific evidence that women become 'irrational' because of their menstrual cycle?

As far as I know, she did make a complaint. And her boss too. I figured that since it's a cleaning service footed by the building in which we rent our office space, that it was taking its sweet time to resolve because of the go-between of both HR departements, and technically, the police. Maybe that was the case, and the pat on the ass just allowed my boss a good excuse to put an early end to it? I'll hope that was the case. — Akanthinos

I think so, but you know HR is an important part of this discussion because they are often responsible for undermining bullying victims and fail to enforce the rights of employees. The psychological, physical and emotional impact of workplace bullying and harassment - including sexual harassment - is actually quite profound and rather than addressing the actual problem, HR can demotivate the victim, ignore the complaints or are unresponsive to reports and even potentially pressure the victim to leave because their role is to protect the organisation from liability and thus protect the hierarchical chain of command. This leads to the prevalence of workplace bullying and harassment particularly by those abusing their authority and while things are starting to change because people are becoming aware of this problem, so many cases of sexual harassment could be prevented by developing better procedural and cultural practices.

And the worse... I have literally dozens of such stories. — Akanthinos

Yeah, not sure, but your workplace sounds profoundly toxic.

The primary source of my nausea lies in the fact that you felt a response was even required. I am unsure whether it is just a laziness of mind or if you genuinely felt it necessary but the content was so profoundly sophomoric that I was disgusted it was even taking place by you. Probably a strong adjective upon reflection, blame it on my hormones. That's what people do when women speak with force.

Just learned she wasn't fired because of that. In fact the corporation didn't care at all. She was fired because she slapped a newly hired dude on the bum. I mean, I'm just glad she's gone, and slapping dudes on the ass is unacceptable... But no one cared that she assaulted a coworker??? — Akanthinos

Can the cooperation care if the cleaning lady did not make any complaints (whereas it sounds likely the man made a complaint)? In addition, the cleaning lady was assaulted outside of work, although you did clarify that she experienced harassment - mostly by her way of using methods where she would not get caught like intentionally spilling drink - which is what bullies do.

I've been saying (all along >:o ) that, in general, statements like "women like assertive men who act and do not talk" are meaningless by ways of being trite. Most people, men or women, do not like unassertive individuals. — Akanthinos

You contradict yourself in that statement, because if you think that people - whether men or women - do not like unassertive people, then you are claiming that women do not like unassertive people. It does not change the nature of your generalisation by simply adding everyone into the equation. That is like someone saying a racist comment to culture A and then claiming they have friends from culture A as though it justifies the initial comment.

I would have to say yes, it is justifiable. — JustSomeGuy

Men do not have the innate predisposition to be violent against woman, JSG, otherwise gender-based violence would not be a crime. Patterns of violent behaviour are largely the product of the structure of any given society or culture and permission to be violent to your wife or children or women in general (violence needn't be physical) together with the physical power that enables some men to act in an effective way does not make it innate. There are many men that do not like violence but feel obligated as part of the social views of masculinity that either physical or monetary power and strength somehow gives you worth.

Men may have a tendency to be more aggressive in general, and both men and women obviously have fluctuations in various physiological and psychological things that result in varying levels of rationality from moment to moment, but only women experience the monthly cycle of hormonal changes which cause higher levels of irrationality. — JustSomeGuy

First of all, potential symptoms of PMS are not the same. I get sleepy, for instance. All I want to do is sleep. I also find fried potato cakes smothered in thick tomato sauce somehow appealing. That is not being 'irrational' and so when you bring up this suggestion, you are implying something false. Indeed, we - as in men and women - are completely different biologically, but how this effects our rationality is irrelevant whether it is monthly or seasonal.

Again, just to be clear, the lack of respect comes from my claiming that women, in the same way as men, tend not to value weakness in partners. — Akanthinos

So, you are saying that all people do not value weakness?

What I said was that women have a biological predisposition to more frequent irrationality. The article I shared involved a medical doctor explaining why this is, and as I said it contained many comments from women confirming their own experiences. I never meant for it to sound like women are always irrational, or that all women are more irrational than all men. As I have point out in other comments here, men have their own hormonal and biological issues that are unique to them, as well. — JustSomeGuy

These hormonal shifts are cyclical and irrespective of gender in as much as it is irrelevant to a person' decision-making process; being irritable can be caused by a number of other stressors including not getting a good nights sleep, or not eating the right thing, or having a bad day at work. To indicate that somehow women frequent this more than men is not correct, particularly if we take into consideration the statistics of gender-based violence against women where clearly men are behaving irrationally irrespective of hormones. Would it be justifiable if I were to say that men are biologically pre-dispositioned to act violently?

It's all implied by the way you are using "the sort of woman" in question as some sort of rule which defines what an individual woman thinks. — TheWillowOfDarkness

(Y)

The idea that waiting for consent conflicts with proper dating etiquette is absurd, but it seems to be the sort of idea that so many are pushing. — Michael

If you are on a date, you are clearly moving in the direction of mutual consent. The movement is not about this. It started because of Harvey Weinstein' bad behaviour and not while he was on a date.

Point just being, despite my nitpicks with how some of these things are being handled, I do think we're heading in a good direction by airing out all of this "dirty laundry". — JustSomeGuy

Precisely, and I think the most important part of this movement is how it serves young women -particularly from cultures or environments that are very paternalistic and where gender violence and discrimination is at epidemic levels - by giving them a sense of solidarity and empowerment. In addition to this, it also acknowledges the problematic views that men have in general about women, about them being biologically irrational for instance.

If you consider that aggressive behaviour, than you only serve to prove my point. The suggestions that you have been making, the generalisations against women and the lack of respect is what I would consider 'aggressive' and using the method of trying to justify your behaviour by purporting my misdemeanor as a mod is coy and pointless.

By your own standard, this very statement is a hasty generalisation. Still, I guess you won't be willing to see my point, so I'll leave you to your indignation. — Akanthinos

Respect? You need to learn more before engaging in discussions with people.

It isn't a pickup line. It's a flirty conversation. — Michael

What is your point, Michael? What are you attempting to convey?

My intention has actually been to show that women are not all the same by sharing these experiences and things that women I've known personally have told me. — JustSomeGuy

Actually, you are probably the only person here I have some respect for and I appreciate your clarity around your personal experience - which you have clearly stated previously upon perusal - but it serves as a warning for those who are incapable of articulating the difference between isolated experiences and "women" in general and would respond accordingly.

That being said, your point seems to apply to the MeToo movement itself, or at the very least many of it's "members". The articles I've read on it have also been claiming that all women want the same thing, which is for men to ask consent before making any sexual advances. — JustSomeGuy

I don't know if the members here are generally moronic, but it is quite clear when a woman does not want to engage in sexual activity and so attempting to articulate what this consent would look like is a failure of any form of philosophical reasoning. The problem here is the intent that men may have to try and solicit sexual intercourse and to do this with little or no respect to the personhood of the woman in question. The problem is the intent here in men that enables bad men to behave badly by viewing women as merely an object for sexual gratification. This then means that in the workplace, their skills, their qualifications, their history of employment is all irrelevant. Who they are, what they like, the things that they do are irrelevant. They are just a sexual object and when a man has that in mind, the person does not exist. At university, same thing. Even in the home or even entrenched in cultures.

For the record, every woman I've had a romantic relationship with began as friendship, and the vast majority of my closest friends throughout my life have been women. — JustSomeGuy

(Y)

In any case, do you really find so insulting "women generally don't want weak undecisive partners, just like man"? As far as hasty generalisation goes, I feel it's a fairly well balanced one. — Akanthinos

The one thing that I do know all women like and that is respect. Not such a difficult thing to grasp. Hasty generalisations are insufficient, irrational and fallacious. Pretty simple.

And this.