Planet and Asteroid Formation

Planetesimals, which were early planets, began to grow in size from the clumps of matter and slam into each other as they revolved around the early forming sun. The theory of how our moon was formed lines up with this. It's believed that during the early formation of our solar system, a young Earth and an object about the size of Mars collided, sending debris into space and reforming within Earth's gravity and forming the moon.

Continental drift is the movement of the Earth's continents relative to each other, thus appearing to "drift" across the ocean bed. The speculation that continents might have 'drifted' was first put forward by Abraham Ortelius in 1596. The concept was independently and more fully developed by Alfred Wegener in 1912, but his theory was rejected by some for lack of a mechanism (though this was supplied later by Arthur Holmes). The idea of continental drift has been subsumed by the theory of plate tectonics, which explains how the continents move.

The Snowball Earth hypothesis proposes that Earth's surface became entirely or nearly entirely frozen at least once, sometime earlier than 650 Mya (million years ago). Proponents of the hypothesis argue that it best explains sedimentary deposits generally regarded as of glacial origin at tropical palaeolatitudes and other enigmatic features in the geological record. Opponents of the hypothesis contest the implications of the geological evidence for global glaciation and the geophysical feasibility of an ice- or slush-covered ocean and emphasize the difficulty of escaping an all-frozen condition. A number of unanswered

40. Consider the main ideas, hypotheses and theories on the topic "Mind & Body"

Mind-Body Identity Theory

Mind-Body Identity Theory is the idea that the mind is just a part of the physical body.

Mind-brain identity theorists like to say that "mental states" are "brain states," but we will see that much more than abstract "states," "events," "properties," and "laws" are involved in explaining how the mind emerges from the brain.

A more extreme position is to simply deny the existence of mind (there is only a brain), or to say that mind is at best an epiphenomenon, with no causal influences on the physical world.

Most identity theorists have been materialists who argued for a form of eliminative materialismor reductionism. Ultimately, they regard physics as the foundational science. They expect that molecules are reducible to atoms, biological cells are reducible to molecules, the brain is reducible to its neurons, and the mind is reducible to the brain.

Other philosophers argue that the mind somehow "emerges" from the brain. They see emergence as producing new "laws" at each hierarchical level of "self-organization." Thus, cells have complex biological laws that emerge from simpler molecular laws. On this view, the mind has "states," "events," "properties," and "laws" that are not predictable based on those of the brain.

Some emergentists believe that the new laws in an upper hierarchical level are not reducible to those of the lower levels. They can thus claim to be materialists or physicalists but deny reductionism. This is known as "non-redcutive physicalism." Other philosophers describe the relationship between hierarchical levels as one of supervenience. They claim that "mental events" supervene on "physical events."

Many writers over the centuries have simply identified the mind with the brain, noticing the empirical fact that when the brain is damaged, mental properties are also impaired. But others, following René Descartes, have assumed that mind is an immaterial, non-physical substance. Descartes and others simply assumed that the mental world could influence the physical world and vice versa, but the mystery of exactly how this might be possible led to the "mind-body problem" the question how two unlike substances, one material, the other immaterial, can interact. Identity theory is one solution to that problem.

The other solution is dualism and a theory of interactionism (notably the work of Karl Popperand John Eccles).

Twentieth-century philosophers best known to argue for an identity of mind (or consciousness) and brain include Ullin T. Place (1956), Herbert Feigl (1958), and J.J.C.Smart (1959).

Place explicitly describes "consciousness as a brain process," specifically as "patterns" of brain activity. He does not trivialize this identity as a succession of individual "mental events and physical events" in some kind of causal chain. He compares this identity to the idea that "lightning is a motion of electrical charges."

("Is Consciousness a Brain Process?", in British Journal of Psychology, 47, pp.44-50 (1956))

Herbert Feigl's work was independent of Place's, but he said that the fundamental idea had been held by many earlier materialist (monist) thinkers.

 

41. Describe the content of the videotext "Agora" and formulate your conclusions on it.

Set in the Roman Egyptian city Alexandria in the 4^th century Agora is something of a revisionist epic that is less about male heroes in sandals achieving glory with their swords and more about celebrating the achievements of proto-feminist mathematician, philosopher and astronomer Hypatia (Rachel Weisz) in an era of religious turmoil.

While the various men in the film are seen preaching the supposedly definitive virtues of their chosen religion, Hypatia is seen teaching, engaged in early scientific and astronomical research, and calling for calm and mutual respect. Her scientific work, in particular on the movement of celestial bodies, is often presented in Agora with the sort of grandiosity that other films reserve for the climax of a great battle scene. When Hypatia has her various breakthroughs the music swells and the tempo of the editing increases to heroically present such moments. In this way director and co-writer Alejandro Amenábar (The Others, The Sea Inside) stylistically privileges the pursuit of knowledge and rational thought. On the other hand, at the conclusion of the first half of the film when the Christian hordes gain control of the city, over run the Library of the Serapeum and destroy its contents, the camera is turned upside-down to depict the triumph of religious fundamentalism over intellectual enquiry as an example of the world literally turning itself on its head.

To give the film a human-interest angle and to create focal points for the various political and religious factions, Agora includes a love triangle subplot between Hypatia, one of her students, the aristocrat Orestes (Oscar Isaac), and one of her slaves, Davus (Max Minghella). As a woman devoted to her work teaching philosophy Hypatia has no desire to marry and end her professional career, plus she is extremely wary of the romanticised visions of what constitutes as love and demonstrates her cynicism by giving Orestes a very abject reminder of a significant element of womanhood that he probably wasn’t thinking about while publicly serenading her.

Agora is a film more to be admired than truly enjoyed. It effectively dramatises the events that occurred in the life of a remarkable woman in order to critique the intrusiveness of religion on intellectual and political discourse. Made at a time when pockets of the Christian Right are increasingly attempting to depict other religious groups as violent barbarians, Agora is also commendable for reminding audiences about the less than noble origins of Christianity. However, Agorais ultimately weighed down by the lumbering nature of the historical epic genre. The sweeping shots of the reconstructed settings and the elaborate crowd scenes are impressive but feel strikingly empty in contrast to the core of the film, which is Hypatia’s relentless philosophical and scientific enquiry. Agora could have been a powerfully subversive feminist film, but while it does have its moments it never truly lives up to its ambitious potential.

 

 

42. Evaluate the main issues and features an ancient science in videotext "Agora".

Antique science has not been able to develop theoretical natural science and its technological applications. The reason is cheap slave labor did not create the necessary incentives for the development of a solid technique and technologies, and it and serving it natural scientific and engineering expertise Gipatiiis credited with the words: "think better and make mistakes, than not to think at all. The worst thing is the present superstition as truth. "

The most important result of the democratization of socio-political spheres of ancient Greece was the formation of the apparatus of logical rationale, which has turned into a tool for broadcasting knowledge from the individual in society. Against this background, could already be folded science as demonstrative knowledge "from the ground", that easily illustrate accessing the actual material.

Sharply negative attitude is known to Greeks to Eastern Science, stereotypically for utility. In Greece, the process of science can be reconstructed as follows. Arithmetic and geometry function as a set of techniques in zemlemernoj practice, falling under the techne. In other words, in Greece, as in the ancient East, they were not:

1) deployed a text decoration

2) strict rational-logical justification.

For example, in the design of mathematics texts in the form of the theoretic-logical system you need to stress the role of Thales and Democritus, perhaps. Speaking of which, of course, it is impossible to ignore, on a text which cultivate Pythagoreans through mathematical view as purely abstract, as well as jeleatov, was first made in math had not previously adopted by it the demarcation of sensual from umopostigaemogo. All this constituted the Foundation of the formation of mathematics as a theoretical-rational science, rather than jempiriko-sensual art.

So, initially, unscientific, unjustified differed from the ancient Oriental, empirical mathematical knowledge of the ancient Greeks, being streamlined and, being a theoretical processing, logical systemization, deduktivizacii, turned into a science. The Greeks was alien to the experienced pilot type of knowledge: 1) undivided rule of contemplation; 2) idiosyncrasy to individual "minor" actions deemed unworthy of intellectuals — free citizens of democratic policies and unsuitable for knowledge neraschlenimogo on a part of the world.

 

 

43. Expand the content of the videotext "A Beautiful Mind" and make your own conclusions on it.

John Forbes Nash mathematics genius, he at the dawn of his career made a titanic work in the field of game theory, which virtually turned this section of mathematics and almost brought him international fame.

However, literally at the same time arrogant and enjoys success among women who gets hit, Nash turns already his own life: doctors put him diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.

Biographical drama by Ron Howard from his book c. Nazar, tells about the life of John Forbes Nash, a Nobel Laureate in economics. The film won four Oscars for best film, adapted screenplay, directing and supporting actress.

The story begins with the early years of the young genius John Nash. He starts to develop paranoid schizophrenia, accompanied by hallucinations, and progresses until it endangers his work and relationship with his wife and friends.

Once John has drawn some Parcher agent offering to work on the Special Division of the CIA. Its task is to analyse the information published in open sources, to find it. This is the data exchanged between the conspirators — enemies of the United States. Their reports Nash leaves in a mailbox at an agreed place. During one of his visits to the mailbox Nash is attacked by the conspirators and miraculously escapes death.

Soon it turns out that all of the work for the CIA is merely a figment of his imagination.

Only after years of struggle he manages to defeat his illness and finally get the deserved the Nobel Prize.

44. Consider the problem of creativity and personality of the scientist in videotext "A Beautiful Mind."

One hallmark of creativity is the ability to discern complex patterns, for which Nash seems to have had a truly extraordinary talent. This facility enabled him to come up with theories of far-reaching consequence. However, his thirst foropportunities to apply his unique abilities often seems to have led him into misapplications of his gifts. Somewhat like finding that one has been typing on the wrong keys, we may know the format and yet discover that we have been working in the wrong register: believing we have been making sense and yet producing gibberish, cryptically encoded by the persistence of our error. The factor that seems to have made Nash so intensely vulnerable in this way seems to have been his narcissism, which required him to produce something grand enough to win recognition and admiration at a very high level but also made him disdainful of the types of experiences that might have provided greater reality testing. At university, for example, Nash did not attend classes. He was not interested in building a foundation, but rather was awaiting inspiration. However, when inspiration finally struck, it did not strike in a vacuum but was grounded in his observations of events in the social world.

Nash’s narcissism may be seen as the other side of his extraordinary talents and his intense interpersonal isolation. Extreme giftedness often goes hand in hand with an idiosyncratic way of viewing the universe that can impede the individual’s ability to find a ‘home’ in the interpersonal world (Gedo, 1996). Nash seems to have found it very difficult to engage with others and from an early age had learned first hand how cruel peers could be (Nasar, 1998). The resulting solitude and isolation probably exacerbated his desire for recognition and also served as an impetus for the ‘companions’ he devised as he became further and further divorced from reality.

Isolation is a two-edged sword: innovation requires the ability to tolerate isolation, but it is also important to be able to be recognized by one’s peers. Nash’s reactive hostility made it difficult for him to receive this recognition. At times, the idiosyncratic nature of an individual’s perceptions may interfere with the normalizing and containing functions of caretakers, thereby further attenuating the fine line between self and other and inhibiting the ability to take the perspective of the other. In this way, empathic attune ment is obstructed, not built, thereby reinforcing a paranoid-schizoid mode of relating characterized by difficulties in interpersonal relating that too easily become self-perpetuating.

In a theme that is to be repeated throughout the film, an early conversation with his ‘roommate,’ Charlie, shows Nash jokingly linking his brilliance in math to his avoidance of the interpersonal world: “People don’t like me,” he says, with apparent equanimity. At another level, however, the isolation itself is a dilemma for the creative individuals, who must negotiate between protecting his or her vision and time versus fulfilling interpersonal needs (Gedo, 1996). Even Nash ultimately comes to appreciate his deep need for others: “Away from contact with a few special sorts of individuals Iamlost, lost completely in the wilderness...so,it’s been a hard life in many ways” (Nasar, 1998, p. 169)

 

 

45. Show in the context of the video-text "A Beautiful Mind" and other examples of the difference of genius and talent in science.

Genius, as it was said in the movie "Mind Games", is born "with two portions of brains and one half heart". In other words, genius is the highest stage of development of the intellect and the lowest stage of efficiency. While talent - on the contrary, the highest stage of efficiency and the lowest stage of development of the human intellect.

It's no accident that most of the talents do not study well, but they work well and decently earn. While geniuses open new theories, create brilliant works of art, but acquire disability as a result of their insanity, get a pension and actually can not work.

Crazy genius is given to create only one brilliant work of art or to open one ingenious scientific theory. This occurs in the initial stage of the disease. It is the disease that promotes the manifestation of genius.At the same time, it is wrong to call all geniuses insane. There are among them and mentally healthy, and there are many of them (for example, in the modern world it's Hans Zimmer, John Williams, Ennio Morricone). And unlike crazy geniuses, they are not limited by the amount of brilliant scientific discoveries or ingenious works of art, so it's easier for them to leave their name in history than to be crazy.It is also wrong to say that a talented person is talented in everything. Usually talent manifests itself in areas adjacent to the main activity. Since both talent and genius are deviations from the norm, talents often also have health problems. The most famous examples of ill talents: Michael Jackson (several times he performed plastic surgery), Vladimir Vysotsky had kidney and heart problems, one of the Wachowski brothers changed the sex.Genius creates with the mind, and talent with the heart. Most geniuses are altruists. Most talents are selfish. The speed of work of a genius is many times greater than the speed of talent. Talent is often inherited. While genius is not inherited forever. Talent is able to create a masterpiece of its time, while geniuses create masterpieces outside of time. Thus, one should not confuse genius with talent. Talent is not part of genius, and the more so it is not the same thing.

The big difference in my opinion is work ethic. Talent is something you are born with. It comes naturally and you have it from day one. You do not have to work for it and it can only take you so far.

Genius on the other hand is something that you become. It takes hard work and dedication. While there are a lot of talented people in the world, few of them are genius because of their lack of work ethic. Geniuses aren't afraid of mistakes and they don't even flinch at the possibility of failure. And I think that John Nash is genius, like in the movie said: “a genius knows the answer before the question”.

 

46. Make a glossary of basic scientific ideas and concepts in videotext "Interstellar"

A wormhole or "Einstein-Rosen bridge" is a hypothetical topological feature that would fundamentally be a shortcut connecting two separate points in spacetime. A wormhole may connect extremely long distances such as a billion light years or more, short distances such as a few feet, different universes, and different points in time. A wormhole is much like a tunnel with two ends, each at separate points in spacetime.

A black hole is a region of spacetime exhibiting such strong gravitational effects that nothing—not even particles and electromagnetic radiation such as light—can escape from inside it.The theory of general relativity predicts that a sufficiently compact mass can deform spacetime to form a black hole.The boundary of the region from which no escape is possible is called the event horizon

The ergosphere is a region located outside a rotating black hole. The Doppler effect (or the Doppler shift) is the change in frequency or wavelength of a wave (or other periodic event) for an observer moving relative to its source. An accretion disk is a structure (often a circumstellar disk) formed by diffused material in orbital motion around a massive central body.

A gravitational lens is a distribution of matter (such as a cluster of galaxies) between a distant light source and an observer, that is capable of bending the light from the source as the light travels towards the observer. This effect is known as gravitational lensing, and the amount of bending is one of the predictions of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity.(Classical physics also predicts the bending of light, but only half that predicted by general relativity).

47. Describe the content of the videotext ‘Interstellar’ and formulate your conclusion on it.

Interstellar ends with our pilot, Cooper, falling into a black hole. He doesn’t die, however. Instead, he arrives in a complex built for him to see all of time at once in a fixed place – his daughter’s bedroom. It is built specifically for Cooper to be able to influence the time line of his daughter Murphy. He even says this out loud.

Critics have derided this as scientifically inaccurate because a black hole would tear your body apart before you got to any interior complex built inside of it. I hadn’t known critics were experts on building complexes inside of black holes that allow you to change time itself.

It stands to reason that, if you can build such a complex specifically for Cooper to use, you can remember to flip the “Don’t tear Cooper apart on the way in” switch.

It’s said time and again in Interstellar that the wormhole is a tool sent from aliens. It turns out to be from future humans, but for the purposes of this next explanation, it doesn’t matter. Point is, it’s a tool. One criticism insists that the wormhole, like the black hole, would tear Cooper’s spaceship apart.

So the wormhole and black hole are both tools. If both are tools, then it’s safe to assume they’re user friendly. We don’t make hammers and screwdrivers that tear the user into shreds when he hits a nail or turns a screw. It stands to reason that if the black hole is a tool built for Cooper, and it’s on the other side of a wormhole, then the wormhole is a tool put there for Cooper, too.

If both the wormhole and black hole are tools designed to one day be used by Cooper, let’s assume they BOTH have “Don’t tear Cooper apart on the way in” switches. Future humans? Big on toggle settings.

Why build this time-hopping facility inside a black hole? Because, in astrophysics, black holes are the only things that are theoretically capable of inverting time and space. Supposedly, future humans might wander through time as they please, but Cooper’s a modern human. He still can’t – he needs a bit of help.

We see a black hole the same way an ant might see a car – as something that can’t be fully understood with the knowledge at hand. Ants get crushed if they get rolled over by the tire of a car. That doesn’t mean we humans don’t use the car as a tool to get somewhere, and if the ant climbs into the car and hitches a ride elsewhere, it doesn’t mean his journey is scientifically inaccurate.

The whole idea of the ending is that, if time is a dimension, causality can be designed. Just as Cooper floats through time to create the causalities that get him there – knocking books off his daughter’s shelf, writing coordinates in falling dust – the future humans create these tools (wormholes and black holes) as causalities intended for Cooper’s use.

In essence, future humans create causalities that allow Cooper to create causalities.

It’s a bit complicated, but if A leads to B leads to C, and time is as easy to walk through as your living room, then C can lead to B can lead to A without breaking a sweat.

Cooper doesn’t beat the universe with the power of love, as many critics have misunderstood. He is briefly given the tools to create new causes and effects in time itself. These tools are supplied him by a future human race.