• Announcements

    • Cap'n Refsmmat

      SFN Upgraded   07/22/17

      SFN has been upgraded to IPB version 4. View the announcement for more details, or to report any problems you're experiencing.

Velocity_Boy

Senior Members
  • Content count

    352
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-21

About Velocity_Boy

  • Rank
    Atom
  • Birthday March 1

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    A place that used to be Mexico...
  • Interests
    Racing Motorcycles...Jazz..running...cultivating chili peppers...Martial Arts
  • College Major/Degree
    B.S. in Biology, Arizona State University..2013... BA in Psychology, 2017.
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Besides Bio and Psych? Hmm..Cosmology.
  • Occupation
    Grad Student..Lab Assistant...Martial Arts instructor
  1. Me thinks you would have great difficulty proving that people who were born prematurely and who have encountered health problems during their lives usually do not marry. I doubt you could find even a study showing any persuasive evidence for that idea. For one, the qualifying parameters are too nebulous. How early is premature? What constitutes a life of health problems? How many days must you be sick? How many days healthy to not qualify? Do colds and flu count? How about sports injuries? I'm currently as healthy as the proverbial horse. I've hardly been sick, ever, but have broken four bones, have multiple scars, and have been concussed twice playing hockey. I also sustained a GSW in Iraq. So... Do I have a history of health problems? LOL Your idea also implies that people become gay, or...decide to be? Because they're sickly and....and ....what, exactly? Can't get heterosexual dates? Or straight live affairs or relationship? But hey! They can get gay lovers? Nope. None if that washes even a little bit. Personally, I find it absurd. My OP tells of the only probable way a premature birth could maybe be conducive to homosexuality​ in males. And it's a very biological reason. Specifically, hormonal. Hope this helps.
  2. Really? That surprised you that some accidents are caused by operator error? Or not paying attention? No reason it should. In this regard it's the same for us motorcyclists as it is for car drivers. I've been riding for over fifteen years and still use a cycle as my primary transport. I can offer you some more info on this topic. The most common type of bike v auto accident is when the car turns left in front of the bike on a two way road. The bike t-bones the auto and the cyclist either flies into the side of the vehicle or he clears it over the top. This sort of accident accounts for almost half of all bike wrecks. The second most common scenario in bike v car is when an auto just rear ends a cycle stopped at a red light. For bike accidents with no other vehicles involved the most common is when the cyclist simply takes a corner or s turn too fast. And just runs out of road, as we say. Thats gotta be a typo. Thirteen million bucks from the fecal output of one million humans? So, in your typical BM from today there was $13.00 worth of minerals in it? Pardon the pun, but bullshit. Gotta link?
  3. Well, not to any larger degree than any other type of matter. The chloryphyll content is not a factor. Why would it be? And it's the dimensions of the slits in ratio to the beam path, the vector, that causes the interference you're thinking of.
  4. Well ive always thought a virtual particle is a transient, very brief fluctuation in a real field of space that, well, might have some of the characteristics of an real particle, but whose existence is limited by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. And....Virtual particles don't carry the same mass as the corresponding real particle, either, right? But they DO conserve energy and momentum. So The longer the virtual particle exists, the closer it comes to being a real particle. Here's a link you might enjoy. I didn't read it all so it might show some if what I said above to be not exact. I'm no physicist. https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/
  5. Actually, your claim if healing plants is not well known at all. How about a link? Other than gardening or working with plants being cathartic, like a hobby. But the idea of plants themselves exuding some sort of healing field is pure hoakum. Sheldrakian, even. In fact he's probably proposed this idea as part of his morphic resonance. Did you read the abstract? Are you familiar with the P difference? It was 0.04! That's basically admitting right there the test was a wash, since it's lower...albeit it very slightly....than we can always expect from the 5/100 or 0.05P in a pure bogus causal test, like say, eating a pint of honey before taking an IQ text will add 30 pts to your score.
  6. Indeed, JC. It's really sorta funny how often practitioners or apologists for psuedo scientific claims use QM as their medium of choice! Rupert Sheldrake does it for his elusive Morphic Resonance. Telekinesis guys use it. As do believers in Crystal Healing and I think even Homeopathy. And you just know they do this since very few people even understand quantum mechanics. And they love the famous Einstein quote about spooky action since it sounds like a very intelligent man of science is actually advocating the veracity of unproven and mysterious machinations. "It works on a quantum level" is beginning to be a throw away phrase. Or even a red flag? LOL. Akin to fat free in the supermarket. What is distant healing? If I posted........ "The short answer is, Bullshit." Would that be warning point worthy? LOL. At this point, I'm thinking it would be fine. Unless of course the alleged practitioner of the voodoo was a female. In which case kid gloves need be used, less a comment that could be construed as questioning her science gets interpreted as sexist. I would normally add an LOL after that last bit. But after this past week and a real exposure to the silly pc obsession and knee jerk feminism here, it's more a proven accurate claim than a humorous one. Imaftaal deleting a direct observation from a registered nurse that mentioned high school females was the topping point for my allegations on this. That was one silly assed move by a moderator. Doing it because she can. Tell me a male would've deleted the comment. Ok, you can ban me now. I've had my belly full of this shite anyways. Adios.
  7. guys? your bio says you're female. typo? or lie? just curious.
  8. There is a vast difference between the cognitive abilities merely being present and the brain being wired to perform optimally. I never claimed that women are all bereft of scientific abilities. Jeez, did you also not read my OP? How many times must I state that there are exceptions in that some women are keen in STEM? So I do not need to show otherwise, as you said, since I never claimed what you wrongly said I did. My assertions are hardly bald. I claimed that women's brains process information differently than men. I backed this up with links. I then surmised that the way in which their brains do process cognitive input may not be the optimal modality for science and technology disciplines. My links also supported that. I also...Sigh....Never claimed what I opined is irrefutable fact. My OP was in response to a guy who said there are no other explanation for the dearth of women in science other than that they aren't interested. I offered that there indeed may be other explanations. I then offered one. Never figured you to throw up a straw man, but you indeed did by rephrasing my original claim by saying I claimed that women posses no abilities for science. This is my field and I will not be bullied away from expressing my valid ideas on a topic pertaining to it. However unpopular my idea may be. Respectfully. Cheers. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/jan/18/educationsgendergap.genderissues I care because my OP was in response to a member who claimed there were no other explanations for the dearth of women in science other than they aren't interested in it. So I offered one. Since when are opinions frowned upon here? So long as they're backed by links and sources as is mine here? The known fact that women think more intuitively and in fact rely on that more than men, who are more analytical and linear in their thinking, as well as less prone to attempt multi tasking is in fact a difference that could factor into the idea that the cognitive processing modalities of the female brain may not be the optimal one for science or technical work. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/jan/18/educationsgendergap.genderissues We call what your teacher said sexism. Where have I heard that accusation before? Oh yeah. Here. From you. How was my post in any way nearly as sexist as that? Jeez, if I came out and just said men are smarter you people would have a bloody fit. The double standards I'm seeing here stinks. It is especially odorous given the fact it's a science forum.
  9. You obviously didn't read my link. It's not a riddle. Nor is it anything remotely close to Doomsday. Men. Women. Think. Different. It's not a difficult concept. At least for most of us. I invite you to research the matter yourself. Allow me to get ya started..... https://www.powerofpositivity.com/ways-men-women-think-differently/
  10. Firstly, thanks for confirming my suspicions on the sort of reaction I'd get from my post. Secondly, you would do well not to tell me what I did and did not say. Especially when you are quite wrong. Read my post again. I even provided a link showing how men and women think differently. Which I would bet you didn't bother to read. Hell, i even added caveats to my claim, by stating no less than three times that there are exceptions to my opinions. Anybody who takes exception to my very carefully worded OP can only do so, in my opinion, if they are simply insecure and are fairly spoiling for an opportunity to cry sexism. The term for this sort of soul is a knee jerk feminist. And I find those people rather amusing. So thanks again for confirming my original hypothesis on the collective zeitgeist here, as well as the chuckle. Cheers.
  11. But there are other logical explanations. Or at the very least, credible hypotheses. Such as: women's brains process information differently that does the male brain. This is a fact, btw, not only a theory. So...it could be quite possible that given this fact, women often--not always!--are not quite as efficient at digesting STEM-type information as are men. IOW: by and large (again, there are obvious exceptions) women are simply not usually as good at "doing science" as men are. The extreme and quite impressive, actually, dearth of women computer programmers really supports this hypothesis. I am not sure how much you know about programming, but the processes used by the mind in coding are extremely congruent with the primary way in which the typical male thinking pattern differs from women. That is: highly focused, vector-like, non-abstract, language-oriented, left-brained. All things men usually excel at more than women. I do agree that for the most part women may not be as interested in physics as men. But go a bit deeper and ask why? Maybe because it is a part of science and early in school they realized they often have trouble with that area. We rarely enjoy are become interested in things we do not like or are not adept at. So, yeah, bring on the downvotes, guys and gals. I am quite certain this post will bring charges of misogyny and bigotry. This, in due to the absurd pre-occupation with political correctness in this country. But as a psych major I know with absolute certainty--and will indeed be all too glad to post as many links and sources as you wish--that everything I just said about mens' and women's' cognitive processing differences is valid. Thus, I cannot in good conscience allow your post to go without adding my own ideas on the topic. In closing, I cannot see what the big deal is in admitting that men and women think differently and excel at different tasks. But, again, such is the extreme affliction of PC Obsession today, that it is often impossible to mention this fact without incurring wrath. Cheers. http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/men-women-brains-difference-1.3473154
  12. Sorry Hyper.....I thought I inadvertently deleted my OP when I didn't see it. So reposted. Had I know you hid it (not sure why, not that off-topic really) I would not have reposted, obviously. OK...I'll shut up about my scars now. (except to say that its true that women do think they're sxey! LOL) VB
  13. The cesium clock experiments simply confirmed Einstein's old theory of Time Dilation. See: his "twin paradox" for more on this. And yes, as the velocity (!) increases time does slow. Thus, the frequency of the cesium vibrations is also slowing. What is important to remember here is that it is a VERY slight decrease witnessed in those experiments you mentioned, on the orders of fractions of a second.
  14. On the contrary, homophobia is very scientific. In psychology we have studied and mostly discerned the various cognitive dissonance and defense mechanisms of the mind that often afflict folks. A phobia is, after all, an irrational fear, and so phobias are also an area of psychological study. Thus, scientific. I can delve into the most common psychological dynamics that are at work in people who are homophobic if you like, but I have a feeling you aren't really interested.
  15. You may! What's up, Goldie? So.....the eardrum is the term we use for the "tympanic membrane" of the ear. It is a tightly-drawn (like the skin of its titular musical instrument, the timpani!) membrane that vibrates in response to various waves of air pressure that are exerted upon it when a sound is emitted. This is the beginning of the sound detection process you're asking about. Then the cochlear fluid is stimulated by those vibrations. Think, tapping on the outside of a glass filled with water and how the water would molecularly vibrate. These vibrations (mini waves?) then stimulate super fine hairs that are in turn vibrated. Stimulates. Think tiny antennae on an insect wiggling about as you have probably seen. These vibrating hairs are then converted into electrical signals that are sent to the brain and processed by your auditory cortex in the temporal lobe, which is the part of the brain that processes auditory stimulus. Just as the occipital lobe is the portion of the brain responsible for discerning and processing visual stimuli. Check out this animated video that puts in pictures how this process works. Feel free to ask any more questions you may have on this topic. I'm currently doing some auditory clinical testing and research with a colleague who is an Acoustics doc student. VB