Speculations

Why do men care more about sports and career then women? Sure women care too, but for many men it seems they can't live without it. Why do so many men watch and compete in sporting games every day? Why do they pursue earning money long after they have satified every basic need? The reason lies in the requirements made by our ancient environment. We lived in small groups on the African savannah. Where women made a living from gathering fruits and vegetables. And where men brought in the meat through hunting. All though the lines wouldn't be all black and white, that was the general division. Hunting is a team effort. Whether you drive small animals to your fellow h…

I was watching an episode of Nova on global dimming. The process in which particle pollutants are put into the air and block out the sun so light can't hit the ground. One result of this is water evaporates at a slower rate. This is where my thoughts come in. What if global warming is a result of global dimming. Because water is evaporating less this causes means less cooling of the air near the surface of the earth. The heat energy from the sun is still being absorbed by the earth just in the atmosphere from particle pollutants rather than the surface where water can evaporate to cool the earth. This is of course just an idea of mine. I don't have much knowledge …

For all scientists here that also like Wolfenstein 3D (the 90's DOS game): Speculative: What if there was a Wolf3D level, in which you fought a boss that was Charles Darwin himself, armed with futuristic machine guns and special, full body armor. Let's say this takes place centuries in the future from 2008. Plot: A time machine was created with help from physicists around the world. One of them went back into the 19th Century and stole Darwin right from his ship, and brought him into the year 2350 or, something. When you see him for the first time, he would yell: "Die, Allied Fish-lover!", referring to fish symbols on people's cars. And, when you …

Why do women find it important to be in on the latest fashion trends? It couldn't be just to look nice for the opposite sex, because most men hardly notice it. I believe the reason lies in our evolutionary background. We evolved as hunter-gatherers. Hunting requires plenty of skill, obviously. Compared to hunting, gathering seems a pretty simple task. What I want to show is that the occupation of gathering wild fruits and vegetables is far from simple. It is a highly information intensive occupation. A tree full of fruits is a temporary store of valuables you encounter by chance. The female that finds it comes home with enough fruits for her family, and one import…

Wouldn't it? What is American policy? Democracy. Everyone enjoys freedom. So does science, so does molecules and this chaos universe. One may say how can any form or pattern be created if we're all chaos. Look again, the earth is round, universe spiral, many natual things have geometry. They're all made up of atoms, and all atoms are chaos. Wth, how did they form circles geometry. Yeah, so why doesn't one spend more time on finding out that answer instead of holding on to the concept that chaos can't create order? I feel bad and unfair for the one of get bashed of their new ideas and thoughts. Every science level have controversy. Even Eistein level. So if th…

This is an intriguing thought from a 'proper' scientist, not a nutcase, who thought that the age of bipedal motility could be pushed back to around 21 million years ago rather than the conventional 6 million years consensus. I don't treat this as speculation but rigorous logic, yet I cannot find another slot for it: http://www.uprightape.net/ Any thoughts, disagreements, agreements?

Basic fallacy in anthropic principle. How can it say life could never evolve in anything else but here? That question has no answer in this universe yet let alone a multiverse. Yes, life physically evolves, so to assume it did this via how our universe is I do not think even needs to evoke such a principal, otherwise I think to suggest that would require life to exist outside the physical universe, such as its laws, like a human being able to fall a 1000 feet with no injury. I would also think that such a statement means that the multiverse to infinity or whatever needs to be correct for our universe to exist, and toilets. Then again life goes extinct, so the universe…

Is it possible for a planet to orbit a "group" of stars? Seems like I remember some sci-fi I read as a teenager that involved a planetary system with multiple suns. It seemed to make sense at the time, but now that I've enjoyed a little popular science in my life, not that I understand it really, it seems like it wouldn't be possible. So, what gives?

with regard to the end of the world, this might be a possible cause of the reversion of earth poles in 2012... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFttsnRHzVE&feature=related it is not just an innocent scientific device, it can also be used for disrupting enermy communications, destroying enermy missiles and planes, mind control of large areas of the population, and with enought power knock the planet off its electromagnetic equilibrium and quite possibly even destroy it. wonder why we've been having increased weather activity? with such a weapon created by the US navy and air force in the hands of president george bush and the illuminati secret organizatio…

Ok everyone hello.. I want to apologize in advance for the length of this post and put out the general disclaimer that I have no college behind me whatsoever and am nothing more than an avid fan of theoretical physics.. I read everything I can find on it and then they start throwing all those ginormous equations and what not in there and I get that deer caught in the headlights thing.. oh and Im not here tryin to sell a book or anything.. I just have a thought I’d like to share and see if anyone can at the very least understand whats going on in my head whether or not they think the idea has any merit.. that being said.. Theory of why the expansion of the unive…

I was having a discussion with someone about religion; I'm not particularly religious, that is to say I do not subscribe to any specific mythos, but I don't completely discount those ideas either. I like to defend the religious side because it is usually the tougher position to defend. Anyway, the age old paradox about an omnipotent god creating an object so big that he himself can not lift it came up and I think I answered it, but I want to make sure my reasoning is sound. I said that yes an omnipotent being could create an object so big that he could not lift it, and still be omnipotent. My reasoning was that once an object reaches a certain mass, it can no longer …

I hope the mods don't mind, but I split this from another thread, where religion was being discussed, and as this topic has nothing to do with religion, I thought it would be ok to continue. I've just posted an assignment, and currently enjoying a beer, so I'll address the points ajb raised later. However if anyone else would like to comment, especially somebody more grounded in philosophy than I am, it would be very interesting to hear some viewpoints. Here's the discussion so far... How come ? I've noticed similar comments about philosophy on here, where people seem to think that it's somehow a separate entity from science, when really it's an intrins…

Dear friends, I come to you with great respect and the respect for our science legacy where countless work made up what we are today. I would like to propose to you a new view of gravity. A view that perhalf can bring us together. When one convert potential energy to kinetic energy, he or she use the formula mgh=1/2 m v^2 . Strickly speaking, mgh = Fd = Fh , where F=ma . If we do not use this method but rather use integration, one would write Work is mgh = [math]\int Fdh[/math] . One will find the same answer mgh because the integral of dh is h, and the force is constant. Now one will do the actual experimentation to verify this fact. He or she will find …

You're all ways off from the orignal, and way way off from what He told me. Planets are form from neutron stars. It split itself into the sun and the planet forming the simplest hydrogen solar system. These system could interact with other larger systems forming a bigger larger system. All planets repel each other, only attract to the sun.

Momentum is not Energy. They're totally two different quantity. Momentum is conserve, so does energy. There are one problem that we have overlook all these time... What are the form of energy? Work, heat, electricity. Heat... however is not a form of energy, or I may say, not the correct description of its form. Work and electricity are almost 100% efficiency transformation back and forth... heat is not complete because it generate entropy. In this sense, modern science isn't wrong all these time. A perpetual machine cannot ever be made. However... it is possible. We have overlook another form of energy. It's a brother of heat.... a forgotten one that everyone…

If you look at basic observation, it appears to indicate that the DNA, although the template molecule of life, plays a support role. It is given the lead role based on an unproven assumption. That assumption is life began with some version of genetic replicators. This has never been proven but we treat it as true without any requirement of proof. We need to look at what we can prove. Cells, like red blood cells can continue to be alive without DNA. But DNA is useless without a cell body, except in the above hypothetical scenario. Based on that the hierarchy is cell body then DNA. We could take a cell, remove the DNA, spread out all the cell material, add the DNA back…

"When you think of something, it exist and becomes possible." Welcome, join me to find cases to make this flaw. I've think of the earth blow up, or even bizzard as human grows wings and fly. It's still can't dismiss this philosophy. What's yours?

The scientific method uses logic, deductive logic or the hypothetico-deductive method involving hypothesis, experiment, falsification, and then the formulation of a new hypothesis. However, IMHO, there are cases where logic cannot work and a sensible hypothesis cannot be made, leaving only speculation. For example, the map made by a Turkish Fleet Admira, lPiri Reis, seems to include a perfect map of the Northern coast of Antarctica showing the coastline UNDER ICE. A quote from the article indicates the problem: [urlhttp://http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_1.htm[/url] There are a number of other mysteries on this site. Are there cases where p…

okay, i was thinking of this today and we are essentially just elements in a living form. if we were taken apart atom by atom, all it would be is a pile of water and various other elements. Now i was thinking of this, and does that mean we are simply an evolution of elements?? think of it, all we are is a living form. under certain conditions is an evolution of elements to create life and expand it, and try and make it as advanced as possible to extend itself and expand.a is our elemental make-up each of those elements trying to manifest itself for a reason i don't understand. because think about it, life was created from nothing.. from heat, water electricity w…

If in Tom eye the grass is blue and Mary eye see it red. You as the parents see it green. So you teach Tom and Mary the world green when see grass. You say "green". Tom hear "Occccck", Mary hear "Baang". So each time Tom see blue color, he says "occcck", and marry see a red color, she says "Baang". You yourself just know that they pointed at the green color and say "green". Deceptions.... all deceptions!

Okay there are a couple parts to my theory. first im not talking about a time travel machine, I'm talking about moving faster then light and how doing this would make you travel backward into the past. this is all saying we can theoretically move faster then light through some kind of imaginary dark matter futuristic space ship. I have a scenario where time travel would take place due to the space ship going faster then light. Now in my theory, two space ships are beside eachother talking with a sun shining light on them. One does a faster then light launch to a distance where it would take about 40 seconds to get to at light speed. the space ship then turns aro…

On another thread I said I’d sign of for good. But in response to popular demand…well OK, to one disappointed reader anyway, ie: …I thought I'd start a new thread. To describe what this thread is basically about is quite simple. But, I’ve concluded, to effectively argue for a theory of a nonlocal cause just from the consistently confirmed empirical evidence is very subtle and requires an account quite unlike any other in modern science. This and the fact that a very wide range of natural evidence needs to be examined together to adequately support this theory, and just to definitely show both that and how an invisible cause acts in addition to the forces ar…

If you can find the time too read the this, I am looking for feedback. Rough Draft. Lengthy but interesting; the main gist is in the second to last section. Introduction “We, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes” -Richard Dawkins To begin, I would like it to be noted that I am a subscriber to the “Selfish gene theory”. That is, I believe that our bodies are no more than complex structures capable of chemical manipulation which are designed to transport and propagate our genomes. Everything we do, from sexual urges, to operant behavior, and perhaps a large amount of actions that we consider to be driven by “free will” are in fact done to s…

This thread reminds me of those american soap operas. "Bold and the Beautiful" type, where you stop watching at episode 10, come back at episode 7443 and it's EXACTLY the same. I don't know if you guys don't notice because you're in the midst of the debate or because you're too involved with defending science as we know it, but if a mod decides to randomly delete 40 out of 55 posts here, no one will miss them. It's REPETITIVE. The repetition is obvious, too, to an outside observer: MotorDaddy asks a vaguely strawmanish question. SFNers answer. MotorDaddy straw-mans the answer to fit his imaginative view of physics. SFNers correct him and point out the str…

Abstract: The following article 'Cosmic Powerhouse of Einstein and Grand Unified Theory', reveals Einstein's most famous scientific equation, E = mc2, and explicates the inner puzzles of Einstein's state of mind. Particularly, it focuses on Einstein's postulations connected with his own theory, 'cosmological constant'. Even though Einstein was very near to the immeasurable scientific ocean of relativity, he created a block to further discovery and understanding with his assumptions of a 'static universe' connected with the 'cosmological constant', hindering the science of cosmology from proving wonders after wonders like E = mc2. This article explores the human limitation…