StringJunky

Ok I'll concede I was wrong on that point! (in the face of overwhelming evidence...ouch!)

 

Kudos for conceding in the face of the evidence. One often finds in matters like these that it's social pressure during ones formative years that colours ones perception and dictates how we are socially supposed to perceive it. An open mind and a search of the evidence can reveal a contrary result...as in this case. I think these qualities are paramount to be a good scientist.

I was as prejudiced as anyone 25 years ago but the evidence and much personal rumination over the years with a clinical eye has changed that. I have reached the point now where if I wanted to express myself that way I would...but I don't..it's not me.

I would go as far as to say homosexual behaviour is socially cohesive rather than destructive as evidenced by Bonobos as an example...a well chilled bunch of primates as far as I've read. What better way to neutralise an aggressive situation between potentially lethal opponents than to arouse each others pleasure centres?

Homosexuality a mental illness? A behaviour/thought pattern detrimental to an individual or group...an open mind reveals that is not the case.

 

It's also worthy of note that primates and humans are the only creatures which mate for pleasure...(and there are no recorded incidences of primates performing homosexual acts) which means it is a condition only (in nature) isolated to humans - which tells me that other factors need to be considered...

 

There's loads of species that have individuals on the pink side of sexual behavior, including bonobo monkeys...primates if I'm not mistaken. Surprised me actually its prevalence....is there anything Wikipedia hasn't documented?

"No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour#Homosexual_behaviour

 

My preference lies with the idea that sex itself is what was selected for, not necessarily sex with opposite gendered partners.

How do you explain the fact that 90-95% of the population is hetero', if it's just sex that's selected for and not bias? If it was just sex that was selected for wouldn't it be reasonable to see a more even distribution of the two biases in a population....bias in the sense of hetero' or homo' behaviour?

I think some people are genetically hardwired to be gay and I don't think it's a pathalogical behaviour or mental illness...for the record.

You think that's bad... I had the bright idea of liberally sprinkling dried blood AND fishmeal in the soil of one of my houseplants. I didn't figure it out the source straight away because it was a trailing plant in a hanging basket above my head....memorable...conjure up visions of the air filled with the stench of dead fish, maggots and corpses!

Compiling the assorted bits I found: Trimethylamine oxide (odorless) is decomposed to trimethylamine by bacterial action followed by decomposition to dimethylamine and formaldahyde through enzymatic action.

Got most of it from here:

http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/tan/x5990e/X5990e01.htm

Ahh! Glasshopper...you learn well!

Has such a thing ever been witnessed, or is this speculation?

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/10/black-hole-collision/

It's worth clicking the link to get the lowdown on what you are looking at and how it was made.

It's hard work looking at posts like this...if you can be bothered to type could you possibly extend the effort to CAPITALISING your sentences at the appropriate points. Paragraphing would be nice too. Thanks.

Women are apparently better at multitasking. They can also withstand greater g forces before passing out so they could make better fighter pilots....this is due to them being shorter on average and can physically control the blood pressure in their head easier ( i think the difference is two g's).

In the spirit of the question, ethically, all candidates regardless of gender should be given equal opportunity because there will always be a significant minority in the 'wrong' gender for a job that is capable of excelling over candidates of the 'right' gender and it would be iniquitous to deny them that destiny. You can't really just differentiate the human race in to the physical Male and Female....in a sense they represent polarities but most people fall some where in between in terms of male and female emtional/intellectual/physical attributes which may individually total up as distinct to what is traditionally expected from their gender.

A female may have considerable latent ability in a traditionally masculine task and vice versa....is it fair to deny them that outlet for their ability just because they possess the wrong gentalia?

Regardless of whether one sex has a scientifically proven superiority over the other in a given task, the opportunity (and requirements) should be the same.

It's not in the interest of progress either...what if the next Einstein or Newton was female and we preferentially selected only males for science...it could be a particular girl that has the insight and capability to unify Quantum Physics with Gravity for example? That would be a bummer wouldn't it...look how often the likes of those two men turn up?

Selection also potentially hinders our future survivability by limiting the diversity and potential of our human resources. Diversity is king when it comes to handling adversity.

A strategy of officially organised gender bias fails on nearly all levels in my mind because we are not black and white different....more like a gradient of greys.

This program does the kind of job you are looking to do I think:

http://www.freedownloadsplace.com/Products/38290/TrID-File-Identifier

AR-Ex: It has no sound evidence to support it.

"Living things...are moist. When the electricity enters the living object, it produces an area of gas ionization around the photographed object, assuming moisture is present on the object. This moisture is transferred from the subject to the emulsion surface of the photographic film and causes an alternation of the electric charge pattern on the film. If a photograph is taken in a vacuum, where no ionized gas is present, no Kirlian image appears. If the Kirlian image were due to some paranormal fundamental living energy field, it should not disappear in a simple vacuum (Hines 2003)."

http://www.skepdic.com/kirlian.html

It's not that each nerve is specialized but because each hair is of a different length, so it resonates sympathetically to a particular frequency which correlates to its length.

If it's that heavy on your system resources, I'd dump it and use Microsoft Security Essentials...it's fast, light as a feather on your system resources and free. The first full system scan takes a long time but after that it's much quicker, especially if you use the Quick Scan on a regular basis...it has realtime protection too.

http://www.microsoft.com/security_essentials/

Mix that with Spywareblaster, which doesn't use any resources, and the Windows Firewall...you're sorted!

http://www.filehippo.com/download_spywareblaster/

Makes sense, but why should any two objects "clump" to begin with? Would this be due to other forces (electric, magnetic, etc.), or just random, chaotic subatomic activity? I suppose now I'm asking about the initial conditions of the universe (aren't I?). In other words, was there ever a state of complete isotropy of matter and energy (the singularity?)? If so, what caused its transition into chaos? If not, why the hell not? Am I in over my head?

 

(I know I'm rambling, I'm cramming for a physics exam and some of this stuff is pretty thought-provoking!)

You might find this CDM Model stills and animation interesting:

http://cosmicweb.uchicago.edu/filaments.html

quantum mechanics explains it quite well with virtual photons although it can be explained classically as well but can be prone to problems.

 

basically the field(any field) is just the volume and geometry of influence of its source, be that an electro magnet or whatever.

 

the field is populated by a sea of 'virtual' photons that exchange momentum between the source and the object being influenced.

I've just read up on virtual photons...i understand that now. Does the magnetic field still exist in the absence of anything to influence or only when something is within range?

I used to detest my middle name (Joseph) but I now like 'Joe' so I'd go for that as my first name instead instead of Antony (Tony for short). I like Ansel as well.

Thanks for the response I don't understand the 12th fret analogy. When I hold the finger at 12th fret are there 2 vibrations in the 2 parts of the string separated by the finger. I thought only the area from the bridge to the 12th fret vibrates.

 

This is my misunderstanding

 

1. When I hold a string does the whole string vibrate or the area up to my finger. Also when I play the 12th fret are harmonics still created in the string?

2.When you hold the string somewhere does the fundamental frequency change to something else? Is that how you get different notes.

1. When you lightly and briefly touch exactly above the 12th fret position to bring out the harmonic you kill the natural note and set up two independent sections of vibrating string each with a frequency twice what it was before...so, yes, both sides vibrate either side of the 12th fret when you pluck and touch it there. If you touch it a quarter of the length you set up 4 sections...3 one side of the point you touched and one the other side!

When you finger the twelfth fret properly the harmonics are still there.

2. When you finger down on a fret normally, only that part between the fingered /fretted note position and the saddle vibrates.

Be aware, my first method is for bringing out the harmonic...the second one is the fundamental. If you change the string length by firmly fretting at different positions on the neck you change the lowest frequency (fundamental) that string can produce and hence its musical note . The smallest step in western music is a half step or half note (1 fret difference either side of any position = 1/2 step).

I'd like to know the nature of a magnetic field too..the 'stuff' that it's made of but I guess it'll be the same as for light and electric fields..I don't think they know.

This might make it a bit clearer:

http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physics/waves/standingWaves/standingWaves1/StandingWaves1.html

The Nodal Points are where the amplitude of the wave form is zero so the ends, be it your fretted finger and saddle or the nut and saddle are nodal points.

If you pluck and touch a vibrating string just right at the halfway point you 'kill' the Fundamental and are left with two vibrating portions of string of equal length that vibrate at twice the frequency of the Fundamental (one octave higher). If you touch it at a quarter length you kill the Fundamental and First Overtone and get 4 vibrating portions between 5 nodes that vibrate at 4 times the frequency of the Fundamental (Two octaves higher).

All those nodes I mentioned are always there but you are eliminating the next lowest harmonic to hear each higher group by the technique of touching at the appropriate points...it should give you some insight into how all the frequencies are generated simultaneously.

I am not sure I see the difference between science and ‘hard science’. As I understand science it is all to do with measurement, that is quantity, whereas philosophy and religion are primarily about quality.

 

If by ‘hard science’ is meant quality science, then the line between science-philosophy-religion becomes blurred. However if my quest is considered not scientific, I will gladly change forums.

 

Unfortunately I see that I cannot post on Philosophy and Religion until I have made 50 posts (presumably elsewhere on the forum) so not sure what to do.

I meant 'hard' in the sense of being demanding and rigorous with regard to evidence which Chemistry, Biology and Physics are...Astro and Cosmo are as well.

My apologies for that oversight. P&R is very new and I forgot there is a minimum limit.

My name's Tony. It's interesting for me watching people's personas and mindsets naturally manifest over time through their writing without actually seeing them which is most probably completely at odds with how they are in 'real life'. Although it is real people putting the words here, it is the words and the subsequent mental constructs one generates from them that really matters and not their physical selves and personal circumstances that I'm generally interested in here.

Not being of a formally trained scientific disposition myself it's useful to know if a person is relevantly qualified in a field so I can presume some creedence to their words and learn from them without having to be unduly sceptical beforehand...if they are skilled it's beneficial to know but any other personal info is not necessary IMO, so, anonymising avatars are fine with me if people feel the need.

I second CharonY's suggestion of Ccleaner's registry tool it's pretty safe, unlike many others. It's always a good idea to backup the registry though...I use this:

http://download.cnet.com/Mz-Registry-Backup/3000-2094_4-10882793.html

This Registry Optimiser from MZ is ok as well: http://download.cnet.com/Mz-Registry-Optimizer/3000-18512_4-10777657.html. This one will compact and replace a new Registry on reboot. Backup up first with the tool mentioned. Only use very occasionally. Ccleaner's tool is safer for keeping chaff down on a regular basis...and you can remove space hogging system restore points as well.

Please do note that you are posting in the Science & Physics section and such discussions are probably more suited to bring up in the Philosophy & Religion section.

Pip: Like Spyman says, we have to stick to hard science in this section. If you want to discuss origins of a non scientific nature you need to start a thread in P&R.

 

Quote (originally posted by StringJunky – April 13th)

 

“In the beginning there was nothing… then it exploded.” End quote

 

‘Nothing’ cannot explode – this is a scientific impossibility!

 

Quote

“There must have been preconditions that initiated the BB but are not known as yet. It’s best to leave its initial state as ‘unknown’ until scientists have some evidence or tangible clues I think”.

End quote

 

I agree “there must have been preconditions that initiated the BB” but how can you be sure they are not known. There are many people that would maintain that the preconditions for matter, energy, space and time can be known.

 

Surely any individual can only say “I personally do not know them”. And why should it be scientists that have the sole responsibility of discovering the unknown. If we are looking at ‘the singularity’ every viewpoint has a part to play.

"In the beginning.....it exploded".... .this was not meant to be taken seriously,hence, the grin. It's a quote from the author Terry Pratchett that I thought illustrated the absurdity of effect without cause in a humorous and concise way.

Spyman has pointed out how close we are to the event of the BB in terms of what happened...before that point people can only speculate. I would imagine scientists will eventually extrapolate from experiments and observations of other astronomical phenomena what events preceded the BB moment

On your last point, only scientists with the relevant expertise can really make any meaningful statements on the origins and nature of the physical universe...we all have our ideas but the testable ones and the ones built on what is already experimentally confirmed are the only ideas that matter in the long run.

From what I've learnt on this forum, the Singularity is a mathematically created artefact predicted by Relativity that is not believed to actually exist in reality. I think to most scientists it indicates the point where that theory breaks down as an accurate description of reality...below that scale Quantum Physics is a better description I believe. The differences between the two disciplines (Quantum and Relativity) predictions at around this scale point is something they are striving to reconcile but, as yet, have not succeeded.

For space to exist there needs to be dimension point and a viewpoint to view the dimension points. If no matter existed before the big bang then no space could have existed. “Space” before the big bang was not space but nothing.

 

So I am ok for there to have been nothing before the big bang, but there would have had to be awareness of awareness preceding the big bang, to be aware of the nothing. That that is aware of nothing is a NO-THING. It is the concept of NO-THING that is missing in the big bang theory. See http://www.buddhanet.net/bt_52.htm

In the beginning there was nothing....then it exploded.

There must have been preconditions that initiated the BB but are not known as yet. It's best to leave its initial state as 'unknown' until scientists have some evidence or tangible clues I think.