NavajoEverclear

70% of Americans believe that these life forms would be similar to humans

god thats depressing

there is are many legends of giants in north America, which are now extinct. Captain Cooke took journal that he once encountered some of them and caught one, which escaped. I just wanted to know if there is more scientifically accepted evidence of large races of humans. Its not that far fetched in the case of those found in the graves of the mound builders, who were 8 feet tall. however it is unusual that they have double rows of teeth.

Are these findings hoax, or are they credible? I did not find any info claiming that these discoveries were discounted, so i'm hoping some one may have more information. Not neccisarily on these particular findings of giants, but any throughout history

here's a couple of interesting sites on the issue

http://www.burlingtonnews.net/ohiogiants.html

http://www.rense.com/ufo4/giants.htm

electron-specific higgs wasn't his words exactly, just that electrons and Neutrinos are the same particle and only behave differently because only one type of higgs particle exists because that is the stable state.

DQW-- thanks, but dont really understand what you are saying, i really know very little about Physics

well what were here sources? that one sounds quite iffy, but i know there are Tibetan Monastaries in which the monks go into the himilayas in only their robe, and draped in a soaking towel, and stay the night. Conditions that would give an ordinary person hypothermia, a discovery channel special investigated it, scientists attached electrodes to the monks. They confirmed that somehow, by intense power of thought they regulated their body temperature to not be effected by the harsh environment.

I also have studied eastern spirituality, tho i am skeptical of the supernatural, it can at least be said that within these paths there is a deeper key to unlocking human potential, unlike comercialized western religion which is mainly political.

please help me with the higgs!

I am currently reading Lee Smolin's Life of the Cosmos. In the begginning just explains the basics of the currently accepted physics stuff. I just learned about Higgs particles. It says that the Electron and the Neutrino are the same particle exactly, and only behave differently because the universe is filled with a gas of only electron-specificy Higgs particles. What i dont understand is that if they are exactly the same particle, how can there be an electron specific type of the Higgs thingy? Wouldn't that imply something different about the electron? If they are both exactly the same, and the Higgs make the electrons behave as they do, why don't all the neutrinos become electrons?

Oh my lord it was amazing, i watched it with religious fervor. I still say it ties Tim Burton's batman, because it is tied so strongly in my childhood memories. I didn't really like Batman Returns. Batman Forever was pretty neat tho i thought. Batman Begins would top Batman by a thousand miles except that it was weak musically. That made me a little sad, but nevertheless i am infinately grateful for this Batmantasical Blessing. I am very excited to see which villains are captured in the sequel.

I (however behind the times i am) have basically just discovered that a fascinating area of science has been spawned from the discover of quarks. Of coarse i've heard of them before, but not realized how involved it all is. So i wanted to read up on the subject, and i cant tell what the hell is going on.

Can someone direct me toward a book or such that could help me understand the basics of quarks and related particles, without making it a lifelong study for comprehension? Something simple enough me to understand (within reasonable range of effort), but goes in enough depth to be exciting. Appreciate anything ya'all can offer.

Since humans evolved, the answer has to be that the first human started as a baby, given birth to and taken care of by parents who were not-quite-human. Just as the the first chicken egg was laid by something that was not-quite-a-chicken.

psshhh! who are you to say they aren't quite chicken? they were there first by god! bet those prehistoric chickens would kick your ass if they were around to hear you talking crap on them like that.

well it hasn't really changed, i'd still kinda like to know, but since it doesn't appear that's happening i just wanted to end the useless arguing.

my dignity doesn't want me to admit defeat, and so i wont. i will however confess the obvious, that i indulged in ignorance, consequently damaging my value of credibility. I still think the number means something, because from my knowledge base it appears too large a coincidence to be otherwise. I know that might not be a terribly expansive area, but i don't know where to start to proove it either way. Since no one here manifested knows either, and no progress is being made, i think the discussion should be ended.

That's nonsense !

for all i know it could be, i dont know either way, but if you are going to say something you aught to back it up. I do believe that's what science is about.

before i sound like a hypocrit for not listening to you when i asked you to listen to me, i'll point out i just realized that mezarashi's list is not a six degrees of seperation type thing. They are simple isolated relationships. However i still tend to believe that the Sun, Moon, Earth thing is more significant. I give up tho, this is all a waste of time.

mezarashi, i'm not being defensive, i'm just frustrated that people aren't thinking very hard. AND you just prooved my point about mining. Your relationship had six steps to it, like 6 degrees of seperation, fun game by the way. It took effort to figure that one out. My fact on the other hand has what, one, maybe two steps?

The fixation on how it can't be coincidence and that there must be meaning to it is a trait that some people have that ensures cults and con artists will never go away.

IDIOT! i'm not trying to start some cult. I think i said something like that somwhere, i'm sure there is a perfectly scientific explanation for the relationship, just asking if anyone knew what it was.

If you are so positive this is just data mining with no relevance, show me how the numbers are not unique. Show me how they are very common and meaningless. I'd really be fine to accept such an explanation if you could actually show it to me.

dude, you aren't listening to me. I've heard the term. That applies when you find some obscure relationship, which of coarse you'd use some type of logic to justify and stupid people would buy into it. This is not obscure. Trust me i feel really stupid repeating this again but i'm going to do it again anyway.

The moon and the sun are 108 times their respective diameters distanced from the Earth.

That is not data mining. Mining means you have to search for it, you have to dig. There is nothing to dig through. I'm not saying its supernatural or that we should worship ancient Hindus for discovering it. It is what it is and it is clearly coincidence too large to be written off (even though you are trying to) as concieved of some bogus method. It has to correlate with something.

thanks for the input. thinking about emotions as only hormones (which i guess they are) would actually reverse the scale of who has the most powerful emotions. While human emotion may be more complex, i would say a beetle, being more simple, has more complete and thus drastically stronger emotions by that definition.

vodka. kay i'll remember that. this thread will now self destruct

i wonder if there is a particular day in which both values are even closer to being precisely 108. It would be whenever we are a little farther from the sun, and the moon is a little closer to us. I dont know how the orbits work so i dont know when this would be except i dont think it would be in the summer

well i definately see what you are saying, i know you can use obscure relationships to appear to proove anything, but i'd say that this example sounds pretty relevant. They aren't some weird equation pulled out that you really have to work for to extract, its incredibly simple. Both the Sun and the Moon are aproximately 108 times their diameter away from the Earth. It seems it must mean something

The Sun is about 108 times its diameter from the Earth (107.7) and the moon is about 108 times it's diameter from the Earth (110.7) . . . . according to my calculations. As a site note, 108 is a sacred number in Hinduism, i do not recall if this was before or after such calculations.

Why is this number as it is? Is it a coincidence, or is there a particular reason within the laws of physics? Is some relationship about this number related to why Earth is conducive to life?

just a random wondering, sorta. Schedule B? Tylenol and the like is all i meant.

actually i'm going go to sleep before i do the workings. i guess you can probably delete this and i'll just repost when i know what the hell i'm talking about. Sorry for being a pain in the ass.

I was reminded of an interesting fact (?) when i was reading some psycho's claim here that Muslims knew the speed of light. I'm not puting my thing in the religious section, because the origin of my question is only a sidenote, my ultimate pondering is only scientific.

Now though you're going to think i'm just an idiot because i cannot refind the source and precise wording of my fact in inquiry, so i hope you can figure out what is going on.

A sacred Hindu number is 108. This number is aproximately how many times the moons diameter that it is from the Earth, AND how many times the Earth's diameter it is from the sun. Either that or its was how many times the sun's diameter it is from earth, or it all could have been the circumfance, or the radius. It could all be figured out by dividing or multiplying by some fraction or multiple of Pi.

My question is then why is this have such a relationship?

And now i'm going to go try to figure out what the proportions even where, but i'm not going to edit my post just cause i think my confusion is funny.

Which animals have what could be considered to possess emotional faculties?

I know there's probably no clear line between what can definitavely be called emotion, and what is simply instinctual impulse, but give me the best answer you can come up with. All i can figure with my pathetically limited knowledge is mammals, and some birds. I guess squids must have emotions cause i heard they are hella smart. Which brings me to another question--- are emotions a sign of being advanced, or of being primitive? they come from a more primitive part of the brain, but it appears that emotions only appear in higher intelligence species. Which brings another question, in the future of evolution will emotions be eliminated? I personally think they will be refined, and become more blended with the logical parts of the brain, but not dissappear. It seems in some situations emotions can work quicker than logic, which is a definate benefit. You might feel that something is going on before you know what is going on, and you can react sooner. It can also go the other way that you act before thinking, but it depends.

I apologize my the end of my idiotic ramblings you aren't sure what question i asked, so just give whatever input ya can. thanks

how many can you take to make you excessively numb to pain, but without ODing and losing consciosness? not on regular but say on some special ocasion when you need to be immune to pain? I guess illegal stuff would do the job better, but i'm to lazy to risk my butt trying to get drugs.