mr d

hello yes i know no know quantifable mass can travel beyond the speed of light. though some studies suggest light was traveling at a speed faster than current at the beginning of the universe, so light speed may not be a constant, but merely the limit of speed achievable at any given instant in time. so we'll try it this way if you want. i accelerate my vehicle towards light speed , as i hit lightspeed my mass is converted to energy (e=mc2) as only energy can travel at the speed of light. my energy bubble momentarily warps the fabric of space crating an worm hole between two sections of space. i travel through and use the gravitational field of a star to decelerate by doppler effect on light\energy. therefore covering a distance that would be greater than what light can cover in the same amount of time. and by using this system hop may way to this distant place i'm looking for. since what i just wrote would be conjecture, as a sizable mass has not been accereated by humans to the speed of light and no proof exists as to what exactly would occur under given condictions. replys as to whether such a system could work in like manor, would only hypothesis i return to my original question. which is not can we travel beyond the speed of light, but if (perhaps only imaginary) we could travel beyond the speed of light do you consider the difference in current observed earth time, and actual time from any given distant point in space time travel. mr d

hello question? could you use faster than light travel as a crude form of a time machine. reasoning. a star we observe here on earth that is a million light years from earth, we are observing that star as it was a million years ago (the light we see now was given off by that star a million years ago). the star presently could have gone nova, or collasped in to a black hole, but we won't know for certain for a million years. therefore if i have my proposed faster than light vehicle i travel a 100,000 light years toward that star (taking into account the need to calculate where that star would be in 100,000 years), we are now viewing that star as it existed 900,000 years ago. so as we travel towards the star we move closer to it in time till we are under a light year in distance and see that star as it is now, well close to it anyway. but now the reverse has happened, for as i turn to look back at the earth, it is the earth as it was a million years ago. if the idea is sound, big if, could i go to a star 65 million light years away and given proper instruments record the event of the meteor that struck the yucatan pennisula? could i also go to various time-points in space and record the signals humans were broadcasting at that specific space-time? the old idea that all electric signals such as radio and tv eminate out from the earth into space. so if there was an old tv show from say fourty years ago on wendsday the 24th of august at 7pm gmt, if i calculate out the distance (and direction as postion of transmitter would matter as portions of signal blocked by earth) and park my collection devise there at what would be 24th at 6:58 gmt i could the gather in those signals and record the program. hell of an expensive vcr. strange thoughts mr d

hello i believe what ohio would be trying to carry off against the mother would be a charge of premediated murder. her sole purpose for leaving the state is to kill her fetus, given ohio gives person status to a fetus. so for her to leave she is actually transporting a person to be murder across state lines, and then carrying out her murder plan. though the person would be transported in the mother's womb. if i devise a plan to kill you, then kidnap you in florida and transport you to oklahoma to be murdered because oklahoma has no law against murder. i can still be prosecuted in florida for premeditated murder. also anyone aiding me to leave the state to carry out my crime could be charged as an accessory to murder, or if they actually did help in planning and addictional charge of conspiracy could be tacked on. be my guess anyway. mr d

hello firstly i'll explain it agian. there is no homosexual gene, the conjector is for the existence of sexual orientation that would be part of a sexual identity co-related in an individual by multible genes or for simple explaination sliders that have genetic material contributed parents on opposite ends of that slider. and example your father has black hair, your mother blond, while there is a change one of their genes may take dominance and your hair color will be exactly as one parent or the other. but in most cases your hair will be a combination of the two, with a greater or lesser degree of one parent's color having a greater or lesser degree of dominance due to the dominant trait plus viability of the material contributed with possible inclusion of external influence that effects the levels of chemicals\ hormones\ secondary rna proteins... no it does not mean that gene made you gay, it means on your slider of orientation you are more inclined to be attracted to persons of the same sex. and as it is a slider individuals may be placed anywhere along its lenght with levels of attraction allowing for male and female partners.. but that is only for orientation. but that is only for orientation. next up may come your slider for desire for sex, you may get a large desire factor, three times a day is not enough, or it might be once every two weeks is fine with you. (side note: if you have randy 40 year old parents be happy, if frisky 60 year old grand parents be elated. the range of your slider probably came from them.). at the same time this is happening other physical and emotion traits are being desided. with some degree of cross influence, or more likely in the case of emotions responce centers in the brain are being sized, formed and how well the neurons involved respond. through disection it has been shown that the brains of homosexual show signs of opposite sex developement. yes the brains of men and women do differ. so you maybe a male but your slider for compassion is forced more toward your mothers level, giving you a more female aspect to your personality there. but the information for shape of your throat favors your father, so you have the deeper pitched voice of a male. this mixing would included every aspect of your physical and emotional developement. which explains the wide range in gay personalities and shapes, and at the same time for those hetrosexuals as well. gay is not normal or abnormal, it just implies you were given a slider orientation that socieity considers to be opposite of current social expectations. and opposite to what nature requires for species reproduction in a breeding population. as to your 10% rate (i've seen 5-7%, but no matter), if you check rates for babies born with cleft palettes, or webbed fingers and toes (evolutionary vestage or sign of the devil your choice), or clubbed foot all have rates near or surpassing your 10%. if you were bulding a system as complex as a humanbeing, 90% coming out physically and emotionally according to plans would be quite a feat considering your starting with a pinhead of chemicals and proteins. onto the second part can't say i've seen any great body of work showing orientation is decided inuetero (hope came close to spelling that). what i have seen is that gender identification starts very early, whether you consider yourself male or female(self -societal acceptance). i'd like to see how they tested fetuses for sexual orientation, perhaps project images from hustler magazine on the inside of the womb to see if male fetuses reacted. sorry being a little silly there. in the case of the boy 'john' listed in the article it appears he suffered from AIS, or during gestation when androgens (male hormones) should have caused his gonad structure to drop to form a penis and testes, the level sufficiently dropped to a point that his body began reshaping his body as if he were female. in his case there was some teste developement, so no ovaries formation only an incomplete formation of rudimentary external female genitalia once levels had dropped. so the presence of testes showed he had already developed some male characteristics, and it was quite possible his body was still capable of producing other male hormones. meaning though surgically altered his body was not truely female, but merely given the external appearence of such to provide a 'john' was a sexual identification. do not know current thinking but formerly indeterminate or partial males where surgically altered to female, as the belief was as he would be thought to be lacking now in the ability to produce male testosterone his developement would be more along female lines. however the article says the introduction of female hormones did not occur till early teens by which time his emotional makeup would already have been set. and the fact that they were giving him doses of estrogene tend to indicate to me that he was not naturally producing such at any relevant level. and in all likelihood his body had been producing male hormones at a reduced level, meaning he was physically altered to appear female, he was still developing as a male. mr d

hello asimple answer would be yes, you do have some limit. most research points to the fact that the human brain is divided in to numerous processing areas. sight, speech, spacial recognition, hearing, lanuage, etc... you are born with a brain that is as you put it preprogrammed where your brain can handle that process. but other factors apply, i might have a brain that has a higher capacity for handling numbers, but your brain might have the faster firing neurons, or neurons that can recover their charge quicker. also how each persons neural pathways are linked, or how strong those pathways develope can differ. also it depends on how much you use your areas of the brain. or the old addage from many teachers and professors 'apply yourself sir, or your never reach your full potential.'. your mind my handle numbers wonderfully, but you hate math and never concern yourself with the subject. no particular advantage to to you. mr d

Hello firstly do i believe orientation determined at birth. no i do not. my conjector is at birth you are born as a sexual null. meaning oriention no at birth , but genetically you have been incoded for both orientation for parents genetic material. earliest stages of developement would most likely put you at a monosexual, meaning a sexual awardness of self (embarrasing time for parents or sitters out in public. a little levity there, but i thnink a few will know what i mean). later as your body developes, physical mental and emotional developement occurs to prepare you for entry into the breeding population. a guess would be around 9-12 years of age, a basic oriention is set forth, or to simply put it: as a boy girls are no longer icky and you start wondering just why they are built differently. again design is for reproduction of species, if your not interested in the opposite sex for a species like humans your species is dead. after this point your body would develope fully for biologic reproduction, approximately 13-16 years, while you would also fully develope physical, mental and emotional traits to help signal your readiness to usually opposite sex individuals for the purpose of matting and producing offspring.at this time you would also develope the more complex emotions for love and caring that would cause the type of bonding structure needed for the upbringing of children. i realize some may thing those ages a bit young, but it is based more on phyiscal viability then accepted age. in the case of oncogenes, usually seen in cancer growth, they appear to develope from proto-oncogenes which may be by damage by infection and/or possible insertion of viral code which may first take the appearance of genetic proteins. but as in most such cases the take over of the gene, along with how the aids virus uses t-cels, is to provide the means for the virus's replication by having the invected cells create more virus's, or by celluar subdivision. this would tend to nesessitate there being in a human body a location for the cells responcible for human orientation, and that this virus could gain access for subsiquent infection. plus it would bring up a question as to why? virus's exist to infect a host to use for self replication or as a source of nutients for the virus to grow most commonly in celluar mass such as a tumor. could you see a reason that such a virus would attack a human body for the purpose of inducing orientation change? also such invasions should produce some form of infected of tissue that should be detectable(viral infections target specific systems so there should be found both contaminated and uncontaminated cells). or do you suggest a complete change in the genetic state of the infected individual without observable change. secondly what would be your means of viral transmission (air-waterborn, latent, direct contact.), and what would be the body system used for the virus to reach the targeted cels? if the infected person comes into contact with others why not a greater incident of cross infection. in a home why not more family members, in a school why not more classmates. and if a virus carrying out genetic alteration what is there not infection of individuals at anny age, a virus rewritting the code of a four year old should be able to rewrite the code of a fourty year old. continued viability of such a virus would tend to mean it would have to carry its own survival out through transmission. in my system you have a slider, male-female, genetic materials or chemicals-hormones gentically related push that slider more to one side or the other based on parental gene contribution with a boost brought on the sex specific hormones-chemicals produced by the body. therefore depending on genes and homones involved, you can produce an individual whose orientation could appear anywhere along that slider. mix this with other sliders (sexual desire, hair color, hearing range, etc...) you can easily use limited amount of genetic material to create a much broader range of individuals. however as these genes and chemicals-hormones come into play,the actually makeup of the material(all genes are not equal), any genetic damage (either through replication or outside influence, which could be caused by viral infection altering the gene or more likely altering the chemical-hormone balance), can influence the direction that slider may be push in uninfluenced circumstances. meaning change-mutation possible in all areas, some harmful some not. in the case of orientation the human species is not imperiled by such changes. nearly six billion and counting. mr d

hello your xx\xy or concidered the base pair as they provide the code, or building blocks for the constuction of a human. the secondary set appears more concerned with interpretation and implementation of the primary genes. secondly viral\immunological explaination. since most mammalian species are reported to show what we humans interpret as a percentage of homosexual orientation. such a virus would have to be able to invect the intire species from rats to dogs, to cats to people. possible but highly unlikely. also that so wide spread a virus, as animals and people cover near the entire earth's land masses, has thoughout medical history evaded detection is again unlikely. unless you are arguing for a dorment viral infection naturally carried in all mammals? also that it would given such a range infect such a low percentage of the population not so likely, only possible explaination i could fore see that might explain such a statistic would be most people are born with a natural immunitiy. such a natural immunity would perclude that at sometime in the past, the 'homosexual virus' attacked the human population infecting a huge percentage of them causing a homosexual explosion. the human race surviving because those so infected where no longer incline to breed with opposite sex partners. resault their subsepiablity to the virus render those people extinct, but the now dormant virus was carried in the surviving population, and occasionally genetic damage or mutation in a child makes them vunerable. plus unless as i suggest the possiblities of both orientations are possible at birth, said virus would have to invade the body have the means to invade the cells that determine orientation (which we have no idea which they are) and rewrite genetic code to bring about a change. that said, virus's can not rewrite genetic code (if someone knows of such please post information), they might damage the genetic material in cases. but as above unless the possibility of both orientations are already there, the virus can not suppressed one orientation or the other. which also brings up another question, as their are both amle and female forms of homosexuality, you would need two forms of the virus for all species. one that could identify a male and one that could identify a female. because a virus that just caused a male to find other males attractive, would have not effect on making a female suddenly find females attractive. mr d

hello though i couldn't find the study i was looking for it was conducted at least a decade ago, as stated above, i did not concieve we'd still be discuusing this matter, i did find these two that do point to a much higher correlation in same orientation amoung identical twins. anywhere from 16% to 60%, though i would still have questions about the mz study's sample group. but i'll concide to a higher rate. however it does not invadidate the theory. why? any fairly high difference in the orientation, still 25%-75%, points to the conclusion that a single gene does not exists to control sexual orientation. with the possible exception that there is a high mutation rate or high rate of genetic damage to the supposed gene. take a look here. even if your not inthralled in this subject, it is an interesting read just to see how much your genetic material is believe to determine your personality. http://www.nyu.edu/classes/neimark/TWIN1.HTM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_and_sexual_orientation i still have some interest in finding the study i was thinking about from the statement above. reason being it actually had little to do with orientation in twins, but i believe mental levels. the orientation bit was just part of data collected, and the reason i remember is how that data was siezed on by the media, with insueing fun caused by the religious right vs the gay community. the big push then was for the single gene theory amoungst that community, the right siezed this data to say if there was this difference that something external or sickness caused homosexuality. logic following that money should be spent on research to discover this cause so that a treatment could be developed. i kid you not. i remember seeing researchers on some semi-news program trying to distance themselves from that data, even hinting at its irrelivance to the study and how it might be remove. on to the soap box for a moment, please indulge. yes if this conjecture is true yes a supposed treatment to prevent homosexually could be possible. of course this would involve discovering the chemicals\hormones involved. the exact gene, the exact cell(s) the body uses to take the gentic code from. you have billions of these, a determination of the exact split moment a dose of cure would have to be applied, remember every cell in the body would require treatment at the exact same moment to assure complete treatment. plus need to be able to monitor the body to somehow predetermine the precise moment this gene will be activated, you have to time your treatment to match. also you'd have to insure and almost immediate return to previous levels of this hormone\chemical so as not to affect other genetic developement (physical and emotional) that it is triggering at this time. as homosexuality appears present in other animals, plus does anyone remember the necrophilic mallard duck, it seems that it is just exceptable to the genetic system evolved. with nature deciding that the condiction poses no direct threat to a species survival. well we are near 6 billion so i don't think there's any dire threat here. for those still concerned think on this. the system maybe inplace so that as stress rises in overcrowded population the gene combination may trigger higher levels of homosexuality, as a natural means of population control and reduction. (no there is nothing at all to this statement, but let's just have some fun playing mind games with so inclined individuals). lastly what i would find reason for concern is that if such information for cause and cure was discovered, who would you trust with that information. because if you can cure it, chances are very good you can cause it. plus what happens if a goverment in currently or comes to power, they have at least the means to determine who can pass on such genetic material. what if do to economics or beliefs they decided such people should not be allowed to breed, would we see forced sterilization. plus do you think their might be people out there who if they discovered by test their child was going to be homosexual might decide to abort the fetus? got to stop these ramblings do read the twin studies if you have time. might make an interesting topic to discuss someday. perhaps one of these post i'll tell why i originally was thinking up this conjecture, and no it wasn't orientation. strange thoughts mr d

hello i would say i wouldn't be concerned so much with iran having a nuclear weapon and launching it, as much as officals there might sale-give a nuclear weapon to extremist factions based outside their nation. if iran was to lauch a weapon at the us or isreal within minutes a retalitory strike would be sent in responce. if you may recall the first gulf war america's placement of large numbers of patriot antimissle systems inside isreal for its protection. but the main reason was not to protect isreal so much as to gain a pledge them from them not to launching chemical and nuclear retaliation if america used its troops and technology to defend isreal, and isreali losses were kept within exceptable limits. isreal is not a small helpless nation that needs protection, but can take care of themselves very well millitarily. but you give that nuclear weapon to a terrorist group based in say london, who subsiquently detonate it in paris. well the french are not going to launch a strike against england. we in the west view iran as an islamic state exporting terrorism, to them with america's invasions of afganistan and iraq they are now an isolated nation surround on all sides by nation friendly to or occupied by western forces. add to this the fact were once they had the added protection from china and the soviet union, they no longer have a big brother to back them up. such as what recently occurred with north korea. the politcal leaders rattled the nuclear enrichment threat, china basically warned the u.s. of consequences of and invasion as to how they are not about to let the u.s. occupy north korea. however the chinese also need the markets and investments from western nation so they helped broker a deal whereby the west infused money into north korea for their pledge to stop. iran has no such big brother, if western forces, mainly the u.s., decided to invade they could expect little more than half hearted protests from some former eastern block allies. some of these countries now facing religious seperatist movements of their own would secretly even support a such a move. the leaders or iran know this, a reason for no iranian troops pouring across the border to expell the occupying infidels. they also know without western money their regime stands a chance of falling due to economic unrest. sanctions on trade from the west are causing more and more discontent amoung the populous, and a disintigrating of the countries economic infrastructure. So now the leaders are afraid. but they figure if they have nuclear weapons and state that they will use them, western countries then will reconsider any plans to invade and they get to keep power. what will happen cool heads in iran prevail: lots of yelling, sabre rattling on both side, third party steps in as in north korea to broker a deal involving investment- trade- sanction lifting- promises not to try a regime change by supporting internal disident factions with a blind eye to regime disposal- cleansing of such disidents. hot heads prevail continued developement: 1) if time allows: first very heavy world sanctions. hoping for collaspe iof iranian economy to insite domestic regime change to more favorable one. followed if that fails by selective targeting of enrichment facilities most likely sanctioned by united nations. still fails, coalition formed to remove regime before developement complete. 2) less time available: us-allie countries covertly supply materials and information if needed to allow isreal to launch a preemptive conventional air-strike against facilities. if you'll recall the 80's and a little incident in iraq. isreal will claim it was nessisary for its own protection, u.s.- allies decry attack, level minor trade restriction that will be gotten around. u.s.- allies offer aid, and secretly funnel money to iran's former eastern block allies who scream even more about such an action and the west's involvement, who then offer their own aid which is secretly funded by the west. iran still going ahead - coalition. mr d ps. since i wrote nuclear, islamic, attack, plus other fun words several times. hello to the crew over at the cia, nsa, homeland security, mi-6......

hello as stated above sexuality balanced person would be a true bisexual, which many people equate simple with have sex with both men and women but tend to involve a wide range of emotions. if a person was more across the board in emotional and physical traits, i believe they would be percieve as androgenous. another question i would have for any one aquainted with genetics out there is this. a women with her xx chromsones get one through materlineal lineage, the other through paterial. hence siblings can vary to a large degree in appearance dependant on lineage of thier x. the question is does this apply to the secondary mitrochondrial dna. does it always match the primarily selected x or can it be from the opposite, or a combination of both. one way would mean two possible combination of X1m1-X2m2. while the second means possibility of X1m1- X1m2, X2m1- X2m2. present an even wider range of possibilities. mr d

hello well this skeletal figure shows up riding his white horse 'binky'. the conversation starts with you say hello there HELLO has something occurred here I'M AFRAID SO, YOUR DEAD puts rather a bloody crimp on things AFRAID SO mr d a thousand apologies to terry pratchett

hello actually the conjector (don't really consider it a theory) explains these condiction very simply. a homosexual male who is still very defined as masculine, was a man who aquired merely more of the his female parents orientation to preference of men. however his physical form and traits we culturally consider male was taken from his father genes. where an effeminate male who is staight aquired some physical and emotional traits from his mother but when his genetic orientation was decided the his father's orientation proved the more valid of the pair and he aquired a hetrosexual orientation. though above i refer to aquire materal or paternal traits a better way to think of it would be more of sliders. in gender preference in sexual partners imagine a slider with male on one end and female at the other. your parents give you genes that wish to push that slider one way or the other, however gender specific chemicals\hormones cause that slider to be pushed more in one direction or the other. meaning all people are placed on a broad spectrum, with some pushed almost totally toward male while others for female. while others may end up more towards the middle, and in our society are usually referred to as bisexuals (though most bisexuals usually do have a preference, it probaly is just less of a preference than in others). such a system when attached to the broad range of physical and emotion human traits (eye color, height, weight, tactal sensitivity, ability for empathy, feels of compassion) would make a nearly unlimited number of designs(though within design parameters) possible amoung mankind. even siblings born to the same parent while limited by the genetic material supplied would still occupy a broad spectrum of appearence and emotional temperment. mr d

hello seeing all the post lately on the topic of the 'homosexual gene', surprised me as i thought this subject talked out years ago. so what i'd like to do for a change of direction is suggest a different idea on the subject. which is this. that you are not born or gay or straight. but born with both possibilities present in your body. which body chemicals, possible hormonal in nature trigger at a certain developemental stage causing sexual preferrence. reasons 1) every human born recieves 2 primary base dna strands, and two secondary sets of dna the materlineal (mitrochondrial) and paternal dna. exceptions being x female or xxy males. 2) orientation differences between pairs of identical twins runs at the same as the general population. if a single gene where the cause of preferrence all identical twins should show same orientation as both possess exactly same genentic composition (conclusion dependant on honesty of study subjects truthful responces). 3) person with AIS(androgen insensitivity syndrome) or Swyer syndrome, commonly referred to as xy females demonstrate presence of female traits and physical structure are present in genetic males. for those unaware all fetus's developement is the same during the first two months of gestation. at that time a fetal structure called the gonad is influence by hormones called androgens, or the lack their of. these hormones are triggered by the presence of paternal dna in association with the y chromosone. only a y chromesone can cause these hormones naturally. what this does is cause the gonad to drop to form the teste to produce a male. if not present by lack of a y chromosone, or malfunction in the y chromosone to produce the gonad moves into the body to form overies. all fetus's in the absence androgens develope as female. however xy females are always sterile. yes you are half you mother and half your father. this must also includes gender specific personality traits passed down through the parents. or to use a computing term your basic operating system (presumption based on deduction from various data sources and observation). traits which normally blend but are heavily influenced as to which are dominant based on the presents of and or absence of gender specific chemicals\hormones. much in the same way physical developement of body structures are influences. example: brown eye are dominant over blue, but in children of such parents the child's eye color though tending toward brown is usually not as dark as the parent's. why? though the brown is dominant the blue color does still show some influence. the same probally holds true for orientaion, you recieved from your mother a preference for men, from your father for women. in societies where there is no taboo on men and women tend to engage in activities with partners of either gender, but tend to still show a preferences directed toward the opposite gender than themselves, and develope attachments for the formation of family units. best guess for reason would be simple biological imperative to reproduce. your main reason for attraction between men and women invovles the need to produce offspring. if everyone was homosexual come back in 140 years and see what remains of the human race. again this attraction would be suspected to be driven by firstly genetic physical and emotional traits, followed by accepted practices of the subject's culture. example being a man sees a rounded shaped posterior and long flowing shiny hair, and feels that urge of attraction, only to have the person turn around and they're a guy (think this has happen to about every male out there). are they a latent homosexual, no, mostly likely you were simply attracted to a body shape a type of hair design you were preprogrammed to find attractive as the traits tend to be displayed most often in the female of our species. (though if you have and insecure subject enjoy tormenting them, personal reflection.) test in birds where colored feather displays found in males were attached to females, the female birds were challenged by by male birds as male and courted by female birds. meaning the birds were predesigned to recognise that physical attribute, no schools or parental lectures here to teach the birds. it is part of their genetic makeup. humans are still animals though our ego may protest such a designation. if you think back on your own memories of how you developed feelings where you wished to engage in reproductive activites, i doubt anyone reading this needed to be educated to have these feelings. they developed normally because they were already coded into you. so what does this rambling mean for the homosexual gene? simply this, that these individuals merely had a set of genes where the opposite sex's preferred orientation was blended as the stronger of the two giving them what we class as homsexuality. most likely cause: genetic damage- defect in the portion of associated standard preference genetic material, present at time of conception or produced during subsequent genetic replication. or higher viability of genetic material provided by opposite gender. also this would include other personality traits associated with opposite sex designation, hence what is often referred to as effeminate males or musculine females, whom display what would be considered adolesent emotional feelings and traits. this may or may not include orientation. am i hinting sissy males and butch females, no it means as your sexuality is brought forward during adolesence other traits associated with male or female developement at this time would also be activated genetically. depending on duration of time during which your body has in crude terms misidentified your gender, combined with how your male and female traits blend, would produce physical and personality traits described as across gender. example: softer facial features in a male. or a male displaying a giggly personality that would be classified as more female. does not denote homosexuality, only that that trait shower great influence from what is considered genetic opposite sex. if this could be the case it would also go a ways to explaining to some extent transvestism, transexuals, and transgenders. it very well be a person saying i'm a man trapped in a woman's body , or the opposite could be exactly the case. genetic material was for one gender, emotional traits taken from the opposite gender. one question i would have of readers is, does anyone have rates for homosexuality for women and for men seperate. would like to see if homosexuality or lesbianism in females is lower, possibly due to a more balanced set of xx genes (male children tend to be more suseptable to disease and suffer a higher insodence of genetic birth disorders). long winded strange thought mr d

hello what will life be like in 50 years. not much different than it is now. true there will be technological advancement, but how people life their lifes will change little. take out a history book on say ancient rome, how cities are designed has change very little in 2000 years. technology will advance, some new discoveries, some technological refinement. but the purpose they serve will remain the same. as and example your car will become safer and more importantly more fuel efficent. yet the basic use for that vehicle will remain the same, to get you from here to there. will all this new technology lead to a new enlightenment for mankind. doubt it, remember how when the home computer first showed, or the beginnings of the web. how they said it would be a new age of information, people and countries will share their knowledge, libraries will be able to make their book collections available to everyone no matter where they are. well some knowledge and understanding is being exchanged, but only for those with the means to afford to look and the willingness and skills to do so. why? because most people have no need or interest in their lifes for that information. and look how much free time it has created for you computer workers. you may get that wall size tv, but that's just a really big tv and nothing more. 500 channels and nothing to watch. any moon or mars bases, highly unlikely, no will amoung goverments nor the money to accomplish such. (as the nasa official said 'wish that had been a face on mars, imagine what our funding would be like.". concerns 1) depletion of resources before technological replacements found. 2) loss of personal freedom to goverment technology in exchange for percieved increases in safety. (any londoners out there care to comment on the city's wonderful surveillance system). 3) widening gap between poor and rich, both between nations and citizen's of those nations. no doubt many wonderous things to come, but only for those who can afford them. let us believe how we will all share those new advances freely just like we do now. 4) dumping of more technological waste on third world countries by developed(ing) countries. but will your life be horrible, if you did not have the misfortune to be born in those nations that suffer from poverty or goverment repression, no you'll live your life as people always have. born- go to school- get a job- get married- have a family- die. just try to enjoy what you can out of it. as the old curse goes 'may you live in interesting times' mr d

hello as the bulb is already emitting light at the speed of light, depending on size of source you would seeing a rapidly shrinking dot of light that would begin red shifting, doppler effect, rather quickly. why, light being emitted by your source would be in all directions, if the ray of light is moving away from the sources direction it would not be trapped by the momentum of the object , but continue to travel in the direction of emission. mr d

hello hmm.. try this perhaps, the sherlock holmes method of logical deduction. start with physical properties, body shape- facial structure- hair color and style-, age-, eye color... run the list. what is the cause of physical attraction. move on to social context, relationship status of other individual, such as availablity (are you the type of person attacted to the unatainable). social levels of individuals due to monitary status. status by education. do they provide what you consider yourself to be lacking. the emotional context, or how they make you feel. does individual provide emotional support percieved lacking in previous relationships. what is your own emotional state, are you looking to be infatuated. your projections on to percieved current and future context of relationship. have you developed based upon limited knowledge of the individual in question, a fantasy relationship as to how you believe a relationship will play itself out. are they evaluating your state and manipulating your emotional being. remember to paraphrase holmes. 'after you've eliminated the possible, whatever's left no matter how improbable is usually the truth.' mr d

hello the universe is many of areas where larger amounts of energy has collected along with accompaning energy that has been converted to matter, not fully explained way. surrounded by enormous areas of less energy and matter, such as matter, dark matter, sub atomic matter (quarks etc...), and energy (light, gamma rays, radiation, etc...). which though referred to as empty space is far from being so. mr d

hello well you recognise the signs as in fatuation which is well and good for a start. but i'll add since this is a science forum let the scientist in you out and try to analyse the causes for your infatuation and determine the sources, physical and psychologically, that are being created here. a bit hard to disassociate yourself from your feelings, but act as your a observing a lab specimen. if you reason them logically out you might fine out information about yourself, and if there truely is a reason to continue with your interest in this person. though logic and reason have little application in affairs of the heart. mr d

hello main reason for slugging your way through it is you want a pay check. sad to say but true. secondly try to find something in your boring project that might relate in a manor to an area that does interest you. is there some information or data there that might help you out on your topic giving you a chance to benefit yourself while working on your assignment. good luck mr d

hello basically instant(ex: polariod) film is self developing, meaning chemicals needed for developement are on the film. what happens is you load the film in the camera which like regular film moves into position so that a trigger press exposes the film to light through the lens and shutter system. all you need is a way to get the film into your devise without exposing it to a light source. normally it comes in a cartridge that serves this purpose. other than that all you need do is design a way to expose the film to light by your own system. good luck mr d

hello the point here is not whether we are having global warming or and ice age, but that one maybe tied to the other. if you go to the site you will see they discuss global warming, causes and effects, however condictions that cause that warming have the means to trigger the cooling. we know the earth has been both cooler and warmer than the current average temperature. but what this is indicating is that there might be a system in place here on the earth that handles those changes. the caribean is warmer due to global warming, the conveyor drives that heat north and eastward into britain and europe causing the extremely hot weather occuring there now. but at the same time the hot tropical air is serving to melt the northern polar cap changing chemical make up of the water that drives the conveyor. meaning that given time that change will lead to a lessening conveyor effect and temperatures will drop. a cycle of temperature change that appears to be normal for the earth. however only now are we scientifically able to comprehend that such a system does exist. and the major question then is not how can we stop this global warming, or coming ice age, as mankind we will in all probability not be able to stop either. the question is, are our actions such that they could push these situations too far in one direction or the other. and until we better understand the limits of such a system, that we should curtail those activities that could effect and harm the system beyond its own means to self repair. the concern is not just how hot or cold the temperature gets, but also how quickly those extremes may be reached. time equates to adaptation. dispite what fanatics or tekkies might believe (the almighty gave us this earth and we can do as we will, or we are so bright and are so scientifically advanced we can solve any problem with science.). ladies and gentlemen, mankind is not above extinction, nor perhaps is he intended to be. the earth has been both hotter and colder, and have humans-humanoids survived. why yes. will we survive the most current temperature changes? most likely. but the question becomes, what must we do to survive,what type of political-social system will evolve out of this, and what type of planet will be here when all is said and done. mr d

hello while doing some research on the deep atlantic conveyor came across this site that maybe be of interest to those of you wondering about climatic change. educationally related and not to deep into the subject, it still gives a bit of information on a number of areas related to climate change. http://calspace.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange1/01_1.shtml so what is the deep atlantic conveyor, the site states it better, but basically it is a deep current that circulates between the americas and europe whereby cold-dense sea water is drawn downward in the north atlantic above england. then travels southerly along england and europe towards africa, next heading south-westerly across the atlantic where it is warmed, and towards the northern part of south america. finally turning up into the caribean and along the eastern coast of the united states before heading back east towards england. this system along with its accompanying winds is the reason early explorers in sailing ships were able to travel between the old and new world's. nice thing about this site is that it explains a little about these winds too. such items as the doledrums and the horse latitudes which you nautical types may already understand. this conveyor system is also one reason for the formation of hurricanes in the caribean. warm tropical air and moisture brought up from the south colliding with coldern artic air coming down from the north. and also for the warm temperatures being existing in britain and europe by bringing those same warm tropical winds eastward. where as in areas of canada of the same latitude you find ice and polar bears, england enjoys temperatures in the seventies. so why the concern? how the system words is that as the warm water reaches the north sea the colder waters cause density shift in the cooling tropical water due to salt content which causes the colder water to sink starting the process over. currently with warming temperatures due to global warming the ice caps are melting, raising the all around temperture of oceans and and lessening salt levels(ice is mostly fresh water). meaning the conveyor system could slow or stall. resault a global cooling as those warm winds are no longer carried to higher longitudes, hello ice age. it maybe that all of this is part of one gigantic systems the earth uses for regulationing its temperature. temperatures get hotter that triggers condictions for cooling, which intern trigger events that cause warming. (remember the earth is geologically active unlike say mars which is pretty much dead geologically. which could help to explain it loosing its standing water to space and subsuface ice millions of years ago). though i don't remember reading much here on the thermal vents that help heat the earth's water. take a look might help those looking for some useful simple information. mr d

hello for the first type 'resident evil' these would rate as re-animated corpses, the reason we would consider them monsters is that due to decomposition their flesh has begin to rot away and prutrify. but hey that might look good on some people. since your dead electrical brain function would cease shortly after your demise. if a mutation caused your brain to continuing to function after death your not really dead, so you would tend not to rot and hence no horrific appearence. '28 days' viral infection but person still living, possible if the virus could attack areas of the brain increasing hormones and other chemicals that can incite rage and increase strength (such as but not limited to steriods and adrenalin.) while at the same time repressing areas of the brain for rational thought, mainly frontal cortex region. but mainly this would not produce flesh eating zombies, but would produce homicidal individuals who if they lost the function of reason on how to use weapons would tend to use hands, feet, and teeth to inflict damage. and in a fit of mania might chew on a little flesh. (any emergency responce personel out there care to mention what it is like to handle a person high on pcp.) now if a dose of directed radiation could be used to accomplish this as well you might get the mutation your looking for. chances are about nill for this, and a virus that specific would require human engineering. traditional zombies are people as stated above are individuals who have been exposed, in most cases intentionally, to a neurotoxin that causes resperation and heart rate to slow to near imperceptable levels, causing people to be mistaken classified as dead. they are buried, in these areas mostly decades ago no embalming used, and later dug up by those employing the drug suffering brain damage from lack of oxygen. hence the individuals impaired movements. also this tends to be part voodoo in which the person affect is a believer, hince a willingness to believe they are now a zombie. mr d

hello recently read an article that stated that many younger children now would rather have robotic pets the real ones. amoung reasons given that there was far less care needed, and that when they weren't interested in playing with the pet they could simply turn it off. also that robotic pets learned tricks far easier an could learn to commuicate with them. and a problem was shown that when placed in situations with live animals these children had difficulty dealing inter-personally with the animal. expecting the real animal to be as obedient as their robotic counterpart. what i was wondering is, is this how many people are becoming towards real human individuals. as our society's increasing fear of strangers drive young children to be forced to spend more time indoors on computers building networks of cyber friends, are they loosing more of the traits needed to deal with live people in interactive situations. even older adults who would rather communicate with the net companions rather than going out into the world and making relationships in person. do you concider a cyber friend a real friend, or are the dis-embodied enities we meet on-line, merely humans surving as the ai for pseudo people whom you don't have to truely know or concern yourself over their welfare. whom interact with us in areas or our interest and chosing, and who can be deactivated with the click of a mouse. how will future generations react when dealing in person with relationships where they have to take into conciderations others personalities and feelings, how they others look, their physical handicaps, their personal differences in belief or areas of interest. will they still show the same level of tolerance of others? strange thoughts mr d

hello must offer an apology to curios for misinterpreting his original question based on later replies. confussion in symantics. basically i take it you wonder if a force applied to and object stretched a great distance through space would be applied instantly to the whole object if were to be moved. the force equating to energy therefore is being applied or transferred to the object-rod at the speed of light, so if the end on the other planet move instantly with the object that force would have had to move greater than the speed of light to accomplish this. if i recall correctly what would supposedly happen would be that the object would appear to stretch momentarily as the energy used to move the object travel along its length. then the rod would snap back to its original length as the energy reached then opposite end. mr d