Double K

source? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour Science cannot say at present conclusively what animals do or do not find "pleasurable", a question considered in more depth under Emotion in animals. The urban myth website Snopes.com considers this particular view in depth. Its conclusions are broadly that the statement is true, but only using a very specific definition of "sex for pleasure"

So then (pink_trike) you are saying homosexuality is a choice, and not a biologically driven need? There is a difference between desire and behaviour - the answer is choice. All of the points you made come down to choice. I personally don't believe it is a "choice". I used to think it was, but after lengthy discussions with gay people (for the record I myself am not) but to them it was a desire. Something deep seeded, something that they felt and not something that they chose. Now of course performing the act (behaviour) is a choice to some degree. However the initial attraction was not. 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... The main issue is that "feelings" can never be explained with logic, and as science tries to break everything into logical data - I dont feel science will ever have the answer to this one, and certainly not a quackdom like psychology.

A straw isn't a great depiction of capillary action really, and to some degree you are right, in that the tree doesn't just use straw like structures to transport the water. Capillary action, or capillarity, refers to certain phenomena associated with the behavior of liquids in thin tubes or in porous materials. Liquids, such as water, will tend to move "up-hill" (against the force of gravity) which does not normally occur in large containers. The interface between liquids, or a liquid and a gas, can form a meniscus or crescent shape. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capillary_action Capillary action does not require suction, and has been achieved in labs with no source at the top "drawing the water" but through molecular bonds that occur (basically the water climbs up itself) The problem has been extracting the water at the top of this system. No system is really available for power that provides zero losses and so "perpetual motion" is likely not to be an outcome, but in a closed system where none or little of this water or fluid could escape then losses could be significantly reduced... http://www.timedomaincvd.com/CVD_Fundamentals/xprt/Plug_n_Pois.html Finite Viscosity: Poiseuille (fully developed) Flow If we consider the case of flow in a pipe or channel when Re is low BUT after the flow has been in the pipe for a distance much longer than the entry length, the fluid velocity will vary with radial position. The velocity must be zero exactly at the walls, and viscosity causes the velocity to be small in the vicinity of the walls. Therefore the flow in the center is actually faster for the same volumetric flow. In the case of a cylindrical pipe with flow along the axis the velocity distribution is a simple quadratic, known as Hagen-Poiseuille or simply Poiseuille flow. A residence time and volumetric flow can again be defined in terms of the average velocity, but in this case the residence time is an average: streamlines near the center spend less time in the channel, and streamlines near the walls have very long actual residence times. When large pressure differences exist across a long pipe (so that Re stays fairly small) one can integrate the Poiseuille formula to find the molar flow through the pipe (which of course is the same at all locations along the pipe in steady state)

This is something I dreamed up and was wondering about the feasability of it, so assuming no one steals the idea (if it is even possible) then it could mean cheap & clean energy. I'm no chemist/bioligist/mathematical genious, however I think this could work although from research I have done into this system there are some problems to overcome. The premise is this: Trees can use capillary action to transport water (in the case of old red-woods they are known to transport up to 4 tonnes or 8,000 lbs from ground level PER DAY! sometimes hundreds of feet up.) (source) http://www.davidlnelson.md/Cazadero/Trees&CapillaryAction.htm So with this in mind, I discovered they were able to replicate this in a lab but were only able to get water to a height of 28 feet (sadly I found this link a few weeks ago and can't find it again but it's out there in the ether somewhere) 28 feet is still considerable, and also if you could stack towers each 28 feet high, you could possibly achieve a higher total effect. The "Hydro-station" would be a system using capillary action to transport the water to a high point and then capture the energy thru standard turbines as it falls back down - this could be a closed loop, essentially providing perpetual energy from a small water source (of course there would be losses due to evaporation, however these would be minimal.) The main problem with capillary action is extracting the water at the top of the system. Trees of course have the sun to do it for them, which then vaporises slowly through the leaves, a power generating system would need to extract the water much faster than this, but the water is there, there must be a way to leech it out at the top! What would best do this!? Also I see a small laser etched silicon cell that causes capillary action, so perhaps this technology could be used to create the system, in which case I imagine extracting the water at the top of the system would be easier... http://pesn.com/2010/03/18/9501628_Laser-etched_silicon_draws_fluid_upward/ How do you solve the problem of extracting the water at the top of the system. How high can the system go, what would limit it? Gravity - pressure - etc. Low pressure head turbines could also be utilised in the 'dams' at the top and bottom of the system also.

Oh after reading a bit of that about Billy Meier I was wrong; he does state the are extraterrestrial.. They also tested some metal samples which a metallurgist said was formed using methods which we dont have (cold fusion) and verified that they were at least not faked in that regard - but then those disappeared.... I guess something to keep in mind as a point of interest is the amazing leap in technology we had from tube technology to the eletrics we now use - at the time, and the level of other technology out there it was a huge leap - having said that, it doesnt make it an impossible step but the point is that most of our technology is progressive where it comes from refining a process and redesigning, where-as the change to the new technology was a totally new way of thinking (almost as though back engineered, at least I can understand how it could be perceived that way)

Can't say I've had the opportunity to see one of those for comparison... There is a Swiss guy that is well known for his work on UFO's and he has some pretty convincing footage (I think he also doesn't stipulate they are alien but military...) Although these are seen as pretty controversial, I'm not advocating any of it is real, merely pointing you to it, make up your own minds I guess... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Meier Either way..the chances of anything coming from mars....UH LAAAA!

At the end of the day, business and governments (especially governments) take a long time to do anything. CEO should be able to make the call on the spot, although he may have to notify the board of directors, and then they may take some time to ponder. It could be that the company has already approved you but is now waiting on the government approval of your visa.. My girlfriend waited 6 months for a visa (mind you we had a bridging visa in the mean time) so the process can take a very long time - you should be prepared for that

But a black hole is so dense that no light can penetrate it (hence why its black) or is it that no light escapes it? I forget now..! If no light can pass it or penetrate/escape it, then how can it's width be measured in light years, as it could theoretically be larger than that given that it devours light...

Where do you draw the line at this Phi? (Phi being the golden ratio, a name I'm willing to bet you didnt invent or cite the origins of?) I mean "Are we cool?" should possibly have been cited from "Dude, Where's My Car (2000)" (which is appropriate when you consider the OP) Secondly I sat there earlier thinking, should I post the link? And after about 1 second of thinking on it thought - "well if anyone wants to find it all they do is paste a phrase into google and it will take them there." Double K (May 5th 2010) You've already made your point, you got an apology and a citation, how much more cool with it do we need to be? Knowing the temperament of moderators in general I'm sure you'll throw a ban at me now for speaking up. My point really is, you already berated me once, was it really necessary to take a second shot at me mate?

Would you liken earth as a "reactor" more like an electro magnet, or plasma reactor?

Obesity (excluding genetic disorders, thyroid etc) is generally caused by sedintary lifestyle. As you get older you tend to stop doing as much exercise and continue your eating habits as they were. Weight gain is a pretty simple formula energy in > energy out = weight gain. To go back to thyroid though, there is evidence to suggest that a poorly functioning thyroid is more likely with age and this will affect obesity.

Testosterone is the ONLY hormone which differs in levels between males and females. (Actually include estrogen for the contrary) The OP asked the difference between males and females - testosterone is it (and estrogen) Otherwise the entire system is identical. As I said, other factors (genetics and biomechanics) will alter your levels of achievable size, but the answer to the OP remains. Also, I disagree with you on the point of evolution driving the testosterone. As with most evolutionary leaps first a mutation was required. The mutation proves successful, and the gene remains, the mutation is unsuccessful, either the species dies out, or the mutation is "bred" out. Evolution is dependant on mutation, mutation is a part of the process of evolution but is not synonymous with evolution.

Evolution would seem more a symptom, than a cause. Males still had to have the ability to be big before being "naturally selected" as a succesful mutation, and therefore in the question of what came first the testosterone or the big guy - the answer is still testosterone. When you're talking about physical training, it's important to remember that everyone is unique, and not necessarily every man will be ideal for getting huge with body building. Anyone who's ever researched into steroids (and I'm by no means advocating their use) will know that human growth hormone is the best for bulk and size (it also has other benefits such as reversing ageing, and increased metabolism and many others) - It also has downsides that are wide and varied. Point being that this doesnt contain testosterone (but does improve muscle protein synthesis) also leads to very large - lean muscle mass. Also racial (genetic) factors should be included, african americans are known to have higher bone density, and muscle mass (especially fast twitch fibres) which makes them excellent runners & sprinters (but also not so great at swimming) Caucasians are (on average) less muscle density and lower concentrations of fast twitch but higher numbers of slow twitch muscles. All of these factors will influence optimal size and muscle mass. Having said all of that one of the things I was taught during my P.T. course and human movement studies for maximising training benefits was SETS Sleep Eat Train Sleep (or if youre a cheater) Sleep Eat Train Steroids Anyone can improve muscle mass - and load bearing exercise will inevitably increase bone density, however genetics and biomechanics can & WILL limit you

Well that was not my intention - and as obviously you discovered a 10 second google cut/paste led you to the article didnt it? Sorry but it's a forum, not a publication, I never stated it was my work or put my name to it, I will however add in the location for you - I see little point reinventing the wheel when someone has already done it... http://www.turnfast.com/tech_driving

This entire premise is based on the ideal that aliens would "somehow" be similar to us. Hawking has used humans as a base model for what the aliens "may be like" however I think that does dis-service to the postulation. The universe is so wide and varied, and the chances of another planet supporting life similar to ours is quite small. Taking this into account, wouldn't it be naive or perhaps even short sighted or arrogant to postulate that aliens must be similar to us even down to a psychological level? What's to the say the life form isn't crystal based and wants to merge with iron ore crystals to form some new breed of interstellar crystal creature? Ok, it's ridiculous, but if we're hypothesising on alien life-forms, I think there are pretty much no rules... It's also assuming that a xeno-species would be resource hungry, and would treat great resource deposits with the same disrespect that humans do, where-as the natural way is to conserve energy/food/water/resource. Humans live in a very disharmonious fashion with our environment, and yet if you study animal behaviour in any other species, insect, mammal, (insert anything other than human) their natural tendency is to protect their resource either through evolution/adaptation, keeping numbers sustainable, killing their young, you name it balance is the aim - so in fact it makes more sense that an alien species could manage the planet better than us, although they would probably do so quite brutally and indescriminately, with survival and maximising yield to population. They would also realise that humans are part of an eco system (or are we?) and that we would be an integral part of the health of the planet (perhaps at different population levels)...

As time is relative to the observer - (this law is unbreakable) - this then answers the question of negative time. Let me try to put this in perspective - You enter a time machine which you have programmed to send you back in time 100 years in the past. You step inside, press a button and 1/100th of a second later you are transported to 100 years ago. For everyone living in that time - it is the present, and for them time continues to move forward. For you, even though you travelled back through a TIMESCALE you have actually travelled forward in time by 1/100th of a second. Time is relative...a timescale is the only thing you can hope to travel backwards along, however time itself is not a scale but a measurement of physical events that occur regardless of which direction along a timescale you are travelling. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI guess in addition to this (after further pondering the matter) You could call the "timescale" space. Which is where the whole space-time quandry comes from. I postulate that you could travel in a negative direction in space-time, however never in a negative direction in "time" as time is perpetually in forward motion. Theoretically you could travel backwards in space-time, whilst still maintaining forward motion in time (as for you time still passes positively) yet your position in space-time alters. My problem with this is - what happens to you in space-time? Where do i go? Is my body still in the present (as that is where I exist at all times) and as such, can someone in the same room with me continue to see my body located in my time-machine sitting in stasis, or do I simply cease to exist in that persons "present" and all matter is transported away?? I guess this comes down to how you achieved the time travel, and surely that would have to involve acceleration to faster than light speeds, which would mean surely that the entire physical body is required to travel... At which point tho, because time is measured in part using the speed of light, would time in fact be reduced to negligible amounts of passing or does time cease to exist in the absence of light (or travelling faster than light) Surely time for me still passes? This is now officially doing my head in!

It will end the earth and life as we know it, but it will transform all of it's energy into light, sound and whatever else...heat..radiation, etc.. Again transformation of energy, not ending the energy system.. Many religions, and cultures have believed in re-incarnation, or ascendancy in some form..they can't all be wrong can they? But to quote one of my favorite bands: "The universe is hostile so impersonal devour to survive so it is so it's always been This body holding me reminds me of my own mortality embrace this moment remember we are eternal, all this pain is an illusion"

The answer is quite simple... Testosterone. Testosterone increases muscle mass by increasing muscle protein synthesis, and is found in significantly higher concentrations (naturally) in males.

Unfortunately without a make or type of car and relevant information all I can say is generic information. Are you racing F1, F3, street vehicles, V8 supercars? Each of them have different seating positions. If you look at a variety of race cars, you will see a variety of seating positions. In the open-wheel CART and Formula cars, it appears that the driver is almost laying down with arms fully oustretched (they are not). In a full-bodied NASCAR-type car, you see the driver more upright and almost cramped against the steering wheel. Neither position is the correct one for your street car in road racing. The body of the open-wheel car is very shallow in height, and the cockpit is very narrow. This shape determines much of the driver's position. The driver's legs are relatively straight out with a slight bend in the knee, and the feet just barely below the hips. The pedals in many of these cars are almost touching each other. The pedals also require little more than a flexing of the ankle to go from 0-100% depression. The driver's arms have little room for movement, but the steering requires extremely little turning input by the driver. In the open-wheel car, function (driver's seating position and controls operation) follows form (the shallow and narrow cockpit). In a NASCAR type car, many things are completely opposite. The driver sits very upright, and is very close to the steering wheel. In fact, the driver can almost lay his whole forearm on the steering wheel. The cars themselves are larger, heavier, and have large front tires. Additionally, on even the large speedway tri-ovals, the percentage of time spent turning is much higher than on a road course. All this adds up, and means the driver's right arm and shoulder is going to get tired much sooner. Sitting upright and close to the steering wheel allows the driver to utilize more of the shoulder and back muscles. There are three main aspects to setting the correct seating position. In a street car, it is possible that some balanced compromise of these three parameters is needed as the fixed position of the pedals and steering wheel may not be perfectly matched to your arm and leg lengths. In a race car, or a street car you spend the money on, the pedal arms can be modified, and a steering wheel with a specific dish dimension (the depth of the mounting plane to the face of the handling ring) can be selected to allow a perfect match to your needs. This configuration is for road car racing First, sitting in the seat itself, the driver's back should be flat against the back of the seat with the buttocks squarley tucked into the corner created at the intersection of the seat back and bottom. The underside of the legs should be in contact with the seat bottom. The purpose of this position is to provide as much surface contact between the driver's body and the seat. This has safety benefits as well as providing the driver with the most tactile feedback as possible. Second is the arm position. When the driver is tightly strapped into the seat as described above, the arms when fully extended should allow the wrists to rest at the top of the steering wheel. This allows the arms to be slightly bent at the elbow when fully extended for a turn. The purpose of this position is to prevent the arms from being overextended during turns (the shoulders should not need to lift from the seat back even to do a full arm crossover). Overextending the arms will cause them to tire quickly, and will cause the driver to lose sensitivity to the vibrations in the steering wheel. Third is the leg position. When any of the pedals are fully depressed with the ball of the foot on the pedal (not the toes), the leg should still be bent at the knee. This is to prevent overextension as described for the arms. Additionally, given that most hobbyists are driving their street cars, be sure that the knees are not against the underdash or steering column. In fact, there should be several inches room to prevent injury in event of a collision. The right leg in particular will need enough knee room to allow the ball of the foot to be on the brake pedal, and the heel to be on the acceleration pedal for heel-toe downshifting. The proper grip of the steering wheel starts with the hands at the 9:00 and 3:00 positions. Contrary to the 10 and 2 o'clock positions you probably learned in driver's school, you have greater range of motion and control with your hands in the 9 and 3 o'clock positions. The palms should be cupping the outer diameter of the wheel, with the thumbs wrapped around the ring and resting on top of the cross brace. The heel of the palm should be positioned to apply a slight pressure on the front of the wheel for stabilizing your arm movements--don't make your thumbs do all the stabilizing. Most stock steering wheels in sports cars, and even sedans, today are properly designed for the 9 and 3 positions with padded thumb detents. The grip itself should be relaxed--just tight enough to maintain control and good contact for sensory input. A tight grip on the wheel will tire your hands and arms quickly, and more importantly will significantly reduce the sensitivity to the vibrations needed to sense the control limits of the vehicle. While it is a natural tendency to grip the wheel tightly while cornering, no amount of squeezing on that wheel will increase the traction of your tires! However, the more relaxed the grip (without losing contact with the wheel), the more of that traction you will be aware of. It is a learned response to relax your hands (in fact, your entire body) during high g-force cornering, but it is something that you must force yourself to learn as quickly as possible. It will increase your sensitivity to the car's traction limits, and improve your awareness of the car's handling. Something to practice to ensure your hands, arms and shoulders are relaxed before entering a corner, is to take a deep breath during the straight beforehand. Breath deep, relax your muscles, and exhale. Another thing to do when you're in a long enough straight and clear of other cars, is to relax one hand at a time and wiggle the fingers (leaving the palm and thumb on the wheel). Doing this often will keep the muscles in the hand, wrist, and forearm from cramping. When turning a corner, lead into the turn by "pushing" the wheel with the hand opposite the turn (left hand for a right turn), and stabilizing the wheel with the other hand. Push the steering wheel through the 12:00 position rather than pulling it towards the 6:00 position when turning. For large steering inputs like a turn, the pushing arm has more control because the wrist stays in a firm position. The opposite wrist becomes quite bent and will not provide smooth control. "Pulling" the wheel is effective for small steering inputs such as moving across the track width where the action is really limited to a movement of the wrist, and not the whole arm. If you're a puller right now, it will take a little re-training to make this comfortable, but in the long run it will make you a smoother driver. One of the critical keys to maximizing speed through corners is smooth car control which comes from smooth steering. If the car is to travel on a smooth consistent arc, then the steering input must also be a smooth consistent turn. The purpose of this smoothness is to maximize the traction of the tires. The traction of the tire is significantly influenced by your ability to provide smooth turning. The smoother driver will have more traction, and will have higher corner speeds. It is common to think you are turning smoothly, when in fact you are turning on a smaller, tighter, and jerkier radius than you need to. In car video can be a great help to watching yourself, and recognizing where you need to be smoother. A typical tip off to a driver that needs to be smoother is when a car tends to understeer during the first half of a turn. More often than not this is caused by the driver's lack of steering smoothness than by car setup problems.

Someone brought up a good point regarding "what is that 't' factor that is present in many equations?" I'd just like to address that point by saying that time is a constant - therefore it works in mathematical equations. "The number e is of eminent importance in mathematics, alongside 0, 1, π and i. Besides being abstract objects, all five of these numbers play important and recurring roles across mathematics, and, coincidentally are the five constants appearing in one formulation of Euler's identity." That's straight out of wikipedia (the oracle) But it raises a good point. How was "time" originally calculated? It's based on pi. Being our revolutions (which are eliptical) around a set benchmark, and our rotations of the planet (which is round - pi again) It makes sense to use constants in most equations as it gives a reference point to solve to...

To me the idea of Time as a "force" or element doesnt really work. The main thing that relativity suggests to me regarding time is that it is dependant on the other factors, not them dependant on time. Time is an arbitrary bench mark that has been assigned by man, and although measurable in the same manner as a force or distance, or weight etc, it has no effect and is in fact a consequence of other measurables (our distance from a set benchmark/how many revolutions/seasons etc) Although measurable, it has no weight/force or physical manifestation of any kind, it's an ethereal measurement...and although we can see the effects of time on a rock face (this is in fact not an effect of time, but an effect of the frictional force of the water or sand blasting etc not actually of "TIME")

What you're talking about is largely referred to as Ergonomics. The first part to your question is something that would require some lab work, but wouldn't be hard to do. A pressure sensitive pad that covers an entire seat would give you the data you need to determine the best positions, however I suspect these would be determined individually as each person has an almost entirely unique body shape, length of limbs etc. Although you could manage a configuration and seating position that encourages a more desirable body position, I would be surprised if the top F1 drivers didn't have individually moulded seats. Also, there would be certain body positions that force you to work harder through high-G turns, and high-G +ve and -ve acceleration. Assume a lower centre of gravity and the G-forces are likely to be reduced, if you go moving your head too far from centre you're going to work exponentially harder as the distance increases... As for the last part of your question, the best hand position on the steering wheel for maximum control is (imagine a clock face) 2 and 10. 2 and 10 gives you optimal control, the wheel is shuffled as you make the turn, and gives you the perfect push/pull balance

Not that I have any idea of the method required, or if it's even possible, although I would assume theoretically it is... You would need to create a singularity. Something so dense that it has a large gravitational force assosciated with it. Of course creating this would require alot of energy - and unless you somehow got hold of some strange space rock with enourmous density the only way to even think about going close would be to collide 2 things (lets start with particles) AKA Hadron Collider. Assuming you could cause these 2 particles to fuse and retain the huge amount of energy generated by colliding high density particles at high speed after accellerating them to ludicrous speed then I believe you could create some semblence of a singularity. Once you have that the next problem is working out how to generate power from it...Maybe some kind of perpetual motion..The main problem with power is that batteries at present are terrible at storing power, capacitors are not as terrible but are short term storage devices. So then the problem of not only capturing but then storing the power arises...You just have to look at photovoltaic cells and batteries they charge to see how bad the losses are from this... I think calling gravity a weak force is underestimating it's potential tho - yes pun intended... The force of gravity is proportional to the mass of an object and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the objects Of course this is ALL speculative