squishyspong

I was making a hypothetical situation, just so I can gather the info I wanted to know about gravitons. I am well aware that gravitons are not proven to exist yet. My topic is just to accept the null hypothesis and the discussion as if it were true so that I can support/objectify on the theory. Seeing how this goes Id prob be better off researching myself since Im new to quantium mechanics. So ill ask again then. Will gravitons of a mass essentially run out in an empty universe (with only that one mass + no interactions with other universes/branes/etc). Do graivtons constatnly get ejected out of the mass? If so then why doesnt it run out? If not then explain to me where it aquires the 'intelligence' or response mechanism to only eject gravitons when there are mass interactions? Perhaps then the theory is either not as concrete or is incomplete/not fundamental to gravity

Ok, yea thats what I want answered but you answered indirectly. So gravitons only exist with the existance of other masses. Therefore in a universe with only 1 mass, no gravitons will exist. However, then can someone explain to me the mechanism through which the masses knows only to respond by ejecting gravitons with the existance of other masses in the universe? It seems like that for a non intellligent and the most fundamental mechanism of graivty, that the only possible way is for gravitons to be constantly ejected out of the mass instead of only ejecting when there are other masses for interaction in the universe. I know that gravitons are merely used for calculation purposes, but that would seems to show flaws in the system?

Yea, so in an empty universe, the mass will ultimately run out of gravity after a certain amount of time because they run out of gravitons? Someone still needs to answer this.

If they are like you say then I have other questions. Why is it that gravitons only interact with other masses if there are other masses? It seems like there is another mechanism in play then or some sort of intelligence/response mechanism. It seems like, if gravitons are the most fundamental of gravity, the only way it can work is if gravitons are constantly being ejected out of the mass - because this way the system is a physical mechanical system through which how gravity works.

That was your logic, that prehistoric humans would have mated with the neanderthals, not mine. I didnt give my opinion. Also I am well aware interracial couples are not just confined to caucasians and blacks. Interracial couples are just not that high compared to pure racial couples even with globalizations/etc. I never claimed you were caucasian. Notice also I quoted the words caucasian because with modern anthropology, the ideas of racial subgroups (such as caucasian, mongoloid and negriod) simply dont exist. The question was, given that you were a caucasian, do you think having neanderthal genes to be a good thing or not? Im trying to understand the underlying tones behind the motivation for your claims. Everytime people claim having 'greek' caucasian features the way they are (blond hair, blue/green eyes white skin complexion) are the result of environmental factors, I would like to know the reason why they think so. I dont think having a big nose is a physical advantage in keeping the air warm for your lungs. First of all the nose doesnt improve heating of air intake that much. A larger nose means also that the surface area is larger and hense greater heat loss from convection, etc. Basically Im pointing out that all of this is just free for all debates/opinions = philosophy. Everytime I hear people use such terms as negroid/mongoloid/caucasian then try to justify some sort of philosophical agenda they have (disguised as science), I tend to be a little weiry if it is really backed up by a hint of racism. I get a little more wiery when they claim that caucasians have neanderthal genes then claim that neanderthals have bigger brains (even though bigger brain does not mean higher intelligence btw); it just seems like a start on the whole justifying superiority thing.

I just remember the fruit fly gene experiment where the flies turned gay with a modification of a gene.

Assuming an empty universe with only 1 sphereical mass. Therefore by newtonian and relativity theories, there are no interactions with (to/from) this sphereical mass whatsoever. Assuming also, that parallel universes have no mass also and have no interaction with the current universe in question. Assume also QM theories are right and gravitons exist. So in this case, will gravitons essentially 'run out' because it is constantly ejected into space (with the assumption that energy/matter is conserved and graviton is essentially energy/matter; and that the mass of the sphere is finite). Also because there are no other interactions with other forms of mass and energy in our example, there will be no scattering to return the gravitons back to the original mass. So what happens

Seeing that interbreeding within humans is fairly uncommon even in a modern society we live in today, with globalization, travel and immigration etc, I think, using modern day logic, that it is unlikely they mated. However their social development may be very minimal back then and probably wouldnt recognize things as class/status/weath/race/etc that we see today and plus the random possibilities, it may be possible that some mated. Since no fact is here to backup the claims, its all just philosophy. I got a question for you. Would you feel more proud as a person of 'caucasian' heritage to know that you may have some neanderthal genes in you or would you feel ashamed?? Do you think having their genes is a superior quality? Also what makes you think having bigger noses and blue eyes with blond hair is a favorable trait in colder climates? Can you suggest the mechanism through which this is beneficial such that it provides them selective advantages in terms of evolution?

Yep its possible. It is possible for people to experience smells after seisures when the smell isnt really there. A lot of things can cause seisures.

Yea. drink water.

Of course, but the effects of growth hormones on height is greater than the effects testosterone or estrogen has. Why else is it that males are generally taller than females, given that males have more testosterone production and more testosterone receptors on their cells? Yes house eplisdoes are fairly exagerated from the truth and are very rare conditions.

Your friend is either unknowlegable or he/she is jealous of the models to make that claim; perhaps after watching that eplisode on House gave a bad influence on him/her. I dont see any study to prove that fashion models have higher incidence of AIS. Being tall has more to do with growth hormones and growth plates on bones than they do with androgen or estrogen effects. So being taller doesnt neccessarily mean they are more likely candidates of AIS because they would be affected by estrogen more. And Tigerrunner. I'd tell your prof straight up that he/she is wrong for making that assertion without any proof. I mean its certainly possible, but I'd rather see proof than make a random accusation like that based on nothing more than opinions.