iNow

If we can eat cows, then why not whales

Maybe because we raise cows for the express purpose of eating them, while whales are forced to procreate in the wild and with no assistance. Hence, we run out of whales unless some big Texas tycoons start setting up whale farms.

This blubber is pure Angus.

It's only magic untill you try to pull it off, then you find out it doesn't really work.

Either you or your girlfriend must have an enormous torso.

I see...

What if it's projected with a too high velocity? Will it fall back to earth as well?

More likely, it's orbit would form an ellipse, or, if fired hard enough, it could break away entirely in a tangential line (like letting go of a rock while spinning quickly in a circle).

The one animal, besides humans, that has the most impact on the environment is called the beaver.

I'd counter this claim with a suggestion that ants and worms and other such critters do FAR more to impact their environment than any tribe of beavers ever could.

Maybe they're classified differently though... Insects... animals... whatever.

Your question is confusing. Do you need to research a biologist (a person) who works in a living environment (like Jane Goodall), or is it biology research on a living environment itself? If so, any other parameters?

A neuron uses upwards of 90% of it ATP energy to help maintain the membrane potential. The exterior postive charge try to get back into the neurons to lower this potential energy.

No, it doesn't. ATP is used in the neuron to produce more neurotransmitters. The membrane potential is maintained by sodium/potassium gating. Didn't we cover this already?

http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/RITCHISO//301notes2.htm

Synapses usually occur between the axon of a pre-synaptic neuron & a dendrite or cell body of a post-synaptic neuron. At a synapse, the end of the axon is 'swollen' and referred to as an end bulb or synaptic knob. Within the end bulb are found lots of synaptic vesicles (which contain neurotransmitter chemicals) and mitochondria (which provide ATP to make more neurotransmitter). [/b']Between the end bulb and the dendrite (or cell body) of the post-synaptic neuron, there is a gap commonly referred to as the synaptic cleft. So, pre- and post-synaptic membranes do not actually come in contact. That means that the impulse cannot be transmitted directly. Rather, the impulse is transmitted by the release of chemicals called chemical transmitters (or neurotransmitters).

There I go with those details again though...

This is done by distributing the potential to minimize the global potential within the brain. I am only talking about all the surface potential. If did a brain scan of someone doing a particular task, one can see the activity of the potential.

Well, to be clear, you were speaking of ATP at the cellular level a moment ago. Which is it? Also, these brain scans are related to blood flow and oxygen use, not "distributed potential" which is in place to "minimize global potential within the brain."

Say we were doing tests on the visual cortex. We use two different environments, one which is well known to the subject, and another that is unknown. The brain activity will be different in both these situations.

Yes, because it is more than just the occipital cortex being activated. Recognition involves memory and object type, which brings in activity in the frontal and temporal cortex, as well as the hippocampal and amydalal regions.

We reverse, this experiment with another person, who knows the unknown environment of the first person, but doesn't know his known environment. This allows us to make sure the same input is the same in both.

What are you even saying? If you use the same input, then you have the same input. However, you cannot make a 1 to 1 comparison across the perception of two different subjects, nor can you make a 1 to 1 alignment across the same subject at different times.

Most brain scan experiements use volunteers. Run the same tests with forced subjects. The results will come out differently. The visual cortex may be shunted by the person. They may be preoccupied by being forced to do this test against their will. The data, when averaged will now move the visual cortex (so to speak) or make it appear that the frontal lobe is now playing a greater role in the visual input. If this is accepted, due to the driver not included, science takes a left turn when it should have been going straight down the middle.

What are you talking about? A subject under duress will show cortical activation in areas that an otherwise calm subject will not. That's about all.

Consciousness needs to be part of any real model so we can filter out its impact of experiments.

How does one filter their data for something they have not yet defined? Your statement is all well and good in the abstract, but it's garbage in the context you're using it.

The cerebral has its own surface charge potential trying to lower potential.

What?

Since it needs to lower potential everything is ready to fire.

What?

Once a breech occurs, there is a run at that zone that propagates like a chain reaction.

Haven't we discussed sodium/potassium gating and neural cascade? I don't see why you need to postulate a completely new mechanism for something that's already quite well researched and understood.

Each neuron is trying to bail out its own ship and dump it in others. All the neruons help get rid of net potential but shifting it down to the core. The core distributes some of the potential into the body and some back up stream toward the cerebral.

What?

It has it own way to distribute the potential. The result are continuous loops of cerebral-thalamus-cerebral.

Oh... yeah... Of course. That.

What?

You know what? There were other points in your post that were a load of crap, but I'm tired now. I have real work to do. How about you stop making shit up in the science forums and leave your interesting speculations for... the Speculations forum?

You might as well being saying that everything is "because God did it."

Why isn't this a major political issue?

It is. It's a major global economic problem, impacting trust in the dollar and the ability of lenders to get their expected return from borrowers, hence impacting their ability to pay their creditors... thus impacting their ability to pay their lenders... ad infinitum.

So... If A cannot pay B, then B cannot pay C. If B cannot pay C, then C cannot pay D. If C cannot pay D, then D cannot pay E... and you have this self-reinforcing economic crash.

Did you see Paris Hilton's new t-shirt. It's hot.

Blah Blah Blah... I didn't read the question... Blah Blah Blah... Look at my soapbox...

How does your post help answer the OPs request for assistance to find a good online resource for Evolutionary Psychology?

Science IS.

 

it`s only Hard if you don`t understand it or Soft if you do.

 

but Science just IS.

That's beautiful mate. You, sir, are deserving of a beer on my tab.

This isn't really an "online resource," but it is a good book:

http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0471264032,descCd-tableOfContents.html

David Buss is a former instructor of mine, and he is a leader in the field. I've learned that he's good at what he does, and recommend his work when you view the literature.

I especially enjoyed the book on jealousy.

I like simple animations and graphics to help. Per the point above, if you don't fire the object fast enough, it will fall "into" the curve of the earth. However, if you fire it at just the right speed, it falls at the same rate that the Earth curves away.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html

Suppose we fire a cannon horizontally from a high mountain; the projectile will eventually fall to earth, as indicated by the shortest trajectory in the figure, because of the gravitational force directed toward the center of the Earth and the associated acceleration. (Remember that an acceleration is a change in velocity and that velocity is a vector, so it has both a magnitude and a direction. Thus, an acceleration occurs if either or both the magnitude and the direction of the velocity change.)

But as we increase the muzzle velocity for our imaginary cannon, the projectile will travel further and further before returning to earth. Finally, Newton reasoned that if the cannon projected the cannon ball with exactly the right velocity, the projectile would travel completely around the Earth, always falling in the gravitational field but never reaching the Earth, which is curving away at the same rate that the projectile falls. That is, the cannon ball would have been put into orbit around the Earth. Newton concluded that the orbit of the Moon was of exactly the same nature: the Moon continuously "fell" in its path around the Earth because of the acceleration due to gravity, thus producing its orbit.

I must say, Pioneer, that you do take some pretty extensive liberties with the metaphor. While I appreciate using the occasional example out of context of a discussion to lend to understanding, you seem to have made an art form out of creating complete models, near system level designs, and expansive postulates rooted entirely in unrelated examples (and, often, faulty premises). Ta boot, you even manage to use existing terminology which holds very clear and recognized definitions in a given arena to support your points, even when the accepted meaning of these words is vastly different. Call me old-fashioned, but this manner of information sharing is better over a beer than in a science environment.

How do you feel about the HydrogenBond?

It's inspiring.

 

I think you're all neglecting warp fields and wormholes, though. You can move faster than the speed of light with one of those.

Well, of course. I mean, with all of the experience we each have using this mode of travel, I think we just took that as a given.

Yah I just find it hard to see how such an intelligent man would find tarot cards and tea-leaf reading to be "The Root of All Evil" (his name for the series). That's a pretty strong statement for something that so clearly falls under the category of "mostly harmless".

I take it you're not in marketing or adverstising.

Besides, I believe one of the posters above pointed out that this name for the series was not chosen by Dawkins, but was chosen by others. I cannot attest to the validity of this, but it does call into question the veracity of a statement grounded in that as the primary postulate.

So we end up with no 'good' objective measure for 'intelligence' whatever that is defined as.

The issue really is that there is no single item which can easily be classified and measured as "intelligence." There is problem solving intelligence. There is emotional intelligence. There is recollection intelligence. There is social intelligence. There is language intelligence. There is creative intelligence, etc., and combinations of these... ad infinitum.

However, if you can put clear parameters around what you want to measure, then there should be no reason one cannot do so.

Sometimes it really is just about reaction time, as he who laughs last thinks slowest.

The closest thing we have in science to an objective measure of intelligence is the encephalisation quotient (EQ). This is the ratio of brain mass to body mass. This is not, of course, perfect. It is, in fact, a rather crude measure. However, it is a better and less subjective measure than any other I have seen.

Unfortunately, it also fails to take into account convolution (the neat little folds and fissures) in the cortex. While mass is important, it's how that mass is put together and used that matters. A blue whale would have a really large brain. I am somewhat curious as to their EQ, but not really.

How did you fit all of that stuff in such a small closet? IKEA?

Obviously this would require technology far beyond that which we posses now, but wouldn't it be possible to move a telescope out far enough into space so that the light reaching it from earth would have reflected off of it millions of years ago?

In order for this to be successful, you would need your telescope to reach that distanct vantage point BEFORE the light from millions of years ago does. It would have to travel faster than the speed of light, and hence would be travelling back in time. Until you can get your telescope to travel faster than light, you'll just be looking at light which bounced off of the Earth at some point AFTER you launched the telescope.

Yah I just find it hard to see how such an intelligent man would find a few tarot cards and tea-leaf readers to be "The Root of All Evil" (his name for the series). That's a pretty strong statement for something that so clearly falls under the category of "mostly harmless". Clearly he wants you to know he's talking about organized, mainstream religion.

I think you'll find that he does not call the practitioners of these practices "the root of all evil," but the illogical belief in their efficacy and importance, especially in the face of clear, consistent, and repeatable evidence to the contrary.

Is number 47 central in any way to the basic structure of the universe? Does this number has critical importance in the basis of the universe?

That really depends on who you ask and in what context.

The really significant number is 42.

I think there is no denying facts from reputable sources, but even the most pro-mmgw believer must accept that facts are open to agendas from either the scientists involved or more likely the politician who presents them.

Of course. I agree with and support your point. I just hope you notice that I wasn't the one in this thread spinning them, and my reaction was toward those who were.

I think I am open minded enough to be persueded into believing GW is man made, but I have many questions and is the reason I joined SFN, because I thought there would be answers to these questions.

Please keep asking. Sometimes it's hard to soften one's words in text. Had we been face to face, I'd have realized that you were an understanding and inquisitive sort, and that we actually agree on a number of things. All too often, folks come into these forums spouting information with no support, and frequently the information they share is just wrong.

Taxes and the efficiency with which our adminstrations spend money on these issues is a very important discussion to be had. However, this thread is not in politics, it's in Ecology and Environment, and that's the focus I am trying to maintain.

Sorry if my words to you came across as harsh. I definitely do not want to scare away someone who enjoys learning and having fruitful, authentic discussions.

Could someone plz help me answer this, albert einstein said that if you went faster than the speed of light you would go forword in time because the faster you go the slower you age, so if you were in the space shuttle moving at about 12000 mph (nowhere near the speed of light) would you still age a little slower at all?

The short answer is, yes. Relative to a stationary observer, the person on the space shuttle traveling at 12,000mph (relative to that stationary observer) *would* age a bit more slowly.

The cool thing is, one can calculate by how much using the Lorenz Factor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor

12,000mph is 0.000017893979c (since c = 670 616 629 mph).

[math]

\tau = \sqrt{1 - . 000017893979^2} \cdot= 0.999999999839903

[/math]

That last number is what you would multiply Earth seconds by to get shuttle seconds. As you can see, for every one Earth second, the shuttle crew gains about 0.00000000016 seconds.

In other words, you can see that those in the shuttle actually aged less than those on Earth (or stationary observer), but only by a tiny fraction of a second.

Actually, check my work. I'm not sure if I did the conversions correctly, but the point is that the difference in elapsed relative time is extremely super tiny until one gets close to the speed of light.

What would happen if a 60ltr cylinder containing LPG was shot with a gun and pierced? Or, if the container was struck by an automobile and ruptured?

 

Is it likely to cause much harm and damage?

Hopefully someone else will chime in with some detail (as I am, by no means, a compressed gas expert... although, my girlfriend may argue otherwise ), but your question reminded me of a few episodes of Mythbusters, so maybe this will be of temporary assistance:

http://mythbustersresults.com/episode63

A compressed air cylinder can blast itself through a concrete wall. (From episode 63)

 

CONFIRMED

 

Once the MythBusters constructed a launch tube and perfected shearing off the cylinder’s valve, the cylinder shot entirely through their constructed cinder block wall and damaged the solid concrete wall behind it. The MythBusters were also aware of recorded instances of such a thing happening.

http://mythbustersresults.com/special8

If a pressurized scuba tank is shot, it will explode. (From episode 8)

 

BUSTED

 

When the tank was punctured by a bullet it simply decompressed quickly, causing it to fly around like a compressed-air rocket. The team was only able to make the tank explode in the end by using explosives.

Note: The episode below is a regular gas tank, but was cool all the same.

http://mythbustersresults.com/episode38

REVISITED: A gas tank will explode when shot by a bullet. (From episode 15)

 

BUSTED

 

It has already been proven that when shot by a normal bullet a gasoline tank will not explode. However, if a gasoline tank is shot by a tracer round from a great enough distance so that the round can ignite with air friction, it will cause the gasoline to catch fire. By the time this happened the tank was so riddled with bullets (from previous tracers that were fired too close to ignite) that there was no contained pressure, but the MythBusters surmised that had the tank been properly enclosed, it may have exploded; but overall it remains extremely improbable.

I am only following the potential flow and not concerned with mechanisms. The fact remains when synapses fire the direction of Na+ is down the dendrite tubes. This occurs because the dendrites are at lower potential than the axon. All the details of the mechanism are important, but not necessary when it comes to following the potential.

I'll take your respones to mean, no, you cannot provide evidence of the mechanism you propose and that your theory does not fit with chemoelectric gating. That's fine. I didn't realize this thread had been placed in the Speculations forum. For your own reference, dendrites actually receive signals and transmit them inward, but who needs details when one is working on speculation.

For the reader who is interested in existing and accurate knowledge, you may wish to start with the following primer:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?db=Books&rid=mcb.section.6108

Isn't backwash what happens when you take a sip of your drink and spit it back in?

The neuron has two basic branching processes, the axon and dendrites. Typically, current as cations, enters the dendrite, flow through the cell body and out the axon. The axon, in turn, dumps the cations back into the dendrites.

 

What this configuration implies the axon is at higher potential than the dendrite, which is why it can dump the charge directly. The dendrite uses the cell body to act like gates in a canal, to push the charge up the hill. Once it reaches the axon hill, the axon pours it down the dendrite tubes. The dendrites can pump out charge directly but not into the axons.

So, how does your theory fit with existing knowledge of the sodium/potassium channels?

It's not electricity, it's chemoelectricity complete with myelination.

Around the thalamus are features that are responsible for the creation of long and short term memory. Here is the flow. The cerebral fires. The current goes to thalamus or core. This signal triggers the memory storage mechanism. Finally, the backwash current goes back up to the cerebral and helps physically store memory.

Hmmm... This seems to use important words in the right places, but definitely comes across as contrary to what I've read. Can you please share a few sources detailing this mechanism so I can ensure my knowledge is as current as yours?

I'm not sure this is the right place. I've just heard that comparison used way too many times, and Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are not in the same boat as certain versions of (for example) the Anthropic Principle, and the myriad of interpretations that can be attributed to God, which are, putting it mildly, many.

Fair enough. I appreciate the quick reply.

We really can, it's abuse of religion thats caused conflict...people are to blame, not religion itself, there is a difference.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. We do, however, tend to protect our own group... our team... our pack... sometimes at the expense of others who fall outside that grouping.

My God can kick your God's hind quarters.