Moontanman

That idea is wrong. Both matter and antimatter have the positive mass and are attracted gravitationally.

Wrong or simply hasn't been experimentally confirmed but seems to be the only way it could work if curvature of space-time is how gravity is propagated? I know it is assumed that matter and anti-matter attract but there are other schools of thought and so far no one has presented real world evidence that confirms or denies it.

What i want to know is if the gravitomagnetic theory is correct does it lend more credibility to the theory that matter and anti-matter repel each other? The idea that anti-matter could negatively curve space is difficult to deal with but the idea that anti-matter repels matter through particle interaction is a bit easier to swallow.

Please forgive me for being completely ignorant in this but i want to ask if the idea that antimatter is repulsive to matter gravitationally is connected with gravitomagnetism?

It's sad but sometimes you have to at lest project the image that you are willing to dive to the same level as your attackers, I've found this is usually enough, if not then you have to be willing to Run, fight or simply stay away from the area where this type of thing happens, i feel for you, not feeling safe in your own home town sucks for sure.

There are places where I live I would not go willingly but fortunately those areas are few and far between. The good thing is that most of these people are all bluff and no action but it's difficult to know which is which.

I think quantum does indeed apply, we might be able to program a computer to emulate consciousness but it would a simulation like any other computer simulation...

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

Oxidizing potential?

A rogue planet would be cool!

Ninus, think for a second, no math is required to see this is false, your hypothetical space craft would at best wobble back and forth and go no where.

No matter the sped of the slug drawing it back to it's starting position would negate the original acceleration. It's as obvious to me as falling off a building results in hitting the ground...

Of course bees and wasps worship their queen with chemicals and by being celebate.... Just kidding.... I agree that the mechanisms are absent for this to happen.

I'd like to see some back up on the statue thing, i wasn't aware the Mayans were seafarers at all. The Mayans calender simply restarts, it's not the end of the world any more than 1999 was the end of our world. What's with the double posts dude?

"party like it's 1999"!

moontanman, yes you're right..I probably should have read the entire thread so as not to simply restate something someone had said previously. I usually would have, but I didn't feel like it at the time. As far as I'm concerned this is completely acceptable because 1) I stated at the beginning that the entire entry was my own personal opinion and, as far as I can tell, posts on this forum need not be worthy of a peer-reviewed journal. And 2) if a point of mine had already been made, well then my entry could be considered an affirmation of that point.

Well then i guess you'd have no problem with me giving you my opinion of your opinion? I won't because opinions mean nothing in this forum and claims must be backed up with evidence other than my opinion.

I suspect the most likely reason for your retort is not your concern for forum etiquette in general, but that you simply disagreed with my argument in part or whole. Perhaps you should read the first sentence of a post before making accusations of 'grandiose claims'..of which there were none made. I should probably go back and read the arguments you put forth to discover which parts of mine disturb you...but I don't feel like it..

No i simply do not simply disagree with your "opinions" I back up my claims with real evidence, of course you'd have to read the thread to know that, on the other hand I have real world experience with the idea of homosexuality and the problems the false idea of it being a mental disorder or unnatural or wrong and how society deals with an defames people who do not share their majority feelings of sexuality.

I personally do not give a rats ass what your opinions are about homosexuals in general or personally are, all I care about is making sure people who have sexual feelings that are different than the majority are not denied their basic rights as human beings due to people who share your barbaric opinions.

The reason people feel the need to be uncomfortable with homosexuals since the Greeks is due to opinions like yours being supported by pious religious people who feel the need to demonize someone who is different for any reason to make themselves feel better.

In women as well as men testosterone is the chemical of pleasure seeking, women who have low or no testosterone levels have little or no sex drive and are very passive. Aggression in both sexes is linked to testosterone. I think you need to be more specific as what "pleasure" seeking behavior you are talking about.

That doesn't seem to be the rule for animal DNA however. Has a complete genome been found for any extinct animal? These molecules tend to degrade over time even when kept under sufficient conditions of cold. Plus there's the challenge of differentiating specimen DNA from DNA found in the environment (from bacteria, mostly).

Well the woolly mammoth comes to mind

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081119140712.htm

Tasmanian tiger

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090112201131.htm

The field seems to be opening wide...

Definitely the issue has been hashed out throughout the past century and/or more. I was curious if persons would input other abstract ideas that may have not been mentioned or arguments I may not have read or thought of.

 

I think in general, people are stating it should not be considered a mental illness in reference the reproductive biological design. Furthermore, it could be assumed that biological design is designed to influence bisexual behavior, which sexual behavior is later narrowed by interaction in society, thus leading to sociobiological development.

Genecks, homosexuality has been hashed to death on this forum and in this thread, I honestly see no reason to rehash it unless someone comes up with a new slant on it. Simply making the same old claims does not make them true or add to the discussion.

Genecks, this issue has been hashed out over and over in this thread, read the entire thing and then come back and tell me i am dismissing anything.

Merged post follows:

Like a type of phobia, you mean?

Exactly what I mean!

First, let me say that I am no expert in any related field and don't pretend to be. This is only my uneducated opinion. Additionally, I'm sure this could be said more concisely with a better vocabulary.

 

Straight men are not afraid of homosexuals. Why would they be? The thing that makes straight men so uncomfortable about homosexuality is the possibility that either they might discover that they themselves are gay or that they might be perceived as being gay, and this is only a problem because homosexuality has developed such a major stigma since the ancient greeks.

 

Personally, I believe homosexuality has both a genetic and environmental component, and I believe the environmental factor is substantially larger. To keep it simple, I think genetics plays a role in two things. 1) a persons vulnerability to sexual feelings, urges, whatever..the level and ease with which their libido responds to stimulii. and 2) a person's mental functioning that would affect their willingness to experiment..to ignore established societal norms and try new things..--this is a personality trait that goes far beyond sexuality. Now, there are still many very horny and rebellious people out there who never practice homosexuality. Additionally, there are plenty of people with low sex drives and not particularly outgoing who become homosexuals. And lastly there are still more people who experiment with homosexuality only to discover that they're not really homosexuals. So I think genetics set the stage for homosexuality, but environmental circumstances are the trigger and the ultimate determining factor in whether a person actually becomes a permanent, full on homosexual. Maybe a person is exposed to close friends or relatives who live homosexual lifestyles and therefore that person develops a sense that it is more acceptable than someone who was not exposed to it. Maybe a person has a string of bad relationships with the opposite sex and gets bored or attempts to search for a more meaningful alternative. Maybe a woman has a traumatic experience such as a rape or molestation and feels she can no longer trust men but finds understanding and emotional relation with other women, and so lives the gay lifetyle simply to find comfort and emotional fullfilment rather than actual sexual attraction.

 

My point is that there can be all sorts of reasons a person might 'try' being gay, or actually become gay, or maybe just think they're gay..other than true sexual attraction. Now, admittedly, I say all this as a straight man who simply cannot believe (because I simply can't imagine) that a man can be SOLELY sexually attracted to other males, and not at all attracted to females. I simply don't believe it. I think if a man says that's the case, he must be in denial, or there's a pride issue..something. I don't believe that nature, even with it's occasional abnormalities, would program a member of a sexually reproductive species to instinctively choose the same sex. The same way it would not program an animal to commit suicide. The instinct to procreate must be the strongest after self-preservation. You don't see animals killing themselves for no reason. Only us, with our advanced cognitive function can choose to ignore our basic evolutionary instincts. I'm aware that homosexuality is observed in other animals, but is it really homosexuality? ..or is it something else such as domination.. or are they just really horny. I bet if you take any sexual animal that exhibits homosexual behavior (other than a human) and provide it the opportunity to mate with a suitable member of the opposite sex.. it will.

Maybe you should read this entire thread before you start making grandiose claims about what homosexuality is or is not.

Fear of homosexuals is closer to being a mental illness, for some reason that fear is almost always limited to straight males being afraid of homosexual males.... lesbians are of course hot

It's worth noting that I joined these forums when I was 12, and that didn't stop me from making 25 posts per day.

 

Of course, back then my posts didn't have much substance, but oh well...

 

There's nothing stopping you from going out, asking questions, and trying to catch up with everyone else. A lot of our members just love to explain things.

So now you are 35? Youve been posting here for 23 years? It adds up fast diva, i am only 14 or sooooo....

Shouldn't this be in religion?

DNA has been recovered from animals extinct for many thousands of years....

South Carolina? Surprise at anything that happens there? Until recently the age of sexual consent was about 3, you could drive an automobile before you could count. Being a judge only required you have low friends in high places, experience with the law other than breaking it was not a prerequisite. In another 100 years the state might get it's act together but even as southern states go SC is a bad joke...

Wow, thanks for resurrecting this thread but I've read through it several times and talk about ignoring the real issue!

Some facts

There was no world wide fireball, probably lots of fires set around the glob from reentry of debris but no world wide fireball.

There were no marine dinosaurs, none, period.... All marine top predators were impacted severely, only sea turtles survived among the marine reptiles. Quite possibly because they were the only marine reptiles that ate plants and jellyfish which as seen in todays oceans seem to do well in environmental upheavals.

Not a real image of course but it illustrates the problem well. Jelly fish are becoming a real problem around the world in waters both stressed by environmental pollution and removal of predators of jelly fish like sea turtles.

http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/200832/1636/Increase-in-world-jellyfish-population-bad-sign-for-planet-scientists

Environmental stress always impacts top predators/consumers more than lower level creatures in the food chain, dinosaurs were the epitome of top predators/consumers.

In a blizzard with no shelter a shrew would die far quicker than an elephant and an elephant or elephant sized creature could live far longer than a shrew sized animal even with the same metabolism which shrews obviously do not have. A shrew dies with in hours of not feeding, and elephant lives for days maybe weeks with no food and can recover when food becomes available, the shrews are all dead... Birds die in the winter of freezing quite often, some times falling from the sky in large numbers, small birds are more vulnerable than large birds...

An amazing number and diverse species of animals survived the K/T boundary (many plants didn't make it either) All most all can be said to have been preadapted for survival, burrowing birds, hibernating reptiles and mammals, hibernation or estivation would seem to be key in the survival of species across the KT boundary.

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

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

No, I look at the magnificence of what can happen when chaos is unleashed.

Today I am 147, most of the time I am 17, until i move then I feel every one of my 55 years....

For each and every observers point of view, in every possibly frame of reference, the values will be real, follow the laws of nature and can be used to calculate different outcomes.

So in the twin paradox both with be young? If all frame of reference are real then not only is the mass real (eventually you or a particle should collapse into a black hole if you accelerate close enough to the speed of light) Both frames of reference should be time dilated permanently, no twin paradox?

 

 

If you mean will I fight against abandonment of our system of government and allow it to give way to mob rule and Anarchy' date=' or crown someone emperor just to please a few malcontents? "Bet on it; I will fight". But I said nothing about having to agree with me on any issue. Just respect the wishes of a "legitimate" majority. But, if we abandon normal principals and Anarchy become rule, then what?[/quote']

 

Over the course of our country people then would see how we live and the laws we live by not to mention how our government operates extraordinarily different from what they "knew" had to happen for government to work. Black people allowed to live like whites? Orientals? Unemployment? Minimum wage? Rights for anyone other than the rich and powerful? Equality for all? Rules against what we can hunt and kill and sell? Laws against drugs? BLASPHEMY! Our government evolves to fit the situation, no one document can possibly rule a people forever, no one type of government can either. What you see as abandonment is simply the evolution of government for the people by the people. The future is only possible if we are willing to abandon the things that no longer work and try new things, one day things we would feel are outrageously unamerican will be law and every one will wonder why we were so stupid.