Velocity_Boy

I detest spoilers. And if I'm reading a movie or book review and the author is kind enough to insert a spoiler alert in the beginning of his review I'll quit reading it. I'd much rather be I'll informed of the plot than be unwittingly smacked with s spoiler going into the book or movie. I think I hate spoilers more for novels than I do for movies. Not totally sure as to why this is, but I think it may have something to do with the amount of time invested in reading a book compared to the movie. I sometimes have myself to blame though, for becoming apprised of a spoiler, as I have a habit now of going online to read reviews for prospective movies and novels. I'm a huge Rotten Tomatoes devotee. For novels I use Goodreads.com.. Or sometimes Amazon. Another habit that I have that sometimes bites me...I'm at the local library and will gather maybe two or three prospective novels to read and then sit down and use my phone to go online and see which one gets the best reviews. This habit has helped far more than hurt, however. I find that its a red flag when you see a book only contains good reviews from other authors. Those are worthless. Stephen King is the worst...often giving superlative reviews to mediocre or bad books. I'm thinking these authors are employed by the same publishing house as is the author of the reviewed book, do they are asked by the House to do it ad a PR favor. Anyway, yeah...worthless. Just like Booklist. Ya need to see reviews from veteran critics. But spoliers suck. Same reason I rarely watch a movie, no matter how excellent, a second time if said movie was made by its awesome twist ending. Like, say....the Sixth Sense or A Beautiful Mind. I mean, what's the point, eh?

So your name is not a mere double entendre, but a triple! Nice. Yeah....I guess he did...a little bit maybe. I wish his sense of humor was great enough to where he'd of let me off with a warning, but alas, he gave me a ticket. And here in Texas they're expensive. Just like any state where there's no income tax. I even made the bastard laugh when I told him that since I was at the time a gigging drummer, I might some day name my band Velocity Boy. Giving the Texas DPS full credit, of course.

Thanks for the great responses so far, guys. I have an old, curmudgeonly Texas State Trooper to thank for my name. Several years ago I was stopped for doing about 70 in a 55mph zone on my Kawasaki Ninja 700. The cop saunters up to me, flips out his ticket book, and drawls, "OK velocity boy, what seems to be the big hurry?"

Thanks String. I admit yours as being one if the more interesting names here, and I was hoping hoping youd weigh in. I wax also egregiously off base as to what I thought it might refer to. And that was....string theory from quantum physics!

Hey all.... In a humble attempt to get to know some of my fellow SFers, I was wondering if you would be so kind ad to share with us what prompted you to choose the username you did? What is its meaning? What message were you hoping to convey to us by using it? If indeed there was one. And also what's the story behind your avatar? If its of, say, a TV or movie character...like our resident GOTG's Negasonic Teen....why did you want to use it here? As always.....much thanks for your time with this. I'm looking forward to reading some interesting and amusing stories and explanations. I'll share the origin of my username after we give a few if you the chance to get this ball rolling! Thanks again.......VB

Just so. I was trying myself to think of something other than the traditional method---like hearing a funny joke or watching "O' Brother Where Art Thou?"--could induce laughter. The first thing that came to my mind was how we can stimulate the laugh response in a neurology lab by touching the exact correct portion of the brain with a probe. But I immediately realized that...yes, right.....that too would irrefutable qualify as a stimulous. Thus....I can think of no answer to this question. Even a psychiatric condition like Tourette's that elicited spontaneous and unbidden laughter would have to be stimulus-invoked, since Tourette's and the like are caused by chemical (neurotransmitter) balances and neuron/axon firing of such. Thus....sigh...again: a stimulus of some sort.

1a......The Earth or any large object exerts its own gravitational field regardless of its shape. The Earth could be the shape of a cube and if it was about the same size, say, a couple thousand miles wide and long on each side; it would emit roughly the same gravitational field our spheroid does. In fact...all mass exerts some gravitational pull. Even you! You emit a field around you strong enough to pull in an object about the weight of a human hair if its within a foot or so of you, and there are no environmental opposing or interfering forces, like wind. So, say, in a bedroom with no fan or anything disturbing your "atmosphere." And yes...we are almost perfectly round! Lots of newly informed astronomy students love to wag about how its not a sphere. Just so they can show us how smart they are. Truth is...though yeah it does bulge a bit around the equator...this is a minuscule aberration. If the Earth were shrunk to the size of a basketball, for example, and retained, percentage size the same amount of deviation from true sphere shape, player s using this ball would notice nothing wrong. But the Earth is round due to its rotation and orbit around the Sun. So, yeah, Gravity (of the Sun) as well as centrifugal force are the primary reasons for our sphere shape. . 1b...that we know our planet is a spheroid is a fact. Its irrefutable. Its been proven countless times and beyond all doubt. This fact surpasses the definition of a theory. And indeed, if you allow a slight digression on my part here....the scientific definition of a Theory far surpasses how laymen will use the term in everyday non science conversation. Like when they say......"I have a theory on why my boss is such a jerk; he's not getting any." In science such a statement is far from a real Theory, and indeed fails even to meet hypothesis requirements. In Science..a Theory had already passed all tests thrown at it. (Like the theory of evolution, for example.) This is not to say a full blown theory cannot still one day be refuted. It can and it has. An example is how the momentous Mickelson- Morley refuted the old Ether Theory several decades ago. 2...The foundation of science is the Empirical Method. You need to Google that if you're not familiar with all it entails, as it's crucial to understand if you wish to ever go beyond even high school science. But observation.... Yes! Its a crucial and even indispensable component of the Empirical Method. Hope this helps. Cheers.

You can disprove your teacher's thought puzzle...I refuse to call it a paradox since those are real....by simply going outside and marking off 100M and then running it. Plus...you get a bit of cardio in! Just ad easily could ol Zeno be busted up by you choosing a much slower opponent to race against and then beating him after allowing him a head start. One that you're sure you can overcome, that is. Cheers.

Oh....sounds like your math teacher ain't very original, mate. He's just using a slightly tweaked version of the centuries old Zeno's Paradox that featured the rabbit and tortoise. Which I've always thought of ad a big yawn. Both zeno and you teacher's stories are pure thought experiments. That is, in reality they're of course totally wrong. Just like the rabbit who'd never catch the much slower turtle since he could only continually halve the distance he was behind him after giving him his huge head start. To me...thought experiments like this do little to improve science and are basically just forms of mental masturbation. I dunno..maybe I'm being unduly harsh...being a former track guy who always hated losing? LOL

Today I learned....but still have trouble believing.... That the entire population of this planet could be packed into a cube that is a mere one cubic mile. Further....and a bit humbling...said cube could be dropped into the middle of any ocean and the corresponding sea levels would not rise even one inch. Feel small yet? Cheers.

I believe that the whole notion or idea of gods originated hundreds of thousands of years ago, if not longer, when those bipedal hominid primates that would evolve into homo sapiens first attained self awareness. And by proxy, the ability to fret about the future and to make plans and to know that he would dome day die. So gods, or some other term for a timeless supernatural all powerful entity were invented. Conjured up ad a way to explain most important but as then unexplainable occurrences. Like storms and earthquakes and fires and plagues. Some neurologists will tell you that the human brain is hardwired for belief in gods. That it came about as a by product of our evolved brains. That we once maybe even needed this belief, but not so much nowadays. That its, like nipples on men and our fight or flight responses... A vestigal trait. And no..there is of course no proof of gods. Not a scintilla in all these millennia! Not even a hint if a god. Other than those holy books from the godists. And again, yes...there is indeed every chance in the world that those books and fables are just that....fables and mythos stemming from ancient minds trying to make sense of their world. And trying to justify their deeds and console themselves with soothing ideas such ad an afterlife and a loving and caring creator sky god.

Well....I think the adjective "primal" is more accurate a descriptor for sex than is "primitive." Since we all know from experience and from our past anthro and human biology studies that our sex drives, our libidos, are one of the most basic, and....well, sorry...but primal dives that we homo sapiens are imbued with. Yeah, sex and the compulsion to procreate or further the species is the most basic drive and purpose for ANY living organism. And most people, other than the theists and godists (my own term) will attest that its likely the only purpose for us being here. Mankind on this planet is, st the end of the day, not a helluva lot different in its over arching purpose and endgame than a smear of bacterium in a petri dish. Must. Multiply! LOL Eat.....seek a safe environment.... Procreate.... Be wary of those organisms that are not of our own species or tribe.....all primal and indispensable instincts. The word primitive, to my way of thinking, anyway, conjures up notions of something obsolete and very dated. Originating from antiquity but now surpassed by modern invention in usefulness. Which we all know sex is decidedly not! Cheers.

Me thinks you would have great difficulty proving that people who were born prematurely and who have encountered health problems during their lives usually do not marry. I doubt you could find even a study showing any persuasive evidence for that idea. For one, the qualifying parameters are too nebulous. How early is premature? What constitutes a life of health problems? How many days must you be sick? How many days healthy to not qualify? Do colds and flu count? How about sports injuries? I'm currently as healthy as the proverbial horse. I've hardly been sick, ever, but have broken four bones, have multiple scars, and have been concussed twice playing hockey. I also sustained a GSW in Iraq. So... Do I have a history of health problems? LOL Your idea also implies that people become gay, or...decide to be? Because they're sickly and....and ....what, exactly? Can't get heterosexual dates? Or straight live affairs or relationship? But hey! They can get gay lovers? Nope. None if that washes even a little bit. Personally, I find it absurd. My OP tells of the only probable way a premature birth could maybe be conducive to homosexuality​ in males. And it's a very biological reason. Specifically, hormonal. Hope this helps.

Really? That surprised you that some accidents are caused by operator error? Or not paying attention? No reason it should. In this regard it's the same for us motorcyclists as it is for car drivers. I've been riding for over fifteen years and still use a cycle as my primary transport. I can offer you some more info on this topic. The most common type of bike v auto accident is when the car turns left in front of the bike on a two way road. The bike t-bones the auto and the cyclist either flies into the side of the vehicle or he clears it over the top. This sort of accident accounts for almost half of all bike wrecks. The second most common scenario in bike v car is when an auto just rear ends a cycle stopped at a red light. For bike accidents with no other vehicles involved the most common is when the cyclist simply takes a corner or s turn too fast. And just runs out of road, as we say. Thats gotta be a typo. Thirteen million bucks from the fecal output of one million humans? So, in your typical BM from today there was $13.00 worth of minerals in it? Pardon the pun, but bullshit. Gotta link?

Well, not to any larger degree than any other type of matter. The chloryphyll content is not a factor. Why would it be? And it's the dimensions of the slits in ratio to the beam path, the vector, that causes the interference you're thinking of.

Well ive always thought a virtual particle is a transient, very brief fluctuation in a real field of space that, well, might have some of the characteristics of an real particle, but whose existence is limited by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. And....Virtual particles don't carry the same mass as the corresponding real particle, either, right? But they DO conserve energy and momentum. So The longer the virtual particle exists, the closer it comes to being a real particle. Here's a link you might enjoy. I didn't read it all so it might show some if what I said above to be not exact. I'm no physicist. https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

Actually, your claim if healing plants is not well known at all. How about a link? Other than gardening or working with plants being cathartic, like a hobby. But the idea of plants themselves exuding some sort of healing field is pure hoakum. Sheldrakian, even. In fact he's probably proposed this idea as part of his morphic resonance. Did you read the abstract? Are you familiar with the P difference? It was 0.04! That's basically admitting right there the test was a wash, since it's lower...albeit it very slightly....than we can always expect from the 5/100 or 0.05P in a pure bogus causal test, like say, eating a pint of honey before taking an IQ text will add 30 pts to your score.

Indeed, JC. It's really sorta funny how often practitioners or apologists for psuedo scientific claims use QM as their medium of choice! Rupert Sheldrake does it for his elusive Morphic Resonance. Telekinesis guys use it. As do believers in Crystal Healing and I think even Homeopathy. And you just know they do this since very few people even understand quantum mechanics. And they love the famous Einstein quote about spooky action since it sounds like a very intelligent man of science is actually advocating the veracity of unproven and mysterious machinations. "It works on a quantum level" is beginning to be a throw away phrase. Or even a red flag? LOL. Akin to fat free in the supermarket. What is distant healing? If I posted........ "The short answer is, Bullshit." Would that be warning point worthy? LOL. At this point, I'm thinking it would be fine. Unless of course the alleged practitioner of the voodoo was a female. In which case kid gloves need be used, less a comment that could be construed as questioning her science gets interpreted as sexist. I would normally add an LOL after that last bit. But after this past week and a real exposure to the silly pc obsession and knee jerk feminism here, it's more a proven accurate claim than a humorous one. Imaftaal deleting a direct observation from a registered nurse that mentioned high school females was the topping point for my allegations on this. That was one silly assed move by a moderator. Doing it because she can. Tell me a male would've deleted the comment. Ok, you can ban me now. I've had my belly full of this shite anyways. Adios.

guys? your bio says you're female. typo? or lie? just curious.

There is a vast difference between the cognitive abilities merely being present and the brain being wired to perform optimally. I never claimed that women are all bereft of scientific abilities. Jeez, did you also not read my OP? How many times must I state that there are exceptions in that some women are keen in STEM? So I do not need to show otherwise, as you said, since I never claimed what you wrongly said I did. My assertions are hardly bald. I claimed that women's brains process information differently than men. I backed this up with links. I then surmised that the way in which their brains do process cognitive input may not be the optimal modality for science and technology disciplines. My links also supported that. I also...Sigh....Never claimed what I opined is irrefutable fact. My OP was in response to a guy who said there are no other explanation for the dearth of women in science other than that they aren't interested. I offered that there indeed may be other explanations. I then offered one. Never figured you to throw up a straw man, but you indeed did by rephrasing my original claim by saying I claimed that women posses no abilities for science. This is my field and I will not be bullied away from expressing my valid ideas on a topic pertaining to it. However unpopular my idea may be. Respectfully. Cheers. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/jan/18/educationsgendergap.genderissues I care because my OP was in response to a member who claimed there were no other explanations for the dearth of women in science other than they aren't interested in it. So I offered one. Since when are opinions frowned upon here? So long as they're backed by links and sources as is mine here? The known fact that women think more intuitively and in fact rely on that more than men, who are more analytical and linear in their thinking, as well as less prone to attempt multi tasking is in fact a difference that could factor into the idea that the cognitive processing modalities of the female brain may not be the optimal one for science or technical work. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/jan/18/educationsgendergap.genderissues We call what your teacher said sexism. Where have I heard that accusation before? Oh yeah. Here. From you. How was my post in any way nearly as sexist as that? Jeez, if I came out and just said men are smarter you people would have a bloody fit. The double standards I'm seeing here stinks. It is especially odorous given the fact it's a science forum.

You obviously didn't read my link. It's not a riddle. Nor is it anything remotely close to Doomsday. Men. Women. Think. Different. It's not a difficult concept. At least for most of us. I invite you to research the matter yourself. Allow me to get ya started..... https://www.powerofpositivity.com/ways-men-women-think-differently/

Firstly, thanks for confirming my suspicions on the sort of reaction I'd get from my post. Secondly, you would do well not to tell me what I did and did not say. Especially when you are quite wrong. Read my post again. I even provided a link showing how men and women think differently. Which I would bet you didn't bother to read. Hell, i even added caveats to my claim, by stating no less than three times that there are exceptions to my opinions. Anybody who takes exception to my very carefully worded OP can only do so, in my opinion, if they are simply insecure and are fairly spoiling for an opportunity to cry sexism. The term for this sort of soul is a knee jerk feminist. And I find those people rather amusing. So thanks again for confirming my original hypothesis on the collective zeitgeist here, as well as the chuckle. Cheers.

But there are other logical explanations. Or at the very least, credible hypotheses. Such as: women's brains process information differently that does the male brain. This is a fact, btw, not only a theory. So...it could be quite possible that given this fact, women often--not always!--are not quite as efficient at digesting STEM-type information as are men. IOW: by and large (again, there are obvious exceptions) women are simply not usually as good at "doing science" as men are. The extreme and quite impressive, actually, dearth of women computer programmers really supports this hypothesis. I am not sure how much you know about programming, but the processes used by the mind in coding are extremely congruent with the primary way in which the typical male thinking pattern differs from women. That is: highly focused, vector-like, non-abstract, language-oriented, left-brained. All things men usually excel at more than women. I do agree that for the most part women may not be as interested in physics as men. But go a bit deeper and ask why? Maybe because it is a part of science and early in school they realized they often have trouble with that area. We rarely enjoy are become interested in things we do not like or are not adept at. So, yeah, bring on the downvotes, guys and gals. I am quite certain this post will bring charges of misogyny and bigotry. This, in due to the absurd pre-occupation with political correctness in this country. But as a psych major I know with absolute certainty--and will indeed be all too glad to post as many links and sources as you wish--that everything I just said about mens' and women's' cognitive processing differences is valid. Thus, I cannot in good conscience allow your post to go without adding my own ideas on the topic. In closing, I cannot see what the big deal is in admitting that men and women think differently and excel at different tasks. But, again, such is the extreme affliction of PC Obsession today, that it is often impossible to mention this fact without incurring wrath. Cheers. http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/men-women-brains-difference-1.3473154