Velocity_Boy

Sorry Hyper.....I thought I inadvertently deleted my OP when I didn't see it. So reposted. Had I know you hid it (not sure why, not that off-topic really) I would not have reposted, obviously. OK...I'll shut up about my scars now. (except to say that its true that women do think they're sxey! LOL) VB

The cesium clock experiments simply confirmed Einstein's old theory of Time Dilation. See: his "twin paradox" for more on this. And yes, as the velocity (!) increases time does slow. Thus, the frequency of the cesium vibrations is also slowing. What is important to remember here is that it is a VERY slight decrease witnessed in those experiments you mentioned, on the orders of fractions of a second.

On the contrary, homophobia is very scientific. In psychology we have studied and mostly discerned the various cognitive dissonance and defense mechanisms of the mind that often afflict folks. A phobia is, after all, an irrational fear, and so phobias are also an area of psychological study. Thus, scientific. I can delve into the most common psychological dynamics that are at work in people who are homophobic if you like, but I have a feeling you aren't really interested.

You may! What's up, Goldie? So.....the eardrum is the term we use for the "tympanic membrane" of the ear. It is a tightly-drawn (like the skin of its titular musical instrument, the timpani!) membrane that vibrates in response to various waves of air pressure that are exerted upon it when a sound is emitted. This is the beginning of the sound detection process you're asking about. Then the cochlear fluid is stimulated by those vibrations. Think, tapping on the outside of a glass filled with water and how the water would molecularly vibrate. These vibrations (mini waves?) then stimulate super fine hairs that are in turn vibrated. Stimulates. Think tiny antennae on an insect wiggling about as you have probably seen. These vibrating hairs are then converted into electrical signals that are sent to the brain and processed by your auditory cortex in the temporal lobe, which is the part of the brain that processes auditory stimulus. Just as the occipital lobe is the portion of the brain responsible for discerning and processing visual stimuli. Check out this animated video that puts in pictures how this process works. Feel free to ask any more questions you may have on this topic. I'm currently doing some auditory clinical testing and research with a colleague who is an Acoustics doc student. VB

Well, I personally have nowhere near the adequate computer science smarts to discern as to whether your proposed solution is a viable one. Nor, to be perfectly honest, do I even understand most of your offered solution. But I wish you the best with it. So this thread reminded me of how little I understood of the p..np problem. Do I took the liberty of finding a nice easy accessible article to explain it for all those interested, as I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one here who is a little fuzzy on the details of this problem. Enjoy! https://www.quora.com/What-is-an-explanation-of-P-versus-NP-problems-and-other-related-terms-in-laymans-terms

You did not refer to those little micro wrinkles as scars! LOL Dude, you need to get out more and get some real scars. My wife once counted all my scars on my entire body. The final total was 12. And this are very real and legit scars, and it's also counting my previously mentioned shredded left palm/fingers as just one. Amazing what right years of motorcycle racing, four years of hockey, and two yours in Iraq will do, eh? As well as various other youthful indiscretions, which I will spare you from hearing about. Don't worry about this fingers, bro. I've seen worse paper cuts. LOL Maybe I'll post a pic of my hand! Wanna see? DW says it looks like it's covered with oatmeal. Ewww.... Cheers.

........And this link will also explain everything you want to know about the chemical process of combustion and fire. http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/fire1.htm Your teacher has obviously never been close to combat, nor seen the first hand results of a grenade attack. His claim about the hi vel oxygen is idiotic. Wish I'd been sitting in that classroom! LOL

My bet would be either Neanderthals or homo erectus, both of whom were already known to be migrating around the european continent during the time of approx. 130,000 years ago. It was the former, Neanderthals, who we homo sapien sapiens vanquished there, about thirty to forty thousand years back. In other words, those guys were our most recent rivals. And what makes you think that whoever got here first did so by boat?? This certainly did not happen, the original immigrants arrived via one of two land routes, as had always been surmised. Either via Alaska, after the Bering Bridge theory, o from the South, coming up through what is now Mexico and Central America. Of those two, the former is the more popular theory. This discovery in the OP doesn't surprise me. I always have felt this continent was populated far longer than a mere fifteen thousand years. I thought anthropologists put too much importance on the Bering Strait migratory theory. As if that was the earliest possible route. Neanderthals..The more we discover about them the more formidable a rival we realize they were. Much smarter than we originally thought. And far stronger than us. We're still not sure how we managed to best them when we met up in Europe. It's a hotly debated topic in anthropological circles. My bet is it was they who slayed those Mastadon remains that were mentioned in the article. Thanks for this!

Easily explained. It's more of a chemical reaction than an equation, I guess. If I had to put the process of combustion and flammation into precise terms it'd be along the lines of Saying that fire is the word we us to describe the rapid oxidation of a material...And that it occurs in the exothermic chemical process of combustion. During this combustion heat, light, and various reaction products are emitted, or released. Any fire requires a fuel source and a combustible substance to be ignited and then burned. The ignition is the catalyst and the burning is the actual chemical reaction you call fire. Particulate matter during the burning and combustion process would always be emitted or released in an outward fashion. Hest always causes this sort of motion, from expansion at the milder end of the spectrum, as in a piece of metal expanding when heated, due to it's molecules moving apart, to explosion on the more drastic, powerful end of the spectrum. http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/fire1.htm

Have you per chance ever used these guys' software? https://m.facebook.com/HanuSoftware If so, just unfollow them. They might've added you to their follow list even if you visited their site once, or Liked ons of their apps.

Well, to claim that premature birth causes homosexuality is a bit brusque and exaggerating. But unlike a post we got here a short while back that claimed dirt caused it, I admit that personally I find this hypothesis to contain some merit. At least enough to warrant further study. I say this because my favorite current hypothesis on a biological prenatal disposition to homosexuality is the one that postulates the effects of a hormonal wash that the fetus undergoes during the third trimester. And I believe it is late in the final trimester, which would bring it very close to coinciding with a premature birth. Thanks for this, I'm going to research it some. In the mean....This nih link expands a bit on the pre birth endocrinal hypothesis I mentioned above......... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3296090/

But even if you were referring to an ape-monkey split your timeline is off. It's been generally thought to have occurred about 20 Mya. Up until we fairly recently found a fossil that compels us to slide it back about five million years. So I reckon that at 25 Mya. Not anywhere close to forty. Forgive me if I'm being overly picky or going offtopic, but this be my shite. LOL http://io9.gizmodo.com/fossils-reveal-the-evolutionary-split-between-monkeys-a-507559881

Speaking of how language is continually evolving and expanding, here's a cool little link that shows you over a dozen words that are now commonly used but we're unheard of a mere two decades ago. http://io9.gizmodo.com/14-common-words-that-didnt-exist-20-years-ago-1455971367

It's good to know you're capable. My link did offer an ascending grade equation. Or what you do quaintly referred to as uphill. You just had to, you know, scroll down a bit and not dismiss it outright because the first graphic depicted a descending grade equation. Or, to you, downhill.

Your timeline is way off. We made the anthropological break from the Great Apes about 6 MYA, as I explained in my above post. Not 40 million as you said. We were likely still on all fours that long ago, and more closely resembled large rodents. Hope this helps! http://www.livescience.com/3996-humans-chimps-split.html

I think The problem the mods and we members had with your observations on evolution was that you were totally wrong in describing what the theory postulates in the first place. Specifically, that we are monkeys. We are not. And in fact, Evolutionary Theory makes no such claim to us being monkeys. Rather, it simply posits that we homo sapiens at one time, up until about 6 MYA, shared a common ancestor with the great apes and chimpanzees, before branching off onto our own sub species. You also badly misrepresented the OP topic concerning the Infinite Monkey Theorem when you claimed it had already been done, since it was humans who have penned the great work of literature. You know as well as do we that this is not anything close to what the IMT deals with. Which is rather, a thought problem regarding probability. I would be remiss at this juncture if I failed to mention I was and am a strong proponent of your thread getting moved to Speculation. I was in fact the first post to request it, I believe. But now you're probably once again getting dangerously close to incurring Mod Wrath (good name for a rock band!) By saying we are all ganging up on you because we're Christian fundamentalist Creationists. And you were, like, a lone voice of scientific reason who was unjustly punished for not adhering to our beliefs. Please. You know as well as we that this is so absurd ad to be beyond a Straw Man argument. It sounds more like a little kid claiming his parents hate him because they sent him to his room for painting the cat.

I disagree that our brains produce matter. Or more accurately, that our thoughts do. Since our thoughts are only comprised of neurons firing back and forth, and are further effected by various levels and combinations of neurotransmitters in our brain, the thoughts are, well, all in your head. No external emissions are detected, unless you want to call a physical action an emission. And certainly no mass is created. Or even acted upon, as telekinesis claims. The mind only can imagine matter and force. Some of the TK believers have tried to explain or justify their claims by dragging quantum mechanics into the equation. Saying that their TK works on that level. This is only because they can offer no real or true explanation how it works. There had never been any documented proof of it. So they drag QM into the mix, as they know that it is difficult to explain if fathom for most people. It's like the Creationists trying to Gussy up their beliefs with a bit of bad science and rename it intelligent design! LOL

More data is required for me to offer an accurate comparison. I need to know what your specific community's policing policy is, for example. Also, what do you mean by quasi military? I understand what the term quasi means, but unfortunately it's not a fixed or finite definition. There are gradations of it, since it really only means "simlilar to." I will offer a personal opinion, though. Most American police forces are getting more military like in their policies and tactics every year. Ever since 9/11. Most of their military tactics and mindsets are unjustified, however. They use overly militarized tactics only because they can.

Hey Raider. So.....The equation you're seeking is one that will deal with what's called Frictionless Mass on Incline. Here's a cool page that shows that equation and has accompanying graphics. Now the bad news....A bit of Trig is involved. But only re sin. So not too bad. LOL http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mincl.html

Another reason this entire premise is flawed is that it does not accurately depict primate behavior. The Infinite Monkey Theorem just assumes that monkeys would sit behave and diligently type out random letters. Conveniently....Ignorantly?...Forgetting or not knowing that it is very likely they do nothing of the sort. Rather, they would likely engage in money behavior. Breaking the typewriters, urinating on them, simply not cooperating and leaving their chair. Eating, playing with each other. They are also not random. They get more likely to be very deliberate and repetitive in their actions. Probably hitting no more than half the keys, ever. And if you apologists for the validity of the IMT accuse me of being overly technical and literal and not understanding this whole thing is a metaphor for not monkeys but a random letter generator, than this must be stated at the outset of the thread. Either we are speaking of real monkeys or not. It has been assumed we are, from the posts I've read. So I am thus taking this real scenario a few steps further in its realistic probabilities. After all, this whole thing allegedly deals with probability, right? And since we are on a science forum and this thread is not in the speculation section...Where it should be, imho...Then we need to apply all scientifically pertinent factors. Or, as the case may be here, all zoological factors. Monkeys don't cooperate, amigos. How many of you have worked with them? Ever. I have. Trust me on this. The IMT advocates cannot have it both ways. The thought experiment either is comprised of real monkeys if it is not. If the case is the former, my above claims from experience on their performance is a major factor in this whole case that merits consideration. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3013959.stm

Just because you disagree with my opinion you say I have nothing of value to contribute. And since I dismissed the Infinite Monkey problem as not being viable I have no grasp of Probability? You sound like an arrogant ass. Are you? It's like an apologist for astrology saying I don't understand astronomy or Cosmology if I don't think astrology is a valid science. I don't think monkeys randomly typing can ever produce all the works of literature. You're forgetting, or maybe just don't know, the infinite thus prohibitive possible number of combinations they could talk out. And the fact that all of them but one would be wrong! After all, we are talking about monkeys typing, say, Hamlet in it's exact entirety, in it's exact verbatim order, right? Not just all the individual words used? If we are, then I maintain the notion is an absurd one. Not science in any aspect. Nor is it mathematical. Why must I explain this here on a site like this? You need to educate yourself on past mini tests regarding the IM problem. Where hundreds of monkeys over weeks got nothing at all. Hardly a real words here and there. The difference between what they got and, say, even comprising a ten page children's story was skin to the difference between a two by four leaning on a walk and a newly constructed two story house. There is a point via the method of extrapolation that even a limited text will discern whether or not something I'd possible, even if given eons of time and participants. To think monkeys only need time and numbers to recreate thousands of crafted literary works, verbatim, is magical thinking. Any way you slice it, and regardless of how you try to spin the aspects of probability. Also. And to close...I'll post whenever and wherever I please. You'd do well to remember that and not try to tell to tell me what to do. Last I checked you were not a moderator. Capisce? Great.

Here below is a pretty cool site where you can brush up on writing equations and also have your work checked. There's some short interactive quizzes as well. Make sure to check out the ChemBalancer feature, that will show your equations and then balance for correct them if needed. I used something very similar in undergrad school with my lower level Chemistry courses. http://www.ric.edu/faculty/ptiskus/Chem_Review/

I agree that there really are four primary branches, or sub disciplines of Philosophy. But it's generally agreed upon in academia that there's only three. Which are, briefly....... Axiology: the study of value; the investigation of its nature, criteria, that's is, what really makes something of value? Or valuable? Can this be an objective appraisal? If not, why? Epistemology: which is the study of knowledge. What constitutes knowledge? Is there a superior or preferred type? Is it the same as intelligence? How can we really say for certain who is knowledgeable and who isn't? Socrates was very big on this. He always claimed that he was knowledgeable only because he knew for certain that he was not. Ontology.... or Metaphysics: the study of what is really real. This is the branch most people think of when they think of Philosophy. What is the meaning of life type of stuff. And most of your well known philosophers specialized in this branch. And probably all of them at least wrote on it at least a bit. Kant, Descartes, Kierkegaard, all those guys dealt heavily in this. I would add Ethics to the main branches. The study of what is right and wrong. Morals. What's good if bad. That sort of thing. The age old and very perplexing question of whether there is something that can be called Absolute Morality would be here. The early classic Greeks of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were all heavy into this area.

They would not. Since if they were to omit or incorrectly type even one word, their effort had failed. Unless you wish to begin allowing caveats and exceptions and whatnot. I should rephrase to say the chances are so infinitely small that it equates to a zero chance. I'm not sure you could come up with something having a lesser chance of happening! This article does some impressive number crunching on the Infinite Monkey Myth. http://wmbriggs.com/post/2409/

There is no information to offer. Except to say that your opening claim is patently false. A group of a million monkeys would be very fortunate to comprise a Dr. Seuss book in a century of typing. Hamlet or any other piece of literature of even remotely close volume and complexity is out of the question. This thread needs to go to Speculation. At best. LOL