forufes

i never did that, now please, let us hear other members' inputs. also i might add a request from the reader to compare between the following two answers to my previous quiz in the op, and say which is absolutely right, and which is downright wrong, and in case of similarity, to say which is better or more accurate. A- "because the force per unit angle density is higher" B- "because force is an unconserved quantity"

you have a bolt. you have two wrenches. one short. one double the length of the short one. when you use the longer wrench, you're applying double the force on the bolt than when using the shorter wrench. my quiz was, where did the excessive force come from? didn't you apply the same amount of force? so how come? my answer was: no force is created, none is added.. the force per unit angle density is higher.. meaning, it's not the force that's doubled.. it's the angle which the force is acting on that's been halfed.. the force is the same, you double the lever---> you halfen the angle under said force. that's the logic behind momentum and torque equations. so, in your opinion, is the answer: "because the force per unit angle density is higher" a retarded answer? is the "new term" not one to be proud of, by its inventor? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedalso meaning, for those who have understood so far, that if the force is quantified, the the degrees turned will be the same. the reason why longer wrenches unscrew bolts, is because they concentrate the force on a smaller angle, enabling it to overcome the static friction coefficient, where a more despersed shorter lever can not.

nope, for me it says that his act of questioning evolution is not to be thought of as dishonest as are most queries questioning evolution. he's just trying to be cautious towards a "sensitive" subject.

what if it's infinite pages of defined text.. infinite monkeys.. infinite time.. then what? does the possibility still exists? because you see, the certain conditions and terms needed to be fulfilled are the pages of text, and we keep learning more and more of them every day..we've never grasped them all.. no?

when was the first time you remembered that you've seen the guy? 1-did you remeber that you've seen the ghost once you've been told about the real guy who commited suicide. 2- or did you remember the ghost image at least once before you were told about the real guy, and perhaps even told of your ghost to friends or noted it down or something?

up till #11 was exhilirating, then when the fantastic four appeared in #12 i started to lose it..

if a colective consiousness is the next step for the human puppets because they tend to live and think almost the same.. what does that make of the puppet masters' evolution? aren't they human too?

lucaspa was the only one who answered the question directly. selfless acts are good for the group, but bad for the unit or element. is that why selflessness should kept as a mutation? it seems to me some are saying yes. but we forgot that natural selection keeps the helpful traits around because they help their carriers, it's like the law of genes and natural selection is:"if it kills you, it dies with you".. yes selflessness raises the groups survival rate, but how does it maintain itself in the group? the selfless should die and selflessness should die with them, but that's not the case.. lucaspa cleared it out by building on what sysiphus said, that the genes of selflessness are ok with you dead, as long as on the other hand of your death MORE selflessness gene's survive, so the selflessness gene in one element or unit helps the other genes of selflessness in other genes of selflessness in other units of the group, which actually make that gene(or allele) more effective in spreading than other genes which rely on their carrying unit to spread. so if five carriers of a longer neck for food out of ten units were in danger of death, they will die and the long neck gene will lose 50% of it's capacity. if the same scenario was repeated for selfless gene carriers then one or two of the ten would sacrifice themselves for the group and the selfless gene would lose 10-20% of its capacity. or the other five would jump in and they would all die out, making selfless ness differ from blatent stupidity by being combined with some intelligence. well, that makes things alot much clearer, though it doesn't answer the core question, the first time ever the selflessness gene was introduced, how did it spread from one element to another and a third till it had enough to compensate its self destruction? if normal genes spread through groups at a linear rate by reproduction, and the selfless gene maintain and spread itself through a group exponentially through sacrificial behavior (just like y=x^2) then how did y reach the increasing interval, when it has to start from zero?(and pass through x<1, which is decreasing)

lol i know that, but that's not how you apply it even to a robotic system with pretty linear movements..lots of other small things(which turn out not so small afterwards) come into it..so what do you think a human's movement would be that simple? i'm looking for a very accurate answer, which sticks to the real life example as much as possible, i know it's a nerdy request, but i find it fun to ponder such small things.. good input, such simple questions such as the op can only be answered as accurately as much concepts are taken into consideration, with careful labeling of the importance and degree of affection the concept has on the problem(or question).. most concepts i figured out are dependent on an outside factor(depending on person for example), meaning they vary, they aren't fixed, they can be reversed, those will get canceled. so you're saying that two at a time will stretch the tendons to a range where they are less elastic, hence requiring-wasting more energy? but why can't it be the opposite? maybe taking it one at a time is way under the contraption range of the tendons(muscles) which will then require more energy for them to shrink up to a level they aren't used to, hence needing more energy? while two at a time might fit the medium or usual contraction of the muscles more? can we say it depends on the type of workout a person one is used to do? (put simply, the ratio of yellow to red muscle(types 1 and 2 in wiki) fibers might change from one to another, hence one would find one at a time easier and vice versa) note; if my biological informational basis here is inaccurate my cancellation of this factor would be wrong. the only factor which i found which won't get canceled, is the margin of error in the applied energy by the muscles..because when you raise your leg up to put it on the stair, you don't raise it EXACTLY with the required force, you actually apply a bigger force which will raise your leg higher than wanted, then when it reaches the level wanted, you yet again exert another force to bring it down; example: to raise your leg from one stair to the other you need 10 newtons. your leg exerts 12 newtons, when your leg starts going overboard, it exerts another 2 newtons to bring it down to contact with the second stair. 1 stair up needs 10 newton, two stairs need 20 newtons.. BUT: i believe that when your body estimates the force needed for two stairs, it will be less off, especially it is continuously against the gravitational force, which will reduce the margin of error.. so your ody will not spend 12x2=24 newtons, but rather 23..less energy wasted.. that's what i feel anyway(literally feel btw:D)..but am open to anyone who'd show me wrong. it's easier for me two at a time. for my friend it's easier one at a time.. if it varies from one to another no problem, but why and how? also, is there a factor to it which is absolutely dependent from human differences?

a member of species taking care of another member's well being at the expense of it's own benefit, health, or even life, is a destructive trait to the first member.. why haven't sacrificial help in all it's forms die out? how did it escape natural selection?

which would use up less energy, going up the stairs one at a time or two at a time?

i will reply to this paragraph only, as it is the most relevant and a reply to the other paragraphs will open a can of worms each.. and so a creationist should keep his unscientific creationism belifs hidden, and he's free to discuss any other scientific matters.. meaning, that creationist, as far as the forum is concerned, should stop being a creationist: the sign or notice or forum rule should say something along the lines of:"if we don't know you're a creationist, we don't mind you even if you are one".. does that sound a bit intolerant? doesn't that corolate to scienceforums' reality accurately? i find it to be the sitiuation here, the more you distant yourself from your criationism belifs, the easier you'll be accepted and the more positive reaction you'll get.. i really don't mind it THAT much, there are religion forums out there... but why would i need to practice my right of debating allowed topics from my position and suffer hell for it? "discussion of evolution is allowed, as long as it is from a scientific standpoint, and the creationist standpoint is not considered scientific by this forum"..can it be any simpler? can it be any more honest? can it be any directer and more straight forward? regradless of whether i or others agree or disagree with that statement, it describes the present reality of this forum, and that at least should be stated openly beforehand, so one can measure his actions more accuratly. who wants that to happen?

put simply, you want creationists not to be creationists, why don't you say so in the beginning, guess it'll be way less messier that way..not to mention honest.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=522936&postcount=4 that's what i did and i got no reply, was there any progress made without me knowing? i can see you need your back scratched.......... proper behavior? i think it's more of:

awesome, i used to surf through hundreds of courses on MIT's open course to download the video lectures, now they're all listed there WITH video lectures from other universities, great find and thanks for sharing..

that's what i thought when i went through the tens of one-on-ones in the middle of the street captured by mobile phones... didn't think much of the stage ones which were done directly on one person either, although they seemed more convincing but still held a fair possibility of being faked, but GROUPS??? and ON a STAGE? and not one or two, but many.. also, i've long heard of hypnosis and accepted it as an extreme in a rare and complicated combination of skill and/or science, charisma, psychology,etc.. capable of boosting moral or reducing one to tears or just playing on his unconscious mind (which wiki refutes), might go as far as controlling someone in a manner similar to guiding a sleepwalker back to his bed... BUT ORGASMS:eek:? MANY PEOPLE? FROM A DISTANCE? AND GOING AS FAR AS IT CAN GO, and with CHAIRS? so how do they work?

how come?

wow, if that's the case why don't you forbid creationist vs evolutionist debates? the history of the forum is teeming with "hundreds if not thousands" of posts showing what has to be shown, so why keep it going? isn't that what you're scoffing at him for? for starting a debate which has been opened and closed a million times? well he's doing so because he's allowed to, what the forum is full off shouldn't change that, it has been discussed, let's discuss it again. if that's not required and unsupported, then forbid it, just like you forbid religion, why keep it open to be repeated over and over again if you don't approve of it? you're even an administrator.. it's within your duties to keep the forum healthy and in ship-shape.. why not raise a "no creationists" sign here? less headache for everyone, no benefit lost, and better atmosphere for everyone (i'm talking for real)

the sloping of the surface would get the roots to clutter too..

because i hold a property, present in intelligent humans and some animals called curiosity, and when i saw that video, that property got on fire, and since i tried to explain those videos in every way i thought of and couldn't, i thought it might have to do with a scientific field which i don't hold enough knowledge about. and so i asked in a science forum.. that is all very obvious for anyone who watches the videos, which begs the question, why are you acting surprised towards my inquiry? or is it what i'm inquiring about didn't surprise you? :confused: could you at LEAST try to be coherent? as basic manners seem out your range... and to mods, some close minded idiot gave me negative rep for this, please get your pliers and open his eyes wide...

:eek: http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?&next_url=/watch%3Fv%3DtaXcpJkn8uw IS THAT SCIENTIFIC??

it also depends on the smoothness of the surface your hovercraft is going to "slide" on.. while the higher amount of air you pump will greatly improve your hovering, a smaller amount of air with careful engineering can produce a better or equivalent air "cushion".. i think the general idea of hovercrafts which you need to keep in mind is: using air as a lubricant between the surface and the craft. you can go about that with sheer force, or careful manipulation of "weaker" air currents..

my ignorance wouldn't be so annoying if it wasn't a dagger of doubt reaching through the layers of bigotry and self delusions and scratching through your founded beliefs, squeezing them hard against reality and rationale, enough for you to resort to the only weapon you have left, your precious little red boxes, which you haven't gained except by telling people what they want to hear, in the name of superior science, which ironically have long told people what they didn't want to hear, many of those people who claim to be of its followers.... evolution, is undergoing a morphing stage from a scientific fact, to a countering argumant adhered to by atheists in their war against theists, it is becoming their philosephy's backbone in the same sense religions do, it is being sucked into atheists' dogma. and that is why, when evolution sprouts out a new bit of reality which doesn't support their agenda, they reach for their clippers, and engage in mindless ignorant disgusting debates from the points of "evolution supports our cause, so how does it do so?"..and so when a piece of evolution which strongly supports their claims fall off by the unearthing of new evidence, new arguments, new POVs, they reach for their super glue, insisting that "that is reality, no matter what you think, say, prove or provide" i have asked many questions concerning evolution, questions with the goal of filtering everything else and reaching it's scientific core, and got positive reaction at first, untill i was labeled as one who ventures into taboo sectors, one who presents logic in a dangerous way, in a way that might blow wind in a direction that might blow off the wig off the pretty blond, and then people might start having question marks..oooo, not good..let's take this to a personal level to gain ground for more red cards, till we get rid of him...well it's your loss really, what will happen to this place when all people agree? i've had a weak sense that ophiliote and Mr.skeptic seem to hold a difference between ID and creationism, but can't speak it out loadly so not to be grouched upon by the elders of the scienceforums tribe.. A Tripolation IMO can't offer his different opinion without being extremely apologetic.. if iNow thinks religion hijacks neuroscience, then i think atheists' evolution hijacks neuroscience as well, both do so by order of real evolution.. IMO it is very normal for people who don't hold some kind of explanation to their existence, to come up with one themselves, or to unconsioucly steer of their general thinking in a direction that will make them find an answer...evolution has become that scapegoat among others...that is why theists are more accurate in their study of it, they are less biased, they have no hidden personal agenda they are trying to pesticide on something.. that is also why most scientist in the world are theists, meaning they know of evolution, they know of physics, but they all unite in not making the assertions a certain group of scientists make, philosephers all around the world exist, theist ones are more than atheist ones, what is the majority missing then?................or should i say what is the minority missing? and so it seems we have two typs of science, devided based on the scientist's theistic status. this forum is composed mostly of one type, who can't always deal with members of the other group, and so in the end, they need to get rid of them, to maintain peace in their hard to get sanctuary... and so yes, i have finally realized why you are all fighting tooth and nail to keep evolution aimless......................