StringJunky

Just thinking along those lines myself.

(Phys.org) —Back in the early sixties, physicist Richard Feynman gave a series of lectures on physics to first year students at Caltech—those lectures were subsequently put into print and made into text books, authored by Feynman, Robert Leighton and Matthew Sands—and now they've been formatted for the web and put online with free access for anyone who chooses to experience them. Titled, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, they have been divided into three volumes: "mainly mechanics, radiation and heat," "mainly electromagnetism and matter" and "quantum mechanics." Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-09-famous-feynman-online-free-access.html#jCp

@Ten oz. OK. Thanks for the clarification. I suppose looking into these triggers we might learn what we like/fear but would we be able to find out when they occurred?

Tips For Writing A Research Proposal (PDF upload I've downloaded from Wisconsin University Google link): Tips_for_Writing_Research_Proposals.pdf

At best, the 'memories' passed on will be coarse simple ones like smell aversion given as an example. I can't see how complex abstract thoughts can be passed on; the molecular configurations necessary to store a lifetime's worth of experiential information in the genetic code would be be much more than the DNA/RNA apparatus could cope with. I'm no geneticist but that's how it looks to me. Memories are actual molecules arranged/ordered in a certain way and that means taking up physical space.

A cursory Google suggests that they are being used this way for this purpose legally. Having said this there is the how they are used to consider for which there is probably legal controls.

Yes, that's the one. Not that I'm happy about it but he shone the laser over it's eye and it never moved its head to avoid it like you would if someone shone a torch in your face. It carried on swimming peaceably in the bush. I get what you are saying though. We'll have to see what happens with them in open water.

I came across something the other day that was curious to me. An angler was demonstrating to someone how a green laser pointer can spook off water birds that are causing a nuisance. He pointed it at a coot's head and sure enough it flew off. He then pointed it at a moorhen that was pretty close in the bushes and it carried on completely oblivious even though the light shone across an eye at times. Does this mean that moorhens are totally blind to green?

Probably better to think of the Earth as a discrete supersystem composed of interlocking organic and inorganic subsystems. Sure, Gaia is conscious but it is manifest in certain Earthly organisms and not as an emergent property of the sum of all Gaia's components.

I think one has to first ask oneself: "What is the probability of life, that is much more technologically-advanced than us, being within 100LYRs of Earth?". This is roughly how far the first radio-transmissions will have reached now to indicate our presence. Also, one has to think about the physics of travelling up to that distance within that time. To put this in perspective I found this: http://www.planetary.org/multimedia/space-images/universe/extent-of-human-radio-broadcasts.html The little blue dot is the transmission-radius relative to our galaxy if we are in the middle of it.

Half the trick to finding information is learning how Google 'thinks' and the target reference source terminology.

It sounds like science fiction, but it seems that bacteria within us—which outnumber our own cells about 100-fold—may very well be affecting both our cravings and moods to get us to eat what they want, and often are driving us toward obesity. In an article published this week in the journal BioEssays, researchers from UC San Francisco, Arizona State University and University of New Mexico concluded from a review of the recent scientific literature that microbes influence human eating behavior and dietary choices to favor consumption of the particular nutrients they grow best on, rather than simply passively living off whatever nutrients we choose to send their way....Read more

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/02/14/of-lice-and-men-an-itchy-history/

The kind of search terms you want to use is 'microfilarial periodicity'. You could also add 'mechanism' to the search string. I found this:

We need rotating molten core components to generate the magnetosphere as well don't we? One would have to think how this might be generated in a hollow-sphere model to make it feasible.

But you need mutation first to make adaptation an available option. if the variety isn't there than adapting is not possible.

Stardust by John Gribbin on how the elements were formed is very good and cheap as a paperback. He's a very accessible writer,

I got this from that - uh-hum - "authoritative" resource Yahoo Answers ...because I like it! Deism is the idea that some kind of intelligence ("God") created the universe, yet chooses not to interfere with it or its inhabitants. That means that there are no answered prayers, no miracles, no revelations, etc. Additionally, the deist generally believes that while God created the universe, things like the Big Bang, evolution, etc actually occurred, and God just got the ball rolling. The theist on the other hand believes that God is an active participant in the world, answers prayers, talks to people, sends divinations, etc., and literally created the world in some way instead of just getting it started. On the bright side, It's better you are a deist because you aren't arguing with post-Big Bang science.

Religious - The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: How do your thoughts or beliefs differ from this definition?

But your proposed cause is some sort of purpose-driven consciousness. Evolution, in inorganic or living systems, emerged through a combination of chance and the chemical/physical properties inherent in the interacting materials so why should it be different before the big bang? Just because scientists are currently ignorant of the mechanisms prior to it doesn't mean that you or anyone should invoke some supernatural phenomena or entity.

Evolution is not teleological so "why?'" becomes moot.

The simplest explanation, I think, is that the universe always existed and I don't think it was necessary for time as we know it - because it probably had certain pre-requisites - to have always existed, so the idea of 'a beginning' can become moot. This is one way to avoid the infinite-regression problem which the OP's solution arouses.. Prior to the BB, I think it unlikely it just popped into existence at the behest of some supernatural consciousness. I'll give you that you aren't being religious but it is supernatural which is in the same realm of potential scientific validity i.e. none. I don't pretend to know the answer and I'm sure a lot on these boards has been down the same sort of thought-paths as you are expressing here at some point in their lives but in the realm of these scientific boards we must think soberly in the light of available evidence. What you are doing, in essence, is filling-in where science can't yet touch with a supernatural explanation or entity ...the God-of-the-gaps.

However you cut it you are invoking a creator which is no different from a god ...you are just not attributing that entity to a prescribed religion. You have your personal 'religion'.

Pressure is a function of the frequency of collisions on a surface so containment is not a requirement

It didn't accumulate at a point, it was always everywhere but just closer together. Understand first that which you are trying to criticise.