toastywombel

I think evolution's goal is to adapt, and because of our technology we are able to adapt to nearly any environment on the planet, in some cases even outside of the planet ie) the space station. You make a good point though Sh3rlock, if we did not have the ability to change the world around us we would be very vulnerable (and I think we would probably go extinct), but because we have that ability we are the greatest predator to ever live. That does not answer the question fully though, what about the complex music we create, the arts, monuments. We have gone far beyond changing the world just to survive we have changed the world in many cases so it will fit our liking. Its one thing to build a shelter, but the structures we create go beyond the need for just survival. They encompass that aspect, but the aspects of art and beauty as well.

I know this is a common question and that it may be a dull one. I have always wondered what separates human kind from the rest of the animals. I know as far as DNA, genetics, tissues, and what we are made of we are very similar to most animals, especially other mammals. I am also aware of our ability to use the opposable thumb, talk on a higher level, and our large brains (specifically large cerebral cortex) allow for logical thought beyond that of any mammal or animal. The biological differences between humans and some animals is still very small. Dolphins for example, have very large brains as well, but they seem to have no drive to manipulate the world around them and shape it into what they want. Furthermore, Chimps (like humans) use tools to fish for food, but their tool using abilities really end there. I think you guys are getting the gist of what I am saying. It seems to me that there is a very fine line between humankind and some of the animals, biologically ofcourse. However, those little differences have allowed us to create an advanced civilisation unlike anything ever observed. How come it is that these little differences cause such a drastic difference between us and the other animals. If you go up the evolutionary tree I don't think there is such a jump as there is from chimpanzees to humans as far as our differing abilities. I am curious as to what you guys think about why we are so different, and please don't tell me it is because we are created in God's image . I guess my question is, what gives us the drive to change the world around us, to specialise, and to not accept a specific nitch in natural world like other animals. Are we the example of the ultimate goal of evolution?

Thanks for the links iNow and bascule.

I will definitely check that out!

Well I am afraid you are terribly mis-informed than. The Universe is expanding and it is a fact accepted by nearly the entire scientific community. I think your understanding of how light travels through a medium is wrong. Here is a link to gravitational red-shift, I hope this clears up your misunderstanding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

Well I think straying too far off topic is against one of the rules here at SFN. So technically jackson did break a rule. Also critisizing the moderators publicly is not a smart thing to do on any forum

What rule did jackson33 break? I am not questioning your judgement swansont I am just curious.

Animal Farm- Rather simplistic read, but metaphorically brilliant. 1984- What can I say I am an Orwell fan . Hamlet- Not exactly a book, but very good. So is Othello and Much Ado About Nothing. Johnny Got his Gun- Rather depressing, but great read. Mcteague- I think that is how it is spelled. A great novel about the selfish nature inside all men that only shows itself when the world around them breaks down. Here are some others that I love: Grapes of Wrath -Steinbeck The Good Solder -Ford A Clockwork Orange -I forget Battlefield Earth -I forget again

Bascule could you give me some links to solar output information? I am curious about it.

This is from wikipedia: "In the United States the use of the phrase "enemy combatant" may also mean an alleged member of al Qaeda or the Taliban being held in detention by the U.S. government as part of the war on terror. In this sense, "enemy combatant" actually refers to persons the United States regards as unlawful combatants, a category of persons who do not qualify for prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Conventions. Thus, the term "enemy combatant" has to be read in context to determine whether it means any combatant belonging to an enemy state, whether lawful or unlawful, or if it means an alleged member of al Qaeda or of the Taliban being detained as an unlawful combatant by the United States." To me it seems that the term was really abused by the Bush Administration. It was used to keep terrorists from having prisoner-of-war rights and at the same time not allowing them constitutional rights or habeas corpus. Thus, allowing them to be left in legal limbo. Jackson33, I have read through your posts somewhat hastily, but what do suppose we do with the terrorists. From what I read try them in military tribunal?

Also the lack of warming seems to be attributed to the solar cycle. However, the study they were referring to in that conversation predicted that the climate would continue to warm regardless of the solar cycle. Kevin even cited the concerns he had in his paper which was published.

Many of the groups that the previous administration labelled as terrorists do this. Hezbollah, which for those who do not know is a fundamentalist, Islamic, party based in Lebanon. Anyway, they have helped to build schools, commerce centres, and hospitals. Hamas in Palestine is very similar. They gained much public support through community outreach programs and the funding of schools and hospitals. The one downside is both of these groups have paramilitary factions in them, but most of these factions have usually only responded to Israeli aggression. The majority of the time these groups are not the aggressors.

I agree with everything iNow said, DH is a formidable opponent in a debate. Although I don't agree with his views on the global warming, I will admit that his opinion on the matter is logical and not ideological. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Maybe you should read the Wombel Method. Specifically Rule 2 under Method 2: Personal Attacks.

So I am you are stating you solved the problem of gravity on the microscopic level? It would be nice to have any evidence like a link or like yoda asked a photo.

Could you provide a link?

Okay haha. I was going to say man you guys don't let anyone take a step out of line. I have not seen Holy Grail in years so I am not completely up to date with the inside jokes sorry for ruining it.

Really?

Alright, thanks for the feed back, good to know. Yeah it is better to be able feel a sense of community. SFN does really well at accomplishing this.

So I just joined this forum and I am wondering if anyone here is a member?

Hi welcome to the forum, I will attempt to answer these questions for you one by one. 1. Not all objects in our galaxy (the milky way) are moving away from us. The objects within our galaxy are generally gravitationally fixed, as with other galaxies. 2. The universe is expanding and why is not exactly understood. When you say black matter, I assume you mean dark-matter and as far as I know that does not have much to do with the expansion of distances between galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Dark matter is un-seen, but we know it exists because it has gravitational effects on surrounding visible matter. On to the point though, when Einstein published his theory of general relativity the equations suggested that the universe was either expanding or contracting. Einstein believed that the Universe was fixed and therefore created a cosmological constant to balance out the theorised expansion or contraction. However, when many astronomers began to look at the night sky such as Edward Hubble, they noticed that most of the night sky is red-shifted. This means that the light from these galaxies has a long wavelength, telling us that it is moving away. Hubble then discovered that galaxies further away were more red-shifted than galaxies closer to the milky way. This meant that the universe was not only expanding outward, but the further away galaxies were the faster they were expanding outwards. Many scientists have theorised that the expansion is due to the continued expansion of space-time from the big-bang. It is good to remember that the universe contains everything that exists, so to say that it is expanding outwards is not exactly correct. It is better to think that the distances between galaxies and super-galactic clusters are expanding. We cannot really say whether the universe itself is expanding because we have nothing to compare it to, it is the end all be all. The galaxies are not necessarily moving apart it is more that the space between them is stretching. 3. By suggesting going backwards in time and ending up with the matter all in one heap, I suppose you mean the point of singularity, where all matter, energy, force, space and time was contained within one point. It is really an unknown as to why the Universe started to expand. Some have theorised that the big-bang is part of a cycle of an expanding then contracting universe, with the universe expanding through the dissipation of a black hole, then sucked back together again by black holes. All we know is that the Universe at some was smaller and closer together than it was today. Here are some interesting links to some information that might help you understand the Big-Bang Theory and the Expansion of the Universe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/expansion.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/hubble.html Hope this helps, welcome to the forum.

Although it is always nice to meet new members your post would be more appropriately placed here, and not in the physics forum.

Well as fun as this argument has been, I will end my involvement here. You make some very good points, including about wind farms being expensive. The problem I have is the mindset you seem to have, "It cannot be done." Maybe we can't afford to do it, but can we afford not to do it? I don't know about you, but I do not like the idea of gambling the habitable world.

ydoaPs, you might want to correct that statement it does not articulate your point well. Maybe this? You're just jealous that you're not anywhere near as awesome as ydoaPs, and you're also a lousy troll. or You're just jealous that you're not nearly as awesome as ydoaPs, and you're a lousy troll. Just some suggestions . You seem somewhat impaired, someone earlier suggested that you might be drinking a little to much perhaps?

I did some research and you are totally correct UC, the glow usually only lasts about 45 seconds, I looked up the above information on a website and took it to be accurate. Thank you for clearing up my misunderstanding.

Yeah I like yours better, the snow is a nice touch too haha. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Thank you very much iNow.