ewmon

Sayonara³, the question is clear to those who don’t play word games: Is the erotic feeling for members of the same gender a mental illness? Moontanman, you accused me of responding with personal experiences, yet you make blanket assumptions about the entire world. And, as for pink_trike, he calls himself a “homosexual”, but then he says he can’t define it. I know what the question means, I know what I know, and I gave my answer.

Trike, you repeatedly call yourself a "homosexual", but you say you can't define it. This topic is entitled "Is homosexuality a mental illness?" What are you trying to prove?

Trike, I was composing a response, but now I'll simply ask you: What are your definitions of heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual?

Hmm..... maybe robo trading could be required to include delays related to how quickly the market plunges: Normal fluctuations [math]\rightarrow[/math] no delay. Questionable drop [math]\rightarrow[/math] mild delay. Worrisome drop [math]\rightarrow[/math] larger delay. Massive drop [math]\rightarrow[/math] close the market.

But the charge is the electrons.

Feelings, thoughts and desires drive behavior. Behavior is an expression of what’s inside. Lefthanders are not in the majority, and something not in the majority does not automatically make it abnormal. If this were true, then blonde hair, blue eyes, IQ>115, etc would all be labeled as abnormal. Children are sexual beings. It is a well-known fact -- and mainstream American society readily accepts -- that little children explore their bodies and those of other children, and they might even masturbate. But, any behavior at any age is not okay. Kindergarteners having sex is not okay. The word “innate” means “existing naturally rather than acquired”. You seem confused or in denial. You’re describing a bisexual man. Trike, there’s plenty of people, even homosexuals, who would call you “bisexual”. Breeding? Hey look, it was some homosexuals who, in about 1986, began using the derisive term “breeders” to mean “heterosexual persons”. The term “homosexual” was invented in 1869 by human rights campaigner Karl-Maria Kertbeny. The term “heterosexual” was invented 17 years later by psychiatrist Richard Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing to differentiate it from “homosexual”. The modern usage of the term “bisexual” began about 1914. People could invent terms to describe all sorts of orientations. An odd part about sexual orientation is the terminology. People must prove all minority claims, except for sexual orientation. For example, the claim that I’m an elderly, black, Hispanic, Jewish, female, Cuban veteran can be easily (and laughably) disproved. Yeah, that’s pretty bizarre! I would never consider or recommend that a heterosexual act cures homosexuality.

If someone has an invention for a product that can't be made and sold directly, then the inventor would need to sell it to, or partner with, someone who can make and/or sell it. This works with all sorts of things. If I live in a desert and inherit a boat, neither I nor anyone around me can use it, so I sell it to a dealer who then finds a buyer, or I partner with a dealer who sells it on commission. If you can think of a better system, then you can write a book on it and get rich!

Disclosing an idea/invention on a public forum is the same as giving it away free to the world. Most people don’t fully understand the full consequences of obtaining a patent. A patent is an exclusive right for an invention granted by a government to the inventor for a limited period of time in exchange for disclosing it to the public (for the purpose of furthering technology) instead of keeping it a trade secret. This means that everyone in the world has access to all patents and can infringe upon them. It is then up to the inventor to pursue legal action against such patent infringers, which involves some/much effort and expense. For this reason, these companies that help inventors patent their ideas are actually of uncertain value to the inventor unless s/he has the means/money/time to pursue patent infringers. Also, I would say that, most inexperienced or first-time inventors come up with ideas that are already patented, so these companies are automatically a waste of money. It’s very important to take the time to research the current and pending patents thoroughly before applying for one. And it’s easy if you know what you’re doing. For example, the US Patent Office is online, so it’s super easy to search for patents. Also, instead of patenting, you could network with people and companies who might buy your ideas and use them. For example, selling the design of a 100-mpg carburetor to an automaker. You can negotiate a fixed price (eg, $10,000), or royalties (eg, $1/item made or sold), or some balance of the two (eg, $5,000 plus $0.50/item). A balance seems the safest to me because you still get paid some if the invention is a flop, and you get paid more if it’s a success. However, I would guess that many companies would want to simply buy it outright from you, because they don’t want the hassle of paying royalties and opening up their books to you (to prove how many items they made/sold). They may also want to modify your idea to the point where it’s a different enough that it’s a different patent and so they don’t have to pay you royalties — and they don’t want the hassle of getting sued because you think they’ve infringed on your patent. Be sure ahead of time to have your ideas well-documented and dated and reviewed and witnessed and signed by trusted engineers or scientists in the appropriate industry. Then begin putting out feelers to the appropriate companies. Beware of unscrupulous businesses or businessmen who may reject your idea but then turn around and use it or something very similar to it. You need some sort of proprietary information disclosure agreement to protect your ideas. Inventing things is exciting, but anyone wanting to make use of their inventions or to make money from them needs to understand all about it.

Yes, this is called heterosexuality. Conception and Birth Sex Ratios More Gays than Lesbians Most parents, experts, doctors, teachers, police, lawyers, judges, etc consider persistent sexual precociousness (naked, touch, hug, kiss, "horn dog" behavior, etc) in kindergarteners to be abnormal. These references toward societies are ambiguous. Besides, if it didn't matter what society thought (and even this forum is a society), then we would all go our separate ways with our own ideas of everything in the world. Instead, people (as social animals) instinctively care what society thinks. After all, homosexuals want society to accept their lifestyles, marriages, etc. All human reproduction is heterosexuality. Let's review: hetero- = different homo- = same sperm + egg = different = heterosexuality = reproduction. sperm + sperm or egg + egg = same = homosexuality = nothing. However, technology may some day make an egg from a sperm or vice versa.

Hold on. All circuits have a resistance, otherwise, it's a hydraulic analogy where the water moving along the wall of the pipe does not create any friction, and we know that can't happen. More realistically, as the electrons move through a circuit, they expend energy, but not in the kinetic sense because that would mean they slow down, and they don't do that.

Trike, thank you for your openness and honesty. As far as I know, your account of early childhood does not parallel heterosexual accounts. For example, at six years old, I did not want to get naked with and touch, hug and kiss little girls or women to satisfy my sexual or emotional desires. I did not have such desires … at least not consciously, nor did I act or try to act to those ends subconsciously. I believe that such desires do not normally exist in very young children. So, if such desires don’t normally exist in very young children, it means that, when they do exist, they do so under abnormal conditions. I don’t say this to insult anyone or to hurt their feelings. I’m just making a logical, scientific statement to explain such childhood accounts. I think that, if you asked around about what heterosexuals felt at six years old, you would hear accounts similar to mine. I’m not exactly sure what my conclusion means. I’m simply saying that, if it’s not normal, then logically, it’s abnormal. Someone could argue that it’s normal for homosexuals, and I would agree. Let me add that I have had many different life experiences with various people, including homosexuals, with whom I have associated, worked, and/or lived. I am straight as an arrow, and I have shared bedrooms with at least three gay men (that I know of) in three separate sleeping situations which were also on long-term bases (ie, several months). I never felt threatened by them, and I feel no enmity toward anyone. I don’t intend to demonize anyone, or to suggest that anyone belongs in a mental institution, etc. PS … I’m left-handed, so I know a little of what it’s like to be different. If someone were to suggest that it's due to lack of oxygen (and, thus, brain damage) at birth, which is an actual theory, I would neither agree nor disagree with them. Lefthandedness is certainly different and in the minority, and I don't know why.

I have a deep and abiding sympathy and concern for everyone's life, and the inherent need for people to live their lives honestly. However, here’s my scientific two cents’ worth … IMO ... Procreation. Homosexuality and heterosexuality differ in that homosexuals cannot be created homosexually nor can they procreate homosexually. For all the reasons to engage in sexual activity, homosexuality parallels heterosexuality except for procreation. In this sense, homosexuals and homosexuality are literally offshoots of heterosexuals and heterosexuality and depend upon them, but not vice versa. Gender ratio. Scientifically, humans conceive roughly 130 to 150 males per 100 females conceived. During the fetal stage, many more males are lost to spontaneous abortions than females (males are apparently more difficult to “make” than females). This results in about 105 males born per 100 females. Due to disease and accident, by the time they reach procreative age, there are very close to 100 breeding males per 100 breeding females. This is naturally logical apparently for equal access to procreation and/or adult companionship. If nature/evolution intended for the existence of homosexuality, it would need to affect both genders equally, otherwise it would disturb the apparent purpose of equal access (for example, resulting in 90 breeding males per 95 breeding females, etc). Statistics (even those conducted by pro-gay groups) show that homosexuality does not affect both genders equally. However, the inequality of more gay men than lesbian women would coincide with the theory that the male population has a larger sigma (ie, more are mentally gifted and more are mentally challenged) than females. I do believe that biological causes exist for homosexuality, but I don't know that they necessarily make homosexuality normal or acceptable. Five years old. To me, this shows a significant variation with at least some homosexuals who have claimed that they knew they were gay when they were about five years old. I was a kid once (really!), and I clearly remember being five years old and younger. Back then, I knew that boys and girls differed, but I had no desire of any sort for either. Little kids may talk about growing up to be a man or a woman or a mommy or a daddy (and they might confuse their gender in this way), but I sincerely do not believe that normal children have desires of any sort related to sexuality. So, the idea that “homosexuality is simply the same as heterosexuality except for a different gender as an amorous target” does not make perfect sense to me. Consenting adults. The idea of “consenting adults” is not a carte blanche excuse in most modern societies. Societies form very strong preferences surrounding what they allow as consenting adult sexual behavior. Most modern societies prohibit incest, prostitution, polygamy, polyandry, etc, and they frown upon pornography, mistresses, fetishes, BDSM, erotic asphyxiation, bestiality, necrophilia, etc … all engaged in by consenting adults. Age of consent. Societies seem to establish sexual age of consent based on procreative and health reasons (that is, 12-year-olds can procreate but shouldn’t because they are still developing children, who cannot yet care for or support a baby, a pregnancy damages the girl’s health, etc). With homosexuality, such natural concerns don’t exist. For example, 12-year-old homosexuals engaging in sexual behavior with each other or adults. And the age of consent becomes fuzzy, artificial or, again, borrowed from heterosexuals.

My rebuttal to this Green Ignorance is that, If it's not alive, it's not renewable. All this supposedly "renewable" energy is only "free", and not renewable. This holds true for wind, water, tidal, OTEC, solar, etc. Hello! These energies are doing something right now. Diverting these energies changes the energy landscape of the world, or part of it. Tidal energy is different from riverine hydroelectric energy. The tides are the washing machines of the oceans. Rob the tides of their energy, and the ocean (or part of it) may turn into a cesspool. My rebuttal is worth repeating here: If it's not alive, it's not renewable.

Yeah, it's really important to assume a zero-gravity world. The idea of a pipe filled by gravity from a reservoir doesn't work here, and there's no new energy source that makes water in a pipe speed up. Instead, think of a battery or a wall outlet as a constant voltage/pressure source. For all practical purposes, the source is always able to supply the voltage/pressure required. So, think of an indoor rock concert in a building located over the gates to hell ... kinda like Heavy Metal meets Ghostbusters. Let's say the concert ends and the producers open a door to a corridor leading to an exit. The concert room remains at a constant pressure (that is, pushing and shoving). But, as you move along the corridor, you notice a gradient (that is, people are pushing less and less as you approach the exit). Wow. Oliver Heavyside would roll over in his grave!

No. The difference in pressure always exists. The pressure drops. As I said, wire has a very slight resistance to it. The pressure drop occurs, just like when you have a water system in your house at 100 psi, and you turn the faucet wide open and let the water flow into the air, which has 0 psi. Even with a battery sitting unused on the shelf, the voltage "pressure" will cause electrons to flow at an extremely small rate (current) out one terminal, through the air, and into the other terminal ... because the air presents an extremely high resistance to the current. Yes. So with very little resistance, the opposite happens — a lot of current flows! Like a faucet wide open. NOTE: Never lay a wrench across the terminals of a car battery!! For example, there's always a pressure difference/drop between one end of the battery and the other. What current flows then depends on the resistance. Sorry, no (and I’m embarrassed ). The number of electrons and the speed that they travel remain constant in your circuit, so maybe it’s easiest to think of voltage as energy or excitation. Generally, I think of "flow" as movement in a single direction, and I think of "diffusion" as movement in all directions. So, if electrons are flowing, they are in a sense diffusing, but in a single direction. All sorts of stuff naturally diffuses along a gradient. When I think of diffusion, I think of an expanding 3-D movement, and the further out the substance moves, the more it fills wider and wider volumes (think of adding new sections onto the base of a cone), so the more dilute it becomes and the weaker the diffusion pressure. Electrons do not flow through circuits like this. So, to my mind, the idea of "diffusion" seems to have electrons behaving in ways that they wouldn't behave in a simple wire circuit. The hydraulic analogy to electrical circuitry occurs in a zero gravity world. This article is okay. It's funny that the famous Oliver Heavyside referred to the hydraulic analogy as the "drain-pipe theory".

By pressure (voltage) drop, we mean the pressure (voltage) drops from one side of the resistor to the other. The doorway is the resistance. You can actually measure it with a volt or pressure meter, both in the circuitry or in a water pipe. The pressure drop is represented by the difference between people inside the door screaming, "STOP SHOVING", and the people outside the door sighing, "What a relief." The pressure drop = STOP SHOVING – What a relief. The pressure inside the building never drops because it's connected to a voltage (pressure) supply. Likewise, we're not talking about the pressure "along the tube". The pressure is one level from the source to the first resistor, a second level between the first and second resistor, and a third level after the second resistor. This would also occur in a water pipe system. Having said that, there actually is a very slight gradient to the pressure along the tube itself because the tube offers a very slight resistance to the water (and the wire offers a very slight resistance to the current). Make sense? But circuits are designed so the power consumed by the wiring is insignificant compared to the power consumed by the elements of the circuit. And that's why you don't want to use very long extension cords to power an appliance, because the larger voltage drop in the cord means that the appliance isn't running on the full 120 volts (or whatever), which can cause problems.

"Projectile" belching of methane so fast that it creates static ignition along the breathing passages but does not ignite until it contacts the oxygen outside the body. (For example, emptied tanks in supertankers are filled with inert gas before washing them because, strangely enough, the high-speed water stream can cause static ignition of the residual petroleum-air vapors!)

I can see some cause and effect. Spicy foods can: 1) provide satiation without the fats, salts and sugars that cause weight gain. 2) cause one to drink more water, which is filling but has no calories. 3) cause one to eat more slowly and/or take smaller bites, thus feeling full sooner. 4) cause the gastro-intestinal system to move contents through more quickly, which can (slightly) limit the uptake of calories. 5) disincline one from eating too much.

The flow rate is the same through both resistors because there's no "leaks" or other paths. Think of it as a closed system of pipes, like in a house. If you have a very simple house with only a kitchen faucet, the flow at the faucet equals the flow at the meter. You're right in that both resistors resist the water flow. In your analogy, water flow is "current", so the two resistors in series both resist the current. This should help you understand your next question about two energies. That is, electricity doesn't have two energies (unless maybe you're talking about lasers). For your last question, electrons have the same charge, so they repel each other. Think of a crowded building where everyone's pushing and shoving each other equally. No one really goes anywhere until there's some "give" (that is, difference in pressure) in the situation ... let's say an exit door opens. Flow occurs when someone pushes harder that someone else. I think we've all experienced this.

Okay, here we go. I'm familiar with Estes motors, and they have designations such as "C6-3", where the "C" represents total impulse (such as 10 N-sec), and the "6" represents the average thrust in Newtons (6 N). From there (or the actual specs from the maker), compute (or obtain) the burn duration (such as 10 N-sec / 6 N = 1.67 sec). Then compute the velocity and altitude attained (v=aT and s=½aT², using a=F/m and T = time of powered flight) during the powered phase. Compute the force F to equal the average thrust minus the average weight of the rocket (use an average motor weight = initial motor weight + ½ of propellant weight) in order to obtain the resultant force that accelerates the rocket upward. (That is, if a 4 oz rocket has a thrust of only 4 oz, it simply hovers (ie, 4 oz - 4 oz = 0)) Then use the height from which to drop an object (in a vacuum) to attain this velocity, which represents the ballistic (unpowered) phase, where t = time of ballistic phase. This thinking is actually the ballistic phase in reverse: If a rocket attains 100 ft/sec upward at burnout, it will then travel a distance upward retarded by gravity which, if dropped downward through that same distance, would give it 100 ft/sec downward. I think I'm correct in this assumption. s=½gt² and v=gt then t=v/g and so t²=v²/g² so s=½g(v²/g²) = ½v²/g = ½(aT)²/g = ½a²T²/g and add this ballistic height to the powered height. s = ½aT² + ½a²T²/g = ½aT²(1+a/g) As you said, this will be a rough calculation. (I hope my work is correct.)

Twelve inch diameter wheels = 1 foot diameter Circumference = [math]\pi d[/math] = 3.14 feet = 3.14 ft/rev Two mph = 2mi/hr x (88ft/sec / 60mi/hr) = 2.93 ft/sec (2.93 ft/sec) / (3.14 ft/rev) = 0.934 rev/sec 7,000 rpm = 7,000 rev/min x (1 min / 60 sec) = 116.67 rev/sec (116.67 rev/sec) / (0.934 rev/sec) = 125:1 gear reduction 7½ hp = 7½ x (550 lb-ft/sec) = 4,125 lb-ft/sec (4,125 lb-ft/sec) / (2.93 ft/sec) = 1,406 lbs (thrust)

That's like trying to calculate how fast a car can go by the size of its fuel tank and the car's weight. I's not the size of the fuel tank, but how quickly the engine burns the fuel, which produces an amount of power, etc, and aerodynamics plays a key role, etc. You'll need average thrust, burn duration and weight. Get the thrust and duration from the engine specs. It may be better to calculate the performance of the powered phase and then the unpowered phase, because that's the way it happens in real life. IT may help to use an Excel spreadsheet that calculates acceleration, velocity and distance versus time. If you can get ahold of a good model rocket book, all the better. Here's a NASA page on rocket motors. Here's an Estes webpage on model rocket motors. I suggest working the kids through the science and math before throwing performance data at them. With the prospects of launching a real rocket, kids will tolerate lots of studying (and remember to stress safety). Kids are not stupid if given a chance to understand the material and with good examples. Use lots of real-life analogies to explain some of the more esoteric facts. This study can touch on integral calculus, area under the curve, center of mass, aerodynamics, etc. It's good for the kids who can grasp it, and it's of no consequence for those that can't.

"Meaning" is very subjective. A plain cross is perhaps the simplest image reminiscent of a human [standing with arms outstretched]. It seems a contrivance to associate it with a dead person (maybe if you turned it sideways), and especially of a specific dead person. If it contained a slim, bearded, slightly-clothed crucified man, then it's representation would be a different matter. If we started separating religious stuff from everyday life, we'd have to remove several words and phrases from common usage... talent, goodbye, jubilee, bead, olé, kiss of death, feet of clay, handwriting on the wall, Armageddon, straight and narrow, etc ... OMG!

I have read that different areas of the visual cortex process different visual information (color, shape, motion) and that the brain then combines this information to form our complete perception of vision.

IMO, individuality, equal opportunity and merit should rule. Any prejudice, including gender-based prejudice or affirmative action, inhibits individuality.