mooeypoo

That's a bit simplistic. We can go with that, but I just feel the need to point out that it's not quite just that. First off, that's not true. Not anymore, anyways. There are many homosexual families that are bearing children - their *own* children. A pair of women usually have more "luck" in "mixing" both of their genes by taking the egg of one woman and implanting it in the womb of the other. A pair of men might have to pick which of them is the biologic contributor, but that can - and is - done. But I do get what you mean - these methods are only available recently (with technological advancement), which still doesn't explain how homosexuality "stayed" in society for so long. However -- that brings me back to the first point, about the over-simplistic presentation as "survival of the fittest". We sometimes don't know what or why certain things develop, and the idea of marking them as "bad" or "good" is our own (limited) interpretation, and not really any natural 'intention'. for example, I have glasses. Poor eyesight existed for a VERY long time. You'd think evolution by natural selection would get rid of it. And yet, here it is. It might also be "resurfacing" because of changes in our recent habitat. If I take my glasses example, I was told by my eye doctor that if there were no computers in the world, I probably would have had no need for glasses at all. Changes in our environment recreated "flaws". Not every development, and not every development that "sticks", has to do with *only* the continuation of the gene pool. The situation is much more complicated than that, and there isn't really much of a problem with homosexuality being developed in a society if you take those into account. The fact that there is homosexuality in other animals can also suggest that, perhaps, it is beneficial for groups of animals (or humans) who are, relatively for their environment, over populated, to develop some parts of their group as homosexual tendencies. There might be an actual benefit in having them (like reducing the fight over females). ~moo

Haha I was, actually, about to apologize. I seemed to have missed the sentence you've bolded, which seems to change the meaning of this question from a firm statement to a "thoguht experiment" like I suggested this might be. Apologies. I still hold my view that those arguments are hard to make with a "firm statement" on the beginning of them, but they take a completely different turn when that is presented as a non-validated issue meant for thought experiment only. I take it back. Carry on.. ~moo

Yea.. that's what I'm having problems with. I don't tjhink it's off topic to check the "ingredients" of your question. If the premise that leads to the conclusion (or what conclusion you wish to examine in the question given) is flawed, then the question itself is flawed. If this is a thought experiment -- as in, "what if it's proven that homosexuality is hereditary.." then we can carry on, I guess, by examining this. But how is this any different than starting a question with something like "It is said that evolution is having a baboon out of a horse.." and then asking a question about it? If the premise is false, what good is the final question *based* on that premise? I disagree, but in all honesty, I might've misunderstood it, and if so, I take all I said back. I just thought it was weird that such a strong premise is presented, when the premise is not really accepted science .. I semi agree. If this is a thought-experiment (as I said above), then sure, we can explore it, but that's not quite how the question was presented, and I think it's important we recognize that it's unclear. Personally, btw, I think it *is* more hereditary than social, but that's my own personal opinion, unsupported by anythingother than my own personal opinion and experience. I recognize that it's *not* valid to state anything out of these above "factors", so I don't *state* anything as a basic premise when I ask those type of questions... I.. hope I managed to convey my point here I didn't mean to start a bashfest over this or to take away from the discussion, but seeing as most posts asked about whether or not this is hw or not, it struck me that the premise itself is faulty (because it's absolute, not because it might or might not be true), and this is not a good way to start a debate -- and an even worse way to start a homework problem. ~moo

I'm sorry, but last I checked, the question of nature vs. nurture was not, just yet, clear. Before we even get into the "is it or isn't it hw" problem, I must ask -- Which scientists claim it is hereditary, and where are these claims posted?

Can you show where this is experimentally seen? As far as I know, it's as valid as the "widespread" thought that moon cycles have anything to do with ER 'rush' (which is proven to be bunk). I'd love to see where this is proven before we estimate why this is so.

No no, a spherical cap - a part of a sphere of radius R, and the "part"/"cap" is of height H. My problem is mainly setting up the radius vs height or x/y/z..., or, if I take the spherical angle (polar coordinates), I got all mixed up in finding the proper "max" limit of theta :\ Okay, I need to run off to work, but I am going to take another fresh look on this and try it again. I might've just over-confused myself .... I also have another question asking me to calculate the *volume* of the same shape using double integration... I know in theory what I want to do, but I am stuck in the same place (setting it up with all the r-h and limits of r or of theta). I'll post another try a bit later Thanks guys!

I thought of that, but since it's a cap, I'm having lots of problems with my r ... the cap base isn't really my original R.. and my limits are not working well... I might just have overly confused myself ... any idea how I can see the limits of r? I thought of setting it up as my new r' = r sin(theta) and then figure out my theta limits ... where.. I.. went crazy. Ideas?

Hey guys, I'm stuck.. I needed to integrate the surface of a "cap" (some part of a sphere). I got most of it, and got stuck at the actual integral. What I have right now (after setting up the drawing and all limits, and everything else) is this integral: [math]\int \int \sqrt{\frac{R^2}{R^2-x^2-y^2}} dxdy =[/math] I rewrote it as [math]R \int \int (R^2-x^2-y^2)^{-\frac{1}{2}} dxdy[/math] My first thought was substitution, but.. [math] u=R^2-x^2-y^2[/math] [math] du = -2x dx [/math] [math] -\frac{1}{2}du = xdx[/math] Which doesn't help me, because I don't have an xdx ... I don't have an extra x. I thought of integration by parts, but got it all mixed up and repetitive. At this point, I don't need a final answer or anything, just.. please.. some.. hint? anything? I'm stuck! have no clue how to go on heeelp ~moo

Yeah, I know this one, it's *UBER* cool. I just don't quite have the equipment for it (a subwoofer I can spare). The major trouble with this stuff is that it's VEEEERRRYYY messy. I actually thought of putting other vibrating things under the substance, like those plates that are used for pottery (have one at school) but it became such a huge production, I ended up giving it up. "The Big Bang Theory" had a segment with that bouncy goo[dness] on a subwoofer. Very amusing.

Oops, I keep forgetting I use the new "experimental" template Same same, and we should all use it

Classic.

There's a link saying "(say thanks for this post)" at the bottom of each post. Use it ! He deserves it, and it'll have even more effect

throng, the definition of three dimensional: Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-dimensional_space OR Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension Notice how #2 states, clearly, that it *differs from common usage*. "location" is not something that is well defined in this context, so it's confusing. I can draw a straight line between these 2 locations and then it would be a 2 dimensional "shape", or I can draw a squiggly vector using x,y,z planes, at which case it will be a three dimensional shape. Locations mean nothing in this context. Neither do dots, if you don't define a proper way of linking them. That said, I really don't see what the problem is; both ideas are clearly defined in science and math - one concept speaks of how we relate to the universe (the first quote, check it out) and the other to the mathematical intrinsic definition of how you define the dimension of certain shapes. Where, exactly, is the problem? I don't really get what you're getting at..

From CBS News, (because the Mainstream Media is so reliable scientifically): Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/26/tech/main2732040.shtml?source=RSSattr=SciTech_2732040 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa--oh, wait, there's a byline.. hm. NASA, though, says this: Source: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10mar_stormwarning.htm A storm!! A STORM!!-- wait.. a storm? Reading this further shows that while it's true that in the next few years we will probably see an increase in sunspots (and bigger ones), the danger they pose are mostly for satellites and relatively delicate - high up in the sky - electronic equipment. Not for human life. The potential damage of these solar sunspots are still debated, as far as I could read, but again - most of the estimations speak of relatively limited electronic damage. Satellite companies should probably worry, but they worry every time there's a sunspot; it's part of the dangers in space. It's not an apocalypse. It's not going to change time as we know it. It's not going to erase the rules of physics. It happened before, and it will happen again. The world didn't turn upside down and inside out the last time, it will unlikely do so this time. ~moo

It is still three dimensional.

Actually, you have it backwards. To prove something you need to supply the evidence; since you're the one making a claim, you should be the one who supplies the evidence to prove your claim. The current theories work just fine, explain the physics and are supported by evidence. We have no reason to reason to switch to another theory, unless you give us the reason. In other words, prove it. The burden of proof is on you as the claimer and not on us. Welcome to the scientific method.

Actually, there is some ideas - some of it is on display in the National Museum in Israel.. Some was "censored" by his wife, and some they just couldn't make sense of. It's really very interesting

The entire point is that this liquid turns "solid" when theres pressure. It doesn't matter how deep it is, what matters is the concentration of corn starch vs. water.. "Brainiac" did an experiment where they filled an ENTIRE swimming pool with that thing and one of their people ran accross it barefoot. He didn't sink, as long as he ran (even in place) -- as long as his feet applied "instant" pressure (by tapping the goop) he stayed on top of them. The second he stopped moving, he slowly sunk. It's a REEEEEEALLY fun experiment to do and play with, just watch out -- it's uber messy oh, and.. <blush> thank you ~moo

boywonder, we do not accept ad-hominem attacks in this forum. Please read our rules and follow them. You are expected to participate in a debate and not hijack it for your own personal thoughts; and you are expected to do so following the scientific method, which means you should argue factual data or, at the very least, explain your controversial conclusions, while making claims. Please read the rules.

volume is DEFINED in three dimensions - height, width, length. No more is needed. As for "locations" -- what do you mean? representing a volume in 2D might require you to draw 4 dots on a 2D page.. that doesn't mean that a volume exists in 4 dimensions. It just means that in order for you to represent 3D (volume) clearly in 2D (piece of paper) you require 4 dots. What do you mean by "4 locations" ?

Sione, you have been warned more than once about your attitude and style in this forum. Apparently, you need another run with the forum rules (And the speculation forum rules). I suggest you read it. The 24-hour watch warning stated, quite clearly, that the other(more appropriate to this specific thread) reason that this thread has been marked for 24-hour watch is for having more posts violating the rules than there are posts worth reading. Instead of having a valid discussion, you chose to again continue with a condescending tone and argue partial claims (you even argued the rule-violation 24-hour watch *partially*). This is against the rules. I suggest you read them again. I am not about to argue about the rules of this forum. Specially not after more than one moderator has warned and asked for this and other discussions to improve in style and attitude. This thread is not going anywhere other than the trollhatch, it is, officially, closed.

Posts split from original thread in Cosmology.

This is a science forum, following the scientific method. Threads are to be explained properly and evidence should be put forth upon request. Please go over the rules. It is not a lecturing hall. It's a debate forum. You do not get to decide what you want or don't want to answer, and you do not get to treat people as if this is your own personal teaching facility. This thread was added to 24-hour watch:

This thread is against the rules of the forum and does not contribute to a decent debate (please go over the rules again). If anyone has any contention against a closed, deleted or locked thread, they should do so properly through contacting the staff, and not by inciting a flame-war on threads. Thread closed.

Hi joelpietersen, you're more than welcome to start a topic, either in this or the other forums! Welcome onboard