drawkcab

Thanks for all the input guys. At least I can put the thought to rest now.

Been thinking about relativity. I read that the reason A. E. came up with the theory was to explain the seeming paradox of a constant light speed independent of the speed of the light's source. I've no scientific training or background whatever, so I'm sorry if this is stupid, but... What if light emanates outward from a source at a range of speeds and the light we can see and measure is simply travelling at the right speed for our senses to pick up? It would mean that light would always appear to travel at a constant velocity. If there's anything to this idea, it might explain why all of the formulas predict that nothing can go faster than light. As an object approaches the speed at which we see light, the light emanating from it will be travelling at a speed too great for us to see. So the object would appear to have disappeared. I know the theory of relativity does an amazingly good job of predicting things and is therefore probably not too far from the mark, so just take this as it is: a layman's afternoon thought experiment. I guess if there were anything to it there would be some form of weak radiation accompanying light wherever it went, and I don't know of any such thing, so the answer is probably no. Still interesting though...

Hey, I'm new here and I'll state right here and now that I know little about physics, so bare with me and try not to laugh too hard Just a thought on gravity that someone here could probably clear up pretty easily for me. Basically, I don't contend that this could explain gravity, I just think it may have some effect, however insignificant. Most of you would know of cosmic radiation. It appears to rain down upon our planet from every conceivable direction in a constant bombardment. Most of you would also have heard of a force called radiation pressure. Have you guessed where this is headed? If radiation is striking the Earth, then it is applying a pressure. While this pressure is constant on every surface of the earth nothing would happen, but if the radiation were slightly less from one direction, then the Earth would be pushed by the radiation striking it on the opposite side to the deficiency. If cosmic radiation strikes the Earth from one direction, and it's force is absorbed, then there will be less exiting the Earth on the other side (as with x-rays: the rays that strike the bone don't continue through to the recording device while the rest do). This lesser amount of radiation exiting a massive object will appear to have the effect of attraction between two bodies, but really, they are being pushed together, not pulled. Imagine radiation coming from a point A, and travelling to a point B. If one were to place two balls apart from each other in a straight line between points A and B, the radiation hitting the ball closest to point B would be diminshed by passing through the first ball. So, taking radiation pressure into account, the ball closest to A would begin to proceed toward point B. The other ball would too, but at a reduced velocity. If you further imagine that radiation is also travelling from B to A, then the balls will both travel toward each other. This idea seems to be capable of encompassing everything I know about gravity (which isn't much). For instance, the more massive and/or dense the object, the greater the blockage of radiation, and the greater the force it exerts; the closer the objects are in proximity, the greater the force; the force would deplete with distance in a hyperbolic way; if two bodies moved past each other, the deficiency of the radiation between them would be constantly shifting and result in orbits (I think- It would take me ages to explain why I think this heh); if two bodies of different sizes were next to each other, the smaller of the two would be moved toward the larger at a greater rate since the larger blocked proportionatley more radiation from the smaller. I realize of course that radiation pressure is weak, and would have an entirely unsubstantial effect on actual heavenly movements, but I just think it's interesting to think that gravity need not be considered an attraction per se. I am sure someone will blow this one entirely out of the water, but I'll appreciate the feedback regardless.

Hey, I wasn't sure where to post this. Ideally, it would suit a sociology forum I suppose. I recently posted it on a philosophy forum but alas, the discussion quickly degenerated into a debate about the ethics of homosexualism. So I thought I'd repost it here in the hope of a more meaningful discussion. However, in the light of some of the more pertinent posts on the other forum, I'll ammend some parts for lucidity, and others for accuracy... While the following idea may apply to all gender diversions from the polar hetero-homo extremes, for the sake of brevity, I'll just concentrate on male homosexuals. I want also to stress that this is centered around the idea that the genetic inheritance or mutation of genetic materials plays an integral role in the incidence of homosexuality. I am aware that there is to date no absolute proof that this is the case, and also that social conditioning also plays an integral role, but again, for the sake of brevity, I ignore this element. Hypothesis: Homophobia increases the incidence of homosexuality within a community by a degree which is proportionate to the extent toward which the homophobia is prevalent. If society encourages the repression of homosexual instincts by those genetically predisposed to homosexuality, then that person, having repressed their urge to couple with their own sex, may strive to fill a more acceptable social role by coupling with their biological opposites. This may result in conception, and the passing on of their homosexual gene. If the average family has 2.4 children, it is easy to see how the proliferation of homosexuality would spread throughout the community after a few generations. (The spread would not, of course, be at a straight rate of 2.4. various other factors would come into play, such as recessive genetics, the likelihood that some would refrain from coupling altogether, and others may be infertile, while others still may have many more children than the proverbial 2.4). On the other hand, if a society accepted homosexuality, the gay people would feel free to couple with whom they chose (presumably most would choose from amongst their own sex), and fewer children would carry their seed as a consequence. Therefore, the incidence of homosexuality would decrease to a steady state (perhaps dependent upon the number of natural or man induced mutations that resulted in homosexuality). Basically then, the more a community hates homosexuals, the quicker their numbers will multiply, and the more accepting a community, the less homosexuals. Unfortunately, this scenario has all of the hallmarks of a cyclical flow: when numbers of homosexuals are low, the community exposure is proportionately low, therefore, ignorance and fear of the unknown breed homophobia, which stifles the gay community and promotes self-repression which allows their number to increase unnoticed over time. If the homophobia is sufficiently powerful, it may even be that 100% of the community carry and suppress a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality. As the numbers increase, so too does the community exposure and subsequent acceptance. As gay people are accepted, they try less to fill communal roles contrary to their nature, and so they bear less offspring, numbers drop… and so on. It is conceivable that a steady state somewhere in the middle could be attained, but the fluctuations may always remain. Please tell me what you think of this. If any geneticists read this, could you verify if, in the event that a gay gene did exist, it would actually spread in these circumstances, or if it would simply remain a constant percentage of the populous due to recession etc. Thanks