LucidDreamer

Usually a science paper is submitted to a scientific Journal like Cell or Nature. It usually follows a certain format with an abstract, methods, discussion, introduction and a results section. Researchers submit most of the scientific papers. If you can't get your papers published in a regular scientific journal then you can always create your own journal-writers do it all the time. That's the journal part of scientific writing. There are other kinds of scientific papers written. Alot of these are not written by researchers, but instead they are written by a range of different people interested in science. These papers do not follow the strict format of a journal article and are often written for the layman. These papers are published like any other piece: they are published in magazines (Scientific American), published on line, published in a book, etc.

I have experience 2. Dreams draw on memories that span a lifetime. This plethora of content allows your dreaming mind to paste together and reorganize whole sections of memories together to create a sequence of events that would take a very long time in reality. I have experienced 1 as well. Normally when you just glance at the clock your eyes would be unfocused, taking in the whole face of the clock. So the non-moving numbers are your reference points in which you determine the speed of the second hand. When you are staring at the second hand your focus is on just that hand. So as the second hand moves around the face of the clock your attention moves with it. In this case your reference point is moving with the clock and your eyes only partially take in the other objects of the clock and the hand appears to be moving more slowly. Also, maybe relativity plays a part as well: not the technical concepts of relativity but the layman’s explanation where things that are very unpleasant or boring seem to take forever. What can be more boring than watching a clock?

Thanks for the link AtomicMx. That's a really cool site. I'll try to work through them when I have the time.

I think part of the answer to your question is that they didn't think as logically as you do. They also didn't have as much capacity to think in abstract terms. However, every other species on the planet manages to survive without man's ability to think. You can think of early hominids as having intelligence somewhere in-between your own intelligence and that of a chimpanzee. They acquired the ability to think abstractly and an improved verbal capacity over a period of 10 million years or so. Intelligence is a wonderfully powerful survival adaptation. That’s why there are billions of humans today and there was a much smaller population of early hominids.

I tend to think that this is the case of fact mixed with fiction. I will offer a possible cause though. I imagine it's fairly stressful to a dog to travel on an airplane. First, strangers lock him up in a cage in completely foreign environment. Then the airplane takes off and there is alot of strange movement and sound. During this time he is isolated from his master and no one can comfort him. Maybe adding a dead body to the mix only makes the event more stressful. Dogs have an extremely sensitive sense of smell. They could detect the scent of death even in a closed coffin. They might even be able to recognize the scent as human. Perhaps all of this stress is too much for a dog. Maybe the combined stress of the trip plus the scent of human death drives them a little mad. Some of the dogs may be convinced that they are in serious danger and they are unable to move because of the cage. I question whether this would permanently drive all dogs to insanity. However, it would only take a few angry pet owners’ lawsuits for them to make a policy concerning this.

Most of my thoughts are more visual than verbal. I would imagine that early hominids where mostly visual thinkers. You don't need the word apple, juicy, or red to imagine biting into a juicy red apple. I think there is more than ample evidence indicating that primates are good visual thinkers.

If you offer the challenge I will take it. I'm just pasting a section from another website about gas chambers for now (kind of busy) but I will go all out if you really want to debate this. BTW, how many people do you claim died in the Holocaust? "Death camp gas chambers were the primary means of execution used against the Jews during the Holocaust. The Nazis issued a directive implementing large-scale gas chambers in the fall of 1941 but, by then, procedures facilitating mass murder, including the utilization of smaller gas chambers, were already in practice. Before their use in death camps, gas chambers were central to Hitler's "eugenics" pro, gram. Between January 1940 and August 1941, 70,273 Germans - most of them physically handicapped or mentally ill - were gassed, 20-30 at a time, in hermetically shut chambers disguised as shower rooms.16 Meanwhile, mass shooting of Jews had been extensively practiced on the heels of Germany's Eastern campaign. But these actions by murder squads had become an increasingly unwieldy process by October 1941. Three directors of the genocide Erhard Wetzel, head of the Racial-Policy Office: Alfred Rosenberg, consultant on Jewish affairs for the Occupied Eastern Territories, and Victor Brack, deputy director of the Chancellory, met at the time with Adolf Eichmann to discuss the use of gas chambers in the genocide program.17 Thereafter, two technical advisors for the euthanasia gas chambers, Kriminalkommissar Christian Wirth and a Dr. Kallmeyer, were sent to the East to begin construction of mass gas chambers.18 Physicians who had implemented the euthanasia program were also transferred. Mobile gassing vans, using the exhaust fumes of diesel engines to kill passengers, were used to kill Jews at Chelmno and Treblinka - as well as other sites, not all of them concentration camps - starting in November 1941.19 At least 320,000 Chelmno prisoners, most of them Jews, were killed by this method; a total of 870,000 Jews were murdered at Treblinka using gas vans and diesel-powered gas chambers.20 Gas chambers were installed and operated at Belzec, Lublin, Sobibor, Majdanek and Auschwitz-Birkenau from September 3, 1941, when the first experimental gassing took place at Auschwitz, until November 1944.22 Working with chambers measuring an average 225 square feet, the Nazis forced to their deaths 700 to 800 men, women and children at a time.22 Two-thirds of this program was completed in 1943-44, and at its height it accounted for as many as 20,000 victims per day.23 Authorities have estimated that these gas chambers accounted for the deaths of approximately 2E to 3 million Jews. Holocaust-denial attacks on this record of mass murder intensified following the end of the Cold War when it was reported that the memorial at Auschwitz was changed in 1991 to read that 1 million had died there, instead of 4 million as previously recorded. For Holocaust deniers, this change appeared to confirm arguments that historical estimates of Holocaust deaths had been deliberately exaggerated, and that scholars were beginning to "retreat" in the face of "revisionist" assertions. Thus, for example, Willis Carto wrote in the February 6, 1995, issue of The Spotlight, the weekly tabloid of his organization, Liberty Lobby, that "All 'experts' until 1991 claimed that 4 million Jews were killed at Auschwitz. This impossible figure was reduced in 1991... to 1.1 million.... The facts about deaths at Auschwitz, however... are still wrong. The Germans kept detailed records of Auschwitz deaths.... These show that no more than 120,000 persons of all religions and ethnicity died at Auschwitz during the war...." In fact, Western scholars have never supported the figure of 4 million deaths at Auschwitz; the basis of this Soviet estimate - an analysis of the capacity of crematoria at Auschwitz and Birkenau - has long been discredited. As early as 1952, Gerald Reitlinger, a British historian, had convincingly challenged this method of calculation. Using statistics compiled in registers for Himmler, he asserted that approximately 1 million people had died at Auschwitz; Raul Hilberg in 1961, and Yehuda Bauer in 1989, confirmed Reitlinger's estimate of Auschwitz victims. Each of these scholars, nonetheless, has recognized that nearly 6 million Jews were killed overall during the Holocaust.24 Polish authorities were therefore responding to long-accepted Western scholarship, further confirmed subsequently by documents released in post-Soviet Russia; the cynical allegations of "Holocaust revisionism" played no part in their decision." http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/denial.html

I believe that woman inherit alopecia as well. The hairloss doesn't usually start until they are older and it usually just thins (although some do go bald too) as opposed to going bald. Male pattern baldness is a disease where your hair follicles are more sensitive to the hormone DHT. Woman don't have as much of a problem because they have alot less DHT (derivative of testosterone).

I have very vivid memories of documentaries shown to me as a child about the Holocaust. The film showed dozens of cadaverous Jews staring ahead, as piles of bodies were uncovered. I remember being shocked at the bodies and surprised that these men, who lacked any kind of muscle or fat, were still alive in the state that they were in. There are still thousands of Jews that bear the numbers of the concentration camps. There are still thousands of WW2 veterans that back up the story of the Holocaust. There are numerous photos, films, buildings, and documents that prove the Holocaust is a fact. I followed your links and was amazed at what I found. The Zundelsite is the most incredible example of anti-Semitism that I have ever seen. Actually, some of sites that the zundelsite linked to were even worse. I must ask you a few questions. If the holocaust never happened then why is there so much evidence? If the holocaust never happened then why do so many veterans collaborate it? If gas chambers were so impossible why did the U.S. use them in its executions? If this was really about revealing the truth about the Holocaust then why is the website filled with hate-articles about the Jews that have nothing to do with the Holocaust? http://www.zundelsite.org/english/ http://www.zundelsite.org/english/israeli_terror/ link from zundelsite: http://www.ihr.org/

I'm pretty sure that male pattern baldness can be inherited from either one of your parents. I have heard the part about male pattern baldness only being passed down from your mother's side a dozen times, but I'm almost certain it's just a popular fallacy. Hair color, like eye color, has both recessive and dominant genes so I believe that at least some of the qualities of hair can be inherited from your father.

It doesn't sound like a winner to me. It would be pretty much immobile. It could defend a certain area but if the enemy located you, which is likely, they could just drop a bomb on you and you couldn't avoid it. I could see this idea working well as an underwater sea lab that could withstand the deeper water pressures and relocate when it needed to.

OCD is thought to result from a chemical imbalance in the brain. It has many similarities to generalized anxiety disorder and it is often treated with the same medications. The most commonly prescribed medications are serotonin re-uptake inhibitors such as Prozac, Zoloft, or Paxil. These medications work by increasing the amount of active serotonin in the brain. Serotonin is a neurotransmitter that is associated with a calm and relaxed state. The fact that these medications do work is evidence that there is a chemical imbalance, probably involving serotonin. My own personal opinion is that OCD, anxiety disorder, and panic disorder all result from a similar cause. I think these disorders result from a neurotransmitter ratio imbalance where the neurotransmitters that cause a heightened state of nervousness are increased while the neurotransmitters that cause a relaxed state are decreased. The amount of active neurotransmitters varies naturally with a persons emotions, diet, environment, stress, etc. A particularly traumatic event or stressful period is often associated with the start of these disorders. In a normal person a stressful period will result in a chemical change that will correct itself after the stressful period has passed or they adjust. In the case of these disorders this chemical change does not correct itself and the sufferers are left in a perpetually nervous state. There are certain genetic predispositions to these disorders. I think that OCD is just another form of anxiety disorder resulting from a perpetually nervous state caused by a chemical imbalance. I think it just expresses itself in different way in the case of OCD. Also, it could be that OCD is caused by a slight difference in the kind of chemical imbalance. It might also be that the person’s personality effects whether their chemical imbalance expresses itself as Panic Disorder or OCD

I know this is just poor anecdotal evidence, but several of my friends have told me that they get headaches after talking on cell phones all day. Also, some times it takes years for the scientist to link certain things to cancer.

Most hazardous materials are molecules (atoms that are bonded together), not single elements. Radioactive atoms are hazardous material, but they are already extremely heavy elements with lots of protons and neutrons-so I don't think you could get rid of them by combining them with other atoms. In fact, you want them to break down to lead. The molecular hazardous material can be disposed of by various methods including combustion or by combining them with other substances to create less toxic material. This is often done in what are essentially large labs, such as water treatment plants. I'm not sure a cyclotron would be useful for getting rid of hazardous material.

In an ionic bond one atom has actually torn off the electron of the other atom. The positive ion that's had its electron removed now clings very tightly to the negatively charged ion. When you place them in water they dissociate because the water molecules form rings around the ions. In the case of sodium, the hydrogen of the water molecule faces the chloride (-) ions and the oxygen faces the sodium (+) ions. These polar rings stabilize the ions and it's favorable for the ions to split apart. When the ions are not in a polar liquid they cling very tightly to one another but they are not sharing an electron. So it’s the charge that keeps them together and the stabilizing effect of the polar rings that form around them in a polar liquid that breaks the ions. The water molecules stay together better than the ions when you mix them because the water molecules are still sharing the electrons in their bonds.

Gods always come from the sky, the rivers, the mountains, and the oceans. Most beneficial things are reported to come from the gods and all disasters come from the angry gods in mythology. I believe there probably are stories about gods bringing technology to man in all those cultures and more. I also know that just as many cultures had mythology about a female fertility god that controls birth. Just as many cultures have myths about a sun god that does one thing or another to bring up the sun. Just as many cultures have stories about gods transforming themselves into various animals or man. Just as many cultures have myths about animal spirits. Lots of cultures have stories about man stealing fire from the gods. Lots of cultures have stories about major floods and having to start over. Lots of cultures have stories about a great hero challenging the gods. Should we say that all these things are true because many cultures made them up? The list goes on and on. Just because cultures have similar stories does not make those stories true. All those cultures have similar stories because they had similar lives. Most agricultural communities had stories of floods because floods would frequently occur and affect their survival. Most primitive cultures have stories of a female fertility god because females gave birth and children were an important part of society. They had stories about gods bringing disaster like floods or typhoons because they had no idea about the physical forces that caused the disasters. By creating a god they could describe those forces and give them a name. The story of gods giving man technology is just another example of this. The technology that they developed was a major factor in their lives that improved their quality of life. The technology evolved over time and after the technology became an integral part of society it became part of mythology. Information was passed solely through word of mouth and over time the stories change. Besides not all the stories are about gods from the sky giving us technology. Some of the stories are about gods of the earth giving us agriculture, gods of the sea giving us boats, gods of volcanoes giving us fire. Btw Myths are not regarded as having an element of truth; that’s a legend.

Not 80 million years. The peat bog had already turned to coal but the stunted decomposition process from the bog left pockets of organic material within the fossil.

I don't know if I would necessarily consider this justification for Hiroshima, but I can see how America's action might have prevented further bloodshed. If the war between America and Japan had dragged on eventually the Japanese might have developed atomic weapons of their own. If this had occurred then America and Japan would have started the first nuclear war, which would have caused more bloodshed then just the two bombs that were dropped.

Sure, that’s reasonable. But that's only relevant to the argument if we had solid evidence of extraterrestrial visiting primitive man and not more examples of mythology. Each unsubstantiated element that you have to add to an explanation weakens it.

There is another part of Ockham's razor, which tells us that we should never create undue multiplications or complications to an argument without need. You have reinterpreted the gods to mean aliens and have created an extra complication to your explanation. To determine whether the story of gods giving man technology is a) mythology or b) aliens we have to use logic and examine the evidence. It has been shown numerous times that primitive cultures and modern cultures create superstitions or mythology. The scientific community has observed this. However, a god has not been observed by the scientific community and neither has an alien masquerading as a god. If we are going to treat all mythology that is common to several primitive tribes as fact then we much accept the mother goddess, the sun god, the ocean god, the river god, and numerous animal spirits as fact as well. Primitive cultures used superstition to describe a world they did not understand. Angry gods or evil spirits caused bad things to happen. Good things happened because gods gave them to man. If they had writing then they could have just looked at their stone tablet encyclopedia and know that Grog The Wise discovered the wheel 200 years before.

This is a good example to apply Ockham's Razor. Ockham's Razor states that when two explanations are offered for a phenomenon the simplest is the most preferable. We have thousands of examples of man creating his own technology. We have good records of extraordinary men who have contributed to technology over the centuries. We have an abundance of evidence that evolution occurs. Man belongs to the order of primates that has very similar DNA. Chimpanzees differ by a mere percent. We have found fossil evidence of intermediate species including Homo Erectus and Australopithecus. To invent a group of aliens that gave us technology and caused our evolution violates Ockham's Razor. The answer is plain and clear, right in front of our face

How in the world can you believe this? Basically what you are saying is that what Reagan did somehow skipped his term and Bush’s term and showed its effects during Clinton's era. Clinton's success in office was a result of his policies. The reason the Republican really hated Clinton was because he was the epitome of what a successful Democrat can do for the country. They knew that if they didn't get him out of the office and somehow distract the country from seeing the effects of his policies there was going to be a very long reign of Democratic power. For those of you who don't know what Raeganomics is, it is basically the economic policy of giving lots of tax breaks and benefits to the very rich and the owners of big business. This money then is somehow supposed to trickle down to the rest of the country. So by making the rich richer we are all suppose to benefit. It's really a way to pay back all of the rich men who got you in office and try to disguise it.