LucidDreamer

That's interesting that anyone that educated would say that. Ask him why he thinks that and repost.

First of all that calculation is a total joke. The way he got it was taking the places of all of the stars and all of the planets and all of the other material of the universe and calling each location an event. And then he took the location of each star and considered the distance to every other star and called that an event as well. And then he multiplies each of these events and gets a fantastically large number because there is an almost infinite number of possible places of placing each star. You can even make it more complex by including the locations of the atoms but the number is already impossibly large so there is no point. But the size of the number is irrelevant because the placing of each star or atom doesn’t require a design by a divine hand and its not random. The universe is self-organizing with every star, every planet, every asteroid, and every spec of space dust governed by the four forces of nature. Every planet is held to a star in a particular orbit because of the force of gravity exerted by its star. Every bit of matter is expanding outward from a central point and it has reached its particular location because of the forces that expelled it from the big bang. Every wave in the ocean contains billions of water molecules all located on a specific spot on the earth. If you took all of these atoms compared each ones location in respect to all of the others you would get a number just as large as the other one. The number would be so large that the possibility of that wave occurring based on probability would preclude it from happening. It would make its existence impossible. Yet it occurs time after time without any intelligent creator. The waves are created by the force of the moon’s gravity and the water molecules are held together by the polar forces of the water molecules and the subatomic particles are governed by the nuclear forces. It’s a self-organizing system with an infinite amount of probable waves created by the forces of nature. If you give an answer like that I’m sure he will ask you who created those forces, but that’s ill leave that to you.

If the challenge is about keeping the rocket in the air for as long as possible why not use a parachute that ejects after it reaches maximum height. It would help protect the egg from breaking as well. Of course your instructor may have thought of this and made a rule against it.

I have a whole collection of textbooks that I bought from a local discount bookstore for only a few dollars (half priced books). I bought them only a couple of years old each and that doesn't matter to me much because 99% of the material is still up to date. I live in Texas and you don't need a college ID to buy textbooks from a college bookstore, but I don't know what the law is where you live. I did a google search for "buy textbooks" and got a whole page of places you can buy from popped up.

It's really not as simple as right brain or left brain dominancy. Certain mental functions are usually found on one side of the brain or another but some can actually be found on either side of the brain (even though they usually have a preference). A lot of the functions that people call right-hemisphere functions or left-hemisphere functions actually require sections of the brain from both hemispheres to work. Even if you took a very simplistic viewpoint of left-brain equals analytical and right brain-brain equals creativity you could always point out people like Leonardo Da Vinchi who obviously had both. And not everyone is even restricted to right or left hand dominance; some are ambidextrous. The whole thing about right-brain people being one way and left brain people being another is an exaggeration.

Why a robot? It’s difficult to combine organic systems with mechanical ones and mechanical systems that imitate organics are usually pathetically bad at it. Why not create some form of clone and transplant the brain into the clone (disregarding ethics and assuming clone is created without a brain). I have to agree with tesseract that it’s not possible right now to transfer a brain into a robot's body. It’s not really a problem with supplying blood; that’s the easy part. The brain cannot survive without a body to support it. The brain requires a vast array of chemicals, biofeedback hormone regulation systems, filtration, and removal of toxins that only the organs can supply. It’s not just as simple as providing basic nutrients and blood. Not to mention the difficulties with providing mechanical and electrical systems that would adequately supply sensory information to the organic brain. The technology does not exist now but it probably will some day. But again with all these difficulties we would probably use organic systems with some sort of cloning-why reinvent the wheel.

I believe that a lot of the differences in intelligence among human beings has to do with the chemistry of the brain, not just the physical hardwiring. I believe that you may be right about someone who has great intelligence having more connections. Someone like Einstein probably had more connections and glial cells because he was both born with greater capacity to develop them and because he spent his whole life learning and experimenting.

Does a unifying theory have to describe everything in the universe or just describe the four forces? Does it also have to tie quantum physics with classical physics?

Good question. One key to this is that its not the brain size that matters so much as the brain to body ratio. The sperm whale has a brain much larger than ours but its brain to body ratio is smaller. Dog brains probably vary in size just like human brains. In fact one person's brain can weigh twice as much as another person’s brain and both can still be perfectly normal. Parrots can be taught to reply to certain human phrases and gestures just like dogs. A parrot responding to "what color is this" is similar to a dog barking once, twice, or three times depending on what command you give him. But neither one ever wonders why something is green.

The whole thing about using 1% or 5% of your brain is a total fallacy. NMR scans and encephalograms confirm this. I think the most interesting thing about Einstein's brain is that they found his brain had more glial cells. Up until very recently it was thought that glial cells had a very minor role in brain functioning, as sort of a support system. Recent evidence indicates that glial cells play a much more important role. The fact that Einstein had more glial cells wasn't given much thought before, but I imagine it will be reexamined now.

You might be able to find what you need here: http://www.palaeos.com/

There is already one used to break down oil after oil spills. This would be a great example to use for a report. Here is a site that talks about genetically engineered agriculture: http://members.tripod.com/c_rader0/gemod.htm

I believe what your looking for is called a cladogram.

There is already a third sex in the human species. His name is Richard Simmons and his strange mating ritual is called Sweating to the Oldies.

If you can get an account with netlibrary.com you will have access to an online library. I got my account through my college but there may be another way you can get an account. I have a dozen different textbooks that I picked up for only a few dollars each at Half Priced bookstore. One of my favorite sites is http://www.howstuffworks.com The author of an online physics book posted his link a little while back. I have only had a chance to glance at it but it looked pretty good. http://www.motionmountain. Personally, I like to surround myself with people smarter than me and hope some of it rubs off. Good luck.

"my dad was good friends with Linus Pauling" -- thats amazing Linus Pauling was truly an extraordinary man. He discovered the double-helix structure of proteins, helped us understand the chemical bond, discovered some of the beneficial properties of vitamin c, e and b, and he received two Nobel prizes. "Full of "radical thought" Yes he was. I think that is part of what makes a great scientist.

Sounds like a trick question on a physics exam, but ill give it a shot. My guess is no; reducing the diameter of the hose will not reduce the amount of needed suction. By reducing the diameter of the hose you are suctioning the same amount of water as a larger diameter hose but at a faster rate. The increased speed would create more friction and might actually make the wheel harder to turn. To make it easier to turn you could increase the size of the wheel on the pump.

Leonardo Da vinchi and Linus Pauling

hmm, I think a pie plate might work better than a bowl. I believe A is still acceleration; you just dont know what it is now without a machine that automatically measures it. I'm not sure how to make the speaker work better. Maybe you can attach it to a larger speaker with tape.

LOL, I was saying that there was a difference of 50 points on two different tests.

An IQ test is a great tool for determining how well you will do on IQ tests. It's not much good for anything else. I have personally scored up to 50 points different on various tests. The online tests are especially bad. I think IQ tests test certain intellectual abilities but not raw intellectual abilities. You can raise your IQ tremendously just like you can raise college entrance exam scores.

I bet that ram needed alot of therapy after that. I think some people are born with different degrees of a natural disposition to being gay. Whether they become gay or not is dependent on some environmental factors. Look at prisons. True, some people are forced, but many choose to engage in homosexuality while they are in prison and then go back to being strait once they get out.

First of all, no I'm not a creationist; I'm an evolutionist. I believe the world is billions of years old and that Homo sapiens is tens of thousands of years old to hundreds of thousands of years old (allot of dispute over exact time). When I spoke of human history being about 6,000 years old I was referring to the earliest recorded writing, which I think is relevant because its both the beginning of the point at which we can say for sure just how much we have changed up to now and its an important point for the technological advancement of humans. Let me make my argument as clear as possible. I believe that the pressures of natural selection have become increasingly diffuse from the moment of Homo sapiens arrival. With his increasing ability to change his environment the pressures of nature no longer affect him to the extent that it did when it brought about his conception. One only need to look around and study a few textbooks to realize that mans physiology has always been and currently is in a state of change. By this I mean there is a change in the amount of people that have blue eyes or dark skin, or the amount of people who inherit the gene/genes that cause muscular dystrophy. Some would define this change as Evolution while others would reserve the definition for the actual creation of a new species. What I am suggesting is that this change, this shuffling of the frequency of expressed specific genes, will not result in a the creation of a new species of human, even given millions of years. I believe this because man's technology and most importantly his medicine will not allow the elimination of genes to the extent that it will cause the creation of a new species. So your stress out huh, well here’s some Valium. Hypertension, here’s some medicine. So you’re as fat as a house, lets just staple your stomach. Inability to deal with heat-turn on the air conditioner. Born with out legs, here’s a wheelchair. Etc. These natural disadvantages would normally be weeded out by natural selection but they no longer are as a result of modern technology. As medicine and technology advances this trend will have an even greater effect. In addition to this, new potentially beneficial mutations are lost among the crowd. The only thing that matters is how many offspring inherit your genes and intelligent and successful people don’t tend to reproduce any more than others do. The population is too large, the combinations of genes too diverse, the pressures of nature too slight, and the isolation of a group among the species is all but eliminated, so there will not be enough natural selection to create a new species if the trend continues. Some animals have been around for tens of millions of years if not longer virtually unchanged. These creatures accomplished this through evolution brought about by natural selection but then stooped evolving (changing their DNA dramatically to create a new species) when they found a niche that they were supremely suited for. Sentience is man's niche. Of course I am only saying that we are currently standing on an evolutionary plateau now. If this trend continued we would stay on the plateau. However any form of major disaster that destroys a large portion of the population and then allowed a small group of humans to survive but barely survive over millions of years could result in a new species. Personally I believe that man will create his own evolution through genetic engineering.