bbouch111

What does everyone think? http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/mysterious-planet-sized-object-spotted-near-mercury-154443870.html

Can I have your reasoning to why I am just "not correct"?

Yes I know that objects will accelerate at different speeds regardless of weight because of air resistance. By using this fact you can justly prove with very simple math that all objects will fall at the same RATE to their weight. What I am trying to say is that they will fall a certain way at a certain speed because of their weight, density, mass, air resistance, ect, ect. It is this relationship that gives them their individuality. If you take two 16oz hammers that fall at the same speed, those two hammers are individual objects. All objects fall at the same rate because they all have their own individual characteristics. Just like with humans, we are all the same but it is our individual characteristics that set us apart by no degree.

I have to agree with both of you, some of the theorists actually believe that there is another advanced life form living in the earths core that protects the earth. They also believe that the only way to get to the center of the earth is through a hole in the poles that goes in the north pole and out the south.

What is everyone's opinion? And is there any logical reason or mathematical proof behind it?

Am I the only person who has a hard time believing that an object in motion tends to stay in motion? If this is true, doesn't that mean a car could never stop moving if it were to start moving? This law stated that an object would stay still unless acted upon by an external source, but he never defined an object in motion. He never set a true definition to the object in motion. Does that mean that all objects are at rest until they are put into motion? That doesn't work because an external force can physically stop an object in motion and put it into a resting state.

I get exactly where you are coming from but I wasn't being unreasonable with my measurements. If one object falls at 10m/s and the other at 20m/s, that could be entirely true. But your Horse running at 3000 km/h could also be true. I was just trying to be more reasonable. I will fix my equations and design an experiment. I will post a revised thread when I am done. Any equations anyone suggest I use? Because I know this is a big argument in the science community. I was using a basic acceleration equation to find the final velocity to find the rate at which the objects fall. I wanted to find the rate, not the speed or acceleration. I want to prove that all objects fall at the same rate according to their weight.

Okay then let me put it another way, Object 2 is 2x the weight of object 1 and is also observed to have the 2x acceleration of Object 1.

I am not giving circular reasoning. I don't care about how fast they accelerate, that is why I just made up two accelerations. It's and example. Sure I could get technical, but there is no reason to. I proved that objects fall at the same rate ACCORDING TO THEIR WEIGHT by finding their final velocity before they hit the ground. It's that simple.

To find out if two objects fall at the same rate, you have to find their final velocity. To do this I used the equation V22=(V12)+2(a)(d). If I recorded that object 1 fell at 5 m/s and had an initial velocity of 0 and fell a distance of 30 meters then: V22=(0)+2(5m/s)(30m) V22=300m/s Now say Object 2 is double the weight and has double the acceleration than Object 1 then, V22=(0)+2(10m/s)(30m) V22=600m/s This clearly shows that if an object with 2x the weight falls 2x faster. This shows that all objects fall at the same RATE (not accelerate) according to their weight (not density).

They all have some of those same phenotype(s) that you mentioned because they all have the same genetic mutation. Like a red-headed person, they have the same type of mutation. Down syndrome is caused by trisomy 21 which is an extra genetic material on the 21st chromosome.

Of course "Mutants" are real, even today. If you are talking in genetics terms, a mutation in a gene can cause a response in a change in a phenotype. Take for instance Down Syndrome. It is actually a mutation and if you notice, it causes a physical change in a person's body. Just like the Elephant Man Syndrome that causes tumors to form throughout the body. It also causes deafness, and blindness in some even most cases. This is caused by a mutation as well (I believe it is a disease that can cause the mutation). So yes, there are already living Mutants in our world today.

I think you are trying to say that eyebrow thickness is a sex-linked trait which means you would find it on the X chromosome. Instead eyebrow thickness, like eye color is a phenotype. So make a punnet square... Your husband has thick eyebrows so lets say he is: TT You have thick eyebrows so lets say you are: TT T T T TT TT T TT TT So your son would be homogeneous for thick eyebrows or it could be mixed in one case for him to have medium thick eyebrows it you were heterogeneous meaning you would be Tt. Hope this helped!

Are we a part of a much bigger process in space and time? Are we a part of a giant galaxy that envelopes us and our worlds? I believe that we are a much smaller working part of something greater than we can imagine. That all the planets in our galaxy are working organisms, if I may, to create much bigger ecosystems in space. All of our reasoning of physics are used to find out why we are here. Well what if we look to why we are not here? What are we not a part of. If we look at our selves and our entire universe as a very small part of this "Ecosystem", then we can truly find out our place in the world and how our planet, and galaxy came to be. What happens if we were not the big bang? What happens if we came about by a smaller bang created by the big bang? I may be a bit far-fetched here but I believe it is worth thinking about, that we could be a part of a process of some sort that we will never grasp completely.

Do you believe then that I am on to something different and could be someday proven true?

I have a hypothesis regarding our eye sight and what and how we see color. My hypothesis is that if we all learn from a young age through relating items and colors to a word, and since we can't see through some one else's eyes, do we all see the same color to it's name? Explanation: Color Variable1: (X) Color Name To Variable1: (X2) So we learn that if we see the color (X) that we relate it to the name (X2). Color Variable2: (Y) Color Name to Variable2: (Y2) So we learn that if we see the color (Y) that we relate it to the name (Y2). If we learn this way, which as far as any person knows, we do. How don't we know that if we say (Y2) one person doesn't see (X) and another person doesn't see (Y)? I think that we can find a hidden trait on the X chromosome that shows this, because the color blind and normal sight traits are on the X chromosome of your Gametes (Sex Chromosomes).