Anima Aeterna

Thank you very much iNow Valuable advice! I'll do as you've suggested, failure or not doing this kind of amateur research is fun nonetheless and might just very well teach me a couple of valuable things. Cheers.

Hello! As the topic name suggests, I've started a project where I'm collecting various data about different people from different parts of the world. My objective is to find whether or not there is the slightest relevance in the correlation between the personality and birth date of the individual. Of course It's definitely vital to take in account the background and environment in which the individual grew up. However, the plan is to find "coincidences" between the personality type and birth date of the individual. If enough matches are found, the study will continue. Otherwise I will, personally, consider the zodiac idea to surely be nothing but a myth. It does seem interesting enough to look deeper into, though, and thus, as "silly" as it may seem, all things should be given the benefit of the doubt, in my personal opinion. Hence I have a few questions for you: 1- What is your name? (optional) 2- What is your full birth date? 3- Where were you born and where did you grow up? 4- How would you describe yourself briefly? (qualities and flaws?) Considering that I'm a curious amateur motivated to go forth with this sort of project for the sake of experience, all advice, critic and encouragement are welcome

Basically, I'd like to play around with the electronic stuff here around the house. I want to experiment and explore things. I never went farther than connection 2 torn copper cables together. Those that have 4 copper wires inside, white, black red and blue (iirc). I was successful but it didn't look very professionally connected. I suppose current did run through, though. So I'm basically asking for fun things to experiment with. Something practical that I can do at home. This is a funny example: It would likely help if I told you I'm in my first year of an informatics course. It's nearly the end of the year and I've studied and learned a lot of different things, but needless to say I'd likely not be able to make something like the example I've showed you. Unless I was provided with a good guide/explanation. I do have several mobile phones I can mess around with, without worrying about breaking them, as well as an old washing machine which doesn't work, a PlayStation 2 which doesn't work and an old VHS player. Those I don't need to be careful when meddling with, so It's a bonus.

No idea about research, you might want to google that. As for MY opinion, as a 19 year old guy who is likely closer to his childhood than most people here, I think TV can be very educational and give you an average to good example of what the world is about. However, it can provide an inaccurate example of what the world is about too, through the filtering of information. For example, the news. Most of the times, and depending on channel and country, all they report is bad news. This can suggest the viewers that these news are truly all the world's about, when this is untrue. There are likely 10 times more good news to give than the bad news they report worldwide. They're doing their job anyway. I think It's good to talk to your children about what they watch on TV and discuss with them about it. Try to perceive what is it they like to watch so you can touch a topic they'll enjoy talking about, and thus receive more feedback from them. After all, while children might follow many examples they see on TV, and even more what they see in school, they will always be more likely to follow YOUR examples, the father's, if they look up to you and who you are.

Thank you, Ophiolite. So basically there was much more behind the reason of his death, rather than the sole fact he supported the idea Earth was spherical. I only vaguely remembered one of my History teachers explaining Giordano's cause and reason of death, a few years ago. I was likely not paying enough attention back then! Or maybe I'm confusing Bruno with someone else who's theories were his/her cause of death. Hypatia perhaps? That's unlikely since their stories are very distinct. Well, regardless of whether is the case, Hypatia isn't such a bad example to replace the Bruno one, in my post. I'm sure the idea got through anyway, despite anything.

That's very flattering! Thank you, michel123456.

Interesting topic you brought up there, TonyMcC. It reminded me of something important. You see, I too have been "blinded" by theories or religious beliefs in the past. It's important for one to form their own beliefs, yes, but while maintaining a certain skepticism. Keeping an open mind to possibilities. Otherwise, anyone who closes themselves to a single set of believes will be separating himself from other people psychologically, isn't that right? Closing oneself away in their own world and preventing growth even, I'd say. In a way. I, for example, really like the quantum theories, while most knowledgeable people are very skeptical toward these quantum theories. Despite loving these inspiring ideas, I always keep my mind open to the possibility they're completely inaccurate, but also the opposite, and even if I am very skeptical towards many religious beliefs I will respect others' views and even then have a certain open-mindedness towards those subjects, while I might explain them to myself in a different way, though. Remember that, iirc, Giordano Bruno was burned to death for supporting the idea the Earth was round. If the people responsible for his death weren't so skeptical and even insulted by the defense of this possibility, perhaps they'd have found the truth sooner. They didn't because it made zero sense for the Earth to be round, since if it was so, we'd fall off, according to their belief. So may that be a good reminder that, just because something is very unlikely to happen, or even seemingly impossible, doesn't really mean it is indeed impossible. Just a small reminder I decided to share, anyway! Thought It'd be important.

@imatfaal Thank you! You're right, I need to know more basic information related to this topic in order to understand all of this better. Guess I got a bit carried away! Thanks again to all, It's much more clear now what this "junk DNA" is about.

Thank you very much! It keeps missing the Earth, it makes perfect sense! Then again, why does the Earth not hit the Sun? The Sun isn't moving fast enough for Earth to keep missing it, is it? It's moving, yes, but very slowly. Everything is moving iirc since the whole universe is expanding. You're right! I should probably actually save this enthusiasm and eagerness to study and get good grades at my current course. I'm even considering the chance of becoming a chemistry or physics teacher. If I could teach with as much enthusiasm maybe I could actually make the students as interested as I am myself. You know, show them the magic there is in all of it! Be a little crazy! I just have one final question for everyone. Do you know any good movies related to physics or chemistry? Could be a documentary, or a science fiction movie that gave emphasis to something related to chemistry or physics. You know, a movie which actually taught me something important. Thank you again! I'll study those links a bit and go back to focus on the things I'm suppose to be studying right now at my current course, haha.

How amazing. So the line the Earth draws as it translates around the Sun, can be compared to for example, a child with a whoola whoop, where the child is the Sun and the whoola whoop is the route drawn by the Earth during It's course around the Sun. (I'm referring to a frozen image of this example, by the way, not sure It's that much of a comparison) Except of course as you said, this route is only slightly eccentric, right? What you mentioned about orbital mechanics dictating that an astro (An astro is any kind of celestial body? Correct me if I'm wrong, this includes stars, planets or "satellites", right?) moves faster when It's closer to the astro it translates around, is a phenomena which happens due to, obviously, gravity, correct? Like having a round magnet tied to a string, and another magnet magically hovering in mid-air, and spinning one of these magnets around the other. As we are doing this with, of course, the aid of the string to spin one magnet around the other, and we approach the magnet a bit more to the one in the center, the magnet translating around the other is attracted more strongly to the center magnet, and therefore there's a (stronger) force pulling it in, yet, since the rotating magnet is already "carrying" movement (i.e. another force), rather than being pulled in towards the magnet, completely, the rotating magnet approaches the center magnet but carries on his circular route being launched out of the "hot zone" (the zone where we are spinning the magnet closer, hence drawing an eccentric route). So, would this example be accurate? The magnet reaches the "hot zone", accelerates in this zone due to being more strongly attracted to the center magnet, is "shot out" of this zone, and while it completes It's route further away from the center, it slows down and continues the same cycle, accelerating again, etc. Is this a good comparison to Earth's translation? (except much slower of course) Is this also why some years are "Leap Years", and others "Common Years"? I hope I'm not being obnoxious with all the questions! Thank you! It took me a while to understand this. It didn't make sense for the Earth to complete 361º around itself to be able to, well, complete a full rotation around itself. But I understand now, It's because, since the Earth is moving, the location where our planet is receiving the light of the sun is slowly changing, and therefore, by the time it completes a full rotation, in order to "catch up" with the Sun, lol, it has to rotate a little more. Coming to these forums was the best decision in my life. That last part sounds pretty complex. It had me researching a bit more about gravity. I read a bit about it and, according to Wiki, gravitation causes dispersed matter to coalesce, and coalesced matter to remain intact, but it still leaves me wondering, if the Earth, being of a greater proportion than the Moon (and thus exorcising greater gravity force?), attracts it into it, why does the Moon not collide with the Earth? What force is responsible for this, how does it work? If there's indeed a force not just attracting the Moon towards our planet, but another force also repelling it and thus keeping it at a certain distance, then perhaps from that point on I could conclude that (and there I go making silly comparisons again) the Earth-Moon gravitational relationship, can be compared to two children holding each other's hands, spinning and pulling each other towards each other, thus "sling-shooting" each other each time they complete a full spin, and since they won't let go of each other, the force of each "sling-shot", causes them to move around as they spin. This is what I imagine happens in the Earth Moon rotation, but I have the feeling I'm far from what actually happens! Well we can't say something is "half-accurate" or "half-wrong" can we? Haha. Either It's inaccurate or accurate, and if the words I used are unappropriated, I thank you for correcting me! Also thank you for that link, that's amusing! They make all kinds of awesome "tools" these days! It's pretty helpful to understand the concept better.

I agree! I love that chinese proverb, I've learned to always ask about everything and seek answers. Thank you so much for your explanations, let me see if I got this straight. I used to imagine Earth's translation to only happen in a 2 dimensional manner. Basically, if we look at the Solar System "sideways", lol, only the X and Y coordinates of the Earth changed, while the Z coordinates (altitude?) remained "0". But after your explanation I realized this is untrue! Still looking at the Solar System sideways, the Earth translates around the Sun in a diagonal route, right? In a way that at times the North Pole will be "shadowed" while the South Pole will be illuminated (when the Earth finds itself "over" the sun) and other times the opposite will happen (when the Earth is "under" the Sun). Did I get it right thus far? So the temperatures and weather of our planet are not at all affected by our distance from the sun during translation? Is our distance from the Sun actually altered during translation at all? EDIT: Oh wait, or is it that this phenomena is only related to Earth's inclination? Silly me.

If I'm not mistaken, the seasons of the year exist due to Earth's translation around the Sun, and how close our planet is from it during this oval-shaped route the Earth "draws" during It's course. (therefore causing temperature and weather variations) Now, I'm curious. Day and Night happen due to Earth's rotations around It's own axis, therefore causing certain locations of our planet to be "shadowed", while others receive the Sun's light. In certain seasons it becomes dark faster than in others, while the time at which the sun rises and the environment becomes bright again, seems to remain the same despite season. I wake up more less about the time the sky becomes bright and light barges into my room. This is more less at 7am. As we headed towards Autumn, and into Winter, I noticed it became darker at about 6:30pm rather than at about 8pm. For a while now, though, it becomes dark at about 5:40pm or so. Maybe a bit latter. I haven't noticed it becoming brighter in the morning earlier though. It seems to become bright at the same hour, around 7am. What causes this phenomena? Is earth's rotation not at a constant speed? Does the atmosphere cause some kind of effect unknown to me? Do I need to buy a new watch? Thanks in advance for any corrections to anything inaccurate I may have said, too.

@imatfaal So basically, much of this "junk DNA" does actually have known "functions" and even if some are still unclear, they do have a specific coding which allows us to discover a lot of things about an individual, such as the ones you mentioned, am I right? Fascinating! I had never heard of this Lamarckism theory, I too thought about this chance that, part of the skills we acquire during our lifetime were passed on to our descendants. I thought this was the case as I was of the belief living beings evolved according to their needs. Their environment. But that was because my understanding of the DNA system was even dimmer then. "Random Mutations" is a theory which still leaves me a bit skeptical, maybe in the future we'll be able to dig deeper into that as well. I think It's actually a bit more complex than the term used to refer to it isn't it? "Random mutations"? I suppose I'm too unexperienced in the area to have anything to say about it. Either way thank you very much for your explanation, I learned quite a few things just from one reply! Thank you also to everyone else who replied thus far, sorry If I didn't mention my gratitude previously. I have a question, though. I couldn't find anything through Google about these "regulatory and spacing functions", which this non-coding DNA was believed to have. Could anyone please elaborate?

Mmh, wow, very interesting! A pufferfish is an animal with a settled course of life. He knows what he must eat, where he must go, what must he run from, etc. Now Amoebas, were given their name derived from the Greek word amoibè, which means "change". So, not knowing too much about amoebas, the name seems to imply they can change their roles a lot and be very varied? So, maybe this "Junk DNA", is just DNA that doesn't have a settled function yet, but is open to receiving new functions? Like for example, do professional Box players suffer DNA changes when the bones in their knuckles become stronger through training? After all, DNA does dictate our physical characteristics, right? Just a thought.