Aubs

*Let me preface this post by saying I'm a firm believer in evolution, I'm not trying to "disprove" evolution or anything of that nature* Okay, so usually when evolution is presented alongside cladograms and web-like visual representations of evolution over time, there seems to be an implied consensus that, at some point, there had to have been some original one-celled species from which all subsequent life evolved. However, is it implausible that, perhaps, life arose independently at different geographic locations on the planet? What I'm saying is that say a species of one-celled organism arose in the primordial ooze somewhere in the southern hemisphere. Now what if another species of one-celled organism arose (completely independent of the first) in the northern hemisphere. In this hypothetical situation, there would then be two evolutionary lineages rather than one. Has it been proven that there really is a single evolutionary lineage (I'm genuinely curious)? Is it even possible to know? Have scientists studied this? Are there any scientific ramifications of there being multiple evolutionary lineages, or is it just interesting food for thought?

Hi all, I'm new here and I love biology (hoping to major in it at UC Santa Cruz next year) but I like all fields of science. Also a big literature and art fan, so I suppose I'm pretty well-balanced.

Hello, whenever I come across bits and pieces of quantum theory I find it extremely interesting, but I have yet to come across a simplified (but not over-simplified), unified run-down of the primary components of quantum theory. I understand that the subject might not lend itself to such a thing, but if somebody would care to summarize the main points of quantum theory, that would be much appreciated. I'd like to be able to understand and take part in discussions concerning the subject. As for background knowledge, I'm currently enrolled in AP Physics, understand the basics of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and wave/particle duality, and have a fair knowledge of Calculus up to finding volumes of solids of revolution. Thanks in advance!

I'm a bit confused as to what exactly you are trying to prove. What do you mean when you say rate (you so clearly state that you do not mean accelerate, but you cannot mean velocity because by your supposed equation the velocities are different)? In any case, I have to agree with the people above me. You cannot simply double the acceleration of the second object. If the two objects are being dropped in the same place, then acceleration due to gravity is necessarily the same for both of them. Think of the acceleration due to gravity as a constant, not a variable. You can alter the masses all you like, but acceleration must, by necessity, remain the same. This is the flaw in your reasoning.

In regards to your question concerning the term for tending to flee to the center, it would not be centrifugal tendencies but rather centripetal tendencies. Centrifugal refers to the tendency of an object to flee from the center (also known as inertia).