too-open-minded

YES!

I would really hope not. Death is present so that their can be room for new. To live forever is grotesque in my eyes.

What if light doesn't need something to travel on and the wave propagation was just something in its way?

Is their any evidence towards an individual having a change in allele? For change in allele to occur is it something that happens every said number of generations?

Were still unsure of how much genetic change in allele from individuals are preserved and passed down to offspring, I think when we are able to determine if environment or passed down genes plays a larger role in evolution will be a very big find for Genetics.

So roughly how long have we known about it? Pondered on its existence and confirmed? I guess science has been well aware for over 100 years and in the past 60 we have been making leaps and bounds. - http://www.buzzle.com/articles/who-discovered-dna.html I'm just wondering, how much do some of you think we know? Are we still making finds or is it pretty well figured out?

Well if light has its own capacity to travel alone then their is something else making it propagate like a wave. Please, elucidate.

Are we still making finds about genes? Is their still more to learn about DNA? The observable universe looks flat, but are we sure that the entire universe is flat?

So the change in allele just happens over time? Every individual doesn't put in their own 2 cents?

Hey peter your idea might work and all but do you think you could have done anything more productive with the time you spent on devising your idea? We have spent a little over a trillion u.s dollars on the war on terror. Now a trillion dollars is quite a bit of money, maybe your idea could have been a better investment. Then again, maybe trying to do things other than wage war could have been an even more efficient investment.

I wasn't arguing that, just asking if you saw the line I was trying to draw. Whether you agree with it or not, i'm just glad you see the point i'm trying to make. I disagree with the individuals don't evolve statement. As you get older your immune system evolves and adapts to the diseases around it. Natural selection makes it to where the individuals who adapt the best can spread their genes. I'm willing to bet their is more to DNA than we can see right now. Unless i'm misunderstanding what your saying about individuals in a biological sense? I guess if you want to get literal about it an individual is not a population over time. Everything evolves. Even the laws of science, as we know them.

Yeah but i'm kind of saying the biological definition of evolution could be the kind of like the metamorphosis of a rock, just evolved. That's just an example. Do you see what i'm trying to say?

Could evolution not just be limited to organisms? I know evolution is the change in allele of a species over a period of time. I know rocks don't have DNA. But is it possible that evolution evolved in itself?

Well I think it sounds like a good idea once we have the technology and resources to do so, which is passed our lifetimes :/

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68739-hypothesis-question/page__p__700344__fromsearch__1#entry700344

I like to think of the universe as finite but unbound with no definite size or shape.

So does your hypothesis also state weakened neutrinos and a deficit amount of energy causes a black hole? Kind of like an insufficient amount of energy per neutrinos in an area to hold up space? Sounds cool, with the whole neutrino gravity thing. Remember if things aren't working switch it up, although I do think you might be on to something. In what ways does this contradict our modern general idea of gravity?

I'm thinking that if we were to implement emotional therapy, self esteem building techniques, and concentrating on developing children's individual interests we would end up with more rational adults. Say we redid the whole elementary educational system. Valued an elementary school teacher over a college professor. I would push for only having women as teachers. Anyways most importantly their would be 2 teachers per classroom. I would recommend 15 students maximum. Beginning at ages 3 and ending at 7. With little curriculum and mostly the teachers taking notes on the students. The hardest part of the year would be the beginning, getting to know the students and getting them to like the teachers. Switching students up for different teachers if bad incidents reoccurred. Anyways teachers could pull a student aside who gets irrational (this would be pretty frequent with children around this age) except pulling the student aside won't embarrass them in front of their classmates. Give them more room to think about what they did while the teacher calmly told them the error in their decision making process. The teachers would have to get along with the students and overtime find things they were interested in and build children's self esteem upon such interests. This is a very watered down hypothesis but I mean does it sound possible? Could this have any effect on a future generation? Would it pay off by teaching someone to calm down, take a breath, and listen to an argument from another person without letting anger cloud their judgement? Or is this just complete crap?

I don't believe anything is infinite. Anyways harvesting chemical energy would in my eyes be one step closer to cold fusion. When I think of cold fusion I think of nuclear power without reaching the temperature of the surface of the sun. Then again it wouldn't really be nuclear power as it is today, not with turbines atleast. I already started a thread on it but couldn't really talk much because cold fusion defies modern physics and the thread really just pissed people off.

So the galaxies moving towards us, why do we think they are blueshifted? Is the gravity strong enough to overpower dark-energy?

I'm more interested in thi stuff because I think it will gwt us 1 step closer to cold-fusion rather than me being interested in just the solar power itself