Gian

Not at all, although I've no idea of the answer!

Thanks Janus et al for all the above replies, ah well if I ever get to Titan I'll take my flippers and snorkel anyway. Yep, Velocity Boy, 'Swimming on Titan' would make a great movie even if it's impossible! Dunno about finding Life, but it would be great if we did. (1) I guess there's wind and tidal forces on Titan so maybe we can walk along the beach of one of the methane seas with methane washing up and down. (2) If liquid methane has less than half the density of water, would it still be possible to have powered craft which could float on the surface? (3) Thanks Janus and Airbrush for the hang-gliding idea. Or maybe even a nanolight powered by methane? (4) Presumably with all the methane about, power won't be a problem. When explorers get to Titan I guess temperature suits would have to be powered (unless NASA has an insulation fabric which could withstand −179 °C?) (5) As the atmosphere is mostly nitrogen, presumably explorers would only have to take oxygen with them and have a mechanism for mixing it to make breathable air? (6) And given that there's water on Titan, would it be possible to mechanically extract enough oxygen to add to the nitrogen to make breathable air? altho I guess it would take a helluva lot of water.... cheers GIAN

The atmospheric density as well as pressure at the surface of Titan is like being in about 15-20 feet of water here on Earth and surface gravity about 0.1G. If so, does anyone know if it would be possible with flippers and the right equipment to 'swim' through the atmosphere at the surface of Titan? ta

There seem to be only two palaeontology degrees in the UK. What's the best way in? Also, what's a good starter book on evolution? (don't fancy Darwin at this stage)

The Universe has been expanding since the Big Bang ye? so we can see the 'red shift' in galaxies moving away. Does this mean literally that galaxies are getting further away from us in miles? or does 'stretching space' mean something else? I'm not a scientist so I need some assistance on this one

well as I've said above I thought pressure at titan's surface was about the same as being in 20ft of water here on earth. But you'd sure need a temperature suit or presumably you'd freeze solid in seconds

thanks xxx

good point i ain't got the mathematical knowledge to follow but im sure you're right. ye it's the difference between pressure and density. cheerz

thanks. im a newbie at all this but wanna be a scientist one day

On the contrary, as I said the literature Ive read says the atmosphere is denser than ours, it's like being in about 20 feet of water, but with 10% of our gravity. You'd float to the ground eventually, but couldn't you just 'swim' along?

I've read that the gravity of Titan at the surface is about 10% that of Earth. Plus I worked out that the atmospheric pressure at the surface would be like being in about 20ft of water here on earth. So explorers wouldnt need a pressure suit (altho they'd sure need an oxygen and temperature suit!) So presumably human explorers would be able to 'swim' along through Titan's atmosphere at the surface? Have I got this right? GIAN

Is there a way we can estimate light (lux) levels in broad daylight on Titan? eg would it be like a cloudy day here on Earth, dusk or no more light than with a full moon? Would the clouds be thin enough for an astronaut to see Saturn? Do the clouds ever part to give a clear sky? I've heard the sky would be orange with green methane rain. Would it always be foggy or could we see long distances? I'm an art student and I want to do a landscape painting of the surface of Titan cheerz Gian x

Thanks. Will have to follow this one up GIAN PS any replies please keep as simple as possible. I aint a scientist (yet!) GIAN

There may already be an answer here to this question, still looking through all the topics. Why is there male and female, and why is there sexual reproduction? Presumably there must have been some evolutionary advantage over asexual organisms. Any ideas what those advantages may be? thanks GIAN

I don't have any firm evidence that a repulsion about gay sex is endogenous I'm just thinking about it, that's why I originally put the question. In the video clip I entered above some football players are asked about what they feel about gay sex and I felt their repsonses were somehow more fundamental and endogenous than something learned. This is something Ive seen myself. Still thinking about it and reading all the stuff people have posted. Cheerz GIAN

Thanks for the feedback still reading through it. I don't like the image either, didnt know there was a way of concealing it. I agree I don't know if the nature/nurture debate which comes up in so many different contexts is really very useful. The're all one and the same -except that alot of people treat the 'nurture' bit as a sort of behavioural problem. The gay guy talking to the footballers in the clip seemed to think they were just eing unintelligent. I think it's a bit more fundamental than that. But still reading through all your stuff and links GIAN

what really started me thinking about this topic was this; from 03.55-06.44 and 09.33-end. I don't think these lads are afraid of being gay, or seen as such, nor do I think this is a learnt dislike. i think what they feel is endogenous.

Well I don't know about such selection taking that long; I have personality traits which Im told I got from my grandad who dies b4 i was born; and I suppose if my gf were equally quick to aggression our kids would grow up violent! And I think most people would agree personality traits are very visible from generation to generation. I emphasise again the societal/ political dislike of homosexuals is not what im talking about, i'm talking about phobia in the true sense of the word, an irrational aversion to gay sex the way some people are averse to spiders. I dont think that homosex-phobia, and the homophobia most people mean are the same thing. I know people who are totally gay-friendly, but if they were to see say gay porn go 'euuuggh!!!' (Personally it doesn't bother me in the slightest, dunno why, but it does bother alotta my mates.) Thanks for the reference I'll check it out later GIAN

Well you're creating a false dichotomy of homosexuality and reproduction, and of homosexuality and heterosexuality. There is no reason to assume that some levels of homosexual behavior would not convey a selective advantage or be selectively neutral. Those traits can could epistatically cause "pure" homosexuality (meaning total aversion to heterosexual behavior) which may cause selective disadvantage. But since the alleles can 'hide' in the population due to total aversion needed specific allelic combinations. Perhaps not, but people at the time may have thought of them as such. Eg if we went back to a town in say 12th century France, women may have felt (unconsciously) 'men who are averse to homosexuality are better than men who arent so I want that sort of man more.' This trait if it is genetic/enogenous may be advantageous economically and/or be part and parcel of lots of other traits conducive to social and economic prosperity and thus better survival. So such men reproduce and survive just that bit better. The reality is immaterial; it's the way people in the said village may have seen it which would influence outcomes. However, if such an aversion is no longer considered in today's society, homoerotic-phobia (aversion to the sight or idea of gay sex) I suppose may eventually breed itself out. GIAN

well i don't know, but i would have thought that more aversion to homosexuality would mean more potential reproduction. But of course it may not just be reproduction itself. Certainly there was a shortage of eligible men around for several years after WW1 although Im not clear how that affected reproduction levels However it may be what is SEEN to be better potential reproductivene potential rather than what is ACTUALLY reproductive potential. Men with what was thought to be an aversion to homosexuality would have been seen as better potential breeding stock by society in, say, the early middles ages, or in the prehistoric whatever the actual reality. (In those days for example it was believed that older men were incapable of fathering healthy children.) Thus natural selection of men who by a natural quirk were particularly averse to homosexuality -and seen to be- would cause them to survive that much better and so reproduce better, and thus become more dominant. Feedback any1? GIAN Yes I agree. What is commonly called homophobia is anything but an irrational fear, it's usually very calculated and socially constructed. My gf's mum is an arachnophobe. It's not that she hates spiders personally or goes on demos saying 'send spiders home.' But she screams and would probably jump through the window if a spider scuttles across the floor despite knowing the spider is probably far more scared of her than she is of it.

Thanks for a sensible answer. I agree; if there were not that aversion yes we wouldnt reproduce so well. So it does imply something endogenous. If that's accurate, people should not dismiss aversion to gay sex as 'hate' not those who feel it as 'queer bashers.' As people often say about gays, homosex-phobes can't awlays help it. Anyone knows of any research I'd be grateful. Cheers GIAN x x x x

Id no idea my simple question was going to generate such aggravation. Can we get back to the original point please? with the proviso that a phobia is NOT ( as far as I know) 'hate' -like racism- which is personal A phobia is an irrational aversion. Eg I know of no racist who has a phobia of ethnic difference, it is all nurtured I just wondered if the irrational aversion to gay sex - and i emphasise gay sex not homosexuality per se- by some straight men (many of whom are not actually gay-haters and may be well disposed) has some darwinian-style survival advantage deep within us. replies concise and to the point please. it's gonna take me weeks to read all the above. GIAN x x x

thanks Well precisely, I think the sight of two men having anal sex may be the "euuuugh" factor we feel when we see unappetising food which is actually perfectly good to eat. That's why the guys in the clip i've indicated above react the way they do. But then the 'icky' reaction to food no doubt developed becasue it protected us from foodstuffs which may be bad for us. Similarly with homosexuality Men being attracted to female homosexuality is different becasue it still involves heterosexual attraction to women which is what the reproductive intention of nature wants. I don't know wether any of this is accurate, Im hoping someone can point me to some research which will indicate it either way.

well as far as I know we don't need to follow genetic impulses, but what Im talking about is repulsion at the actual sight of it. This is an example of what I mean (from 03.55-06.44 and 09.33-end) I suspect that what these rugger players are feeling at the sight of gay intimacy goes deeper than social construction. They don't seem particularly badly disposed to gay men. As the guy at 05.19 says while accepting it, the actual sight of it seems to awaken some sort of revulsion which runs v deep.