Ophiolite

You Call it incredible: Not believable. Get it is entirely believable since it requires only some straightforward chemistry. No intelligence In sight .

Forum guidelines prevent me from offering a comprehensive reply. When can we expect some serious answers on units? And some serious equations? Not word salad and modifications of incomplete equations that even nine year olds have heard of.

I must strongly disagree with you on the point of cruelty. What you are describing as cruelty is a side effect of a sound survival instinct to shoot first and ask questions later, coupled with a perfectly reasonable distrust of the unknown i.e. a member of a tribe you are unfamiliar with. Only a small proportion of humans are deliberately and consistently cruel. It is reasonably well established that these persons either lack, or have a very low capacity for empathy. We see "cruelty" practiced by our primate cousins - in particular I return to chimpanzees, with which I am most familiar. Granted we've never seen a chimp subject one of its fellows to waterboarding, but some of the interactions certainly match what I think you would call cruel were it witnessed in humans. So, in summary, other animals display cruelty and much of this cruelty either has a survival value or is a side effect of behaviour that does.

Totally repelling? You need to be aware Advance that the vast majority of males do not find other male's appearances to be repelling, but for the most part neutral. And most males, if they think about - which I suspect most do not do, can recognise a handsome individual, without feeling any attraction to them. (Other than voting for them in elections and arguably giving them preferences in promotions. The research is out there if you care to look for it.) As Fuzzwood has said, your use of terms likes disgusting and repelling is not scientific and has no place in this discussion. You seem to be suggesting that homosexual attraction is abnormal. Now if you mean by this that only a minority express this trait I would agree. However, once again you seem to be applying a value judgement and bringing your own morality into a scientific discussion. It would be nice if you would make an effort to: 1. Write in sentences. 2. Spell correctly. 3. Use proper grammar. 4. Express yourself clearly. Since you have failed to do so I have very little idea what you were trying to say in the above sentence/paragraph/concatenation of meaningless phrases. Would you like to try restating it, using guidelines 1 to 4?

But why does the variability of e cause the dark energy forces causing universal expansion to be exactly the same as the dark energy forces causing stellar cores to shrink?

So why are they equal?

Nice one!

We are certainly very good at rationalising our choices. In many instances we delude ourselves into thinking they are reasoned responses. Instinctual drives are hard to combat, else there would be fewer subscribers to on-line dating services.

Science does not work that way and this is a science forum. Certainly many scientists have developed a new theory based upon a hunch, or a gut feeling. That's the same as you saying your idea "seems right" to you. But before publicly sharing that idea they gather evidence for it; they probe and prod at it, looking for weaknesses. When they do share, perhaps with a select group, they listen intently to any criticisms that are made, or weaknesses that are pointed out, then try to address these with evidence and experiment, not with personal anecdotes. If you wish your proposal to be taken seriously you need to start doing the same thing.

If xe = d and xe = f, then d and f are the same. Why do you need both of them?

What do you think it might be falling towards?

Cruelty is an interpretation of a behaviour. Is a lion cruel when it kills a gazelle and begins to eat it while the gazelle is still alive? If we observe humans as objectively as possible, forgetting we are also human, then we see behavioural patterns of both aggression and cooperation. There is a mountain of research that indicates both of these characteristics are a consequence of genetic predispositions modified by environmental effects. (One of the big environmental effects is how other members of our species treat us, so there is plenty of room for various feedback loops - positive and negative.) We could not have established the global, technological civilisation we are part of without the aggression, nor could we have done so without the cooperation. What language and culture have allowed us to do is to achieve a better balance between these two potentially opposing forces. (The upcoming soccer World Cup is an example of how this can balance can be achieved in a beneficial way.) The ongoing civil wars, terrorism, criminal activity and the like are all evidence that we have not yet mastered this balancing act. The good news is that we are getting better at it. (A note to Phi for All: chimpanzees so a deep sense of loyalty to members of their tribe. I suspect it is on a par with human loyalty when we first became a distinct species.)

Will you at least tell us what units each of your variables are expressed in? Edit: Apologies Sensei, you beat me to it by a fraction of a minute. So, I'll add, for Advance: once you have stated the units, will you do a dimensional analysis on one of your equations.

So what do you think is responsible for evolution?

Advance, I would direct you to several excellent links that would answer these questions, however, on every occasion you have been offered links you have claimed they failed to tell you anything. So here are some answers, made as simple as I can make them. (I'm not smart enough to make them any simpler.) They may not be answers to your exact questions, because your questions are garbled and difficult to understand. Question 1: How does a cell, or sperm, or an egg change into an adult animal? Firstly, the sperm and egg need to unite their DNA. The sperm cells and eggs are called gametes. Gametes contain only a single chromosome of each type. When these cells unite a new cell is formed, called a zygote, that now has two versions of each chromosome. The chromosomes contain the DNA. This DNA provides instructions, including timing, for the development of the diverse cells that will be required in the developed animal. The environment the animal grows in can have effects on how this development proceeds, but rarely produces major changes in development, and when these do occur they are nearly always negative. Question 2: How do animals evolve major new features? Fuzzwood has already answered this. Did you understand his answer? If not, please indicate what you did not understand, at least approximately and I shall try to clear it up for you. Edit: You see I told you I wasn't smart enough to make it simple. CharonY has done exactly that.

Advance, you've been told multiple times on the other thread how to answer that question. Please go and review the advice there. Until I see some evidence that you are paying attention to what people say to you I can see no point in investing time to explain things. Check out the advice there; look up what they suggested, if you then have questions I shall answer what I can.

I just checked the link and it is working fine on a laptop. I think they may have tried something like this already on humans. I have a vague recollection of reading something, but it is outside my primary area of interest. (Though as age advances and the memory goes, I become more interested in it.)

I believe there is active research in this general area. I am not clear what the findings have been to date, but I believe there have been some promising positive results.*** It is not a good idea to mix up material from different threads, but I think it is important to answer this: 1. The atom's jiggle does not stop. More than one member has told you this very clearly in the other thread. 2. No, the idea will not work with 10,000 atoms. You have also been told that. Advance, I have already explained that my remark was not directed at you. The only reason for adding the comment "We all know who we mean", was to ensure that pwagen didn't mistakenly think that I was getting at him. It was a general remark that does not merit the attention you are giving it. I regret that such an attempt at a little lighthearted humour has been misinterpreted by you, but you really need to forget about it and focus on the science. Edit: *** This is an example from 1999 where stem cells injected into a mouse brain formed astrocytes, the commonest form of brain cell. http://www.pnas.org/content/96/19/10711.short

Imagination is good. Thinking up new ideas is good. Sharing your ideas is good. So, your post is a good post. What is even better is having a deeper understanding of current theory before you propose a new one. What is even better is knowing that a theory is an intricately described concept with mountains of evidence in support of it and no significant observations that contradict it. What is even better is accepting that any theory dealing with fundamental forces has to be expressed in mathematics. I look forward to the better posts you will make one day when you have that understanding, knowledge and acceptance.

Advance, your questions are difficult to answer since they ignore some basic science and make strange presumptions. As I noted in my first post on this thread, immortality has its attractions, but you do seem obsessed with how to attain it and you presume, incorrectly I think, that everyone else feels the same way you do. Let's suppose we could replace brain cells in the way you propose. (I am sure there are better ways of doing this that will be developed.) Even if you could do this there is no assurance that it is going to be a pleasant life. There will be a whole other set of problems to be solved. You have received a number of helpful answers in this thread. Look at posts 6,8 and 10. What do you think is left unanswered?

1. My lighthearted remark was not directed at you. 2. If you reject accurate, carefully considered answers because of am imagined insult, you will be the loser. 3. The correct English is "You are retarded". (And if you genuinely believe I am it would be best to distrust my answers.)

I am confused. I thought that it was embedded in Maxwell's equations, specifically this one c 2 = 1/(ε0μ0). Where ε0 is vaccum permittivity and μ0 is vacuum permeability. c, of course, is the speed of light. I can understand that we may not know why μ0 and ε0 have the values they do, but given those values isn't c automatically determined? Keep in mind I am a simple minded geologist and it took me years of backbreaking work to get this far, so go gentle with me.

Indeed, even when the brain cells are produced by the normal biological processes they do not always produce working brain cells as evidenced by the posts of some members. (We all know who we mean!)

If a scientist has a string of papers published in significant peer reviewed journals and then chooses to share, in a simplified manner, some of their knowledge with interested laypersons through on-line videos, that is a worthwhile endeavour and one can give considerable credence to what is said. If the principal, or only means by which an idea is delivered is via video, especially when it is opposed to current consensus views, then one can likely ignore it without loss. I doubt it is even worth the effort to look at the video. (If I want a loan, I go to a bank, not the corner shop. [Though these days, I concede, the corner shop might just be a safer bet]).

In addition to the excellent comments already made, I recommend choosing one, or at most two specific areas of interest and delving deeply into those. You will find that although your attention is focused on what seem to be narrow fields you necessarily learn a great deal at the periphery, but you have the additional benefit of knowing that one topic really well.