Strange

The idea that we only use 10% (or whatever) of our brains is a myth. I read a good article about this the other day (probably because of the movie you mention). I can't find that, but there are plenty more, for example: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-people-only-use-10-percent-of-their-brains/ I haven't heard of the term hedging before. But the change in how easily we can pick up language is not because part of the brain are shut down, but just because of changes in the way we learn. Your example of babies learning the sounds of their language at a very young age is true. The result is that, as an adult, it is actually hard to correctly hear the sounds in a foreign language - the brain maps them on to the nearest thing in your mental model of the language. I assume this is necessary in order to be able to understand the range of different voices and accents you will come across. Of course, with practice, it is possible to learn to hear and recreate these "foreign" sounds. But most people don't make the effort which is why they speak second languages with a terrible accent! But, if that was due to shutting down parts of the brain it would imply that there are parts of the brain hardwired with all the possible sounds that languages can contain. I'm fairly sure that studies have been done that indicate that the same brain areas are used for the sounds of every language.

I have seen various experiments that image the structure of molecules - these appear to be entirely consistent with quantum theory. For example, the pictures on this page: http://gizmodo.com/5835164/fascinatingly-small-images-give-first-ever-glimpse-of-an-electrons-orbit The upper images are actual molecules, the lower images are the theoretically predicted orbitals. More here: http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/v3/n4/full/nchem.1008.html

If low level-radiation causes no harm (or at least, less harm than predicted by the LNT model) it is because there are repair mechanisms.

That is a bit of a myth. Especially the "gills" thing. This might not be the right thread to discuss it in (it could just cause more confusion). I would suggest starting a thread if you wan to discuss it more...

OMG

From the page I linked earlier: The jury is still out on this.

The objection is rather simplistic. However, there are cases where speciation has been directly observed. For example: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html (this includes some examples due to isolation) The claim is meaningless. Transitional between what? I would say that there are only transitional forms.

There is no good evidence that this is true. (you are ignoring repair mechanisms, for example)

You are right. I had a feeling there was something wrong...

I don't know the details. Ultimately just the fact that complex mechanisms like this can't be perfect. Presumably things get skipped or duplicated or transposed or one base is mistaken for another.... http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-replication-and-causes-of-mutation-409

Here is a plot of how a thrown object falls. The dots are 1 second apart. In this example, it is thrown with a horizontal velocity of 10m/s. See how it moves 10 m horizontally in each second. But see how the distance it falls vertically increases each second because it is accelerating.

In your diagram you are applying a continuous(?) force sideways and therefore the object will continue to accelerate. When you throw a ball, you give it an initial velocity and then no more force is applied horizontally. Therefore it carries on at the same speed horizontally. Meanwhile, completely independently, it accelerates downwards.

As I say, it is very easy to test this and find out that your intuition is wrong. That is why science works: it doesn't accept "common sense" or what "seems right". It tests it to find out what really happens.

Less than what might be required. (As in "too little food" or "too little oxygen") You described the negative effects of radiation. What the OP asked was about the possible negative effects of absence of radiation. But I also assumed he meant ionizing radiation, rather than say sunlight (or TV broadcasts).

Wrong. One important thing to understand in these sort of simple examples is that (perhaps surprisingly) if you throw the rock sideways, it always has the same sideways velocity. It doesn't slow down (until it hits the ground). On the other hand, it's vertical velocity starts at zero and accelerates due to the force of gravity. This force is less on the moon so it accelerates more slowly so it takes longer to reach the ground. That is why it goes further: it has the same sideways velocity but it takes longer to reach the ground and so it can travel furtehr sideways. Does that make sense? By the way, this is all very easy to measure and confirm that things really do behave like that. (I remember doing something with cameras and strobe lights ...) So this isn't just "repeating known science" or "copying from a book" as you like to complain. You could even confirm this behaviour for yourself, if you wanted.

Yes, but you gave a proper example rather than a vague "there are differences ..."

Maybe. Although there is a known asymmetry between matter and antimatter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_violation And there may be more, that we don't know about to explain why the universe is mainly matter. (Or antimatter, if you prefer to call it that. )

Potential energy is not "output". It is something an object gains when lifted against gravity, for example. Firstly, 9.8 m/s2 is not a force. It is an acceleration. In your diagram nothing is accelerating downwards because the force upwards from the ground equals the force of gravity downwards. I don't see where density comes into it. Density is the mass per unit volume. So s small object that weighs 1kg is denser than a large object that weighs 1kg. I don't even know what that means. A square law means that one value increases by the square of the value of another. For example, the area of a circle is 9 time bigger if you increase the radius by 3 times. An inverse square law means that something decreases by the square of the value of another. For example, gravity is 9 times less if you are 3 times as far away.

If it is isotropic, then it doesn't have a direction. OK. That isn't what "singularity" means. But never mind, we are used to that by now... Are you asking: if there is a single mass, then gravity will produce a force towards it (equally in all directions) and potential energy will increase as you move away from it (equally in all directions) ? Then yes. (Although how you define potential energy in the absence of another mass is a problem ...)

Again, laser. The S stands for 'stimulated' because one photon causes another to be emitted in phase.

True. I was thinking of a more more general balance of forces in a static system. Not the same thing as Newton's law. Most of your diagrams are hard to decipher. This one is impossible. I don't have a clue what it is supposed to represent. I'm not sure what you mean by "singularity". If you mean a mass with zero volume, then this changes nothing (as far as gravity is concerned). You have arrows marked "isotropic" which seems contradictory: isotropic means the same in all directions.

Really? What evidence do you have for that? Go on then. Do it.

No. IQ has nothing to do with it. It is lack of knowledge and lack of mathematics. The fact think plasma physics sounds simple, is just an indication that you know nothing about it.

It doesn't help when you just throw random words in that have no apparent connection to anything that was said. Not really. You would only "fly" if you became negatively charged if there was something else negatively charged below you, or something positively charged above you. You can, of course, demonstrate this effect by rubbing a balloon and picking up little bits of paper. It would be impractical to lift something with the weight of a person. The charges required would be impractical and would be discharged in a big flash. And "frequency" is completely irrelevant. It is just a magic sounding buzzword you threw in.

Except: 1. there is need for any such stopping force 2. there is no evidence for any such stopping force and 3. if there were any such stopping force our models would not work. And they do. As shown above, there is something seriously wrong with your ideas: they do not work on the real world. Except there is no such thing as antigravity.