Where in this world will i get a man of my dream,he must be God fearing man,hardworking,humble royal,respectful,intelligent,not too tall,slim good looking and above all faithful man(not a womanizer)

The question could not be more delightfully presented.



The response - spatial logic - is part of the answer and Guru Lukin in his impatience has left the thread hanging with just 10% done.

If we focus on math & science, we have to step back to foundation years: high school math. Around this time for instance, geometry is natural for boys - as they tend to play ball and more than the throw they follow the curve of the ball and learn to field a catch. So when boys put their mind to it - geometry works for them. On the other hand if girls were drawing up 3D pictures while young; the field evens up between both genders.

Move to arithmetic: The numbers series can be followed, in fact girls should be able to discern patterns faster; but when it comes to formulas like compound interest - boys can sense the geometric rise between different rates - because of focus (i think). You see, catching a ball requires some sort of 'tunnel vision', and same goes while working on arithmetic formulas. (As I recall school days, graph paper fascinated me most).

Then comes algebra: Boys are relatively 'poor' in language. so when they see a - b = 3 there is a natural affinity towards such abbreviation.

Girls, from what I remember, are stronger in chemistry and bio-sciences. This could be due from their familiarity with 'cooking' and it's easier to see a 'compound' when you can make a perfect omelet. Or it could be because of their extra-ordinary language abilities - they find stories encapsulated within cells and other tissue materials. Fact is, as they are more organized at this high school years - they easily build on the 'stories', from building blocks to whole organs. Boys for some reason can rarely go beyond acid + alkali reactions and blood cells or the circulation systems. Ask them about the pancreas role in the digestive system (at high school) & one can see the effort visible on their faces. It's because pancreas does not come 'alive' in their minds.

So math to physics or vice-a-versa has strong links to the playing field & spatial logic.

There's another aspect: boys don't get overwhelmed with physics. Maybe it's the kite flying or paper planes; if the teacher inspires then they easily
get fascinated into physics. So when faced with a new problem, they comfortably break it down to familiar pieces.

So in my opinion: The processor called the brain gets defined by the applications it is most put on use to.

This commonsense theory is too late but you could leverage your latent capability in a slightly different manner. Google the history of any topic in math / physics - 'the story in the discovery process' may catch the imagination. I sincerely think Newton hiding his 'crib notes' on gravity
and calculus was grave injustice. Leibniz, with his integral calculus
was the greater teacher. Talk about language - Leibniz was the better 'articulator'; Newton, for all his gifts, hated him for the rest of his life.

So it is with all men, we cannot live with the more articulate women.
- Just be warned. But if a woman used abbreviated language, men could get along better with them.

Goodluck.

False. Homeopathy is useless as a field of study, and its treatments have been shown again and again to be no more effective than placebo.

Of course, the homeopathy con is also big business! And any time something is big business, there are people invested in lying to themselves and to other people.

There is so much BS 'evidence' out there that homeopathy is supposedly effective. Dig deeper and you find paid-off researchers, bad statistical analysis, and extreme cherry picking.

It seems to have started in India and spread throughout gradually. Pythagoras or Jesus I don't care, back then we were a less intelligent species so more likely to fall for stories of Noah and the whale more likely to assume things and try to put 2 and 2 together as opposed to the might of study and experimentation of today that yields answers. I did not watch programs or read stories to "open my mind" because watching and listening other peoples convincing lies are too easy, testing things for yourself is the only true way to believe. Just because Steven Hawking publishes in tomorrows papers that he has a theory of reincarnation it will only remain a theory until we can put it to test and achieve results near 100% of the time. It makes more sense to live life like its your last than abuse the one you have because some 80 year old tells you he thinks that there is the slimmest of chances that you might yet roam the earth for a second or millionth time. I would like to take this opportunity to ask if you could be reincarnated into ANY other animal besides human what would it be?

What is 'dark matter'?

Some of us are still hung on why white matters, like this one:





Do you mean the one on parallel universe..
or
are you referring to the alter-ego of gravity?

or is this linked to the CERN Lab?

Lukin,
unless you flesh the subject I'm going to ask you just one question,
what's the color of the cat you are holding, I mean under the white fur??

it seems just another way for scientists to push the big bang theory on us again... it emits no light and cannot be seen... just another mathematical equation someone came up to try to see why the universe is expanding the way it is...


personally, i think the universe is eternal and has no boundaries, so the "new" galaxies they find are just coming into our field of view...maybe when the James Webb space telescope goes up, they will be able to know more about how the universe works without guessing with some mathematical equations...

http://jwst.nasa.gov/

The magnetic field is already factored in. The "L" variable is the portion of a suitable planet's time in existence where it can support life and the life becomes intelligent. There are many stars near the Galactic core where the ambient radiation is simply too high to support life as we know it due to the proximity of nearby high radiation stars regardless of whether the planet has a magnetic field or not. Conversely, a newer category of stars (not new in general but new as expected to be able to support life) is expected to boost the Drake equation's net result astronomically, (pun intended) by recognizing red dwarfs as good possible sources.

The Goldilocks zone is already taken into account by the calculated solar output of various size and type stars. Red Dwarfs have a much longer lifespan with a much more stable output that other types of stars but it forces the life to be more dependent upon infrared radiation than the broad spectrum output of most stars. The bright side (pun intended) of this issue is that life is extremely tolerant of infrared radiation anyway and the lack of strong solar wind could negate the need for much or any magnetic field to protect life.

Planets have a more or less predictable pattern of formation. The physics of orbital momentum cause the planets to orbit the star in the same direction. The parts, which end up forming the planets, cause the planets to spin in the same direction. The formation of the rocky planets cause the whole planet to melt and spin in the same direction and only a hard hit with another planet or similar event can change that pattern.

The planet Uranus is an example of this break in pattern. It was probably hit by another planet large enough to destabilize the spin and tilt it on it's axis.

Odd exceptions aside, as the outer skin of the planets cool and the heavier metals like iron sink to the core, the difference in the angular momentum (just like an ice skater going into a spin) between the inner core and outer mantel cause a speed deferential. The spinning iron core then acts like a huge dynamo which creates the magnetic field until the core cools enough to stop spinning independently. Then, just like Mars, the field stops and the solar wind blows the atmosphere away and the water with it. Life must do it's thing in that window of time.

Red Dwarf stars give a greater window of time.

From Wiki: (but I already knew this)

"In addition, the sheer number of red dwarfs, which account for about 85% of at least 100 billion stars in the Milky Way, increases the number of habitable planets that may be orbiting them; as of 2013, there are expected to be roughly 60 billion habitable red dwarf planets in the Milky Way."