(scientific answers only please)?
94823
There's a new quasi-scientific theory being bandied about called "memetics."  Although the idea is still in its infancy, it has some interesting potential.  The idea stems from the notion of evolution from a gene's perspective--that an individual gene has no "concern" for the organism that propagates it; rather, if it happens to flourish it will become abundant.  If, by chance, it should convey an advantage to its host such that its host becomes more prosperous and abundant, then so much the better; but that isn't expressly a requirement.  The notion emerges to help explain things like viruses, and genes that are advantageous in a the heterozygous creature but detrimental to the homozygous creature (like the gene for sickle cell anemia--the disease results from being homozygous--that is, havving two copies--of the gene, while being heterozygous--having one copy--can convey a resistance to malaria).\n\nThat much we know.  But when looking from this reductionist perspective, we find that there are three essential elements to evolution: replication with retention of traits, variation, and selection.  With those three factors combined, any system will necessarily result in an evolutionary pattern.\n\nHere's where the idea of memes come in.  Memes are behaviors or behavioral patterns that can be copied by one person from another.  From the memetics standpoint, this tendency to instinctively copy behaviors is THE defining trait of the human.  As babies, we copy facial expressions and phonemes (phonemes are the building blocks of sound in a given language), we copy grammar, we copy tool making and usage, etc.  Synchronized/choreographed dance is a good example of a behavior unique to humans existing in all cultures and centered around mimicry.  At any rate, these behaviors that we might copy--be they languages, tool, stereotyped motions, religion, philosophy, whatever--are collectively called memes.\n\nWhile there hasn't yet been a rigorously scientific theory developed, there are certain elements that many biologists can agree upon.  Human evolution is dominated by a form of meme-gene co-evolutionary process.  The core idea that reults is this: while a meme might be detrimental to an individual, and hence reduce the chances of an individual progenating and passing genes to a next generation, if can simultaneously be beneficial to a group that propagates that meme.  Hence, it will be evolutionarily favored.\n\nAs an example, let's look at self-sacrifice in a battle.  An individual who sacrifices his life for a "greater good" will reduce his own chances of reproducing.  At first glance, we should regard this as evolutionarily detrimental, and hence, something that should be eliminated by evolution.  But in the broader perspective, a nation or culture that places a premium on courage and the willingness to sacrifice oneself for the greater good will thrive in an armed conflict, since the people will work better as a unified and courageous fighting force.  The benefits to the community as a whole are evolutionarily out-weighed by the few losses of those who sacrifice their lives--hence, the community sharing and promoting that meme thrives.  Those who are evolutionarily best suited to adopt, promote, and maintain memes become some of the most prosperous in a society unified by memes.  Things like IQ would correlate well with the ability to adapt memes.  In the long run, the genepool would select towards the ability to acquire and propagate useful memes, or even to innovate new memes.\n\nThe lesson of the last several thousand years has been that those with the best memes win.  Those memes include things like math and science as well as religion.  Becoming religious would carry a small risk of finding yourself in a position to be sacrificed in the name of your God or gods, but it would carry the certain benefit of having the protection of the entire religious community.  During the Da
856622
Glad to see you're thinking, but this is an easily answered question.  \n\nTake for example a magnet.  Regardless of what is in front of your magnet it will still attract an object to a distance equal to its strength.\n\nex:\n\n.....(|)<<<< <[]<<<<<<<[]          \n\n......^..............^...... ......^\nMagnet......Metal..... ..Metal\n.................Object.... Object\n\nThe magnet is going to exert force on both of the objects without interference from first object.  \n\nBased on your definition of propagate...come to your own conclusion...that is the joy of thinking...we all have our own thoughts.
663213
I am sorry I can not provide you with an answer to your question. However it might help you get more answers if you put this question in again but put it in the Science and Mathmatics section. Under Physics. I think there are more people willing to help you out there!
866207
the cell dividing force lol. theres no such force. it's a spontaneous occurence
588549
I am not sure I understand the question entirely...perhaps a little more explanation would do...I am curious to know though.
639547
go to www.howstuffworks.com
463641
see\nhttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/surten2.html#c1\n\n here you can find the answer for your question with MATHEMATICAL EXPLANATIONS.
761332
I've found this question with no answers after three days.  I cannot answer it; only someone with a very specialised  background could.\n\nYou will have to place it again - at peak time for prospective Answerers with the requisite background.
1119359
hey wolf ,great question wit a terrible answer n unfortunately i duno tht one . so once u get to knw the answer do temme
99344
If you asked me this same question about 5 yrs ago, I couldve answered without blinking. Now I would have to go back to my notes from when I actually had done the experiment to be of any help. Good Luck
1051025
The question is too open. What experiment are you talking about? If you google science supplies you might find out, although since it's homework most people won't just give you an answer.
348003
Have a look at http://science.howstuffworks.com/power.htm
898375
I know the answer is in my basic physics book.  I would have to look it up.  You should too.
933542
No.  But it's wavelength decreases.\n\n\nDoug
653423
What a ridiculous question, try and let me know! The guy above is right!!!
135532
You can either look it up or determine it experimentally.\nI cant get much more specific without additional details.
577147
This article answers your question.\n\nhttp://www.hhmi.org/cgi-bin/askascientist/highlight.pl?kw=&file=answers%2Fgeneral%2Fans_043.html