Men who are physically strong are more likely to take a right wing political stance, while weaker men are inclined to support the welfare state, according to a new study.

...

The researchers collected data on bicep size, socio-economic status, and support for economic redistribution from hundreds of people in the United States, Argentina and Denmark.

Professor Petersen said: ‘Despite the fact that the United States, Denmark and Argentina have very different welfare systems, we still see that - at the psychological level - individuals reason about welfare redistribution in the same way.

‘In all three countries, physically strong males consistently pursue the self-interested position on redistribution.’

Men with low upper-body strength, on the other hand, were less likely to support their own self-interest.

(Is bicep size an accurate measure of physical upper-body strength?)

The study also found that there was no such correlation in women.

Skip to the bottom and read the “Best Rated” and “Worst Rated” comments for additional laughs:

“There is also a reverse intelligence correlation. Strong men, low intelligence = right wing. Weaker men, higher intelligence = left wing. The math of evolution.”

“This does not surprise me one bit. Of course leftwingers are weak. Why else would they want everyone else to take care of them?”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130519145653.htm

‘Phytoplankton (planktonic algae) are the base of the entire food chain in the world’s oceans, and all other organisms, from the foraminifera and radiolarian to megascopic predators like crustaceans to fish all the way up to whales, feed directly or indirectly on them. Phytoplankton are the single largest producer of the oxygen we breathe (much more important oxygen producers than land plants), and in many places in the ocean they are so abundant that they pave the sea bottom with trillions of their shells. In fact, the rock known as chalk is actually made of millions of skeletons of coccolithophorids and a few foraminifera. Phytoplankton are so important to life on this planet that any major crisis in their evolution has caused mass extinctions all the way up the food chain. To a great extent, none of us would be here without the oxygen that phytoplankton release, and the food that they provide for the life of the sea.’

This knowledge should put in perspective the issue of global climate change and the effect it is having on the oceans of our planet. It is quite fascinating on our pale blue dot how the micro can so effect the macro in due time.

1.  We live in an oil-based civilization that is increasingly stressed to find and exploit sufficient oil to provide for 8 billion people’s needs
2.  There are insufficient known oil deposits, no matter how extracted, to meet those needs for more than 50-100 years at most
3.  No known alternative energy sources are available that can replace oil in any sufficient degree.
4.  Conservation, wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, and nuclear will and should be pursued, but are in total insufficient to replace oil.
5.  Climate change is occurring, more rapidly than once predicted, but the causes aren’t clear and may well include solar and volcanic variables over which we have no control
6.  Given 1-4 above, we’ll not as a species decrease using oil for as long as it can be exploited.
7.  Between 1-4 and 5, massive and catastrophic social conflicts and change are in the fairly immediate future (within 25-50 years)
8.  People will only conserve if and when financial costs fuel exceed their comfort level, and not for environmental reasons
9.  The few energy sources that seem promising are: (a) nuclear, but I’m not sure of fuel resources; (b) methane ocean floor deposits

Comments?

Ah, my favorite subject, nothing.

I love Krauss and his Universe From Nothing but one issue I have is that it kicks the can down the road as noted by Holt,

Holt certainly agrees that quantum field theory is the best available description of our known universe, but he thinks that Krauss’s explanation is incomplete. It answers the question: why does the universe look the way it does? with another equally mysterious explanation: because quantum fields make it so. To Holt, the obvious next question is: so where do these quantum fields come from?

Which is why my signature is what it is and always will.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130515203048.htm

I see similarity in two models, the first is the model of the atom. Most pictures of the model of an atom show a nucleus being orbited by subatomic particles in a circular motion. This helps to easily distinguish what does what but in actuality the subatomic particles move around the nucleus in an elliptical pattern rather than a circular pattern. The next model to look at is the model of our solar system. Its usually illustrated by our sun in the center, with the planets orbiting around in a circular pattern, again we know that the planets move around the sun in an elliptical pattern which helps us have different seasons in the periods when we’re closer to the sun.

This brings me to the question, Is there any correlation between the way subatomic particles move around their nucleus and the way our planets move around our sun? The only thing I could think of is that energy behaves the same way on an atomic level as it does on a large scale, but I do not profess that this is the true answer.

Any and all input is greatly appreciated