ajman2463

well, i was thinking that since magnets aren't affected by low levels of heat, one can use the opposite sides of the magnets to propel a rod in an endless rotation. i was thinking a rod inside of a ring model, sorry i cant show you a picture of my idea, but think of a series of halos with a magnetized rod in the middle, constantly being rotated by the different magnetic fields (n and s)

what are one's thought on perpetual motion? would it be possible using a machine that operated of strong magnets? edit: i spelled perpetual wrong in the topic. whoops

hey, i confused the two for the longest time. You would think it would make more sense to say that when you "reduce" something you make it into a simpler compound. But you know how we biologists aim to confuse things.

of course you can reduce CO2. CO2 is the least reduced/most oxidized. in the carbon pathway, it goes CO2 -> acid -> aldehide -> alchohol -> glucose

the letter "r"

I did this with my 5th grade class that i do hands-on "experiments" with every tuesday. Its also a good high school biology idea, as superbug stated. I still remember doing it in my 9th grade biology class! (and that was years ago!)

first off, i made a mistake with transponders. mistype, i meant chemical transmitters. Panacrine signalling is the signalling of one cell to a neighboring cell. Perhaps the total heat energy is enough to boil away the water? a far-fetched possability i guess. On another note, this occurs in the mitochondria. is there a high percentage of water in the mitochondria? Plus, remember, there are also electrical currents flowing through these cells so that would add to the total heat percentage in the cell. So i believe there is a possability that the combined heat would be enough to ignite a cell. the whole cell would not have to ignite, a part would be enough to cause a chain-reaction. remember, the membrane is hydrophobic, so is there a possability that it would ignite?

It seems to me like you guys are drifting off into physcology mixed with your biology. Physically, the reason we age and eventually die is our telemers shortening until they are gone (then we die) and the fact that everytime our DNA is copied during mitosis it develops errors, (mutations). I've personally never heard of an entire species evolving to protect against one specific disease (cancer). And the fact is that teenage kids cannot raise kids in our new technological world. Thats a social problem, not a biological one. Cancer and the inability to raise kids is something we fear, and not our bodies, if that makes sense, so our bodies dont prepare for these things. Something else is, in my OPINION, is that cancer is not a naturally occuring thing. it is the affect of human inventions that emit radiation and the toxic molecules we create and expose ourselves to, like old insulation, and high-energy producing waves.

The idea behind the weight loss idea is that when you can't turn the enzyme from "energy" mode to "metabolism" mode, your body will begin breaking down the stored fats. as for denaturing the protein, im not sure the exact temp, but it must be above the ignition point, correct? but since it wouldnt be just one cell doing this, it'd be many, since the communicate via transponders, maybe the denaturing point is less the ignition point, but the combined temp of all the cells are higher than the ignition point, causing fire? * oh, and it hasn't been proven, its just a theory. but there is a create deal of evidence supporting the idea. where you can find the evidence on the web, im not sure. I draw my information from my notes i took at a seminar about S.C. at my college

Another theory of combution has nothing to do with static electricity at all. A theory that i tend to lean towards is that which happens during glycolysis. if the enzyme phosphofructokinase malfunctions, our body will constantly start producing ATP and generate heat. As the happens, the temperature of that cell rises, eventually causing the cell to rupture and ignite. other cells around ignite, causing a rise in internal temperature, eventually leading to....boom. spontanous combution. although i believe this is a rather new idea, it is proven (not to cause S.C.) but as a future weight loss idea, since if that enzyme is turned to producing ATP, its not going through it's metabolic pathway. * i could be completely wrong but this is a possibilty?

remember, in a certain area whe pka > pH, you will have the NH3+ where pka < pH, you will only have the two nitrogens.

From what i understand, the hydrogen that combines with the oxygen has no immediate purpose other than being a simple product. the energy that is used to make ATP are the H+'s that are moved across the membrane and into the intermembranal space. Those H+'s are moved into the Region where ATP synthase is, and that energy is used to produce ATP. The electron however, is sent to either a Fe-S protein or cytochrome ( i cant remember which one, it may be either/or)(and doesnt accept H+) and is used in the formation of H2O. *remember, by the time the e- has reached the end of the transport chain, it doesnt have enough energy to move anymore hydrogen, so simple binds with hydrogen to the closest free radical, o2. Hope that makes sense

c6h12o6 is the chemical formula of glucose

Actually, only one third of the universe is matter, the other two thirds is anti-matter and/or dark matter.

basically, yes, it is correct. plants take in the carbon from the co2, the electrons from h2o, and the energy from the photons to reduce co2 into glucose. The electrons, if im not mistakin, are takin from NADPH and added to the carbon reduction pathway to create glucose. If there is a certain part of photosynthesis you want to know about, im sure we can break it down A LOT futher than this I'm not exactly sure what your wanting to find out, but maybe this will clear a little bit up for you. Im not to familiar with photosynthesis. Keep in mind that there is differences between noncyclic photosynthesis and cycic photosythesis in photoautotrophs.