Eise

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    1109
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Eise last won the day on April 22

Eise had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

356 Beacon of Hope

About Eise

  • Rank
    Organism

Profile Information

  • Location
    the old world
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Physics, Astronomy
  • Biography
    University degree philosophy, subsidary subject physics
  • Occupation
    Database administrator, a bit of Linux too

Recent Profile Visitors

6708 profile views
  1. Eise

    The inconvenient truth about genetics

    I am not so sure. The DNA is part of the fertilized egg, and the egg brings the 'correct interpreter' for the DNA with it. Surely the DNA contains the blueprint for all proteins of the cell, but if that is enough to know when which gene is read, and what happens with the synthesised protein afterwards I am no so sure. It really looks like a a kind of recursive loop, that might change by mutations in DNA, but also by changes in the (direct) environment of the DNA. So it becomes an egg-chicken (egg-DNA?) question: what was first?
  2. Eise

    The inconvenient truth about genetics

    I am wondering a bit why DanielBoyd got so many negatives on his OP. I think some people read it as another Intelligent Design posting, but it isn't. But as OP in a new thread, it is a bit long. Flying over it can lead to some wrong conclusions. But of course DanielBoyd is also to blame for this, given the title of the thread, and the, in my opinion, superfluous mentioning of entropy and its provocative title. For me it is clear that the DNA does not, and cannot, contain all information to build or even identify an organism (except of course by just comparing DNA of known organisms). It needs the complete apparatus of the living cell that the DNA can fulfill its function. A viewpoint one can use is that of a message and its interpretation. A message can only be interpreted by a correct interpreter. AFAIK the cellular 'interpreter' of DNA is not 'neutral'. Even if we had the complete DNA of some dinosaur, we will not be able to reconstruct how it looked like, because how the information is interpreted depends on what the dinosaur cell did with it. (So the Jurassic Park idea, to exchange frog DNA with dinosaur-DNA and so let grow a dinosaur, will not work, because the frog-egg has not the correct environment for the DNA to produce a dinosaur.) So I agree with DanielBoyd that DNA contains the design of an organism is not correct, even if DNA of course has a strong influence on what the organism will look like. It is more like a list of ingredients of a recipe. And of course there are all kind of feedback loops in the mechanism, where proteins synthesized according to a gen, has impact on what the cell does (directly or indirectly), and so possibly also on what genes will be read later on.
  3. Eise

    Im a bit concerned about 28 minus points

    Oh, a nice hypothesis to test! He is at -51 now (10:40 MET DST), and he joined last Sunday 23:18. Personally, I hope our mastermind will start reading science books, and we will get questions, asking for explanations for passages he does not understand, instead of bombarding us with ideas which only display his ignorance.
  4. Eise, your answers are bloody brilliant, been reading your other posts, there really informative and easy to understand. Don't mean to be nosy but have you ever been a teacher?

    1. Show previous comments  3 more
    2. koti

      koti

      Well, there are at least a couple of ways to SEE it :P 

    3. Eise

      Eise

      ... hhhnnnngggg.... No, I do not react... I do not react.... I do not... see1 or... NO,NO, not again!

    4. koti
  5. Eise

    The Golden Ratio and my face: Superior genetics?

    I think it fits to a personality disorder. My first guess is narcissist personality disorder, maybe schizotypal.
  6. Eise

    A new quantum number for antimatter?

    No. Link. And I don't know if you were just ironic, but to be sure: an electron in an atom is completely characterized by 4 quantum numbers. Introducing a new one therefore would be the fifth. No idea why thethinkertank came at the idea that it would be the third number. I assume because he thinks a lot, but does not know a lot...
  7. Eise

    Well, I emailed CERN

    That does not work anymore when the oceans get too acidic. Learn chemistry and nautal biology, before you spout the nonsense you do here. No, no, don't think. Start learning.
  8. Eise

    Well, I emailed CERN

    Show this balance.
  9. Eise

    Well, I emailed CERN

    You see that word 'carbonic acid', don't you? You want to dissolve all shellfish. You know, their shells are made amongst others by CaCO3, which is bad solvable in water, however it reacts with acids, and will (partially) dissolve. Wow. I am already able to correctly construct English words. A milestone.
  10. Eise

    Well, I emailed CERN

    Exactly. Both Na2CO3 and NaHCO3 dissolve very good in water, as does NaCl. So all ions will stay in solution in the water, however the H+-ions introduced by the CO2 solution in water will contribute to the acidification (is that English?) of the sea. So it is really a bad idea.
  11. Eise

    Well, I emailed CERN

    That is not 'research'. Mostly googling is picking the ideas you like, whatever the source, true or not, etc. Otherwise it is called 'reading', or if you really discuss the scientific articles, it might be called studying'. It is only research if you make your own observations or experiments, that are at least interesting for the present frontiers of science. But if you do not even know where the frontiers of science are, or worse, do not even know the facts and theories of established science (e.g. anti-matter), you just saying something, with no scientific value whatsoever. Why don't you learn some science? Buy an introductory book of the subject that interests you most, to begin with. But take care with popularisations. Some topics (e.g. quantum physics or general relativity) are so technical, that popularisations often use metaphors to give the reader at least a hint what is going on. Taking these metaphors as scientific truths will let you run astray again.
  12. Eise

    Well, I emailed CERN

    Exactly. You don't even know the box. Or just write it in the email to CERN. BTW, what has CERN to do with global warming? (Well they use much energy, so CERN is greatly contributing to global warming (relatively)).
  13. Eise

    Why IQ tests are a farce

    This is the problem in nearly every thread you open. You heard some science-words, apply your fantasy, undamped by any knowledge what these words really mean, and for what concepts they really stand, and then think you can apply for patents, or will get famous for how you stimulated progress in science. Creativity and intuition are very important in theory building in science. But only when you understand what the present theories are and mean. You fail utterly on that. You are on a pure ego-trip.
  14. Eise

    A new quantum number for antimatter?

    Yes, there are several quantum numbers, but they do not explain energy states, they are firmly underpinned by QED. I don't think an electron has a degree of freedom to become a positron. That just makes no sense. And as a positron impossibly can be part of a normal matter atom because it has a positive charge (not even talking about its immanent annihilation by an electron), and is exactly the opposite in its properties in every aspect except its mass from the electron, I think the Pauli principle does not even apply. You are definitely overthinking this. No. First, as implied by the above, if this 'new quantum number' does not roll out of QED, it has no physical meaning. Second, I have no idea why your idea would explain the imbalance in matter and antimatter. Third? It would be the fifth.
  15. Eise

    Dry tantalum capacitors

    The higher the energy of the particle, the bigger the chance that it will tunnel through. And higher voltage means higher energy for the particle. Maybe this diagram helps a little to get the idea: Now imagine that the particle has more energy (= more voltage), so in the diagram, the wave is higher than the potential barrier. And in your case of aluminium oxide, the voltage is much higher than the potential barrier. So you will not be 'quantum executed' but executed in the old classical way.