Bishadi

nope, as then a magnet would be like cryptonite! case closed! funny stuff as that can be proven wrong by cutting it open for brain surgery. when wishing to comprehend 'consciousnees' think of a whole bunch of em running on a whole bunch of fibers and the combining; the mass is resonating a heat (the combining energy in coheranance is where consciousness exists) (ie... the 'heat' word was just for an analogy) think of the coherance of energy when thinking conscious (to go biblical or even infra red; think of the aura) or better still; when someone dies, all the same mass is there but the 'lights are out' or.. when sleeping, no awareness of self (kind of practicing death and most don't know it)

sure i am aware, just as each musical instrument has it's own tune my add... think in the lines of comparing usable building blocks; electrical: binary(on/off) see chips for computers then compare to mass (the range and molecular variations) and the spectrum of electromagnetism. Think of mass as just 'holding' a resonance (soliton/photon) and when some systems (resonant) come into contact, the combining increases total power of the energy. (i suggest this is how the phospholipid bilayers assemble; the resonant energy is associating without structural bonds between the lipids (rather peptide)) or even 'common sense'; 2 men; each can lift a maximum but together they can lift more than the sum of their individual maximums (basics) that last paragraph part was an analogy to assist in what is being observed (simply that all mass that ever combines to make a molecule is because of em) ie... no electron even 'jumps' without it. (bohring model) Tunneling? (is that Gibbs free energy?) What frame is that derived from? now if you are masking the heme in the cytochromes then find THAT iron based molecule can retain a HUGE range of wavelengths; the 688nm, heck most of 300's on up in many oxigenase configs have you ever done homework on the P680? that is the horse of plants and go look at how the INCREASE of energy occurs during the process... (perhaps another thread)

Looks like some interesting work came out of NorthWestern http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehler/nerves.htm http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehler/contents.htm#cont3 the online reading kind of like a course study on a hypothesis any think this idea has merit? perhaps some of the posters can add a bit and share with us

each element has a different refractive index http://interactagram.com/physics/optics/refraction/ the STP for each is just the bench to measure from i am getting the impression that you are suggesting, if the STP of the system is the same, that no matter the element; the refraction would be the same; i disagree the wheels STP in this case are dead provide link wrong.... the mass can change the wavelength and re-emit. (think of what 'heat' is) i never said that was NOT TRUE either..... i said "not necessarily" but the pub shared how the mass, can change the orientation and filter as the em is exchanged what? not absorbed and yet 're-emitted'.............???? common sense tells you ANY exchange with em is mass related you are arguing for nothing and i have yet to figure out why The STP thing in itself was rediculous.... you have been trying to suggest the mass, environment, etc.... has nothing to do with why gamma rays ionizing mass the reason gamma and the so called gamma bursts are so scary is because it 'easily' ionizes mass of living mass and is throught to cause cancer..... (a whole lot BETTER than radio, visible, vhf...etc of the em spectrum) the gamma is a hammer and i say the reason is that some mass in some environments can capture it better than others. kind of like a radio being tuned in to KMET (twiddle-dee to heaven 94.7 KMET, twiddle deee)

that is not fair are you describing a SNARE? but that analogy you posted is incorrect wow..... they measure microfilaments, micotubules and cytoskeleton in nm, just like nanotubes (organic or not) both "grow" an that growth is still considered magic; no matter the discipline. my comment was "nano tubular-like structures" as for light and tubule STRUCTURES (nano sized) from even simple article http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/hardware/0,39042972,39161987,00.htm http://news.cnet.com/The-stuff-of-dreams/2009-1008_3-5091267.html i would suggest any who enjoys the future material in the works, focus on the conveyance of energy via em (light) and nano structures.

Mokele, eating is not random! (instinct is not random) ie.... if life evolved from a weee little cell a billion or so yrs back, and that living cell divided and combined and finally made a man/women; then the FACT is, that life has not equilibriated for billions of years. (breaks "the law", at each reproduction) there is no greater evidence than life itself. so the evidence is apparent, as it is the current 'law' (math) that has blinders over the comprehension. now above (on life) shares just how different reality is in comparison to the science and how mankind has come to believe in the uncertainties of the current paradigm. So what that means is many of the published items will not reflect in the words and posture that will contest the 2nd but i do and why it seems so esoteric. But if you are truly serious, then i will finish this request what it requires is combining a few disciplines of math, evidence and common sense; not law abiding crap just to make 'steam engine' ideology work. (that is the period the 2nd was incorporated) (see planck's 1901 pub) may seem like that but it isn't so. in fact, that 'flow' is what i contested many moons ago and is what prompted the my first paper on the subject (photon neuron conduction, 83') (just to give yu an idea of 'how long' i have been in this game) let's start with this pub and note the 'actin' this pub shares the use of energy in frequencies (laplace; autocorrelation (from the combining energy)), the non-equilibriation, the 'active forces' of the cytoskeleton (energy/signaling(my opinion)) http://lanl.arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0901/0901.3087.pdf now be fair... because we are starting at the basics while answering your question. This pub is just one of hundreds that will build the pyramid to assist any who are really interested in making a difference.

what is the difference? kindly asking

that is strawman as it is like asking "show me evolution at the molecular scale" (the math is off, not the phenomenon) see Solitonic effects of the local electromagnetic field on neuronal microtubules http://cogprints.org/3894/1/Tubulin_tail_solitons.htm but i have bunches more the brain is not running on electricity like some binary computer (my opinion)

what is the ref index of a diamond? in comparison to the He gas for dual noble gas maser? STP shares that the molar scale of the mass is relevant. You just don't see it that way. i know and the STP and mass of the gas is absolutely relevant to the differences. so is bringing up STP and suggestin the mass of the gas is no mass to observe or even this line ***One of them interacts many many times, one of them does not interact at all.**** in which you share nothing of evidence to any of the statements not neccessarily see this item on polarizers and a patent in the works http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20090702ptan20090168172.php i am, the mass is most relevant and you just don't like that

that is an analogy perhaps another could be to combine "mass, energy and time." The process (description) of the transistion; everything else must fall into place. Meaning; the truth of the matter will perhaps be a weeeee bit different than what the bohring model has imposed to current ideologies (paradigm) just as ptolemy offered causality for almost 1500 yrs, when newton came in; all the rules changed and since then QM itself continues to evolve (weak force and em have already been combined) didn't feynman suggest leave the door ajar? better yet here To decide upon the answer is not scientific. In order to make progress, one must leave the door to the unknown ajar RF

for STP........... ?????????????????? Wow! I thought you were talking about 'molar volume of gas' (the standard to the system; standard conditions for pressure and temperature) you said **For the simplest thing look at the refractive indices of simple gases at STP and how they vary and note how it is not related to mass.*** and i share that 'it is relevant' and even to establish the stp, the relevance is represented. then which way.....? it is all em (electric and magnetic fields at perpendicular planes) what is so different? you can't have a gas without mass. please look up masing; you are not helping and simply arguing without basis i used the glass as an analogy you state the reason as being 'not the same as why visible light passes through glass'.................. i didn't say it was the same; i claimed that the mass is as relevant as the glass is to light and for some reason you post STP and mention gas but again fail to observe the mass of the gas (pressure.. temp...: environment) of your rebuttal

you gotta big ToE? will it resolve the transition of energy to mass and back (fission/fussion)? How about gravity? Looking forward to what others have come up with. Does life 'abuse entropy'?

not much random about life (my opinion) (otherwise show me random in a living system) so you are suggesting that salt water aint electrical either are you ready? are you familiar with feshbach or stochastic systems? what about even schroadingers 'what is life' and how HE claimed 'neg-entropy' (have you read his book?) but of all items; life is what i know best

Wow! Then can define how life works?

then what molar content? it seems you missed something there; the stp is quite relevant to the mass i said 'almost' in the sense that gamma goes thru most everything just like light does thru a glass; it was to allow the conceptualization of observing the mass as the most relevant factor. what 'many events'? and why NO absorbtion? ("""(for the gas of the photon coming out the other side), """) sure it is, the mass imposed is quite relevant. Along with the environment........... what is so tough about that? the probability can be adjusted by changing the conditions (mass, volume, environment) even as the STP (condition; molar standards) share perhaps look up a weeeee bit on masers and find that mass can change the wavelength as the energy is passing through (kind of like how water slows light (standard)) and no absorption and/or absorption followed by re-emission; is still based on the mass, volume and environment; nothing has changed

i guess if you want it to be; did you miss this the idea is that the mass is the reason because every atom has electrons (per se) and the mass, volume and environment is quite relevant to how each element is affected when any em (gamma or otherwise) is imposed to calculate a probability? maybe the descriptions are different but the process is not; the process exists, the descriptions vary. exaclty and why 'clearly wrong' was made moot you keep capitalizing NEVER, that was my first. you said gamma 'never'.......blah quote blah """Gamma ray photons come out of materials because they are NEVER absorbed""" you keep saying that and i am getting a kink in my neck you post fermi probabilities where volume, environment and time is relevant but for some reason did not comprehend; i already know that. do i need to continue looking up!

depends on what you define as "plasma" technically, to remove an electron from a hydrogen atom and you have plasma of one atom (13.6ev) how about inventions? http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=2004059653 and lots in google http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=plasma+from+hydrogen&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

correct and some mass can absorb some energy levels while others can't which statement and why; please?! help me learn what is failing your understanding so i can learn how to comprehend you and maybe others who feel the same way. depends on the material mass of the glass; in my view then why use "irradiation" in medical fields? would that mean no more cancer from (per se) gamma ray bursts or even nuclear weapons? for some reason 'clearly wrong' cannot be used in your comment without your credibility being questioned. okey dokey...... that is my favorite place to dwell; in evidence

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question404.htm i like any honest comment, but degree or no degree a 14 yr old can have a greater amount of depth, now a days because of the internet; then even einstein feynman and hawking combined. when a claim of 'nothing like that' is made against something i personally have researched; then they best know what they talking about and be capable to the last word (math) i did not comment to mislead and will always be responsible before posting on any subject. I found his comment erroneous and have provided information to assist others in overcoming the complacent as well. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged shall we ass.u.me that this forum is more of a personality contest? i offered wiki to assist the rookies with the basics.... (heck i thought each in this section would already know most everything posted) (we haven't even played tic tac toe......... yet)

http://lanl.arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+pooser/0/1/0/all/0/1 here is tool see 3rd item hit pdf and review the whole pub if you like enjoy p/s..........notice all the work on the subject; its the hot one on the globe!

what is 'nothing like that'? perhaps a few more lines of education; but to focus on glass and what 'the community' represents then allow the same 'common sense' approach just the basics on 'how stuff works' even when the local gang is stubborn; reality will stand up all by itself!

perhaps see lorenz it was how maxwell confirmed electromagnetic energy lasing and masing is combining same 'f' but increasing the 'what' to define the total power? YOU may not comprehend the comments because YOU do not have enough scope of knowledge but many have been tapping on the same thing for a long long time. ie... the 'standard model' does not combine the variety of scientific knowledge and why YOU do not understand the comment. so i suspect your comment is just based on a reduced scope Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged i would not wish to negotiate when science is being observed what i would like FROM the Mods is to be able to cause inquiry rather than isolate what may not have made the 'collective' knowledge. meaning; the sciences are performing all over the world, but the books are not updated. so in each comment, sure i can provide data just please identify to either the math or the idiom that is not understood. be fair, please

what would you like over and above what you can experience and comprehend yourself if the brain, was running on electrical impulses putting your head into a 3 tesla magnet (MRI) would , do what? from the most basics of eletronics to a paper clip; what happens when either is close to a magnet of such imposition (gauge theory)? so just because the 'common sense' is not going to be found in the 'normal' publications........... does not make the opening post and his questions unanswerable. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged another post with the ad hominen attacks why not quote what i posted some do but for the most part you are being real smart in identifying a flaw. so i noted the same as you shared while offering a consistant truth to the OP inquiry let's be fair; you will create a real difference between us if your comments persist without having the capacity to articulate your concerns

there is more: and http://www.jqi.umd.edu/news/80-entangled-images-and-delayed-epr-entanglement.html note in BEC the coherance can be maintained coupled with just leaving the doors ajar

that don't make sense logically. ex.... a star is bound mass versus open space (which is of lower energy?) not to mention life consumes (energy) then to observe the solution seems to add NaCl; the water can then retain more energy but mathematically your claim can be made to makes sense (2nd law to chemistry but not via quantum chemistry (resonant energy transfer) Note: Foerster coupling (Hamiltonian- energy shift between mass) in this frame the energy is the specimen versus the mass (product.) this thread was asking why gamma is not ionizing mass the idea is that the mass is the reason because every atom has electrons (per se) and the mass, volume and environment is quite relevant to how each element is affected when any em (gamma or otherwise) is imposed Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged you can quote with [ quote ] (front of clip) then [ /quote] post clip (remove spaces) but nice to see you are sharing the agreement are postings of such insults normal around here? and since your memory will not be able to convey the answer without your insults; perhaps be nice and ask questions before posting such especially when yu share the agreement to the underlying principle.