foodchain

Yes but how can you know when the light reached even the surface of the clock, how did it interact with this not only that but then the sensor would have to transmute such information I imagine electronically somehow for record. I think maybe some quantum dots might be able to work but then how do you equate in uncertainty with that measurement being photons are being observed? It would seem you could never know that exact time of something in that if you want my opinion.

I would have suggested saving a page if you had the content, then viewing that saved page after turning off your internet connection, or physically unplugging it.

Well I think stars are a product of a nebula. I think the general picture is a disc of matter forming, and then it going on to become say a star with some satellites. I think some kind of bounds exist in the process being you have in our solar system for instance the terrestrial planets closer to the sun, vs. the gaseous planets on out. I do not know how situational this process is, for instance I don’t know if a solar system is really only meaning a star with satellites similar to how earth is situated.

I have to agree. Technology used by humans still pertains to being either a biotic or abiotic variable if you want. IN regards to environment then I would think that technology should be used that does not threaten us with extinction. I think the continued use of such even while knowing its bad is pretty much going along the same lines as being a crackhead, professionally I would just like to know the difference. I don’t think people have a clue on how to build green technology really. This mountain of a hump has to be overcome at some point really. I was thinking if you could mutate some bacteria to overproduce electrons in relation to photosynthesis, if these electrons could be routed in some medium that would be nifty, I think biotechnology needs more focus, along with solar.

Well going from an empirical standard I would only think such would have any validity if it could say be understood in such a way. With evo-devo such is a good example I think. Its relatively new, it also is not in perfect accordance with modern theory. Such as with the histone code which I think is very interesting. I don’t know if this requires a new title. The central dogma is really simple. The more complicated thing to it I think was the entire discovery process, its that which has really held the impact with say molecular biology. Darwin was just a genius really, I don’t know about every detail of the guys life but I do know that he also had an impact on geology for instance. I also think the in crowd of the time arranged for him to be buried in the same graveyard as Newton. "A unit of selection is a biological entity within the hierarchy of biological organisation (e.g. genes, cells, individuals, groups, species) that is subject to natural selection. For several decades there has been intense debate among evolutionary biologists about the extent to which evolution has been shaped by selective pressures acting at these different levels. This debate has been as much about what it means to be a unit of selection as it has about the relative importance of the units themselves, i.e., is it group or individual selection that has driven the evolution of altruism? When it is noted that altruism reduces the fitness of individuals, it is difficult to see how altruism has evolved within the context of Darwinian selection acting on individuals; see Kin selection." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_of_selection

The idea I get from this is that some differentiation comes from how you put the Pauli exclusion principal. Such as the geometry as I think you are putting it exists from how this occurs or is observed? So an analogy would be because such has this geometry is why impact between objects can exist for instance, sort of like or exactly like an electron in a way? Such as with that if memory serves you have to obey the Pauli exclusion principal and or the hund rule when filling in atomic orbital right? So what I think with this in regards to QM does not put it as some magical force if you want. Rather if QM is continuous but non linear how would it obey itself in time for whatever the definition of time is. That’s why I think it has to hold some properties in common with the concept that is natural selection, in that variance has to hold true in same fashion to simply exist, plus I do not think you could model for a reality that states something that physically exists cant, so I always aim to include evolution somehow anyways. So I would think that momentum and position have to hold a physical basis, I mean classical physics calls for such right, and of course I think such is in relativity right? Yet as with QM both of those theories suffer some kind of limit or shortfall in say ability to predict natural behavior or is it physical behavior?

I don’t think education is lame, I just sort of hate how education is set up. I personally would be better off getting a liberal arts degree, simply for the flexibility. Maybe as student I would like to pursue science from my own view, such as taking x credits in this and y credits in that, but in most universities in the U.S its all been rather industrialized, such as it is you cant really tailor your degree to much to your interests while say having some specific major concentration. Take this for example, I think it would be super cool to try and study if quantum decoherence could help model to origin of life, where the heck am I going to take that idea in college currently? I also think it’s a perfectly valid question, on both counts. So even if you are willing to put up the effort such may not matter overall, so its really the current mechanism I despise because once again its really just seems to industrialized.

I think crackpot science is fine as long as you know how to call such truly. I don’t want to call all modern hypothesis crackpot science, but I would think that crackpot science as called requires a delusional following while at the same time being 100% wrong at every little detail all the way up to basic cornerstones of science. Such as with physics I think its really easy to get it wrong on every little detail, while with biology its easier to see with people who follow a “science” or crackpot science that does not include evolution. With chemistry I do not think crackpot science can succeed being so much of its easily made empirical. I mean with string theory would it be to early to call such crackpot science, or would a better wording be brash endeavor, or finally would it be better to call it a theory we really cant study at this time.

First time I got shocked I was at the crawling stage of life. Second time was in the ninth grade, electricity stopped in my shoulder I think, it felt weird going through my arm. Had some electricity subliminate stainless steel I was holding, thought I had isolated the system but was wrong:D I was outside during a lighting storm when a bolt must have hit nearby, my teeth hurt and the noise was so loud and brief plus I think a window or two got shattered, that was just plain scary.

I got good grade in general psychology for college, I thought it was pretty interesting also save for I worried about how much of a "soft" science it was. I think the link between psyc and biology for instance should be emphasized more, not as a evolutionary psychology thing but more or less because death of the brain as a functional organ is pretty serious, also I don’t think highly enough of myself to ever diagnose someone, I mean that’s so complex.

That would be because of the great robot wars, had to have a ban on time travel after that:D Actually some person tried a study in which basically they made a message that as it was created should have reached the future if time works like that, then again that’s if the earth is intact or even if humans are still homo sapiens when time travel is realized, I mean for whatever its worth I would think that we have no way to understand what our future could be really. As for your fly problem I noticed that if a few of them are together and you wave your hand to shoo them away that the flies will fight more amongst each other in that instance, which is just a neat personal anecdote I think.

I would say no. I think what is lost in looking at genes and selection is that if its selection that would define say fitness, then its adaptation right that wins or loses in time I guess. In this though if say epigenetic mechanisms are the product of genes as via selection this does not mean that epigenetic mechanisms cannot be different per say as with the fact that control of such can be considered cellular in some contexts I think, though don’t quote me on that. So as life down on a gene level can act as like the most base units for natural selection to operate on if you want, some epigenetic mechanism possibly born from this process may influence evolution to a certain extent as another mechanism I guess is how I would say it. Such as both can express in the phenotype. Personally if it were just a mechanism to act as some kind of an environmental logic gate for gene expression it still would have significance to evolution as it would rely to fitness heavily, but the fact that epigenetic changes can persist in reproduction while being able to effect the phenotype is a huge thing really, more so if such can be under cellular control. I think that such should be evident more so in norm of reaction, though I have not looked to much.

This is way cool but I am very confused. When the term multiverse is used, is this is the same sense as the many worlds version? Also, would that make then for the classical world to emerge somehow from this as is? I think that its neat to see evolutionary biology being used in cosmology, I mean if life can occur as is naturally, that has to be able to aid somehow if studied physically.

I think Richard Dawkins is a flagship candidate for the gene centric view of biology. I think epigenetics or evo-devo is interesting because how does it equate into a gene centric view of life? Personally I don’t understand how gene centric view works, I understand importance of DNA, but its a part of a whole, DNA truly by itself is not even a virus. Why epigenetics is important I think is that DNA is viewed in the central dogma as a one way street. With say modification of chromatin structure being posttranslational this includes the phenotype I think to a far greater extent in say population genetics for instance. I don’t think the central dogma is wrong by any means, I just do not think it includes all of the mechanisms that exist in that dogma, even if say its purely random dna mutations and mutations alone to describe say prokaryotes, this does not have to means is the only thing that counts as a molecular mechanism to describe the evolution of life.

Yes, its a theory on chemical evolution, you can find articles about it all over the net including wikipedia. I would think also thermodynamics had a lot to do with it, I just don’t know how it did. I think trying to deduce how this is possible via thermodynamics is a very difficult question. I mean a cell for instance alone is not one uniform continuous sphere of water, there is active differentiation in many ways. So if you could apply thermodynamics to the study of chemical evolution, basically trying to reverse engineer a cell back into geochemistry, the methods used would have to be astounding I think. Plus you also have to be able to follow just that I would think, for trying to include say inheritance in the form of genes would make the study inaccurate to easily via the data load if you then include all of evolution, that’s why I think such would be better off just looking at microbes first. Not only that but evolution might erase to a certain extent the validity of using thermodynamics to some extent, such as I think you would have a greater chance of doing such with say microbial biology then trying to reduce a elephant to primordial life like chemistry.

I think time travel has been ruled out, I don’t know exactly though what time travel truly means save for two people I guess keeping the same time except one went into the past or the future, which does not make to much sense to me, because you would not have traveled I think. Also, I am not sure, but I think you cant have mass as a property when being at the speed of light, so dark matter would not have to have any kind of mass, but being it is to constitute mass I think it must have some kind of mass, personally I don’t know much about relativity. I also don’t see how the observation could take place, or the experiment, as how do you interact with dark matter? I think that would be a pretty big bottleneck on extrapolating some data though maybe it has some kind of a history to it. I also don’t know what technology humans could produce to travel at or greater then light while not being light. Besides that sounds pretty cool, would it lead to a collision of some kind?

I don’t understand, its just a question. I have never claimed to be an authority on this subject as far as I know, in fact I think you might find a post or two of mine in which I admit I don’t know a whole lot about physics and even less about math. that being said what do you think about the idea? IN terms of abstract, I just want something that can represent say some type of data, namely I am thinking about something that attempts to model say the motion of heat through entanglement, I want this to include time. Basically if I can sum it up any shorter for a question, something that will represent how heat moves or whatever word you would use, and if you could study this via entanglement. I want it represented data wise as fractals. I want this representation to be able to include time. I am thinking that if you made the probability something like the density of the energy that its dissipation towards say ZPE could be useful, this would be again represented by say fractals. I am thinking that the idea itself is not to bad as things to tend to cool off when possible I think, and that the energy goes to work during this, such as heating up a cup of coffee, it cools off right?

I am thinking it would be neat if the fractals, which are used in abstract to represent information could display probability of entanglement as say an energy density using the ZPE variable and time. So basically I would hope the fractal would have say a gradient type look, or spectrum. I want this to attempt to describe motion of heat though, like what is the most probable creaking paths for a building as the sun is going down, or as the building cools or contracts. I think you could study that question if you could portray the building first as some geometry of heat in some state of thermal equilibrium?

Yes its proper science. What is the big deal about epigenetics is it represents a non strictly dna alone aspect to inheritance and so on. A epigenetic factor, such as histone modification, can have a direct impact on say phenotype. I think the big question beyond simply understanding more about the issue, would be did say dna mutation produce epigenetic factors. I mean to think for a second what if the emergence of true life such as with prokaryotes which also posses cellular memory, had such elements at play beyond just mutation? I am greatly confused as to the extent of impact mutation alone has on evolution overall past the microbial realm, and even then I question things such as with endosymbiosis. I mean if epigenetic factors held sway on that for instance, it would be so important to understand such.

Why did Rumsfeld step down when congress went to the dems, my gut tells me such is similar to this situation. I don’t know if they could have kept him out of any hearings. Now though its getting closer to the end of our rulers rule so maybe they think stonewalling will work. I mean could you imagine how devastating some questions alone could be regardless of the answer? It would be to cool but I doubt he will have to see any hearings of any kind. Its part of the package deal that started with secret energy meetings on how to melt the planet faster

I don’t really understand your question. The ZPE for how I would like to see it used here hypothetically of course is for minimal energy or as close as you can get to no energy. I want this to try and get rid of non real values. I also want this to aid in the probability for entanglement, such as it uses the value of say heat in relation to ZPE, such as if something is freezing or is very hot. If I have this mixed up with absolute zero please go ahead and point that out I am wanting to work this with mainly probability and I would think algebra, I have no other idea of what I would actually have to use... I also really just want this to study say entanglement and I guess the motion of heat if that is how you would word it.

Well I want something that is an anchor first of all, if this were for a physical model I would just want the value to be something that has to equal zero point energy, or that to exist in the math as something real or physical this value has to be at least equal to that bare minimum value. Next I would want something that could be a variable for say heat, in some unit applicable to a quantum scale, this is associated with the ZPE thing. I would want these variable basically just to describe that. I want to plug such into some sort of an equation that will demonstrate say motion of heat in the form of entanglement, but represented in say a 4-d type image of data also that displays the probability of entanglement in relation to also the ZPE. I think this would be neat if the data image could be in fractal, I think it would let you look at say individual parts, but maybe allow for modulation for simulation.

Yes, but if you support say gun restriction in the form of licenses should medical conditions be included in that? Such as if some person had a mental illness, should they be allowed to own a gun in relation to the severity of the illness? I could see this question rationally coming up over if such a person should even have a license to own a toaster, I think this is because guns are more prone or fit for killing people vs. a toaster. Its sort of a double standard, for instance if a person murders a pregnant women with a gun, he or she can be tried for murder of two people, yet abortion is not fully murder nor purely performed for dire medical reasons. To simply add to this, in some cases gun restriction is witnessed by majority votes with almost a sober like certainty, in other cases its seems the complete opposite, such as schools so scrutinized to be gun free, yet people supporting a gun populated nation without bound. Classes of criminals lose the right to own a gun yet I would imagine a value exists to support amounts of people committing felonies with a gun after they had obtained such, so it would be impossible really then using anything current to screen that, to accept that for a choice to own a gun is something like the concept behind the suv. I mean that vehicle along makes driving anything small mortally dangerous more then anything, plus the threat it poses in say parking lots with heavy daytime activity. You could also look at the enormous resource drain that vehicle alone is, in all reality it’s a stupid idea for a vehicle. Yet in some weird form of democracy it should be impugned to speak against such as if you are rattling off some blasphemy against someone’s god. It just seems the ethical part of the gun debate hardly exists beyond territorial skirmishes.

I am worried because some of the software used for it is written in java.

Many times I have used the flip of a coin to end an argument, and in respect how fair in chance really is such events. Say you wanted to make some random engine that would generate some outcome entirely of chance? With the lottery I do not think its hard to see the pattern, as I think most of its probability is based primarily on population density really of say each ticket. Plus its related to say such a thing staying alive, obviously as if each ticket out of two purchased was worth say 100,000 dollars greenback the system would fail. So probability is controlled really. So back to my coin flip, that is more or less somewhat different physical phenomena related to probability, such as just the flip motion, how its caught, the coins energy, etc… How do you make something that is truly random, even if you had a billion sided die, if you rolled it for long enough would not the fact it has only a billion sides lead to eventual bounds on the probability? So what could you do to make probability limitless or infinite?