foodchain

I don’t even know if this is possible but could you grow an insect to a certain age and then target and or destroy spliceosome activity without affecting that organism too heavily? I just wonder if spliceosome activity pertains to the phenotype heavily in terms of evolution. As genes may shift in activity via them on an evolutionary scale I guess, its hard to work the idea is all. Basically I wonder if you could stop locus swarms from forming if the spliceosome was involved in that transformation by stopping it at that level. Basically that the locus is a certain phenotype that has enough of a selective advantage to persist, but that selection was sharp enough that such traits exist on the molecular scale via spliceosome activity, and that the spliceosome could reflect evolutionary change in such a manner. I would think this would be an epigenetic effect, though not sure.

I have to agree and as much was the center or my first post on the topic. I think many cultural mechanisms exist here, along with psychological, political, social, economical, geographical, heck biological if you want that are poorly understood in many ways. I think this lack of understanding pertains from the everyday person all the way up to national and international political actions based on such. I think this pertains on both sides, and I also fear that such could actually lead to a far worse situation then currently exists. I also think fear as desired by terrorism is much to blame for recent actions, like the preemptive war in Iraq which was framed with horrible events. I also do not think a quick fix exists to remedy such a situation. I mean for instance what if the Iraq war chest was spent on alternative means of energy rather then fossil fuels. That much money spent in such a direction could have had far more a beneficial impact. It’s not just that point, but what are we to do militarily, invade any nation that has a predominant Muslim population and begin a siege in all reality with the hopes of permanently altering the minds of a "Muslim populous" which in itself seems almost crazy if you critically think about that. Everything has a price tag and this applies for our current foe, and I feel that spending the Iraq War chest on alternative energy could have had a far better impact by taking that money away from Oil rich nations. I think this in turn would make those nations take action against religious extremists as much as anything else we have done to date would have. You then have to deal with the political reality of America truly going green, but terrorism is a global problem that no nation really wants to suffer, and a political framework already exists with popular support internationally for a more environmentally sound way of life. Plus a "Muslim population" would not have had to been a victim of war, as obviously Iraq was not or is not should I say, a nation of nothing but "terrorists". The economic side of the cold war was just as potent as anything else as the former USSR eventually collapsed economically, and I should say America as a nation is suffering from economic troubles itself right now.

sure

I think it’s a two part saga in terms of improving relations in regards to Muslims. First it’s that reference of Muslim as a catch all for a whole lot of variation. It’s like just saying Europeans, or Christians, to denote some amount of people as all being the same. I won’t say it’s mildly racist, but in all reality some Muslims can technically be called Semites, and what is a Persian or an Arab, and are they all Muslim? Now while I will agree that the conservative nature in some Muslim areas seems to be insurmountable currently in regards to establishing a more multicultural, and or liberal society, it does not have to be that way always just as western civilization is not just Victorian era England if that makes sense, or in short things can change. Basically it won’t help for any Muslim culture to adapt if the stereotypes in other cultures are not relaxed, and to add that fear, hatred, bias or what not ultimately I think only serves to help “terrorists” in all reality.

If it were a smoothbore weapon, I would think the projectile could not be a bullet, more or less I would think it would have to also be finned and fired at a rather high velocity. When the burst came about that would alter its angle I wonder how much energy that would eat off of the bullet unless following the burst another rocket in the round went off. I am not sure but against a flat surface its either 45 or 90 degrees that is close to what angle the projectile will take on after impact barring the surface material and so on of course, but in that its loses some energy, so I would just think it would lose energy having its trajectory changed in such a manner. Plus with smoothbore again the velocity initially or at some point would have to be rather high along with something to stabilize its trajectory, as the reason rifling exists is to make it accurate at distances. To defeat cover like corners or defelade the army tried to chip small explosive rounds that would detonate at a certain distance detrmined by a laser. I do not think this weapon actually made it though but something like that could possibly work in place of curving bullets. If you had a corner you could fire past it at an angle that would put the round behind it when it went off, if not directly at the corner but parallel to whats on the other side.

If you have a quantum system undergoing decoherence what happens when it reaches a point in which its changed or whatever, but is no longer experiencing any environmental push to continue to change? Would the system just oscillate about through a finite range of possibilities, would those possibilities be deterministic and why? I mean water going from solid to liquid. If you could get down to the smallest quanta of energy that could change the bulk behavior of that matter in terms of its state, would it at that scale somewhat shift between being a liquid and or a solid, or would it just stay in one or the other until the environment changed it? Lets say a particle can be A though Z on observation and is something quantum mechanical in nature. If A decoheres to B, will it just stay at B for good as long as the environment allows, or will B itself change spontaneously? I am just wondering because I have a speculation about entanglement. If a particle decoheres to a environmentally preferred state, when in that state I imagine quantum weirdness in terms of the uncertainty principal does not vanish, so I would imagine that such a particle would oscillate basically. But being the math used describes such bodies places them in a superposition of states, does superposition itself like entanglement and the uncertainly principal all tie into something more fundamental about quantum mechanics that maybe decoherence might hint on? Basically its asking if environmental monitoring produces things such as entanglement, superposition, and the uncertainly principal. How could a quantum body such as a single particle ever be deterministic in lacking uncertainty if its but one drop in an ocean of quantum weirdness that suffers from entanglement.

The spin on the round is imparted on it via the weapons rifling in order to give that round more stability and accuracy in terms of its trajectory. To make a round that has this spin curve, you would have to take that spin into account, unless the weapon was smoothbore. Then you would probably end up imparting spin on the round anyways, not to mention other variables like temperature and the air hitting the bullet, which would make the math a bit statistical I think.

bullets spin as they travel.

I am making a prediction that it will be something embarrassing. Most likely it will apply the theory word incorrectly, and along with that a bunch of assertions that can't stand up to actual scientific scrutiny. Though it will be used for internet decades to bombard other people with claims that evolution violates thermodynamics, or some other malformed use of established science to counter established science. Yes, the earth is younger then various languages its inhabitants have, and along with that the universe is actually geocentric and chemistry violates entropy. Have a nice day.

I can understand a bit I think. I dislike math, in reality I dislike math classes. Very boring, repetitive and simply just lame. Though when math is applied in other classes, like chemistry, this problem for me does not exist. I think its just a perceptual thing, but in case of biology and even more so at college level you will be learning about chemistry heavily in just the biology classes also, along with having to take years of chemistry. You might want to find some way to get over that hump, simply because it will eventually end up hurting you in regards to your studies in your major.

From a chemistry perspective I could only think that organic chemistry, or all the variation that can be found with c-h bonds is something that might be a requirement to for life in our universe. If that happens to be the case then certain ranges of other variables can be modeled on that assumption, or what is an adequate environment to support organic chemistry, and all the variation such chemistry can have.

Right, I think I understand, but the h202 is being broken down at a rate I would think. As far as temperature is concerned I think it has to be really cold before you can get liquid oxygen, and O2 is the state I think for oxygen to be in naturally. Plus in solution, depending on how much, you can only have so much of something dissolved in a solution at a giving time, so you might have reached a saturation point already, that's another reason to look at concentrations and what not from a perspective of moles and ratios, yes fractions and lots of them:D I don't quite get the dipole question, plus I forgot most the math to figuring out polarity and molecular stuff like structure.

I was wondering on the catalyst part but did not bother to ask. That will have a huge impact as in some cases it can instantly change things big time in a reaction. Yet I thought you were having a buffer to aid the ph in solution, and then adding one to study a decomposition reaction, is it producing heat? Like in the above equation, in the book do you also get heat from the reaction? O2 will not exist as a liquid unless things are rather cold I would think, so all that liberated matter will want to escape. You might want to do the moles and all of that in relation to your solution amount to see if you can estimate how much O2 is being produced. I also do not remember if O2 is polar or non and how that would matter in relation to all of the other stuff.

Have you tried setting up a couple different sets which differ on just one variable? I mean this is probably a simple question really for some on here, but maybe you could see if there is a difference on how you are combining it in the solution, as are you pouring it in while stirring to just simply dripping it in. Part of reactions as you probably know also depend on how energetic the collisions are is all. It might help if you could write out the balanced equation you are going for.

I do not agree. We only have the earth to model that idea on ultimately. Life is constantly faced with extinction and a majority of species have gone extinct. We are faced with are own problems that can lead to our extinction. You can as an organism acquire a variety of mutations some of which kill instantly in early development, and via selection pressures life does not make it or is not guaranteed in nature. We do not currently have an understanding on how physio-chemical systems can develop into something with the complexity to be called life. The universe was not fine tuned to produce Hitler.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model You have the weak, strong, electromagnetic, and gravity which is not reduced to the standard model as the previous three happen to be. Each of these can be called "forces", or "interactions". The interactions in the three of the standard model are mediated by various things like bosons of for example. If you read the above two I linked in it will help you as force itself is not just a abstract for anything that acts on something. Even though in a very general sense you could get away with using force like that, it wont help you in this thread at this point. Plus realize Wikipedia is a jump off point, as its open source and at one point the entry on physics stated it had nothing to do with biology.

Could you make a series of wells based on probability to amplify a particle that is quantum tunneling. Say you could make a well that made a certain barrier statistically for a particle to tunnel, could you on the other side of that make a similar barrier but based on a particle that has already tunneled, and in turn basically make a series of that where each barrier is based on the previous one, or would a particle that tunneled have to come out on the other side with no way to interact with the next barrier in a similar manner while being still in the state from the first tunneling event. particle(A)->barrier(A)->particle(A+tunnel A)->barrier(b) and so on. I don’t know if tunneling happens only at certain energies, but if there was a small range of values then I think you could take advantage of this, for what application I have no idea. Maybe if you could use it on photons it could act as a gate on behavior, but I don’t know how you could trap a photon, save for applying it to absorption and emission of photons from a quantum dot in some matrix. Maybe like a circuit, but for the particle to advance it has to tunnel through a sequential amount of barriers each with a higher energy cost in regards to probability for a tunneling event, and that each is based on the energy value on the previous barrier? Nevermind, google should be the first step huh. http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17742846

Then how is physics ever to ever model gravity on a quantum level if that force cannot be modeled in terms of energy? Why is the graviton even proposed, would it be a particle of zero energy, how do you observe that? Plus going from my layman's point of view, it seems even in a classical sense that gravity is not a force devoid of energy in terms of relativity, in fact how do you have something that has a physical interaction that has no energy, unless you say gravity is nothing short of a pseudo force used to describe the interaction of energetic things, overall I just do not understand how gravity is not an energy related thing. Basically without mass how would ever tell gravity exists, I know its a pointless question as it could not be tested, but really without mass, which is energy, would you even have gravity.

It would take energy though to change the orbit in some way though, and it was an energetic process in the first place that established the orbits. Plus gravity relates to mass, and mass relates to energy. Also when you do work against gravity, it does require energy right? I think this is why things can seem fine tuned. If you have discrete packets of energy, such as quanta, down to whatever dimension of subatomic reality or other, and in all of that its being conserved, you would end up with a really fine picture with energy being conserved down to such a fine level. Unless energy conservation does not hold, but it does seem to hole even for quantum tunneling, I just don't know about pair production and its even more curious question is how gravitational fields impact pair production. I mean is pair production a product of spacetime. I mean if you have a gravitational field around a binary black hole like system, would that intense gravitational field cause the creation of pairs more rapidly from a point of view of how often they occur in "time" naturally in some giving amount of space, or does the energy in the gravitational field itself manifest as pairs, as does a stronger field produce more pairs.

Can you have one without the other?

Delete, to gross. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged To an extent, but you cant say its totally safe, so no they don't protect against an std. Plus I was not arguing that condoms make abortion illegal, moot point.

Its not only that but there is a lot to the issue. How do we know how culture in any various nation "over there" works when it comes to helping, off hand how many people on this debate know about Ugandan culture, I sure the hell don't. Then the other thing is that people have sex, always do and always will. So why not at least educate them. We complain so much about the abortion issue, but if people just played it safe abortion should be rare really. Anyone here attend a high school that was totally sex free, I didn't. Then if you do make abortion illegal you have all those negative ramifications, such as back alley abortion clinics.

Actually the Bush presidency I think tried to kill programs that would make condoms easy to obtain in Africa from our side of it all with aid. *Sorry, that was the pope on condom use and Bush said no condom education in the U.S, only abstinence.

It should be easy for people to simply use condoms. I managed to use condoms and while being sexually active I have never produced children I was not ready for thanks to them. They are easy to obtain and with a few simple guidelines to stick to completely make this problem for the most part go away. Though condoms do not protect against sexually transmitted viruses. Using abortion in this manner would simply be gross. Overpopulation is a real problem that needs to be addressed in a manner that does not involve abortion being a contraceptive measure on any scale, that simply makes humanity more like pond scum, no offense to pond scum.

Also is might not be widely known that the constitution does not act on a person until they are actually born I think. Makes double homicide when a pregnant women gets killed sort of weird though, more so in conjunction with abortion. I am against late term that is for sure, unless its medically required.