granpa

now I get it. you are thinking that degenerate matter means neutron star material. white dwarfs are also degenerate matter. so is metallic hydrogen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_matter

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11296526?dopt=Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6462692?dopt=AbstractPlus Many accounts of the origin of life assume that the spontaneous synthesis of a self-replicating nucleic acid could take place readily. Serious chemical obstacles exist, however, which make such an event extremely improbable. Prebiotic syntheses of adenine from HCN, of D,L-ribose from adenosine, and of adenosine from adenine and D-ribose have in fact been demonstrated. However these procedures use pure starting materials, afford poor yields, and are run under conditions which are not compatible with one another. Any nucleic acid components which were formed on the primitive earth would tend to hydrolyze by a number of pathways. Their polymerization would be inhibited by the presence of vast numbers of related substances which would react preferentially with them. It appears likely that nucleic acids were not formed by prebiotic routes, but are later products of evolution. http://gow.epsrc.ac.uk/ViewGrant.aspx?GrantRef=EP/E032753/1 Spectacular advances in structural and molecular biology have added support to the 'RNA world hypothesis', and provide a mandate for chemistry to explain how RNA might have been generated prebiotically on the early Earth. The 'molecular biologist's dream' - a phrase introduced by Jerry Joyce and Leslie Orgel - refers to a scenario in which prebiotic chemistry somehow furnishes pools of enantiopure beta-D-ribonucleosides. There is still a long way to go from such nucleosides to RNA, but the experimental demonstration of in vitro RNA evolution suggests that once RNA has arisen, its evolution might be relatively easy. Several groups worldwide are investigating the evolution of simple RNA polymerase ribozymes, and the general impression is that, although this is difficult, there is reason for optimism. There has, however, been little optimism about the chances of a prebiotic synthesis of beta-D-ribonucleosides and the corresponding nucleotides, indeed the mood has been distinctly pessimistic. This is because of the intractable mixtures that result from most attempts to make nucleosides using conditions that simulate the chemistry of the early Earth - the 'prebiotic chemist's nightmare'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RNA_world_hypothesis#Chemical_objections

the biggest issue with the rna world is how to make the nucleotides. people invent elaborate chemisry's to try to explain it. I think whats needed is a simple chemistry that produces all kinds of organic molecules and then some elaborate process that seperates out just the molecules that have just the right properties that are needed for nucleotides. thats my take on it.

fire reproduces but cannot evolve and therefore isnt 'alive'. strictly speaking metabolism would be the same so I would have to say that 'life' itself began with rna. but yes I do believe that there may have been a kind of 'fire' burning on the early earth which may have been the beginning of our metabolism.

whats the escape velocity of an ice giant. if earth can hold hydrogen and helium even today then I doubt that an ice giant could when it was forming (and was very very hot) Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged the nebula may have been disapated in one million yrs but what about the protoplanetary disk itself?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_Long_Baseline_Interferometry

the same mass weighs more on the earth than it does on the moon

why would you think that a sense of time isnt natural. timing is very important to the control of our muscles.

if 2 events occur at the same time and at the same place then they will do so for all observers

I think you'd be better off trying to download your brain into a bird sized robotic body. if quantum computing works out then it could conceivably be pretty small. the fact that it would be millions of times faster wouldnt hurt matters either.

instinct = common sense eating mice is just common sense from a baby pythons point of view. (see post 3)

rotation involves pairs of axes. thas why its best described as a bivector. when a 3d object spins about an axis the other 2 axes are interchanging. in 4 dimensions 2 axis interchange and the other 2 are unchanged. in 3 dimensions it can be described by a psuedovector. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudovector

the fact that you dont understand it does not mean that it makes no sense.

I'm sorry, I guess I just assumed that people were smart enough to understand that I meant a hypersphere.

in four dimensions it can rotate about 2 axis at the same time. in three it cant

why did the universe have to come from nothing? why not from everything?

I wonder if our ancestors had some kind of caste system? I wonder what effect such a system would have if it existed long enough A quick glance at various caste systems gives: rulers soldiers priests scholars, teachers professionals workers, farmers, herdsmen slaves, untouchables, butchers

I've never really understood the ultraviolet catastophe. isnt it readily explained by the fact that matter is made of finite sized atoms that vibrate producing the heat radiation?

it will transmit at the speed of sound. picture the rope as a slinky

no. theres blood and connective tissue and membranes... what more do you want? yes. our brains are just neurons and neurons are just atoms and atoms are just electrons protons and neutrons. but do protons feel or think or dream or hope? I am not suggesting that we arent in fact 'just atoms'. I'm just pointing out that one can make more out of that than one should.

why couldnt it?

so even though high mass stars are less numerous they are so much brighter that most of the light we see from other galaxies is coming from a relatively small population of very high mass stars. so the more low mass stars or dark matter there is per high mass star the higher the mass to light ratio. dust in that galaxy blocking the light from reacing us would also raise the mass to light ratio. but i dont think that there is a lot of dust in giant elliptical galaxies. I assume that they also fit the data given

the surface charge on a dielectric comes from the same place that it comes from in a conductor. the shift of the electrons to one side of the material. if the shift is uniform then the charges cancel everywhere except the sufrace. in a dielectric the shift is limited because the electrons are bound to their individual nuclei (they dont shift very far). for this same reason grounding it will have no effect. in a non-uniform field you will also have 'bound charge' (different but related meaning) in the interior of the material. bound and surface charges are responsible for the net force. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedhttp://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=78954

cortical columns: http://faculty.ucmerced.edu/mcarreira-perpinan/papers/ecs02.pdf

lol. I forgot the link and now I cant remember what it was. anyway here is something on digital physics: http://www.mtnmath.com/digital.html http://www.digitalphilosophy.org/Home/Papers/TOC/tabid/63/Default.aspx even simple rules can generate endlessly complex fractals. is existence (as described in the op) some kind of fractal?