MrSandman

One of the principles of Relativity is that there is no preferred frame of reference. There is no experiment that you can perform that can tell you if you were "really" moving. IOW, there is no way that the particle can tell that it is moving, thus for it, its mass does not increase, nor does it length contract, so it cannot form a black hole. If it doesn't form a black hole in its own rest frame, it doesn't form one according to someone that it is moving relative to.

Yes, but we are not observing it from its reference frame, are we? We are observing it from our reference point, granted yours and mine might vary slightly depending on our seperate locations. So from our reference point it has infinite mass and is not moving. No reference point is more correct than others, but its still what the one reference point precieves it as. So yes the particle in its reference frame is no different, but in ours it is.

Because they do happen. As Janus mentioned, in the frame of reference of the particle, distances in the direction of travel are length-contracted. In any other frame you have time dilation. So no matter which frame you choose, there is a relativistic effect that truly happens. Since there is no preferred frame of reference, the "other frame of reference" is just as valid.

so so true!

For starters that is generally not accepted as a definition of mass... as it leads to thoughts like "tremendous gravitational pull due to its infinite density" and "black hole"...

 

and it cannot reach the speed of light in any case.

You are a mathematician aren't you? Yeah... you are... If you were told that you could go halfway to your favorite candy bar and continue going halfway, youd just leave because youd never reach that candy bar. But really for all intensive purposes you could get close enough to eat it. Thats what I was inferring.

If you noticed I kept mentioning as it approaches the speed of light, so for all intensive purposes it is at the speed of light!

According to gamma= (1/(1-V^2/C^2)^(1/2)), It is understood that as a particle reaches the speed of light, it will approach infinite mass, infinite density (length contraction), and time for the particle will be viewed as by an observer as approaching no change in time (infinite time dilation). Thus from my understanding (that of a biologist) this would mean that the smallest possible particle that as it approaches the speed of light would become the largest in terms of mass, but yet it would have no volume. Also, it would seem as if time is not passing for the particle. Yet, if time does not seem to passing for the particle, wouldn't this mean it would appear to not be moving? Thus, this particle traveling really really close to the speed of light, but be observed as not moving. Also it would have tremendous gravitational pull due to its infinite density. So it would be a black hole...

Thoughts please! I'm not a physicist, but I like to play with it... so please tell me why I'm a crack-pot!

Try Lane, Allen and Martin (2010) How did LUCA make a living? Chemiosmosis in the origin of life for a slightly unconventional viewpoint on the origin of life.

 

Lane and Archibald (2008) cover horizontal gene transfer in eukaryotes, but +1 on Stefan's suggestion for Google scholar.

Thank you very much, very helpful, although I have switched to focus on symbiosis as the origin of species. The first source I will make sure to read just for enjoyment.

Hey everyone I'm wanting to write a short five page paper on one of the following:

The origin of replication

The origin of reproduction

Horizontal Gene Transfer

I was debating whether I should put this in the HW section, but I think this is a more appropriate area.

Anyways, I was wondering if you guys could direct me to the names of any peer review journal articles that are a must-read for any of these topics. I'm particularly interested in the origin of replication, because this is the real problem I have with the origin of life. That even if life could occur, it would have to survive long enough to replicate. Like I'm wondering what is the prevailing theory on the subject.

So please when you comment on these topics, please attach sources. They don't have to be peer-review, but it'd be nice. If you don't give me peer-review sources I'll just end up back tracking your source anyways.

Stem-cells:

I dislike these type of questions. The first needs to be more specific. First, what type of stem-cells? Embryonic? From what species? Homo sapien?

Stem-cell research is such a broad field that worrying about people aborting their babies for their stem cells is ridiculous at the present. We need not to cross that bridge at this time (although the media thinks we do). We can use model systems like we have been doing and not need to tamper with human embryonic stem cells. There has been outstanding work with more specialized human stem cells that don't need an embryo, just a tissue sample. Here's a video link on fascinating work done with stem-cells:

http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/player/national-geographic-channel/shows/explorer-1/ngc-the-skin-gun.html

Drug company:

The main ethical issue I see here is that the drug company will be pressing the researchers to produce results that favors the public use of their product. That they won't be paying researchers to deny their product from reaching the public. The researchers would then feel pressured to pass the drug, or find another job.

Transgenic research:

I think the scientists should be able to perform transgenic experiments as much as they please within the current moral guidelines established. However, if a public product is produced in the process the FDA should review it and pass judgement, and the federal government should ensure the public is aware that the product is a result of genetic manipulation.

I feel its my right to know my gigantic strawberry is a result of animal genes being inserted into it. Especially if I'm Hindu.

These are all textbook questions... no real thought involved... look it up!

May bad... really don't know honestly, but your work sounds intriguing.

That's a good metaphor for entropy. In terms of organic chemistry though, think how complex the "sandcastles" are that are molecules formed by organic processes. You could say that Earth's biosphere is particularly suited to nurture such molecular growth, so maybe there is some other physical situation that nurtures the growth and sustainment of giant atoms?

A state of high energy would be required to make these molecules, but as for this hypothetical physical situation... in order for it to exist it would need to defy our understanding of physics and chemistry. Not saying it couldn't, I'm all for our theories being proven wrong, but saying the likelihood is highly improbable. Of course a rebuttal would be if our universe is infinite then there is infinite possibilities, and yes those atoms exist.

Just out of curiosity and to add background to answers given... Please respond if you have kids or not.

I don't.

What's the pellet of?

I think larger atoms would be less stable. The evidence for that.... atoms of lower molecular weight are more numerous, the atoms of very high molecular weight are rare, and larger atoms means more subatomic particles to order. However, I don't know too much about nuclear physics, but using a Newtonian view, I'd say entropy doesn't not favor the formation or stabilization of extremely large atoms. In that way, entropy is the bully at the beach, he'd rather have your sandcastle reduced to mound of unrecognizable sand.

Hey SandMan here... I joined in 07 i believed and haven't been on in a long while. I was 16 when I joined, and now I'm 20. Let me give you compare and contrast description of who I was then (if I can remember), and who I am now.

Then:

Freshmen year of college

Strong belief in creationism

Strong belief in young earth

Blind to the errors in my assumptions

Had taken general bio for science classes

Now:

Senior year of college

Belief in God's hand in the development of life, but understands from a scientific standpoint the theory of evolution has incredible scientific backing

Belief in old earth (still skeptical on how old)

Love to have all my errors pointed out (cept my punctuation and grammar errors when writing on this forum)

Have completed general bio, general chemistry, organic chemistry, engineering physics, developmental biology, molecular biology, virology, histology, ecology, systems physiology, and genetics.

So there has been a lot of change for me, but despite what I have learned I've realized one outstanding fact; I'm stupid. So going to see if I can have my name to changed to Anencephaly. So drop a hello, or get your kicks if you remember me. Phiforall might, considering I used his quote as my signature.

I could go on how I dream of owning a veyron, and having a greek style house, but my life ambition is very simple and can be stated as...

My ultimate goal is to be better than you!

There are so many jokes so let me ask a question are french jokes ok???

well here I go.

A man notices a lion in his cage and notices the lion calmly licking its butt. The man goes up to the zookeeper who is also watching the lion, and asks, "Docile fellow, isn't he?"

"No," the zookeeper responded,"that lion just ate a frenchman who got to close."

"Then why is he licking his rear?" asked the man.

"Oh, the poor thing's trying to get the taste out of his mouth." answered the zookeeper

Bam! here's a thought (I haven't read all the previous threads but please forgive me). Maybe it's just a cycle the earth will go through I'm not sure about you guys, but here is washington we've just had one of the coldest winters in a long time. Not to mention it's suppose to snow tonight in the passes.

Well what is truly living anways...something that has cells, well maybe the earth is just one big effen cell.

My view on this is....People are stupid, bottom line!

Damn why don't those alternate fuel scientists hury or I might have to capture squirrels to run around in a wheel to power my car.

The descriptions of the undiscovered are limitless, but I always hoped there are a mutually friendly and would like to learn from us and we'd learn from them.

Hate to break vab's bubble, but light is affected by gravity and can be slown down by atmospheres, and other things. You guys can also look up about the speed of light slowing down, whether or not it's real...IDK!

Has anyone noticed how everyone ties philosphy with science. It's like cream cheese and pickles, yuck!

There you go...I love the evo vs. creation dicussions they are potively mind boggling always. Do you see how the creationist can use discovery of homeobox genes as god's finger print right? Really I think this question of ID or CA(common ancestry) will always be debated untill Evo or Creats die off.

You both need to read "Last question," by Isaac Asimov. I'll try to get a copy of it to paste, but it is positively awesome in his concepts of mankinds destruction.

I know you'll think of me as a racist after this but here I go...

"A Frenchman's home is where another man's wife is."-Mark Twain

I'd just like to put some thinking comprehension. The topic your attempting to discuss is more complicated then your mind can fathom. No one is ever on the same page.

Scientists have discovered homeobox genes that regulate the development of certain parts in animals. If you take one homeobox gene from one animal and replace it with that of a homeobox gene from another organism the organism will not be mutated, yet develope normally. An evolutionist can say it must mean they all share a common ancestor. Creationist can say they all share a common creator.

Both sides are pretty much helpless, but science being discovered because of evolutionist and creationist's battles is extrodinary. Homeobox genes can be provened useful in treating malformed fetuses. I hope your mind can grapple what Im getting at.