Eise

These papers are very old! First, I do not know if they are correct, second it could be that if they are correct, they were 'absorbed' by the main stream. At least they are mentioned in Wikipedia: As already said, if this is true, then they need not much attention anymore, except as topic for historians of physics.

Slip of the finger... Yep. It is a real life story. I think StringJunky nailed it on the head: No, e.g. scientology agrees with you.

Obviously you never met somebody who really is paranoid. Not just vague ideas of being followed, but acting according these feelings, in such a way that such a person cannot copy with daily life anymore. Example: colleague comes panicking into the office, hiding immediately under his desk, saying that those helicopters outside are chasing him. Because that does not help. The paranoid feelings overwhelm a person completely, so he cannot think rationally anymore. That's why also very intelligent people can become psychologically ill. Intelligence does not protect against psychological illness.

Point is, Lee and Lovelace thoroughly knew their stuff: their ideas were not based on meditation on a CONCEPT (btw, words starting with capitals, or completely written in capitals, are a clear sign of CRACKPOTISM ), but on the knowledge of what was possible and what wasn't. If you do not even have the smallest grasp of the mathematics of QM, then you cannot understand QM. Taking your knowledge, obviously coming from popularising science books, in no way suffices to start a revolution in science. Clear now? Really understanding QM implies knowing its mathematics. Not really understanding QM can lead to all kind of weird ideas, that are immediately recognised as wrong by those who know the mathematics of QM, so there is no reason to say immediately that your ideas simply do not work.

First, to repeat, there is no way you can beat the law of conservation of momentum. So whatever you think of, and also nicely expressed by Janus:; So generally: you will never succeed. And to take the expression of swansont: This is even so for a rocket. Of course, the rocket can be accelerated, in the end, that's what we make rockets for. Take as starting point a rocket with its engine off. It will move with constant velocity, so in its own frame of reference it stands still. Now it turns it engines on, on its way to Alpha Centauri. The fascinating thing is: because of the law of conservation of momentum, it is guaranteed that the centre of mass keeps at this starting point. If you add the momenta of the rocket, and its combusted gases, and calculate where the centre of mass is, it is still at the place where the rocket turned its engine on (even if there is nothing physical at this place). In your special case, it seems important to me that you specify if the wires are somehow fixed to each other (e.g. on a wooden board). Then only a temporary movement can exist. The system as a whole would only vibrate a short moment, but stay in place. If they are not fixed the wires would move, but that is similar to the situation with the rocket. The centre of mass still does not move. Why do you think you can beat the the law of conservation of momentum? It is not based on analyses of all kind of situations, and oh wonder, we discover that momentum is conserved again and again. It is based on the most basic laws of forces and movements, that apply in all situations. Do you also think you can exchange your left arm with your right arm by turning your body 180o around?

2 Side remarks: Einstein knew his physics very well, and pretty shortly after he published his first article on special relativity he was visited by Max Planck, already a well known physicist those days. When Einstein got ridiculed, it was by people who just could not imagine such 'outrageous' phenomena like time dilation, mass increase, or length contraction. But special relativity was in the air: many physicists were aware of the contradiction between Newtonian mechanics and Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism. People like Fitzgerald (length contraction is sometimes called Fitzgerald contraction), Voigt, Larmor, Lorentz (Lorentz-transformations!), Poincaré etc. were already very close, but their explanations were all still based on the existence of a frame of reference that is in absolute rest. The formulas were correct, the explanations were not. That was Einstein's feat. (See History of special relativity). Such comparisons with Einstein are preferable made by people who do not know their maths and physics. And I would say, per definition, their ideas are always wrong. And then I did not talk about the hubris in such comparisons...

Even shorter: there is no way you can beat the law of conservation of momentum, whatever way you produce a force.

You have to look at the two extreme cases: The rock sticks to the board (a perfect inelastic collision): then the whole would move backwards. But only as long as the rock is in flight. So you make a translation, but you do not get continuing velocity. The total momentum would still be zero. So, yes, you move while the rock is on its way to the board. The rock bounces without losing any energy in the collision (a perfect elastic collision). The end result would be that the rock flies away in the opposite direction in which you throw it, and so, because of conservation of momentum, you would move forwards, and keep your velocity. The third case, with infinite rocks, would be that you do not move at all, because the mass would also be infinite. Unless you throw an infinite number of rocks...

For abiogenesis I think this is not relevant: without living hosts viruses cannot replicate. So life must have been first. Viruses are more degenerated life. We must not forget that evolution makes 'climbing mount improbable' possible, but it can also lead to simpler life forms.

You answered it yourself. Made it bold for you. Idem. Say I have a small gen: AAGCTTTCCAAAATCCCC. I can read it as a melody, just interpreting the 'T' as 'F'. Without the machinery of the cell that determines which genes are read, and how to interpret them, the DNA code means nothing. And if this machinery changes, the results change.

Already answered by CharonY: Yep, that is what I meant. A change in the mechanism that activates reading of a gene, or the mechanism that synthesises proteins, will change the organism, just as mutations in DNA do. Say we have a extremely reduced juke box. It reads tones from a medium, and plays them. Take the very short melody C, A, G, E. Now imagine we want to hear the melody B,A,C,H (in German b-moll is called 'H'). We can do 2 things: change the medium with the tones we want; or change the reader of the juke box so that it interprets the same medium as B,A,C,H. The message, or if you want the code, only gets its meaning in the relationship between the medium and its interpreter. With DNA it is similar. And as just an argument from authority: Dawkins also says that DNA is more like a recipe, than a design of an organism.

Full ack. With 'authority' comes responsibility. In this case, to show where somebody is wrong. If the person in question does not react on that, then OK, leave him/her with his/hers ideas. So this is pretty useless: This neither advances discussion, nor teaches anybody anything. 'Citation please' can be useful when somebody claims that 'science has shown that...' followed by a crackpot idea. But I do not think the OP did that. He pretty clearly shows his ideas, and the experts between us can look if these ideas match present science, and when not, can show this (with citations, if necessary). Citations are necessary when we do not agree on the facts; on theories, i.e. interpretations of facts, we must discuss. Above has nothing to do with any advancement in insight from anybody, but only about 'winning a discussion'.

I am not so sure. The DNA is part of the fertilized egg, and the egg brings the 'correct interpreter' for the DNA with it. Surely the DNA contains the blueprint for all proteins of the cell, but if that is enough to know when which gene is read, and what happens with the synthesised protein afterwards I am no so sure. It really looks like a a kind of recursive loop, that might change by mutations in DNA, but also by changes in the (direct) environment of the DNA. So it becomes an egg-chicken (egg-DNA?) question: what was first?

I am wondering a bit why DanielBoyd got so many negatives on his OP. I think some people read it as another Intelligent Design posting, but it isn't. But as OP in a new thread, it is a bit long. Flying over it can lead to some wrong conclusions. But of course DanielBoyd is also to blame for this, given the title of the thread, and the, in my opinion, superfluous mentioning of entropy and its provocative title. For me it is clear that the DNA does not, and cannot, contain all information to build or even identify an organism (except of course by just comparing DNA of known organisms). It needs the complete apparatus of the living cell that the DNA can fulfill its function. A viewpoint one can use is that of a message and its interpretation. A message can only be interpreted by a correct interpreter. AFAIK the cellular 'interpreter' of DNA is not 'neutral'. Even if we had the complete DNA of some dinosaur, we will not be able to reconstruct how it looked like, because how the information is interpreted depends on what the dinosaur cell did with it. (So the Jurassic Park idea, to exchange frog DNA with dinosaur-DNA and so let grow a dinosaur, will not work, because the frog-egg has not the correct environment for the DNA to produce a dinosaur.) So I agree with DanielBoyd that DNA contains the design of an organism is not correct, even if DNA of course has a strong influence on what the organism will look like. It is more like a list of ingredients of a recipe. And of course there are all kind of feedback loops in the mechanism, where proteins synthesized according to a gen, has impact on what the cell does (directly or indirectly), and so possibly also on what genes will be read later on.

Oh, a nice hypothesis to test! He is at -51 now (10:40 MET DST), and he joined last Sunday 23:18. Personally, I hope our mastermind will start reading science books, and we will get questions, asking for explanations for passages he does not understand, instead of bombarding us with ideas which only display his ignorance.

I think it fits to a personality disorder. My first guess is narcissist personality disorder, maybe schizotypal.

No. Link. And I don't know if you were just ironic, but to be sure: an electron in an atom is completely characterized by 4 quantum numbers. Introducing a new one therefore would be the fifth. No idea why thethinkertank came at the idea that it would be the third number. I assume because he thinks a lot, but does not know a lot...

That does not work anymore when the oceans get too acidic. Learn chemistry and nautal biology, before you spout the nonsense you do here. No, no, don't think. Start learning.

Show this balance.

You see that word 'carbonic acid', don't you? You want to dissolve all shellfish. You know, their shells are made amongst others by CaCO3, which is bad solvable in water, however it reacts with acids, and will (partially) dissolve. Wow. I am already able to correctly construct English words. A milestone.

Exactly. Both Na2CO3 and NaHCO3 dissolve very good in water, as does NaCl. So all ions will stay in solution in the water, however the H+-ions introduced by the CO2 solution in water will contribute to the acidification (is that English?) of the sea. So it is really a bad idea.

That is not 'research'. Mostly googling is picking the ideas you like, whatever the source, true or not, etc. Otherwise it is called 'reading', or if you really discuss the scientific articles, it might be called studying'. It is only research if you make your own observations or experiments, that are at least interesting for the present frontiers of science. But if you do not even know where the frontiers of science are, or worse, do not even know the facts and theories of established science (e.g. anti-matter), you just saying something, with no scientific value whatsoever. Why don't you learn some science? Buy an introductory book of the subject that interests you most, to begin with. But take care with popularisations. Some topics (e.g. quantum physics or general relativity) are so technical, that popularisations often use metaphors to give the reader at least a hint what is going on. Taking these metaphors as scientific truths will let you run astray again.

Exactly. You don't even know the box. Or just write it in the email to CERN. BTW, what has CERN to do with global warming? (Well they use much energy, so CERN is greatly contributing to global warming (relatively)).

This is the problem in nearly every thread you open. You heard some science-words, apply your fantasy, undamped by any knowledge what these words really mean, and for what concepts they really stand, and then think you can apply for patents, or will get famous for how you stimulated progress in science. Creativity and intuition are very important in theory building in science. But only when you understand what the present theories are and mean. You fail utterly on that. You are on a pure ego-trip.

Yes, there are several quantum numbers, but they do not explain energy states, they are firmly underpinned by QED. I don't think an electron has a degree of freedom to become a positron. That just makes no sense. And as a positron impossibly can be part of a normal matter atom because it has a positive charge (not even talking about its immanent annihilation by an electron), and is exactly the opposite in its properties in every aspect except its mass from the electron, I think the Pauli principle does not even apply. You are definitely overthinking this. No. First, as implied by the above, if this 'new quantum number' does not roll out of QED, it has no physical meaning. Second, I have no idea why your idea would explain the imbalance in matter and antimatter. Third? It would be the fifth.