StringJunky

DH's answer was spot on and I got something from it hence I repped it. I was addressing something else which clearly is outside your scope of comprehension. What I wrote, that you call bullshit, is actually a distillation of what I have learnt from the physicists here concerning knowing the underlying nature of phenomena.

No, trying to describe it ontologically is. The OP seems, from my interpretation, to be seeking an ontological answer: "All the research I have been able to find about gravity, never really covers the subject of the force itself, but rather more it's effect on objects. But why does mass attract other things in the first place?"

ms.math You are soapboxing your ideas onto us. From the rules: 8. Preaching and "soap-boxing" (making topics or posts without inviting, or even rejecting, open discussion) are not allowed. This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. Discuss points, don't just repeat them.

Gravity is not alone in defying an ontological description. If you read much by scientists you realise that descriptions of phenomena are written in terms of their parameters (measurements) and behaviour. The 'is' and 'why' of a thing aren't covered because it's considered outside the scope of physics and more the domain of philosophy/metaphysics.

I wonder if you could set up a digital camera directly over the area and then do an exposure in the pitch dark ? Placing a bit of photographic paper placed over the area and developed would be better but that's likely not to hand

A place where dogma walks backwards, whilst looking forward, into the arms of the Grim Reaper.

OK, point taken.

Nothing is one of those words that needs pre-defining before a sensible discussion can ensue utilising it.

CP has a point. Your reply is written to a much higher standard of presentation than your hypothesis! Is it logical to present your idea, which presumably is the most important post, in such a sloppy manner compared to your subsequent replies?! If you don't write properly, which you quite clearly are capable of, how can you justifiably expect people to read your OP with more care than you wrote it?

Talking about pan spermia is an irrelevant distraction i think because it does not address how life started. It only hypothesizes how life may have arrived on Earth in the absence of it starting on it.

A quick read suggests over 1m is too much for hifi buffs. I'm wondering if he can get a preamp like THIS one, sit it next to the turntable, then run that to the amp to boost the signal? Moon, you could get the good quality cable, as imafaal suggests, and if the sound (probably high frequencies are hit too much) then you could add a phono preamp after to compensate if necessary.

How long do you need the T/T-Amp interconnect to be precisely? What is the make and model of the cartridge?

To add to what ajb said but in another way: the brain doesn't like random; it will do it's very best to turn any type of apparently random image into a recognisable pattern. Your emotional state is clearly negatively-colouring how you interpret what you are seeing. We really can't say any more than go and make an effort to see someone who is expert in mental health matters via your doctor if it's making you constantly anxious and fearful...a problem shared is a problem halved.

What do you read?

Without thoughtful manipulation, cameras and photographs can only tell lies. As long as the image is true to the photographer's 'vision' of what lay before him it is as near as technically possible to true fidelity (provided fidelity is the goal). It's about understanding the limitations of one's equipment and adapting one's methods to accommodate or record those parts of a scene that matter in the absence of the equipment's ability to record it all. Awareness of these limiting elements are absolutely necessary when viewing images made in environments like on the Moon so one can understand why the images look the way they do.

People "see" UFO's but that doesn't make them true; did you assay it? Explaining yourself to doubters is an essential part of what science is all about...ever heard of peer review?

I know I've said the above myself as well but I came across this: Mammalian mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is thought to be strictly maternally inherited.1,2 Sperm mitochondria disappear in early embryogenesis by selective destruction, inactivation, or simple dilution by the vast surplus of oocyte mitochondria.3 Very small amounts of paternally inherited mtDNA have been detected by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in mice after several generations of interspecific backcrosses.4 Studies of such hybrids and of mouse oocytes microinjected with sperm support the hypothesis that sperm mitochondria are targeted for destruction by nuclear-encoded proteins.5-7 We report the case of a 28-year-old man with mitochondrial myopathy due to a novel 2-bp mtDNA deletion in the ND2 gene (also known as MTND2), which encodes a subunit of the enzyme complex I of the mitochondrial respiratory chain. We determined that the mtDNA harboring the mutation was paternal in origin and accounted for 90 percent of the patient's muscle mtDNA. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa020350 Herpetologyfangirl, you could spin that aspect by saying the sperm was acquired from human strain that contained a persistent or transferable form of mtDNA or something like that. I'm sure Arete or CharonY could come up with something.

There is the not insignificant problem of it not having any mitochondria I suspect...I'm no biologist though. I understand this aspect of genetic coding comes from the female line only.

Instead of looking to control the algae directly why not look into controlling the cooling-water's dissolved and suspended components ie create and maintain an inhospitable environment for the algae...look at reducing ambient-light levels as well. I found this article on Best Management Practice: Cooling Tower Management by the US DoE that you might get something useful from.

His username is finnish for illusion...nuff sed.

Where is the "religion" in this conversation?

There are more large particles like smog and clouds than in morning air. Mie scattering by larger particles The intense reds and peach colors in brilliant sunrises come from Mie scattering by atmospheric dust and aerosols, like the water droplets that make up clouds. We only see these intense reds and peach colors at sunrise and sunset, because it takes the long pathlengths of sunrise and sunset through a lot of air for Rayleigh scattering to deplete the violets and blues from the direct rays. The remaining reddened sunlight can then be scattered by cloud droplets and other relatively large particles to light up the horizon red and orange <snip> Sunrise vs. Sunset colors Sunset colors are sometimes more brilliant than sunrise colors because evening air typically contains more large particles, such as clouds and smog, than morning air. These particles glow orange and red due to Mie scattering during sunsets and sunrises because they are illuminated with the longer wavelengths that remain after Rayleigh scattering.[6][10][9][13] If the concentration of large particles is too high (such as during heavy smog), the color intensity and contrast is diminished and the lighting becomes more homogenous. When very few particles are present, the reddish light is more concentrated around the Sun and is not spread across and away from the horizon.[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise

What I meant was when I looked at imatfaal's example initially I couldn't see the furthest dot accelerating away in my mind but when I actually replicated it I did see it. Interpretation is important as you say as well.

It appears to be one of the few things where you have to have a working prototype rather than just present a description. http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/10/11/the-patent-law-of-perpetual-motion/id=19828/

Exactly...measurement is king.