jajrussel

Okay, I'll have to remember this next time I try to reinvent the wheel.

Ah, so the potential energy stored in the devices by gravity isn't going to compensate for the additional fuel needed to move the car?

I admit to being easily confused, but truthfully I can not figure out how this increases the engines work load. Gravity cocks the mechanism, the tire returning to its round state releases the striker. The car does have to move which would involve the engine, but how is it doing anything extra? Except for the piezo mechanism everything is a natural state normally associated with a car. It's the how the piezo mechanisms presence is adding to the work load of the engine that I do not understand. My experience is that as soon as you get rid of something you find that you need it, desperately. As far as I am concerned that generator with the fly wheel attached to the engine isn't going anywhere no matter how efficient a different style generator turns out to be.

Actually I was thinking more along the line of returning energy to the cars battery, or using the spark to fire the spark plugs, or both. Maybe running the on board computer,or radio. It probably wouldn't make any more sense than adding solar panels to the roof of the house when all I really have to do is pay the electric bill, but then probably a few well placed thermal piles throughout the car might do the same thing.

What if they put the crystals inside the tire? The weight compresses and locks the spring, then as the tire rounds the spring lock is released through expansion. A lot of engineering might have to go into the tire, but could it work if they designed the right kind of tire?

If you are in the center of a box that is in free fall, floating so to speak because you are also in free fall with the same acceleration as the box. The force you feel is null. Then another force is applied to the box from any direction. From your perspective the box is moving toward you. The force you feel is still null. Until you contact the box. Then the force you feel is equal to the other force, even though you and the box are still in free fall. Is this correct? As I think about the question I realise the box may no longer be in free fall once the other force is applied to it. Then once you make contact with the box you may no longer be in free fall. None the less you and the box may be perceived as falling. The question still is, is this correct? What I am getting at is that is that if this is correct the force I feel upon contact with the box I may perceive as gravity, and this perception might be more related to acceleration than the boxes mass since the mass of its side is far less than the planet we are both falling toward.

The nature of attraction is to close the gap, with gravity the seemingly ultimate purpose is to occupy the same space. Other forces may postpone, or interfere with this purpose, but they never illuminate this desire to close the gap, and occupy the same space. Electromagnetism, has a simular attribute of attraction, but seemingly not to the same purpose. It is more like to fill a void. I believe that I am correct that in both cases one result is acceleration, with gravity a change of speed and direction, while with Electromagnetism simply a change of direction. With gravity the ultimate purpose of occupying the same space one might be tempted to say that with singularity, goal achieved, but apparently not from the singularitie's point of view.

You are right. It is a necessary component of attraction.

You could think in terms of groups. Then say that anything that is not part of that group is nothing. Of course it could still be something, but then it would be another group.

I don't know enough to actually understand the second paragraph so maybe the answer to the questions I am going to ask are in the second paragraph. Where does the heat come from? Wouldn't there be an uneven distribution of heat in the medium if the photon slowed down? One more question if the photon slows down as it enters the medium would the result be a change in density where it enters the medium that would cause the next photon to slow even more, then the next to slow even more etc. To the point where photons can no longer enter the medium?

Okay, I'll put the average velocity of a black hole at formation to bed for a while. It is only one question, and the thoughts that led to it where likely the result of to much time working in the hot sun. I have trouble envisioning warped space. Truth is I don't believe it. I think it is an illusion, and that leaning toward that illusion in explanation of what is likely a mechanical nature is a mistake. Learning about black holes might shed some light, so to speak. At the moment I have to go to work though.

I was thinking of the black hole as a system within a system wondering if an average velocity might help to predict past and future of the system in which it resides. I can imagine a system that develops a black hole where the rotational velocity of the system it develops in such as a star in a seemingly closed system collapses into a black hole, but that star is actually part of an open system, it is part of a greater system. It has directional velocity when it collapses. Not meaning inward, or outward as it forms. It is moving as it forms, it will continue to move after it forms. Is there an average velocity? That thought that led to this point. A photon moves at c. It has no mass, yet it interacts with gravity? Or does it? If it follows a geodesic is it interacting? Or is its course predetermined which would seem to make any apparent interaction virtual, as in there is no interaction. The photon is not changing course. It was going that way anyway. If this understanding is correct it does not change the predictability of its path. We know enough to make the prediction. Even if that path leads to a black hole. If we look at a system that has sufficient mass to sustain a black hole, yet there is no black hole can we predict a black hole in its future? I would guess yes, if there is sufficient mass. The where and when needs more predictability. Center point mass might explain the where. So, if, and where moves into the prediction. When is a matter of time, and velocity is closely related to time, so maybe a determined average velocity for known black holes may give a ball park figure provided nothing has occurred to accelerate or perhaps decelerate the black holes being compared. How did I get here thinking about photons? It's just the way my mind works. It seems I had inverted the meanings of open and closed systems,so I have tried to edit the post to fix the problem without having to rewrite the whole.

I thought it was a good question, but since you have answered with a question I need to figure out a way to reword it. Black holes form within pre existing systems. Is there evidence that there might be an average velocity required for the object of its forming within its system that leaves a conclusion that says that compared to other systems that have black holes, and systems with comparable mass, but no black hole, does the systems velocity rotationally, determine if, when, and where the black hole will form, and if so can an average velocity for a newly formed black hole be determined?

I was thinking about photons, well actually about their apparent properties, which led to gravitational effects. Which then led to black holes, and eventually to questions about movement. The basic question, why does a black hole move? If it was moving when it formed, and there is no reason to think that it wasn't, I expect a predictable movement in that it has momentum. It seems to me that it would take a tremendous amount of energy to effect it's course. This seems to suggest that patterns should exist? But, then I start to think that if the black hole was part of a system when it formed, then I should think it's effect on the system, or the systems effect on it should only be the result of its creation, which should be a predictable part of the systems pattern. The black holes path is predetermined. I tend to think of the universe as systems within systems which at some point should present a whole that we call the universe. A place much larger than the confines of my abilities. Some would suggest that all paths lead to chaos. It seems to me that the universe isn't anywhere near that point yet. So, it seems to me that if a black holes movement noticeably changes from a predicted pattern, then there should be predictable reasons. This seems to imply that it's movement even unchanged should lead to a predictable past. From here a lot of questions start to form. Do black holes have an average speed when they form? How much energy would it take to effect change in its predicted path given by it's system, as in out system influence? Any thoughts and comments would be welcome, to include where my thoughts are wrong.

Your idea of an optimal model, and the grower/consumer optimal model might not be the same mainly for economic reasons. How would you achieve an optimal model while giving them at the minimum what they have now? To CharonY - you said that we had the means to overcome bacterial diseases in our hands - What means was that? Also, I have noticed a thing as simple as a label riquirement has enticed the practice of non antibiotic use, but to what degree I do not know. It may still be allowed that AB's be used under certain conditions, which could in truth be abused.

Actually, that is why I stated the thread. I was hoping that someone with a background in biology would tell me why the antibiotics given to food animals is wrong to the point where people would demand that it would be banned completly. Are they just crying wolf? Is it an economic reason? Is the reason simply philosophical? Is there any proof that the AB's will actually cause harm, or is it rebels who will take any cause offered just so they can stomp their feet, shake their fist, and incite riot simply becasue it makes them feel alive while giving them a sense of purpose? The article implies that the practice of giving AB's to food animals has been going on for years for practical reasons. Where is the practicality of forcing a ban if the only reasons offered is that there are just some concerns that something might happen? There seems to be plenty of government control mentioned in the article in place to address most concerns. So why force a ban?

I am not blaming anyone. The article stated that most of the drugs are manufactured in India, and that China was the biggest user. It was a poor attempt at sarcasm by me. Actually, I view both countries as being two of the most practical countries in the world.

I read the article. An intresting collection of statements. Some talk about concern. People have been doing it for years. China is still doing it. India is the worlds provider. Apparently unaware that their success is the means of their own down fall. Indias only hope is that the rest of the world realizes the possible evils of Indias products, and bans their evil use. To which I predict that the only actual guarantee resulting from the ban is an increased cost of the products of its intended use. I can't even call the whole thing a conspiracy, because Indias biggest addict lives right next door, and they don't seem to be in any hurry to ban anything. I will eventually read it again, and maybe this time I won't feel like someone is trying to pull my chain.

So you are saying antibiotics are an alternative growth hormone, and that this growth has nothing to do with the animals wellbeing. Could it be that one, the amount of antibiotic is low because it is expensive. Is low because it is preventive, or is low because it is under legal control. Typically, for all concerned less is always better. Not because it is true, but because a well sounding proverb often justifies misuse. How many times have I been told to take all my antibiotics as proscribed to then read that I would have been better off to have let nature take its course. Your statement seems to be counter to your own argument, but I am still trying to understand it. Superbugs exist because of the low dosage? Would there be a problem if the dosage were proper? It is possible that growers see antibiotics as a growth hormone. I am sure they are cheaper. They look at results then follow their own guidance. When something seems to be working it is difficult to accept advice. To my knowledge antibiotics do not work like a vaccination. They are not really preventive medicine. They only work if the problem exist. The grower would see no beneficial result. Then would have to rely on ill given advice. Pherhaps by someone who sells antibiotics. We tend to see what we want to see. If the result is greater yields all the better. In truth I am not sure that I disagree with the case you present. I am sure that I don't totally understand it, because I thought at first you were vegan, presenting a week vegan argument. Promoting the phylosopy by attacking the base of a different phylosopy by pointing out weakness based on wrong thinking. A point easily defended when applied correctly. I am a assuming now that I am wrong. I am just not sure how wrong I am. I was not ignoring facts. I was unaware that antibiotics were a substitute for growth hormone, and was busy writing when that was posted. Truthfully my assumtion was and is that an animals well being promotes it's value, so naturally I assumed that to be the purpose for feeding, or giving the animal antibiotics.

I missed a lot of replies while writing my thoughts. I am sorry to have fallen behind in my own thread. It is in part due to this keyboard putting words in my mouth, then requiring correction, and the fact that I am a slow thinker.

I can understand this argument better. We don't want things to get worse. However, if an infection is minor we will survive with nominal treatment. The fear of nominal treatment is as bad as no treatment. The fear is super bugs that are the result of nominal treatment. A process of normal treatment that doesn't go away simply by withholding treatment. The hope is to slow this process down. In the meantime people die, or endure prolonged suffering in the name of what? Progress? Society, benifits if we allow illness to take its course? Explain that to those who are ill, and remain ill because treatment is withheld through fear, or because it appears that the illness appears more due to a viral infection. I can understand the reluctance to give treatment that is not needed, but often we are betting the farm on a professionals opinion that a viral infection won't lead to a bacterial infection, and that treating both is of no benifit, because possibly in the future the antibacterial treatment may be weakened because of today's treatment. The argument sounds logical, but is more easily accepted by someone who is not sick, than by someone who actually is. The doctor who thinks that a viral infection that produces dead meat in the body can not lead to a bacterial infection is a fool. As is the doctor who thinks a resulting bacterial infection can not lead to a prolonged viral infection is. Can we guarantee that withholding treatment will result in a better future? A better understanding of what is actually ailing us would be better. How many years did I suffer through of none ending throat infections, colds,and flue symptoms to finally have a doctor say this is the result of allergies, and like magic life got better. All I knew was that until then antibiotics lessoned the suffering. A proper diagnosis is the best thing, but until then I did all I could to get the antibiotics, because they helped. Now, I have seemed to have answered my own question. The reason for giving antibiotics to animals is simply to help insure that their investment survives to processing without improving growth conditions, so perhaps the practice should be controlled, but from a humane standpoint what if the animals get sick? Do we withhold preventive treatment for fear we might create a super bug? I wouldn't do this to my dog. I would prefer him to be well. I would not withhold preventive medicines for fear of creating a superbug. I can hardly see the rightness of doing this to an animal simply because it's intent is to be used for food. Frank Herbert wrote 'that fear is the mind killer.' When we allow the fear of creating a super bug to control what we can and can not do aren't we actually accepting that our natural state should be one of fear? Wouldn't it be better to say the possibility exist to the point of probability. Then prepare through proper research? I could stop eating meat, but that field of plants across the way is more likely to make me sick than the small amount of meat I can afford to eat, still I do have my allergy medicine, so maybe not.

It is true that we can eat less meat. It is also true that we can eat less of anything. Is it beneficial? Yes, and No,depending on the quality of our purpose. It is true that too much of anything is as bad for you as not enough. To eat, or not eat meat is a philosophical decision. Should we allow meat to become a poison simply to support the philosophy? A grower is not going to administer antibiotics for no economical reason. The reason they administer antibiotics is to keep the animal alive to the point of processing, thus increasing profit margin. The animals intent is as food. Biblically, we were nor meant to eat meat, but then biblically eating meat was sanctioned under specific conditions. Another philosophical argument that carries about the same weight as a vegan one. The argument I present is one of human benefit. How do we increase our benifit of survival by taking actions that seem designed more toward uplifting a philosophical view through stagnation? Yes, there is a danger of evolution through manipulation, but this danger is evolution, and it is not going to go away simply because we decide to withdraw our support. What will happen is that we will be caught ill prepared because we chose to allow one philosophy, over another. One that is not geared toward growth, but stagnation.

I was just glancing at an article that states there should be a concern about using antibiotics on animals for food production, and I had this question. Evolution is about survival of the fittest, and I do not doubt that stronger bugs servive. My question is how does removing the antibiotics reverse Evolution? It seems to me that what they are asking is for us to stop trying to survive. This would be cheaper, but the long term effects would seem to me to be less beneficial. Actually I'm not sure it would be cheaper. It would put us in a catch-up phase and put off the cost to a time when it would be more expensive. In the present the need four greater production will escalate more rapidly to compensate for the greater death rate before processing with at the minimum of two outcomes, worse growth conditions for the animal, producing best case conditions for the bacteria, or facilities expansion which would allow current legal growing conditions to be maintained at the additional cost of expanding. It would seem that facilities expansion would lower the need for antibacterial drugs while limiting the expansion rate of bacteria through cleaner growing conditions. This combined with cleaner processing methods should reduce the harmful effects on human consumption. It seems to me that by simply saying no more antibiotics we are preparing society for a period of stagnation that will leave us unprepared for the next super bug simply because research is maintain by present needs, and information tends to be lost or forgotten if not maintained. Then the cost when needed will be staggering, as it has been in the past.

Thanks. It will take me a while to read then I have to think about it. I tend to prefer to do both at the same time, so actually it may take more than a while. Thanks again. ..

It is difficult for me to understand exactly what a manifold actually is. To me it seems like observing what appears to be a square box only the numbers don't square. So in order to make the numbers square we define the coordinate system so that depending on the path taken the numbers are adjusted at each point to the point that when the math is done the numbers work. I am sure that this thought is wrong. If it were even close to being right, well we would be defining geometry to fit as deemed necessary. Simply because It doesn't agree with our use of language. Hmmn, I am doing poorly here. It should be obvious that I don't have a clue about manifolds. Question, are they ment to explain actual observations rather than expected observations? We did not expect time dilation, yet there it is without easy explanation, so we redefine spacial coordinates so that we can mathematically deal with actual results? Is this what a manifold does? Why is a geodesic dependent on a defined manifold, while an objects path through space can seemingly be reasonably explained by force interactions? Why is it that people define an objects path as a geodesic while failing to mention the need of a manifold? Their implication is that gravity is not a force but more the result of the shape of space. I would love to understand the complexities of the thought, but I am having trouble understanding the need. Ah, you have edited while I was writing. You were expecting some confusion.