sunspot

With respect to an accelerating universe if we include entropy into the picture things begin to add up. An entropy expansion is endothermic. What that means are sources of exothermic output is required to maintain the energy requirement. This is provided by gravity and fusion.

Life forming is not a random thing. It is based on the hydrogen proton. Hydrogen protons and hydrogen bonding is the basis for the properties of DNA, RNA, proteins and water. The metabolic energy of life is based on moving fixed protons, as C-H, into the mobile protons of water. Solar potential, indirectly stemming from fusion, allows the proton to become fixed to C via photosynthesis. Life has evolved in the direction of increasing hydrogen proton potential. It is not cooincidental that the outer surfaces of neurons generate the highest proton potentials via their unusually high cation pumping rates. While the movement of positive charge, through water, within synapses and along neurons is an important part of the functioning of the brain. The mitochrondria, which are the power supplies of cells, pump hydrogen proton directly and use this potential to make ATP. The random approach to life is only there because nobody wants to base life on the most significant thing in the universe, i.e., hydrogen protons.

Thanks for the info. What is interesting is how the Koala was able to adapt to a toxic food source. Necessity created a genetic potential for the needed changes in the digestive tract. I can see the koala pushed up these tree by preditors afraid to come down, needing to live off the forest floor. They probably felt sick at first, but if one gets hungry or thirsty enough, even marginal things begin to taste good.

My math was rounded down to make it more conservative. I was too lazy to do the real calculation because hard numbers based on approximation is better served with a math approximation. But if the mass of the electron converted to energy via E=MC2 ends up being 37,000 time more than the 13.6 ev, and the relativistic mass increase at 1/137 th C is about one part in 25,000, I figured 37/25 times 13.6. But I rounded down to 13.6 instead of use the value 20 ev. I don't know the electron speed, for certainty, so I was being very conservative. I do not believe this number has anything directly to do with ionization energy but I thought that it was sort of interesting. Let me continue the idea of two references with another observation. An electron-positron pair can form from very energetic photons. But it does not lead to the net production of electrons, since the/or/a pair will annihillate with the release of energy. With the electron-positron, so similar, but differing in charge, this is an example of what happens when both charges are in the same reference. With the proton and electron in slightly different references, they can interact via EM force, but will dance around but can not easily combine into pure energy. I am sorry about this last assertion but I hope I can make it clearer. If we look at a photon, it has no mass but expresses itself with distance and time, that we call wavelength and frequency. What is strange about this output arrangment is evident in special relativity and relative reference. Something traveling at C in our reference should be showing max distance contraction and max time dilation, yet what we see is the photon expressing something finite in distance and time. I believe that the energy of the photon is the amount of energy needed to maintain its finite references in distance and time apart from what a C reference should actually be. I call the energy of a photon a combination of distance and time potential, since it has no mass, and no mass times infinite gamma (V=C) is still zero and therefore the mass (less) aspect is consistent with the C reference. For example, a gamma ray has a tiny time interval or high frequency. It takes a lot of potential energy to maintain what should be an infinite time reference as an infintessimal time increment. The conceptual problem this may create for others is due to our perception of time and distance. These standardized human measures are new with respect to the universe, i.e., over the past several hundred years. But ever since the beginning of evolution, photons have been creating standarized increments of distance and time. Maintaining these standards apart from C creates potential in distance and time. If we pump energy into an atom, the electron will increase distance and will take time to return to steady state. The release of energy restores the time and distance potential back to the photon. If we go back to the creation of the electron-positron pair, the distance and time potential of the original photon, is converted to mass or what I call mass potential (V of the photon needs to fall from C), special relativity affects in distance and time, and distance and time potential phenomena that we call charge and EM force.

Here is a new twist on evolution and selective advantage. It has to do with evolution leading to selective disadvantage. A good example of this is the cute critter called the koala bear. It will only eat leaves from the eucolytus tree. This is all fine and dandy, but if there is a change in the environment due to nature or humans, its narrow range of adaptation will cause it to be at a selective disadvantage. Many people work very hard to resist any environmental change so cute and nice critters, like the koala, will not be put in the position of selective advantage evolution. What I thought might be a good experiment is to see if it is possible to train koala to eat other plants to help decrease its selective disadvantage. I know of no practical reason it can't eat other plants so it can be a more inclusive vegatarian, with more selective advantage. It is possible that the smell of eucolypus is what attracts him to this tree. Maybe we can spray eucolytus oil on bambo or something and see if we can help diversify his selective disadvantage diet. I would still give him his favorite food but with other things added in.

The calculation was rounded downward (estimation math) since I am still not sure of the consensus speed of an electron. In any case, it is sort of interesting that the relativistic mass is in the range of ionization energy. If we go back to the Hiesenberg uncertainty principle, it is no so much concerned with uncertainty in mass as it with uncertainy in distance and time. One can not really pin the electron down without alterring its energy. This is true because it is modelled as one reference. Distance and time relativity are also off by a factor of 1 in 25,000. If we assume two references we should be able to lower the range of uncertainty. Some math wizz may be able to get us zero uncertainty. If we look at an electron in orbitals it not only has velocity but also has a constantly changing velocity vector due to the EM force and acceleration that keeps it in orbital space. With respect to relativity, the electron is contracting distance and dilating time within orbital space, with its affect maximized at the electron.

I seriously don't believe that global warming will cause the extinction of humans. Look at the worse case scenario. The polar caps melt, the oceans rise and the weather gets severe. I would be a little concerned about buying seaside property and/or living in hurricane or tornado alleys. But there will still be plenty of places where the conditions will get better for human occupation. For example, the tundra of Canada may become the new food belt. It would require a global shift in the population centers for the new world.

I believe that not only specific genes matter but also the order of those genes on the chromosomes. Like any molecule if you rearrange the same number and types of atoms into a different orderring you can get very different properties. The genes are atoms arranged in space with different orderring of the four bases leading to vastly different proteins. If we alter the location of genes, than there will also be a difference in the overall DNA functionality, i.e., final multicellular differentiation summation. As far as the ancient homo sapiens, their minds worked differently. They were probably much closer to the animals than modern humans. One can put a tuxedo on a dirt farmer and may him look sophisticated but deep down he wants to be in the fields.

When I was thinking about the Y and X chromosomes, I noticed that the Y is sort of like male genetalia, i.e, twig and berries. The X for the female is a set of mammalian protrubances (Frank Zappa) and two other things. The clitorus could be one and the other is everything else?

I am not the biggest plant eater primarily because I am too lazy. But the best plants to eat are still live when we eat them. For example, we can eat half a potato and plant the other half. Many plants like brocolli can be cut and kept alive in water. What is interesting about humans evolving from primates is that primates are not big meat eaters, although they will eat small things, bugs. In a relatively short period of time, less than 1M years, humans were able to alter their genetics to make meat eating a more natural part of their lifestyle. The ice age could have created the necessity with the DNA following suit in a relatively short time. This is behavior altering genetics. If the change within genetics occurred first than it would almost impy a meaningful coocindence, since the ice age was about to approach implying the genetic change sort of anticipated the change in the environment and made the adjustments ahead of time. This would almost indicate an earth potential causing the genetic change.

Warm blooded creatures often show more development in the limbic areas of the brain, which are needed for emotional assessement and the creation of memory. This gives them a learning advantage. I used to have a fish tank. There were a few species of fish that could recognize me and would swim to the glass to greet me thinking I was going to feed them. They would usually swim away from strangers. It was sort of a trick. One day I noticed my smartest fish (angel fish) swimming in a frantic way. It was really strange. Later that day, a fire broke out in the apartment next door due to a lamp that short circuited opposite the fish tank. Now that was a good trick.

If we do the calculation a little deeper the difference between 9.109 3826(16) × 10^−31 kg and 9.109625281 x 10^-31kg is about 1 in 25,000 more or less. As Servian pointed out, the mass of an electron has 37,000 times more energy value than the 13.6 ev escape velocity. If we combine all this, that amount of relativistic mass adds to roughly 13.6 ev. This is within the range of uncertainy. This assumes 1/137th C. This does not even take into account the potential energy in distance and time.

The Sally boy mentality is contemporary cultural. The gays made it possible and the marketeers saw a whole new group of easy targets. Alice I am impressed you have enough inner character not to rely so heavily of the superfiscial wrapper. Although for completeness, babe up every now and then, to see the shallow advantage.

Bass is among the oldest of the primative manmades sounds, i.e., early drums, along with other percussion. It brings one to a primal place in the psyche. After one has been there for a while, one often move up the evolutionary ladder of music.

Call up a stereo service store or individua.. They can probably get the part but may charge a slight premium for orderring it.

I am an omnivore. I eat plants, animals and artificial things created in factories. I prefer my plants live, my animals dead and the artificial things before the expiration date. If evolution is based on selective advantage, than being an omnivore would give me that advantage because I could more easily survive anywhere.

It come down to nature and nurture. The nature identity of the father is not as important as the nurture. Making a child takes 10min to all night and is anything but work. It is something between exercise and play. The nurture can take decades and is definitely more work. As far as the traditional father and mother family, this is so ingrained in the human brain, that the lack of one or the other may create a hole in the child's personality. One parent may attempt to fill both sides but males don't make good females and females don't make good males or the battle of the sexes would settled by now. Maybe what they should do is mix all the sperm together in a vat and use the mixed male blend for fertilization.

What I meant about the mother is, a male child came from a male (father) and female (mother) and therefore contains both male and female genes. When sperm form some of the female genes, that the son got from the mother, may end up in the sperm. The ovuum will absorb not just male genes from the male but also some female genes that came from the male's mothers. If these replace the purely female genes within the ovuum, some female traits that are passed to the third generation daughter are masculinized female genes. Sexuality is more than just male or female organs. There is a wide range of secondary changes from muscularity, to hair, skin, body fat, behavior, sensitivity, etc.,

There are two aspects of the mind. A conscious aspect and an unconscious aspect. The unconscious aspect does not use the filter. The conscious aspect is more limited in capacity and requires a filter to help it focus. With hypnosis, one can recall things that were filtered but which nevertheless were recorded by the unconscious part of the brain. That is the supercomputer part of the brain. The conscious mind is more like a PC terminal to the super computer. It can only handle smaller tasks in real time, or larger tasks over extended time.

Oil is a product of the earth and is a natural part of the eco-system. Refined petroleum products are a little different but during naval battles much of it was burnt in the explosions of munitions. The carcuses of the ships made nice homes for sea critters. Nature continued as usual. I tend to believe that the eco-arguments are overblown. One only has to look at history to see what our fore fathers did. America had much more woodlands in 1492 then today. It was the second lungs of the world. The world is still breathing fine with one lung. Grass has more photosynthsis surface area per acre than a dense forest. Add shrubs will small leaves and the second lung may have improved.

I believe American pay more because it is a capitalistic health system. In such a heath care system economics means, at the supply side, give as much treatment as the system will bare, this will maximize profits. While the individual maximizes the value of their health care bill (tax), at the demand side, but maximizing the amount of services they can recieve. Instead of treating the flu with rest and chicken soup, which would mean high healthcare charges without compensation, if I go to my doctor, so he can tell me the same thing, but for a premium, I got something for my money.

In South Korea some hotels stack them vertically. Another answer is conneted to width and length. One may be able to park them 3X3 perpendicular to the parking lines.

My interpretation is coming from conflicting accounts about the speed of electrons in atomic orbitals. I have read anywhere from 1/137 th of C to where relativistic affects should be evident. Does anyone know what the velocity of the electron is in an atomic obital? We can plug that into the equations to see if it is in the range of uncertainty.

If we start with a hydrogen atom that is stationary, relative to our reference, the electron is nevertheless traveling with relativistic velocity. As such, the electron should be defining relativistic mass, distance and time due to its velocity, even though the atom, as whole, is stationary in our reference. So essentially the hydrogen atom is a combination of two distinct references. The electron is also hard to pin down in the space within the 1S orbital. This uncertainty of location is expressed by the Hiessenberg uncertainty principle. This principle is needed because there are two distinct reference affects, but we traditionally model the electron using only the stationary reference of the nucleus. This results in one ending up with a level of uncertainy because the electron is not exactly within the zero reference, except via the wave function of the orbital. A more complete analysis needs to include the stationary and the relativistic references. Anyone who would like to develop this historic problem is welcome to it.

The term negative special relativity was used to explain the type of adjustment one would need to make to go from relativistic to stationary reference, if one assumes the relativistic reference is the zero reference. In the relativistic reference, there is zero time dilation because I am calling it the zero reference. The stationary reference therefore appears as though its special relativity is going in a negative way with respect to this zeroed relativistic reference.