foodchain

Could stunting star formation have any impact on the expansion of the universe? Like say you cut down star formation at some certain time by say 50% of what is estimated or known would such have any noticeable impact on the expansion of the universe?

Yes but pros and cons may be indicative of little more the progression amongst various cultures containing guns. For instance why has not the malicious government of the U.K taken over is weaponless citizenry? Yet in another instance you can find that Japan committing a crime with a gun is a very rare thing. I just want to add that as your correlations seem to be applied in a deterministic stance for humans in general. Going along with the thread I don’t see how gun restriction could work in such gun saturated environments really. Unless you have money to build lots of prisons for example, and police the world and shipping ports/containers and everything else. I still do not see how having so many deaths in America because of such compared to other nations with guns could be labeled an ok thing even under an interpretation of liberty, basically could you apply that argument to global warming? Because we will never infringe on some selected personal liberty but on others it would be ok to even pollute the world to death? How or what makes guns into something that can never be acted upon save in the fashion it supports, what humanity it makes it above change?

Thinking about new contraptions to use to study say microbes I thought about this. If you have a quantum computer I thought it could possibly be molded to represent say a chunk of an environment. Say you wanted to model how pelagic material might experience reality over a period of time, could you simulate say the thermodynamics of such by modeling it as a computation in a quantum computer? Such as the system could be pushed to recreate the environment on a thermodynamic scale that could match as it would occur naturally. One last way of putting it would be asking if you could program the computer to be exactly like the environment of such scale as relating to a small part of it, or programming the computer to perfectly imitate such.

Its a biochemical thing, part of natural sleeping that immobilizes the body. Sometimes people wake up out of sync so to speak, I don’t know if this is classified as a disease or what not though.

"In thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, a thermal bath is a reservoir of particles at finite temperature that is in thermal contact and is undergoing Brownian motion. Because of its nonzero temperature, this system contains thermal energy." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_bath_%28thermodynamics%29

How do you have a thermal bath of some sort in a vacuum?

What could power that? Do you have to power something like that?

Oh, sorry, I don’t know what you know. Basically I just did not understand what you are trying to target, if its humans as is currently from a biological perspective then I would think the answer is no, 1 it did not occur that way from what is understood and commonly in print on the subject and secondly I don’t think modern theory could support such, though I don’t know if it permanently selects against the occurring of such. Then again I seriously don’t know everything, so you might want to check it out some more.

It depends on the object I think. Such as its composition or speed for instance will select what weapons can be used to combat such I think, and I also think we cant defeat ever possible scenario currently involving such. I also think detection is proportional to the amount of people, equipment and funding in use and currently I do not think these values are staggering really.

Einstein did make contributions to QM he just disagreed with the product of the formalism, such as the use of statistics for instance or the probable nature of QM because he thought it lacked determinism, this was the brunt of personal gods don’t play dice remark I think. ------------ I still don’t understand really the whole Schrödinger cat bit, might as well put a box over my head so I can teleport or something

I would also want to look at genetic recombination which occurs naturally. Its a source of variance, plus you have epigenetics plus even more influential factors. Bottlenecks I think are also evident in our species history, but with that one being much larger then to proposed idea of speciation I would tend to think that seeing such would be all that easier. I mean when you ask such questions, do you mean for instance an “ideal” molecular clock? I could get confused and wonder if you are asking about drift for instance, along with fitness peaks and phenotypes, so is it basically wondering if mutation is the topic at hand.

I think nerve gas should be legal like guns, I mean if we are to have liberty we really should have it else liberty I guess really would just become someone’s opinion.

As sad as it sounds have you tried loading a fresh OS? I do not think this would really help you but it does have a lot of files in it. Besides that does your computer display much information on it in regards to the other one, such as on installation, have you tried reinstalling both of them, maybe switching physical lactations such as bays and seeing which one the computer recognizes?

Because I think you are confused a little bit. The traits or the phenotype or whatever of those new alleles will be treated the same as normie ones. If you produce a new allele do you think adding it into a population would somehow produce a result where it was not processed by NS at all? If you were to do it in a fashion in which the new allele would have noting to do with meiotic cells or meiosis in general. I could not imagine currently how you would pull that off. Basically I think you would have to master morphogenesis and development so you could insert such on the fly, or the allele would have to be tagged in some way as to avoid ending up in some genome as hereditary material, if you could subtract that you could attack one way NS impacts, but you would still be left with the impact it would hold via concentration in individuals of a population right? Simply put even though its not occurring naturally such genes themselves would be occurring regular in generations of populations.

I don’t understand why you don’t just post that say moderators basically call bs on something, post or cite the reason why its bs rather then just a individual post alone. I was posting about microbiology recently and when a mod entered the thread I basically just let the guy run with it because he seemed he wanted to help. So in that regard just solid mod behavior that can answer questions and defeat say people who more or less do not give accurate representations for an answer. Plus what is a troll really, are we looking for an anarchist, a zealot or some casually interested and mildly bored reader? I think repeated warming violations would be enough for action of some kind, as long as the warnings are issued in public and require say more then one, I don’t see how this site could be ranked as practicing eugenics or authoritarian barbarism of any kind.

maybe its just broke, maybe something in it melted, or popped. have you checked it with a voltmeter:D

You put belief in each sentence, is that what you are using to define delusion? I don’t see belief by itself as the cause for all misfortune, I think it would have helped cavepeople if indeed it has a more hard application biologically, simply put what did they know? Plus who knows if indeed belief has a biological origin it might be a product of some current phenotype. Also I don’t know how you would prove it past saying other animals don’t have "belief" in some form, like barking at the "unknown" with some dogs. I have no idea. If its cells just working towards fitness like with evolution, then that would apply what as selective pressures or life history for such? I guess this would entail phylogeny to a great extent. Such as could this have played a role in language formation? I think that’s a cool question.

Its not that I am trying to visualize just as much as I don’t understand the point of separation for concepts like superposition and relativity, or entanglement. The only interpretation I like is decoherence really. With that decoherence uses entanglement in regards to superposition and uncertainty correct, so in that formalism how do the variables come into play in a way that gives segregation to superposition and uncertainty.

Your post seems to be going two places at the same time. In one way I get that you are talking about something similar to a worldview, that has parts associated with say nature, in the terms of a brain, and then nurture, or input from the outside it can get. In a sort of juxtapose fashion though you also seem to be including other aspects such as its evolution. In some model I think the brain is described as a competitive network of individual cells. So how does that lurch up into being something similar to a worldview, or is it other aspects of brain function that are responsible for say delusion or worldview? I think the reward for the cells is more food in some form, not sure about specifics as I have only briefly read up on such stuff.

Well with one possible scenario for the universe is heat death, so I am basically equating a total zero point energy state with the final product being that, or the universe moving until its collectively reached heat death or a uniform zero energy point. So with relativity I think objects have to be referenced to one another via a formalism to deduce physical observables from them, if whatever all of space happens to be, which I guess happen to have to hold physical observables as properties in order to exist, had zero point energy, what would gravity look like?

That just leaves me confused really. An electron does not have to be an electron does it? A electrons physical observables may not require entanglement to exist in some state, but entanglement is a quantum phenomena that I think can occur with any quantum states right? I still do not understand why uncertainty exists outside of superposition still. In regards to variables such as position or momentum, its all those variables collective behavior then that leads to uncertainty, why is this condition different from superposition? Plus cannot entanglement be discovered from using such variables in the first place to perform an operation in which the states of such can be described in respects to one another?

So the spin or superposition of such for any giving electron for being either up or down cannot be viewed as a product of entanglement?

Does the ram have the correct mhz for your motherboard, or work with the cpu clock?

As I understand uncertainty in relation to QM is limits on how precise a solitary measurement/observation can be in regards to physical observables. Such as if I view a system for instance like an atom, and I use a light or what not, the interaction with the atoms and the light make the observation more uncertain of say the non disturbed or original state before "collapse" on measurement. I also think this deals with entanglement right, rather then the idea of the observer effect, or that its not just a product of human interaction but how stuff on a QM scale actually behaves? I am not sure but does this not deal with the physical observable having to be greater then or at least equal to either the Planck constant or zero point energy thing?

why do all apes have to have the same evolutionary history, as in why would they all have to become like people? Do all people have to be exactly alike?