foodchain

Viewed like what?

The blanket. If you take part of the blanket and expose it to some force it will radiate out, and if you took a certain part of the blanket and slowed it down incredibly you would have locality I think for that section of blanket for X amount of time, but its not like true locality as in isolated, which I guess kind of touches on reference frames perhaps?

Any takers?

Well if I get what you are talking about even slightly would that be something along the lines of motion from say the most infinitesimal scale up to the largest in a continuum type of sense? Like a flower unfolding or something?

I was folding a blanket today and noticed the ripples forming in it. I don’t know why but this made me think of spacetime warping. Can quasi local phenomena be somewhat viewed like that dependent on scale?

We only have life on earth in which to guess how other life could have formed, or what it could look like. Going from natural selection which is abotic and biotic variables I would think it would be easy to surmise that gravity would have an effect on the evolution of life. I don’t see how you can say gravity would only have X for an effect though, maybe on some planet business organisms need suits that can hold eight limbs along with proper and stylish aspects for the fact they may hover for some reason.

I say this because looking at life and natural selection you do have an evolution from microbes to human type life as a possibility that can occur.

It's just as viable as science if I seek to falsify your hypothesis (that this stuff is harmful).

"I have a few questions as to how real world the studies are overall. In one reference a few homes were used as a study, I would say that can hardly account for the reality of the products use constantly all over the world. "

If you don't think studies of a few houses are valid (which may be a fair point) then you can take comfort from the fact that this stuff has (as you say) been in use for ages without much evidence of resistance.

 

In the long run there's every chance that some bugs will become resistant to triclosan.

So what?

It's not used directly in medicine; there are other products that do the same job; resistance to triclosan will not make the bugs better able to harm people (probably the reverse). The only losers will be the manufacturers.

I guess I would or should word it as how do you gauge the impact of any particular variable in a fitness landscape for a giving taxa. Even prokaryotes have cellular memory mechanisms or epigenetic mechanism along with regulatory and signaling feature which lend support to a giving phenotype. The selection pressures or criteria for a giving phenotype I think needs to be equated as to find the mechanism in detail. If individuals have been found with resistance such should be in relation to say that individuals phenotype and how far that phenotype varies from the norm and why.

I have a few questions as to how real world the studies are overall. In one reference a few homes were used as a study, I would say that can hardly account for the reality of the products use constantly all over the world. The phenome of a giving genome can be quite large. From the reality of gene regulation and signaling or splicing again regarding phenotype I could hardly see how this study can concretely prove no ability to gain resistance in a giving specie or population, more so if you simply lump mutation and selective pressures over time? I mean the later part of the question is off topic as you cant really test it, but resistance can be gained by bacteria in which you would then have to prove a mechanism I think of the antimicrobial as something that bacteria or microbes in general simply cannot evolve with.

This is where we have arrived as I see it after 50 years of heavy participation and contributuion- I ask you, how do we get back to sharing truth because it rings with the dna in every cell of our body-- strickly a matter of physics gut feel as it was for Einstein? Einstein would not have a chance today with his early papers. We have Commercial Headed People calling the shots on what science is and is not all over the internet. We must and can do better! Another apt title for this thread is "Hey! Truth is not for sale! "This thread would offer to be a forum for just that--an open forum on what truth is at the level of Visualizable Einstein Material Points that fill the continuous field of space-time.

I don’t know. If you look at string theory or more or less the multiverse concept I think it would be difficult to say what and what wont make it. I also think that you of course deal with a human element and more so any penalties that can inherit like a taste for art. I mean why the whole idea about the beautiful equation? Why does it have to be beautiful or satisfy first principals in the first place, the axioms themselves cant be explained in such a manner anyways, unless the combination of the two is to imply that a first principals are the axioms but that would imply that our current math uses correct or natural axioms that can model a natural or correct world.

See with evolution I would look at natural selection as an axiom, yet it can be derived from other sources such as reproduction and variation with or without inheritance. Which gluing together of these terms provides the grounds for natural selection though if it merely a biological axiom or mechanism really. Which I would also think highlights the question on if natural selection can then be viewed as a axiom simply because it might be a first principal required for life to occur in the first place.

In short: I don't see uncertainty as problematic when it comes to finding a wave function. I'd rather see the fact that you describe an object via WFs (and not via R³ vectors) as tied to uncertainty.

Would it be a joke then to say you cant prove that past the uncertainty principal:D

No thanks for the reply though. Would that more or less be suggestive of the line of thinking that the wavefunction is more or less a possibly imperfect tool but that the uncertainty principal is a real physical property of quantum mechanical systems?

In many body problems does the uncertainty principal lead to the difficulty of predicting quantum behavior for a molecular structure?

Another way I will word the question is that if the uncertainty principal is physically responsible for say the wavefuntion of a molecule? As such that the uncertainty principal itself in relation to superposition is what you are observing at any giving moment in say a many body system or molecule.

but if mass and energy are similar, that is mass can be converted to energy, then cant energy be converted into mass? hence gravity?

I think that’s the whole higgs thing though I am not sure by any means. I wish someone who knew would come and post on such.

I think that for organic subjects, cats would be best. They're very fast, know how to look out for themselves, and are much more intellligent than rodents when it comes to tactical thinking.

 

But if they were inorganic subjects, the US Military is developing robotic insects and lobsters. Their multi-legged build allows for getting into tight spots, and insects are very hardy.

Tactical is one of the three typically along with strategical and operational so don’t use it to much out of context, also a lot of what could define that is situation dependent. The rodent example was to use a chip to aid in decision making based on stimulus though I don’t know how far its gotten.

I would just say genetics+environment=phenotype like usual, and yes even for people. I don’t have the same hair or eye color as either of my parents, both sides of my family contain tall people as I am short at six foot. I knew this one family where both the parents were halfway towards six feet in height and the first born in late middle school was already taller and bigger then both of them, so for what its worth you might be getting something from a great-grandfather or mother with a twist.

I would just like to take a second to say that this site has helped me really in understanding many things that I would otherwise be confused on pretty much. I understand the structure and function of say physics a great deal more then when I first stated posting. This came about in my case I would say from a less then academic line of questioning though, and for that I would just like to say sorry:D

There's a reason the two are together. If the speculation goes no further than it's own thread, is falsified, has no math or can't stand up on its own without using fallacious logic, then most speculation involves pseudoscience at some point.

 

It's always been our hope that someday someone will post a good Speculation, support it with testing and strong arguments, run the gauntlet of devil's advocates that *is* this very SFN, and convince everyone that they might be right. We would have a great holiday with a parade and a real horse (not a pony) and Cheese Nips for everyone as we proudly elevated the thread in question from Pseudoscience & Speculations to it's appropriate Science sub-fora.

I have to agree and disagree. If people did not ask questions, which are dumb or smart or whatever then we would probably have never gotten to anything really. I mean take any subject, evolution, relativity, it involved trial and error and asking questions in which not everything was right. So if you take that away and basically just focus on nothing but repeating facts, does not that make science or much anything some form of an encyclopedic robot and not much else? How do you grow from there? I mean scientists find out biological realities that do not perfectly agree with Mendel type thinking, which is pretty standard, so how do you go outside of such a box to make a discovery then? I think to ask any type of question scientifically ultimately is to speculate really to some extent, and then to label speculation to be = to pseudoscience I think basically lumps every current hypothesis about anything in the same realm of creation science.

Would you please stay out of my threads. All you do try to make people feel stupid. I was listing the popular results I got from asking others. My final answer will remain unknown.

 

 

 

Done and done sir. No worries I think my answer is correct. Thanks though.

Just read up on embryogenesis, you also have a morula stage in there. It will list to you all of the stages and when you have an embryo also this is subject to change and with humans you even have to deal with political issues such as abortion in terms of what and when a label appears. Personally I think the embryoblast for the most part is when you have an embryo, I mean you don’t call the mom and embryo do you?

The higgs boson, is the mediating particle of the higgs field, so the particles are normally virtual. It's similar to how when a photon (or normally two) create particle - antiparticle pairs they interact differently with each other (in the strong, weak and EM forces) than the photons would... You're not actually creating the mediating particles they're virtual, of course you can create them if you make high energy particle beams hit each other with a high enough energy, the Higgs Boson has a mass of about 144 GeV, which is why the LHC with an upper energy of about 450GeV should be able to create them, even if they'll be very short lived (they decay).

Thanks for the help, two questions though if you would.

1) Is a more proper view of wave-particle duality as being a field then?

2) Would the higgs boson then basically be a specific manifestation of a field as a particle?

I think I am way off track and I am looking to get back on track but a lot of the terms are complex of course and new to me.

If the higgs boson or mechanism is to give mass to various particles this does not include a photon right? Yet on collision cant photons of some value of energy produce particles that have mass? So that would mean the higgs boson would have had to appear at some point and decay into particles with mass right? Or is it something of a field effect? Simply put if photons are to mediate the electromagnetic field is it on interaction with such a field that you get a point like photon? I am confused greatly and any help would be really neat.

Thanks.

 

The 3 popular results are the one I previously named.

 

This one: Zygote>Cleavage>Embryo>Blastulation>Gastrulation>Adult>Meosis>Fertilization

 

And: Fertilization>zygote>Cleavage>Blastulation>Gastrulation>Embryo>Adult>Meosis

Well you might have to check for yourself as I am not totally sure myself.

I have received so many mixed results in searches for this I figured I'd ask the experts.

 

According to DEVELOPMENTAL sequence place these in the CORRECT order.

 

Cleavage, Meosis, Blastulation, Gastrulation, Zygote, Embryo, Adult, Fertilization

 

Is it

 

Fertilization, Zygote, Cleavage, Embryo, Blastulation, Gastrulation, Adult, Meosis?

I would say no.

"em·bry·o·blast (mbr--blst)

n.

Any of the germinal disk cells of the inner cell mass in the blastocyst that form the embryo."

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/embryoblast

This is different. Horizontal or lateral gene transfer is taking parts of DNA and sharing them across species lines. Endosymbiosis is when an entire organism was incorporated into another organism.

I simply look at the evolution of life from the principle of least action really. Prokaryotes are by far more simple in structure then eukaryotes. Not to say what came first or not but I could think in a form of endosymbiosis from bacteria for instance using HGT that VGT became a reality via natural selection, and as soon as they could self sustain you had protista really. I think this is evident in the fact you can find chunks of say bacterial genome in very early eukaryotic life unless this is a constant act of HGT on a VGT organism? Plus the earliest recorded life is not eukaryotic in base, so I think you would suggest that eukaryotes developed independently of prokaryotes or at least not in enough of a population concentration to show evidence in the timeline anywhere close to prokaryotes, also that eukaryotic life would have had to sustain with some other mechanism besides mitochondria for instance.

Yeah, what happened if it is all of a dream? your senses are being play into duping you into reality, like the "Matrix". Senses like smell, sight, hearing, touch are all stimulate. While you thought you were doing physics experiment handling data and coming up with laws and theories, it was just a dream.

"But we're all saw it." "It is on data, we videotape the whole experiment." "I did it myself." "You were there, weren't you."

 

That's what happened to some guy that did the cold fusion experiment.

I try to avoid that whole line of thinking. I think quantum mechanics is surely physical. I don’t think however of course that our senses see everything obviously, but that has to do with evolution, and of course being we can react to photons, evolution, biologically speaking then of course also deals with quantum reality as an aspect or variable in natural selection then, like 1,2,3 really.

QM is used to explain chemical reality and bonding behavior, or it can be, its also experimentally verified up the ying yang so I could hardly care to get into some aspect of conscious thought changing reality, that whole aspect of QM is pure garbage in my opinion. If you detect a photon obviously you have interacted with it thus changing it. I attribute measurement to simply being any kind of physical interaction really, which again leads to my interest in decoherence and really more specifically einselection as I am looking for a basis in QM in which the environment is made paramount simply because of intuition about reality.

"Received 10 September 1996

A mesoscopic superposition of quantum states involving radiation fields with classically distinct phases was created and its progressive decoherence observed. The experiment involved Rydberg atoms interacting one at a time with a few photon coherent field trapped in a high Q microwave cavity. The mesoscopic superposition was the equivalent of an “ atom+measuring apparatus ” system in which the “meter” was pointing simultaneously towards two different directions—a “Schrödinger cat.” The decoherence phenomenon transforming this superposition into a statistical mixture was observed while it unfolded, providing a direct insight into a process at the heart of quantum measurement."

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v77/i24/p4887_1

You can find this link from the wiki article, its among so many anymore its hard to try and read a small fraction of them really.

I think laws are based on experiments.

So I think your question is:

Cons. Law = f(environment?)

or

Environment = f(Cons. law?)

Please ask question in simpler form and write it properly. Thanks.

That’s sort of the problem. See you have all kinds of interpretations of QM floating around. I am particularly interested in decoherence because the rest of them I don’t find as interesting.

IN the experiments you cant separate anything. Such as simply looking at the experiments or the apparatus involved changes the experiment, this to me of course implies the idea that quantum systems are not isolated, and even in the presence of a bec you have to have a highly controlled environment, or typically its always some kind of an environmental function, or subsystem of the environment.

I was reading on some nanotech based methods of wave function engineering that dealt with the super periodic. I can only think what is the complete wave function over time of my keyboard via all the strokes made on keys through the day and why my keyboard even keeps a resemblance of itself over time:D;)

To me the environmental idea of decoherence over subsystems makes sense in reaction to the idea of superposition and why anything in reality is ever not in complete and constant superposition, which implies a particle-wave thing being anywhere at anytime physically possible.

So any type of a constant that has evolved from any kind of a physical system ultimately deals with the quantum, so how could a arrow of time or classical reality or anything normal or routine come from such, like planets or solar systems or hydrogen or matter or mass or light or anything really. It all hinges of course on the question that classical reality and its laws emerged from a quantum one, if not the question is sort of pointless, but if indeed the visible universe is a product of quantum reality then some mechanism has to exist in the quantum world that would lead to anything regular I would think out of superposition.

I mean what if some person accidentally does put the right chemical formula for life together but fails to get the spark because the wave function does not happen to come across as is needed, so many many questions for something like that, I mean what if its decoherence of subsystems in the current form that allows for the Planck constant? Then of course you deal with the reality that to escape this might require that apparatus that is the universe to change. I mean QM is functioning in everything constantly, its what describes atoms for example.

What about Buddism say? They do not belive in God. They do however have a set of defined beliefs. They are Atheists.

 

The word as defined only describes wether one believes in a god or not. NOTHING else.

It depends on the particular sect you are looking at. If memory serves original Buddhist thought evolved from more or less a personal philosophy that did not have much to do with the super natural. It though if you are speaking for instance of Buddhism like Zen or Chan then you find yourself quickly dealing with supernatural aspects. Though it may not be a one single sky god(LoLzor's) its still pretty much the same line of thinking.

Answer as many as you can if you know any! Thanks in advance!

3. In crayfish their stomach is lined with endoderm; however, their esophagus and intestine with an exoskeleton. What problem will this give the crayfish upon molting time?

Something just seems very wrong or is it just a very lax use of this?

Thank you. Is there any particular reason for this?

Multicellular can apply to more then just animals, plus I do not think 100% of animals are multicellular. Motility can apply to so much its not even funny, so its far not an specific animal trait. Heterotroph can apply to animal, and I think all animals are heterotrophs, though I am not fluent in all the trophs, I know they surely are not auto or photo at least. All animals are eukaryotic, but so again are so many other forms of life. Invertebrate to vertebrate surely speaks of animals though and of course again I think all animals do indeed feed on other organisms.