foodchain

The question I think also goes into planet formation. Now I don’t know enough to know if galaxies and orbital systems that spin happen to be the norm across the observable universe or what is the exact norm but it seems the inner planets happen to be terrestrial and actually somewhat similar. Then you have an asteroid belt then gaseous giant planets. So I would imagine this would come to bear in formation of our planets composition is all, and for a hydrogen core to exist I would think would also depend on this. Again going from how gravity operates alone, to nucleation to anything else back down on the earth itself from the simple reality that a hydrogen core would be visible to current seismic means I think to the reality that I doubt it could hardly explain in any way the natural formations of the earth. To give you an idea about the pressure in the earth current technology can barely allow for human based mining operations at depths that are tiny fractions of what could exist really. Just like how people figured out DNA exists and what makes a microwave work the current model of the earth is based on empirical observations combined with how science for instance understands nature to work. A hydrogen core seems an impossibility giving the reality of the earth as understood by such. Also to contest this would require basically a higher degree of positive thinking on the issue to be true via scientific method like chemistry and all that neat stuff.

Right, and we are. I mean lets just say dark matter or dark energy was the topic, my question would be does it have any thermodynamic attribute at all physically? I think its a perfectly healthy question really, quite simple I would think save I don’t know the answer, I also don’t know the latest research on the topic or where to even look. I do think that current opinion for general consumption on the subject has it as only visible physically via interaction with gravity, which sounds odd to say the least, but that’s normal right?

For me currently it would be impossible as I would have to clue how to go about such, but I would have to agree that it probably is greater then what we can muster computationally really huh? Right but we don’t know everything yet. As for the laws of physics having to govern everything well QM dominates on a matter scale that must mean it governs biological evolution, some possible way to fold into the vacuum state! No really though dark matter/energy is relatively new and controversial, so its neat. Its just that some people state, professional scientists I think that such can only be detected via gravity, so does that make gravity a thermodynamic force? Else I think it should have some kind of a physical thermodynamic signature right? I don’t think quantum entanglement does either and tunneling is weird to me thermodynamically as it seems to allow for something to overcome a barrier it classically should be forbidden from.

Yes, I guess...

I honestly don’t know if this is a simple question. Can something exist that has no thermodynamic potential or signature of any kind? I mean I was just thinking about dark matter/energy for whatever it is, and I don’t know for sure but I don’t think such has any thermodynamic anything to it right?

Its not just terrorism. What about natural disasters? It should at least be an optional decision someone could make. I would be more or less worried about the widespread application of such in wildlife. I mean the interaction of the environment and organism to a chemical level or possibly even chemical ecology is hardly understood. Who knows how many mutations in time alone will be caused by the high presence of any numerous compounds, yet sit and worry about a semiconductor embedded in the flesh sounds like a bit late of a worry I would suggest. Many who fancy being cyborgs may take to it sort of like a fetish even, personally I think it may also cause widespread damage in the marital communities of the world, giving modern lore of the subject. In truth the cancer rate does seem way to high for any applications I would like it for, its just that most material things can easily be gotten rid of like a cell phone. So say someone you know gets in one of those odd car accidents out in the middle of nowhere, which roads like such do exist and get use, maybe the car could have some super beacon resistant to all kinds of damage. I think safety technology should be paramount. I mean many fatal injuries only become such as the damage is allowed to persist, such as bleeding. Faster times to rescue could only increase survival rates I would think, and that’s just one of numerous possible benefits really.

In the context of string theory and multiple dimensions does entanglement represent any physical manifestation of such possibly?

I think anti matter relates to matter the way dark matter and energy exist. I think this of course relates to time and everything else as in the present being the duality between the past and the future in regards to some universal wavefunction of wavefunctions. I just dont know how to test it;)

Hey, those chips or really how about something similar could make finding people in say rubble from a terrorist attack easier.

That’s just the thing to me. How much study have we done with the uncertainty principal in relation to all the various subatomic particles? I am not sure but I don’t think a single quark of any flavor has been exhausted in regards to study, and on a theoretical side we have concepts like string theory which as far as I know also escape serious testing. I wont pretend like I understand the math involved but for the sake of argument its somewhat pointless to me. The math of any idea alone does not have to work and can be flat out false even if derived from mathematical frameworks that do allow for understanding, or work with the real world. Math and prediction or the physical test going hand in hand I just feel currently that physics is at a great impasse really. So I guess the LHC will be the next step?

Its not only this but what about geologic history or morphology? What could produce the cratons? Also the earth is very active thermologically and has been so since the earth has existed I think. Temperature at the core is astounding(hot as the sun? anyone?), so is the pressure. So a simple question to test your idea would be to take the known masses involved and in ratios of what. I guess you could start out with some spherical sphere, but its hardly like the earth is that way, that’s just the atmosphere somewhat in a picture. If you had as you suggest a hydrogen core, could you see the earth as is existing in such a model? Also I think your model would suggest that gravity does not operate properly as it does in the real world. Would you get metallic hydrogen in the core?

It seems a lot of what you are talking about is apparatus related as if all we could know in physical is the apparatus. I have to agree but how does that work out in regards to thought or encapsulation of the information. In that sense then it would seem people could only ever understand up to the uncertainty principal, in that physically from an insider view we cant know that percent of data. From an outsider view as in reality outside of human observation, or conscious observation that reality itself will also always physical operate to the percent of uncertainty. So it would seem that would be a base line for explaining physical phenomena. If you could reduce to that say an item rolling down a hill, or being pushed up. Yet in reference to larger cosmological ideas how do you equate not only that but entanglement into theory? As a side question if you want can you relate entanglement to uncertainty at all? Or has such been tried?

Physics as applied in geophysics has revealed much about the earths core. Seismic waves have regular properties, they can reveal much about the earths interior because they travel through it also on predictable in general ways. So from just those alone you can figure out from current understanding what material in what condition could produce X on interacting with a type and or energy of a seismic wave. Another thing that has been found out about the earths core is it actually spins or rotates faster then the earth ever so slightly. There is some competition to the exact what is the core of the earth if memory serves. In general though the iron core stance is the accepted and supported one.

Thanks for the reply. I don’t have what it takes to make it through a physics education, I need picture books with animals, and plants, and stuff during class to keep interested, that being said I find QM terribly interesting. Your point about the observer makes a lot of sense to me I think. If I get the information bit coding would just be current state or pointer states? ------------------------- For the thread in general. "The study of the implications of chaos for a system in the semiclassical (i.e., between classical and quantum mechanical) regime. In quantum chaos, trajectories do not diverge exponentially because they are constrained by the fact that the entire evolution must be unitary." http://mathworld.wolfram.com/QuantumChaos.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/science/21prot.html?_r=1&oref=slogin "Offering insight into how evolution progresses inside a gene, scientists have pinpointed mutations in an ancient protein that transformed its shape and function more than 400 million years ago."

I think a philosopher would just ask what is cause and effect. I think that question alone would jam this entire process until all atomic decay that could occur, did occur. We know atoms decay, we know this because of science. I thank science for that fact that atoms decay. I don’t know why the decay past the mechanics of atomic decomposition of atoms. I know this is open to change, the cause being humans asking questions and finding the right way to get an answer that works. I mean we could say hey you know look at all the worthless babble going on in chemistry, I mean subjectivity in that field, or the design of a nuclear reactor I could only suggest as being highly dubious and fraught with danger. Its not scientific faith to understand oxidation, the word could be replaced by a number and most likely is in every implementation but regardless of that performing the factual steps in a chemical experiment gives you the same predictable results. I don’t have faith that my light bulb works, I do for how long though LoL.

I could only think entanglement? I mean there is no way to do QM without some kind of observation involved. Its sort of funny to me because you have to use it to study itself in some way, so you have to be able to basically I would think then understand the interaction which has a whole list of words. I like the superselection one, simply because I can sort of make sense of it. I mean the whole idea about where the classical and quantum separate never made sense to me, more so when in all reality you have to use such to study the evolution of the universe currently. I mean in an observation something seems to reduce and trap a probability amplitude of some discrete unit of energy that could probably be anywhere and most likely is:D So what is reducing the probability on observation? Is it more or less like some liquid of little energy Lego pieces reacting to each other and producing an environment? My best guess is simply conservation laws but I have no idea how you would prove if those are truly fundamental or if just currently listed as such. I mean could that produce laws of physics based on time or history? Such as why we have atoms?

There is "field" of study in this that uses physics and chemistry for such questions really. IN fact the question you raise was specifically defeated by a group at a university. Not only did they discover a chemical evolution to speak of molecules they actually recreated such molecules. So if say a key and lock type of molecular pair existed, and one mutated, you would have evolution going on that level then. This is a problem I believe even Darwin recognized that could defeat evolution. Evolution though is not by just classical Darwinism anymore though. For instance using molecular techniques the variation in aids and is passes around through people can be specifically tracked to individuals. The basic methodology behind this is a common tool applied at larger levels such as with species, this is done all from a molecular/cellular viewpoint. Lastly a good deal of evolution is not simply more genetic code. It can just be rearrangement of existing code. A rat for instance as such a level in what might be coined epigenetic effects that can effectively remodel at a genetic level such as with histones, and that is but one example of many. Stephan J Gould also noted this in that pure genetic variation as you might find centered in a genecentric view could not explain diversity well enough, and that the epigenetic level also played a huge role.

I think this is a common fallacy that people live with. When you go out into an area in which predatory animals live you run a risk with danger. Its rather simple I would think, I mean that’s kind of how they live. Shark attacks on humans can occur in various situations that I know of, they can also be highly coordinated efforts between multiple individuals. In fact a pride of lions in Africa was found to do things during an attack to confuse people. They simple strategy was to spread out, cause one to panic making others rush from there homes to try and help. As far as I know the statistics for such are overwhelmingly small. Most predatory animals also tend to try not to get hurt, there is no hospital in the wild. A troubled man lived in Alaska making a sort of documentary about things in which he placed himself as a guarding of grizzly bears. Now these are not tame creatures and he had no protection. Eventually he got turned into a food but it was a very long time before this occurred and even then only with the most feral bears in the population when food was very scarce. Most the time the fear of an attack causes widespread damage to various populations of species you might find in such movies like jaws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Treadwell

So the universe is growing if I understand things. Well maybe space would be a better word? I read up on stuff like hubble and they find the idea that the universe is accelerating because C is always constant in a vacuum right or in space at least until a medium is contacted if I have my understanding correct. We can also gauge the age of the universe to say 13.7 billions years right? Yet the age compared to the speed of light is what shows the acceleration or growth of space via things like redshift correct? I just don’t understand something. Spacetime is to warp via GR which is gravity right. So does this impact the growth at all? IS this acceleration due to effects like false vacuum states possibly? I mean could such be remotely visible via warping effects? I am just wondering because if space can accelerate or move faster then light would this have any impact on light such as how its bended by the warping of spacetime itself? Could this partly be the effect supposed by dark matter and or energy?

Look up and read IT job descriptions from say job search engines. They will give you industry desires for an employee in general, more so in a modern sense. I think the questions you ask are good questions actually, more so in light of degree choice or elective choices in college. From what I know IT is a general term for a multitude and of course growing list of general tasks plus niche specialization, such as networks, or security.

Biologic activity is directly tied to environmental function. So change in environment will register on the organism or population of. Such as lacking certain nutrients can make you more prone for becoming sick. This is the same with plants, with a great deal of species a simple way to see this is to deny light or fry the soil with some composition of elements. Cellular activity is also very neat, you have a clock that is a cluster of clocks so to speak. In that many different processes can be occurring at the same time and you have lots of communication. Cells make up organisms, so in essence the cell physiology and function as pointed out is what leads to more noticeable characteristics like bark or leaves.

I don’t know about that math bit, the math equation itself may remain the same. Such as 1+1 equaling two and so on. This though does not have to express reality really. Empirical understanding may seem more crude, but math by itself is completely blind also, I mean how do you describe something in math if you can only use math. You cant describe geology, you would have to understand geology, not just math. So the combined arms approach I think is very positive like I stated, and of course the theory in science can change, we don’t know everything. I mean using computers is great, but they are hardly error free;)

I have the same idea just for different reasons. I also lack any proof I guess. I derive my idea from the simple concept that energy cannot be created or destroyed yet, at least not by people or even in theory I think really. I mean if you cant create or destroy something that I think makes it a permanent and lasting fixture. I also wonder about the supposed idea of heat death. I think as the universe changes in time for whatever reason such as cooling that it can of course change form. So in the passing of time well into the future who knows what the universe will do really, I mean that word pretty much covers everything and every possibility that can physically exist right? So if energy can only change form what does that mean? What is the limit to form for the universe and how the heck would you even investigate that? Quantum mechanics, I don’t think so, not in this life time at least.

I have to agree and disagree. Science past being called or defined by just being a method is going to have nothing short of variance individual to individual I think. Personally the thing about science that attracted me is simply its concern with what I think humanity at large can call truth. Subjective thinking does not stop lightning from possibly killing someone on a strike, in fact I don’t think many people know until its already done. So yes, a physical world exists I think but how do you honestly define it? In many ways it comes down to a handy math equation, such as for an object rolling down a hill, or interactions with gravity. How do you go about expanding that knowledge, to me the only answer is simply to question things. I like positivism a lot, the combined performance of empirical and logical or mathematical reasoning alone has done nothing but show the reality of the natural world and that it exists. Ultimately science is different in that it does require proof. Stating the age of a fossil is not something done by mere subjective communication alone. Science actually works at proving something, philosophy I just don’t see as holding such a rigor. So that’s my definition regarding difference of the two. In regards to the western world I think philosophy sprouted science, more so in regards to physics and I think math. I don’t know how much revolutions in Europe or ages for that matter impacted this.