foodchain

Could a black hole be either one of the two things I will describe.

The first is that a black hole could possibly be something other then a “true” entity like a star or an organism. What I mean is like a vortices or a whirlpool. That its something coming about as a byproduct of galactic function when it reaches a high enough threshold in certain variables.

The second guess I would like to toss out there is that how a photon might be labeled as in to what energy range in falls in, you can do this somewhat with elements. So in reality of how nucleosynthesis works in producing basically more complex states of energy and mass(is that correct?) to say a neutron star could a blackhole just be the same phenomena? I mean as a simple example of how the neutron came about, how do we know a blackhole is not just composed of a different type of mass, or even basically a very exotic arrangement of such? If per chance time and gravity are quantum properties of matter/energy interacting could this possibly be a pointer to why a blackhole may behave the way it does if by chance its energy levels for instance are currently beyond reasonable comprehension?

I mean as a star reaches a point of nova, or super nova, something has to happen to its vacuum state which would then interact with the local energy and mass in the star or system right?

As a joke maybe a blackhole is an allotrope of carbon!!!

After reading up on solar energy extensively, it seems the major drawback is of course that is absorbs less than 20% of the sun's rays as energy, and the rest becomes heat.

 

Why do we not see commonly (if at all?) simple mirrors or magification lenses placed on top of bodies of water (such as the ocean) and a chamber which traps all the heat? As the water moved into the chamber, the focused thermal energy would vaporize the water.

 

To increase its efficieny further, the outside of the "chamber" would have a small outer chamber which would absorb radiating heat from inside and warm the water before it ever entered the middle, thus reducing the amount of energy inside needed to vaporize it. A primer layer, so to speak.

 

Keep adding outer layers until almost no radiating heat is lost, and you have over 90% efficiency.

 

This is so simple a second grader could design it. Why do we never see such devices implemented? Something deceptively simple I'm overlooking?

What about water vapor concentration increasing in the atmosphere. I mean if that got large scale enough in use as to support populations such as those in Europe and China alone I think would be enough to have a massive increase in global cloud cover. As the earth being an interacting system who knows what that could lead to in time, I would go as far as to say it could trigger an earthquake.

So something to trap the water vapor is an obvious requirement.

Do you have any ideas on this?

That's a rule of thumb, but in reality it's quite a bit fuzzier than that. You have ring species, for example, where two populations that can both interbreed with a third cannot interbreed with one another. Or two quite different "species" which can interbreed. Or any number of other obstacles to making clearly defined categories - obstacles which are exactly what you would expect considering the origins of said species. (And which, interestingly enough, are discussed eloquently and at some length in The Origin of Species. Good read.)

That is a good point about trying to realize possibly the reality of genes at work. The point I would like to suggest though that such does indeed occur in time. If there is no meaning to definition, well I just see that conflicting with the reality of time. This I think is implicated by the variance in genomes and species, in which variation comes in time. If its by this same token we speak language, then you are to say language as being used naturally and as a product of and still open to NS that it all can be flawed and out of line with the reality that does indeed exist? Well that’s certainly not a hopeful future for humanity

The probability wave idea is problematic to me, in that I want to know where and how the probability is stored and recorded, and how it persists and is "objectified". Perhaps there is some level of description beyond which infinite regression or self-reference is unavoidable. That would then have to qualify as the Final Theory, I suppose.

I think if I have my understanding correct a probability wave is more or less a function. For instance in nucleosynthesis the higher elements are products of that system trying to move to "lower" or stable energy states. I think this also reflects in chemical bonding behavior overall here on earth. So you cant remove the probability wave away from what it overall is aiming to describe. I mean have you ever had to do some action in life in which you did not know how to go from point A to B in a timeless instant? It might be that probability is not the most real answer we will have for such in time, but right now it does work empirically as to the actual behavior of such. Also you must remember that such is also derived from the implementation of math, so it will share properties with such in regards to human thought.

Foodchain, your sentences are nearly incomprehensible, so its hard to tell what you are saying. It might help to run your draft message through a grammar-checker.

 

In any case, it is simply wrong to suggest that natural selection determines what happens in evolution, which is how I interpret your claim that "the overall decision of what lingers and what does not in time is natural selection." Natural selection only "decides" between alternatives, but the alternatives must emerge first by mutation and development. Since the mutation rates are not all the same, this dependence on mutation can impose a bias on evolution.

 

To explain how this works, let me repeat a metaphor that Stoltzfus used at a scientific meeting last summer. To understand what he calls "dual causation", he asked the audience to imagine a climbing robot, placed on a rugged mountain. The climber operates by a two-stage proposal-and-acceptance algorithm. In the first stage, the climber reaches out with a foot or hand to find a hold. This might happen multiple times before the second "acceptance" step, when the climber commits to the hold and moves his body.

 

If the "acceptance" step is biased so that the climber is more likely to commit to a hand-hold that is higher (relative to one that is lower), then the climber will climb. That's like the effect of natural selection. It biases evolution to go up in fitness. But what if there is also a bias in the proposal step? What if the climber's left arm is more active and tries out more hand-holds? Then obviously, the climber is going to climb to the left.

 

One can't insist that the acceptance step (i.e., the analog of natural selection) determines the outcome, because obviously it doesn't determine the leftward bias. The leftward direction is caused by the bias in the proposal step, and the upward bias is caused by the bias in the acceptance step. The key to dual causation is that both biases can happen at the same time (up and to the left), and they have separable causes.

Why is biochemistry nearly universal? Why do we have a immune system, vision, hearing. To say its all a mutation bias is an empty stance. Mutation is bias in that its random, what does that randomness work through to produce an organism, if you say something other then natural selection I don’t think we really need to debate any farther.

Of course if you re-define "natural selection" in a broad and fuzzy way so that it ends up meaning "whatever happens in evolution", then of course "natural selection" swallows up everything, including directional effects of mutation biases.

Its nice that it has a bias, I can see life has an ATP bias sense endosymbiosis. The relevance to me is what persists is what can make it in the natural world. I mean can coevolution be impacted by LGT? Sure it could be a possible mechanism, but its relevance in time is simply a product of natural selection at any giving temporal moment. DNA on its own has a huge bias, so does iron. I can appreciate the attempt to reduce the complexity of natural selection into the physical mechanisms that are currently operating in such biologically speaking, like DNA, but the overall decision of what lingers and what does not in time is natural selection. Its a pretty moot discussion really. As in if a mutation is fatal, its fatal, if its not, its not, but what or how is this decided and again is any aspect of a biological entity free from environmental constraints. Natural selection is not the end all, but for sake of safety I really look for anything biologically speaking, such as a mathematical model for instance to satisfy what is known and for lack of better words empirically epic.

Is ATP use on its own a factor in evolution. To what extent I mean is by use of ATP do biochemical pathways and interactions chiefly carry from. Giving the idea of epistatis and norm or reaction is the use of ATP dynamic in consequence of overall species metabolism in relation to the environment.

I can think of some ways that such might be tested for but I was wondering if someone has already come across such research also before I do speculate.

"Entropy in quantum mechanics (von Neumann entropy)

Main article: von Neumann entropy

In quantum statistical mechanics, the concept of entropy was developed by John von Neumann and is generally referred to as "von Neumann entropy". Von Neumann established the correct mathematical framework for quantum mechanics with his work Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik. He provided in this work a theory of measurement, where the usual notion of wave collapse is described as an irreversible process (the so called von Neumann or projective measurement). Using this concept, in conjunction with the density matrix he extended the classical concept of entropy into the quantum domain.

It is well known that a Shannon based definition of information entropy leads in the classical case to the Boltzmann entropy. It is tempting to regard the Von Neumann entropy as the corresponding quantum mechanical definition. But the latter is problematic from quantum information point of view. Consequently Stotland, Pomeransky, Bachmat and Cohen have introduced a new definition of entropy that reflects the inherent uncertainty of quantum mechanical states. This definition allows to distinguish between the minimum uncertainty entropy of pure states, and the excess statistical entropy of mixtures."[17]

Its from the main entry on entropy from wiki.

I cant pretend to say I understand enough to understand what is what. Though it sounds like later views of entropy on a QM scale is one still under scrutiny.

I meant: from the first species of Dinosaur that give the disease to the Pterodactyl. I understand that a Pterodactyl is not a Dinosaur. Sorry my wording was not clear .

I would not feel to bad as numerous species on up exist, or really the count is so numerous one typically has to specialize or use books with pictures;) I mean how many people know what the common house cat evolved from.

Is it possible that possibly forms of matter/energy interactions only become such at certain scales? This relates to an earlier question I had about potential energy wells.

I have an interest in the reality of looking at the possibility of circular or regular patterns of well interaction giving a certain regular source of energy. Such as say a global warming example. I think if you could get a system of stable or “live” wells occurring overall it would be neat if you could make it visible, say with a colored smoke or fine dust.

Yes as I am reading math stuffs I happened to pop one of those annoying thoughts I think would make a neat thread. This probably should be in speculations but I don’t understand the customs to such all to well.

Okay then. For instance, division, or multiplication. Anyways at all to trace maybe such thoughts naturally occurring, or is such purely artificial as in learn for example? I don’t know how you separate learning from natural to artificial its more or less a shoddy mechanism for communicating but its the best I could do.

For example, gauging the velocity of an object. Does this naturally occur by instinct with people at some age cutoff?

The only way I think I could check really for anything empirical is language variance, but going from human evolution it gets complex quick.

How do you calculate an overall 24 hour period metabolism for any organism? I would also like to know how such information could be differentiated to respect units such as the cell for example. Any particular examples for say seeds in a botany emphasis would be great.

Look at the picture on page 39. That's Christian's non-commutative operation. And what sort of operation is it? Why, it's a rotation. A geometrical operation.

 

If you'd rather believe in spooky action at a distance than openly acknowledge what's actually in the article, or search Joy Christian's paper for geometric, maybe it's time we had a new physics "expert" round here.

Well the Schrödinger equation still stands I think, so does the time evolution operator so maybe we should just wait until something occurs because that’s how it works. If quantum mechanics does not work, or simply put if at the smallest scale you had no stability then relatively speaking I would think the universe to be a bit drastic in regards to difference.

Look, I am a QM fanboy. I wish people would redo classical from a quantum perspective, or find a way to let it out of the atom into the universe, such is not occurring as rapidly as I would hope. Geometry, well that’s invented by humans, the best bet is not trying to get in an idealist camp and maybe trying to figure out how nature works. If you like Einstein and relativity so much you should accept QM on the basis that he predicted BEC from such and it was validated and is now a baby field of physics with much promise for further understanding, he also said science was the most important thing we have and its primitive and childlike. Those are not his exact words but very similar. Relativity like QM has problems, this is not something hidden. I don’t very much care about this either to be honest because I rely more or less on the empirical, not some new formation of math. QM and relativity both have empirical support, so the big problem I think is getting them to work together. Sadly I don’t think that will occur in the midst of ape warfare.

I have been thinking a bit more about this since my last post.

 

What if it was a retrovirus. If this virus, when inserting it's self into the genome of the host creature, made a change to the host that wasn't immediately lethal. What if the change produced a regressive "mutation" in the host, that is it wouldn't show up unless two "parents" have an offspring together.

 

I am thinking an effect a bit like sickle cell anaemia. If one parent has it, then it is either neutral or maybe even beneficial (it might protect against other diseases like SCA does). But if two parents have it, then it becomes a disease.

 

The result of this disease could be that it makes the offspring sterile. This of course would not be the primary effect of the disease.

 

So animals can become infected with the retro virus, pass it along and not get too sick. However, if a creature that was infected mates with another that wasn't infected, then they produce an offspring with the retrovirus caused mutation in one of their chromosomes.

 

As this progresses, the virus (due to the fact that it is not lethal) is able to spread widely and even cross species barriers (it would have the time), but as it develops, more and more animals will encounter another that has either been infected or carries the mutation. If these two mate, then they produce an offspring that is sterile.

 

This kind of sterility has been used by humans (we use radiation to cause the sterility) to control insect plagues. I don't know if a retrovirus could cause such a mutation, but it could easily devastate large populations if it could. Also, the fact that this sterility is a regressive rather than a dominant trait means that it lies dormant in the population until it reaches a critical threshold and then reproduction becomes very difficult and the population (and ecosystems) crash.

 

Of course, this is pure speculation in an attempt to think of a way that a disease could gain such a wide spread foothold that it could cause such a mass extinction event across multiple species and ecosystems (not to mention geographic locations too).

Well if memory serves reptiles are not restricted as much as mammals happen to be in terms of body size and local environment. I do not know if this is what allowed the dinosaurs come to exist or not. It sort of makes sense in a timeline in regards to evolution. The point I will try to get at is dino physiology has to be inferred to a certain extent without the aid of direct studies. I do not think this gets rid of the paradigm on dino extinction, I just think such is a good playground really to bounce ideas around in. Giving natural selection a radically different world existed to a certain extent.

One more observation:

Life observes. This is an active, energy requiring, and ongoing process.

 

Information, in the form of photons of EMR, chemicals, and electric potential (in special cases), is collected, or received -in the case of prokaryotes via channels or pores (or simple gaps) in their outer wall, or sheath, that contains their substance (prevents it dissipating) and protects it.

 

Life only samples the constant 'flow' of mass/energy and it then uses the samples to 'remember' or map its environment. In eukaryotes, there is more structure, and more 'sophisticated' transport systems (proteins embedded in cell walls). Also, these more developed cells have learned how to live as a single community, an evolutionary step which led to collections of differentiated cells becoming more dependent on the collective behaviour of all the others.

 

Compartmentalisation into different organs (collections of highly specialised cells), and eventually the adaptation of charge (due to electrons and protons, or ions), and its active separation (across a cell membrane and against a gradient -by specialised proteins or 'ion pumps'), led to a new way of communicating information and collating it.

 

The brain uses regular patterns of synchronistic and synergistic activity to 'measure' and map external (and internal) information, and the (fundamental) control of electrical potential opens the door to this.

 

Observation requires energy. To observe something, a life-form with a brain has to expend energy, but energy from the external world (photons, or sound/pressure waves, or chemicals -touch is a pressure 'wave'), is 'received' by specialised neuronal assemblies, which are adapted to their particular 'energy-receiving' mode.

 

The visual system in humans is arguably our most developed sense (it certainly uses a significant part of the overall brain structure), and this, of course, collects photons. Photons from some external source, say the Sun, can be absorbed by pigment molecules and this triggers an electrical signal (when a certain threshold of pigment molecules has been 'reconfigured' -a stereochemical phenomenon), and a quantum of information (an electrical pulse) gets delivered to the visual cortex. We don't react to individual photons, and their energy is converted into electrical energy (a process which borrows additional energy from the observer's internal store).

 

This internal representation is unbounded in the sense the observer can expend further energy, mapping it to some internal representation (a theory). This is possible because of the storage capacity of an observer, not just of the energy required to actually do any observing, but storage of 'ideas' -memory itself.

That is very interesting. Has much thought been poured into the idea of how this works, on a cellular/molecular basis to the rest of an organism, or group of such? I think such implications could prove very valuable in ecology if such were possible realities of nature.

Universal biochemistry(almost universal) for life currently on earth does not also mean the virus or microbe for instance as posed for an extinction mechanism needed to attack directly the individual organism as is. It could possibly have evolved to attack eggs. Also the reality to me is even without large scale transportation mechanisms known from various periods of time, such as birds today, or mass transport as pointed out. Such conditions overall do not rule out such as a possible mechanism. Also as principle giving natural selection I always tend to think about the "oddball" so to speak. Now a duckbill platypus might simply be an example of convergent evolution, but its future as in its bill is certainly a rarity. That along with natural selection does not seem to fit a mode of strict determinism so to speak.

Population genetics has many nifty equations trying to relate a genome to a specific phenotype or what not. The reality to me is you have your genome, phenotype and then for lack of better words life and related biological processes carrying out in natural selection. Taking into account simply mutation for another example and of course leading up to biodiversity I do not think its safe to simply assume.

So in reality maybe this bacteria could go into a state of cryptobiosis for example, or some extremophile type behavior. Maybe spores could play a role, there is many many routes I think to study such from. I mean if bacteria for instance can come to haunt the crust of the earth, I do not see how an immune system is a perfect defense, nor is it in reality. Then again what is perfect in evolution?

What if by simple chance the mathematical framework such as probability simply is describing what is going on at such a scale? I mean don’t get me wrong but simply put you don’t see a massive scale of questions launched on the most simple aspects of classical physics, why is it so different with QM? Its still just math used to describe and predict natural phenomena.

Here is my last question to it all. How do we gauge as Dawkins pointed out the impact of human processes on such a scale of trying to define the universe for lack of better words? I mean to apply the concept of a false vacuum, entropy and an energy well to people playing tennis I do not know if is common practice in physics. The question then comes to me is such simply a product of never using such understanding in such an endeavor.

If classical physics is as complex as it is currently and took as long as it did to reach its status, why would attempting to match something as complex as QM which has empirical proof to reality be any less simpler. Maybe its just that much more complex.

Being entropy is universal does this mean all work also exists or can in a potential well? What I mean about this is an example if I can from climate studies. Can a storm for instance be viewed as a potential well, or a product of for instance. I imagine multiple potential wells could be existing anytime really in a dynamic environment for instance.

Well, not necessarily. It might be that there is resistance there but not enough to leave surviving individuals within encounter range of each other, thereby disrupting breeding enough to crash populations, and subsequently crashing trophic networks.

 

Although that does seem somewhat unlikely on a global, pan-species scale.

This does not automatically preclude any reality of a global plague. The exact environment would have to entail such a "unknown" virus or bacteria for instance to remove it from the idea.

I do like again the idea of speciation a reaction to viral life for instance but the idea of the immune system counters such to a large extent. Again realties such as gene transfer are hinting at a far more complex environment of interactions then previously held. Then again maybe this is why biting fingernails is a easy to find as a habit, and personally I don’t see how this could ever aid in keeping you healthy, biting finger nails that is.

Well the question could be viewed as a more or less question on the relationship and behavior of various microbial life. Such as does the virus somehow equate into autotroph behavior. I think an artful example would be energy always being pulled back down.

The other reality or basically a question be did endosymbiosis ever really stop? I mean it seems all life eventually returns back to that troph. So life evolving obviously parallel to microbes such as bacteria or the virus has evolved an immune system. With that reality dinosaurs and all life then had to rely purely on the immune system in order to survive such.

I don’t know exactly but I am sure the simple size of the dinosaurs became an acute reality, probably reflecting in say size of clutch or reproduction rates and survival rates. The actual phylogeny+physiology of dinosaurs though would have to be understood fully for realization of such, ecological niches accordingly also would be represented here. You have to remember that microbes due to mutation rates for one example can rapidly occupy a wide array of environments, including other organisms. They do this constantly, and I would have to say of course because of evolution such is why we exist.

The point I am trying to make, it egg laying by such species existed for some time. That is a rather large energy source I would say in constant contact with various microbes. I also imagine the amount of manure some dinosaurs generated was huge. Its hard to say the rates in which microbes would adapt to attack really, more so if it were just eggs of key species. If a large enough of a plague attacked really key species I could see it also as a means to allow for farther radiation. I think speciation rates of dinosaurs might allow data for such an idea, though of course I don’t know. Also other life at that point could also radiate, and giving natural selection local flora could have been heavily impacted along with more of a disturbance on dinosaurs overall. If it just hit the eggs and drastically killed off already slow reproduction rates again of key species in an ecology, and giving the ability of microbes to pass say genetic information, I think such is a possible reality of extinction when compared with other factors, such as over predation becoming a reality then allowing for more rapid radiation of other organisms.

Of course this is all speculation.

I think bush should get one. I really do, not only has he managed to basically do away with any global concern about U.S well being internationally, he got us into another Vietnam that is ruining any global stability and I would go as far to say is supporting terrorism really in the region.

I don’t understand if simply the magnitude of being the dumbest man on earth escapes such an award systems scope I just feel he should get one. I mean I don’t want him to feel alone after gore/ipcc took a Nobel after all.

What do you think?

I don't know the answer to that one, but I got a nice one from Brain Games site. It says: A little girl tells you, "Hey I was seven years old two days ago, but I'll be ten next year." How is this possible?

It drove my co-workers crazy to solve it, but they couldn't.

A leap year?

In many cases modern paradigms of biology seem to be just that. They seem to be as mutable as the subject itself, squirming and full of tenacity relativity. In the advent of more modern synthesis movement of hereditary material seems to follow strictly direct reproduction. Horizontal gene transfer is seemingly becoming more or more a larger factor in evolution then previously held by the field. As such the manner in which life reflects evolution I find may be more meshed then previously understood. For instance, the simple ability of viral variation can allow for large scale death. The reality or impact of this variant does not have to seemingly hold the same for all species at all time in regards to overall viral behavior. None the less taking into account the immune system viral variation certainly equals large scale impact biologically speaking.

Now giving certain realities of natural selection. Is it possible giving such realties today via antibiotics that a super bug has appeared in the past. A bug with such ability to register such a large scale extinction. I don’t mean directly that the bug was capable of killing every specie of dinosaur. Just enough to disturb evolution in a manner reflecting to such a scale. The reality of this is such a bug may have been highly successful at just picking part maybe a troph at high population density environments. Whatever fossils come to be found surely are used to probe at the realities of death for the animal, but its alos possible I think for the bug to be not visible in such a collection, or overall it would be a possibility still valid.

I think giving ecological realities that such a bug could have the ability to spread rapidly around the globe. This variable can be viewed from multiple biologic avenues. Such as bacteria that attacks eggs. I see this as a possibility because domains of life from prokaryotes to even eukaryotes seem to reflect a highly specialized evolutionary adaptation which I feel reflects in autotroph behavior and subsequent succession of life from a natural selection orientated stance. So overall multicultural species have evolved parallel to other strategies or forms of life in accordance with natural selection. The related impact this holds I do not feel is fully understood nor registered in the field itself. Microbial life from the later understands of gene transfer to virus behavior I think surely represents a higher order to evolution in regards to factual understanding of life.

Such as timeline speaking. When high speciation numbers are reached is there any change in behavior of microbial history?

What is the relationship between microbial phylogeny compared to animal phylogeny for instance?

I think these questions and the related subject at hand should receive heavy attention for the reality of how its already effected life to how it effected life in the past. As such could it have been possible for a microbial perturbation to life so extreme as to trigger mass extinction as found with the dinosaurs.

Relatively speaking fire on earth say from a campfire compared to the surface of the sun if probably freezing. In comparison to human though if you could survive the sun fire also probably would be freezing:D If by chance that is what you mean. I know from growing up in some places or experiencing some places that what is warm temp to some can be freezing to others:eek:

I imagine also if by chance you just mean ice as a solid form of some mass or matter being warm compared to other things such, iron at room temp is probably burning hot compared to solid helium.

Though if you just reference such from the point of being a human it hardly equates into meaning anything i think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement

http://www.echamicrobiology.co.uk/pages/tank_and_hull_corrosion/1,23/default.aspx

I don’t know if these will help but its all I could pull of the top of my head.

*Thinking about it the second one is scary thinking about evolution. What if the bacteria eat all our metal ,LoL.