foodchain

That’s time dilation, that’s not time travel. Don’t you think that would have basically ruled the universe? I mean we would own time if we could mast time travel really right? What that is again is time dilation, which is real, like relativity, and your right, its more then just math.

"There are a handful of scenarios that theorists have suggested for how one might travel to the past, said Brian Greene, author of the bestseller, "The Elegant Universe" and a physicist at Columbia University. "And almost all of them, if you look at them closely, brush up right at the edge of physics as we understand it. Most of us think that almost all of them can be ruled out." In physics, time is described as a dimension much like length, width, and height. When you travel from your house to the grocery store, you’re traveling through a direction in space, making headway in all the spatial dimensions—length, width and height. But you’re also traveling forward in time, the fourth dimension." http://www.forgetfoo.com/?blogid=7886 I don’t consider time dilation to be time travel either. I know that what’s real occurs, and what’s BS does not. So to me, yes, I either want experiment or proof of it occurring somewhere in the vast universe for me to take it seriously, or for the most part it is just math. As for math, people have made all kinds of things with it, and well not all of those kinds of things managed to be true. At least you do admit to just following the math as the guideline, I am comfortable with that, but for me the math does not make it true.

Right but GR is not new, so where is an experiment that can make valid the concept of time travel, like back the the future time travel, or where is it occurring in nature? I don’t disagree with GR. I have admitted to it being over my head at points. The problem I have with anything really is something being held as true on faith, where is the time travel at? That’s not my argument. NO, I am not. If you travel to the past, the past of what, today, how would you do that if today, which will be yesterday, is not preserved physically somewhere. As for the future, well its the same deal, save this time you have determinism, unless there is infinite possible futures, in which point you have infinity. The kind we had today, compared to yesterday and so on into the past, the kind that changes and or evolves and is able to give out information.

I think many ways to define could be employed. For instance, what information geologically do you have at a discovery? Another is going from what we can of history what would be the phenotype plasticity for a species at any giving time, of course this would relate to population in terms of size I would think to some extent. For instance, I don’t know of many studies that trails populations of some specie in different areas looking for say a certain percentage appearance of say a phenotypic characteristic in regards to biochemistry. I don’t know how this applies directly save when exactly does a specie become separated in regards to sexual reproduction really. Its also hard to state exactly how evolution would "attack" a species. Such as what was the amount of radiation by said species vs. the period of time a particular adaptation was taken place, which I think ties back into sexual reproductive barriers with other species. I tend to shy away from essentialism and nominalism, I think they are philosophical positions chiefly. Plus taxonomy does not seem to have overall as of yet a solid irrefutable method employed by all biologists, more or less it seems to be advancing regularly with research really. Binomial nomenclatures are neat, but mathematical taxonomy I think failed early on simply by lack of tools and methodology we have today. on a side note I read somewhere that humans only diverge from mice by about 300 genes, is this true? The more bones the better I would suggest also, for using an entire skull is probably better then trying to compare single ribs. Unless of course we know for sure how morphogenesis in each case is attained for a unitary organism in all related fields of physical information. I think evo-devo will actually aid understanding human evolution.

Now first off I would like to say that I don’t know for sure that time travel is possible or impossible, I would just like to lay my thoughts out on why I Think its impossible. 1)I don’t know of anything in nature that we observe to travel time in the sense of simply disappearing to another time. I don’t know of any experiment or set up for such that can produce such results either. 2)If for instance if time travel is possible. To travel to the future or the past implies a few things. First, for the smallest amount of time, for whatever that is, each passing moment of such then is perfectly recorded, or time is perfectly contained or else you have information being lost. It would also imply that giving time travel into the future everything is determined already, or else how could you travel into a future of what? Sure this can evoke many questions in many different angles, but in the bottom line type of thinking I don’t know of anything that can actually prove this physically, time travel that is. I think it also brings up infinity in a rather diverse amount of ways. 3)I am not trying to pick on anyone when I say this, but maybe, and just maybe a big part of it is the language of math. Maybe math can give more then just a predictable outcome, maybe people cant view math past just that in regards to empirical results. Maybe if math was structured differently Einstein would have still gotten GR without this, who is to say. 4)Lastly, if things take time to occur, that’s all that is stated. If it takes a light year for light to travel x distance vs. a bullet year for a bullet to travel x distance, what is really being said. If someone 500,000 million light years away shoots a laser into space and it makes it to earth, well for the most part all I think we are seeing it 500,000 million year old information that has been traveling through space. I don’t see how what should be almost common sense aspects of GR gets turned into the T.V series Quantum Leap really. Please feel free to destroy my postions:D

So the intense effects of a black hole, such as light not being able to escape it is a product of more or less the black hole internally and not so much its gravitational prowess? So if a duplicate of Jupiter in regards to its physical properties such as mass for example was replaced with a twin save it was a black hole no real change would occur to our solar system?

I guess close enough would be the point in which the gravity of either black hole directly acts on its counterpart. I am not to sure as to the current definition of gravity in physics, or really the range gravity has I guess really. I was thinking about the effect such would have on spacetime. I mean if left alone in an orbital pattern, what would be the limit to the effect on spacetime? I also wonder how QM would play into this such as if on the collision scenario.

Say you have two black holes of equal mass, equal distance apart from each other, in fact the black holes are mirror images of one another really, what would occur if they were close enough to act on each other? Allow for no other variables to exist in this environment, such as another planet for instance, its just the two black holes. *Its a thought experiment I guess, I don’t know where I should have placed it. So if an admin wants to move such, go ahead I am fine with that.

I agree to an extent. One is that math is a form of logic created for all intensive purposes of history by humans. My other issue is that sure, you can do math with a facet of reality and it will allow you to understand an outcome, or even predict it. My issue is with the system of logic itself. When you do an equation that relates to a predictive outcome, that’s all that is stated. It does not by the system of logic itself, as in this case math, really put forward the reality of what occurred though. Such as in does a quantity of matter really times itself by another quantify of matter, or energy? The math will give accurate prediction using the times or multiplicative function of logic in math, but is that really in nature or reality what occurred? So to the extent of which I disagree with math as the ultimate way really for understanding is that, its a human made system of logic, which means its open to change by such, as in photons exist, but I don’t see the sun producing square roots, or square roots do not make up the asteroid belt literally, and second is its description can be superficial. So there is a limit to it currently for what it can do really. Lastly I don’t like how so many people simply imply untested math as truth to something in reality, humanity already knows from experience that nature does not work like that. I feel that math merely encapsulates in a rather empty shell reality and is devoid of an true material meaning. Looking at biometry compared to the other vastness of biological science I feel this is made concrete to any observer. I also know that empirical knowledge in biology is made and understood without relying purely on math for empirical substance.

Interesting question, do you mean by brains as in everyone’s brain or a populations net effort by chance? As far as machines go, well, they would evolve from our brains really through design, past them becoming conscious and self design from our influence, I don’t know if machines could do much better past maybe doing it faster. I cant say of course what the future would be for such ultimately, but on that note the machines would have to be able to escape our domain of intellect without are efforts of course or else we would already be doing such without the machines I think. As far as naming conventions go, well some of its arbitrary, if I can a photon a zorg, I don’t think it really changes the photon as long as we rely purely on empirical observations of such. As for how much our brains as humans have an impact on empirical observations, well, thought does not seem to stop gravity if a person decides not to believe in it, and on the other end of the spectrum I think keeping science open and social or not ill willed with walls and assumptions in thought or bias will keep fallacy from taking control. More or less I think all that people can do really is stick to empirical observations, the rest is well either a untested hypothesis or philosophy really.

To question existence and reality I think is one of the most profound endeavors a human can undertake. I think its also probably one of the most terrifying to a great majority of people. I don’t know what first cause such, maybe heavy drug use, but none the less I find it as a paramount question. I think its basically tainted for the most part by the fact we are human, such as the desire to ask if a number is something important in the universe, simply being nothing is unnatural really, or simply it could not exist. So to me that basically states you cant really try to narrowly define everything for the sake of simplicity. For example, from learning about physics, to biology, to anthropology, to etc… What I come to find is really people know close to nothing overall if I may say so. I find this absolutely amazing in contrast to modern human behavior, which I think truly can only be explained for the most part via understanding nature. Such as giving the scope of the entire universe, and whatever else could possibly exist in it, living or not, why do humans act they way they do? I find it shocking that interest is so low overall in basically wanting to answer in my opinion very profound questions, such as what is the universe? What is life? I basically think that these questions to many people are for one, scary, and two, people probably generally think we cant understand such. These questions typically get reduced to almost nothing, taken over more or less in a great many times of more importance on simply tips and tactics for beauty, takes on a whole new light in the face of beauty and the beast huh I don’t know if people will ever live long enough as a specie to desire answers to such questions really, or if the importance of such will ever be realized. Here is some famous quotes I simply adore to end this post with. "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." Charles Darwin "A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." Albert Einstein “If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor.” Albert Einstein "One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike – and yet it is the most precious thing we have." Albert Einstein

Not to speak to metaphorically but traits might be a bit holographic depending on whatever stress you happen to view the organism from. Being able to build fat surely has benefits in the real world. Now in some modern human societies it may have some drawbacks, but the ability to be able to reproduce many times while still having this trait surely does not reduce its presence in a gene pool. Also environmental factors can curb in many cases obesity, such as if a person develops a diet and exercise regime to counter such to some extent. Overall I don’t see anything rigid to explain the progression of genes via some rigid formula, I think it more or less still dwells on fitness in the environment over time as the best explanation. Example of time being something so hard to consider is simply thinking of the idea that recorded history for the most part does not really escape in most cases barely over a few thousand years, in terms of generations its most likely impossible for a human mind to envision the passage of say even a million years. Plus giving mutation rates, regardless of type of mutation, there is a point in which you can say 100% genetic change from .01% mutation rate could eventually happen, akin to a drip of water filling up a bucket. To add to this though you have to deal with "networks" of genes and so on, plus epigenetic effects, plasticity of the phenotype. In many cases you can find an array of terms to add to a -type, such as ecotype and chemotype for example, its akin to the use of the word troph and -troph if I may somewhat illegally say so in personal opinion. Even another pointer is the concept that the wild type is named so versus in the lab or cultured really.

Well, I don’t know much about the pill in question. I know that basically the design of a drug usually has to account for delivery. How this pill does such as in incorporate into an organism in a manner to be present in an environment which would allow for its function to carry out. The relationship of the substance and the organism can vary case to case as you said also. I am sure that for a populous a general set of bounds exist for the ideal case individual to individual giving say a certain diet and other environmental variables that may or may not have been taken into account. Lastly it will basically resort to the amount or presence of the substance in relation to its function, such as to absorb fat, which I am sure has a timeframe. Then again as you pointed out I am a person that can sit and eat ice cream really without gaining weight. Its being discovered in some industry that regular models of genetics alone is not enough for adequate development and effects with designer drugs.

Well all things being equal in regards to total energy of the universe how does such factor into the big bang in regards to conservation of energy?

What about CP violation?

I think there is some monkey business going on also. Personally you best bet is to attend a "go hillary" convention or something. As to who I will vote for yet, I don’t know, I think I might sacrifice personal choice for something going against the current grain, or has the best shot at winning really.

I will admit to some guilt of this but first of all I mean we are typically engaging intelligence by nothing more then a human standard. TO get more to the point we have organisms or specialized populations of such that have managed to survive far longer then humans have been around. Giving the scope of environmental issues that humans are bring to bear combined with our supposed conscious and intelligent minds we might not last near a speck of the time some living things have, and in regards to that what do you say? To simply do a compare and contrast of drama which leads to death or mutilation as a standard, humans would actually rank quite low I think in contrast to our supposed conscious intellects. Sure chimps wont nuke the planet to death because they cant, but on that note I don’t see how us endowing the planet with massive extinction rates maybe if our own is somehow putting us above everything in regards to intelligence. As for what I base my opinion on, well a majority of it is very real. Environmental issues are becoming worse, that alone should be enough. I mean we need the earth to be habitable for life for us to exist, and to knowingly go about destroying such, well I don’t know what else you would call the pinnacle of stupidity besides that. I mean I have viewed video of a hippo protecting an member of an alien species from predators and of course nursing such a creature, I don’t think people know as much about life as half of them claim most the time. Lastly, the definition simply ignores so much including evolution. We may be able to build nukes, but who is to say really how reality looks in the eyes of a dolphin for instance, we cant do that really. So for however intelligent we might be in regards to survival, how a dolphin survives to me would just be such applied in a different light.

Well I think more advances will be made along every line of biology as science gets better and better and being able to view the molecular basis of life. I think the major hurdle will be getting the ability to view wild types also, which will have to be conquered in a lab somewhere. Another issue that I am not sure of is diversity of how evolution may come about in regards to species or genomes overall. "An experiment which forced E. coli bacteria to adapt or perish showed that, in a pinch, they were capable of improvising a novel molecular tool to save their skins." http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20040122185500data_trunc_sys.shtml To me it would seem a large part of the role of genetics has it purely as a one way street, or genes-->organism with no model of genes<--->organism, even while the genes are a part of the organism. More novel roles of RNA are being discovered and I am sure the discoveries in molecular biology/biochemistry and evolution are simply no numerous to digest. Evo Devo just seems like the tip of the iceberg I think in what will eventually be a more profound understanding of evolution in regards to organisms if not nature in general.

Why does a photon have no mass then?

Well, if you are dead because of starvation due to action which is what? I doubt you really could display much of anything, I mean self experimentation aside I don’t think its a hard to notice point or anything. Here is a link I think is nice to read really. An analogy between ATP and rechargeable batteries is appropriate. The batteries are used, giving up their potential energy until it has all been converted into kinetic energy and heat/unusable energy. Recharged batteries (into which energy has been put) can be used only after the input of additional energy. Thus, ATP is the higher energy form (the recharged battery) while ADP is the lower energy form (the used battery). When the terminal (third) phosphate is cut loose, ATP becomes ADP (Adenosine diphosphate; di= two), and the stored energy is released for some biological process to utilize. The input of additional energy (plus a phosphate group) "recharges" ADP into ATP (as in my analogy the spent batteries are recharged by the input of additional energy). http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/BioBookATP.html

Right so more or less its just about the no absolute reference frame because everything is in motion right? Its just that for whatever energy is going on as expressed by say an insect being prey to something such as a bat has to be able to be understood at some level as in relation to the behavior of the bat or the energy is will expend. As far as KE is that not just energy doing some work or in action vs PE? I mean that’s pretty much why during the sun going down large structures may make noise appear in the building in coordination with changing variables such as thermal energy right, pretty much akin to how a slip in some plate can lead to an earthquake at another location by allowing PE to go into KE. So if a bat could not I guess understand the motion of the prey it would never be able to capture it, and of course it does not always have success but that’s besides that point to a small degree. I got caught up with the relativity was taken into account as changing literally between observers. There is a point of spent energy which will lead to death in organisms regardless of whomever is viewing that organism do whatever, but I do get the idea you are trying to put forward about relativity in observation. Such as in jobs I have had basically required me to eat about 9000 calories a day to sustain myself, vs. a slower existence for the most part like I live now where I could live easily on say 1500 if I wanted.

I don’t think so. He said that the energy of something is relative to the observer, that’s great I get that much, but of course we know that if I do more work for instance, that I require more calories right? That if I don’t eat, which will lead to death, is rather absolute I would say. The on to the motion bit. I can understand what he/she said to a point, save for the idea that I am capable of hitting keys on my keyboard, catching a football, and well all kinds of acts by living things require tracking of motion, hunting being a major one, so I don’t see where something can track an object in motion to capture as being what he/she said, that’s why I put I think I am confused in it all.

That’s why I am asking him or her a question, from what I understood of her or his post, I think I confused something.

I think I have misunderstood you. Firstly, animals starve to death, it happens, and of course we have to be able to eat. SO naturally is where this comes from, nature that is. Another is many forms of life have to be able to hunt, in which you find specialization for such, if for instance motion could not be tracked, then how could for instance say a bat catch an insect? Echolocating Bats Use a Nearly Time-Optimal Strategy to Intercept Prey http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040108

I favor empiricism and well if that reality for whatever it is you are studying happens to be complex or simple, that’s the reality of it. As for unconscious intelligence, to associate that with life is then to associate that with inorganic chemistry basically in my opinion. Simply put I can associate the title of life with bacteria, but I don’t necessarily attach consciousness with it in any form, more or less I look at it as a conglomerate of chemistry and physics trying to survive in forms of the same. Personally I dont even view humans as all that conscious, we think in our little boxes, organic, or learned, or inbetween. Cheers back at you also!