foodchain

Shock is gods way of letting you die nicely, Just kidding. Shock has many different reasons. For instance, if you experience a level of "shock" you could be coming down from it many hours later still. Me thinks it relates to evolution and biological function overall or metabolism in basics. Glider and the above have the more functionally and accepted terminology for such, but its not all of it. You can be in shock and not notice such, that’s one of the reasons its called shock. It might be primitive verbiage overall for other realities of life, but in general you can be living and in shock without knowing such, and such has symptoms all of its own.

Ok, I have a bit more time this time around:D Basically, its just speculation on my behalf, so don’t get uptight as I am not trying in anyway to say this is how it is in reality, simply put I only hold barely working knowledge of biology really. I think of the big bang, which from what I understood came to a point in which quarks came about, and then to another point in which quarks could more or less coalesce into matter. So how did mass come about, to me it operates with gravity, or interacts with such, but so can light which is mass less, and of course "dark" matter or "dark" energy. Personally, I just don’t understand it to the point that I can feel comfortable saying that this is a separate entity, and this is a separate entity. So for me, I question the reality that if everything is fundamentally related, that if physical phenomena is not just a product of the available spectrum of physical activity such can express. Such as light, EM in general, or gravity, if they are not all just products of energy in a reduced tone in my opinion basically existing. How could energy differentiate into such forms, if not for such forms being a running product of the environment, which again leads back into a loop in my opinion on how energy differentiated in the first place. I mean going from conservation laws, the differentiation can make some sense to my mind, but I am sure its nothing close to the truth. Its just when it comes to gravity, I don’t understand why it shares such a separation with other phenomena, such as being something outside of other quanta for instance, or for that matter why elements decay in the first place, as you can probably see from reading this I am all over the place when it comes to this subject, and to be honest its made me stay up many nights.

Right, but its not as if these various forces seem to only be able to operate independently of one another, as in they interact. I mean there are different scales of photons right? sorry, have to go early...

SO you would say its impossible then?

Well, the longest amount of letters in a name is 11, I think the shortest is four. The max value assigned that is visible does not exceed 130, while the min does not go below 40. This should be able to suggest a range of values to use, which I imagine happen to be only whole numbers, though that is not specified. I also think that would be the best place to start, as it not simply trying to crack the code via iterations with different values, but rather attempting to subtract whole numbers that simply cannot fall in range with the letters used. I would think working from the upper and lower bounds to a mean would be a good function with different sets of whole numbers on a range of say 1 through 20.

Here is a little trick I developed learning about anthropology. Try to think of something, anything, and when you do is whatever you thought of associable with anything you already possessed knowledge about? The goal is to think of something you can not associate with any prior knowledge you have.

Well, you can find social hierarchies in primates, as well with humans, but we don’t make a taboo out of it. I also cant say past casual speculation of course is the reasons are biological for such patterns of behavior, nor do I think the same could be said of sexual lifestyles really. I mean sexual reproduction is biological, but then again people did not evolve directly into modern metropolitan cities. I Don’t know where you would draw the line between hardwired aspects of being human such as having two thumbs, to the hardwired aspect of what people do with two thumbs, to basically just what’s allowable or what an organism can express really. I mean even the savage tiger can seem to live a more tamed lifestyle. I also don’t remember when people left behind there animal roots exactly, to whatever that’s to mean I also don’t understand. I mean no matter what I do or think, I am simply being a human organism, this never ceases to change does it? I don’t think it does for people in general, or life in general.

I don’t understand how the forces are really separated for that matter. I mean we have different wavelengths of light, maybe gravity is just a product of energy acting as a force at a certain wavelength of such. Then again I know close to nothing about physics. Its probably just wave particle duality creating some spin off in my head.

What’s that say about time? I mean people talk about clocks, well those can come in various forms and happen to be some form of either matter or energy performing some function right? I mean if I am looking at light from a star that’s x light years away, I am looking at little more then the light which is simple enough of a concept, but the light itself is open to effects right? So more or less its sort of a smear of energy really? I mean I hear that the expansion of the universe is faster then the speed of light, and this can be measured to a high degree of certainty, well, giving relativity, how can this be so thoroughly known then? I mean from sitting here on earth and looking at the heavens with a microscope, what I am looking at really is relativity in action, which to me seems to be a term that describes energy in action, but I don’t know where to sit exactly time into any of this let alone what an absolute description of time is. Does relativity basically begin a bridge to the unobservable universe then? Also, does matter have to be in bulk before relativity takes hold or applies or basically escapes the QM domain.

I am not a physics guy so don’t take my response as truth or anything. When physicists formulate say an equation to represent say how a ball bounces, well it sort of collapses the wave function of reality to make a joke. Its at that point some people can say well its all good and move on or more research on why that equation has solid predictive power. For instance, Newton’s physics has a good deal of working power, but it can be expanded on and of course cant explain everything. In a decade or so some discovery on the QM level could force the physics community to rethink a great many things, it happens. Before a certain physicist did an experiment with BEC involving light, at large her experiment was basically held as hopeless by most physicist she talked with. As for what a black hole is or is not, I have no real clue. I would suggest that if it is indeed a worm hole, well I don’t know exactly how that would work for one, save it might aid string theory I guess, and the other is if it does work I don’t know how humans would make any use of it. Another idea that is being put forward is that black holes grow by "feeding" on nearby objects.

That’s basically decided by natural selection, of which mutations are beneficial or not. This also can fall into the category of micro to macro evolutionary scales. You see, you get your genetic variance, which according in a very general sense to natural theory and of course which is observed is mutations do not always have to have any real particular impact, which in itself is product of more then one variable, such as the fact that more then locus like two actually can be found in an organism that perform the same function, this can go down to the gene level also. Neutral theory also has more sway the larger a population gets, and it also works in tandem with genetic drift. To get back on track natural selection is a mechanism outside of the organism, its not as if inside the genetics of a say a type of bird species knows it needs a certain type of beak to make it. This is why you can find variation of the beak, and of course the one expressing currently the best fitness being the beak selected naturally. Basically when you step on an insect, you could be unknowingly lowering, or raising, or having no real impact on the fitness of that population, another reason why I feel compelled to hate the hunters that want to go for the best fit deer leading the rest around. You have to think though that from bacteria to say frog, the amount of genetic variance is so great that neutral theory obviously is more effective on certain evolutionary scales, simply being it was variance through time evolutionarily speaking that to a frog, which of course has a biology more adaptive to say how it survives rather then being completely random to its niche, as in seals for instance or other mammals adapted to living in the sea no longer hold a biology indicative of being land based, even while vestigial structures on many levels of the seal shows it once did.

Quoted from Physia It is my right to oppose and believe differently than most of you or all of you, just as it is your right to believe what you believe in. You should know that you can't force others to believe in what you believe in, because by doing so you are doing what our enemy is doing. They are forcing us to do what they do, but only the educated and the one that knows how to deal with internal and external problems can deal with their force and use it against them. cheers. Well then, you should have nothing against same sex marriage right, unless you feel the need to enforce your beliefs on others and enforce yourself on there actions right? As for the rest of your post, well the middle east has been around for a very long time, but I guess because of the actions of the Taliban it means a culture of hate and other forms of propaganda. Don’t get me wrong, I could care less for the fundamentalist religious whacko’s that like to kill people over some myth, but its not like we have something of a terribly different here at home, yet we don’t operate global campaigns to wipe it out. Just ask jerry fallwell, the Jews are all going to hell unless they convert, sounds very friendly in my opinion. Last time I checked, the U.S was attacked by AQ and the taliban. We invaded Iraq on little more then fear mongering really, which shows to date as we have no proof really for why we invaded, save for the mess we have created. Lastly, if we were so loved in Iraq as you would have it, why all the problems, a small group of people must be really intelligent then to thwart the entire U.S military and a nation of people desiring a different means to survival

Ok then, I have a question. Is there any action in the universe that spawns or requires a certain speed or velocity in order to function. I mean I posed a question in the speculation section on this website over my thoughts on this. Such as how slow can something go? I mean it seems that the speed of light is the upper limit, which probably helps in calculations, but what about how slow something can go? It seems to be that if such a slowness was obtained that natural states of say particles could not exist? Am I simply making unreal or non rational connections here? I understand that all things happen to be in motion, or at least at some level in a giving context, but it just seems that if there is an upper limit, there should also be a lower limit then, and at a point if something could not reach such a slow speed, would that then be some form of a more absolute reference frame? Feel free to point out all the ways I am wrong I can use the education on such.

I agree. The defense mechanism that is employed here though is a bit of a problem to me, as when does someone decide who as it fault and exactly when? Such as with terrorism, when did radical Islam start to pop up? I mean I get where you are going with such, and different camps of ideologies with different figureheads and so on, but if anything bush is more of a neo-con then anything. As far as Clinton goes, I lost a lot of respect for him when he lied, and I don’t understand why he did it to be honest. Trying to use terms to hand of problems, it just does not seem to work out. For instance the debt being amounted by OIF, this is going to be generations really worth of payments as it stands now, who sets to gain by this in any light? Then again it seems as if Iraq maybe would have not been an issue if Bush sr. finished the job, save for he had more sense then that? You see, its of little consequence to the understanding overall to push issues like that in my opinion. I mean the whole bin laden terror squad was a product of CIA interaction as Afghanistan was an important satellite nation during the cold war, and after the conflict why Afghanistan lays in rubble we simply left. Its the cold war that destroyed Afghanistan. Well, that seems good for now.

Anything that enters politics get politicized and then polarized typically. I cant really offer any other advice on how to deal with that. Just look at the war in Iraq, a million different views basically, well, how can so many truths exist on an issue. Science is pretty solid anymore on its stance about global warming, so is the observational science behind it, global warming contrary to public opinion is more then just computer models. Even though the models all pretty much reach the same conclusions. I don’t know if the models account for everything. I mean the base of most energy webs is bacteria, if not all, so who knows exactly how everything will react to global warming. The point that gets redirected in the assault on how global warming will exactly play out is the fact that we face of ever growing CO2. The amount of CO2 is steadily climbing, its simply not dropping off some year. This means more and more on sinks, but to add to your idea about it aiding plant growth, well, agriculture is not about biodiversity to cut things short, which has a huge impact. Plus the reconfiguration of the environment in general, combine with overall loss of ecology that previous to human behavior was not occurring in such a fashion, it is rather complex and I am sure I don’t understand all of it, or even past 10% of it. The speed of which global warming is occurring overall seems very slow, compared to say the march of time in evolutionary thinking(geological, biological, etc…) its extremely rapid, this is bad. If in a hundred years a rainforest becomes a swamp or a desert or vice versa, this is going to be lethal to life in general, and going about destroying life is also very bad for people. For instance, if you knock out say a rat population in a forest, well then the bug population will boom, which in turn will have a chain reaction of events and so fourth and so on. Its not just biotic factors either, its also abiotic of course and the relationship such share, say in the production of drinking water.

Solid points I must say. The reason for the no bid that I hear often is the fact that no other private entity was in the position to operate like KBR was, that being said you have private contractors overseas making hundreds of thousands of tax dollars driving dump trucks, and then of course the hired people from say third world nations that make close to nothing doing the same job alongside the contractors, not to mention the armed forces pay rates, but all of that is off topic. I don’t buy into the concept of a necessary evil. That being said its sort of the issue you might find with global warming. Big oil companies will spend millions on simple disinformation tactics, giving the gravity of the issue that forces to me really to have little concern then for the well being of such companies and or trust. To add to this we are talking about in many terms companies worth substantial amounts of money, money and economics being a driving force of course in the modern world sense they have a lot of sway and or power. So to think that maybe its not necessarily a simple act of corruption is an angle to take, but to leave the government open to millions of private interest groups of large bank accounts is in my opinion. I mean who was the last middle to lower income individual to win a presidential election, and for the most part all the money is tied up in republican and democrat, so no third party really, they have no money. Hey, maybe they should get with some corporations. Its sort of leading to in my view a pseudo or faux socialist or even communist regime in a political sense, then again maybe there are all just aspects of a not to well understood nature of the human… Get it, its all monkey business! Sorry bad joke. Ken Lay is another example. He has played golf with most all of our recent presidents, except for Clinton, who said no. Good or bad, well key lay did not seem to be to good.

So then, light can go faster then the speed of light? I mean if someone fires a cannon, and I am moving at say 10,000 fps parallel to the round, this is not going to physically change the speed of the round right? It may appear to me differently then someone standing still, but the bullet is still simply doing its speed right? So basically the confusion comes into play because the variables themselves are not changing, such as the speed of the round, its the relationship of objects, such as two different observers of the round?

Its a proven fact that higher concentrations of CO2 means more energy basically retained by the earth. Now with that what do you expect will occur, nothing? The basic premise of global warming is not some drastically complicated scientific endeavor, it was forecasted by a Nobel prize winning physicist in the late 1800's in fact I think. You are right that no model today can account for every degree of change this growing amount of energy will bring along, but one thing that is sure is change and a gradual warming of the planet, similar to a frog in water slowly bring brought to a boil in most cases as far as human opinion or perception goes on the norm. High concentrations of CO2 also seem to be present in most cases of greenhouse/icehouse transitions in terms of the earths past. The fact that the concentration of CO2 is increasing is not challenged past paid off pseudo skeptics, nor is what the main culprit for this is. Its also not challenged as to some of the roles this will play in the atmosphere for instance overall, in regards to trapping energy. Lastly, Venus is the warmest planet in the solar system, far warmer then mercury which is far closer to the sun. Its atmosphere is a little over 98% CO2. I also shudder to think how life, which slowly evolves and basically faces mass extinction during rapid environmental change will shoulder yet another burden such as this. Human behavior is changing the planets environment, its simple action/reaction and the more bass fact to me of conservation of energy or the dynamics of such in a system that in essence provide that physical system. Do you think thermodynamics of an equation might change is you change the concentration of a part, or substitute another for that matter? Its a physical reality, regardless of perception, as in I can hate gravity all day, but I dont think gravity will care you know.

Any group has an agenda, its a fact of life. Many times already in Americas short history as a nation government corruption has been found, same with business, and of course the two together. For instance, not claiming corruption but lets just look at this. The American government is supported by tax money, a war breaks out. The vice president which still has ties to a company gets a no bid contract worth fortunes, or rather the company does, the V.P also makes a fortune on this, good or bad? Really the question beyond such a gross over simplification is ethics really. For instance, as a politician, should that enable you to use the government to basically aid your company, and to what extent? One view is that in the military, various positions call for you to have no ties to any aspect of a nation the U.S may go to war with, why do you think this is?

It depends on what aspect. Religions, or many of them have codes of ethics to them, somewhat similar to an instruction manual really. I don’t know if I could per say put a label of mental illness on people that follow such for those reasons, though I don’t know how much a way of life developed even today really accounts for the reality of being human in the world. Such as comparing say a person who follows the ten commandants personally, then a person who wants to enforce the government to do such, the later I would call a whacko. Then again that’s basically somewhat of the point behind our governments foundation, freedom that is. The idea of taking the bible word for word as truth. Well, science is pretty much in contrast with modern day theology in general over to what explains reality, from any real angle you look at it, so basically if you were to have a person that were education about the empirical realities of the world, and then that person ignored such to follow a belief as it were real, then I might tend to think that person a bit of a whacko really. As to anything super natural, well, nothing can answer that question right now past an aspect of faith, personally as an agnostic I really only care to live for truth and none exists on that, any way you look at it to answer the question with a yes or a no is a motivated product of faith and or an assumption, but on that note I don’t think I would call a person whacko for simply falling to either side of an issue yet unresolved by empirical justice or proof on the issue. Well that’s my two cents anyways on the issue.

Its like staring at a running light bulb basically, except you don’t see the light as you would on wavelengths that we can see "visible" light. IN the middle school the teacher had to spell that out for us as some people were staring directly into a source of such and talking about how the machine was not working.

See that’s the thing, its not about finding real roots or anything close to in some regard or to deal with probabilities as much as the term itself. For instance, animals specialized to use trees, well, you then you would need the tree right? So you have a more simple cause and effect going on there, in a very general sense. So basically you cant simply account for just biotic factors, as with the tree. So does the superorganism then account also for the sun and solar system? Its a very ambiguous term is all, and in that is where I find the romantism in my opinion. I can easily see the term superorganism to be applied to very social organisms, though I think social behavior can come about at very specific conditions, and then be completely lacking during other times, such as with reproduction in certain species. In general the term to me applies direct consequence of relationships evolutionary speaking, again with animals adapting and holding a morphology that represents such relationships, such as with fish for instance, and adaptations by certain fish to share relationships with other living things, or abiotic elements in a giving environment. Its where you draw the line on scope, and if different aspects to a specie applies different degrees of scope, such as non functional vestigial structures. The superorganism though could be used in my opinion to apply maybe the dependence life has on itself via evolution, but even then comes to conditions I would expect to exist from the fact that a specie does not come about primarily experiences an omni environment like totality of the earth and all its features living or not. So in essence would it be fair to say that maybe a word like biosphere is better suited for use overall, as it does not apply nearly as much ambiguity to life? I like you economics example very much also.

Now not to talk about highly social species of life, such as ants, just more or less hypothesis put forward that life on earth or even the earth is a collective organism. Personally I think many of them happen to be romantic ideas obtained simply from the study of life overall. For instance, in the case of reproduction, if life were simply nothing more then DNA, why is reproduction so important, or more or less it would seem the cell has at least as much importance as DNA holds, the same with RNA, as life cannot function without any of those, and thus it would go extinct. Personally from the concept of ecosystems, or ecologies and the relationship life in general has within such might it be easier to simply suggest it may be a product of symbiosis, or even just patterns of life as wrought through evolution? To relate the importance a species of insect has in the tropical rain forests of south America to say a species of reptile in the deserts of Arizona, is there any real direct consequence to each other from the existence of such species? I think as found in ecology that an organisms environment consists of variables that include what’s living and of course the abiotic elements also. In this I am sure begins relationships, obviously predatory animals don’t simply exist without prey. I just think that many aspects of the superorganism as put forward by some happen to be over the top romantism overall. Basically there has to be a limit to the scope on a population of an organism or a specie, is the scope of the superorganism more applicable maybe at levels overall higher then maybe the species or the genus level, maybe even family? As such is maybe the idea of the superorganism maybe just an abstraction of a reality to evolution not thoroughly defined yet? At what level can life in general be reduced to as still have a chance for survival, such as if life to the bacteria level were made extinct, could life still survive, or if winter was 75% of the years climate on earth, would life survive? I would like to go on but I think this is fine enough as is.

So if you had a particle that you could get to absolute zero, I don’t think you would ever be able to observe it really. What I mean is a majority of these posts basically go on about absolute zero is hard to obtain due to environmental factors, such as the earth being warmed by the sun for example. Another aspect is if you could create and environment in which absolute zero could be reached, could a observer ever exist in such a state to observe such, as in a living observer. I like to read up on BEC a lot, as its interesting to me bluntly. They can get within a few millionths or billionths of a degree within absolute zero, I think the billionths actually, but then the atom for instance, or matter takes on strange properties and in some cases has imploded with large amounts of mass leaving no trace. WIki of course has a really neat article on it like most anything.

I think the Blackfoot in Montana(?) when forced to migrate survived at first for a while of things like pine needles and bark, its mostly cellulose though I think. Other aspects you have to consider is say breeding cycles, such as imago for instance in insect populations, when this occurs and how rapidly they reproduce. This of course would apply to life in general. In terms of trophs, from plant to herbivore I think it nearly a 90% energy lose from various reasons, I don’t really look at it as a lose though. Most food chains or energy webs never escape having I think six trophs though. The reality as for math is not a bad thing, its just you have to know all the variables that exist in a natural system, for simply put I think cell signaling would matter for behavior of an animal per say, and if you miss one or two, well, then you have to go onto the reality of say like with string theory, were it seems easier to get carried away with the math then reality, though I don’t know if that’s fully the case with string theory. Also if you remember shows like wild kingdom, I don’t think math can assist at this point nearly as much is it can in say physics, I mean just look at the social sciences. I think math can work of course in biological systems, I just worry is all. ---------------------------------------- I don’t know if there is a word for it, or even if what I am talking about is anything close to correct, this is why I asked. It just seems to me that humans among other species of life does not seem particular dependent on a certain type of ecosystem or even a collection of, but of course it would have been natural selection and evolution that lead to this one way or another through the various aspects of a living system. I think this plays a large role on the amount of damage we can inflict is all, but I posted such to discuss of course because its merely nothing more then an ideation. Its more or less a question I guess then of ecology?