foodchain

I just wonder what implications it will have on searching for how life started on earth, or how life comes about in general and what forms it can take. I like this motion as I think evolution offers incredibly complex systems. If something like this were to be fully controlled who knows what it could truly offer up really, sci-fi like living buildings and what not.

Well, I could also ask a question that if our biology as a specie simply could be classified as nothing more then a collection of vestigial structures, for instance how many fingers we have and the amount of bones make them up. I have a weird and I think interesting question going on in pseudoscience and speculations if you would like to participate in that one. I think your question would fit nicely in a hypothetical mode in it. For instance, our eyes would have to evolve to be able to basically discern what already exists, such as certain wavelengths of light, as to the question then is how does what constitutes life becoming able to recognize this on some level, as also to muscle mass in the earths gravity, or bone density for that matter, which would then relate back to the specie for instance a cheetah. That animal has a very light skeleton to assist its blazing land speeds.

I did not mean the use of the word to imply something negative, and please excuse me if you felt that way about it. I don’t know the exact amount of vestigial structures humans hold from evolution on any particular level. I also don’t understand the degree in which one of these could be slipped back on. I know that research has basically reversed engineered some issues biologically, as in line of what I think you are talking about. The research basically involved understanding why the body had something apparently useless really, hormone and receptor I think. I don’t know what species this was performed on, but the article is out on the net, and if you want I could post it at a later date. As for the exact mechanism of evolution to vision in our species, well I doubt for that to be any simple or quick answer, also for birds I would say this, or life in general. I mean in the ocean fish exist that have defense mechanisms I doubted could exist, such as basically becoming invisible to a certain extent in relation to various types of predator. The way in which the organisms achieves this at first glance seems to be somewhat right out of a sci-fi novel. When I first saw this fish do such, from the bottom up it truly did look almost invisible to my eyes. Also looking at life in the oceans, even certain depths, just the depth aspect takes on a role in evolution, such as certain offspring will basically occupy a certain depth for a period of time while developing, so in short again I don’t think a simple answer could really suffice, more so in conjunction with the other questions you asked.

Actually I think a theory behind the separation of prokaryotes to eukaryotes is that sexual reproduction in eukaryotes is more optimal or efficient. I don’t know if this plays a role in the formation of the nuclear envelope or a more structured cell in general. If you mean sexual selection across the board in regards to species, such as with humans, well a lot comes into play of course, a great deal of which I am sure I lack understanding of.

Sorry to not go quote by quote but I don’t think my post will stray to much. What I mean about the math with string theory is a lot is possible in math, heck just about anything you want really. The problem with math is just simply being able to refine it via experimentation, to find out what’s real and what’s imaginary, that’s my only point really. As to the context of the paper itself. It goes on about something in which the standard physical laws that govern the university might have come about. I don’t know if it goes into any degree of acceptable detail, but one thing is that study into such might lend a hand to a reverse engineering process of some type to give insight. For instance, I know a good deal of attention is paid towards the minor fraction of time after the big bang, because its plays a role in the development of the universe. Well, what about the stuff prior to those few seconds, how about a thousand years before that? As to the more direct application of evolution, well, its just a word, or a title to describe something that takes place in the physical universe, and I would imagine by physical laws or such that evolution is guided by if anything. So if evolution can exist naturally, then why not attempt to use this as already offered by nature to examine nature and or reality. Evolution is studied basically by phylogeny of various forms, or tracing change, such is already evident in nucleosynthesis. . Again, as I am not totally sure as to the amount of time giving to the study of the universe in such a format, I mean I hear the term tossed around in terms of the evolution of galaxies, or elements, but not physics in general. Also, it does not seem as if physics, or what it studies is a bunch of unrelated phenomena, as a matter of fact I hear it a lot that everything is just energy, differentiated by form.

I think that’s the point. As I study string theory or what not I think one of the reasons it falls apart is because its math is used far more then experimentation. Its not a fault of math, but the reality of it as I see it. I mean I was out reading on string theory, or debates back and fourth between smolin and another fellow and they were talking about negative dark matter or energy, and carrying over to change this. Now don’t get me wrong, but I hope they don’t mean carry over in a math sense to change reality in a theory. Going from conservation laws alone, I have a hard time thinking that nothing existed prior to the big bang, another aspect is the relationship of matter and energy, or in what definite or only allowable forms of energy can exist, such as an electron for example. Now this may not be an entirely new direction, but I don’t really know of any major thrusts of science to study various ways in which the universe and its physical laws or properties could have evolved. Every new major new theory in physics after sometime and pursuit by professionals ends up offering new equations and tools. Its not as if e=mc2 was just simply plucked from the aether one day either for example. We do have man made elements, found anti particles, and happen to look for symmetry, supersymmetry, breaking of such, a standard model that relates something of an ecology really, or you had to have b to get to c from a for example. Now not to say I know a lot about physics, I don’t. I know somewhat about biology, but nothing of any real professional level. What I do have though is a vast interest in it all, and I do spend a good deal of time reading about a diverse amount of subjects, and I don’t see why this should be contested, or any real hypothesis. I mean I object to string theory because it lacks in major ways to falsify, but I object to it only on that basis, not that it should be studied or pursued by interested people or scientific professionals.

Yes, but our brains or biology is also a product of what we are viewing, or related to it. What I mean is that our eyes perceive light, or some wavelengths of such at any rate. Now how this works is physical, its not purely some psychological issue. So in essence, we can understand, and I would think via this understanding would could deduce the impact our vision for instance in a physiological sense in relation to observations. The only real way I see to overcome the psychological role in observation would simply be the idea that science is social, another way would me the use of tools like math, experimentation, etc... I understand what you are saying, basically the overall impact simply being a human organism has on observations of reality, as I am sure it would be different if we only say in black and white, or heck in thermal mixed with static vision, but its not as if this somehow changes physical reality or makes truth about such something only of a figment of imagination.

Well, the question as posed is a bit dodgy, but I will try. I don’t know exactly what you mean about separate evolution exactly, or maybe coevolution? As it stands birds did not just appear from nothing so to speak, separate from other life, as being decedents of the dinosaurs, or really some in particular, dinosaurs already possessed vision, as vision is not something new to dinosaurs either overall. Its pretty much the same with people too, as in what we evolved from already had vision. Bird vision is different from humans to an extent, but really I think a physiology text or article on the subject could do a better job then I can as to what the difference is and why. As to the evolution aspect, well, life does offer flightless aquatic aves, that have taken on a strategy or form more suited for its ecology, which also serves a role in the physiology of such species eyes, so its probably the same I would imagine that is behind the overall physiology of bird vision in general, or vision in general.

Well, not to play advisor, but most everything that has some complexity to it is difficult at first. For instance, I know eventually I will be taking math that I shudder to think about, but then I remember that I am taking it in the first place because I need to learn it, its just a simple point that many people miss I think, that its education. As far as science goes, well, just take your time and find something you are interested in, you might like chemistry now, but in a year you might find yourself wanting to be an engineer, its just an example, personally I have switched my major twice.

Well for instance the shape of a fish is one possibly best suited option for the environment, but its not as if the fish or organism in general made a conscious selection for that shape. One reason the shape could have come about in a more physical sense is energy conservation, or the most efficient way to be motile in a liquid. I mean when we develop say a torpedo or an underwater vessel, it takes on a shape familiar to a fish for instance, or we don’t produce a square and attempt to propel it through the water. Its somewhat akin to birds, and of course the human version of such in planes, both of such having wings. The physical reality of such in terms of function simply exists, and in terms would naturally select based on fitness, which would also denote homeostasis, or even more simply being able to eat and contain energy enough to persist. I Don’t know of many modern animals in an environment that do not have an environmentally ergonomical design to some extent, as again in the water I don’t see a grand extent of square fish, or in the air with square birds. Simply the interactions of matter and energy already exist, and its matter and energy taking a form in that which would maximize for instance entropy, or simply efficiency or a form that can persist or function. It basically allows for natural selection to be very natural, but to me it implies a very direct connection to basic physics to a certain extent. Its not maybe a question of simply matter in bulk in some degree of organization, I mean you have that in anything, if the environment for instance is against selection for say a hurricane, well a hurricane does not occur, and its shape, geometry and behavior is denoted by interactions of matter and energy, which goes from the very small scale such as QM and above, I don’t only think this would apply to shape, but also the molecular basis of life.

Not to mention that its a first draft but really think about what its going on about really, it makes something like relativity seem very simple in comparison overall. The math tools to even define a hypothesis in such would I imagine be somewhat to drastically different the norm for most of physics. As far as sci-fi goes, well, people thought that about most of the major ideas that dominate physics currently.

I downloaded the pdf and plan to read more of it at a different point in relation to this post. I like this direction very much. It might be a bit difficult for tests in a great many areas, but testing I think would be possible simply via the fact it seems the universe and its laws such as the elements don’t seem to be immutable, not to mention that evolution does take place. It might also be nice to see a new set of math tools developed, or even refined.

I am trying to define relationships between organisms and quantum mechanics, and of course I am having little to no luck overall. I got the idea watching a documentary on television about aquatic animals and such and of course the relationship these animals take to the ecology in terms of structure for instance. When I was thinking about this the thought crossed my mind that no matter where you go in the known universe, if its physical is most likely a product of matter and energy and so on, or physics in general. My question basically is how much does the laws or theories of QM have in common with evolution of life? I mean a streamlined for swimming animal, like a dolphin for instance, to an octopus, or does the QM matter not deal so much directly with shape as maybe it might have to do with various functions such as sight for example. I am trying to denote how to look at life in a physics perspective, as its an interest of mine. Now I know its more easier and probably correct to say Newtonian physics applies a lot more then QM, but I don’t see how I can rule such out yet. I posted this in this forum simply because I don’t know anything about what I am asking really.

The one theory I heard and liked though don’t know if it was true was that they made enormous mounds of sand and worked down from the top using the sand as sort of a base, i cant remember where I picked that up though.

What I don’t understand nearly good enough really is the evolution of such or the universe really. For instance in nucleosynthesis, do you have to have hydrogen before such a process can take effect? Where did the more fundamental subatomic particles themselves come into play? What I mean is the electron for instance, how did it come about overall? Sometimes I think its just a matter that deals with time I guess. In that if you look at a human beings lifespan, its just a little spike of activity that’s almost meaningless in regards to lifetimes of other objects or even the universe, its just a possible product of matter and energy interacting right? Is it the same for all the particles then. Is the environment that spawned such an environment that holds out the ability for other random particles to exist? I Think such would be interesting to study in an atom smasher or particle accelerator as anomalies do come to exist, maybe some benign particle that could not persist. I don’t fully understand the definition of energy either. For instance if all matter or mass is energy, does energy have to have a definite shape, or is the same issue of entropy leading to patterns to reasons we have a certain spectrum of particles and related larger elements of such that spawn off associated physical realities of the universe? It makes the idea of weighing something weird, I mean I can put a pound of bananas on a scale, or a pound of gold, but what am I really weighing and is that proportion truly finite.

SO basically its just kind of a slingshot mechanism overall? I think a ballista also had a track sort of to guide the projectile, say a bolt for instance, but I might be getting confused. I think some wood, and pvc piping, maybe reinforced might do the trick along with some rubber, or plastic tubing. You could fill in the pipe with sand for instance, and the various types of pvc piping would allow for joints and angles or different diamters and so on.

Its half and half I would think plus other aspects of the definition do apply.

The war is typically nothing but urban, involved the locals and is basically ruining, nation, state, city, whatever you want to call it. We don’t have control, and we seek it in major by use of military force. siege /sidʒ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[seej] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, sieged, sieg·ing. –noun 1. the act or process of surrounding and attacking a fortified place in such a way as to isolate it from help and supplies, for the purpose of lessening the resistance of the defenders and thereby making capture possible. 2. any prolonged or persistent effort to overcome resistance. 3. a series of illnesses, troubles, or annoyances besetting a person or group: a siege of head colds. 4. a prolonged period of trouble or annoyance. 5. Also, sedge. Ornithology. a. a flock of herons. b. the station of a heron at prey. 6. the shelf or floor of a glassmaking furnace on which the glass pots are set. 7. Obsolete. a. a seat, esp. one used by a person of distinction, as a throne. b. station as to rank or class. –verb (used with object) 8. to assail or assault; besiege. —Idiom9. lay siege to, to besiege: The army laid siege to the city for over a month. From dictionary.com

I disagree. Japan and Germany, that entire war was a different environment all around the board in so many ways no short post, or collection of long ones for that matter could really muster it in a short period of time. I don’t think we can hold Iraq as a post if the country worsens over time due to siege. Its that simple, sun tzu knew siege was the worst type of conflict and I don’t really see a difference with this. Our leaders or people in charge of the military went for a battle military in a traditional warfare type sense. I doubt any military in the world could stand to it, but Iraq is far from that type of a conflict and it shows. If Iraq continues to be what it is, politics will give a new president on the vote to bring the troops home. I mean we have troops over seas having to give small unit fire commands on enemy units not scene in urban ambushes that in themselves can collapse to splintered ambush scenarios with snipers and IED laden vehicles. Its not something out in the open with smart bombs knocking out tank formations and entrenched lines of soldiers. I would hate to say this, but I think one of the other issues that has bogged us down, is in the intelligence game, I would say our enemy, whatever that happens to be can be just as good as us if not better over there, and I think that is one of the most important aspects of this conflict. Another one is the fact that if we cant break the stalemate, well then the war continues to be one that kills nothing but the locals, and then what faith should the locals have for us? More so with all the integration issues of bringing and Iraqi army online, anyone have a cost estimate for this? OR even how to make sure its safe and not corrupted like so many other aspects of Iraq, from the government, down to the police forces?

There is a really sharp divide it seems, or moderate grounds in regards to Iraq seem to be hard to find. All I know is its been four years of what I would really call nothing more then the same situation. Now people say stay the course or what not, that happens to be the blank mantra along with support the troops... Well, all I know is no one knows when the war will end, stay the course in all reality is a who knows in regards to time. So lets look at it this way then. IF the U.S presence is not enough to break this stalemate what’s going to happen to the common public of Iraq in another four years, how about another four after that, because besides using a magic eight ball I don’t know of anyone of some prestige on the situation that has spoken about it and had those words match reality. I know I don’t support another four years of status quo, and along with that how many times did the current big wigs say the insurgency was in its last through, meanwhile the military was calling the insurgency amorphous, or code for lacking any real detail. Personally, its a blank check of human life all around to keep this war going. Listen to all the experts, and then compare those words to the reality on the ground in a chronological format, there is no experts and its all basically a large pile of manure. Shinseki knew that occupation was a body operation, he wanted over 400,000 personal for this, and I imagine if we had that and a more clear plan besides that we will be greeted as heroes and liberators that the war would be different, but now its simply just studying kinetics of sorts.

Try to program or develop a calculator application.

Talking to troops may not be the best way to gauge the situation either, I have spoken to plenty that want nothing more then our troops out of there among some other very negative opinions of the whole ordeal. I think, to go out on a limb here, that the war is basically lost. We need a massive amount of troops with a real plan, this is never going to occur because it would mean a draft, I mean I guess it could occur, but politics has been this war since day one and will continue to be. The funny part is if we could get off of oil, then play the security part on our soil with money and funds going into this war, I doubt really that any Americans would ever die of terrorism to any real extent. I don’t know if we could police everywhere in the world an American might venture is all, but on our soil I think we could basically prevent terrorism if we wanted to. I mean just what I read about what lead up to 9-11 it sounded like that could have been prevented.

Pardon me if this is off topic, but what mediates the higgs field?

Most all modern or used means are simply chemical rockets, well its not simple but that’s what’s used. You have to have enough to reach escape velocity for the object in relation to how long it will take to basically reach a point that it could be in space or at a point in which it could take on an orbit, which I am sure is a unholy amount of math all together on its own, which then means you need something to do that, like a computer for instance, and in reality I would not mess with it as it took lots of people a lot of time to do this and a slip with the fuel probably would annihilate a large section of the earth you happen to be in, not to mention if you miss something in the math and the rocket decides to travel in a different direction or something.

I would think that if our 3+1 dimensions can physically interact with the other dimensions posed, and that the other dimensions posed are needed for the universe to function, then anything you would do or take for instance would be a interaction with, and a portal to if you will, these other dimensions then. This would apply on any level then physically and be a constant function, the interaction with these other dimensions. What I mean is the electron seems to be some natural entity that gives off basically various physical realities of reality really, and it exists, we have found it, named it and study it as such, so then how do they do this with string theory physically? Far be it from me, but sure I could believe that an electron might have hundreds of thousands of smaller particles that make it up, I can say that all I want, but I would have little to no idea how to test such, or even if technology today even permits any way to really study for such, or if science even has enough of understanding how to go about it. I don’t understand how science can really test string theory really. I mean giving the idea that a great many questions at the QM level have no lasting answers yet, or a full picture even, is string theory sort of jumping the gun possibly?