foodchain

I know, but sticking to what’s more objective and physical such as genes, where is it programmed, such as what’s responsible for say a protein, to make such behavior come about? I mean they way you phrase it, it sounds almost automatic, that X will occur because Y is true for instance. Well then, that would have to derive from our biology, and our biology is molded but evolutionary processes. So for instance, I am only 1.7% or such different genetically then my closest living ancestor, but say 98% different then a bacteria. So for behavior of an organism, its probably much easier to discern the behavior of a bacteria from a molecular point of view then it is to do such to say a mammal or reptile. The other idea though is that molecular speaking, we do have organs, such a brain which is somewhat a composite of structures per say, now not everything a brain does for every thought such as word selection in my writing is pre ordained genetically. The ability for me to do this of course does derive biologically, but just as you pointed out with cultures the actual manifestation of say language is very broad and dynamic. So to what extent can you apply evolution to behavior then? Such as in my dream example, I mean it relies on fear and success both in the sense in my perception of something social. I simply just don’t understand exactly how evolutionary biology is really in a position to take on such an analytical approach really. I mean you can look at the molecular sense, obviously, I mean when a person digests a drug, the behavior they can come to express can be altered radically, but such can change on a case by case basis. So simply put I don’t think simply the molecular basis alone is enough, there is more to it physiologically then just that approach is all.

See this is where I get confused. Mass warps space-time, or mass/energy, or basically a physical body like a planet or a star warps space-time or something significant in some terms. Some nebula are massive, I mean they birth stars, but how do they bend space-time, I would expect not like a planet does per say? I mean I am trying to digest the physics into what I see on say the Hubble telescope site for example. Now it seems this curvature gets stronger the closer you are to say a body in space. But I know from geology, that gravity anomalies exist on earth for instance, so do specific bodies in the earth curve space in an un uniform pattern then the body in total? I mean for instance looking at crystal defects, is that somewhat an analogy from gravity anomalies on the earth fro instance? I just mean physics has lots of unanswered questions on the QM level such as quantum gravity for instance. Plus in a "vacuum" such as space, what is the difference from an atom to atom interaction to an entire system of them in what appears to be natural kinds of phenomena such as planets? I just get confused to the definition of time-space, at some point people say you cant physically interact with it, but obviously that cannot be true if for instance it causes gravity. For me to move in gravity would be a physical interaction with such. Then back to say the constant motion machine, and the unrealistic nature of it, I don’t see how gravity can be a constant and derive really from simply the presence of something operating on what exactly, something that cant be interacted with physically? I mean a lot fo times I think really I am looking at the universe with a perception that should really be stated as looking at a sheet of paper with numbers everywhere on it.

I would look at rings around other planets. I mean they have been existing for sometime without simply falling apart in an instant, relative to our observations I guess. Plus if its a sci-fi novel it does not always need to be perfectly honest. I mean most spaceships in sci-fi such as star trek always have some perfect energy source for instance to power the ship.

I always got confused with this part. In one sense it seems if you could make one you could solve all of everything’s energy problems with probably zero impact ecologically speaking, on the other hand physically most will say its simply impossible going on talking about thermodynamics and what not for instance. Now what I don’t understand is here on earth, I have a constant weight in regards to gravity, or gravity period seems to be a rather constant force. Being gravity has not reached some perfectly absolute level of understanding, I just tend to wonder does gravity and the fallacy that is the perpetual motion machine have anything in common? I mean what powers this constant gravity force? I mean I hear lots of descriptions of gravity that basically put it in my opinion as something of an magic almost, or quasi physical really, almost like descriptions of time. So then, does gravity require energy, or mass to exist? Or basically how does gravity exist as a constant, does it require energy in this process?

I am not sure but I think if we did not have a magnetic field solar winds will eventually destroy or remove our atmosphere. I think its the same reason we get auroras, in that the magnetic lines in the field conduct particles, I don’t know if they have anything in common with the van allen belts, if I spelled that right. So it would seem that like you stated the solar winds have some composition that can interact and so on, though I don’t know if you would want to spend a great deal of time in them.

I heard somewhere that tires have to have nitrogen put in the mix so bacteria won't eat them.

Well that’s quite a challenge really firstly. I don’t know what to say, I don’t think any one person here can develop a self sustaining ecosystem in say a building for instance on an alien planet, do you more or less mean a concept with some specifics? For instance, people need molecular oxygen(sounds cooler then O2). I don’t know how you would approach this, you could use some sci-fi genetics in conjunction with plants, which could satisfy as a food source or something also, heck maybe the imaginary plant could also terraform soil and an atmosphere, or perhaps a device that basically frees such from materials on the host planet. You would need an adequate temperature, which I guess you could try a portfolio approach, such as small scale nuclear power, coupled with solar if possible. All of which are just possible examples, unless you are to primarily research such out on the net and use nothing but real world examples of such, in that case its pretty much up to you I would think. I would try wiki at first, or type in artificial ecosystems or something like that on the net, biodomes and so on.

What about for instance ants or other highly social organisms. The current word or term I think I am trying to imply is superorganism. Now our ancestors at some point in ancestry were social creatures right? I just don’t fully understand the scope of evolution per say in human behavior, which leads to many complex questions that will take a great amount of time to resolve which goes back to my caution as you put it in regards to application rather then research currently with evolutionary psychology. I mean what if evolutionarily speaking, my common dreams of always losing my homework has some grounding in my biology as provided by evolution, what is the degree of causality or causation there and how is such measured?

I have to say that’s a really interesting reading for anybody interested. Secondly, what is your primary interest for the study of such? Is it more leaning towards evolution per say, or more towards structural geometry period? If its for evolution, there is a broad range of stuff that’s already known that I think would take sometime to integrate into that paper(you produced?). If its purely for structural purposes, well then I guess one would have to take into account on some level if the chemistry life typically uses, or that of what you study actually permits in some level of exactness what you are stating, as put forward as a possible tool in the paper for evolution for instance. Which structure of life is conserved such as having X limbs, or two eyes for instance. The problem I get is where the evolution thing ties into what works in the ecology overall in regards to any variables, such as needing to run, and how needing to run impacts the body. My guess is all that as you would have it structure and geometry play some role along with various forces and the chemical structures and so on, or available chemistries and I don’t know of any living things with some organic titanium joints for instance. Well anyways, please feel free to post more in reply, I find that very interesting.

Well, on that level(atomic) I would say yes. My reason for asking really is I don’t fully understand the standard model, now I know on this website such a tag might back me something of a heathen but you will have to pardon my ignorance. I mean lets say organic evolution right? Well, evolution for what its worth I seriously doubt to just apply to life. So how far back does such a word or process really apply? Its just a question that’s been bubbling around my brain is all. I have heard about the Higgs boson before, but I still don’t fully understand close to much anything about it. The question to me simply is just that. I mean if you removed say electrons from the universe, what would be left? So is the Higgs boson equal to say the electron in requirement for natural phenomena(as it is) to occur, exist and so on, and on what scale, down to two rubber balls bouncing, to I guess say a super nova. I don’t understand where the Higgs boson falls into the equation I guess. Also, if such was so common, then why is it so drastically difficult to detect? One last chunk is say the artificial elements people have created. It just shows that nothing is set in stone so to speak. With that being said, the relation of mass and energy, or matter and energy, it derives me back to thinking about the application of evolution to things other then life is all, for me to understand where the Higgs boson comes into play is important in ways I currently probably cannot really envision, I do tend to waste my free time on this stuff is all. Lastly, in a perfectly controlled experiment, what if you can get something to come into existence, but only for a few thousandths of a second, was it a particle, was it a wave, or was it some abomination that simply cannot occur in our environment with any stability? I guess I also don’t understand how they declare something really.

I don’t understand. If the standard model requires this particle to exist for the universe to work, is it only on some particular scale that such is required, or is it required for day to day activities of nature regardless of scale.

Good point. I like to think of QM here. Lets for instance look at the probability cloud with the uncertainty principal. In short, it says we don’t know. Its probable but uncertain, at least that’s how I read it. Its like will it rain tomorrow, probable, but uncertain. What do you do with something like that with the razor? Follow the probable but uncertain? Basically I think to understand the razor then applies some basic scientific common sense? Or is it based on observation and experimentation with such? Like in geology, supposedly rivers always follow the shortest path to the ocean right? Well looking on maps I don’t see how this applies across the board, so what do you say then, form a hypothesis on what’s common or sort of known or looks probable but is uncertain? Then again maybe the rivers are all trying to do the same thing its just that the H2O and stuff does not move through the same material with the same levels of energy or all kinds of other variables that really quickly make it not a so easy to solve problem really, but its a principle that sounds easy and sort of makes sense and could probably be the answer but its probable and uncertain. Personal its just philosophy to me, some realm of imaginary numbers or what not. I will probably never really use it in all actuality save for time critical situations really, I will always try to get some more absolute representation of whatever the phenomena happens to be present for study, such as what makes a good tasting cheeseburger.

C60, that’s a buckyball right:D I don’t know the chemical composition of the item in question fully but I don’t think its based on C60. If you are more or less speaking in terms of the forces that give C60 its shape is the same in regards to what gives the item in question its shape, I don’t know to what extent that would be true as I have never giving it much thought/study. Its an interesting association, but on that note I don’t know how much the impact a structures geometry has in regards to interactions in the first place, such as a square making square waves when dropped in a liquid for instance, probably easier for circle I would imagine. I also do not understand fully of course the reality of chemical bonds in regards to molecular shape and fully what such derives from. Such as Carbon being able to exist in various configurations, such as diamond or graphite; More so in a case by case basis. I would think that reaction mechanisms have environmental variables involved, which could I guess play into it on some level, but overall I don’t really think I understand enough your question overall. If per say its just structure, well structure is important in biological systems, and is also conserved as I think was already pointed out.

I cant view the link. No big deal, I am somewhat interested in what you are talking about though. Reading stuff from say biophysics they are heavy on structure as its more readily able to accept being put in mathematical forms, such as the crystal lattice and what not.

I think the reason that bush gets called Hitler at times is because due to history the behavior he has and continues to express in a historical context can be compared with that of dictators. Do I think he is Hitler, well Hitler did push in an irrational sense for victory in the soviet union, and well like most found a way to centralize power in an authoritarian sense, liked the concept of secret police that go outside the normal laws that govern a citizen and so on. So no, I don’t think bush is Hitler. I have also noticed that for what its worth, this thread has had a lot about the slippery slope arguments purely of the left. Now being I guess that’s the topic of this thread, I think it misses a point really. Regardless of affiliation one thing that will occur with slippery slope arguments is that because of X, Y will then occur. I can say because of guns and yearly records that next year well over ten thousand humans will die because of such, well over 5000 of them due to handgun based homicide. I can then say the yearly death toll in America due to handgun use is higher then the fatality rate of not only Iraq, but Vietnam, so then is America as bad as both of those combat zones? It simply ignores so much in all reality as is fitting of the fallacy produced or the bias really of the observer. Regardless of the groups, democrats or republicans have failed to bring America to some grand utopia, but yet its the same race in the same circle. I guess it might simply be human in the end, the behavior that is, because it does not take a smart person to see the fallacy that is the slippery slope overall, but what actions does anybody ever take on them? It becomes no more a slippery slope then a giant escapade into the wonders of hypocrisy.

Much of ancestry in terms of biology can also simply be viewed via genetics and what not. As for you idea of geometry playing a role in some way or ways I don’t see why not. Life is based on the physiochemical like most anything else, be it a solar system of the geology of earth.

So can an observer be brought down to O Kelvin? I understand the reference frame a bit, but I don’t see how the observer, or two of them then could ever come to understand anything really, it would basically in my opinion put forward some postulate that the universe and everything basically is nothing more then the uncertainty principal? Maybe time really does fly when you are having fun;) I mean BEC, which is recorded by observers to be within a billionth of a degree from absolute zero does occur in labs. Subsequently something occurs to the matter or particles at that point. I would think that if the "nothing" of space had some particle nature to it, something similar would occur then?

Its funny to also look at the idea that such people would put homosexual relationships in the same boat with everything else. Its like saying having legal guns should mean I should be able to purchase some nerve gas at the local store.

I dont understand this part. For instance if different "universes" happen to exist and we are part of it, how can we be "part" of something we cannot interact with?

I hate to point this out but I think its a bit more difficult to get some absolute mathematical reality of human populations then it would be with another physical system or entity such as a comets path for instance. If we could predict with certainty human behavior, then well I think war would never really occur to be honest. That aside, I don’t know of any real way to slow down the growth of our species. I mean china has some laws around such that I know of, hated by most anybody I talk to, save they wont go into detail on how the world would support, or how china for that matter would support a 3x population boom in the next decade, perhaps the U.S will share money and power with them, LoL!. Anyways, I think ultimately what will occur is rather severe damage will have to take place in the environment that begins to hurt people, from business, to individual, to nations. I think at that point humans per say might begin to recognize the need for say understanding and adaptation, though such is only a prediction. I think current trends though would suggest such a future, the reason being no real pressure or stress yet exists to select for something different then the current mode of operation really. Its typically just noise associate with tree huggers or what not.

For instance the military has missiles, around say a 2,000 lb payload size used for busting bunkers, in this case you would have that save for it would be nuclear. I don’t know if that exists, buts its a perfect example of what you are looking for really. The difference being the missile is designed typically to get so much penetration into a substance for instance before detonation. SO they would take that technology and basically attach to it a nuclear warhead over whatever other compound for instance that was being used for the explosive. I personally do not understand that idea as the introduction of nuclear weapons in a war zone basically assumes the automatic reply of such by the other side or sides really. I think another reason for the advance of such technology is for the application of nuclear weapons at a smaller scale overall.

We cannot define the enemy. That defines a degree of freedom for them and an intelligence avenue. OMG, its hard to think huh.

You have a good point save to state that evolution has a state of mind. You are better off in all reality viewing the organism that happens to be present in the ecology really. That’s where most people fail really in trying to think about life. They ignore ecology overall.

I thought AP had a hard smaller core like rod really, but I could be wrong. What I was more getting at I guess is something maybe akin to vibration in bonds or atoms really, or any elastic force the bonds themselves may hold and any ability to somehow "program" such in regards to electromagnetic. I think I read somewhere that a nano composite, I think carbon fiber at a 30% level to say a armored door greatly enhances its resistance. I guess it really comes down to how "liquid" forces or properties of matter happen to be at the atomic level really, or the ability for them to be programmed I guess. I mean if you could have it react to form a cone to the bullet that would be great, for the most part though I think material pits really, though I think basically if the material has enough resistance the time the round spends on the surface is not enough basically to allow penetration. Then the other idea that if you have a very hard surface that some materials on impact will actually become a plasma and simply "eat" through the material, that’s where I figured compression would be good simply to maybe defeat this. Then another avenue I think is weapons that pass energy through the material to make material on the inside of the vehicle detach and impact the crew at high velocities. I think not only compression would be good at that point but a material that can propagate the wave out over a higher amount of material and hopefully not compression it so much. The other idea though is simply point detonating weapons, in which an explosion rather then a projectile is used, but then again I think the simply ability to propagate the energy out rather then it being able to attack really a point of the structure solely would be of awesome benefit, more so in a shape itself, the vehicle that is that also attempts to do this, I think that’s where the V shaped hull came into play really in modern combat vehicles. The matter of the fact is I don’t think you can make a fully resistant material, but for the most part the arms that exist today not only have a cost associate with them, but a concentration also. RPG-7 may be much more readily available then a silkworm for instance. It may also be more on the concentration to the aspect of crew survivability then the vehicle itself. A 155mm round of comp B exploded underneath a vehicle may be very difficult to defeat in terms of maintain a functional vehicle, but the vehicle itself should be design more to the aspect of crew survivability then say the vehicle itself. Point being better materials I think would not only save life’s, but in themselves could probably deter a great deal of conflict if enemies combatants simply knew there weapons would be grossly ineffective, it would also induce certain behaviors such people would have to commit in order to obtain any effective results which would aid in intelligence.

For instance when I go to turn off my monitor, I have the off button on the monitor BTW, when I hit it I imagine that I transfer a bit of energy to the button and the monitor. When this energy is applied on say the molecular level of the button or monitor itself, does the energy propagate out, or is the reaction or action for that matter based on every atom itself reacting basically. Lastly, how long would a amount of energy(quanta?) spend in a single atom, or for that matter a couple of atoms and what does this this have to do if anything with the bonds they may hold with other atoms? Example is say you blast a piece of metal with an AP round from a rifle, the metal itself may give way and take on a configuration that I imagine is based around basically that system of atoms reacting to the incoming system of such, the bullet, but you have so much time that is spent in which leaves say the information of the metal now in a different configuration, which has to have something to do with time I would think. If you controlled the environment perfectly to what we can, such as angle and velocity of the round and FPS of the round and so on, you would still retain a difference in what the metal chunk looked like after the fact of being struck by the round correct? What yields that? What I am thinking about is simple overall, or at least I hope if i have any of the above correct that is. You could make a material, basically that could react with the incoming round possible, that makes it easier for the energy to glance based on time spent for the round on the surface of the material. Such as the material would be able to compress and so on and deal with a certain amount of energy coming from any particular angle for enough time as to basically deflect the energy of the round and thus carry the round at an angle away from the material.