foodchain

I don’t really know where to place this thread, and I know I come up with lots of odd ball ideas it seems but hey at least its something out of the norm at least. I would like to reference this question to the big bang and the evolution of matter really. After the big bang and the subsequent time the elapsed until the common matter today came about, or matter with mass, examples being the proton for electron for instance, or carbon or oxygen, is it really a random assortment type of process that lead to this? What I mean is say you have the big bang, boom, and then what lead to matter and mass for instance? Was it a guaranteed process to get electrons and protons, and of the type they are for instance, or for the matter and of the common elements, such as carbon, or oxygen? I don’t know why I reference entropy save to say that the path of least resistance seems to have large applications they typically giving, for instance when reading on how they proved light is not solely a particle for instance, well, you can see that same motion is water really if you drop two pebbles for instance a second apart into the water, and its somewhat like the path of least resistance, which reminds me of entropy somewhat. Being a waterfall cannot deduce a different path, or such occurs naturally in respects to the energy in the system occurring, blah, and so on.

Do the electrons and the nuclei retain being of an signature elements, say carbon or oxygen for example? Or on cooling can you get back something different with different environments? For instance in my chemistry readings they find some form of carbon bonded with titanium in space, I cant remember but its CxTix with x being greater then 10 from memory(C14Ti16?), so is that reaction mechanism then purely environmental. Such as in labs they do many reactions, but natural based mechanisms more so being something pathological or forensic really. I mean from what I just read of your plasma physics explanation does "transmutation" exist in such?

I agree fully, but where do you go with that? Police or enforce moral behavior? On what level or to what extreme would you accept, or in another light, how would you bring people to acting such a way?

If I had a mixture of say two elements that were stable and in a solid state, when I heat them to a certain point, or perhaps cool them to a certain point is it possible to simply break the bonds that hold them together? I mean I think its a pretty simple question but I have a more reasonable explanation to why I ask. From study I have learned that atoms get exited by energy, or rest basically in the absence off. So then it would be reasonable to assume that maybe on a subatomic level change is occurring in relation to the energy in the local environment, such as is its very hot or very cold. So then thinking of "quantum leaps" really in terms of atomic structure if I have my vocab correct, if you had an very precision instrument, something that can calculate and project change in the environment say to the billionth of a degree, should you always get the same readings back from say the behavior of an atom, or really should it be so many ticks or billionths of a degree that you could record possibly a jump? If so my real question then is it possible to hover an element for instance somewhere between phases? Such as not solid or liquid, or is that in itself a "quantum leap" type of behavior?

Simply put seek help maybe? I am scared to death of heights, not just a normal fear but the kind that will repel me and even try to shut me down basically. I have done things against it, such as helicopter rides and such, still the same deal I just have a bag of tricks to help get me by. So really, not wanting to play the online psychologist because such is probably remotely dangerous really, I would just suggest seeking help.

I have actually thought about this and in short there is no real way to safeguard against such in less you want to make some serious changes really. You can station a police officer at a bar, that could curb some damages but it wont end the problem. Private residence drinking is altogether different issue really in regards to policing for drunks driving. You can try to use apparatus in a car to stop such, but really I don’t know of anything cost effective that cant be fooled or simply gone around if a person so desires with five minutes of thought and a few more minutes on actions. Serious penalty is already existing, it could be made worse, but I don’t see any real positive kickbacks from it overall as in most everything that is a crime currently such as selling drugs does not make the problem go away really.

Is our government really the product of various sects truly separated in regards to goals and agendas or does our government share something of a unity really in regards to such? What I mean is looking at the U.N or politics of its easy to see how there exists a real lack of trust for one and the real fact that the politics there has to breech such divides really in order to get anything done. Would you agree or disagree that our government via partisan politics is really heading in that direction, to be a fragmented body of politicians in various sects competing against each other.

The cost ratio is still high as pointed out in various articles on the subject due to the fact that gallium is produced in high quality for use in electronics if memory serves. So a hump to the issue or a hurdle is producing lower grade gallium. For what its worth if any material scientists or research chemists happen to be present on the board, this is a real opportunity to get immensely rich really, and at the same time to become something of a super hero!

Religion and science differ in that science will say that we don’t know, or attempt to discover the why, while religion will simply say something and the claim it as the why. Such as before science or simply going on a religion that did go such a route the earth was only a few thousand years old for instance. I also will simply disagree that we cant eve reach a total understanding of everything, can one person ever hold all of that knowledge is doubtful, but as a specie I don’t see why we could not? I mean I may not understand every scientific or technical manual at a local library but that does not remove the factual understanding those books which we produced by people offer. In time, save for extinction or some other variable which seriously changes humanity, what we will know in a billion years or even a thousand years from now will be basically a quantum leap from what we know now, and I don’t see why this would ever stop really, so unless you are correct and that knowledge is infinite, at some point humanity collectively as a specie will probably posses absolute understanding of everything really. In the mean time we learn, and with learning we experiment for lack of better words. Its in this that I would state that if you don’t have absolute understanding, well then you should simply respect that fact. You are correct though that I don’t understand everything about everything that I use, but that does not mean I simply have to negate the fact of my ignorance and claim that its all ok, simply put its that age old question of " is ignorance bliss" in which I will promptly say no.

What about light from the sun and plant growth?

Yes but in millions of years it might be something to me to suggest that our brain chemistry alone might change a bit, might have a different set of receptors even and so on, who knows? If that holds true though "humanity" might collectively become something else, even something a bit alien from what we conceive as humanity today. I doubt for there to be any real liberal or conservative culture, because we have so much ignorance overall if what makes us human in a more organic sense. To couple with this on the idea of the big crunch, how exactly would you escape that, or stop it? What would stopping it lead to, how would we survive heat death really. I mean if space-time is physical and sets the boundaries for physical space, I don’t think anything could escape it without some serious violations of something, or an amount of energy I don’t see how one could harness in essence to stop such. IN heat death would the BEC come to exist for all matter in the universe? What do you do at that point. I mean absolute zero to me means 0 energy really, and matter busts apart right? How do you prevent that? Now of course I cant honestly say humans or whatever organism that does happen to make it so some point like I described cant make it, I just currently don’t see how really. If you got any ideas I think it would be very interesting to hear about them of course though. Personally the only thing I can think of which is very far fetched involves the use of basically genetics to absorb the entire universe into a collective organism that can be managed via a "brain" really.

Yes, but if you turn a lightbulb on in a box, how would a person outside of the box ever know this?

In some terms I thought about what life will be like for humans in so much time. Not only in respects to our biology, such as what will we look like, or such, but in regards to the universe. What if the big crunch is real, what are people going to do? In one scenario, speculation of course, if the universe starts to go back into a singularity. I mean in the vacuum of space, I imagine the gravity of the singularity being rather powerful really, and who knows how long that will take. What if people find a way to stop this, will the universe die from heat death? Its a million questions really, but overall thinking about such in any real extent basically at some point leads to a wall really, at least in my opinion.

Well, in my opinion it somewhat reminds me of what it might be like to be blind. You could only understand so much of something that’s in action, and unlike a blind person who might be cautious what’s to save us from peril really? I mean psychology in a Victorian sense allowed people like a teenage girl that would have a child out of wedlock to be imprisoned for life in a metal ward type place, of course this could be constructed to be similar to what you are saying. I am not saying that you would agree with such, but on that notion its unfortunate to have to make decisions while ignorance still persists, I guess its a part of learning, but that will ultimately have a product also, like space shuttles exploding. Yes, I do tend to gravitate towards supporting a possible reality of absolute understanding in a factual sense of everything, I think only then could humans for instance actually "know" about something. I mean who could truly explain my word selection for this paragraph? I don’t view it as defeatist, but really the ends to the means I hope. In the meantime, if ignorance exists, then we really need to be aware of that when making a choice, or deciding something I would think. Like in many physics threads, people can with comfort simply claim its all ok, even while a great deal of mystery exists, I am sure they come from some point that allows this, I simply don’t understand it myself. Thus is my support for science, it seems to be thanks to our acceptance as a specie of being social really, the best most positive tool to derive truth, and objective understanding. I absolutely hate ignorance and such is why I have such a hard time deciding a major overall save for the sake of the reality that probably so much exists its impossible for a single person to really make any progression without specialization, I still hope to work interdisciplinary though.

No, but use of a car is a bit different from understanding the car I would say.

Maybe biofilm is some hold over of that? I just have a hard time even with the primordial soup seeing a polymer or monomers simply being able to hold their own. RNA can act as an enzyme though which makes things easier for me to digest it as a reality. Then again RNA itself is a collection of chemicals, to me it just seems easier to envision some membrane or cell in which equilibrium would work in. As for the molecules themselves, they would be free to sift around in the wild, from colloidal solutions, or clay, to lava and sea vents and such, various different ph levels and so on. The cell would have to do the same, but its a medium that I could see in a primordial soup to have an easier time simply maintaining I guess, though I know close to nothing in context of the reality of what is known currently, so my opinion is not very valid either. Maybe they came at the same time?

This experiment is a paradox in philosophy and why philosophy falls short. Many people can explain what will occur, but when the individual is presented such in real life, they explanation plus that reality don’t tend to match up always or that well for that matter. I tend to shy away from evolutionary biology in a psychological sense really because so much is still unknown and thanks to extinction of species might stay that way.

Here are some links to follow this up. http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/N100/images/19lipiddrop.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/N100/ch8life.html&h=237&w=333&sz=42&hl=en&start=5&um=1&tbnid=AwKIaO_012yw8M:&tbnh=85&tbnw=119&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dprotobionts%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/P/protobiont.html

Yes, but then you must logically assume that the "code" then made the cell? I just don’t see naked polymers being able to make it in the wild so to speak to that point in my opinion. I also have a very hard time putting life in a common sense to this, it has to be one of those simply physical things so to speak; I see the "protocell" as something required really. For instance, chemically speaking, what would motivate "code" which is really what, to produce a cell? On the other hand though, "code" in a cell would have a buffer really or something of a medium in which to operate via. The cell is a highly conserved biological entity, present from single to multi-celled biological systems overall, we can see all kinds of variation, but even in the virus, you have some kind of body or cell really. A cell chemically speaking, could basically via chemistry in my unsubstantiated with factual data type of opinion I could see basically in environmental change self assemble itself some stability. Such as a "protocell" in various chemistries, or environments adapting a chemistry for a stable equilibrium, which could tie into chemotaxis at some point. If memory serves many amino acids exist in nature that are not used by biological systems.

Does such only act on light, I mean the curvature being the proof that is? Just sounds kind of weird really. I mean space-time supposedly leads to gravity, but that would mean curvature equal at all points on a body, in respects to geology and gravity anomalies how does that pan out? So is light the only thing space-time will bend, seems kind of odd is all, plus that last bit as a coordinate free constraint? I can only think in more primitive terms such as mass, or matter and energy really, the more multidimensional language used still pretty much eludes me past my taking such as yet more solely mathematical based constructs used to explain to label information really. I can understand it as a mathematical construct or model to help explain, but I am simply confused overall as to its physical properties. To many times physics and math simply makes me think of a Rubix Cube to be honest. I mean I can read an article on biofilm and have not so much trouble, but when it comes to some concepts in physics I get lost, I think its the translation from the math that causes so much trouble, it must be funny though or frustrating to try and explain this stuff sometimes though huh? Well anyways thanks.

At what point is space-time observable? What I mean by this is what in reality can show the existence of such truly? Like how I can pick up a rock and through it, so I know I can do that, I cant physically touch the rock and look at it, bust it apart and so on. At what point in physics is space-time observable like that? I mean I have a general understanding, barely, of what scientists mean by space-time, but what allows them to know for sure that it exists, I never really attempted to look for that until your post actually, so if you know, like have a link to something, could you post it?

The cell or the code? Such as the cell or RNA/DNA.

I don’t think gundams are viable in reality. A main battle tank for the U.S army loaded is about 70 tons really. Now in the gundam reality, you can one of these which make tanks look small, propelled very fast and then they simply land on the ground. Now maybe in the vacuum of space or something, I just don’t see such agile energy consuming beasts being able to survive on a planetary environment like the earth in the way portrayed unless we make some serious technological advances really.

Well, its just that in atoms you find orbital, and in solar systems, you find orbital, and I think this even goes out as far as galaxies. Now in a nebula, the nebula itself is sort of a "nursery", but the entire nebula is not crushed into some sphere shape, typically I don’t know across the universe of course. Now QM being what it is, I know that direct observation is difficult, and many questions still exist on that level including all of the particles that may exist or not. Now in terms of a solar system, could you describe an orbit of a planet as a wave, or function of such if you wanted? Plus its seems galaxies and solar systems tend to planar somewhat in regards to geometry, is there any variation to this in the universe, past clouds of gas? Do such just not have enough mass or weight? I think the physical reality of an atom plays a cumulative effect in many regards in larger systems of atoms, of course this is nothing but speculation that I cant really back up past words. I mean matter and energy share a fundamental relationship, I would wager that gravity is a product of that is all.

Well I look at culture as just another item in the environment in short, sort of maybe a hard surface to an organism possibly? Just a factor overall is what I mean by culture. I don’t think its by coincidence that humans happen to live in societies or have cultures or happen to have language for instance, but that’s little more then barely a casual connection really. What I am getting at, is that environment plays into phenotypes, the relationship of genotype to phenotype aside and simply looking at the phenotype I just sort of wonder what connection or how large a factor human cultures play on a human being. Such as violence. It seems to be violence is everywhere in American culture? Now this came on gradually as being as common as it is, I mean its not like violence did not exist in the past, just now that you even have violent commercials on t.v. Is this giving some kind of violent predisposition to people, and on what level, does nature to nurture share in the phenotype? I mean if we have a culture that somewhat aligns itself with violence, what will that say about people that reject such? Will certain genes be "switched" on over others more often? I think its a complex question, but I don’t know if its ever been explored in regards to humans really. I mean a culture of bacteria may be one thing, but not a culture of people, it becomes a little more complex to say the least.