foodchain

Regardless if you are Carl Sagen or not I will add my two cents in on the subject as I receive it. From what I understand of life on earth, its descendent from a common ancestor, yet the various forms life takes on happen to be vastly different in many regards. Looking at an insect level, or the various dimensions of evolution as I like to look at it, insect life is different, thus its insect. The organism at the molecular to population or ecological level still has to survive though, so looking at life from a fitness to simply survive or persist point of view, I would think that at least that variable would have to be present in life on another planet in some form. So would a different gravity and chemical composition play a huge role? Going from evolution on earth I would have to say so, because such is physical or the reality of life even while the physical and life sciences tend to be segregated. If per say on the surface of Venus, life would have to reach some equilibrium to survive in not only the temperature, but the pressure, and chemical reality of the surface reality on Venus and all its differentiation per say, like maybe its a hundred degrees warmer in some places and inversed in others. I guess the time or lifespan of the life form could also come into play, or maybe some self replicating system of enough complexity to be considered life that exists for maybe five or ten minutes and then reproduces and is off, I think such a gradient though would require vastly low levels of complexity due to replication or transcription processes, but I think such is evident on earth as in more complexity to the organism in an evolutionary sense the slower evolution overall might become due to scope of the organism, say bacteria compared to elephant. Basically the environment as I understand it would have to at some point in the various interactions of matter and energy or physiochemical reality would have to be able to produce possibly some normal oscillation, pattern, or equilibrium of some type that a level of complexity typically present in life on earth for example could sustain itself in. This of course would involve conservation laws, diet, does it move or not and how is motility achieved. I personally rule life out from existing on a star for instance, I don’t think any real complexity could come to exist and sustain in such extremes really compared to say again life on earth, though going from the idea I don’t know how far down when drilling on the earth that microbes for instance persist or happen to be present, and that life on earth has adapted to various extremes ranging from toxic waste to volcanic sea vents to cave systems. There is also a multitude of amino acids and various other chemical realities to look at, but such again tie into the overall physical environment, as I don’t know how many amino acids used by life on earth would be able to sustain on say mars, I guess a form of life could develop some metabolism to safeguard such, or even find a way to use titanium if present as some form of skin, though that’s kind of far fetched but evolution seems to be able to make things work over vary large spans of time, but most massive extinctions on earth seem to be present in abrupt shifts in the environment such as climate.

I don’t know if its beliefs as in animism as much as it might be different camps testing(hopefully) different hypothesis on something. Its like gravity with Newton, it just leaves something open. It goes from mass and distance, but what real physical force is affecting the other body, such is how is just mass compared to mass somehow gravity? Why is energy easier to find in lower states and not higher, but what frame of reference do you use for all of these judgments really, or perceptions of such. Its like biology really, or something someone in the medical field can probably point out. Every little detail physically overall in an organism can be discerned and have title giving to it, but how does it all relate, what is perfectly healthy skin, what is a perfectly healthy eyelid to look like on the inside, how many different details of the physical reality of an eyelid exist? Biology is probably able to make a unifying theory possible, such as evolution, due to the ability to get more direct with life on earth for instance, why physics for the most part, more so in reference to the universe is currently not privy to being able to directly study such, and with biology the farther back in time you go, such as billions of years, the evidence in a direct tone becomes rare, and indirect methods have to be employed. Physics still has been able to make great strides and has predicted and concluded truth about reality many times from indirect methods, even dealing with the core of our planet. Chemistry is also challenged in many regards by such, such as in geology it would be hard to recreate a naturally occurring chemical reaction that takes millions of year to conduct in a few seconds in a lab.

Hard to say from what you say. I don’t know the seasons or if its specie dependent but maybe it was a drone, though I don’t know the extent of a drones life cycle and if such is dependent on other things of course. I know at low temperatures where I live bees and wasps are barely active, and you can pretty much handle a yellow jacket, though I would never subscribe this, its just a line I use to subdue nervous humans as I remove the wasp really. Maybe it was poisoned by something possibly? If it could relate to the massive bee disappearances, I would think it could, but then again I don’t know enough to say really in either direction.

I agree, it has to do with the semantics of it all. I mean if we just take natural selection into account the reality is single celled life might be the most intelligent, or slimy things in a cave somewhere possibly just looking at the ability to adapt or persist really. In terms of nothing more then the ability to manipulate, well then humans are the winner.

Well, personally from what I know I think the concept of folding spacetime might be a fallacy really, though of course I know so little about what I am talking about. I think its sort of the same as saying at a specific curvature of space knowledge can become matter or something like that, a misinterpretation really. TO fold spacetime, what would that really mean?

I can only really imagine such in the context of conservation laws. Now I know people make things appear in labs, but in context of space or how such naturally occur, such as a QGP is beyond me in regards to if its been found or not, such as in the core of some star for instance. I mean for a second to attempt to parse out the entire linear elaboration of chemical reactions that have occurred since the big bang alone, now that would be something, or even since the formation of our planet, that’s another. I still just don’t see how something came from nothing which leads me to think conservation laws are somewhat infinite and its a big bang/big crunch or the inverse of such that’s leads to it all or some high energy or maybe even low energy transmutations or what not, then again maybe its all matter, even on the smallest of levels, yes I think I know close to nothing about it:eek:

Could dark matter just qualify as a title for matter that’s not part of a galaxy or larger body that emits something detectable. Such as just basically "inert" rock floating in space for instance. I just don’t see a nebula, or the theory of such as how it relates to planetary or star formation for instance as being able to draw in every bit of matter, though the matter on the fringes could be effected by such still, but via the nebula itself be somewhat ejected away from whatever does become of such, the nebula that is. Or for that matter galaxies. I just try to imagine that in the “vacuum” of space I doubt for any physical forces to exist, or matter and energy being absent from the equation how could anything do anything, but on that idea does all matter that existed then simply exist just in galaxies for instance, or it is possible that out in space there just might exist intensely large asteroid fields for example. I mean from big bang--à to present, could all the matter really have been absorbed by galaxies, or would the big bang produce a big nebula, or really what’s going on I am so confused.

Yes, but in essence basically if that everything is effected by such. I mean if that’s true does that not on its own destroy the concept of locality on some level.

For instance a cat such as a house cat can have variability from house cat to house cat in regards to overall behavior or personality but such is in the constraints overall of being a house cat behavior. Basically minus the aspect of learning, or if such is dependent on the specie, such as cant probably have more to do with thought process that deals with smell then humans do for instance I have a question. The behavior of humans can vary greatly, person to person, but as the same for the cats do we carry out lives in subsequent generations simply being humans, and is the some overall human nature that basically people simply don’t notice or really cant. Being we change, but the change is typically built in large around our ability to work with technology, or tools really. So do humans really change, or for instance how a cat is a cat, and a frog is a frog, is there any in large variation for people, or do people happen to be people in the same context with regards to thought, perception and behavior. I think one of the things that may make such studies more difficult is that for instance frogs in a certain part of the Amazon have that ecology, but people have a diverse ecology overall for a species and not only this breeding that for the most part or life that is not as dangerous as life may be for that frog back in the Amazon overall.

Right, such as when I am standing in a large store for instance, ripe with activity. Now I am at the checkout stand, and from where I sit would it be possible for me to ever know really what’s going on where I cant directly see really? Would it be possible to derive via what’s known about the store probabilities of what’s occurring, I would think so, but those probabilities don’t ever really sum up to being much more then that, or no accurate precision is ever gained really. Now I know for instance probability is used in many sciences, but they are used in the format for testing the hypothetical really. Such as going over 100 square miles of ocean, what’s the probability that genetic variation will exist in regards to bacteria, then from that what’s the probability that for every 100 miles square of ocean this will hold true, and does that say anything for instance. Personally I think you could quickly get lost in the numbers is all, and stop taking samples of bacteria to notice what may be really going on with bacteria for instance. Though from a probability landscape, the difference in say type of bees or why the change exists in them could be some probability on the side of biological life forms trying to gain precision for survival in a giving environment really, or something less then absolutely stable overall frozen in time. This is where I could agree with the mathematical tool you subscribe as being useful, as something of a probe really, but it would have to derive from what we do know, or think we know, and of course the outcome to me in my opinion would have to reveal something at least testable, or I would never really consider it more then being hypothetical really. I understand that things are in flux, or happen to be dynamic, the universe is a fine example from what I know, and that probability would be a powerful tool for studying such like it happens to be in regards to psychology and individuals for instance. The problem to me comes in where you simply just use the math, and no longer care for the experiment, or the attempt to falsify the data provided by the math, or the thoughts on any particular subject provided by the math. I mean one last example on evolution, it being such a highly contested subject really, there is no room for air in regards to study in such. What I mean by this is how many people would buy the idea of evolution if at a point blank state it existed as nothing more then a hypothesis provided by some statistical framework, and had no other evidence to support it? Just as the same could be said of global climate change or anything really.

Anything physical that can be discerned and studied, for instance an electron in an electron cloud around a nucleus for instance, would that also receive a clock, and of course for every subsequent electron in the cloud have a clock, and then if possible the cloud have a clock, and the nucleus and every particle that makes up the nucleus, and then more so say for quarks in those particles, they can get a clock also right, even the strong nuclear force. Basically what can get a clock?

I read up that some people think a neutron star has a QGP core or builds one up, can this core be in a superfluid state?

Honesty no, just that I have kids and have been there before. I worry a great deal because I cant spend every second with kids, and therefore the aspect of them being elsewhere. I am not scared of drugs, nor do them outside of some beer every now and then. I was lucky though can cared to have the interest to read up mostly on such stuff before doing it. Most kids don’t, or have no clue really what they are doing. Look at the ecstasy(neurotoxin) craze for instance, how many peoples lives that has basically destroyed because people had no clue what they are messing with really. The legality of the issue along with the social stigmas that I guess you sort of just expressed push such into fringe states really. Then come the kids, to explore such in ignorant bliss. I know on this board alone people still in say high school or even lower read posts, we have people on this forum in this thread talking about the joys of such without that much detail giving to it. I can care right? or is that illegal, even while I point out the illegality of dope really does nothing to curb its use or even while I would not personally want to imprison someone from the choice, one of the reasons being people don’t know what they happen to be messing with. I had a friend a while back, thought it would be cool to use lsd, it turned out bad and at a hospital, I think he was sixteen. He basically took poison. Now far be it from to claim some empirical high ground on the issue, but then again not much is making sense for young people to understand anymore today, we have genocides occurring in which we do nothing about, guns are everywhere, tv does not match reality at all, so many special interest groups using politics to enforce views, abortion, safe sex, lack of understanding about anything to do with human nature/nurture, and then drugs of course. The list is rather endless and in the meantime we have brewing disasters forming such as environmental collapse though we can always drill in anwar. The world of today in America is drastically different then of even twenty years ago, and in retrospect to kids, who is handing them much anything, some officer at a dare program basically missing even the tip of the iceberg when it comes to drugs? Bottom line is you take drugs, you go for a ride, and well, what comes out on the other end can be different then when you started, and ask some kid what he thinks about it, any single one of the street, and I am sure what they will be able to tell you would be far shorter then this post when it comes to any real understanding of much relating to drugs. Thank you for your concern though.

If I understand you I agree with you. Physics being a fundamental science in many regards seeks to explain the basis for physical reality, such as gravity. Be it chemistry or biology what is studied in physics for example, like thermodynamics, still apply. This is evident in study and research of course, and of course even the ability to see that hey, look its matter and energy right. The problem I guess would be how you look at it in some regards if I follow your words correctly, the philosophy aspect. Now not to get into anything heavy, I am an agnostic, but not in a western monotheistic point of view, its in the point of view that no truth, or a yes or a no exists to make a decision on, to me that’s also naturalism or realism. People though of course differ in perception of such, and as such who knows what people mean when they are working on issues. Personally the philosophy aspect just as much as anything can produce fallacy as it can produce the need to study such as removed as possible from corruption via human thought. Such as any field, which is why I think the scientific method exists, and why math was defined to be somewhat inhuman in terms of the ability to interpret such, as 1+1=2, or at least it should right? Still it goes back to the reality that exists, people can make so much possible in numbers, stuff that simply does not exist in reality for instance. Its also historical that math does not automatically reduce a problem to some form of absolute understanding and the concept of infinite precision in observation I guess. Like string theory, so much so fast, and no real way to experiment to test any of it currently, save for what cern might make possible. If reality or nature is far more "bizarre" then humans can currently grasp I would agree, back in the past in terms of western culture at one point the earth was flat and the center of the universe, so yes we do learn and progress, but to say that something is impossible to understand, or that infinite precision cannot be reached is simply speculation, if something could not reach infinite precision how could anything in reality actually work, how could evolution take place or the orbit of a planet come to be? Science in my opinion, more so the natural sciences, such as chemistry, physics and biology and the rest like geology need to study purely fro truth, simply having the math part is not enough in all reality, and to simply rely on it is fallacy in my opinion and will derail progression into subterfuges of sorts that really only progress away from truth. This is then compounded with problems that humans generate, such as because of organic evolution, that such means x in some many ways without the need to actually apply, test or experiment. Its that getting physical with reality and with scientific rigor that something like a computer is able to exist, to being able to understand that human behavior is destroying the environment that gave rise to life as we know it. Fuzzy is a product of evolving in my opinion, as a steam engine was probably a fuzzy concept on its way to being something realized or usable. So much hypothetically, but what’s real and how do we know this or find such out?

What all receives a clock though, everything, every last point, or particle, or energy?

This means experiment right, in the real world for instance. In more then just calculations on a blackboard on a computer for instance right? Don’t get me wrong on the math part, its just that I think I know what’s going on a little bit. Think of biology for example, a great deal of biology can be understood via evolution, it magically makes a lot of what ecology studies make sense, such is physically possible to study, in experiment. Now talking the philosophy of it into consideration, it took such a long span of time, millions upon millions of years for an animal to sit in a tree and through fecal matter. Now all the possible abstractions of evolution in human thought happen to be numerous, and in turn the only thing that’s able to stop all of the madness really is the ability to actually produce a hypothesis about something and then test it really. Advances in the ways in which this can be done ranges from the molecular scale to the ecological scale, but it all provides physical truths about the reality of life. In terms of people simply using math, evolution has been proven false, to never have occurred, to having occurred, to so many possibilities because that is math. There is a slight separation of the two, the math and reality is all. Simply using just one probably is not healthy, as math allows for a logical framework to conceptualize and work with reality, but the point being that you can model so much with math, and then how to you refine the math back to explaining the natural world, or reality. Such as for example the random chance in math that earth could support life, well how would you model what with math, do we know what’s needed absolutely for life to exist, or what forms life can take, do we know how many planets happen to exist that can suit this? I think with the missing or gaps in such knowledge the math of such could never represent truth really. So with QM or really the atom, we lack in a great deal of ways to directly physically study so much of this, this in turn leads to problems if you will. For instance in our past, with what the moon was, or what lived on it. You can find so much or so many ideas really, but we learned about the moon really when we were finally able to physically study it. For instance the idea of spacetime and it being curved by gravity which you can see via light, I am still a bit confused if the effect on light by masses in space is not the product of photons interacting with any electromagnetic lines for instance the body may produce. TO the idea that blackholes could "move" in space, or is it the fabric that’s moving. You can model all of this with math, but I think its a fallacy to say ok, we made it work with numbers, so that must be the truth. In reality I don’t think such statistically works out, so mathematically is that false?

So then, the composition of mass such as mass from carbon of mass from oxygen deriving a body such as a planet has no factor in gravity as long as mass and velocity were equal in comparison of the planets? Its a question that has been bothering me for about two and half months now.

As I worded it yes, but I guess what I was aiming at was the idea that the amino acids happen to be responsible for everything in biological systems, this is what I don’t know for sure really. If such were somewhat true, then you could study life in that format, such as just looking at the amino acids for instance in regards to biology.

If I am right most of this goes back to quantum mechanics, or all the work around it right?

I think there is more then 20 amino acids anymore, the question is basically is everything in a biological system, at a reduced level composed of amino acids, be its DNA, and enzyme or the composition of a human eye, in a reduced sense, is it all composed of amino acids?

once you take a drug, for instance cubensis mushroom, decision is over. the next hours of your life will be ruled by such from a point in understanding just listen to the idea I am trying to pass ok. Your metabolism and your state of mind matter when doing drugs, doing drugs can give you something you never could understand. I did possibly once and now I am not the same. Listen, drugs are not what they are all cracked up to be in all reality. You as a young person happen to be free to experience the travesty of it all, which is poison really. It really is a something you should see if you happen to be ready in life. You do it and wow, for some reason no longer it all makes sense, you can see its organic nature, you can see its human. This is what people fear really, they fear reality really.

Do the constitute everything chemically in regards to biological systems, such as any enzyme recorded or protein for instance? I never resolved this question for some reason.

Right, I read some stuff on protein chemistry. I have a dictionary of biology, and a dictionary of chemistry. In them, biochemistry is a term that covers molecular biology and related disciplines. I have read up on such in wiki also, and on other sites. I just don’t see a concise separation, save for the most part I think molecular biology does take more of an approach from studying such in the context of DNA/RNA for example, though of course the field is not limited to such in any regard overall. Its just sort of annoying because these fields are the more quantifiable really, or much more objective. For instance, when sexual reproduction is involved, how many chemicals are present in the midbody and what happen to be the purpose. Last time I checked over 500 play a role in just that arena alone. Have you ever ventured to the tree of life site, its all on phylogeny really, I think having different versions of that to represent the physiochemical basis of life would be neat, or one for the chemical side, and one for the physical side, and then of course the relationship. The problem to me is the fields somewhat segregate really in education, I don’t know so much for the real world. Such as if it were just protein chemistry, you really would end up having to work with a lot more then just amino acids.

The earth does not have infinite matter to it, it does not have infinite oil either. I think I can do this with apples and oranges, at some point, even the rate of apples and oranges could be destroyed simply from over usage, or not enough apples and oranges. Plus going from conservation laws, where is all the carbon going to end up, how about h20, unless a black hole is spewing such out in the center of our planet, I simply don’t understand how someone cant see that oil is finite really, past synthesized stuff, in which you run into how much matter is the earth and the environment and such.

I know, how stupid can a person get really. Did you see the banana one, they use a banana in the same fashion, talking about how a banana was created perfectly to suit a human being, what’s funny is really looking at the evolution then of a population to its ecology from the point of the food source, such as hand to mouth feeders really, quite interesting if you ask me. Its sort of comical to watch if no really quite scary actually. I think a sealed jar of peanut butter is far less what some educated person could use as a real example of what they are trying to get at though, or the peanut butter hardly qualifies as a suitable medium to replace earth in general.