foodchain

I know, it would probably have to be mounted on some rail system on the earth, the upside is all the energy creation from it, I think you could at any rate. Trying to get on the line would be next to impossible in most regards unless the rail system had a cart of even a plane to match speeds, then again 900mph winds probably would be very hard on a human body. I wonder how loud it would be overall, that’s another thing to think about. Also the weight of whatever object or medium or matter you used for the chain would be immense regardless if it was a chain to made of some foam substance. So getting it up to the moon would pose a serious problem in that regard also. Its practically impossible in my opinion too, I was just wondering what other people think it might look like, personally I think a view of such would be rather awesome to behold but such is not really worth the endeavor it would take to implement a line to the moon and related environmental impacts. Plus lastly I doubt we really have any material that could withstand everything considered to support such, not for any real length of time that is, maybe if it was some sort of nanotube but then what’s the point?

If you somehow were able to attach a line to the moon, for example a chain(does not have to be though), and then attach it to earth what would that look like visually, and also what effects would that have in a 24 hour period, and could you climb it? *I have no idea on where to place such a thread or even if its acceptable on this forum.

Some planets have rings:D Even Jupiter if memory serves, though I don’t know how it would relate as the ring in not a solid body on those planets, also if memory is correct on that. I think you probably would have to have some sort of energy based mechanisms generating on earth to constantly make sure it was correctly in place, some sort of magnet system that can judge slight corrections, that is if such a system itself was at all possible without some serious side effects.

*I would have split your post up but I really did not have the time overall, I hope its no burden to you.* Yes, and I agree fully with what you are talking about. The point that I am trying to make, which in the post you quote I do extend though not to the level of detail as your post did, they attack primarily on Darwin, and for the life of me I cant understand this fully simply because the science of evolution or really the understanding of what the word applies to has gone far beyond what Darwin knew of when he put the theory together. I would suggest though that the idea of atheism and Darwinian thought is only possible on some levels, personally I am an agnostic, simply because I desire to follow fact and we don’t have this in all areas, saying yes or no to a question that really in all reality requires faith currently, yet I am an ardent supporter of evolution and definitely do not support ID, creation thought or any of that simply because there is currently not a drop of scientific evidence to support any of it at all, I mean at the end of the day, such tactics as ID take what science knows, and calls it ID while it uses the gaps in such understanding overall as proof by injecting something that cannot be studied by science currently if ever for proof or evidence really. As for science being agnostic, I don’t agree with that point. Science is a framework based on a method. Such as most people that argue against evolution don’t understand the meaning to the word theory, its abused in relation to its technical meaning. That is another way to detect someone that may not really desire to debate the scientific merits of evolution but rather simply want to denounce such for personal/emotional reasons. Yet you don’t see such a large scale attack on the "theory" of gravity, Why is this? Evolution has more meaning to it on a multitude of levels in relation to humanity, and in particular America, this is a bit of a problem, simply because for as long as evolution has existed, by now I would suggest with rather ease that for one, there would be no mountain of evidence to support evolution, and two it would take for such a lie if you will to have not only survived through the ages would take all of science that deals with it to perpetuate such, yet this does not impact a creationist, ID follower or anything at all. It basically is to say that biology in whole is a group of people attempting to perpetuate a lie for some agenda or reason, or at least that’s what I get from it. They also go on to say that evolution is a product of natural philosophy, why I can understand in some respect where this comes from, the reality is the idea that science in total has discovered, documented and proved evolution, what that can lead to is possibly subjective, but the objective reality is that evolution exists in the real world and its history. So lastly the point about it is to shatter Darwinism, what is that to mean? Is it to mean that Darwin did not know everything when he was working on evolution? Is it attacking evolution itself, or in large is it a product of a very non scientifically motivated body of individuals that for lack of better words simply want to deny living in a factual reality? I mean if you cant get the fact of evolution accepted as it stands now, from the perspective of the molecular, chemical, all the way up to the entire physiology, which just about everything biological that can be studied in relation to evolution has been studied in relation to evolution, and did nothing but support evolution, is shattering Darwinism anymore based on fact or pure emotion? What point can you claim you shattered Darwinism, is it because biology does not know everything yet? Is that even remotely realistic? Lastly it really sucks because its made biology as a whole a somewhat attacked scientific discipline. In real life when I am motivated to talk about such around people, I personally avoid the use of such words because I don’t care to deal with the irrational emotional responses it can provoke.

Maybe the hot water over Darwinism is because creationists engage Darwinism as biology understood it at the time of Darwin. When creationists say Darwinism they are in fact attempting to engage a dead person in debate on some scientific fact that has evolved since then. I mean biology has grown significantly on the theory of evolution as put forward by Darwin, and physically speaking the study of such in the real world has put evolution as the backbone or unifying theory for biology to exist through, at every level, from a molecule to mammal. Yet for the purpose of creationists they don’t debate this, they debate Darwin, and neglect the rest with empty or ignorant arguments such as the misuse of entropy. So at the door when you hear a term like Darwinism, you have to check on what’s being used or what the term Darwinism is composed of from the user, is it debating a dead guy about the theory of evolution at that point in time, or is it debating the theory or evolution now and how the term Darwinism can still be attached to it very much? More then anything else is in science, evolution is contested by people at large because it contradicts with there perceptions, as such various groups have formed basically intent on destroying evolution, even though take away evolution and not much in biology can make sense anymore, it does not matter to them because its not on science but rather deep emotional issues that such draw from. In every engagement I have had to endure with creationists, religious types bent on killing evolution, or intelligent designers, its not so much about evolution being right or wrong as much as its about simply wanting it out of the way so they can be comfortable with themselves and the universe because of a belief they hold. This is why ID exists, it has to conform evolution to a super natural deity in order to or be fit… In all these engagements Darwin is typically hated I find, and typically evolution the word is not used as much as say Darwinism. Moreover factually the engagements I have had to endure with such people don’t concern themselves with fact again as much as simply wanting to denounce evolution because it brings emotional confliction, and in term of ID its Darwin and the current means through which evolution occurs that has to be destroyed to make way for a creator to be behind it all, but the brunt of it all rests on Darwin, and Darwinism more then anything else. Which is flawed but such is how it is.

Well being I don’t know any of the points you may have addressed in either pro or con format I would take a con at the end of the paper in saying its a flawed short time solution to a larger problem, and if its scientific you get possibly just end with the questions that such probably leads to, in that answers typically generate questions. That’s all I got at this point from what you are talking about.

So much is instantly expected from biology I think its a bit silly. When we try to explain our nature its not easy to do this, I mean has every last aspect of our biology as it would apply to behavior been explained scientifically, how would you even go about such, remove a chunk of genes and see what you get? Cut some enzyme out and see what you get? How about a cofactor or two? I mean they do this in some animals, and of course they get results but the idea I am trying to put forward here is that such is very complex because we are ignorant of so much. Ethically such might be impossible save for when such may be open to study in people born with day a health problem that is possible germline in origin for example, or somatic. We then can look for relations biologically in evolution to attempt to help explain, being so many other angels to study evolution in terms of relationship such as what the term phylogeny exists from also exist, but its no easy task and nothing that is going to be complete tomorrow. In the meantime like with so much, our ignorance of what an x and a y in an equation is typically leaves room for whatever save the sentence “we don’t know currently”. This becomes a little more complicated when you then extend nature(biology in my frame) to nature, or behavior, more so when it starts to take in individuals. Watching films and reading on various mammals besides humans, there even exists a great deal of complexity in explain that behavior, in which to date we have not fully explained, and to what level for any particular specie I don’t know, how about a mongoose. This then turns out to some mad rush of sorts for people to try and explain, for instance evolutionary theory applied to psychology. I think such is probably the most promising field among many to explain a great deal about human behavior but in reality its pretty far from being completed, evolution and then its application to explaining human behavior in terms of nature and nurture. The selfish gene idea may not encompass in total a biological reality, but currently I don’t know of any eukaryotic organisms that are not based on DNA, so you cut that out and what do you have left? DNA plays a prime role or has a high degree of functionality in total when related to biological processes. A frog is a frog because of its genes, so is an ungulate(there are disputes to the ungulates still). DNA is a sort of way is a current manifestation of what something is, open to change or mutable, in which change can be studied by, because DNA encodes for lack of better words the various physiochemical realities of a specific organism.

I know, who wants to get anxieties from the toilet of all things. Upon further examination it appears to have been a plastic screw and fastener of some type that has giving way, so it must be quality down at the plant trying to save percents of a penny, now I have to spend more then they saved along with time to fix it. On the other side of the toilet the plastic is fine.

At barely over 180 in pounds the left side of my toilet seat is now busted from leaning, so I have to go and buy a new one. I do think such thought played a role in placement of most flusher handles though on American toilets.

Now before I get reported for this just hear me out. If you are left or right handed you probably without thought use that hand for a majority of your daily activities, this would include the various bathrooms functions such as this. I would suggest that such on the toilet would cause a shift in weight which would imply more use or wear on a certain part of the toilet then the toilet in total. This and the fact we already design a great deal of modern technology to suit being left or right handed, so why not a toilet?

Is the concept of time somewhat biological or human perception type construct then as put forth in physics? I have a somewhat gut level idea that maybe time as we study it is a product of animation, such as a chemical reaction takes x amount of time to occur. Last example of what I am trying to get at is this, is time a product of natural phenomena or is time its own thing. If time is its own entity how do we know?

I am pretty much where you are at save for I would imagine age and place. I find all of it interesting but harbor the same ideas that you do that such is not complete. Furthermore that fields like physics have gone off to marvelous ideas such as string theory and have seemed to put less and less attention into solving atomic structure and function down to the smallest particle. For me, or my idea of how to better understand it in terms of available material I try to find articles or books writing by quantum chemists, quantum physics, don’t know why the separate but hey, solid state & nuclear physics. Basically to me it should be able to reach to every area, if physics is still studying energy and matter + the interactions of such, but it does not seem like such at all times. Particle physics is still alive and well though, and it should be another prime area of interest for such, I had made a thread a few days back attempting to find all the areas people may know of that study energy/matter interactions simply because I thought it would be the best way to study atomic structure function, or at least a prime way.

I had not noticed it brought up yet, and the plan is to use red p as a fuel source for a rocket, with no real physical attributes of such giving, and this attribute of red p not giving, so I just though I would toss it out there.

"The allotrope, white phosphorus, should be kept under water at all times as it presents a significant fire hazard due to its extreme reactivity to atmospheric oxygen, and it should only be manipulated with forceps since contact with skin can cause severe burns. Chronic white phosphorus poisoning of unprotected workers leads to necrosis of the jaw called "phossy-jaw". Ingestion of white phosphorus may cause a medical condition known as "Smoking Stool Syndrome". [8] When the white form is exposed to sunlight or when it is heated in its own vapor to 250°C, it is transmuted to the red form, which does not phosphoresce in air. The red allotrope does not spontaneously ignite in air and is not as dangerous as the white form. Nevertheless, it should be handled with care because it does revert to white phosphorus in some temperature ranges and it also emits highly toxic fumes that consist of phosphorus oxides when it is heated." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorus White phosphorus is very hazardous to your health for more reasons then posted above, its also does not have to be in huge quantity to be harmful.

1) Dont use the internet:D 2) I just try to keep everything backed up.

yes but why would the light return in the first place, and would it return the exact point of origin. Also, would the time this takes give us insight into the path of travel, being the distance to point A from B should be shorter if on a straight line, so mounting a line from say point A in space to millions of light years away point B, if you could keep it in a line should take light X in time to travel, if the light will return to you, but based on geometry of space such as curvature, this length of time should be different then without the means to control its path and leaving such open to space curvature? It should increase the amount of space in which light has to travel is what I am thinking.

Right I have heard of that before and I understand you are probably confused by my lack of understanding:D Thanks for the participation though its very nice. See I read all this stuff and I will admit its actually kept me up at nights, but the part I realize is that I don’t know enough to really think about it, so what I do think of is probably loaded to the teeth with flaws thus why I post it hear because people like yourself know a great deal more about such. So for my answer I guess it would be that the box would emit a type of energy, just not the original photon, and if it did the angle of the photon would be back into the box, maybe unless it got to be to much energy such as when metal glows white hot or such, am I close on that one? I am still off wondering about gluons and glueballs for the most part and I really wish science had some way to directly view an atom on an atomic level and even smaller, I want to see an image of a quark darn it or even a full motion movie about one, real footage and all.

Yes, but then why is it that such is not visible then in our natural history. For the sun to warm or cool or even have a cycle of such is not a new idea in any regard(sunspot cycle?), but the idea that more CO2 is in the atmosphere now then in hundreds of thousands of years is. Where did this come from and why now at this point, and also why is the noticeable increase in CO2 somewhat parallels with the industrial revolution and not only this seems to be accelerating. I would suggest that if such was tied to the sun's activity that such should be visible by some natural indicators. Plus using dust concentration in the atmosphere, something visible amongst other forms of data in say ice cores, the cycle of the sun and its relative impact on the planet has been noticed to be overcome by a volcanic explosion, though such is not fully qualified yet. Lastly Venus the planet has an atmosphere that greatly influences its global climate, compared to say other planets, like Mars, Earth or Mercury. Venus is warmer then Mercury even. Without an atmosphere or some way to regulate or interact with energy, maybe something that could be studied with entropy, global climate would be drastically different. Also, people are not so miniscule, when using billions of barrels of oil alone on a regular basis, then add to this a continued deforestation of the planet, are we to think action and reaction somehow cease to exist for this? I think it would be difficult at this point overall to discern fully all the variables and influence of such, but again just from natural indicators like ice cores, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased by 33-35% since the industrial revolution, to levels that have not been visible or existing for hundreds of thousands of years. CO2 behaves in a way to get it the label greenhouse gas. If such is purely on the sun, they we would have to say that since the industrial revolution, the sun has been getting either warmer or colder then? That is to coincide with the data, unless it is just some conspiracy.

Most of my understandin of atomic structure comes typically at this point from my chemistry dictionary and websites really. With that said looking at the atomic model in relation to orbital of say the s,p,d,f series or model I was basically just wondering about internal mechanics of an atom as it would relate to study via energy interaction. Say for two atoms with similar structure, would you get similar behavior by using an exact duplicate of a photon in relation to variables that compose the photon upon interaction with the atom to photon? I mean I know for intensive purposes the chemistry of an atom does not go past electrons for the most part, but going beyond simply chemistry to the rest of the atom. For instance when two elements are bonded, regardless of type of bond, you get something that will behave differently, or the interactions of matter and energy will then change. Its still though just formations of subatomic particles and various forces, but something does indeed change for the behavior to change, such as simply becoming a material that is useful in landing gear for planes, but the two elements that compose it by themselves are not. Overall I think the interaction energy has with matter has to hold some pathway for the study of atomic structure and function, I would not drive so much for this save I think a great many things could be understood if we could even simply fully understand a hydrogen atom. Quantum mechanics is to be able to describe such, but in relality has it been taken past the hydrogen atom yet? Some chemical reactions leave matter that is temporarily magnetic to this. “A zwitterion (from German "Zwitter" — "hybrid," "hermaphrodite") is a chemical compound that is electrically neutral but carries formal positive and negative charges on different atoms.[1] Zwitterions are polar and usually have a high solubility in water and a poor solubility in most organic solvents. Ampholytes are molecules that contain both acidic and basic groups (and are therefore amphoteric) and will exist as zwitterions at a certain pH. This pH is known as the molecule's isoelectric point. Ampholytic molecules make good buffer solutions — they resist change to the pH of a solution by selective ionisation. In the presence of acids, they will accept the hydrogen ions, removing them from the solution. In the presence of bases, they will donate hydrogen ions to the solution, again balancing the pH.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwitterion We get such natural phenomena from atoms which has to come from structure and or function, yet for what its worth there is some sort of barrier really in getting inside the atom which basically leads to quantum mechanics not being fully worth what it should be and of course wave-particle duality and all that other stuff. Such as the idea of matter gaining mass from energy, I mean such would still occur right even if the matter itself was not having any change in say momentum, acceleration or velocity.

Side note, if you could trap light for eternity in a mirrored box, say you did this in zero gravity, would not the box from the continuous introduction of photons eventually gain mass? I think overall that energy might be a possible way to study atomic structure. The Hubble telescope function as applied to looking at atomic structure, is such possible? I mean if I continuously apply light to some moving object that should be portrayed by the light right, the movement that is, versus a non moving object. Maybe an example would be water in a glass, one in a whirlpool motion and one glass being holding water that is close to a stand still in regards to motion. I mean if you heat say a atom of gold up, and then shoot it with a photon, would there be any difference in the interaction say if the atom was much colder? If you could make say a control group, where the variables such as the energy level of the atom overall, and its place in time a space was always the same, would you get any difference when you apply a photon to it when conducted many times over?

I don’t know how you would keep the energy stable enough if possible to make such safe really. I think of the movie the fly when I say this.

I am trying to grasp a concept or concepts a bit better visually and I thought via this question that I could get a good start into such. If you have photons being emitted in say a box made of matter, though the box itself is not emitting the photons, why is it exactly that the light never escapes this shape to outside of it? Or is redirected back into the box? Is some other kind of energy emitted outside of the box as it is hit by the photons? Basically another example is if you have a sealed box, and you turn a light on inside of it, will any of the energy or light ever be able to get outside of the box? I am trying to understand I guess how a sealed box of matter would act with light inside of it, would the density of the surface matter? Or composition of such, like a box made of diamond would allow for you to see the light inside, so I guess that means the light was able to escape the box if it was diamond, but not if the box was steel? I am trying to grasp atomic structure and its relation to interactions with energy really... Being I think the movement of orbital could be magnified somehow via these interactions into some form of visibility, but I cant visualize such well enough to really think about it.

They use some existing organism for basically a host for dino DNA. I think it was some frog specie used, which played a role later in the movie if memory serves.

"Unusual characteristics Further experimentation by the JILA team in 2000 uncovered a hitherto unknown property of Bose–Einstein condensate. Cornell, Wieman, and their coworkers originally used rubidium-87, an isotope whose atoms naturally repel each other making a more stable condensate. The JILA team instrumentation now had better control over the condensate so experimentation was made on naturally attracting atoms of another rubidium isotope, rubidium-85 (having negative atom-atom scattering length). Through a process called Feshbach resonance involving a sweep of the magnetic field causing spin flip collisions, the JILA researchers lowered the characteristic, discrete energies at which the rubidium atoms bond into molecules making their Rb-85 atoms repulsive and creating a stable condensate. The reversible flip from attraction to repulsion stems from quantum interference among condensate atoms which behave as waves. When the scientists raised the magnetic field strength still further, the condensate suddenly reverted back to attraction, imploded and shrank beyond detection, and then exploded, blowing off about two-thirds of its 10,000 or so atoms. About half of the atoms in the condensate seemed to have disappeared from the experiment altogether, not being seen either in the cold remnant or the expanding gas cloud. Carl Wieman explained that under current atomic theory this characteristic of Bose–Einstein condensate could not be explained because the energy state of an atom near absolute zero should not be enough to cause an implosion; however, subsequent mean-field theories have been proposed to explain it. Due to the fact that supernova explosions are implosions, the explosion of a collapsing Bose–Einstein condensate was named "bosenova." The atoms that seem to have disappeared are almost certainly still around in some form, just not in a form that could be detected in that current experiment. Two likely possibilities are that they have formed into molecules consisting of two bonded rubidium atoms, or they received enough energy from somewhere to fly away fast enough that they are out of the observation region before being observed." From a wiki link on BEC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose-Einstein_condensate "The strong interaction, one of the four fundamental forces, is a force that acts between particles in the nucleus of an atom. It is what holds the nucleus together. Under the new QCD (Quantum Chromodynamics Theory), the strong force is carried by a particle called the gluon. The strong force is about 1.6666 x 1038 times the force of gravity and has a range of 1 x 10-15 metres. There are two types of strong force: residual and fundamental." Also from wiki. http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction From what I understand, a point in space empty of matter will not have any gravity, though I could be wrong and we really cant test by removing say Jupiter and then seeing what occurs to the solar system, though not sure on that one, matter having to be around to have gravity that is. For the experiments with BEC to have such results, I would think that the nuclear binding forces of gluons would have had to fail, maybe simply dissipate, or simply not hold enough energy to bind the atom. So this leads me to think what concentrations of gluons hold in regards to impact or interaction with gravity. Thank you for the places to go and read up on though, and I will say it again I am not to educated in physics and this is purely speculation.

Well, without the genetics I would have to say how would you reach everything else biologically about the dinosaurs? I don’t think you could time travel avian dna to get it either, that’s about the only other link I could think of. The creation of artificial dinosaurs would not only be a scary idea to me, but what real purpose would they serve? I don’t think ethically genetics and entertainment should work together though the sports industry at some point might attempt to disagree.