foodchain

That’s really neat but far more complex then what I was thinking about. So far my ability to conceptualize physics is particles with energy working in them basically. My guess was that glueballs and gluons along with energy levels might simply relate to gravity, as they sort of bind stuff together, that and we cant get so tiny as to directly see what all this effect might lead to. Then again I am ignorant of so much in physics my threads are usually as much to learn about stuff as they are to ask a question. Being gravity does not seem to be simply present at any particular place in space as much as it is present on say the earth for instance. I still would like to see what a mass simultaneous ending of gluon existence in matter would lead to, it might tie into a Bose-Einstein condensate at some level, though such is all in my head purely, and speculative of course.

Do you understand the genetics behind the two organisms you want to make a hybrid of? I mean I am starting to think you have to be joking somewhat, more so when you busted out about the drill powering a hand crank powered device. Either way, even eliminating a disease could be looked upon as ungodly, but the amount of change humans will accept as godly itself has boundaries. The thing you produce will have no species, most likely wont be able to bread, and will be basically alone to live in a cage and have experiments done to it, I hold more respect for life in general then that, which is what bugs me, I avoid stepping on ants if I notice I am about too, not to say my moral standard should be yours, just that overall its pretty horrible. You can gain all the info about living things that you want without having to do that experiment though, and I would strongly suggest not only for legal reasons to rethink your plan.

People expect Einstein basically to have unlocked the truth of nature/reality. I think that’s a bit unfair and I think Einstein himself would attest to this. No, humanity in general, this includes physics, does not know everything yet. I mean if we did I doubt for humanity to be as it is now, or even for physics to be a college option. The reality is we cant do a great many experiments that we need to do, or really have no found a way to do them yet. Imagine what it would be like possibly to conduct a bose-einsteain condensate experiment on a body the size of the earth, what would happen? Do you think it might reveal something that could go into the various areas of understanding we currently hold? To the point, we really cant get right up next to all the various subatomic particles in the known universe and chart there existence or what they do, we can do this only to a certain extent. To me though a big fallacy is to simply sit on a blackboard and attempt to explain the universe that way, or natural laws or what composes physics. Experimentation has to be done with reality, and it has to be done in a way that can reveal data that we can record, we cant do this for everything currently, and I doubt we have even mapped everything that can be studied physically. I mean we say at some point subatomic particle decay no longer occurs, really now, and how can we know that for sure when we really cant even study directly at that level the way we can study a sentence of words. Math can do a lot of things, but math is not reality so to speak. Another point, going from conservation laws, what does that say about gravity? I mean does gravity always run constantly, where does all that energy come from? Is gravity energy, well if it is where does it come from, I mean to play my cd player I have to have an energy source right, and energy cant be created or destroyed but only change forms right? Einstein like everyone else previously to him was able to take our understanding at the time in a different direction and unlock truths about the reality around us, he of course did not fully master the universe in terms of fact, and is even quoted as saying science is our most important tool, and its also at a primitive level. I am sure the reality of it is we know close to nothing about a whole lot, and its not going to all be discovered tomorrow. Take biological evolution for example. The myriad of ways to study it, what implications it holds for a whole lot of issues in life. Now people know scientifically, objectively, factually that evolution has taken place, and still is taking place, but the reality of it is not everything is known about evolution. Yet we still have people arguing with Darwin:confused: who like Einstein is dead. I mean to me we have reality or nature. Yet we have all this separation when it comes to studying it, I hate this personally, I think it sets us behind a great deal as I am sure physics could learn a lot from biology and vice versa in regards to simply understanding reality scientifically. Einstein broke the mold in many different ways and aided humanity in a better direction, it was not easy for him and again I don’t really think what Einstein did is going to be the end all for questions and answers. Its the same with Darwin, out of how many people we have two people that have held such a profound effect on the world simply through science and of course truth about reality, but the simple reality is they did not explain everything because they did not know everything. I mean we lump CMB radiation with the big bang, yet we have not left the earth and look at things with various telescopes or have recently still found subatomic particles. Hey, what’s wrong with saying movement is time travel LoL!

I don’t have a formal education in physics so what I say may be wildly off the mark. From what I understand one could look at matter really as a composite of subatomic particles really in various arrangements held together or operation via various forces, is that would gives us waves or mechanics, as such either changes or energy or information moves through it, rearranges, overall don’t know what to say. If so, is it possible to suggest that gravity may not act as a constant because it might be a product of various interactions? I mean looking at the residual strong interaction alone or the fact that some forces if you will cant be fully isolated I come to think that maybe gravity is not some isolatable force or constant or whatever the correct term is for it. I think understanding subatomic behavior and dark matter would help a lot in understanding gravity, of course I know so little that its really easy for me to be wrong, still does not quench my desire to talk about it though:D I mean the standard model works without fully explaining gravity, so the math can work and in turn be usable in real life, but it still simply does not account in full detail for gravity, but the model can still work is what I find interesting.

Yes gravity like light is to have an infinite range I think while gluons don’t. My idea, purely speculative is that going from a wave standpoint that maybe at the level of the gluon such interacts with dark matter, or subatomic particles and thusly propagating from a source. Thusly more gluons more gravity overall, though such hardly takes into account many other things that operate with gravity in the equation I guess. I would like to see what happens though, if possible when many gluons all at once disappear or an entanglement issue, maybe you might get a gravity wave or something? Its all science fiction anyways, my questions that is and thanks for the reply:D

Could gluon behavior help explain space curvature or gravity? I am reading lots of stuff and getting in over my head a bit.

I read this article and it had me a bit confused as light or the speed of such is a constant, so I don’t know if its more of an issue of quantum mechanics or not, or if I am even applying physics wording correctly. "Black hole recipe: Slow light, swirl atoms Peter Weiss Physicists may soon create artificial black holes in the laboratory, analogous to the ones expected to lurk in distant space. A new study by a pair of theorists in Sweden describes how swirling clouds of atoms could slug down all nearby light, making them as black as their astronomical cousins. Computer-generated plot shows paths of light rays sucked into an optical black hole. Leonhardt and Piwnicki/Physical Review A Called optical black holes, these eddies could provide an extraordinary test-bench for the theory of general relativity, which gave rise to the concept of gravitational black holes, the researchers say. Ulf Leonhardt and Paul Piwnicki of the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm find that the same mathematics describes both the terrible tug of an astronomical black hole on light and the gentle corralling of rays by an atom vortex. "We were quite surprised that it worked that well," Piwnicki says. "We're still working on it to understand it more deeply," he adds. The researchers report their findings in the Jan. 31 Physical Review Letters and the December 1999 Physical Review A. The laboratory analogy goes only so far, however. Black holes out in space are massive remnants of collapsed stars that pull in not just light but everything else in their vicinity. By contrast, the proposed atomic whirlpools would have too little gravity to swallow any matter. Tiny tornadoes within wispy clouds of gas, they would snag photons through their remarkable ability to slow light pulses. The proposed mechanism by which such a vortex would capture light rests on principles discovered in the 1800s. Many substances, such as water or glass, retard light as it passes through them. Consequently, a fluid flow can drag light along with it. Leonhardt and Piwnicki show that, theoretically, an eddy can trap a beam if it circulates faster than the speed of light in the liquid, just as fish can be trapped in a whirlpool that's rotating faster than they can swim. So far, however, no material slows down light enough for a vortex's velocity to exceed the radiation's reduced pace. That may change soon. Last year, Lene V. Hau, now of Harvard University, and her colleagues used a stationary, laser-manipulated atom cloud to limit light to an astoundingly sluggish 17 meters per second—roughly bicycle speed (SN: 3/27/99, p. 207). To make an optical black hole work, Leonhardt and Piwnicki estimate that light would need to crawl along still more slowly, at a mere 1 centimeter per second. "We're actually aiming for that, and I think it will be possible," Hau says. Her experiments have already achieved a slowdown to 50 cm/s, she told Science News. She calls the Stockholm proposal "a very exciting idea" but cautions that aspects of the proposed vortex might prevent the black-hole effect. "There are things one must look into," she says. The Stockholm researchers discovered that German physicist Walter Gordon, back in the 1920s, found the same mathematical equivalence between light in a moving fluid and in a gravitational field but didn't investigate specific patterns of flow, Piwnicki says. Modeling swirling flows in their new study, he and Leonhardt found that photons passing near the fast-spinning optical black hole, but outside a critical radius, follow a bent course. Those straying close spiral inexorably into the center. Pursuing similar studies, theorist James Anglin of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass., and his coworkers are exploring links between sound waves in a moving fluid and light waves in a gravitational field. Atom clouds may also trap acoustic vibrations, creating sonic or so-called dumb, black holes, Anglin says." http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000205/fob4.asp I got interested in the idea simply from wondering what effect it might have in trying to gauge dark matter, that is if any such thing existed, that is gravity effecting the behavior of light in terms of speed.

Would light speed up or slow down in the presence of gravity?

Here are two links that might help. http://www.particle.kth.se/~lindsey/JavaCourse/Book/Part1/Supplements/Chapter09/randomAccess.html http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/essential/io/rafs.html If anything there is always exceptions, I mean there are entire families of them for anything software based, because they are not exceptions, just more programming:D

Does infinite just account for that which is matter or energy, or simply matter and energy + nothing. What I mean is when you talk of infinite what do you mean exactly? My take on the thread is this, what if the universe is a cycle of bang then crunch then bang and so on, maybe we just live in a lightly populated universe this time around, or maybe just our galaxy is barely populated, or maybe various populations have gone extinct, or maybe the universe it teaming with life, but that a majority of it resembles bacteria.

Warming, this post of mine is typed by someone with less then desirable education in physics. That aside, if the dimensions as posed for a finite universe are giving, then would it be safe to assume that forensically such can be studied in terms of natural phenomena? I mean did this take into account the big bang giving such dimensions, or are these dimensions constant or not influenced by the big bang? If influenced by such then my idea is that the time it took to reach its dimensions should be able to be studied indirectly via other natural phenomenon, such as formations of galaxies possibly? Another example to the point, would the size of the universe be able to be studied in an evolutionary sense?

If the black hole has enough gravity to even overtake any bonding energy of matter, or even a singular atom, then it leads to guessing what a black hole itself is composed of. I mean does the gravity exist just at the event horizon? If not, which I don’t see how it could, though that does not mean it isn’t, lol, then what could survive even to make up a black hole? I mean if bonding energy or energy period has the ability to be rendered to the singularity, then would not a black hole eventually reach being a Bose-Einstein condensate? I don’t see how you could have movement in a black hole overall, as posed. Personally I think as a human being you would experience what everything else does that gets to close to one. On another hypothetical level, to try and respond to your post, I don’t think much anything would happen, you would probably be stuck at the center or so of the black holes body until its life span past. I mean a black hole exists in 3-D space. So for it to work as being put forward by some as a dimensional gateway, well, I just don’t see it.

Not my goals. I plan to be a biochem major, but the college or university really I am planning to attend, currently at a different college, has graduate studies in environmental education, such is where I would like to end up. Biochem's more for just plain out interest then anything, and no I don’t want to be a genetic engineer. Simply put, I just wonder what genetics could yield in real life when fully understood, or to the point in which "programming" is fully open for whatever, if that is possible and so on.

Realistically speaking on genetics what do you think humanity could really do with it. Now not to be entirely based in the realm of science fiction could genetics ever be a fountain of youth? What about taking the place of modern day machinery, such as transportation? Do you think genetics when understood in some absolute fashion will be able to aid people in space exploration? Overall I personally always thought that genetics or understanding it fully could unlock almost limitless potential in many regards, but then something always nags on me that such is not the case, so I thought I might just ask around for other opinions about my own opinion of genetics.

Years ago when I was into computer science I was learning java and ada95. I thought both of those languages were very nice, nicely laid out and had a large variety of support in terms of software to aid in programming, java more so, and java also has a large community of people that use it. Java also would probably be the best simply because you can program for some many different environments with it, chiefly personal computing to the internet.

Going from the leftovers of a nova such do not always lead to a sphere, or some other perfect shape or formula for that matter. Plus I always thought if matter formed a curve or a dip, that orbits from gravity would following such would make a cone possibly Instead of looking planar.

The amount of life forms that employ such is actually rather large, and yes I would like to have it also.

Yes. I think what is studied in say the physics is the accumulation or amplification of the laws that operate within atomic structures. Moreover, I think that understanding an atom internally, and then relating that externally would reveal a whole lot about everything actually, from gravity, to time and space and just about everything inbetween.

Actually many computer hackers use Google because it is such a robust in design and powerful search engine. Many times knowing computers alone along with Google query can reveal ways to hack on some particular source.

From what I understand currently you are looking for specific primers for specific DNA? More acutely specific primers to look for specific DNA common to all bacteria, or a universal primer or primers then? You could look into multiplex pcr, I think that might help. There also seems to be more then one primer for what you are looking for, or more then one type of universal primer overall. I googled it and after about ten minutes had many different universal primers in terms of data to look at. This link might help you though http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/AEM.00849-06v1.pdf

I agree. We cant take physics to some place in which nothing exists in order to conduct experiments and see what exists, though I think such would be utterly cool really. I follow bang, crunch, bang. Simply because of conservation laws really, or foremost I would say. The other is simply stating something came from nothing, not to say such is impossible I just really cant grasp that, again does not mean its not true. People look for a start and an end to much, it may not always have to apply. I disagreed with Hawkins’s interpretation of black holes initially for this reason, that at the singularity or center laws of conservation happened to stop having effect, of course this lead to two different views of such, which I think one aides string theory, again who knows currently. One thing I always wondered though is that what happens to a photon that never interacts with anything else, and just floats off to the nothing of empty space? Maybe if matter does eventually come back together into one unit such gets sucked back in, or maybe during that process conservation laws don’t apply, either way all you can do is be purely hypothetical about such, because we cant really test such. I am glad though that science does produce science fiction, I think such is healthy, as long as such never happens to be taken as solid impervious fact with no need to look anymore, or replaces the need to use the scientific method overall. To me that’s creationist science at its best and truest nature, taking the gaps in our understanding and putting the supernatural there and then claiming truth, but that’s another(and pointless) debate!

I agree. See to me even on this site which I imagine for the most part is somewhat past all that turbulence its still difficult for people to talk about it really. You post something in a topic and deals with evolution and its a lockdown. It does not need to be like that and for that most part I think it hurts science somewhat. I mean if people were afraid to question anything the earth might still be flat and of course at the center of a very small universe. What if you wanted to start your education in biochemistry, then into molecular biology then natural history and environmental science attempting to track down the mechanisms behind chromosome appearance, function and existence. You have to make a hypothesis, tests, then maybe if you are lucky something to add to existing theory, the problem is you have to ask questions that may have not been asked yet. To me if people are so burnt because some people don’t like the idea that dinosaurs walked the planet and a few generations ago our ancestors lost the ability to produce vitamin C internally, something that matches to us perfectly like many other Homologies, well then the science of it all will not grow and I think most likely it will die. Not to attempt to sound to spiritual at all, but science needs to keep its sprit alive and well overall.

Life on earth and of course evolution can be studied via the chemical composition of organisms. Such is a prominent aspect of various fields such as molecular biology, genetics, and biochemistry. My question I guess is that life seems to be pretty dependent on the non metals group from the periodic table overall. That such elements like oxygen, hydrogen, and carbon play key roles in life being around currently giving the composition of life. Now I know that a possibility of life at one time existing on mars might be around to find at some point. My question I guess is without knowing other or alien forms of life and working with what we have does the fact that life seems dependent on the non metals group for form and function hint on more then just that confidence or does chemistry possibly play as a guide for life? One scenario is that giving the earths environment, such life forms with such chemistry as existing today may have just one out over other forms or possibilities via natural selection, drift or other variables that influence evolution, though I don’t know of any other biochemistries to date with any broad variation save for maybe sea vent communities. So overall to make things short would it be possible, being I don’t know everything thus why I am posting this, that chemistry of life could be used as one of the means for the “blind watch maker” or is such purely something else as to why a large variety of biochemistries don’t exist, as in ones that don’t really on hydrogen, carbon or oxygen at all. Now I am somewhat interested in the idea of directed evolution, such as does giant predators exist in an environment with miniature prey and so on and when does a chromosome form and why more then one and of course a million other questions that are off topic. "Scientists studying the soil beneath a leaking Hanford nuclear waste storage tank have discovered more than 100 species of bacteria living in a toxic, radioactive environment that most would have thought inhospitable to all forms of life. "Even in some of the most contaminated zones, we found a few living organisms," said Fred Brockman, a microbial ecologist at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland. Brockman is presenting the findings today at the American Society for Microbiology's annual meeting in New Orleans. For most living creatures, the nuclear and chemical waste in the underground storage tanks on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation is the deadliest mixture of toxins and radioactive muck on the planet. For certain bacteria, however, this toxic goop left over from decades of nuclear weapons production appears to be just a second home. "Scientifically, it's pretty interesting stuff," said Jim Fredrickson, Brockman's colleague on this project and a fellow microbiologist at the lab. "The material in the tank is self-boiling and quite hot, so it's not just radioactive and harsh chemicals but also in extreme heat." Quoted from http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/175015_bugs26.html Now this could hint at something, though I don’t know exactly what. I doubt for more complex life forms to be able to make this quantum leap but then again I don’t know of any ethical tests for such really. "Chemical evolution has two meanings and uses. The first refers to the theories of evolution of the chemical elements in the universe following the Big Bang and through nucleosynthesis in stars and supernovas. The second use of chemical evolution or chemosynthesis is as a hypothesis to explain how life might possibly have developed or evolved from non-life (see abiogenesis). Various experiments have been made to show certain aspects of this process, the first ones were done by Stanley L. Miller in the 1950s. For that they are now called Miller experiments. However only very basic organic building blocks were obtained. The challenge is getting complex molecules organized consistently. The hypothesis is that simple chemical compounds could catalyze the creation of copies of themselves (somewhat similar to the formation of a crystal or polymer) in an environment rich with the necessary building block compounds or elements. As these chemical replicators "reproduce", they can be created with slightly different structures randomly, similar to biological mutations. Eventually these replicators would produce protocells." Quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_evolution This is from wikipedia and is basically the subject matter I am trying to get at.

First of all I would have to know what the definition of intelligence is for the comparison. Not every animals brain is “wired” the same overall. Subsequently reality for them might be a bit to drastically different then it is for say a human being. The most intelligent animal in speaking in terms of say compared to us, if that is what the questing is, well surprisingly I came to find out that a type of bird, I believe related a or related to parrots was able to undue a multiple step puzzle(ten steps in sequence I think) in order to obtain food, in which I don’t think the puzzle was an exact copy of previous puzzles but then we go back to the same loop of basically needing to understand organ function to define intelligence for animals.

Michael Behe has made comments like this before. "In effect, the theory of Darwinian molecular evolution has not published, and so it should perish" The reality is the number of links on such endevors on that page alone to stuides in which he states has never even existed totals well over a hundread alone, many to published books on the subject. The man is not all to honest in his endevors is all if he would make such a comment like that. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.html