foodchain

No way man, casualty exists because of the vacuum state.

Just playing, though I don't understand the use of dimensions, do you mean in the present or in the past?

I mean I think you described physical rules for interaction with a deity, so how could such remain as just philosophy?

I mean I think physics tries to describe why a leaf will move for whatever reason, or why anything will move for that matter. In regards to time what is the use of such here, is it for moving things? I just get lost in transmission really on some issues.

I think some models of the brain have cells competing for resources. I don't know if this is the only model but maybe its why bad habits are hard to quit, that though would just be speculation.

I've heard of people being overhormonal, with it's different causes and effects. But can someone give me more information on this subject? What usually causes a person to become overhormonal? What are many of the effects or symptoms?

 

And encase you're wondering, the reason I ask, is because I have huge manboobs for a male of my size and age, and I'm also harrier than any of my friends that are my age. People have said that it could have something to do with being overhormonal/having overactive or dysfunctional hormones. So I'm just curious, and decided to see what some rather more credible, intelligent sources could say about the subject.

If you are worried you might have some kind of condition you should go see a medical professional. I know that some cases of human giganticism are related to tumors on the pituitary gland, I think.

If you think about the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics along with the idea that some propose that quantum mechanics shapes evolution on a molecular scale could mutations get selected across many worlds?

Could possible evidence of such points towards a quantum biosphere? Such as that if MWI is true that some worlds select for mutations over other worlds? Such as some mutations might be beneficial in a variety of worlds and get selected, while others might by only beneficial in some and still get selected?

Maybe this is convergent evolution, some mass paramutaiton of the galactic superposition curvature>

It might make for some good sci-fi though involving alternate dimensions though right?

I'm intrigued to know, why on Earth you think it would.

I think its why absolute zero cannot be reached.

I guess is just a word use problem, but I don't see how a wave function could collapse, would that not mean issues like quantum tunneling cease to exist?

As I understand it, the collapse of the wave function though is to be the end of some specific experiment though right? But quantum behavior pertaining to that experiment did not cease to end on the end of such an experiment, that electron is still stuck doing some kind of a wave function constantly right?

I don't see how it would since a "wave function" is a mathematical concept, not a physical system.

I would agree I guess, but it seems the measurement problem still persists as some standing question.

Would wave function collapse violate conservation laws?

Probably an odd question but when you perform a measurement do the physical variables themselves refer to one singular entity? Such as with wave particle duality?

I am confused right now as I am reading up on three different interpretations at this point for hobby only. I cannot define for myself if a quantum or a quanta or the physical observables themselves are to refer to a single thing such as an electron. I mean if quantum theory is to be used to describe the physical universe, such as with the big bang and on, where do quanta come from? Are they to be viewed as single entities, or would it be safer to say that maybe because QM seems to be a fundamental aspect of the universe that its more or less the universe?

I dont want to get hung up on words which is to easy, basically can you say QM exists because its the behavior of the very small, or does QM exist because its how the universe itself is behaving?

hi guys im new here, currently a sophomore in uni, confused as to what to do -

 

im in a very confusing and frustrating situation right now, and was hoping if anyone could relate - i love art. ive loved art since i could walk - i had my first "for sale" drawing in a downtown art store in elementary school, entered contests, drew a 300 page graphic novel for fun in 5th grade, and since then i have always made it a tradition to start drawing a new comic book every summer break for fun. i draw to relieve stress, for fun, and well... basically i draw a lot. just recently, ive been accepted into the best design school i could ever hope to get into, and i have a couple weeks to reply whether ill be attending or not.

 

lately though, ive been feeling a little hesitant. the more i learn about the art WORK world (i.e. after graduation), the more "disillusioned" i feel. i believe im a pretty realistic person, and because of this, i feel like theres a limit to the saying "follow your passion and you'll be happy". well, im following it so far, but the end result doesnt look too "happy" to me. in fact, ive lately been thinking if i would be happier to just leave art to be a side passion without twisting and forcing it to be a career.

 

lately ive been wondering if i should start studying my second interest - science. luckily im in a science/research oriented uni at the moment (i entered because i thought i would be studying science, not art), so getting into this shouldnt be a problem. im starting to look into the marine bio program at the moment.

 

so my options are to stay at my current uni and study BOTH science/art (im likely never going to let go of art), OR, go to the design school and study solely art.

 

the problem is, i believe im a fairly average science person... my worst subject is math, and after taking all the AP/honors science courses my highschool offered, i ended up with a 3.5 GPA - so im also wondering if an "average" student in science can succeed in it (i.e. can i get a job...? and im mostly interested in field work, which im guessing is the most competitive to get?). is there a place in the field for people who arent med school material (i dont know how else to put it) - sorry for the wall of text, but i feel like i have to explain this fully to get good input - any advice? opinions? has anyone ever been in a similar situation? anything would be greatly appreciated -

Have you tried anything applied? Such as some science course that is a general science course with a lab? Or maybe some kind of an internship in something. I would just try to work with some general amount of areas you think you might like.

I myself am so washy when it comes down to trying to stay in just one thing, I am glad hybrid fields exist. I think really if you cant concentrate on some specific field of science or even just natural sciences, environmental science typically allows a lot of stuff to be learned about or work with.

I think at times its what I will ultimately end up as I want to know more and more constantly. I think trying to fit myself into just being a chemist or a biologist would really ruin my enjoyment of living such.

In nanotechnology I think one of the most dominating factors faced with engineering on that scale is thermal stuff, like random motion or something if I remember. I also know that fear exists with nanotech over the possibility of building something can can self sustain or replicate and have “mutations” or what not occur during this.

I think it dwells on what can be applied to try and study such a system that could lead to tests. I mean what kind of apparatus and chemical mixtures do you need, how do they have to be treated in experiment and for how long. I mean can you use some kind of computer program to model that?

I like the idea myself of using thermodynamics or entropy if I understand such. Now giving that microbes inhabit places that are freezing to burning hot and everything in between really says something. Mutation seems to be able to grant access, or the ability to change allows for life to radiate to all kinds of differing ecosystems. With microbes you find the same thing pretty much as metabolism is supported by something physical such as with a chemotroph. So could entropy provide some mechanism for some reaction to eat at and change to better do that? I think its interesting, simply because you might find some physical mechanism to support such variance or just straight up metabolism. I think its easy to see with photosynthetic microbes that an energy source can be an important thing.

Interesting that much of his studies were done this far back and I am just now getting to them. Shows you what I know. All of these steps already performed in a lab!

I would have to agree. I mean what does it all take to understand chemically life as is? I think having understanding of it to the point of being able to recreate how it came to be in the first place would be a serious advance in understanding. I question if we really are at that point in regards to such an endeavor, I mean it would require I think the use of all the natural sciences in some capacity if not more.

I have some serious issues with what that study would mean.

-Can we actually try to empirically study dynamic chemical processes that may have occurred naturally over an extended period of time. I mean if the reality of how life came to be involved a series of steps that takes say 2 years or more for example, can we empirically conduct such a study? It may seem a simple point but I think many times the study of such gets shrugged off not simply because of the topic, but that instant results I think is what is expected. Such as some series of reactions in some glassware that is done in eight hours or a day.

They've been doing a pretty good job of Hidin Biden, but he slips out every once and awhile .

I hope the democratic V.P pick signifies some unity within the party rather then some dynamic duo. Maybe its just me favoring larger groups making decisions. Anyways, as far as viable V.P picks are concerned I give it to Obama over McCain.

Whoa! I think that there is a misunderstanding here. I am saying that if someone concludes that life is matter, and all matter is made of electrons, then how do these electrons become alive. I am not saying that I agree with the idea that life is matter, I was just raising the question that if life is made of electrons then how do these electrons become alive.

 

Again, I am not saying electrons ever become alive. I am saying that life being made of matter does not logically work. There has to be something that is being overlooked in this whole life question. I hope that we can somehow get closer to resolving this matter. This topic really puts to use our ability to apply logic, common sense and science.

 

Look, I may be wrong in my idea that life is not made of matter, but until I see how an electron can become alive I will have to continue to conclude that this life is matter is a dead end.

The best thing I could suggest would be to look really at life in terms of evolution. I would start with microbes, they are no where as complex as some regards as other forms of life right, such as microbes wont play you at chess. Yet in that you find the same machinery or chemistry or whatever you would like to call it, not exactly but it suffices to say for my post at any rate.

If you want to know the chemistry, then study cells, I don't know what else to say. Sure making hot chocolate does not reveal life but its not the same thing.

The thing about the chemistry is you have to take into account life, like species becoming geographically separated, or extinction events, just to name a rather large list of effects like natural selection or what not. So you cant look I guess for something to be “perfect” if I can use that word. I mean we had a giant bottleneck according to population genetics. Genes are part of the physical proof for evolution, but there is more that I guess allows you to understand what you see with the gene material, such as studying mutation rates on some culture of bacteria. This can be related between species, or traced.

I don't know but I think "time" gets looked over here. I mean in all of the earth through history can we speculate that maybe some small chunk of mass with the right elements could not have "evolved" or differentiated in time that would lead to such? We are after all I think looking for a physical mechanism here of how it occurred in nature.

I mean what if just one of the steps in the reaction, or the entire reaction mechanism for just one part takes two years to complete under correct conditions?

Just to end we look for an answer to abiogenesis because evolution starts out with microbes, or that evolution occurred. If you accept the biochemical reality of life why is it so impossible for abiogenesis to have occurred then? I mean a biochemist like Behe who is against evolution from sort of a complexity perspective wont even accept genetics then, which if you want you can have serious empirical proof of evolution with chemistry right there. Giving selection is what it is, why is convergent evolution so withdrawn from the landscape of microbial evolution? They would have I think very similar biochemistry and evolution shows, yet in that the idea that convergent evolution could have operated on the flagellum is some remote impossibility even though it occurs with life which means it operates thusly at the cellular and molecular level of life, its not even this but if all of life was exactly similar in every regard molecularly speaking I think evolution would have not taken place because there would have been no change at all, man that guy is a bag, its amazing how something so wrong can get so far.

Clarification,this post is posting to the first, original post.

 

of course the chromosomes bands are going to look similar, almost every feature of man, or ape, is mirrored in ape, or man.

we have 2 legs 2 feet 2 arms 2 hands; they have 2 legs 2 arm 2 feet 2 hands.

if their bands did not look like ours they would not have features similar to ours.

 

much like programing if you want something that looks similar but is different you apply the same code but edit it appropriately.

this doesn't mean that the program,creature, is from a common ancestor; it simply means 1 bit of code only has 1 function.

What are you talking about? Thats not even close to an accurate description of what you are trying to answer. The bauplan as you talk about has evolutionary significance!

Read up on evolutionary developmental biology or here is a nifty link to give you a rough idea along with more links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bauplan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_developmental_biology

Great so there are many theories on this whole life business, all that needs to be done is weed out the one that are not plausible. For example, do you think that the theory that all life started from a puddle of chemicals or some such thing. Or you can state what theory you seem to think fits and we can discuss it. OK.

I think life started as the system tried perpetually to reach equilibrium in most any physical medium. I think the process of geological differentiation which is occurring even today is processed by the same energy that lead to life. I think this is present in biological evolution primarily at the microbial scale life.

I don't think the specific chemistry of it becomes to important rather then understanding what environmental mechanism was responsible. I think that is an umbrella statement that includes also the chemistry. I think it also raises other questions such as the definition to life and what is natural selection. I think of what could be variables in natural selection, and with photosynthesis you find quanta being part of the equation, so its a very broad question really.

My speculative hypothesis basically is just that. I think the way physics describes why stuff even moves really shows the importance of understanding the energy bit as we are looking I think for a physical mechanism right? My thinking is if you can apply something to chemistry that could show how energy would behave naturally in any kind of a system in relation to all those various elements or molecules present, more so in time and change, would be very powerful. I think current attempts physically at this are done in really tiny steps because you have so much information to deal with though.

I almost hate to say this but its like some post apocalyptic world. I don't care to bash bush anymore but is this all not some form of fallout? With war, the economy, internationals relations, that growing debt, so much on a list that could easily be lets say “gloomy” to think about.

Then you deal with the real world effects of such, like the massive number of jobs lost for one, cost of gas for another, its almost to easy. Simply put what is existing at that point to sustain those people? Lawful American society I think makes having the money a requirement for lawful survival. So this I think statistically means working, or having a job. What happens when system that provides this loses carrying capacity? The people don't disappear.

I think this is also a good argument for population control really. Some radical source of power that does not exist aside how do you keep growth to a standard that supports the population constantly?

So in short America or Americans overall I think desire a lawful society, and while it could be framed as robin hood, you could also think of it as a zombie movie. Either way it still does not account for shortcomings that can lead to issues of civility really.

The excitation of electrons by light is an important part of the affect. Another part is the ability of the chlorophyll complex to form a semi-stable situation when this occurs so the central Mg becomes positive without destruction of the complex. The resonance helps this. The resonance has other ways to distribute the potential, although this is not at the lowest possible energy. This assures reversal to reset the complex.

 

Nature did not design chlorophyll where one molecule is suppose to work all by itself collecting random photons. In other words, if this was intent of the natural design, why not have just central reaction center chlorophyll, even where the antenna are and allow random light to hit them randomly. This would allow more reaction centers proteins to be activated at any given time. Why add all the antenna if more reaction centers can pick up more random photons and make more O2. The goal was a needed amplification. The antenna is sort of a step down toward the reduction in the water. Life is always evolving step down gradients even if one-to one design should be more efficient in terms of collecting purely random photons. One practical use for the step down seems to be connected to oxidizing the hydrogen bonding in water for the reaction center. This puts the water around the entire complex in a gradient so even the movement of electrons in the complex is coordinated with the water.

I thought it was part of the electron transport chain.

I am not very educated in chemistry but is this sort of like electron pushing?

 

What's wrong with socialism?

What's right with socialism?

 

 

Discuss.

What I never liked is that lack of clear boundaries on what is and what is not socialist.

I mean by myself I cant do everything can I? I cant build a refrigerator, make roads and or buildings, nor build my own computer. Actually I think I would be pretty screwed, and I don't want to know what language would come to look like if we were 100% solitary creatures in all things.

If I had to say one thing that makes socialism truly damned is simply the reality of how at some stage it concentrates so much authority or power, it simply spells disaster if you get the wrong person in charge. I mean it would be hard for some totally ruthless dictator to move into power in the U.S, at least no where to the standard of a Stalin. Which brings up a point. Most people look at political ideologies I think of them being the same. With communism for instance there is no one single school of political thought or communist doctrine, so again to close just exactly what type of socialism is bad, or is it simply a play on a percentage of “lawfully” organized sharing or “forced” sharing that is occurring in some society? I think its a fair question or questions.

McCain has run out of Palin's to get new voters...

I dont think Palin is going to vote for McCain.

Photosynthesis on the tiny scale I think operates by basically some density of electrons that when light hits it you have a chance that it will excite one of those electrons, or this has to occur currently I think for the mechanism to be successful.

Is a dot wave self similar, does it mean new york will be here tomorrow? Does a dot wave "move" why or why not? What are properties of a dot wave or is it some abstract concept that in some roundabout way can be used basically to say dinosaurs were dot waves?

You must be an idiot to ask such a dumb question. There are even more stupid people trying to answer.

you sir are an asshole.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/6-40/Ch7.htm

The above link is a bit of a mess but it contains a brief outline I think of artillery stuff, which if you use the words such as mussel velocity in connection with say google and or wikipedia should be able to help you, not that wikipedia is a search engine.

Could “time” possibly be defined basically by the geometry of any particular system? Say you take the universe at any particular time, such as if you take a snapshot of a system, then not observe that system, then take another snapshot at a different time could being discrete like that still allow for say finding what governs the system?

Such a simple example I think of course would just be on earth with someone dropping something. Yet as I would like to phrase my question, which is difficult for me, is can you apply such to the universe? It would seem if that laws of nature did not change in time that such should be able to explain the big bang, not saying anything is wrong or on the wrong track, just if that is really possible or even feasible.

Which leads me around to my point again. If we substitute my erroneous use of the word geometry with say conservation of energy, does such need to hold regardless of anything else, from one point in time to another the energy is the universe should remain constant right? With the expansion of the universe though and of course whatever the big bang is or was, can you say conservation of energy is or is not holding?

Simply put if conservation of energy does not hold does that mean time cannot be used to describe it? Or is time autonomous really from energy and its conservation?

I think nuclear already is a better alternative than solar power. In fact, you could use the argument the other way - spending money on developing solar power distracts from the real goal, which should be the development of fusion power. Since fusion is a form of nuclear power, ramping up to build lots of fission power stations now, will provide us with the expertise and social acceptance (and perhaps even the political will for the funding) for the building of fusion reactors 30-50 years from now.

 

That is not to say that solar can't be used in certain circumstances, perhaps to augment other power sources. But it will never be viable as our only means of energy generation, especially far away from the equator.

Well America does experience a summer. I think solar could make provide a regular a nice sized chunk of energy for consumption. I think also that wind could provide another piece of energy. Plus its not as if any solar technology would just stop operating outside of constant intense sunlight.

I think America has enough oil shale to live off of for a long time. I think the point about energy, the one that really needs to get pushed more simply is the environmental aspect. If America right now could seize the opportunity to transform to greener energy sources and materials without any real disturbance why not? Why not take that lead internationally on such a large issue by leading culturally and technologically?

The other part is that we will eventually have to do this anyways. Is it something that should be done at the last minute, what about the entire history of things leading up to that point? I think change here is far better then to conserve. Simply put global warming and environmental ruin is a true threat to national security and life in general if that matters. Fossil fuel can have a perfect case made against it in court for simply being evil.

I am on the boat that the current economical environment simply does not really foster the survival of alternative energy or any real strategy for that matter that would even become remotely comparable to modern fossil fuel applications. I think the government needs to find a way to provide that window in the private sector. I don't mean a tiny one like some three billion dollar grant or whatever. Someone needs to have some gusto and push for a real plan with people that could make such work.