Essay

...and this would have been a good thing; a good strategy? === And regarding the OP: I guess it's a good thing that we are no longer "war weary." ~

Right, life is a "complex interplay," rather than "just a sum of random chemical reactions...." Mixing up the difference between these two words, 'complex' and 'random,' might by why you think other reference frames should be just as valid. While other reference frames are filled with random chemical reactions also, life is much more complex. And self-aware life is another quantum leap beyond that, in complexity, so our reference frame shouldn't be compared with other random reference frames, if you're looking for a certain analogy or various similarities. Life is special. Before you proposed those experiments, on page 2, I had proposed you read (or just read about) " The Web of Life, by Fritjof Capra, which explains how stable complexity often arises out of a system comprised of simple, robust, chaotic operators..." to help explain a common source of confusion about using the word "random" and "complex" ...especially as it pertains to this topic, and the language you are using to relate or juxtapose various concepts. Here is another [free, simple text-based] 2010 source for definitions, and more, on much of the terminology and research into this topic: http://archive.org/stream/ComplexityEmergentSystemsLifeAndComplexBiologicalSystemsComplex/ComplexityEtDynamics487p28Mb_djvu.txt ...or look up some of the terminology in wikipedia; ...or see this discussion by the author, Capra, which might also be helpful. === At the risk of going in circles, or repeating Strange's insightful question, do you think this new information about nutrition and "the 'only chemical' reaction model" is a new paradigm or a new view about life? Do you think biology is based on something other than chemistry, or that chemistry is based on anything other than physics? ~

...symmetry can develop on many levels; hint, hint, hint. Firstly, your “proto-basin with the divergent boundary at its center” is more analogous to a caldera, rather than to a basin …especially for the sort of geologic-scale basins you frequently mention, which don’t form this way. A cross section of the mid-Atlantic Ridge (MAR) looks like a cross section of the typical volcano, with its caldera appearing as a low basin in the center, surrounded by steep jagged peaks that then slope away to each side. But secondly, your “proto-basin with the divergent boundary at its center” should be located at the “0” km point, on the x axis of “distance, km,” shouldn’t it? The “distance, km” is the distance away from the spreading center, or the “proto-basin with the divergent boundary at its center,” which the previous pictures of the MAR zoomed in on, isn’t it? I’d expect that blue valley, in the center of those earlier pictures, is (half) shown at the far left of these two cross-sections, both marked at between 3100 and 3400 meters below sea level. I like the way you zoomed in on the MAR, but [unless I'm mistaken about how you "tried to center on the ridge every time] ...when you transitioned to cross sections, I think your graphics got shifted east, relative to the center of the MAR. The “basin” and the peaks that you’re looking at are normal topography, for each side of a rift valley, as shown widely on the internet, istm: …just add some sediment onto the low spots, on one side of the MAR, and it would look more like those cross sections you have. Do the points about buoyancy and subsidence, in billiard’s post #393 & 396, not make sense to you; or perhaps it is just that those points don’t make sense in your model? === ...and thirdly: Certainly, “more than 4 times wider” is true, but I wonder if you see why it must be over 5 times wider; or indeed 7.5 times wider? ~

You found different percent numbers, because you were reading about different kinds of similarity. === In the first link from your OP, they talk about two kinds of similarity: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2049197/ ...where they describe "overall sequence" and "alternative exons" as having different percentages. So while they agree that "overall" (for the coding regions!!!) chimps and humans are "98%-99%" identical, there are many other ways to look at the genome, such as the non-coding regions, or the "alternative exons," which they mention, or the introns, or the InDels, or the transposons, etc., within the genome. With these different ways to compare the similarity between chimps and humans, there seem to be more differences. === Where they say: They point out two different ways ("alternative splicing" & "transcriptional regulation") that the same genes can be rearranged and made to work differently. ...like two books could have 98% the same words, but if the words are arranged differently, then each book would tell a different story. === But I can see why, if you don't fully understand the context for these percentages you find in different articles, that it would be hard to see why the numbers are different. Feel free to keep asking, if something is confusing, especially if you find a specific question or possible contradiction. ~

No, not the same …because you’d need very different (extra) amounts of initial KE, in order to achieve any lift (increased GPE + vertical KE) for those different airfoils. That may be specified in your OP initial assumptions, but after you introduced "different airfoils" I assumed you’d need a much larger ‘head’ of fluid, compared with a well-designed airfoil, to achieve an equal distance of (or any) lift. This assumption (on my part) explains our misunderstanding about these subsequent modifications, but I think the assumption is necessary for these cases with differently-shaped, less-effective, airfoils. This should also answer your following comments and posts. With the extra (differing) initial KE, then you can expect the "different amounts of swirl plus horizontal motion" will balance with the "same 'differing' decrease in kinetic energy (overall) in every case." ...or words to that effect. ~

Two numbers, arc. ...to echo studiot's frustration from the previous page. Thanks, at least, for choosing 19 & 28 (instead of 20 & 29) from the first example; as you could tell, that's what I thought you were talking about, since we seem to agree on the numbers fairly closely. I'm not trying to quibble about small differences, just making sure we're looking at the same feature when you describe something. Can you do the same for the second picture also? Are we talking about the main dip near the middle, at around 50-55 km, rather than the dip around 100 km? ...but of course, please pick your own two numbers. ~

How can I be more clear? On the x axis there are numbers such as 10, 20, 30, 40, etc., or 20, 40, 60, 80, etc., labeled as "distance, km," divided into increments of one km, or two km, respectively for each graph. Between which two numbers (in km), or between which two values (in km), are you seeing the basin? === For each of the two cross sections: Please pick two numbers (in km) that signify the right and left margins for the basin you mentioned. === So, that would be four numbers total ...or you could just do one picture, with two numbers (from the x axis) that indicate the right and left 'edges' of your basin. === For instance, you mentioned 9 km for a basin. In the first picture, between about 20 and 29 km, there is a basin-like shape. If this is what you're talking about, please explain that: 'between 20 and 29 km is a low flat area,' or something like that. So the two numbers for that first picture/graph would be 20 & 29, right? ...or please explain otherwise. === So.... Between what two numbers, in the second picture/graph, are you describing a basin? ~

No, I meant where ...or between what two numbers (km on the x axis) are you finding that ~9 km basin?

Do volcanoes fit into that category (#2), which has the "same simple" cause? === About #3 (where "we can clearly see" -re post 399) and those final two magnified cross-sections of the MAR; for each image, please list the "distance, km" that roughly describes each edge of which "basin" you're talking about in #1. ~

...now that I look at this, my question may be moot, since there aren't that many "flat" places in the Atlantic profile ...at least for this cross section; and.... I know the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (MAR) has varied in volume, which has contributed to sea-level change over the past hundred million years, roughly; but…. What I wonder about is the relatively flat parts of the ocean floor, between the mountainous spreading center and the continental slopes. All of that flat ocean floor was at one time or another, at the spreading center; and I wonder if it was mountainous then, and has since subsided, or whether the spreading was much flatter in the past. My first thought was the former, but now I’m thinking the latter. The Pacific seems to have spread faster, for a given period, and (hence?) flatter than the Atlantic. It may not be "compressive" forces creating the MAR; but the MAR does seem to be spreading, or pushing, against some varying resistance. ~ edit: "moot" since the ocean floor may not be that flat, and/or may be buried under sediments.

This was an interesting link, which I briefly browsed. There seem to be amazing new insights, now that we can look at and compare fully sequenced genomes. "This adds a further line of evidence that humans—as must have bonobos—experienced a severe demographic bottleneck in their recent evolutionary history." Wow, neat! === I was surprised by: "This figure [23%] is substantially smaller than previous estimates in the range of 40%...." But an explanation for your question about the different ways that science can define "similarity" might be found in their point: "...because the corresponding genetic lineages were lost in our next relatives that these characters became confined to humans" This paper is looking at how various mutations (or modifications) of the "same" gene or genome can indicate something about how different lineages may have evolved. Over time, the "same gene" will mutate or be modified differently, so maybe they shouldn't call it the "same" gene anymore. But to better see how things relate, when science talks about how the "same gene" is used by different species, that is based on the origin or evolution of the gene, even if the gene has mutated or is used differently between different species. ...Though often the genes stay exactly the same ...among cousins, etc. ...plus this paper is looking at "random sections" of the whole genome. I haven't explained that very well, but hope you can see how it depends on understanding the specific perspective and context, about any claim, if you want to understand why some claim should be considered as true (or false). === The numbers in this paper, such as 23% and 40%, define a different type of change, which the researchers are studying about that overall ~98% similarity in the genes. But that still might not make sense as a general answer, so if you have any question about a specific sentence or graph or paragraph or conclusion or point of any sort, please keep asking questions. Remember that even though the genes might be about 98% similar, in different species; those same genes are arranged and modified differently ...on a different number of chromosomes, in different species. ~

It would be strange. I don't think different airfoils produce the "same" effect (lesser increase in ...the decrease in the swirl), even if no lifting occurs. I think you should be able to see the differences "in the exit fluid" for each different airfoil. I'd expect some combination of extra turbulence and decreased velocity would be found in the cases with poor airfoil design ...which could be converted (theoretically) into lifting force in the case of a well-designed airfoil. I wouldn't expect that you could get various poorly-designed airfoils to rise, by using the same amount of 'input' energy, so your second point quoted above should make sense after accounting for the change in input energy needed to get different airfoils to rise. ~[edit] p.s. I think of these statements, ...that while these statements are valid, they may raise objections since the statements can't be used to define workable parameters for describing lift, which Bernoulli does do. But for a general understanding how the forces (or the energy) will balance, they seem fairly good.

Right, when I was talking about balancing the forces, I meant in general rather than from the specified diagram. As I pointed out post #85, "Regardless of the numbers in the examples that you posted, I think you’d find small differences in the fluid exiting the tube," I wasn't expecting to find the balance in the listed forces. Mainly I've been trying to help Zet understand what you said in post #18: "Some of this work goes into the kinetic energy of vertical motion. (did you remember that?) Some goes into the increased gravitational energy." ...and especially, "Similarly if the body is in level flight the drag will be doing work on the air, leaking kinetic energy away to the air. This KE is maintained by the power of the engine supplying the thrust, which does work on the body." In trying to see this on a very non-mathematical level, more than ever before thanks to Zet's questions, the terminology got loose. In the end though, I think we're all saying the same thing, except mostly with different languages. N'est-ce pas? ~

This seems valid, so I'm comfortable with it: "The increase in vertical kinetic energy and in gravitational potential energy is offset by an equal decrease in the kinetic energy of the fluid." I'm comfortable expecting that the forces offset and balance each other, and I think you have the correct point made for airfoils of different shapes also. With a poor design, much more ineffective turbulence will be generated, so if any lift could be achieved, I'd expect it would require much much more KE overall. As for finding a citable site "showing that this in fact physically the case," that may be problematic, since we aren't using the standard metrics and concepts that science uses for measuring and describing the physics. What we've described as vorticity or swirl or turbulence or "ineffective turbulence" are not easily measured or quantified into a useful metric for calculating the relevant forces. All we've done here is to gain a deeper intuitive understanding about how the forces are distributed. "Understanding about how those forces are distributed" (in reality) is a nice thing; but if you want to model the forces (in theory) so you can make predictions, then you'll need measurable effects and observations. Istm, Bernoulli uses quantities that are more easily measurable, in metrics relevant to the problem at hand, which work well enough to make predictions with. As with Boltzmann, who allows us to measure overall temperature without examining each particle's unique temperature, Bernoulli allows us to look at overall flow without examining every unique change in flow. ....imho. But I'm no expert in physics, so I may be 'mixing metaphors' and assuming way too much; and though comfortable with this, still looking forward to further considerations, clarifications, or corrections. ~

Without going to any link, most of your links sound very reliable (except for the two posted with the 'red' quote) ...based on the IP addresses. Usually the .gov (and .edu) sites are very reliable, and most 'journal' sites are reliable, with the 'news' sites ranked fourth behind those three, imho. I've never looked at the 'genesis' site, but it is either very good or one of the worst, I'd bet. Probably wikipedia could explain that, and a lot else as well. But if you ever find something specific that is confusing, or that seems contradictory, you can probably find a good explanation here. If you want to completely figure it out for yourself, you'll need to learn most of the basics of biology in general, and also specifically for genetics. === Of these examples you posted, they could all be correct; depending on what perspective the statistics are viewed from. Between those examples, much of the similarity (higher percentage) exists because the basic cellular machinery, for all “complex” (or multi-cellular) life, is mostly the same. Because it seems all of your examples evolved from a single common ancestor, it would be surprising if those similarities were missing. Plants and animals are much more closely (and recently) related to a common ancestor than are many different types of bacteria. Or in other words, many types of bacteria evolved to be more different (from each other), than plants and animals are different from each other. So finding similarities even between plants and animals shouldn’t be too surprising either. Also, our genes might be 90% or 95% or 98% “the same” as another species, but those same genes can be arranged and activated in ways that are very different from how those genes are used in other species. Two science-fiction novels could use 95% of the same words; but depending on how the words were arranged and modified, the plots and settings would be very different. ~

I agree that seems to be the correct answer to your question. It's helped me to understand this better also, so thanks for pursuing the details on the KE and its partition into the velocity and turbulence (swirl) of the exit fluid. I was sure that you'd find the answer (or balance of energy) there in the vortices of the exit fluid, but biology is more my focus, so I don't know about good citations for this type of physics. You have great drawings too. For the two cases above, however, I suspect the turbulence that you show would be different, depending on whether the airfoil is fixed or can lift freely ...as several have discussed to some degree already. If you find any more information about this or have more thoughts, keep us posted ...it's always good to clarify old ideas or learn something new. ~

As I mentioned earlier, you can balance the energy by accounting for slight differences in the exit fluid, between each different example, mostly in the form of velocity and vorticity (turbulence); and that friction can’t be totally ignored (especially regarding turbulence and its effect on heating …and lift), except where ignoring friction will acceptably remove various, design-related, or materials-related, confounding factors. We all seem to agree on this generally; however…. While using the words ‘turbulence’ and ‘vorticity’ synonymously, on my part, might have been confusing too; I’m wondering about the terminology describing how the “energy comes from the fluid.” Wouldn't it be better to speak about how the distribution of the fluid imparts force, rather than speaking about the fluid as if it was transferring some electrical energy or some other, unknown, ‘anit-grav’ energy, via direct contact with the airfoil? Energy moves the fluid (or airfoil), and forces are transferred, and then we can look at what energy was required to redistribute the fluid that created those forces (and created effects such as lift) to see how it all balances; but to say the energy comes from the fluid …seems misleading to me. But now that I've struggled to express that nuance, I can see why it probably doesn't change much for explaining where the “missing” or ‘hidden’ or lifting energy comes from ...or goes to. Never mind the semantics…. ~

Thanks, though I can’t believe I misspelled “off” in that point from post 80. This new example works as well, or better, since it uses actual fluid. Regardless of the numbers in the examples that you posted, I think you’d find small differences in the fluid exiting the tube. Especially in terms of overall velocity, along with differences in laminar flow and vorticity, and very slight differences in heat content, the exiting fluid should show that the energy balances. And, as you suggested (that some kinetic and/or thermal differences might occur), they've been listed earlier in the thread in terms of the different turbulence that is generated for the two cases of a stationary or ‘sliding’ airfoil. Turbulence, or the lack of it, is where your 'missing' energy resides, I suspect. And speaking of turbulence, you should be able to keep your system “frictionless” for the most part (laminar flow and sliding airfoils), but only include friction as it relates to generating turbulence and the effects of turbulence. ~

You explained that very well, and I think I see why you're expecting a different ( or supplemental) explanation for the lifting effect. Mainly, you're basing this on a "thought experiment" ...and specifically, you've left of the "source" for the force imbalance. If the "wind" just passes by and "moves on," as you say, then the airfoil won't lift. The wind must be continuous, and of sufficient velocity to be effective. I think you'll find that to create a constant velocity wind over the path (or the stationary space) of your airfoil, you'll need a source of acceleration somewhere in your system. I'd expect that as soon as the source of acceleration stopped, that the sufficient velocity would become insufficient, and slow enough that the airfoil would no longer be lifted. But I studied much more biology and chemistry, than physics, so I'm open to more ideas about this. But in "PChem" (or Physical Chemistry) classes (3 semesters), the importance of defining the system, or knowing the parameters of the system, was repeatedly emphasized. I think that overlooking some parameter or boundary or definition of the system under consideration is a flaw with many thought experiments. ~

You may not want to call it thrust, but there is some very large (I assume) external force acting upon the airfoil. Istm, the energy is coming from your stipulation (or from thrust), which is shunted in various horizontal and vertical components of the "wind" you speak about. I think Studiot, in post 18, first explained this. Some small fraction of the "very large" thrust (or whatever your stipulation is for the force imbalance) becomes the source of energy for 'lifting' or slightly counteracting gravity or 'offsetting' some gravitational potential energy. ~

I don't see why that begs the question; something, such as an airfoil, redirects the horizontal force. On the other hand (or on the other side of the interface between the airfoil and the air), probably there are some effects upon air pressure and air speed. But I wouldn't say the energy is coming "from" the air/fluid. ~

Wouldn't that (lifting) energy be subtracted from the 'thrust' ...or whatever horizontal force is adding energy?

Sure, which is why I tried to ask the rhetorical question, hoping to highlight the contradiction (compressive? NOT!) in his 'muddy' assumptions. === But I enjoy this thread, since I learn lots of interesting new stuff about this amazing planet as I search for information on some of these 'arcing' perspectives. ...such as this on 'Recent Advances' in Tectonics [2012]: http://www.intechopen.com/books/tectonics-recent-advances/ ...or for some nice graphics, and a more general 'Jeopardy Level' overview: https://www.superteachertools.net/jeopardyx/jeopardy-review-game-flash.php?gamefile=1392879386 ~

Isn’t Iceland a good example of this same “mountain” building (compressive?) process, and wouldn’t it fit the description, of “short, sharp period of uplift,” that you’re asking about? Or is that your point; that the mid-ocean ridge is controlled by some solar cycle? ~

Thanks for the update. I know other proxies, from cave formations to "crustal" heating, discovered since Mann's compilation, show the same pattern too. === I searched for some recent news of the history, but this Dec. 2012 review seemed to be the last update ...or conclusion: http://cen.acs.org/articles/90/i50/Michael-Manns-Hockey-Stick.html This is from Chemical & Engineering News [published since 1923!] ...by the American Chemical Society === Plus, there are these other examples, from the 2005 IPCC: ...but perhaps too extreme to qualify as hockey sticks. ~