pioneer

In a healthy steady state ecosystem there is a good balance between predator and prey. But there are scenarios that can tip it out of balance. For example, drought for many years so water becomes limited. At this point, selective advantage may go those who can hold water better, even if they are slower. It may not go to lean muscle and speed since water storage may not be as good. The predators has more choice and may go after those who dehydrate quickest, since don't feel too good and now easier to catch. A few years later, the drought ends and you have water laden gazelle who now don't hold up well in a leg race. Another drought scenario could be a limited food supply. The runts don't have to eat as much to stay full. The big buck is now on a diet. Dropping that weight quickly could take him out of his game. The little runt is still able to run his normal half speed of the once big buck. Because the big buck is a bigger prize and is now getable, it might become dinner for the predators. One hunt is better than multiple. Now we get another shift. In good times, the runts are sitting ducks.

I would say yes, because it is just an empirical correlation and more fudge factors are always welcome. I did this example elsewhere. I was wondering how its fits in with the master plan. Over the past 100 years, to use a number, the average height of Americans has increased. This had nothing to do with tall people dominating breeding, as far as I know. It occurred cross the board due to better food. Or the environment pushed all the genes sort of globally. All my siblings are taller than either of my parents. Maybe the basketball team was in town for each of my siblings according to Darwin. The affect is the environment changed, due to better food, shifting the entire population at the same time, more of less. Here is an interesting special affect. If this was an animal population doing the same thing, but our data was discontinuous, with only two samples, with a hundred year separation, would be conclude that a tall critter had selective advantage. It could reach higher food. This caused it to breed more, and through selective advantage, the genes shifted the population to taller. In this case the basketball team did come to town, when we have discontinuous data. With discontinuous data, it looks like jumps or mutations. It looks like key players, etc. With continuous data is looks like the environment is pushing the genetics across the board. Maybe we need more data before adding too many more fudge factors. We need to investigate how genetics can be pushed across the board by a global environmental potential. The current theory is a little thin here. If we thicken this up maybe we overhaul rather than add more patches.

One modern observation, with continuous, instead of discontinuous data, that is not consistent with darwinism is how the average human height has increased. This is happening across the board and has little to do with the selective advantage of particular animals. It is attribute to diet change with this environmental change causing the entire species to change.

The traditional perception of reality, up to the turn of the 20th century, was analogous to rational and ordered. The deviate principle was the Devil. Einstein was more traditional and didn't wish to place dice with the universe or allow the deviate principle in. But physics decided to go the way of the chaotic or devilish principle. We even called it chaos and uncertainty in honor. Rather that look for a logical explanation for uncertainty, we assumed this ruled and built upon this assumption. This is why physics can't unify. It is under the spell of its own deviate assumption. The Heinsenberg uncertainty has a logical explanation. I think I found the proof. The metal gold is unique because of its golden color. Based on conventional calculations it should be silver. To compensate for the unique color one needs to add electron relativity. The color is due to a SR affect on the light that is reflected from the outer electrons of gold. What this implies it is possible for electrons to be in another space-time reference within atoms. That is the nature of the uncertainty, two references. The assumption is one reference for both, leading to a mathematical illusion. Einstein didn't have the gold proof to fight of the devil so to speak.

It has to do with evaporation. The cold air has a partial pressure. When the moisture comes in contact with your skin it heats up and able to evaporate due to your warm body able to increase the vapor pressure. The evaporation will absorb heat taking more heat away from the body. Another way to look at it, is the cold air can hold x water. Near the micro environment of you body it is warmer and can hold X+. There is a migration of water to you to balance out the chemical potential. There is also a heat conduction due to water being such a good heat absrober

Thymine and Uracil differ by the extra methyl group on thymine. The affect of this extra methyl group is to create extra surface tension in the water. It helps to form the DNA double helix. Without this methyl group RNA, is able to form both single and double helixes. The methyl group is like a little drop of oil and is better shield in the double helix. RNA would be under extra tension in the water if it contained the methyl group and tried to be a single helix. It would be messed up and would not function properly. The DNA double helix also have a double helix of structured water within the major and minor groves of the double helix. This surface tension is still felt by the water within the water double helix. This is transferred to the hydrogen bonding between the bases allowing the double helix to bind slightly stronger for stability. The surface tension within the water increases the hydrogen bonding potential of the water-DNA composite. I am a little ahead of the curve so this may take another tens years to figure out.

I think prostitution should be legal, but only for singles. It should remain illegal if one is married or engaged. If one is married they are under legal contract not to stray. Engagement is like a gentlemen's agreement with a hand shake. Prostitution allows single guys, who are not the players, to have some fun with pretty gals. The nice nerd would be able to play with a 10. This may not be possible under the current dating schema. Dating, no matter how you look at it, still costs men something. The hope is using dinner, movies and flowers in trade for sex. This can lead to deception from both parties since the price is nebulous. Prostitution is more honest when it comes to single men looking for sex. The price is fixed on the menu, so there is no need to play games. It is an honest deal. If a guy is looking for a mate, then it can use gifts and activities instead of cash. That can be the clear cut line in the sand between the intent of the dating interaction. If a woman knows men could buy sex and her man is buying her gifts then she knows he is serious. At the same, prostitution is not cheap, so eventually single guys will sow their wild oats and realize the practical value of a good mate. Then they lose that option.

Men are visual animals. Women know that and try to enhance visual appeal. Men are aware that this is make-up, but appreciate the effort. Woman are verbal animals so the male's version of make-up is often verbal. It is called charm and clever picked lines, which are also subject to fashion. You can't use passe' pick up lines but have to stay cutting edge. Woman don't wish men to lie to them but fashion is sort of a lie in the sense it uses special affects to enhance beauty. Lying uses special verbal affects to enhance the male's lure of power, sensitivity, security, etc. The female version of make-up is socially acceptable because it generates revenue for business. If business could figure out a way to make money off men lying to women... Fashion has less to do with attracting men as it does with the group dynamics of females. Men rarely notice subtle changes. But other women are schooled in the subtleties of male attraction. The group dynamics tries to push each other so the female team wins. This is the uniform. Men are simple critters when it comes to women. All they need is a bikini or nothing at all. The rest allows more women to enter the attraction game. The same is true of women. They would like a millionaire or the soul male. Verbal make-up allows more men to become attractive with the promise of that. Once you strip off the make-up reality is seen both ways. But if there is an infatuation by both, then all that make-up no longer matters. It was there to get them together, like a catalysts, to start the body chemistry.

The problem is not brain perception but language. What each person sees is clear in their mind. Language is simply a noise to label it. We could also use words from any of a 100 other languages, but it doesn't change what the brain sees. The language creates the deception. If you could read each other's mind and see into their heads then there would be clarity. Then the parents would assign the correct word based on what each child is seeing.

Technology builds upon itself in a logical way. We start with a carriage. We add a motor for a horseless carriage. We add better suspension, better stirring, better brakes, etc. It continues to build upon simple things and gets more and more evolved. Evolutionary theory is more based on a three stooges approach. There is no logical progression in terms of building onto simpler designs. The designs and change are assumed based on accidents and good luck. Moe goes to hit Larry, Larry ducks, and Curly gets hit. He tips over the paint. The paint spills on the car. They all argue and try to clean it up and now cars have more than one paint color. With the logical evolution of technology, humans have evolved. This implies logic leading evolution. That logic has outpaced the three stooges. We didn't have to wait for Curly to get his head stuck in the vice and Larry and Moe try to free him by pulling his legs, for humans to get taller. There was no selective advantage to get taller, with them breeding more etc., it just happened across the board due to the result of technology.

At night when plants are not using photosynthesis they use the plant materials they collected during the day as an energy source. They are night herbivores. They are able to collect more than they use so we often think in terms of the net affect. If you took a potted plant and placed it in total darkness it will stretch as it cannibalizes plant material. The first life was animal and dependent on the simple molecules from which life had assembled, as its food source. They were omnivores. Photosynthesis evolved from this. Once plants produced more food then they could use, plant predators began to appear. When these plant predators became too plentiful, then carnivore predators appeared to complete the food chain. The original carnivore predators may have been omnivores by default They had poor sensory systems and just opened their mouth and swam. After getting enough plant predator in their diet they developed a taste for it and genetics began to change.

Mass delusion may have begun with religion but the same template is used even by non-religious. Let me give an example; fashion. From a practical point of view, clothes are needed to keep us warm and protect us from the sun, etc. Beyond that it gets irrational. The power clothes are no different than holding a religious artifact for its power. It takes the group delusion to work. Wear an outdated outfit, after the group delusion has shifted, and see if it still has the same magical power the group delusion once gave it. This used to be called idol worship and is based on a primitive template. The psychologist Carl Jung, did a study of cultural mythology. What he found was a very similar structure in terms of myths in cultures that had no known contact with each other. For example, the Aborigine have a myth of a great flood. Whether this flood was real or not is not the point. They came up with this on their own. The way he interpreted this was the brain projects these myths often in dreams of chiefs or medicine men. While the independence and similarity suggested common unconscious brain components within all humans. These myths were a natural output of the brain. This commonality is why group delusion works since the unconscious structure is similar. Some of these group delusions are natural and some are synthetic. The way to tell natural from synthetic group delusions is longevity and the social scope of the collective delusion. Short terms fads for a small group is a sure sign of a synthetic delusion. The synthetic doesn't last nor does it push a wide scope of natural buttons. As we approach the other extreme of very long duration plus very large groups of all types of humans, these are much closer to natural delusions with a natural purpose in mind.

One possible explanation for pre-human fur loss might be the same reason some human males lose hair today. One type of male boldness is due to an enzyme in the scalp that can't break down testosterone. If we extrapolate this, then the pre-human males increased testosterone beyond what the enzymes of the fur cuticles had been designed for. This, in turn, could be connected to why humans began to breed all the time. Human do not have a breeding season, any time is the right time. In the poorest countries the number of babies is high because there is a high mortality rate. It makes sense the pre-humans had to breed more often for the survival of the species, due to unfavorable circumstances that created a high infant mortality rate. This increased testosterone in the males due to getting busy more often. These genes are then transferred. Walking up right may have also been a necessity due to a type of natural event that created the need to migrate into maybe desert areas they had little instinct for. They had to learn as they went with the result, a lot of problems, at first, that may have resulted in the high infant mortality. With this area of evolution we often think in terms of the males. It is interesting when you think of the females. They don't have clubs. Their hands have babies. When she was more like an ape on all fours, the baby could hang underneath in the shade. Walking upright creates exposure to the sun. It is almost like a medley of mishaps that works out. I am still of the belief the pre-humans were not that bright. Animals don't just leave a nice ecosystem unless they are forced to. The branch of the ape tree that still remains, didn't have the same push into the future. I would also assume it was not easy, but very tough for them. This is where they were forced to adapt faster than if they had been in a cosy environment. Necessity is the mother of invention.

I think the confusion is the math predicts the uncertainty but the explanation of "why", does not exist without the math. I wonder if uncertainty is an artifact of the math since that is how we explain it. Let me give an example. Say we replaced the newtonian equations of gravity with a statistical model. We would build in uncertainty. If we were asked to explain why there is uncertainty in our predictions and observations we would use this math to show that it does indeed exist. Now if we developed the Newtonian second, since it does not display the uncertainty would that make it wrong since everyone expects its and has used this assumption so wide and far?

In it's normal life, cats do not show any particle-wave duality. In a loose sense cats act more like particles without any wave affect. If the cats could be coated in epoxy or something to retain their particle nature would they also show a wave affect going through diffraction slits? Or does this particle-wave affect only occur up to a certain level?

If you look at SR, there are three equations, one each for time, distance and mass. The photon has zero mass, so it can travel at C. But it still has SR affected parameters in distance and time, reflected by wavelength and frequency. This is the massless momentum. This space-time aspect of energy has a connection to GR. If we add it all together, photons do not exert Newtonian Gravity due to zero rest mass, but can contribute to GR. This difference becomes more apparent only at very high mass which generates heat energy-mass but not any additional rest mass. For example, if we had a cloud of space gas with mass M, as it contracts the gravity work will add energy to the system. If this energy-mass was going into Newtonian mass we would see mass increasing as it contracted. All we see is the rest mass conserved. The energy only adds to GR so Newtonian breaks down.

Eugenics is evolution based on humans deciding natural selection, or in this case unnatural selection. The results may not be natural. It comes down to what silly humans will chose. Superficial looks are important to Eugenics. More dogs are bred for the fluff factor than for performance. This human vanity tendency could pose a problem when a new mother or father is the given the choice. If all the women, for example, are genetically made 10's, nobody is a 10. At that point human, looks, may need to go through fashion cycles, with last season's 10's out of style. This creates plastic surgery business. It remind me of a twilight zone episode where all the woman are beautiful and there was one girl who did not want to be a wind tunnel clone. But in the end they forced her to take the drug, for her own good. Health is important. This may be one area where the head is on straight. But if everyone is healthy, this will mean loss of medical jobs. The industry will have to come up with creative problems to stay in business. Or will need to hide some things on the shelf to perpetuate their industry. Or build in new genetic problems. You don't think all this people want to flip hamburgers. They are only human and will eventually have a say. From the point of view of the ideal, everyone would be intelligent and able to think independently. Do you think those in power will want this? They might prefer herd animal; intelligent but easier to control. This is for the greater good. It may be better to keep everyone's mind on the fall body fashions and not on pushing the envelop of change too fast. The next problem is, what if the children all begin to exceed the parents ability to teach and inspire their children? What that means one will have to farm parenting out to experts, or the children will get restless. Who controls the experts and what happens if the students are too bright? Basically one see the beginnings of anarchy. To prevent that scenario we may need to make sure we add herd animal genes, even if the parent specs lion. Or give the medical community the job of making pacification drugs so they can also deal with the side affects, to help them stay in business.

Technetium is very light but is also artificial. It may exist in others places in the universe but on the earth. We need to make it in the lab. One may never know how high elements can go under natural conditions. We don't add high gravity when we manufacture.

Is natural selection smarter than we are? If we argue that we are smarter than natural selection, then since humans are making species extinct, this is smarter than natural selection which might decide to keep them around. If it is a stupid idea to kill species, then we are less intelligent than natural selection. In this case, we have to work hard just to keep stride. What it comes down to, is not better or worse than natural selection, but a blend of the two. Humans have their share of bloopers. But they also have their share of things that rise above. If we average it all out, the fact we are even concerned about violating nature seems to indicate somewhat below natural selection. When we were not concerned for nature because there seemed to be a sense of balance, we found a zone where we were maybe slightly above. Here is a paradox. Most, if not all scientists, like evolution. Humans are creating environmental stresses yet nobody trusts evolution. New nature always find a way to blend in even if it is bugs, birds and weeds. We have this need to micro manage because selective advantage, natural selection, and genetic drift is not trusted in practice. Instead we try to do the morally right thing; ironical isn't it. The concern stems around the environment being stronger than genetics, therefore shifting the life distribution. The historical cataloging doesn't have to walk the walk, just talk the talk.

If you google lab furnaces, pyrometers, etc. you can find these. You might try "used furnaces". These are designed for precise temperature profiles, for crystal growing. These are expensive but very accurate. If all use need is a rough temperature, you may research how to make a simple ceramic pottery oven. It is a gas heater and fire bricks. Then get a pyrometer that is good to 1700C so it is resistant to fumes. You may even time your run with a local ceramic class when they fire up.

The irony about water is 2/3 of the earth is covered with it. We should try to genetically alter food plants so they can use brackish water. There are many plants that can already do this so we need to transfer some genes. This allows us to stretch the water for irrigation and open new farm land. Maybe we can try to genetically alter humans to drink brackish water. This may require a third kidney or something. Implants. Have they ever tried to implant a desalination device in an animal? Salt water drinking cows.

What this sort of sounds like is they were trying to play down random by defining very definite things. The speed of light is constant, simultaneous, and not some probability function. Again it comes down to assumptions. We could have assume in a way to support probability by simply invalidating simultaneous references. Einstein wasn't too big into using assumptions that played dice with the universe. But the fact remains, that two references like the lab and electron don't mesh, exactly, (uncertainty) suggesting that maybe these two references are not simultaneous. We can't get our clock to line with the electron's space-time clock no matter how hard we try. Something about the past of the electron's clock or meter stick got messed up and it does make a difference.

A photon acts as both a particle and a wave. I often wondered where the particle aspect of the photon goes when it is absorbed by the atom. It only appears to transfer a wave affect. But as the electron drops energy level the particle appears again. I am not highjacking but trying to help. If you look at a hydrogen atom absorbing a photon, there is not a 50/50 EM split, conceptually. The higher mass of the hydrogen proton precludes as much velocity and therefore makes it hard to equally share the magnetic aspect of the photon, since magnetism is charge in motion. Only the electric, conceptually, is equally shared. Maybe this is due to the positive charge having three components and negative only one. A positive charge in motion may be able to use all three but positive may have flexibility in terms of the atomic state.

Humans often project global attributes onto primitive man/woman. As an analogy of this projection, we may say modern man has the ability to invent technology that is changing the world. How many modern people actually do this. It is a tiny percent. Yet we all globally claim this as part of humanity as though we all invented. There is a reality detachment. I would have to assume primitive man/woman may have only had a few representatives in terms of most globally attributed skills. Not everyone could draw in caves, yet we might often think in terms of cave dwellers drawing in caves as though this was an art colony. This creates a distorted perception of reality. The fire keeper may have been a single person, whose job was to keep the fire going. He might teach this to an apprentice. The rest of tribe might get modern credit for knowing the fire god. Or we may marvel at primitive herbal medicine and attribute this to all, even though there is maybe one witch doctor. There is maybe one story teller, etc. The global abstraction contains all of this, but the individual, very doubtful. I tend to rule out things that makes walking upright due to global attributes that nobody had. A natural push makes more sense since any cultural push to be upright also implies the first odd duck has to be able to overcome the inertia of the primitive fear of novelty. Do that strange, upright thing, in the group and they will lynch you. For global change, like walking upright, necessity works best. One has to think in terms of how to overcome instinctive inertia, fear of novelty in a specialty world, to create a global change. The best way to overcome the fear and inertia, is the strongest fear; survival. During droughts even opposing animals, lions and gazelles, walk together. We are not dealing with einstein caliber critters, so it has to be simple. I like thermal venting because it only takes tiny common sense. It shifts the brain-heart. This could also explain how one aspect of the family tree suddenly changed drastically. The other aspect didn't have this same need and stalled. It could have also been simply due to the stalled aspect driving out part of the group or a forest fire that divides the species. They became the wanderers looking for a new forest home. They needed to migrate, being reduced down to those who had the needed survival skills. The children learn. We can add a nice long stick as a crutch to help take the pressure off the back. Now the hand is always working to hold the stick. Now that stick has many uses for survival and will become almost part to them. Now we have a drama.

What about quantum jumps between energy states? The electron will get from point A to point B in zero time or does it? Is this limited to C?