Kylonicus

I have an idea for an easily constructed weapon of mass destruction, which I was thinking about selling the tech to the U.S government. The advantage of this weapon, is it only kills life, and leaves everything else alone, and requires very, very little resources to operate. It could concievably be much more destructive than a nuclear bomb, in terms of the total death toll, but has no long term negative effects on the land where it is used(other than everything dying, which could be replenished by planting new seeds and stuff, and adding bacteria and what not). I feel ethical qualms about doing this however... I was thinking about getting into the business of being an exterminator, as I would have a distinct technological advantage, and this would be less of an inconvinence to the people I'd work for. I could get in, exterminate the insects and get out. I also have an idea for easily achieved, cost effective mind control, which I could also sell to the government. Is there anything unethical about this? But I don't really need all that much money, as I have another technology which I'm working on right now, that would greatly improve the production of energy(to such a degree that I believe I will get rich).

I have conductive wire(measured resistance), I have new batteries, and yet when I hook the positive end to the negative end of the battery, with my wires, it won't produce current! Grrrr.... Does anybody know how to make this work? BTW, I'm using double A batteries. I need this in order to test an experiment which if it works(the principle this simple, something that's easy, would produce alot of money, but seems to be overlooked by people, but my condition makes things blatantly obvious to me, that are invisible to others), but I have to be able to draw current, before I can power other components of my experiment. Any assistance would be welcomed.

So, are you saying Dak, that essentially, telomerase is prevalent in most cells? If so, if something could penetrate all the cells without damaging them, and eliminate this inhibitor, do you think it could reverse aging?

How can I build an Inverter? I have seen schematics, but I am currently unable to read schematics effectively, and I find them very confusing. Is it possible to build an inverter with just copper wire and something like iron? Your help would be most appreciated. A thank you in advance Thank you for your assistance.

Yes... All governments have problems associated with them... What would be needed is a strong meritocracy culture along to go with the government. A culture that doesn't put up with a system that doesn't reward those who work for the good of the people. Only then(or under a technocracy(other definition rule by machines)) could such a system work.

To show my ignorance, I didn't know there were such things as catalytic antibodies, which sound just like enzymes which attack things the body doesn't want. If catalytic antibodies do exist, we could simply use animal(preferablly shark) white blood cells to produce the catalytic antibody to the gp-120 molecule, and of course we'de have to mix in that other enzyme to remove the protective shield of the HIV. Then we could make a hybridoma! Then we'de have a virtually endless supply of HIV medication for people with that disease. Except for the limited supply of the enzyme which removes the sugar molecule. But this way lots of people could be cured. Yahhh!

Every man can dream.

Well, one method for creating the enzyme which is being researched by other people right now, is creating a genetic template for it, and inserting into bacteria. The bacteria produce the enzyme, then the enzyme is refined from the bacteria. I don't know how they refine enzymes and chemicals from bacteria, but I know they can, and they do. For instance, CoQ10 that's produced in commercial quantities, produced by this very method. Except I think all they had to do is transfer the genetic material from like an animal, they didn't have to figure out how to genetically encode it. Anyway, just what I am thinking.

I wasn't trying heavily to think about this, my mind was just wandering. I was eating breakfast this morning, and something came to my head concerning this theory, it's not quantum gravity that primarily holds the nucleus together and thus controls the rate of nuclear decay, it's gluons! So that answers the second question. If you were to somehow effect gravity by some means that doesn't mean that we wouldn't be able to observe it's results, also it wouldn't have to completely inhibit the virtual particles, it could just partially inhibit virtual particles, and so the Casmir effect could still be noticed. I hope a debate gets going.

I think I figured out a cure to HIV, basically just create an enzyme which breaks down gp-120 the molecule which attaches to the CD4 receptor. Plus add the enzyme(already been created/researched by somebody else) which removes the sugar molecule from the virus so the gp-120 molecule is accessible. With this one half of the cure and the other half of the cure, you could cure HIV. The gp-120 molecule would all be destroyed, once it was completely destroyed the virus particle would be useless, and thus it would no longer be a threat. Anyway, what do y'all think?

Interesting, well, it was worth a shot. Thanks for the input, I won't waste any more time on that idea.

About blood, if cells don't need those polysacharides on them, if they can survive without them, why not simply create an enzyme which breaks down the A polysacharide, and the B polysacharide, so that your left with O type blood? It's worth a shot, if it worked you'd have a near limitless amount of universal blood.

I think I posted in the wrong section, this should have been in modern theoretically physics. Oh well, hindsight 20/20

That's good. Religion should be taught as religion, and not as science, although they should teach people various religious views, if for no other reason than acquiring some ethics and learning to tolerate other religions, because you know that people are going to have to make those decisions some day, and better that they have been given of a view that's not hateful than one that is.

Theoretically, if the multipactor effect causes electrons to go into a kind of statis, where they can't move, wouldn't that mean, due to the whole thermoelectric effect, that it would keep thermal energy from transfering from one particle to another?

Howdy, this idea may be flawed, may have alot of bugs, but it's something I think is fun to tinker with. What if gravity is simply the absence of virtual particles? Like, matter exist, it creates some form of field which pushes or inhibits virtual particle formation, then it creates something sort of like a space vaccum. Like with the Casmir effect. The reason light can only travel so fast is because it has the capacity to only push X amount of virtual particles out of it's way at a time, and so that limit inhibits it's capacity to travel through space, which would mean in curved space time you'd travel faster. The reason that things would slow down while in a virtual vaccum field, is that matter or energy is being pushed in the direction and is in a way linked to all the other matter and so to pull on it, pulls on everything else, so time moves slower inside this virtual vaccum field or gravity bubble than outside of it. Anyway, it's just a fun hypothesis I came up with, It would be testable too! If you had some sort of gravity detector, and you applied the Casmir effect, there should be a very, very small but there would be an effect of gravity if this hypothesis were true. Not something I put a huge amount of faith in, but just something I came up with in my spare time. Anyway...

I think the type of political system requirements are directly related to what your intent in making a political system are. For instance, if your goal is to make yourself an absolute ruler, there is very little reason why you need to make rules to protect people's freedom, except perhaps to create an illusion of freedom, while in de facto a tyranny is maintained. On the otherhand, if your trying to make the best quality of life for the greatest number, then you might want to emphasize political freedoms, and certainly ideological concepts that promote the well being of the masses, such as the superiority of the masses against the power of a minority. If it will save 1 million people, but 1 person needs to die to accomplish this feat, then generally the 1 person should die. Anyway, if I were designing a political system, I would design a political system which emphasized creation versus control. Essentially, those governments, institutions, groups or entities that support control versus creation generally create a miserable way of life for it's members, as well as lose massive amounts of resources they could be gaining. What I mean by creators is those people who create resources, manufacture goods, produce food, valuable real services,engineers, doctor, those who do research, innovate, educate and nuture, counselors, artist(non-destructive art, entepreneurs who create resources primarily and mainly don't take resources from others, and generally many other good things. Controller's would be people such as stock market brokers, politicians, sales people, ruthless executives screwing other people to get to the top, lousy political managers, advertising agents, and many other bad things. I believe that one reason why the U.S was/is so successful is it heavily rewards creators of resources, versus people who can use political sway, regulations, bullying, or other tactics to control the resources and take them from the creators. Unfortunately I think the U.S is stepping away from this way of life, which means it's probably going to step down as the number 1 power in this world. Everyone thinks that control, malice, power grabs, domination is the way to power, but they are trully deluded, creation is the true way to power, the true way to prosperity, given the right environment. I would try and create an atomsphere where creators would end up getting more of the resources that they produced, presupposing that the majority of those resources went back into the process of creation. Those resources that didn't go back into creation would have heavier taxes on them, and the occupations such as advertising and what not that control resources from other people would be heavily taxed and regulated. I would try to take as much power away from controllers as possible. I would try and create as much protection as possible for creators, from powerful controllers, I would create a semi-socialist system that would allow creators to get funding more easily. In the current system, this would be virtually impossible, as the controllers tend to be the most powerful in controlling politics and public image and policy, so I would only be able to do this in a new system. It would require alot of work, and it has alot of bugs, but do you see where I am coming from? The basic principle of this country is freedom, rights for people, the ability of the people to have a say in the government, rights of people from the government. Well to this system I'd like to add the property of trying to maximize the rewards for being a creator, maximize the resources allocated towards creation versus those who control, rules set in place to protect creators from controllers, and rules setup to try and allow the masses to enjoy the benefits of the creators as much as possible(such as releasing knowledge and deploying the use of technologies that benefit the people, but cut profits for corporations, or policies such as preventitive medicine). A code of rules would have to be made, just like with the constitution, they'd be long and drawn out, and very complex, and in many cases difficult to impliment, but the overall government once implimented and once stabilized would produce a higher quality of life than the current government type, as more resources/technology/needed services, would be provided to the masses at a faster rate and a lower cost. Once people got used to the higher standard of living they'd be more willing to protect it, and that would make the government more stable, even though the controllers would be trying to take control.

Thanks for y'all's input.

Howdy, I have been off the forum for a gazillion years, what do y'all think of Peak Oil? Peak oil is essentially the idea that we will reach a point where half or over half our oil reserves will be depleted, and since the entire world runs off of oil, it will cause major problems. This makes perfect sense, because we only have a limited supply of oil in the world, and it's used to service many functions, primarily as our main source of power. What do y'all think of it?

Recently I have been needing a very high dose of a specific supplement do to medical reasons. So I wanted to purchase some vitamins over the internet to cut cost, because the supplement isn't cheap... I was wondering what yall thought, is it a good idea? Also, if I were to do so, how would I check out a company to make sure they aren't screwing me? Any advice?

Thanks again, you are an inmeasurable help.

I was wondering, do you know if that would cause the experiment to act like it was observed? Also, how high of resolution of a charged couple device(CCD) would I need in order to act as if it were observed? Also, I was wondering, would the CCD have to be the substrate where the light hits in order for the quantum effect to occur, or could I just set this up and measure it without it being where the light hits? Would I need to set this up where the CCD was being hit directly by the light(I am thinking I would) or could I just set this up to the side and it would cause the change to occur? I think your suggestion is wonderful, I am just sketchy on what resolution of a CCD I might need. Thanks again for any input you may give.

Thanks for your input, it is much appreciated.

Hi, I would like to reproduce Young's Double Slits experiment, except I would like to use a particle detector to observe the information, so that when I deleted the information I could create the original pattern. I've got money to blow, and I would really like to reproduce this experiment. Anybody know the specific type of particle detector it would take? Also, does anybody know what the general cost of a particle detector is? I went to Ortec, but so far I haven't found out their prices. Anyway, any feedback would be helpful.

Hate to play Devil's advocate, but, what about Quantum/Superluminal tunneling? I agree that Einstein's General Relativity generally explains big things, but Quantum Mechanics is something completely different. Due to the uncertanity principle, a particle has a very small probability of teleporting halfway across the universe, or into another dimension(brane), back in time, or faster than light. Superluminal experiments have been done, and have been repeated. So lets just agree that for the big things, Einstein was right, and for the little things Quantum Mechanics is right.