You are not logged in.
here's some exciting new astronomical observatory news in the line of trying to figure out dark matter.
a doornob is not a living thing; the key to understanding how thinking works is evolution(natural selection is a side effect of life processes; it doesn't explain how forms arise from structurelessness; this is where Ilya Prigogine's stable non-equilibrium thermodynamics comes in) Havn't I described much of this new biology stuff to you before in another forum?
. . . and you didn't take into account the big one - bacteria and other single cell creatures; they are the controllers of the earth and the original lifeform. Any attempt to understand the true nature of life needs to start there. They use no money.
yes, ants have queens, but more luxeriant? As for Chimps bartering, I'd like to know your reference.
as for dealing with the rest of the issues, that would take a lot more time to write down. Besides that, the future is coming fast . . . .
life did it for four billion years.
to bad we live in a money world; otherwise, you arguement would be worthless.
Accomplishing things takes energy and matter; money is just for societal control; yes, I do believe we can get around without money; the natural world did it for four billion years.
I'm american; we have russia's rocket blueprints; nobody cares about those, except possibly those who don't want space development?
are you saying Hughs and Boeing were giving china access codes to our satellites?
I don't think so.
you want to know what the problem is with people not seeing the value of space development? Because people keep trying or just not for some reason connecting space development with economic, national security, and health care. If we develop out in space, we can do all those things a whole hell of a lot more effectivelly. Why this message isn't getting to our leaders who seem hell bent to perform industrial growth here on earth till they destory it is a major problem.
seems the only way to test string theory is to study observational cosmology! and maybe some black holes . . .
Renormalizability has to do with getting a finite answer from previous infinities in the equations that combined special relativity with quantum mechanics. At first theorists and experimentalists thought renormalizability was just a calculation trick, but then they realized that quantum particles have less or more mass depending on how close you look at them(they seem to be pretty fractal objects); this led to the unification theories of the weak and quantum electrodynamics theories, and then later to grand unification theories(the combining of the strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and photon theories). As the temperature goes up, the strong nuclear force weakens, and the electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces get stronger.
I'm not to sure how much more details you want; i'm just saying ever more as I remember more; i really havn't thought about these things for awhile; i spend my time thinking about the nature of mathematics and the mind more these day's.
supersymmetry has to do with being able to renoralize theories that combine general relativity with quantum mechanics. Supersymmetry seems to be the only way to do so(string theory uses supersymmetry).
I recall physicists being excited about supersymmetry particles; yep, all the particles plus the antimatter versions now have other complementary particles! They have great theoretical reason's for being interested in supersymmetry; and with dark matter to be explained, they may have great observational evidence for supersymmetry. They still need to work on calculations and observational tests to confirm the connections.
a kind of nano-cold war was drexlers original idea of how to combat people who want to use it for bad. Even if it is workable, it would be one hell of a show! You'd see constantly evolving nanotech fighting each other; not sure that is how I'd like to live my life.
. . . and then procede to allow loggers to cut down even more trees! I love this guy! Not! And he supports nuclear propulsion!
George Bush Jr say? "Oh, we'll just adjust . . ."
I don't think you can stop the misuse of anything. The best way I can imagine is for people to have nanotech and not allow any single one person have it. I believe the majority of people are good, therefore, if you want to stop a bad person with nanotech, you need a lot of good people with nanotech.
I don't know Leon Brillouin, but I do remember and have Jeremy Campbell's "The Grammatical Man." It had been on science bookstore shelves for years in the 80's. It has much about on a general level. I know Chaos theory uses information theory from James Gleik's Chaos theory.
I'm not up there mathematically yet, but thing's should start picking up.
Well, the thing about Prigogines stable non-equilibrium thermodynamic structures is that they are a very general class including everything from vortices of various kinds(like tornadoes and Jupiter hurricanes) to life, so what is the difference between life and a mere vortex? This was the only criticism of Prigogines work; that it didn't go far enough. Then came along Maturana and his autopoisis theory. They came to it from a round about way. I suppose I do to, but I like mine better, so i'll explain it my way.
I find Maturana's autopoisis theory similar to my idea's about perpetual motion machines. Really, I should define my idea and potentially perpetual machines. So long as the flow of energy and matter flow's through them and other physical conditions don't get to extreme like nova blasts and so on, my machines should keep running. Basically, when i started thinking about how to keep thing's running, I thought of the water wheel. You see i'm not suggesting creation of energy from nowhere; in fact, the more I thought about my ideas, the more I realized my ideas were just the renewable energy movement, but with a twist. While in an ideal world, the water wheel or any other renewable energy machine will keep on going, in our world there is friction, so the water wheel will eventually break its drive-shaft. The thing I thought of that led me to similar ideas to Maturana's autopiosis theory is making the water wheel power a robotic arm that can bend around perform certain maintenance. Now, it can only do so much, so I thought of a network of renewable energy maintenance machines all keeping each other going. This is the gist of Maturana's autopoisis theory. The only reason why these guy's havn't won a nobel prize and not talked about much is because it is very hard to compute the chemical networks of just one bacterial cell. See, a single cell is a network of molecular machines that make each other and the membrane that holds them together, and that is a distinction between Maturana's autopoisis theory and Manfred Eigen's(who has won a nobel prize for his theory of life) hypercycles theory. Hypercycles are observed in the laboratory. The only thing that keeps them together is the surrounding petre dish. They make all kind's of patterns and evolve.
So, the difference between Prigogine's stable non-equilibrium structures and life is that life is a network of chemical machines that make each other, but what about that computational problem. This is where Stuart Kauffman's work comes in which I've already described in a previous reply in this thread. Basically, there are no simple cells; they all start out as complex wholes, then they evolve into ever more complex cells the way Prigogine describes stable non-equilibrium structures do; you push them to an instability point(chaos theory), and they develop growth's and stabilize that with feedback loops to the rest of the environment.
So, life is an inevitable formation in the right environment. In other words not just here on earth and not just in the core of a comet, but both. As for mars, maybe there's a few frozen fossil cells, but probably very few, and most of those probably will be cometary debre, and notice how the cometary bacteria that maybe do get down to mars surface obviously don't take over the planet's atmosphere; hence, they don't survive.
There's plenty more to say, but I've got to go.
I do beleive I mentioned something about Stuart Kauffman's work; somehow that has slipped out of the discussion.
I have alway's said how Sagan's "Cosmos" is an underrated general science book amongst the scientific community; however, the comet theory is NOT the main theory of the origin of earthy life. Are those really your main references to this theory? If so, I can see where you are going wrong.
I'm going to at least give a hint here. Back in the day's of classical thermodynamics, entropy indicated everything decay's, yet the universe is ordering itself. One point anybody who actually carefully looked at the theory of thermodynamics points out is that entropy indicates everything decay's only in closed systems to energy and matter. Clearly, life is not a closed system. It took a hundred years for Ilya Prigogine to work out non-equilibrium thermodynamics and win a nobel prize for it. As he say's, untill we had chaos theory to analyse stable non-equilibrium states, we could not. Everything else is Stuart Kauffman's. Actually, I am recently excited by some further work along the lines of Stanley Miller's which is similar to what S. Kauffman's work indicates. I need to go find that copy I made from Scientific American again . . . .
The comet origin's to life theory is the main one you heard of? That theory is a stretch brought on by those who were looking for anything other than trying to figure out how life works; it is hardly the major theory to life's origin's.
Despite our agreement that we must go to mars and explore it to confirm or deny theories, your idea has one failing; the mars microbes would not be martians! They would be earthlings!