first, it may be my fault; i was the one that borrowed the 'peanut gallery' analogy from madonna, and one of the other posters started using it. second, it is cute to see the 'peanut gallery' turning another thread into a conversation on my good looks ie.... an evolution on 2 points
You forgot to put "good" in quotes. lol A better analogy would be someone who is so unattractive that it is distracting, and you can't pay attention to what they are saying. That is what your spelling and punctuation and grammar are like. So if you want your message to get attention you're going to have to put on some lipstick or something. In other words, at least make some kind of effort to spell common words correctly. I mean, this site does have a built in spell checker. Does it really take that much effort to use it?.
Again, it depends. Another forum I frequent has a lot of people who don't speak English as a first language and have a better command of English than Bishadi; certainly not perfect, but they can at least get basic punctuation and spelling basic words pretty well. There's a difference between typos, some minor word misuse, and other relatively minor but persistent screwups and chronic and continuous language mangling. I imagine you do more minor stuff, Bishadi engages in rampant linguistic abuse. And in cases where someone is not a native English speaker, I tend to give someone a lot more slack. I figured you weren't a native English speaker, so I didn't really comment on it, since you do type a lot better than even a lot of native English speakers. You also aren't saying you're an über-scientist while misspelling basic science terms. If every instrument is out of tune, the song is going to suffer, though. Also significantly true, but there's a point reached where an editor would basically just be writing their own text to make up for the severe errors, such as would happen if Bishadi had an editor.
It's a good link, but this part they got it wrong. The early cells were chemotrophs, photosynthesis having evolved eons later. The early oceans were frankly a chemical soup with a consistancy of a chicken broth. Hence the early microorganisms would scavenge all these energy-rich nutrients from their environment. It is also true as mentioned here that it isn't a mystery where the first DNA came from (RNA world) but rather what came first, the RNA or the protein, the real chicken or the egg question? If the RNA came first, then it would have needed to adopt a particular shape which would allow it to act as an enzyme to synthesize enzymatic proteins whose function would be to aid in the replication process of the original RNA molecule. This could have happened when two separate sections on the RNA molecule would carry complementary sequences allowing the RNA chain to fold upon itself. A single RNA molecule may have carried several such complementary sequences endowing it with a specific shape featuring kinks and such, that would have a reactive site where proteins would be synthesized --->>> think ribosomal RNA. If proteins came first, which later synthesized their first RNA molecule, then in order to preserve and evolve their structures, they would have interacted with clay molecules. Clays have the ability to replicate their structures over and over. If some such clays could have attracted some protein to their surface which in turn would have facilitated a more efficient replication of the clay structure, this would have resulted in an increased general abundance of both such clays and proteins --->>> primitive natural selection. Such clays would quite likely have contained pyrite (fool's gold) which readily binds proteins and was quite abundant due to massive volcanic activities. Moreover, life in much probability has evolved several times over on Earth. It would get wiped out now and then by gigantic impact events on early Earth that would boil and sterilize oceans. These were asteroids 100 miles and more across, and perhaps as big as 500 miles. Last such impact took place 3.9 billion years ago, and the current life on Earth is usually dated to 3.8 billion years.
Before the cells came the RNA, and what it looked like, you need to peer at the highly conserved ribosomal RNA, the modern day's primordial RNA.
what a cool post. Have you ever wondered about the perpendicular planes held to the helix axis? Have you ever wondered why? What are the fields (energy) upon them structures?
What in your opinion is the significance of the perpendicular arrangement of nucleosides to the phosphate backbone?
the same significants to the perpendicular planes of em itself. ie... the energy is what is progressing, the mass is just the vehicle. for example; when you are alive, its all the same mass but when dead, the processes have just stopped. I see the abiogenesis and evolution as just a progression of the energy system, like a flame, within an environment. It is why the perpendicular planes are so important. To me, the 4 structures to a gene are like the based colors of a color palette in which the remaning colors can be created from the 4. The protiens just carry the 'energy' in wavelengths
That's an interesting analogy, but it seems to me like the comparison with the binary code is still more accurate, relevant and applicable, since in both you're dealing with distinct quantities, and the range of possibilities increases with each level of organization. Consider that you only get three secondary colours when you combine the original three primary ones, whereas you get 64 theoretically possible amino acids (20 in practice) using the 4 original bases. If you were to blend colours together by allowing for adjustments in quantity of each primary colour, then you wind up with an infinite range of possibilities, whereas you can still only get 64 theoretically possible amino acids no matter how you recombine the bases. The binary code would operate in a similar manner --->>> 2**3 = 8; DNA code --->>> 4**3 = 64. So from the mathematical perspective, the two systems are very similar, whereas no such mathematical analogy exists with respect to how you obtain secondary colours or the full spectrum from primary colours.
But how many protiens? I have 10 fingers and with a piano, how many tunes can i make? And no math on abiogenesis in the schools, either. The energy is the specimen!!!!!!!
Yeah, you can get an infinite variety of proteins just like blending colours, so on that point you would be right.
This thread is just to funny. For someone that's worked in research for 30 years and wrote a thesis at young age, Bishadi has a strange understanding of the scientific process. He should know that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to back them up. That's why the science community is very skeptical about the neutrino findings, and way more tests need to be made to get it accepted. So if you, Bishadi, put forth extraordinary ideas you should back them up with research ( preferable from a reputable source and peer reviewed).
So the concept i would ask "any" to observe is; could the energy be the specimen to observe? What would that 'energy' be? hint: it aint the 'speed' of a particle!
It isnt his fault that you and the scientific community are ignorant of just how special he is. He doesn't need to provide "research" or "evidence". It isn't his fault we cannot grasp his genius.
what's so strange? I represented an idea (at a young age). It was not observed and the response was 'per relativiety, a photon cannot be slowed'. Which meant, they observed (Cal Tech) observed the math but could not comprehend the scope. not my fault. kind of like who comprehended copernicus, newton, eistein..... on the first pass. and if you are in this section, read all the "EVIDENCE" being shared the comprehension of 'evolution' to the molecular level is far more important than the idiots trying to define a neutrino ie... why is the golden ratio so important to an evolution? read the science section. i put forth more evidence in this section than you may ever see in one place (unless you perhaps google bishadi and find it all over the place) The difference is, i represent the comprehension in a paradigm shift of versus the complacent beliefs of the physics 'community'. ie... evidence is what makes the physicists appear stupid. For example; the math predicts a Big Bang and how the motion of mass operates in the universe. Then Hubble shared EVIDENCE that the galaxy arms, actually DO NOT rotate as proposed via the math. So then a NEW CREATION of dark energy and dark matter was incorporated to the math to correct the errors of the math. Bottom line; the benchmarks of the core BELIEFS of how 'energy' or clearly what energy is, is incorrect! I know EXACTLY where the problem is; 'walking the planck' (plancks constant, binding the second law of equilibrium to the direction of d/t (speed of light underswriting the energy of a particle as the energy of 'h' (plancks constant), that is the single greatest error in all physics. I have known the math for decades and figured the error out simply by combining disciplines at an age before i realized what i bumped into. What i have learned since is the problem is not that the 'community' does not want to know, it is that the 'system' wants to get 'paid for it'. And i would just as soon, bury it until the next generations can focus on being responsible with the 'transistion' of mass, energy, time. ie... E=mc2 was the single most irresponsible publicated piece of theorem the earth ever allowed to be published. If people had any sense, they can calculate EXACTLY which wavelength to isolate even the simple isotope of U-235 and filter as much as they need. For example a nuclear reactions is as easy as slapping two golf ball sized amounts of mass together, if you know what and how to isolate the mass. Heck, i drew up plans for a parabolic emitter and could fry a living form before i was old enough to drink. The simple magnetron was proof that i was right. (it is what makes your microwave work) But what few comprehend, it is the energy itself that is the specimen to be observing and the best discipline to compehend this FACT is within electrical theory and how 'radio' works. (ie.... even tesla knew the 'trinity' (math of the three)) (his harmonics work, proved that to me) My point is, I aint trying to make myself 'feel good. I already know what is real and until things change, i have no problem with living just the way i am...... i would just as soon take what i know to the grave rather then put the math on the table so morons can build sh't that we dont need! With the current mathematical capabilities, most every ailment can be dealt with. What needs to change is how the energy (life of mass) is observed. Simple as that. ie... a paradigm shift!
The amount of time from the origin of life to the first eukaryotic cell (cell with a nucleus) was greater than the amount of time from the first eukaryotic cell to the first human being. That's because most of the complexity is within the cell, not within the greater organism. The origin question is unsolved, but what's necessary for life is a self-replicating molecule. Currently RNA is the prime candidate.
Oh i'm sorry I will search for that EVIDENCE in this and other thread. I assume you provided all the evidence needed to verify your findings. So there is a world conspiracy among all Physicist to keep your new truth out?? And you won't publish your truly important and enlightening theory and the math behind it so no one can make (*)(*)(*)(*) we don't need ? I'm sorry that i didn't recognize your genius, i'm just not capable of understanding the world as you do with your truly special mind.
atta boy has nothing to do with me..... Heck i claim the sky aint blue. It's black with little white dots about half the time. At least you can read. Actually, each and everyone can understand, it is just that some idiots require other idiots to tell them when something is correct, versus just doing the work themselves. Get the point? You dont need me!
What in precise terms do you presume is erroneous about the Planck's constant or the equation E = hf? According to this notion, the energy of a particle or a photon is NOT directly proportional to its velocity, but rather to its frequency. That's why X-rays are more energetic than infrared.
Now, it is a daunting question concerning how come the outer stars in a galaxy move just as fast as the inner ones in clear violation of the Kepler Laws (Copernicus was actually first to observe that an object sitting on a more distant orbit will move along its orbit slower than a more proximate object, but Kepler put this into an equation). But then again, if you look at the innermost stars orbiting in galactic cores, they do obey Kepler Laws and do move much faster, at millions of kilometers per hour. An explanation for this was put forward by Fritz Zwicky, who did not try to redefine the fundamental principles of physics, but only proposed there may be something sitting at the galactic peripheries which causes the outer galactic stars to attain higher velocities. This something we cannot see, as it is not illuminated. It could be a dark matter. It could be countless smaller black holes. Or it could be something like a very diffuse hot gas which was discovered fairly recently to occupy the space between galaxies in galactic clusters. The only thing to be said with certainty is that the mass in a galaxy is not so much focused in its center, but is more spread out throughout, along its radius. It may take another Chandrasekhar to solve this mystery.
Af=c but that is not the problem. The quantization of k to the wave vector is a consequence of' 'c' to define the em wave The problem is 3 fold. a..... the S (direction to equilibrate), b..... the area (size) is reduced to a particle (d/t; of the f and amplitude). The 2 are evidenced as independent fields just as electric and magnetic fields are related but independent (evidence in basic electrical theory). c..... the environment is not held relative ie.....to comprehend how a resonator (occillation) actually works not only in physics but also in evidence, you cannot bind the d/t 'state of energy' to a direction but must retain the scope of the size and environment (associated fields). The error of plancks constant is the single scope to a direction in time (state of energy) to equilibrate which he based on the black body distribution and entropy but HE never considered what is causing the 'distribution' (no value held to the environment/mass/energy relation) That is an incorrect statement The 'constant' is "unitary" to the operator. (directional) It convoludes the area (feilds) and amplitude of the fields as no longer relative, when in fact they are directly as the density is directly proportional to the E (energy) itself. For example; a hot and cold measurement is relative to its environment just as the frequency and amplitude are relative to the energy of a per se 'photon' (unit of energy) in an enviornment (area) To understand the fields is how to combine the concept of 'space/time' to the state of energy. The idiocracy of the QM model is easy to identify on many fronts (ie... angular momentum of a particle) but reducing the energy to a particle unit (quanta) without retaining the fields and environment as relative, is just stupid! Mass is not a fixed particle. Never has been and to retain a focus on the energy as the specimen, then the state of energy of a field can be represented to include the frequency, wavelength (amplitide) and the environment (fields= space/time (d/t)) ie... the environment is the medium (there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum anywhere between 2 points of mass, anytime; postulate)
kind of like a hurricane and the rotating storms that are individual but combine to make the hurricane but like most, DID not entertain the concept that the mass, within the arms are themselves associated no such thing as black holes (dense enough to colapse upon itself: dont exist) lots of mass, within galaxies that is not 'lit' (planets etc,,,) wow.... how about you figure it out with an idea? The neighboring mass is associating (entangled) by the exchange of energy between their points. For example, if you have 2 magnetic can you drag one across the table with the other?
