An Idea

[Profpat]

Remember according to Einstein, a German bar maid should be able to understand the theory. After reading Einstein direct or translated, and not his interpreters, I find E=m^2, warped space, time dilation understandable. Feynman I believe paraphrased that to a 5th grader, and his diagrams surely made QED understandable. I think the simpest explanation is the correct explanation. At least to my satisfaction, which is what I'm seeking. Points expanding to lines (strings, distance), going perpendicular (quarks, area), combining 3 quarks (proton, volume), projecting an electron (atom, hypervolume) is the simplest.
I was able to sum up my entire GUT in one sentence. All logical, mathematical, simple and understandable. Amen! Time for a beer.

[Profpat]

Somebody call?

Something special in response to your observations about testosterone. I've done some field research on the typical male response to fabric and texture, especially denim......

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...oid=1441163476



Enjoy.......

Thanks for the link lw. I was just trying to explain why men are fixated on a pretty women's face

[melanie]

And here is SOMETHING for my friend lw. I heard today on CNN that man is hard wired to look at a pretty woman's face.

They suspect it is due to the 10x the level of testosterone that man has over women.
However as soon as the woman passes we forget and move on. Let's hear it for evolution guys.

I give you Brooke Burke.

The ''body'' care only for sex and food....

Intelligence, at it's optimum prime, if you ask me...

As for beauty, nature knows what it is doing, as you have suggested before Pat.

Evolution...bring it on ......

[labelwench]

Thanks for the link lw. I was just trying to explain why men are fixated on a pretty women's face

But of course, Sir.

Fascinating to observe that a pretty face always looks even more attractive when framed by a plunging neckline, lol, which shows it (the face) to it's best advantage.

Relax, guys.

It's a little known fact, that prior to Einstein, the Theory of Relativity was discovered by a German Barmaid.

Not quite the theory as Einstein portrayed it, but it has withstood the test of time.

The theory is that men, when in proximity to beer and cute, smiling barmaids, are relatively easy to part from their money.

Of course, the lot here at the forum, being hard core scientists, would not fall into the test group that such research was performed on?

To quote the old cowboy, "I spent most of my money on whiskey and women. The rest, I just wasted....."

[Bogie]

Hi Bogie;

While no one has seen a photon, the below model is my favorite of a photon. Notice it's electric field and the corresponding perpendicular magnetic moment. Thus giving it L,W,H, though it is not spherical it is still a 2 dimensional transverse wave. I think solving the paradox of it's wave/particle duality.

Feel free to post your views and criticize (constructively) mine on this thread. Just don't call me dumb or ignorant or other derogatory name. Not that I'm not ignorant, it's just I do like hearing it.

Yes, there is that . Technically light sometimes behaves as particles and sometimes as waves. According to my buddy Penrose in The Emperor’s New Mind, “An individual particle [photon] behaves in a wavelike way entirely on its own; and different alternative possibilities open to a [single] particle can sometimes cancel one another out!”

Also when one slit is open the photons act as particles and when two slits are open they act as waves. If single photons are shot through two slits they seem to split and interfere with each other as if the single photon passed through both slits. If a detector is placed near one lsit the photons act as particles through both slits. It is magic .

In my post about spherical wave fronts I intended to make it clear that the light source or point of origin was a star or some distant object in space serving as the energy source and sending light toward us. I would consider light from such a source to be isotropic and incoherent thus being observed as the same intensity at any point on an enclosing sphere. I confused the issue by repeated reference to quanta and discrete packets of energy without stipulating that those quanta and packets were emitted incoherently and therefore the wave front from a single emission across the entire surface of the star would be seen as isotropic from any distance and any angle. It was not my best post.

[Bogie]

Remember according to Einstein, a German bar maid should be able to understand the theory. After reading Einstein direct or translated, and not his interpreters, I find E=m^2, warped space, time dilation understandable. Feynman I believe paraphrased that to a 5th grader, and his diagrams surely made QED understandable. I think the simpest explanation is the correct explanation. At least to my satisfaction, which is what I'm seeking. Points expanding to lines (strings, distance), going perpendicular (quarks, area), combining 3 quarks (proton, volume), projecting an electron (atom, hypervolume) is the simplest.
I was able to sum up my entire GUT in one sentence. All logical, mathematical, simple and understandable. Amen! Time for a beer.

Amen to that!

[Profpat]

Obviously, the E. coli cell itself is the product of billions of years of evolution, so it is complex and intricate -- much more complex than the first living cells. Even so, the first living cells had to possess:

• A cell wall
• The ability to maintain and expand the cell wall (grow)
• The ability to process "food" (other molecules floating outside the cell) to create energy
• The ability to split itself to reproduce

Otherwise, it is not really a cell and it is not really alive. To try to imagine a primordial cell with these capabilities spontaneously creating itself, it is helpful to consider some simplifying assumptions. For example:

• Perhaps the original energy molecule was very different from the mechanism found in living cells today, and the energy molecules happened to be abundant and free-floating in the environment. Therefore, the original cell would not have had to manufacture them.
• Perhaps the chemical composition of the Earth was conducive to the spontaneous production of protein chains, so the oceans were filled with unimaginable numbers of random chains and enzymes.
• Perhaps the first cell walls were naturally forming lipid spheres, and these spheres randomly entrapped different combinations of chemicals.
• Perhaps the first genetic blueprint was something other than DNA.

These examples do simplify the requirements for the "original cell," but it is still a long way to spontaneous generation of life. Perhaps the first living cells were completely different from what we see today, and no one has yet imagined what they might have been like. Speaking in general terms, life can only have come from one of two possible places:

• Spontaneous creation - Random chemical processes created the first living cell.
• Supernatural creation - God or some other supernatural power created the first living cell.

And it doesn't really matter if aliens or meteorites brought the first living cell to earth, because the aliens would have come into existence through either spontaneous creation or supernatural creation at some point -- something had to create the first alien cells.
Most likely, it will be many years before research can completely answer any of the three questions mentioned here. Given that DNA was not discovered until the 1950s, the research on this complicated molecule is still in its infancy, and we have much to learn.

FYI:

The above is from How Stuff Works website and I believe presents interesting information on the requirements of the first "life" cell.

[Profpat]

From icsu website I believe an UN organization.
This isn't going to be simple unless you vote for #2 above.

[Profpat]

And I think equally amazing is that life is everywhere on this planet. In the oceans, on and in dirt, in the air, in the coldest of spots, in the hottest of spots, on the highest of spots, in the lowest of spots. Indeed I think the Earth itself is a living organism, and probably is Eden.

I don't think man can kill the Earth, rather the other way around.

Hell 210 trillion life forms on and in me alone. AMAZING!!!

[Profpat]

I don't think we are in Kansas anymore Toto. IMO I am able to explain ~100% of our universe using points, lines, circles, spheres,
and hyperspheres. And then came LIFE, so much for simplicity and Occam's Razor.

For me I'm going say God did it and have another beer.

P.S. Sounds good to ME Pat, I agree, same here.
That is me, myself and I in agreement.

ME being mass/energy, the body. PHYSICAL
I being the intelligence the mind.....MENTAL
Self being the soul (love) the spirit.EMOTIONAL