The challenge of good scientific writing is to get one's message across in as concise a way as possible. Anyone who writes rambling research papers knows what to expect from the reviewers. I used to review papers and it was incredible what nonsense came past me. It wasn't that the scientific content was bad, it was just unreadable. Bishadi, you have a potentially large audience for your ideas here...but you have got to work on your presentation.
Seems you are as week as i thought try a little wiki before (even for kids) to help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy "The Gibbs free energy is the maximum amount of non-expansion work which can be extracted from a closed system or this maximum can be attained only in a completely reversible process. When a system changes from a well-defined initial state to a well-defined final state, the Gibbs free energy ΔG equals the work exchanged by the system with its surroundings, less the work of the pressure forces, during a reversible transformation of the system from the same initial state to the same final state" it is used to share a conveyance or transfer of potential that cannot be defined in chemistry as potential difference it is a resonance (light upon mass) that conveys between points in time d/t without a loss (an entropy buster) case in point, if it happens for a blip of a nano second, then the 2nd law is moot!
makes sense as my first paper was a physics framework to convey a neural exchange between synaptic juction; i was 16 years old.... (in 82 ..no one used such concepts to convey a biological system) the drawing were done by hand but at least someone followed the theorem as they noticed the premise suggested energy was em upon mass versus a potential (ionized) difference. The answer i recieved was that a photon cannot be slowed..... too busy reading most of the time, these forums are to read items that perhaps i had not and i comment..... as well we all know a bunch of people read these forums and like my travels around the country, i love to share and no one has a clue where it is coming from... but the youngsters will have ideas to work with and them seeds are what i prefer planting at this point if i wanted to be 'noticed' be certain i would be but thanks as it seems you have a genuine care to observe knowledge If you want something real easy and pretty finite; observe the polaritonics frame, that will be the new arena of technological (chips) developments such that the paramaters will not be binary; just like dna is NOT binary a combination of the state (energy), the structures and sequence and if you are interested in the dna sequencing, check out the publication from Sanchez and Grau (cuba) http://www.scivee.tv/user/robersy
No, I am neither "week" (you illiterate dummy!) nor weak. I know exactly what it is and provided a very stripped-down, brief but accurate description. And the rest of what you said only serves to display your gross ignorance. You've got absolute nothing with this crack-pot idea of yours and should go back to washing dishes where you belong.
thanks as now we found something for you to do but your integrity limits you usability in a scientific arena let's just let your ignorance speak for itself as if GFE is 'heat' released? Heat? Shall we open up a thread on 'heat' too? I guess it is magical stuff coming from chemical reactions, right?
Sometimes when a seed is planted it must be watered and the surrounding soil weeded, if the seed is to grow to its potential. Do you want to make another effort, from a different perspective, of explaining your idea?
i garden too items are posted; weeds limit the exposure of light and nutrient. weeds place 'doubt' of life by blocking the sun, drinking the water and pissing in the soil; with stupidity. notice the monkeys casting doubt are not sharing evidence (current) but attach in ad hominen manors about me as a person Nothing of 'good' to support life........but they live with soil in their shorts You have enough from me on this site for a half dozen nobels if that is what you seek..... this thread was to share a fact; LIFE ABUSES ENTROPY! Based in a chemistry heading, sharing that the energy upon the mass is the life of the mass, that progresses and soon you can learn the mechanics of that 'intent' What did you learned so far? Or better still; if mass associates to sustain life; what is the life of the mass? What is 'heat' between the exchange of mass? What is that 'stuff'? What is energy? When you begin to see how the association of mass and energy actually works, then to understanding 'life' itself will begin to unfold for you... otherwise, no more crap about what i do not know.... if you have material information that can provide an insight that perhaps i may not know, then share it............... otherwise, get off my toes; i am enjoying a morning stroll..... observing the environment, planting seeds!
Bishadi Have you read Hubert P. Yockey's series of papers in the Journal of Theoretical Biology (early to late 1970's)? If not, you should, because they add some support to your ideas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Yockey
is this his quote I agree with his statement as chemistry is a joke to describe living structures.. ie.... have you ever heard of a proton pump between the walls of an organellas? Read a bit on that with a physics mindset... its a joke! anyway.... working on fw other items, if you have a specific paper of his, perhaps share what specifically is illustrated
Bishadi, I am trying to carry on a mature discussion with you. I suspect you may be saying something quite interesting. However, your particular writing style is difficult for me to follow. That is why I am asking you repeat things, perhaps in a different way. It is not helpful to be told "You have enough from me on this site for a half dozen nobels if that is what you seek" That is rather dismissive and comes across as rude, even if that is not what you intended. Perhaps you have provided enough for a dozen Nobel prizes, but I have not understood what you are saying. So please help me out here. I especially found this statement quite offensive. "if you have material information that can provide an insight that perhaps i may not know, then share it............... otherwise, get off my toes." I do not see how I am stepping on your toes. I am politely trying to understand your thesis and you are throwing sand in my face. I shall continue to try to understand your meaning, but I ask again that you respond in a polite and focused way. Thank you in advance. This is a catchy headline, but not very scientific. Do you mean that life acts against the Second Law? This seems to be your intent, but I would like to confirm that. Sorry. I have read and reread this many times and it makes no sense at all. Could you rephrase it, perhaps breaking it down into shorter sentences. I do not recall saying a single thing about you not knowing anything. Throughout I have been at pains to try to understand what you do know and what you believe. You need to try to meet me half way. Thank you.
Sorry Bishadi, you are on your own on this one. All I know is that Yockey made a superb case, in a top journal, that self-replicating, functional systems could not arise from a primaeval molecular soup. I remember this because it was of great interest to me in my undergrad biochem days, and went against most of the thinking at that time.
Manifestations of Entropy create larger ordered systems Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ...even heat. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
this 'i' reacts to what is observed, if you are suggesting your posts are of intelligent inquiry i beg to differ 100% correct! by putting a phrase to the logic; living structures abuse the 2nd law; 'life abuses entropy'..... and the example at the very opening of the thread shares basic common sense that proves the statement beyond just being speculative the life of mass, is the energy upon the mass. the energy is em such that to splash the pond, the pond is not the observed life of the splash. Same with living structures; the energy is the life upon the mass. and when the life is gone the mass is pretty much 'dead weight'.... so to observe base structures and observe the energy as the purposed entity called 'life', then the process of how em increases its potential by attritions and the continuous 'progression' of mass entangelement to support the 'intent' of potential increase, shares that the energy itself does not equilibriate by law... Half way? Then neutrality is warranted, such that neither has laws to hold as true. if i had 10000 atoms in an absolute vaccum and zero gravity and BEC type cold; what would cause them to associate? if one line item of em was sent into the mass; what is the most likely action to occur?
i thought i read that before; dejavu but if i take a soup of sperm and a soup of eggs and test tube the soup together and then place in a womb, that soup will often do what? Perhaps 'grow,' instead of equilibriate? and even as Yockey shares a model based in current paradigm but we can all see life, evolution and structures assemble from 'soup'... (without a microscope, its just soup) to suggest life will not come from base matter and energy is a creationary scope and any person of depth can see, that since today's accepted paradigm will not allow a progression by the intent of life (2Lot), then no wonder them creationist still have grounds to oppose evolution. case in point; creationist can prove mathematically that life cannot evolve within the current physics of today. so the sciences describe observable evidence but cannot tune in the math and the creationist have been able to maintain that possibility of a non-local cause, since the sciences cannot substantiate the process because of laws so if the math was perfected, then the knowledge could be understood and taught in schools irregardless to beliefs because the progression is actually the true law of nature, and nothing can stop the evolution of knowledge........... either.
My posts are genuine efforts to understand what the thrust of your thesis is. I am intrigued by Stuart Kaufmann's suggestions that there may be a fourth Law of thermodynamics that relates to systems that are far from equilibrium. I am trying to determine if your thesis is parallel to this in any way, contrary to it, or a quite separate thing entirely. I continue to address you politely and you continue to be rude in return. Do you feel your impolite approach is reasonable? What is unintelligent about my posts? I can accept that they are ignorant. Of course they are. I am ignorant of what you mean precisely. I am trying very hard to eliminate that ignorance. So, far you are not helping very much. Can you please explain what you mean by "is the energy upon the mass". This is unfamiliar phraseology, yet seems to be a central expression of your thoughts. What do you mean by it?
I think Bishadi is using some sort of heuristic algorithm to select 'significant' terms and string them together, so it's like trying to communicate with a computer program (which might have a few bugs in it). Consider the often inappropriate prepositional phrases, the inconsistent use of verb forms. I think the algorithm could do with some tweaking.
to comprehend what is being shared then read as not a one of you punks commenting are worth my time combining the 3 branches of knowledge into a comprehensible scope so the next generations have a chance beyond what the complacent accept is why i do what i do; no other reason this whole thread is sharing information that the whole of the globe is seeking but you punks simply want to talk about my good looks and endearing capacity to articulate within norms this shares what i am all about, like it, don't like it............ i could give a shit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to suggest life will not come from base matter and energy is a creationary scope and any person of depth can see, that since today's accepted paradigm will not allow a progression by the intent of life (2Lot), then no wonder them creationist still have grounds to oppose evolution. case in point; creationist can prove mathematically that life cannot evolve within the current physics of today. so the sciences describe observable evidence but cannot tune in the math and the creationist have been able to maintain that possibility of a non-local cause, since the sciences cannot substantiate the process because of laws so if the math was perfected, then the knowledge could be understood and taught in schools irregardless to beliefs because the progression is actually the true law of nature, and nothing can stop the evolution of knowledge........... either >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you have nothing to assist the progression or evolution of knowledge; caring for the children, our future........................ then you lost my attention
So, in a word - or a few words - you are yet another, arrogant, self-deluded asshole with limited communication skills, an ego inversely proportional to your intellect, with nothing but condemnation for those who are vastly more intelligent, knowledgeable and useful than you, who has a defective, poorly explored and developed wild speculation which your are incapable of articulating. That is probably just as well, since even properly articulated vomit is still vomit. I suspected as much. Your last post simply confirmed it. We've got another baby here guys. I'm surprised it took 200+ post before I noticed the stench.
