Are Viruses Alive? chat & forums.

Posted In Forum:

Home

MyForums

Show ALL Forums

Author

Thread: Are Viruses Alive?

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 71 (view)

Are Viruses Alive? Posted: 11/24/2009 3:07:26 PM
When you make a claim in a report or a paper, you must CITE YOUR SOURCES so that they know where you got that information from. I'm sorry you're quite right...as you made the first claim. I got my definition straight from scientists who have a PHD in biology. Could you cite ALL these biologists please, which should be a good one since there is no unequivocal definition of life. Once you have done that you can cite all other references used. 'everyone who has a PHD in biology accepts evolution' ...citation needed 'RNA strands did'...citation needed 'We can create RNA strands in the lab'...citation needed ...If you can't then maybe you can extend me the same favour...stfu By the way, I'm not handing in a paper here, in fact I do feel like I'm teaching you and you need to do a little research, I'm just posting on a dating forum...Americans, sheesh So cite your source that astrobiologists believe viruses are alive or stfu lol I did, I knew you would be struggling to read it...pmsfl

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 69 (view)

Are Viruses Alive? Posted: 11/24/2009 10:38:08 AM
EVERY biologist ive spoken to says that viruses are not alive. You need to provide evidence that astrobiologists believe they are alive. 'I need to provide'... ...you know most graduates soon find out that universities don't spoon feed you information like they do at school. It is for you to go away and do the research, ok, considering your still a student here you go. http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/question/?id=5135 Nasa now ok, as you are going to have trouble ploughing through this I have highlighted the relevant piece What domain and kingdom are viruses placed in? Viruses don't fit within the usual classification system for life. Indeed there has long been a dispute whether a virus is really a form of life at all, since they require a living cell as host in order to metabolize and reproduce. However, most astrobiologists today do consider viruses to be alive , and the NASA Astrobiology Institute supports a Focus Group on Viruses. They are not included in the three taxonomic domains of Eukarya, Bacteria and Archaea, however, and we don't know whether the first viruses came before or after the first bacteria. You can find a discussion of this taxonomy at http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-01zm.html. Just like to point out one blatant error in some people’s thinking, if a virus isn’t alive, how can it evolve…being just a chemical compound…does iron ‘evolve’ into rust.

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 66 (view)

Are Viruses Alive? Posted: 11/24/2009 7:29:52 AM
I got my definition straight from scientists who have a PHD in biology. - Viruses are not alive because you must be a cell to be alive. (Or at least have one cell) If you are not a scientist / biologist, you should not argue against this point. According to astrobiologists...a virus is life. Do you know how evolution works? Are you a scientist? Do you have a PHD in evolutionary biology? There is a reason why everyone who has a PHD in biology accepts evolution and many who don't have a PHD, don't accept it. So lets check to see what degree you have... Wrong...again! Oh woops... No smarts. woops...believing everything you read again...FORUM TROLL I am not even going to copy and paste anymore of your comments as the simply aren't worthy of my time...

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 69 (view)

If Teleportation = Death, Would You Do It? Posted: 11/24/2009 7:09:51 AM
I guess your definition again might be that you do die. However, I have had this discussion with people about replacing bits on a car, for example, if I replace the bonnet/hood of my car, then I replace the wheels, then wings... but keeping all the removed parts, at which point does the car stop becoming my car and a new car, and the collection of spares I have saved is the car. Don't forget we shed cells all day every day, we are not made up of the same 'stuff' we were born to. So if teleportation means breaking down matter into energy then moving that energy at the speed of light then converting it back into matter then it is no different to saying you are not the same person you were 7 years ago. All your cells have been replaced with ‘new’ cells created from the energy signature. Now someone said earlier that this is against the laws of nature and Heisenberg uncertainty principle, well that’s not entirely correct. New quantum physics research may show that all matter has a wave front and that we are in all places in the universe at the same time. It is only by more probability than any other that we are where we are. If you look into a mirror, you can see yourself reflected in an infinite amount of positions…I could move myself into infinite different positions and still see myself…there isn’t an infinite amount of photons though. So the only explanation is that the photon gets to your eye with the highest probability, difficult to explain but it’s as if the photon knows where to end up and calculates its path. Now if you can work out what makes that probability function and therefore change the probability of you being somewhere else rather than where you are…you will end up there. Ok enough witchery for now, your analogy for moving files on a computer is wrong!...When you move a file it is only the information on the file allocation table that is changed not the data information itself. When you then delete the file, it is only the file allocation that is deleted, as far as the computer is concerned then the file no longer exists, the data however, is still there so using some clever software, the data can be recovered before it is written over and a new file recreated. Only if you reformat that sector where the data is kept will you actually erase the data. This is the same in QM, change your file allocation (moving the file to a different folder)...ie your position in space and you will end up there, the 'data' remains in the same place on the harddrive.

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 88 (view)

The double slit experiment (the elephant in the room). Posted: 11/24/2009 3:57:45 AM
Most people working in the field do the same thing. The only difference, however, is that they try to develop some kind of conclusion, instead of simply saying "well, we can't 'know' so we can't have any conclusions about it." One is constructive. The other is pointless. I think to even come up with something that resembles a conclusion would be ‘pointless’, fruitless at best. There is no way you can rational this with Newtonian physics/mechanics, we simply don’t have the language. For example, evidence shows that not just sub-atomic particles but real matter also has a wave particle duality. What does that mean, well according to experiment, if you have to move from 1 room to another and there are 2 doors in which to choose, wave particle duality says you go through both but it’s only when you have arrived, has the path been chosen. Does this make any sense, not to me it doesn’t, how can you come up with conclusions to that. Very few people dare give an explanation outside of a mathematical one because any Newtonian explanation leads to absurdity.

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 64 (view)

Are Viruses Alive? Posted: 11/24/2009 3:30:53 AM
You can't just say that a virus never evolves if 4 billion years later, it's still a virus, and not a donkey. For the same reason this thread came about with disagreement's on a definition of 'life' and 'alive', I disagree on your use of 'evolution', you see 4 billion years ago, a donkey was something like a virus, infact something a lot simpler. Again, you have also missed the point of what was being said, to go from something that resembles a virus, to a donkey, takes more than simple mutations... Shortly after extinction events, the variation in life 'explodes', random mutations wouldn't account for this, maybe it has something to do with being 'random'?...So are you more evolved (albeit micro-evolved) than a black African? or do you just have a different gene mutations? Macro Evolution is when an organism changes into something radically different (over a long period of time.) This is more theoretical, and while Macro-Evolution is pretty accepted, it's never been outright observed. Even YOU accept this but still argue the toss...maybe it's because you're American and half my age.

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 77 (view)

The double slit experiment (the elephant in the room). Posted: 11/22/2009 1:35:08 PM
particles in QM are points with no dimension. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/18187 When people talk about 'particles' behaving like 'waves' the classic demonstration is with photons or electrons because their 'mass' is so small interference is very pronounced, however, interference can be demonstrated in neutrons (2000 times heavier than electrons), atoms, and molecules (I2 which is 254 times that of a neutron). Now it can be demonstrated in biomolecules The Vienna team, now jointly led by Zeilinger and Markus Arndt, has performed a new experiment on tetraphenylporphyrin molecules. These biological molecules are present in chlorophyll and haemoglobin.

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 23 (view)

The lightyear-long rod problem Posted: 11/22/2009 5:20:02 AM
No material is completely incompressible, there is always a ‘space’ between particles which can be compressed. What happens if you remove that space, well for example the earth would be reduced to the size of a sugar cube, if you want a bar now that is 9,460,528,410,545,436.26 meters long, you do the maths. Also, think about what IS something with no space between particles…yep, a black hole so good luck with that one.

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 68 (view)

The double slit experiment (the elephant in the room). Posted: 11/22/2009 1:12:36 AM
This is the most commonly accepted theory put forward by Richard Feynman, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation Sorry, thought it was funny. Yes I did to, I'm not adverse to using wiki to direct people to articles or use it as a base reference myself, you just have to be careful reading them as it is user compiled even more so regurgitating what they put up there. Read the rest of the post…it is a criticism of the theory put forward, hardly endorsing wiki is it, although look at the big warning wiki puts up before reading that article This article is in need of attention from an expert on the subject If that isn’t hilarious…

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 61 (view)

The double slit experiment (the elephant in the room). Posted: 11/21/2009 3:31:23 PM
I'm still struggling to find a way to visualize it with an analogy. Because that is how I manage to wrap my head around things like this. And my attempts at finding an analogy are where it beings to hurt my head. Don't even go there, this type of behaviour cannot be explained in a Newtonian manner, any attempt will just confuse an already confusing subject. What you said in your post is about right for what is understood. When a particle is fired its state is undefined as is its position. The particle can be anywhere, therefore it could be going through the other slit and could be interfering with itself, a highly unlikely probability but a probability all the same. Once we have determined where and therefore what it is (its state), there is no other probability of where else it could be (the probability of it being anywhere else is zero as it is there), its state is fixed thereon. This is the most commonly accepted theory put forward by Richard Feynman, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation the problem though is that it is a mathematical solution and not a physical or mechanical solution. As you know Scorpiomover, probabilities are always secondary numbers, produced by an underlying field of numbers, probabilities cannot be a foundational field. They therefore cannot take the place of a physical field. So, how are these probabilities generated? The inference pattern looks like this as the energy from the wave function dissipates out from the centre, the concentration or majority of impacts being centred with less at either side. You are basically seeing a 2D wave rippling out like that on a pond. Like you said, the peak of the wave giving you a bright spot and a trough a dark spot. Lincolnshiresausage…yes that horizon program is valid to this thread…see my posting 40

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 88 (view)

5th Peak District Walk - Tideswell Dale 22nd November 2009 Posted: 11/21/2009 12:44:59 PM
Sorry folks but Andy's going to have to duck out of this one though personal issues. Hope you all have a great time and the weather holds out. See you all on the dinner or another walk in the new year. Keep up the good work there Daz Andy

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 53 (view)

The double slit experiment (the elephant in the room). Posted: 11/20/2009 11:37:48 PM
No, I have as good an understanding of the subject as any other interested amateur has. But there is a saying in the QT biz...if you think you understand quantum physics, you're not trying hard enough. Funny this statement, how you can move from missing the point to thinking that means you don’t understand what happened. Then when the claim is that they have a ‘good’ understanding followed by someone who understands this isn’t ‘trying hard enough’. OK moving on, The single photon as a particle isn't interfering with anything. It's wave function, however, is interfering with itself. It's essentially passing through both detectors at once, and it's probability wave collapsing to a single photon once it reaches the detector. Yes wiki likes to give this as a theory and is an easy one to repeat however, since the wave front is still not defined mechanically, this solution is not very compelling. The wave front is and always has been defined using Huygen’s visualization. The wave is seen as a semi-circular forward transmission from every point on a line of moving photons. With a single photon, this would be a semi-circle in front of the photon. But we are never told how far this semi-circle extends, what it is composed of, or how it acts upon the field. So the explanation is wholly unsatisfactory. Secondly, once the photon has passed through the slit and which slit it goes through is determined, why then does the wave front not pass through the other slit and still create an interference pattern, it did before it was detected, why should detection change its behaviour? Don’t forget that this phenomena also happens with electrons which have a well defined mass, electric charge, etc, whereas waves do not have well defined masses etc. Oh, for scorpy's benefit, here's a reference to the double-slit experiment using electrons by Dr. Akira Tonomura. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Double-slit_experiment_results_Tanamura_2.jpg Again this is wiki for you, on the first slide it says after 10 impacts, is it me or can anyone else count 11 dots? There is also the "evolution" of scientific explanations, or "theories" to consider. Yes, but we are only outlining FACTS, new facts have made any explanation even more complex. Theories are based on these facts not the reverse. There are theories in QM to explain the facts but most have been wholly unsatisfactory. I love to reminisce about the good old days when some people theorised with no facts the Earth was flat but we have moved on from there. Most people, as can be seen even here, like the reality they live in, it’s flat and safe, and do not want to accept that it can be any different, however, it can be seen that on the very small or the very large, not all is as it seems.

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 39 (view)

The double slit experiment (the elephant in the room). Posted: 11/20/2009 8:59:50 AM
scorpiomover...you're in the UK, watch bbc iplayer http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p1fpc/Horizon_20092010_How_Long_is_a_Piece_of_String/ Alan Davies on the Horizon program shows the experiment being done there. You can see it from about 25min's into the program if you don't want to see it all. Also see here... www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/DoubleSlit/DoubleSlit.html#TwoSlitsElectrons

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 36 (view)

The double slit experiment (the elephant in the room). Posted: 11/20/2009 8:25:23 AM
We view the quasar contemporaneously like we do the interference pattern No we don't. The quasar is over 2 billion light years away. In other words, we are experience now a galaxy's active nucleus as it was 2 billion years ago. This is what makes the "observer effect" a misnomer and why it is more appropriate to refer to it as "interaction." Go have a look at this web page to understand what I am driving at. http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/observer.htm A quantum philosopher would answer that you are not seeing the star at all. The star sets up a condition that extends throughout space and time-an electromagnetic field. What you "see" as a star, is actually the result of a quantum interaction between the local field and the retina of your eye. Energy is being absorbed from the field by your eye, and the local field is being modified as a result. You can interpret your observation as pertaining to a distant object if you wish, or concentrate strictly on local field effects.

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 34 (view)

The double slit experiment (the elephant in the room). Posted: 11/20/2009 7:46:19 AM
I assure you (with quite a bit of confidence) that the "particle" doesn't care if anybody (or anything) is "looking" or not. This is the really interesting part and make sure you haven't just taken a swigg of beer before reading this. In the Sept 14 2006 issue of the research journal, Schwab and his colleagues, to cut a long story short, detected movement in particles as they were being viewed. This is known as back-action in quantum mechanics. This effect, Schwab said, is a basically quantum-mechanical phenomenon called back-action, in which the act of observing something actually gives it a nudge. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05027.html or read here http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/25905 So it is interfering with itself... So a single photon can go through 2 slits instantaneously. Lets put that into perspective. The slit is the size of a hair and separated by the width of a hair. This is enormous for the photon. So the photon behaving like a wave goes through both slits, interferes with itself to create a different landing position on the back wall each time, at which point becomes a particle again...OK and this is how it works? You really need to go look at how this experiment is performed and broaden your horizons a little, beer goggles don't work a this level. :) Dont forget that a single photon fired through the slit should just make a dot on the back wall, it cannot interfere with itself. The way an interference pattern happens is if TWO photons come together they create a peak, where they don't is a dark patch. You have to have 2 photons to create an interference pattern...it cannot do it by itself.

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 31 (view)

The double slit experiment (the elephant in the room). Posted: 11/20/2009 7:00:37 AM
You seem to be missing this by an even bigger margin...Ok lets concentrate on one thing. What is the single photon interfering with?

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 29 (view)

The double slit experiment (the elephant in the room). Posted: 11/20/2009 6:43:14 AM
I'll take that beer Why don't we then call it by its proper name?...a wavefunction that has both qualities? Thats the beauty of this, it has both these qualities UNTIL we view it. Thats the second part to all this. Once we 'view' ascertain which slit the photon has gone through, it is a particle and doesn't behave like a wave. Doesn't show a wave or an interference pattern, just a single dot on the back wall. What has our 'viewing' done to the particle to make it behave like this?

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 27 (view)

The double slit experiment (the elephant in the room). Posted: 11/20/2009 6:28:13 AM
Indeed. But if the experiment is allowed to run with one particle at a time, it shows an interference pattern. What is the 1 photon interfering with then? Edit...Sorry, I added to my previous post. Ah, interesting statement since I'm guessing you haven't been around all those 80 years to observe that evidence. No, but I read books, as do you, which is where we get our facts from We view the quasar contemporaneously like we do the interference pattern, we know it was a wave because it is behaving like one but strikes the backboard like a particle, hence we view it. Only once we view it do we deternine this So, until we observe the tree, it doesn't exist? And what makes us so special over the tree? Thats what we need to find out.

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 25 (view)

The double slit experiment (the elephant in the room). Posted: 11/20/2009 6:07:07 AM
Am I missing something… When it comes to the double slit experiment, then whether you use a steady stream of photons or a single photon at a time, you are going to get the same interference pattern in your detector. Yes you are missing something...How can 1 photon, show an interference pattern, if there is only 1 photon…(1 wave or 1 particle). In order for there to be an ‘interference’ pattern by definition there has to be something there for it to interfere with. If it was a wave you would get a wave pattern…if a particle then a particle pattern, the only way you can get an interference pattern is if 2 (TWO) photons were there, but we only fired through 1. Time and time again, we've seen what we've "known" as truth - or even best guess - not to be so, or some variation thereof. I think what you are trying to say here is our theories based on the evidence presented change over time...which is to be expected, but evidence always remains as evidence. And observing things in their natural flow doesn't really alter how things work. Apparently they do, evidence for the last 80 years or so has shown this, many theories to explain the evidence have been presented. The Universe has been getting along quite fabuosly without us and will continue to do so long after we've left the scene. How do you know this? People ask if a tree falls over and no one is there see it fall, does it make a sound...well evidence shows (metaphorically speaking) that if there is no one there, there is no tree. The photon is a wave until we view it, then it is a particle.

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 22 (view)

The double slit experiment (the elephant in the room). Posted: 11/20/2009 1:13:32 AM
Did you get the answers Scorps. Yes this is one of the weirdest things I have seen. I tried to point out in the 1=1 thread that 1 can equal anything until it is measured, only then will it fix its state(now they have gone off on some arguing tangent). Most people just say 'yea this is just an example of the double slit experiment' without fully understanding the implications. 1 photon fired at a double slit should just keep hitting the back wall repeatedly in the same spot, so why is it making a pattern as if it were being interfered with by another photon. Where is this 'other' photon coming from unless you accept that the same photon has gone through both slits at the same time, interfered with itself to create the pattern, then been detected on the back wall 'as the photon'. Only when it is detected on the back wall does it choose its state. If you try to determine which slit the photon goes through, it will chooses it's state at this point and hits the back wall in the same spot, for it to do this it has not been interfered with by another photon, therefore didn't go through both slits at the same time. Most people don’t get this, and put it down to witchery or ‘computer glitch’ even Einstein didn’t like it and struggled with it but evidence is evidence.

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 64 (view)

1=1 Is it a fact a theory or both? Posted: 11/19/2009 11:25:12 AM
∞ — = 1 ∞ Since ∞ = ∞ + ∞, then we are going to substitute the first infinity in our axiom: ∞ + ∞ ——— = 1 ∞ The next step is to split this fraction into two fractions: ∞ — ∞ + ∞ — ∞ = 1 Next, substitute the axiom twice into the equation, we get: 1 + 1 = 1 Finally, this can be rewritten as: 2 = 1 There's so many things not just wrong with this but other posts it's hardly worth starting on before it becomes a maths lesson. Here infinity plus infinity equals 2infinity which in turn equals infinity (even infintiy infinity = infinity) The bottom infinity is also 2*infinity...So 2 infinities divided by 2 infinities by your logic equals 1 If infinity over infinity quals 1 (which I'm not saying does) then 1=1 Did you put your toys away when you were young or just throw then out of the pram?

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 44 (view)

1=1 Is it a fact a theory or both? Posted: 11/19/2009 1:47:28 AM
Like I said...not many quantum mechanics here. Yes the photon behaves like a wave and a particle...thats 1=2 to begin with, hence the paradox. OK, to highlight this even more look at what happens if you only fire 1 photon at a time, repeatedly, through the slits onto a photographic plate. Over time the interference pattern will build up again. How can 1 photon interfere with itself, for the interference pattern to happen a single photon would have to go through both slits simultaneously? But here’s the really odd part, the particle only behaves like this IF we don’t observe which hole it goes through. If we set up a detector to ascertain which slit the photon went through, read "The Feynman lectures on physics Volume III", the photon only makes a dot on the photographic plate and not an interference pattern. 1 only equals 1 when it is observed, until then...

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 14 (view)

1=1 Is it a fact a theory or both? Posted: 11/18/2009 1:36:21 PM
Not many quantum mechanics round here. Young's double slit experiment clearly shows that 1 photon can be in 2 places at the same time.

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 28 (view)

Splash ! The moon has water ! Posted: 11/15/2009 6:23:43 AM
You ARE aware, are you not, that the Jovian moon Europa has been found to be covered with water ice... and even with no atmosphere, it has NOT boiled away...? See here http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/jupiter/moons/europa_atmosphere.html Comets are composed mainly of ices, yet they remain solid for tens of thousands of years. (How long has Halleys' Comet been paying a visit to our skies...? If what you say is true, then it should not exist at all In the depths of space the mean temperature is only a few degrees above absolute zero, ice will only begin to vaporise when it comes into contact with an energy source, this is why you see a ‘tail’ from the comet as it comes near to the sun. This is the water vaporising off, as it returns back off into space it begins to collect water molecules again. What I was trying to establish is that the temperature (energy available) on the moon should prevent ice from existing there as it would evaporate (thats evaporate not vanish) off into space, space is full of ice 93% of saturns rings are ice, however, temperatures on the moon are much lower than I first thought (in specific places), it was the confusion with the article that claimed that water was ‘substantial’ and 'abundant' that misslead me. And what's with this "They couldn't test for water back in 1971" stuff...? They COULD, and DID, test the rocks and regolith for water... it just wasn't done on-site - rather it was done in the lab when the astronauts returned. Well Nasa’s moon mineralogy mapper, M3 has observed water forming on many places on the moon and has been verified by other orbiters. When I posed the question why wasn’t water detected back in 1972 by say a simple tester, the reply to the forum was something like...this had not been invented yet. If you are saying that they could have tested for water back in 1972, why didn’t they confirm that water is present on the moon then? Oh - and I've never heard anything about this lunar 'dew' you've mentioned... can you provide a reference link, that I might see for myself...? Not suprising really, I already provided a link with the Nasa web site. If you’re still struggling… http://epoxi.umd.edu/2science/hydratedmoon.shtml http://www.itwire.com/content/view/28005/1231/1/2/ http://www.sawfnews.com/Health/60326.aspx

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 25 (view)

Splash ! The moon has water ! Posted: 11/15/2009 2:29:19 AM
As for solar wind and hydrogen bonding with oxygen to form water.... now you're asking us to sit around and hypothesize what may or may not account for any other possible 'abundances' outside of meteor/comet impacts. Well the evidence shows that water forms like a 'dew' on the surface, at the poles and on higher ground. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/moonmars/features/moon20090924.html This must be forming somehow, guess the solar wind idea (put forward by Dr Jessica Sunshine...bit of an apt name) is as good as any. I was shocked when I started reading up on this about how cold the moon can get.

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 23 (view)

Splash ! The moon has water ! Posted: 11/15/2009 1:21:09 AM
Try to remember the limitations and infancy of astronomical science back in the 60's and 70's. Ok, so they went to the moon but couldn’t test for water back in 1971…that’s all I wanted to know. There are permanently shadowed areas of the moon at both poles and/or areas that receive very minimal sun exposure. This is where they found the ice crystals. Yes…Two problems. Firstly, water (ice) doesn’t just boil with heat, in a near vacuum water would move from ice to vapour instantly The atmospheric pressure on the moon is far less than 1.10-11 torr or mbar. Earth: 2.5x1019 mol/cm3 (STP, 1 atm) Moon: ˜104 mol/cm3 day and ˜ 2x105 mol/cm3 night or approx. 10-14 of that found on Earth i.e. 10-14 torr. Carrier, W.D., Olhoeft, G.R., and Mendell W. (1991). "Physical properties of the lunar surface." The Lunar Sourcebook. Heiken, V. and French, eds., Cambridge University Press, New York, Vol. 1, pp. 284 - 293. From my understanding only a temperature below 150 kelvin or -190 degree Fahrenheit would prevent this. The confusion I have is that Nasa are claiming that they have found loads of water… "Indeed, yes, we found water. And we didn't find just a little bit. We found a significant amount," Having an abundance of water would make it easier to set up a base camp for astronauts, supplying drinking water and a key ingredient for rocket fuel. Maybe our definitions of ‘abundance’ differ as there are only pockets of places these temperatures hold below this range permanently. Secondly, it is postulate that hydrogen ions from the Sun are carried by the ‘solar wind’ to the Moon (the lack of gravity prevents the moon capturing Hydrogen molecules) and there interact with oxygen rich minerals in lunar soil to produce the water (H20) and hydroxyl (OH) molecules (water brought in by the meteor itself would not account for the 'abundance of water found'), however, this can only occur in ‘sunlight’ areas (shame they didn't know how to test for water back in 1971). The claim by scientists is that every morning and evening a 'dew' probably only a few molecules thick of water form on the moon every morning and evening. So, how can this reaction happen at the bottom of an extremely cold crater?

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 17 (view)

Splash ! The moon has water ! Posted: 11/14/2009 10:59:37 AM
Ok still have issues with this. Firstly, why would NASA need to make assumptions when they had 6 missions there and their rover made a round trip of some 35 miles, I think? You could only make an assumption IF you have never been there to test it. You could say that there was no water where they were but not conclusively say there was no water at all on the moon but now they are saying that water is in abundance. Secondly, they looked for water in a crater, on the permanent shady part. Ok is this not the site of a catastrophic event? Would this site have not been exposed to direct sun previous to this impact? So either the water was there before the crater formed, in which case water would/should be where the moon landings were or it condensed there in which case it should be detectable in what little atmosphere the moon has. If you are claiming that water evaporated from where the landings were then it should have evaporated from the crater site before the crater happened…did water turn up after the crater formed? How? Without looking too much into the figures, water boils at 212 degrees at sea level...with little to almost no atmosphere (negligable) on the moon, even on the shady bit, wouldn't water have evaporated away anyway. I am happy to be corrected on this point though. (To many folks, the phrase “dark side of the moon” suggests there’s a place you could go to on the moon which is perpetually cloaked in darkness. This is incorrect! Sunlight is always falling on some part of the moon.)

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 13 (view)

Splash ! The moon has water ! Posted: 11/14/2009 6:30:55 AM
Ummmm Excuse me for being naive but couldnt they have tested for water back in the late 60's early 70's when they actually had people wandering around up there...playing golf and spinning around in that car. If there's soooo much of it, why has it taken 40 years to ask the question and find the answer. Anybody would have thought that this was the first time anythings has been up there???

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 6 (view)

How can I put my video onto a disc? Posted: 11/13/2009 12:10:18 PM
Yes. I'm embarrassed to say I'm no expert in this. I copy mine to the hard drive, they play fine from there. After burning them to DVD, they play choppy, the video is behind the audio. I don't know how to properly do this The main reason a dvd would do this is your codec is set up wrong in your audio settings. Also, if it is 'choppy' you probably have your bit rate setting to low. You may have reduced it in the past in order to save memory as a lower bit rate creates a smaller file so can be copied to say cd, however, the quality will be poor. OP. Never leave photo's on your camera, the camera can be lost/stolen or the data simply corrupted for no apparent reason. Back up at the first available chance...then back that up, cd/dvd/online you can buy dvd's from as little as a few pence. You have bought an 'Easyshare' because it is 'easy' to back up...usb in the computer, other end in the camera, computer will do the rest. Hope this helps

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 46 (view)

5th Peak District Walk - Tideswell Dale 22nd November 2009 Posted: 11/12/2009 12:44:59 PM
Hi Dunk. I'm camping in the field right next door to the shady oak, it's only 15 minutes away from monsal dale. I spoke to the guy Chris Helme before I left and he said it would be ok anytime throughout the winter. The weather is looking cold for that week but dry which is ok for me. I'm not leaving Essex until 3pm saturday at the earliest so won't be getting there till about 8ish but its just drive in and pitch. I will also be staying till monday/tuesday (do something on the monday). If you are interested I can post you his number or you can meet me in the pub, just let me know k. If anyone else is interested in camping, I have a spare tent and a 3 season sleeping bag for anyone to borrow, just let me know. Andy

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 43 (view)

5th Peak District Walk - Tideswell Dale 22nd November 2009 Posted: 11/11/2009 4:18:33 PM
I say no rain for the best part of next week. So we should be ok

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 37 (view)

5th Peak District Walk - Tideswell Dale 22nd November 2009 Posted: 11/11/2009 11:44:03 AM
Hiya all Ok weather for 22nd of November is as follows. An early frost with temperature not getting above 5 degrees so wrap up warm everyone. Earlier forcasts for rain (hence no earlier report...didn't want to put anyone off) were unfounded. Looks like the sun may show itself after lunch but it's going to be mainly cloudy. Wind will be light 5-8 miles/hour. So another good day! £14 is a bargain, still going with my tent £5.50 haha.

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 37 (view)

Are Viruses Alive? Posted: 11/11/2009 11:28:51 AM
perhaps a very primitive self-replicating DNA strand developed on its own. So what's you're point, andyaa? What else do you have in mind? I do not have a point or anything else in mind...just looking for answers. A self replicating DNA strand, do you have any evidence for this, would this constitute life? Can it even happen, I don't know? Maybe someone will post something on here that will give me the answer. I thought it was pretty much confirmed that stellar radiation (GRB's, etc) causes genetic mutation, which in-turn causes evolution. Not so sure, there seems to be a lot of evidence for a sudden expansion of new life after every major extinction event. Stellar radiation may be an answer to some of the puzzle but still dont think it is THE answer.

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 33 (view)

Are Viruses Alive? Posted: 11/11/2009 11:11:44 AM
What you are suggesting is that HIV has ALWAYS been around. No not in the least, you could use the word evolve here if you wish OR mutated. A simian virus 'mutated' into the HIV virus. An example of macro evolution as you put it, over time, 4 billion years, a virus is still a virus. Equally some people have a mutation which gives them ginger hair or I could say that I have evolved from a dark skin to a lighter skin. It's only a chicken - egg situation if you have NO IDEA WHAT BIOLOGY IS or have NO IDEA WHAT EVOLUTION OR VIRUSES EVEN ARE. Cells do not require viruses to exist. Viruses require cells to exist. In order to be a chicken - egg situation than cells would require viruses to exist. That is not a chicken and egg situation…odd. Which came first is chicken and egg, virus or cell, you give both answers in your posts. Cells do not require viruses to exist however the chicken and egg is that the cell must have evolved from something similar to a virus, however, somthing similar to a virus requires a host to replicate. If mutations happen. Macro evolution happens. Again more assumptions IF, IF, IF. Where’s fact. Again 4 billion years of mutations and you still have a virus, and THAT must have evolved AFTER the cell. By saying that macro evolution can't happen, you are saying that time does not exist. Why is it that you insist on coming up with ridiculous statements making out that someone other than yourself said them.

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 31 (view)

Are Viruses Alive? Posted: 11/11/2009 10:46:25 AM
Simply because A virus didn't evolve into a cell doesn't mean it WONT happen and it doesn't mean it has NEVER happened. Well we don't have just A virus do we, we have many For example, the animal virus group can be sub-divided into the following sub-groups: double-stranded DNA; single-stranded DNA; double-stranded RNA; single-stranded RNA, and, retroviruses (a very unique kind of single-stranded RNA virus). An example of a human double-stranded DNA virus is Epstein-Barr virus (EBV). An example of a human single-stranded RNA virus is Influenza virus, Type A). An example of a human retrovirus is Human Immunodeficiency virus (HIV). All show signs of mutation agreed but have they evolved, after 4 billion years of mutations they are still mutated viruses. Now are you saying that a virus evolved into a cell or previous post, a cell must have come before a virus...Chicken and egg situation here...Hence see a problem yet? Secondly, in order to come up with a theory you first have to have the evidence, as we do not have evidence of this ('Simply because A virus didn't evolve into a cell doesn't mean it WONT happen and it doesn't mean it has NEVER happened') then you can easily come up with an assumption but that is not scientific is it. I mean every religious person uses this technique.

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 27 (view)

Are Viruses Alive? Posted: 11/11/2009 9:55:13 AM
But it is a mechanism of evolution. Thats right...it is 'a' mechanism for evolution...NOT...the mechanism. If you say that over 4 billion years of evolution and a virus which has mutated on many occasions, remains a virus, then this shows that mutations alone cannot be evolution. A virus can only replicate with a host, a host would have had to have evolved from something similar to a virus (single RNA strand), can you see a problem yet?

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 24 (view)

Are Viruses Alive? Posted: 11/11/2009 9:27:20 AM
Funny how you think everyone is a moron...looked in the mirror lately. 1 mutated virus = a virus 100 mutations of a virus = a virus followed by 4 billion years of mutations let me guess...yep still a virus. let me guess again...you're American.

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 21 (view)

Are Viruses Alive? Posted: 11/11/2009 9:20:06 AM
I believe retroviruses constantly evolve and insert their RNA into animal genes and also human genes. I would not consider this to be evolution, RNA is unstable so mutates easier. There is no evidence to show that mutation alone=evolution, as a layman you can make that assumption as a scientist you should not. Many biologists consider viruses not to be alive however, astrobiologists do.

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 7 (view)

Are Viruses Alive? Posted: 11/10/2009 4:49:12 PM
Are viruses alive? This is one of those questions where you can all to easily fall into one camp and be wrong. A virus has the characteristics of both being alive and being 'just a bunch of chemical molecules'. They have genetic codes, they do replicate... I think it is not about...is the virus alive but would your definition of alive include a virus.

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 3 (view)

Found a man made tool, artifact Posted: 11/8/2009 12:30:22 AM
http://www.westernartifacts.com/tools.htm Item TO86 A fine grained gray basalt flaked double axe head having all the proper traces of use wear and excellent mineralization as a testimony to it's antiquity. Quite a scarce item, and the first one we've handled in more than 20 years. Recovered in the Nevada Desert Up for sale for $200 See also the 1990 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_Graves_Protection_and_Repatriation_Act

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 206 (view)

join the army and go to Afghanistan Posted: 11/5/2009 6:50:14 AM
NATO is in Afghanistan as an arm of US imperialism, nothing more. That is so 'Narrow-minded and short-sighted' and such an easy response to a situation that someone doesn't understand. Yes America does need to protect the oil fields for the western society as does Britain. The main reason is to prevent the Taliban getting a foot hold in Pakistan which happens to be a nuclear country. If that was to happen and they launched a first strike at Europe, you would be one of the first to be screaming "why didn't we do something sooner" Sad that people take a shallow view on such a serious threat.

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 5 (view)

should he be jailed Posted: 11/4/2009 1:05:12 PM
Make him join the army.

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 4 (view)

Time wasting? Posted: 11/4/2009 10:27:08 AM
I think the answer to ever question you have asked in your post is...Yes. Question is are these sites bad for me? ...Yes Would I be better leaving the whole business...Yes I probably take things to much to heart...yes on line dating may be a bad move for me...yes I get a strong feeling that many women 'dating' on line arent actually interested in dating...yes they are playing some other game...yes more to do with attention seeking...yes boredom relieving...yes I suspect a lot of the single/separated women arent that at all...yes Am I being cynical?...yes Is POF different...yes should I get out before I get any heartache?...yes Please help!...no :)

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 17 (view)

4th Peak District Walk - 31 Oct - Posted: 11/2/2009 11:54:36 PM
Great weekend Londonwoman, I went up with my tent and made a weekend of it, £5.50/night and it is right next door to the pub, which also does B&B if you didn't fancy being under canvas. So next time, let me know if you are interested. Steve, got your text but didn't have credit (as usual) to reply but will see you on there. I walked back round the reservoirs on the sunday as the weather was quite bad but went up Kinder Scout on the monday...which kinda made this walk seem a little flat Daz Anyway, well done for organising.

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 16 (view)

Should Cars Have Black Boxes ? Posted: 11/2/2009 11:33:41 PM
What another complete waste of money, I have seen this technology around years ago where it constantly records the last minute of a journey, in the event of an accident the 'box' saves all the information so that the data can be analyzed and a theory of how the accident happened. Why would you need to record so much information. The majority of accidents are speed or fatigue related. On all modern HGV's now you have to have a tacho card which basically logs digitally on the built-in chip your speed and hours driven. The vehicle wont even start up unless it's in there, when you get pulled over VOSA don't even want to know you, they pull your card out, stick it in the machine and can tell if you have been speeding or done too many hours within the last month. Most id driving licences have a chip in them and I am sure this will be used for car drivers in the future, they will be able to program in other features for example, the car cannot start unless the licencee is insured to driver. Anyway, I have no idea why they spent 2.4 million on something that has already been studied, Europe got money to burn all of a sudden.

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 18 (view)

Confused agnostic. Posted: 10/26/2009 3:37:43 AM
What's the basis for this translation? There have been numerous Greek scholars that have added their combined years of study to the discussion to testify that the word “hate” (miseo) in Luke 14:26 does not mean “an active abhorrence,” but means “to love less.” E.W. Bullinger, in his monumental work, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, described the word “hate” in Luke 14:26 as hyperbole. He rendered the word as meaning “does not esteem them less than me” (1968, p. 426). W.E. Vine, the eminent Greek scholar, said the word miseo could carry the meaning of “a relative preference for one thing over another.” He listed Luke 14:26 under this particular definition (1940, p. 198). A.B. Bruce, in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, stated that “the practical meaning” of the word “hate” in this verse is “love less” (n.d., p. 575). In every other place where the word occurs translating at as "love less" makes no sense. Apparently Christians are allowed to interpret words however they please. Sorry, but the word means hate or detest. Where you have a language of less than 8000 words, many had more than 1 'meaning', the classic being 'yom', where it can mean basically any period of time. If you solely translate it as 1 day in genesis then it would makes no sense in the rest of the bible. It has to be translated in the context in which it is spoken. Here [God] is trying to get over the difference in the relationship between him and you and the relationship between you and your family or even yourself. If I said the difference between me and you were ‘chalk and cheese’ you would know what I meant, well these sorts of expressions don’t translate well, but if you see the difference between us as the difference between chalk and cheese then you get it. If you see that difference as 'hate' then that's good enough, don't literally hate, but the gap between you and [God] and you and your family is the same as hate. Why should I be jealous? First of all, she's not my property. Second of all, if she is flirting with someone else then clearly I'm not fulfilling a need in her life. Instead of being jealous maybe I should be a better boyfriend. No she isn't your physical property, I am using a metaphor ok but emotionally she has committed to you right. If she then betrays that, you have the right to be angry or 'jealous', it is not wrong to have emotions of anger and jealousy but what you are angry and jealous over being the sin, this is not the same as being jealous over what someone else has and you have not...this is the sin and this is the difference trying to be conveyed in the language used.

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 13 (view)

Confused agnostic. Posted: 10/25/2009 5:37:11 PM
Jealousy in this context is not a sin. If you have a girlfriend and she flirts with another man, then you have every right to be jealous as opposed to seeing any woman who flirts with a man and be jealous of that. If you do not see the difference then you are lost my friend. Hate used here is a slight misstranslation...again. The more appropriate phrase would be 'love less'. It is used in the statement that if you do not love [God] above all else, family...even yourself, then you are not a true follower of God. You are not told to hate your family but to love God more. Why is it so many people fail to understand.

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 7 (view)

Botany/Agriculture Question Posted: 10/25/2009 4:31:21 PM
Is it possible to put in a vegetable garden on that hillside? Yes Is it just a matter of them not growing as well, or am I going to have to worry about my plants being washed away if a storm comes along? They will grow perfectly well on a slope, it will be more difficult for you thats all. You wont have to worry about them being washed away unless the slope normally gets washed away in heavy rain, what you will find is the reverse, too much drainage and the plants lack water. Tomatoes and peppers do really well in grow bags, if you get them there in the states, their basically bags of compost which you lay down on the ground and just put the plants in them. If you are just growing for yourself half a dozen bags are enought to get you started. Once the season is over you can use the compost to condition the soil. Beans will need staking which on a slope is going to be challenging but not impossible as you dont want to shade other plants. Also, it will be drier at the top of the slope than at the bottom so bear this in mind. Plant across the slope so this helps capture water as veggy plants can be quite thirsty, you should be able to rake it out a bit to level small terraces. Another tip if you are growing for yourself, plant in stages...ie a few tomatoe plants one week then wait 2/3 weeks and plant some more, this way you stagger the crop so they dont all ripen at the same time and you have too much to handle all at once. And don't think big to start with, a few of each to see how you get on in the first season or 2. Get a soil testing kit, check the acidity of the ground, you may need to get a bag of lime to bring up the alkaline levels. There's nothing better than growing your own food.

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 36 (view)

4th Peak District Walk around Fernilee Saturday 31st October 2009* Posted: 10/24/2009 1:28:31 PM
According to outside.co.uk who have a webcam in the peaks at Hathersage and use metcheck.com for their 7 day weather forcast for SK23, it's expected to be GOOD. No rain, 100% cloud cover, max 18 degrees with 12mph southerly winds (gentle/moderate breeze). A good day for walking then...I'm still on track for being there so hope to see everyone on Saturday. Andy

andyaa

Joined: 12/20/2006

Msg: 29 (view)

TV License robbery Posted: 10/23/2009 8:04:43 AM
Basically there seems to be a lot of nay sayers here. OK I have 2 pieces of equipment which I can watch BBC on; the computer but I choose not to and the tv where I also choose not to. Which 1 am I breaking the law with. If there is an inconsistency then why? Many of you are also forgeting the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, adopted 11 December 2007 and due to be implemented by 19 December 2009. It will require the UK to extend some elements of television regulation to "television-like" online services, including video on demand by 2012. Will this mean that those who currently can avoid the licence fee by accessing only online programmes will have to pay? You can already see some isp's struggling to keep up with supply and demand and asking the BBC for an 'iPlayer Tax' as the estimated upgrade bill is somewhere in the region of £830 million.

Show ALL Forums