and all i get from this peanut gallery is EVERYTHING IS WRONG that does not meet with the currently established models
Just to be clear - I was not attacking the quoted areas of study because they apparently disagreed with accepted theory; I pointed out that they appeared to disagree with accepted theory, but your post did not include the needed volume of evidence to support such a break.
Having read four of the associated papers, thanks to D H's link, it seems that we both were mis-understanding the purpose of them; The Genetic Boolean Code Lattice discusses the potential for creating a better logical coding language from which one could determine a relationship between a genetic codon and the hydrophobic qualities of its associated amino acid (given that we currently still use a brute-force mapping to link codons to their protein output, this sort of coding language could indeed be useful in understanding *why* UUU codes for Lucine); The Energy Cost of Protein Messages Leads to a New Protein Information Law attempts to show the relationship between the redundant coding of codons to amino acids and the energy requirements for each of those codings - resulting in an efficiency ratio of (unique information)/(energy needed/wasted); Algebraic Hypotheses on a Primeval Genetic Code (the one utilizing the Galois fields) suggests a mathematical framework for showing the possible levels of complexity in a DNA structure with additional base pairs beyond those found today; and lastly A New DNA Sequence Vector Space on a Genetic Code Galios Field, which addresses the same concept, but in a more rigorously mathematical manner.
I will need to spend more time on each of the papers to grasp all the concepts involved; admittedly, a number of the mathematical mechanisms used are outside of my familiarity. However, I still do not see research of the action of energy on matter as you initially claimed; I see a study of the efficiency of the current DNA coding method, and a question as to the possible areas of improvement or mechanisms for origination of the method of encoding, without reducing the range of the final result set.
behavior of DNA? I thought they were working on the evolution or progressions and how the 'environment' can affect the changes to the DNA chain.
From reading the papers, it seems that the current state of DNA and how it functions across multiple forms of life are used as the base model for what then becomes a theoretical model assuming additional undefined base pairs or algebraic coding models for hydrophobic patterns.
I was asking if the existing 'chemistry' or 'science' of DNA, lipids, living structures has any reference to these properties and then if you know or have data on what the 'f' is of any base lipids.
can we observe this on another thread?
Certainly, though to be honest, I'm still not sure what you are looking for. A physical property of the chemical structures you refer to? What resonance exactly are we looking for? Some sort of bonding frequency range, most likely defined by the electron shells of the lipid atoms? Or a molecular vibrational resonance/oscillation pattern?
IN chemistry the progression is oosually considered a reduction of chemical potential. When it can be noted that energy upon mass can combine based on the resonance of the structure. For example the phospholipid bilayers of the cell walls. Them lipids associate and combine with no peptide bonds between the lipids. The resonance is what maintains the structures integrity.
This is new use of otherwise standard terminology for me; lets try and agree on terminology and our understanding of how lipid layer form in water solutions. My understanding is that the molecular structure of lipids (
http://www.agen.ufl.edu/~chyn/age2062/lect/lect_06/4_18.GIF) cause the hydrophobic ends of the molecule to align in reaction to the external environment, while the hydrophilic end create weak hydrogen bonds with the surrounding aqueous environment - not due to a form of resonance bonding between the lipids themselves. Do you disagree with this mechanism, proposed by Gorter and Grendel in 1925, or am I misunderstanding your point?
Same with the plug of the nucleus's nuclear pore. It appears the energy upon the mass is maintaining the mass to a location with no structure holding it.
Given that the atoms within a molecule will rarely if ever actually make physical contact, all chemical interaction is made via energetic fields. I do not see the correlation of this to how lipids arrange themselves, however.
Now in an evolutionary point of view, we can find a wave can combine with other waves and increase their total potential upon that mass (think of rogue waves).
What would a "wave" be, within an evolutionary theory?
And like a plant; they can and do combine mass and energy (light) to build structures, then the process to evolving mass can be identified by including the importance of the three, mass, energy and time, for life to evolve.
To me, if the rules do not apply at the ONE atom at a time system, then a revamp has been neccessary.
I don't think I'm familiar with this one-atom at a time system you seem to be trying to discredit. I don't think it exists in the manner you seem to think it does.
if i was a rock, i would have no choice to 'create' .....to move, to consume mass ....to overcome equilibrium.
Does a nematode have a choice to create? It is alive, but most of us do not consider them to be conscious life.
Point being, i am just mass... so the rules must be applicable to me and that rock. This allows the basics; that life is of the energy upon the rocks (mass), not the rocks themselves.
This is elementary. The human body is made up of numerous chemical compounds. But piling those same compounds together on the ground does not make a human being - how they are put together and how they interact is what makes a human from dirt.
Go out back today and plant a tree. IN a few years, you could have 'created' a whole system of a living environment based on that one idea. You by choice, could plant what type is 'good' for your area, add water and 'good' soil based on what you know, find and comprehend.
You by choice, could make a child and live within that choice, even when you return to the soil.
I completely disagree. I may have actively chosen which environment has thrive in that area, but I sure as hell did not create life. The tree's parents created the acorn - all I did was plant it.
Awe so now you see life has intent/instinct. (it is 'intending' to continue/ an entropy buster)
No, I do not. Life that has not drive to life will not live. IMO, the simplest reason why all life has an innate drive for survival is that all life that *didn't* never lived long enough to have offspring.
You want desperately to live because your ancestors did too, and fought tooth and nail to do so.
As what 'is' the life of mass?
Such that to tap the surface of a flat pond, we see the wave is concentrated at the initial point of impact by a cause. The wave rolls away from the point of impact and it appears as time continues the wave goes further away and is getting smaller as we see the pond return to equilibriate.
Given that I cannot succinctly answer the question "what is life", I can't address your point here. What appears to differentiate living matter from non-living matter? That it exhibits certain behavior, most notably homeostasis, consumption, reproduction, etc: or, as was recently suggested in another thread - that is actively reduces its internal entropy.
Are you trying to suggest that the lake, having been given energy through an outside force, is not alive simply because that energy dissipated?
I disagree but thanks for making your point in an articulate way.
WE all know, the idea of trial and error makes the evolution of species appear random but when we go into the atom to atom relations, then predictability is easy when observing the environment and energy upon the mass, rather than just the mass getting lucky. And this can be identified as possible by observing life itself (energy upon the mass) having 'intent.' (purposed to continue)
I do not agree with you at all either. Life does not appear to have intent to change, and this idea has been suggested and falsified dozens of times over. Individual living things have a drive to survive, but as I mention above, this can be easily explained by ancestrial survival drive, rather than a brand new concept of energy acting apon matter in a near-intelligent fashion as you seem to be suggesting.
Mass does not get "lucky" during evolution. Random mutations in DNA due to transcription errors and random alterations in the physical structure of existing DNA to bombardment by external radiation (energy!) leads to physical changes in the individual organism, which can then be acted apon by natural pressures from organism environment.
Now you are thinking like a scientist..... using your ideas to combine what you experience with what you can understand.
But if you take my suggested method of testing, and place healthy people into cold and hot environments, they do not exhibit symptoms of immune response. So it does not appear that temperature (or available energy at the atomic level) is what controls the activity of protein translation, at least for immune response.
-------------------------
At this point, I feel like two things are going on in this discussion, you are pointing at the sky and saying "Look, don't you see?? it's blue!", and then handing me a pigeon with which to prove your point.
I'm in no way disagreeing that the sky is blue - I'm asking in what way the pigeon you have given me has anything to do with the topic being discussed.
