The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
1)If life is a sum of complex chemical reactions, then life can be found everywhere on earth, without gaps. The specific environmental and other conditions of each place alters the reactions accordingly. Everytime, the resulting reactions, when viewed from the results point of view, they seem to pose surviving capacities for the place it is found. This is because they are the resulting reactions. Recently scientists identified organisms living in Atacama desert, which is known as the driest place on earth.

2)If living beings are truly a sum of chaotic complex chemical reactions, that are meaningless for an outside observer (i.e. one not participating in the system of reactions), then the reactions of the organism constitute its phenotype. If we isolate its DNA, we will in fact isolate a small proportion of these reactions. By analyzing its structure, we can get a hint into the phenotype, but its role in determining phenotype should be less decisive than thought, because its like taking a picture of a small subset of reactions.
Some examples in real life that underscores this facts are:
Whole genome sequencing became a routine, but still we dont understand much about diseases.
This week a study published in Science revealed a surprisingly high burden of cancer associated mutations in normal functioning skin that is exposed to the sun. There were more than 100 of them in a square centimeter of skin. However, there was no cancerous phenotype. They were still waiting for the driver mutation, or carcinogenesis is much more complex than previously thought, and DNA is not everything? Remember the role of microenvironment,
Another study in Science showed that yeasts can incorporate human DNA and live normally.
Yes he did mention gravity. There goes his theory.
According to his theory, if you put an object in a box and pump in high pressure air, the object should get heavier.
Pressure of gasses at different temperatures etc has been one of the most experimented topics of physics, it is even done as basic school experiments so an odd effects related to gravity would have been noticed.
You are dealing with a closed mind, so you'll never convince him. Even The Box recognises this theory is wrong. I'm out of this discussion.
pump in high pressure air?i have never once indicated pressurized air.air is made up of many different gases.70% of it is nitrogen.why do they use nitrogen in lifting struts?
I believe in everything u guys do.closed mind?no.if I showed you and proved the world wrong-who would have the closed mind?
simply-what evidence do we have.anal I know,but ive seen many things since theorizing this that is defeating this theory.dont forget that science theorises a lot about things about space.there is no proof that I know of that shows 2 objects of different sizes attracting one another due to GRAVITY.This experiment doesn't work in space either does it?

Why don't you do some work to test it and see if it works, then do the same with your own model and see if it can match it. It's easy enough to write little programs to simulate gravity - here are some of mine (all of them simply applying the inverse square law in order to apply a force in the direction of the sun which gets stronger as the object gets closer in):,, You don't believe in gravity and want to achieve the same thing using air pressure instead, so write a little program to see if that works - given that the planets are going round in something very close to a total vacuum, you'll find that they'll just travel in straight lines and shoot off into deep space, aided just a tiny fraction by the solar wind which continually streams away from the sun.

In short, do the work and try to stop being a troll.
New Theories / Re: The Scale-Symmetric Physics
« Last post by Sylwester Kornowski on 24/05/2015 17:59:40 »
Gravitational fields are the gradients produced in the Higgs field by the luminal Einstein-spacetime components the all gravitating masses consist of (there is the short distance entanglement or/and confinement).

According to S-SP, there are two spacetimes i.e. the superluminal Higgs field associated with gravity and the luminal Einstein spacetime associated with the Standard-Model interactions i.e. with the ectromagnetic, weak and strong interactions. The properties of these two spacetimes are very different and it is the reason that we cannot unify gravity with quantum physics within the same methods. We can unify them only via the phase transitions described within the Scale-Symmetric Physics.

According to S-SP, the Higgs field (so gravity as well) propagates with speed about 8 multiplied by 88 powers of ten times higher than the speed of light in "vacuum". S-SP shows as well that the luminal gravitational waves are not in existence.

The gravitational potential energy is emitted via the luminal Einstein-spacetime components which carry infinitesimal gravitational mass so the associated gravitational field as well. But it is not the luminal gravitational wave, it is a virtual flow in the Einstein spacetime.

Within the S-SP, I calculated as well the gravitational constant which depends on properties of the both spacetimes.

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Is paedophilia a mental illness?
« Last post by Pecos_Bill on 24/05/2015 17:51:55 »
So the age of consent is 16 in Britain? Sounds like the wilds of Mississippi. Something straight out of "God's Little Acre".

So a sixteen year old boy may  legally give "consent" to sleep with some 50 year old dude? The plot thickens. Just how wretched do one of them have to be in order to be considered a pedophile?

I make little doubt that if some 24 year old dude hooks up with a 16 year old girl you care about, your first (and righteous) thought will be about breaking his knees.
New Theories / Re: Socrates World
« Last post by Soyabrock on 24/05/2015 16:06:43 »
Pu text Pu text jkhhkjhkjhkjkjh Pu text hkjwhkjwshkjkjqs
Quote from: Thebox
I observe that gravity steals the ''energy'' out of water to freeze it, and observe that ice is not water expansion but gain from environment?

Is it me, or does this really not make any sense?
It's something you snort on your own; or possibly in your car.
New Theories / Re: One way to explain the Universe
« Last post by mv on 24/05/2015 14:45:55 »

''You had that published , really?''

Firstly you suggest in your article that from the big bang photons were produced and joined each other, this sort of contradicts itself early on.  The big bang creating a battle of matter and antimatter.   

Secondly the big bang started from some sort of ''energy cloud'' , this cloud if it could be observed before hand would be detected by our devices and shown as emitting light.

Thirdly you would have to provide 100% proof that the big bang was real, do not mistake logical theory with 100% actual facts.

''P.S. One of the most important results from my theory is that any subatomic particle has its own gravity field,''

we call it mass, this is already known and not new.

I have read a few verses and it reads like fantasy, do you have anything better to add?

''Bigger/heavier is a particle (more photons it contains)''

The greater entropy of the particle, the more ''energy'' it can gain and emit by thermal dynamics.

It seems that you did not bother to read my post entirely... and, so far, you just try to contradict without any argument or proof.
... It looks to me like a DC electric motor, with the current flowing through a liquid instead of a wire?

Similar to Faraday's Homopolar motor ...
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
SMF 2.0.8 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines