Re: Relativistic CMB
From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) (net_at_nospam.com)
Date: 01/28/05
- Next message: jimp_at_specsol-spam-sux.com: "Re: Wind energy extraction"
- Previous message: Mark Fergerson: "Re: An Analysis of the Resolution of the Michelson-Morley Experiment"
- In reply to: Y.Porat: "Re: Relativistic CMB"
- Next in thread: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Relativistic CMB"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 07:30:00 -0700
Dear Y.Porat:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1106900111.645262.15730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
>> Dear Y.Porat:
>>
>> "Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
>> news:1106839781.526088.236230@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
>> >> Dear Y. Porat:
>> >>
>> > > ------------------
>> > do you have en experimental evidence
>> > that a *chemical process* is slowing down
>> > with complete agreement to the gr formulas??
>>
>> "Chemical process"? The duration of a supernova is redshifted
>> just as the light it emits is redshifted. So the duration would be
>> nuclear-based, and the spectrum would be electrons dropping
>> into orbtials (plasma chemistry is chemistry still). They agree
>> to a pretty strong 103+/-4%.
> -----------------
> Hi David
> i must say you are among not too many of which one can go on
> with some intelligent honest discussion.
We will get to some point we won't agree on, but we usually agree to
disagree at that point...
> now about the redshift
> once you get an em wave that is coming and moving against you
> you get some difference in frequency but .....
> is it the case inside the closed system world of a living Cell??
> they do not change move relative 'natural' movement
> to each other are they ??
> i wonder.
Well, keep in mind that the light you see passes through living cells (the
cornea, the lens) and through the fluids in the eye (vitreous and aqueous
humor), and are absorbed by cells in the eye, converted to nerve cell
impulses, and interpreted to be in agreement with the fanciest hi-tech
cameras of those same features. I'd say that as far as clocks go,
biological = chemical = nuclear is pretty close.
>> > if yes please quote it
>> > yet that is only a partial question
>> > because the second question will be
>> > do you have experimental evidence that a living Cell
>> > slowes down its pace of living acording to the
>> > GR equations ??
>>
>> What we have is astronauts (plants, bees, ants, etc.) in
>> orbit above the Earth. Biological processes all seem to
>> go faster there, but largely for other reasons. The
>> "change in clocks" due to the position in a gravity well
>> is about 5 or 6 orders of magnitude smaller than the
>> stress effects that are more significant in "life et al".
> ok you sayed it that the change in pace of livings
> in spaceships is not because of the net movement but
> change in gravity etc.
"Indecipherable" might be a better word. Data "lost in the noise" would be
clearer. Where we live appears to be a much more important factor in
biological activity/rate, than just clock rate.
> btw it might be as well that the 'electronic clock delay
> or pace change is as well a result of its movement in
> the gravitational field and may be if it will move in empty
> space that above phenomena will not ocure !!??
If space is the product of mass/energy, then there is no empty space.
Additionally, if we are observing some process, isn't the space the process
is in *not* empty? We are kind of limited, in that what we observe outside
the Solar System has to be a light source. Light sources are notoriously
not empty space.
Just for clarification, the differences in "clock rates" only says
something about the source and receiver... nothing about the space the
signal travels through. It is possible through "frame dragging", that
light might get a boost that will either blue or red shift light as it
passes by a massive spinning object.
>> > btw was such a question ever was asked??
>> > or thought about?
>>
>> I would believe so.
> i would like to see quotes preceading me.
Sorry, I cannot help here. This "place" has been lived in for 80 years,
and lived in by tens of thousands of really bright minds (not just what you
might call unimaginative number crunchers). I find it unlikely that the
question (or one much like it) has not been asked (Dirac alone would be one
to ask it).
>> >> > it seems that people do not understand deeply what time is .....
>>
>> > 'Time is nothing but comparison of motions
>> > relative to some chsen motion refference.
>> > that is one of my postulates.
>>
>> I like "time is a measure of change", but it still seems inadequate.
>
> do you have a more adequate suggestion?? than .....
No. It was adequate for me, but not for a girl I had a crush on. One
solution to GR has time as the internal equivalent to distance from the
event horizon (Big Bang). This is *very* attractive to me.
>> >> > btw did you know that all the proteins in our body
>> >> > is recicled about any few weeks ??(amazing news
>> >> > for me i heard about it only lately!)
>> >>
>> >> I've heard complete replacement of your body in less
>> >> than 10 years, but i heard complete replacement
>> >> during a few weeks
>>
>> I don't believe it. I don't eat that much protein, nor protein
>> consituents for that matter.
> --------------
> actualy it is not a matter of beliefe
> people who deal with it have already the answer to it
> may be someone who is upadated can get in?
URL:http://samvak.tripod.com/death.html
... cells replaced every 5 years. (not a very reliable science soruce)
URL:http://www.hdvc.org/eden/courses.html
... every seven years. (an even less reliable source)
I don't find any hits on replacement of proteins, but I do know that the
nuclear DNA, a protein, only has sequences repaired, never complete
replacement from end to end (during cell division, a copy is made...). You
might want to start a thread on this topic (how aften are proteins replaced
in biological tissue?) on sci.chem. There are a couple of good posters
over there.
> btw it is one of the scinces that advances with dramtic paces
> to the benefit of medicine and all of us
> it is a revolusion in medicine!! a new era
> (not like our poor physics theories that are stuck in the mudd
> so long .....)
The mud is actually generating lots of data. And I have resource to the
best library I've ever had, thanks to this "stuck in the mud" thing. The
problem is, those that know how to do a thing, sometimes cannot explain it
to those of us that don't know how to do a thing.
This is a crib, this Universe. It is meant to provide us limits. Science
is about discovering those limits. But we are transcendent beings.
"Default behavior" of the system is not all it may be capable of.
>> > that what i read about the Nobel prize of
>> > Profs Hershko and Chechanovers
>> > this year Nonelists work about the
>> > Ubiquitin which is responsible in any protein in our body
>> > for that process( or at least involved in it ).
>> >
>> > what about the nurves?? i supose it includes some
>> > proteins in it as well.
>>
>> It does, but I believe the protein doesn't change. I believe
>> protein is responsible for memory storage, and renewed
>> protein couldn't be fabricated in the correct
>> configuration/location/orientation to keep one from
>> "misremembering".
> about your remarks about the little protein you eat
> the answer is *recycling* thats the name of the trick!!
> the ubiquitine is helping decomposing it acurately
> and just on time but then it is 'recomposed'!!
> and hear lies the possible dead dogg
> because once the recomposision is bad ..... you know
> the result that is so and too abundant
> another btw
> it is exactly the Altzhimer that this new discovweris are trying
> to explain and fix !!!.tha tis only one among many examples of
> its practical usees
OK.
>> We are renewed, but our minds are not. Barring Alzheimer's...
>> I was going to say something here, but forgot. ;>)
> wait fo rthe new discoveries and you will not forget
> or at least less forgetting
> there are some items that are better to forget (:-)
> surprisingly enough in many cases forgweting is a necessart tool
> for the mind
> and i go on with it: forgheting in scince could do some good as well
> !!!!...
Nature may agree with you. If the Old Testament is correct, and mankind
did live for hundreds of years, but their lifespan was reduced, what is the
benefit to the race to having a shorter lifespan? The ability to generate
survivors of disease, the loss of information that there was once fruit in
this now barren valley might also keep us from "wandering in the
wasteland".
I don't mind forgetting. I do mind rearrangement of known facts, to form
patterns at random. That irritates me.
David A. Smith
- Next message: jimp_at_specsol-spam-sux.com: "Re: Wind energy extraction"
- Previous message: Mark Fergerson: "Re: An Analysis of the Resolution of the Michelson-Morley Experiment"
- In reply to: Y.Porat: "Re: Relativistic CMB"
- Next in thread: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Relativistic CMB"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
