Science desk | ||
---|---|---|
< December 4 | << Nov | December | Jan >> | December 6 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
Put it another way, did the ancestral bacteria really have to look like or function like modern bacteria with all its gene regulation mechanisms? Could it be that in a primitive form, bacteria that cannot regulate genes efficiently die out while bacteria that can do so survive and divide? Is it still called bacteria or life, though, if a living organism cannot consume food or make food? Could there have been a jump (punctuated evolution) in the very early part of the evolutionary tree? To put into context, I am trying to imagine a primitive version of the lac operon or the stop codon. Is it possible to have punctuated evolution to work this way? Organic molecules that stop the gene transcription are beneficial in the long run and continue to do so, whereas organic molecules that fail to stop the gene transcription are not beneficial and thus degrade and fall into oblivion (hence not alive)? Or am I missing the point of punctuated evolution? 71.79.234.132 ( talk) 06:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm no expert but I think Stephen J Gould was a fraud. Asmrulz ( talk) 16:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
If you're trying to find the moment due to self weight in a prestressed concrete beam of known dimensions and known prestressed force, is it correct to use the equation Moment=Prestress Force(section modulus/area+Eccentricity) to find this? 194.66.246.119 ( talk) 17:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
194.114.146.227 ( talk) 19:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I think it's a matter of small molecules. See here. 194.114.146.227 ( talk) 11:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello everyone,
How the difference between 0m and 5000m on Earth should be today:
Why general relativity doesn't match with positions of the moon between 0m and 5000m?
Thank you for your answer. N738139 ( talk) 23:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by N738139 ( talk • contribs) 23:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
t(i) are time stayed in different altitudes (h(i)) and Tau(g) is the shift difference we should observe with gravitation. (equation taken from another wiki about gravitation) Try with one day and you will see that the difference is nearly 50nanoseconds (what was observed with experiments). N738139 ( talk) 00:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Position of the moon or sun doesn't matter. If you want you can say number of day. N738139 ( talk) 00:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. I know a better wiki article to answer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation N738139 ( talk) 00:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
OK. Thank you. So "the number of lunar cycles per 0m clock cycles (which will be fewer in number due to its slowness) is greater than the number of lunar cycles per the 1000m clock cycles counted." N738139 ( talk) 00:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
So a day per 0m clock cycles is greater than a day per the 1000m clock cycles counted ? N738139 ( talk) 00:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
N738139, based on your
previous question, I assume that you are asking why two observers, one at the base of a 5000 m summit and on at the top, don't see the moon in different positions?
Consider the following thought experiment. Methuselah-One and Methuselah-Two synchronize their watches and set an alarm for 4.5 billion years in the future. Methuselah-One climbs to the summit and patiently waits while his twin does the same at the base. When their alarms go off they both record the position of the moon. Methuselah-One then climbs back down and the twins compare their observations, and yes, these observations will differ by how far the moon moves in 21.9 hours. (I'm assuming your math is correct.) But when they compare their watches they will find that they differ by 21.9 hours as well. They saw the moon in different positions because they took their observations at different times. Even though the times were exactly 4.5 billion years from a common starting time, they spent most of that time in different reference frames and thus experienced a different rate of time flow compared to one another. If they resynchronize their watches and schedule a redo of the experiment in 24 hours, they will observe the moon in nearly the same location as one another because they will not have been separated from one another long enough the experience any measurable time slip.
Have your read Twin paradox, which deals with the special relativistic version of your general relativistic problem? Your question is a really good one which shows some insight, so make sure you understand your mistake before you give up. -- ToE 00:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
OK. So if I compare two stones (imagine a stone with a watch that I remember the sky they watched at last), I "will find that they differ by 21.9 hours as well." I totally agree with you if we consider general relativity. N738139 ( talk) 01:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
OK. OK. Thank you everyone. N738139 ( talk) 01:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Science desk | ||
---|---|---|
< December 4 | << Nov | December | Jan >> | December 6 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
Put it another way, did the ancestral bacteria really have to look like or function like modern bacteria with all its gene regulation mechanisms? Could it be that in a primitive form, bacteria that cannot regulate genes efficiently die out while bacteria that can do so survive and divide? Is it still called bacteria or life, though, if a living organism cannot consume food or make food? Could there have been a jump (punctuated evolution) in the very early part of the evolutionary tree? To put into context, I am trying to imagine a primitive version of the lac operon or the stop codon. Is it possible to have punctuated evolution to work this way? Organic molecules that stop the gene transcription are beneficial in the long run and continue to do so, whereas organic molecules that fail to stop the gene transcription are not beneficial and thus degrade and fall into oblivion (hence not alive)? Or am I missing the point of punctuated evolution? 71.79.234.132 ( talk) 06:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm no expert but I think Stephen J Gould was a fraud. Asmrulz ( talk) 16:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
If you're trying to find the moment due to self weight in a prestressed concrete beam of known dimensions and known prestressed force, is it correct to use the equation Moment=Prestress Force(section modulus/area+Eccentricity) to find this? 194.66.246.119 ( talk) 17:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
194.114.146.227 ( talk) 19:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I think it's a matter of small molecules. See here. 194.114.146.227 ( talk) 11:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello everyone,
How the difference between 0m and 5000m on Earth should be today:
Why general relativity doesn't match with positions of the moon between 0m and 5000m?
Thank you for your answer. N738139 ( talk) 23:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by N738139 ( talk • contribs) 23:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
t(i) are time stayed in different altitudes (h(i)) and Tau(g) is the shift difference we should observe with gravitation. (equation taken from another wiki about gravitation) Try with one day and you will see that the difference is nearly 50nanoseconds (what was observed with experiments). N738139 ( talk) 00:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Position of the moon or sun doesn't matter. If you want you can say number of day. N738139 ( talk) 00:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. I know a better wiki article to answer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation N738139 ( talk) 00:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
OK. Thank you. So "the number of lunar cycles per 0m clock cycles (which will be fewer in number due to its slowness) is greater than the number of lunar cycles per the 1000m clock cycles counted." N738139 ( talk) 00:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
So a day per 0m clock cycles is greater than a day per the 1000m clock cycles counted ? N738139 ( talk) 00:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
N738139, based on your
previous question, I assume that you are asking why two observers, one at the base of a 5000 m summit and on at the top, don't see the moon in different positions?
Consider the following thought experiment. Methuselah-One and Methuselah-Two synchronize their watches and set an alarm for 4.5 billion years in the future. Methuselah-One climbs to the summit and patiently waits while his twin does the same at the base. When their alarms go off they both record the position of the moon. Methuselah-One then climbs back down and the twins compare their observations, and yes, these observations will differ by how far the moon moves in 21.9 hours. (I'm assuming your math is correct.) But when they compare their watches they will find that they differ by 21.9 hours as well. They saw the moon in different positions because they took their observations at different times. Even though the times were exactly 4.5 billion years from a common starting time, they spent most of that time in different reference frames and thus experienced a different rate of time flow compared to one another. If they resynchronize their watches and schedule a redo of the experiment in 24 hours, they will observe the moon in nearly the same location as one another because they will not have been separated from one another long enough the experience any measurable time slip.
Have your read Twin paradox, which deals with the special relativistic version of your general relativistic problem? Your question is a really good one which shows some insight, so make sure you understand your mistake before you give up. -- ToE 00:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
OK. So if I compare two stones (imagine a stone with a watch that I remember the sky they watched at last), I "will find that they differ by 21.9 hours as well." I totally agree with you if we consider general relativity. N738139 ( talk) 01:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
OK. OK. Thank you everyone. N738139 ( talk) 01:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)