Finnally an advancement in physics or not ?

[William Gaatjes]

http://www.physorg.com/news202020721.html

By analyzing data from experiments performed earlier this decade at the Oak Ridge Electron Linear Accelerator (ORELA), physicists have made observations that seem to conflict with the widely accepted theory of the nucleus.

In 2002, Paul Koehler, a physicist at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in Tennesse, and others were measuring neutron resonances in four types of platinum isotopes. These resonance patterns - which are the energies at which the nucleus of a platinum isotope absorbs neutrons - are affected by the motion of the protons and neutrons inside the nucleus. These motions are thought to be chaotic, at least according to random matrix theory, which is used to determine the behavior of large nuclei. However, in a recent study, Koehler and his colleagues found that the protons and neutrons seem to move in a collective way that can't be explained by any known model of nuclear structure.

“The new results suggest that the roughly 200 nucleons inside the platinum nuclei studied act in unison to exhibit regular rather than chaotic properties,” according to a news article from ORNL's website. “Given the relatively high energy and large number of nucleons involved, such collective behavior is totally unexpected and unexplained.”

The researchers say that their results reject the random matrix theory for this data with a 99.997% probability. But to confirm their claim, the scientists need to perform further experiments on the nuclei of other elements besides platinum, which could verify that the discovery is not simply due to an unusual property of platinum nuclei.

However, the problem is that ORELA has been closed due to budget cuts, and is not scheduled to reopen any time soon. The US Department of Energy has said that other research projects are a higher priority for the field of nuclear science. According to Koehler, there is one other place in the world where similar measurements could be made, which is the Geel Electron Linear Accelerator (GELINA) in Geel, Belgium. Here, the physicists could also repeat early experiments regarding random matrix theory performed in the 1970s at Columbia University, and see if the results hold up to modern instruments and analysis methods.

As Koehler explained, resolving the issue could have implications for nuclear reactors. Scientists rely on random matrix theory to estimate the probability of escaping neutrons colliding with nuclei, and use these estimates to determine how much shielding is needed for nuclear reactors and stockpiles. Although some extra shielding is typically added, if more nuclear reactors are going to be built in the future, having an accurate estimate for shielding protection would be an important safety standard.

More information: P. E. Koehler, et al. “Anomalous Fluctuations of s-Wave Reduced Neutron Widths of 192,194Pt Resonances.” Physical Review Letters. DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.072502
via: Nature News

 

[CycloWizard]

Finnaly an advancement in physics or not ?

You do realize that there is a lot more to physics than cosmology and physical chemistry... right?

 

[William Gaatjes]

You do realize that there is a lot more to physics than cosmology and physical chemistry... right?

I do, but if the scientists would instead of finding a unification theory (which will never happen or it will be wrong )would just start at the proper basics, everything will solve it self on the way. ^_^

 

[ModestGamer]

I do, but if the scientists would instead of finding a unification theory (which will never happen or it will be wrong )would just start at the proper basics, everything will solve it self on the way. ^_^

ahem. LOL. I don't disgaree. We need less zany thoerys and more observation and measurement.

 

[CycloWizard]

I do, but if the scientists would instead of finding a unification theory (which will never happen or it will be wrong )would just start at the proper basics, everything will solve it self on the way. ^_^

The problem now is that the "basic" things remaining as unknowns in physics are so complex that the human mind can only understand it on the level of mathematical abstraction. I've studied physical chemistry to some extent, but not even close to the level needed to begin to understand what constitutes the structure of a nucleus. It would take someone years or even decades to learn enough to be able to formulate an experiment like this. It then probably takes another decade to design an experiment to test it, secure the funding, perform the experiment, and analyze the data. I'm not saying that Einstein picked the low-hanging fruit, but fundamental things like he wrote about in 1905 just aren't unknown anymore. Even experimental physicists need to come to grips with a mountain of this knowledge to be able to conceive an experiment which could possibly test the existing theories - hardly trivial.

 

[TecHNooB]

As long as maxwell's equations hold I'm happy.

 

[William Gaatjes]

The problem now is that the "basic" things remaining as unknowns in physics are so complex that the human mind can only understand it on the level of mathematical abstraction. I've studied physical chemistry to some extent, but not even close to the level needed to begin to understand what constitutes the structure of a nucleus. It would take someone years or even decades to learn enough to be able to formulate an experiment like this. It then probably takes another decade to design an experiment to test it, secure the funding, perform the experiment, and analyze the data. I'm not saying that Einstein picked the low-hanging fruit, but fundamental things like he wrote about in 1905 just aren't unknown anymore. Even experimental physicists need to come to grips with a mountain of this knowledge to be able to conceive an experiment which could possibly test the existing theories - hardly trivial.

Oh very true, but sometimes it is not about making it abstract, because then you move away from the answer. Capturing it in mathematics directly, there lies the answer(Although i admit my mathematics are not good enough to do it efficiently or to even come to an solution, but that is not my job.). But it are indeed matrix calculations, everything can be done in parallel without an error. Just don't use time as an input. Use time as an result. Sometimes it is about to see it happening. That is what Einstein had seen when he had that eureka moment about relativity. Time is not absolute. It is very relative. As such using it as an constant is per definition wrong. It is an variable and must be constantly adjusted in the world of the atoms. At the scale we live it is not an issue, then the difference because of size and amount is like an integrator and smooths out...
To read so much about it and then to visualize it. The bliss to see it working. The human mind is very strange. it can capture complex mathematics in a way that according to current consensus it can do but no one knows how. (Until recently when it was discovered that a single neuron is capable of doing simple mathematics, yes heavy parallel calculation. the human mind is a natural Multiply Add). But look at what idiot sanvants can do... So seemingly easy. Humans are natural image thinkers but are untaught to use it. Men and women alike, there is no difference, only social and cultural. To capture complex situations in words. There lies the problem, it is as transporting a megabyte over a 56k line. It takes so much time to transport and encode that the concentration is gone during translating of pictures to words. It is not for an reason the ancient texts are all pictures.
The best advantage of modern language is it's redundancy to keep the proper message even when certain characters are missing or placed in the wrong order. But the human mind has an virtual inner space where an exploded view can be formed from everything that is known. And that is something Einstein and a lot of other great minds excelled at. To use that exploded view while simulating an event, rotate it, scale it, reverse it forward. What if... What if... And they see it happening.

 

[CycloWizard]

As usual, you've strung a bunch of unrelated ideas together into a wall of text. How do you propose we see the structure of a nucleus? The article you linked in the OP is apparently the first time anyone's ever managed to do that in a meaningful way. You also appear to completely misunderstand how time is related to anything, or you're again throwing your ideas around as if they are reality. Then you launch into another tirade stating things as facts which are demonstrably false, i.e. "men and women are alike, there is no difference, only social and cultural." This is false on many levels, not the least of which is the context you indicated - that their abilities to visualize spatial systems are equal. They are not, as has been demonstrated experimentally. "What if" is useful except when your "ifs" contradict reality.

 

[William Gaatjes]

I have not been posting since i started posting here about seemingly unrelated subjects for a reason. I was and still am gathering. But you can find an idea if you sift through all the posts i made. It is to much for 1 post. It is an awful lot. And the men and women part, afcourse there are differences. But it is those differences that makes working together an advantage. That is if, if the effect of hormones on both sides can be controlled by the individuals. And when it comes to idea's. Those are not entirely my idea's. Just the idea's of physicists and mathematicians who speak their minds. I just add a wild twist to it to cause a stir. But i would be lying if how i perceive the world would turn out to be just a little bit true, that i would not be happy. Because it reinforces just like a normal theory -proof concept that i am not all that wrong. For now i am making educated guesses and waiting to read something about it that confirms or denies it.

 

[CycloWizard]

It looks like I was right about you from the start. You post things as fact when you know they are false. You say something in every post specifically to annoy people. And you ramble simply for the sake of rambling, knowing (or, at least, claiming to know) that your rambles are lies. I guess that makes you HT's first troll.

 

[William Gaatjes]

It looks like I was right about you from the start. You post things as fact when you know they are false. You say something in every post specifically to annoy people. And you ramble simply for the sake of rambling, knowing (or, at least, claiming to know) that your rambles are lies. I guess that makes you HT's first troll.

You are the one i am sad to say behaving like a troll. I confront you with simple reason and history, do not even need logic yet. And you call me a troll. I have not read the HT yet. But i do know you will respond in the same way. Don't you... I have given you an honest debate with subjects. Yet you debate for debating. I debate for an answer. That is the difference. I do not care if i am right or wrong, in the end i learn something either way. Today, i have confirmed what i learned about 2 years ago. You are a narrow minded and narrow viewed individual.
You do not debate the subject, you debate the person. As i told you before that is something that is cheap us politics. Remember your quote from Eleanor Roosevelt ?
"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people."

Well hello small mind...

As a matter of fact, i will just copy paste this same post directly into the HT thread.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Since this pollution of the thread is i hope ended, i will add something that i read about sometime ago. That the nuclear decay is not a constant but is influenced by activities of the sun. How this exactly works ? I do not know, it is mentioned it can be neutrino's.

It's a mystery that presented itself unexpectedly: The radioactive decay of some elements sitting quietly in laboratories on Earth seemed to be influenced by activities inside the sun, 93 million miles away.

Is this possible?

Researchers from Stanford and Purdue University believe it is. But their explanation of how it happens opens the door to yet another mystery.

There is even an outside chance that this unexpected effect is brought about by a previously unknown particle emitted by the sun. "That would be truly remarkable," said Peter Sturrock, Stanford professor emeritus of applied physics and an expert on the inner workings of the sun.

The story begins, in a sense, in classrooms around the world, where students are taught that the rate of decay of a specific radioactive material is a constant. This concept is relied upon, for example, when anthropologists use carbon-14 to date ancient artifacts and when doctors determine the proper dose of radioactivity to treat a cancer patient.
But that assumption was challenged in an unexpected way by a group of researchers from Purdue University who at the time were more interested in random numbers than nuclear decay. (Scientists use long strings of random numbers for a variety of calculations, but they are difficult to produce, since the process used to produce the numbers has an influence on the outcome.)

Ephraim Fischbach, a physics professor at Purdue, was looking into the rate of radioactive decay of several isotopes as a possible source of random numbers generated without any human input. (A lump of radioactive cesium-137, for example, may decay at a steady rate overall, but individual atoms within the lump will decay in an unpredictable, random pattern. Thus the timing of the random ticks of a Geiger counter placed near the cesium might be used to generate random numbers.)
As the researchers pored through published data on specific isotopes, they found disagreement in the measured decay rates - odd for supposed physical constants.
Checking data collected at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island and the Federal Physical and Technical Institute in Germany, they came across something even more surprising: long-term observation of the decay rate of silicon-32 and radium-226 seemed to show a small seasonal variation. The decay rate was ever so slightly faster in winter than in summer.

Was this fluctuation real, or was it merely a glitch in the equipment used to measure the decay, induced by the change of seasons, with the accompanying changes in temperature and humidity?
"Everyone thought it must be due to experimental mistakes, because we're all brought up to believe that decay rates are constant," Sturrock said.
On Dec 13, 2006, the sun itself provided a crucial clue, when a solar flare sent a stream of particles and radiation toward Earth. Purdue nuclear engineer Jere Jenkins, while measuring the decay rate of manganese-54, a short-lived isotope used in medical diagnostics, noticed that the rate dropped slightly during the flare, a decrease that started about a day and a half before the flare.
If this apparent relationship between flares and decay rates proves true, it could lead to a method of predicting solar flares prior to their occurrence, which could help prevent damage to satellites and electric grids, as well as save the lives of astronauts in space.
The decay-rate aberrations that Jenkins noticed occurred during the middle of the night in Indiana - meaning that something produced by the sun had traveled all the way through the Earth to reach Jenkins' detectors. What could the flare send forth that could have such an effect?
Jenkins and Fischbach guessed that the culprits in this bit of decay-rate mischief were probably solar neutrinos, the almost weightless particles famous for flying at the speed of light through the physical world - humans, rocks, oceans or planets - with virtually no interaction with anything.
Then, in a series of papers published in Astroparticle Physics, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research and Space Science Reviews, Jenkins, Fischbach and their colleagues showed that the observed variations in decay rates were highly unlikely to have come from environmental influences on the detection systems.
Their findings strengthened the argument that the strange swings in decay rates were caused by neutrinos from the sun. The swings seemed to be in synch with the Earth's elliptical orbit, with the decay rates oscillating as the Earth came closer to the sun (where it would be exposed to more neutrinos) and then moving away.
So there was good reason to suspect the sun, but could it be proved?
Enter Peter Sturrock, Stanford professor emeritus of applied physics and an expert on the inner workings of the sun. While on a visit to the National Solar Observatory in Arizona, Sturrock was handed copies of the scientific journal articles written by the Purdue researchers.
Sturrock knew from long experience that the intensity of the barrage of neutrinos the sun continuously sends racing toward Earth varies on a regular basis as the sun itself revolves and shows a different face, like a slower version of the revolving light on a police car. His advice to Purdue: Look for evidence that the changes in radioactive decay on Earth vary with the rotation of the sun. "That's what I suggested. And that's what we have done."
Going back to take another look at the decay data from the Brookhaven lab, the researchers found a recurring pattern of 33 days. It was a bit of a surprise, given that most solar observations show a pattern of about 28 days - the rotation rate of the surface of the sun.
The explanation? The core of the sun - where nuclear reactions produce neutrinos - apparently spins more slowly than the surface we see. "It may seem counter-intuitive, but it looks as if the core rotates more slowly than the rest of the sun," Sturrock said.
All of the evidence points toward a conclusion that the sun is "communicating" with radioactive isotopes on Earth, said Fischbach.
But there's one rather large question left unanswered. No one knows how neutrinos could interact with radioactive materials to change their rate of decay.
"It doesn't make sense according to conventional ideas," Fischbach said. Jenkins whimsically added, "What we're suggesting is that something that doesn't really interact with anything is changing something that can't be changed."
"It's an effect that no one yet understands," agreed Sturrock. "Theorists are starting to say, 'What's going on?' But that's what the evidence points to. It's a challenge for the physicists and a challenge for the solar people too."
If the mystery particle is not a neutrino, "It would have to be something we don't know about, an unknown particle that is also emitted by the sun and has this effect, and that would be even more remarkable," Sturrock said.

http://www.physorg.com/news201795438.html

Other links :

http://www.mpq.mpg.de/~haensch/eclipse/full.html

http://arxivblog.com/?p=596

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/36108

 

[CycloWizard]

I have not been posting since i started posting here about seemingly unrelated subjects for a reason. I was and still am gathering. But you can find an idea if you sift through all the posts i made. It is to much for 1 post. It is an awful lot. And the men and women part, afcourse there are differences. But it is those differences that makes working together an advantage. That is if, if the effect of hormones on both sides can be controlled by the individuals. And when it comes to idea's. Those are not entirely my idea's. Just the idea's of physicists and mathematicians who speak their minds. I just add a wild twist to it to cause a stir. But i would be lying if how i perceive the world would turn out to be just a little bit true, that i would not be happy. Because it reinforces just like a normal theory -proof concept that i am not all that wrong. For now i am making educated guesses and waiting to read something about it that confirms or denies it.

QFP. Not much else needs to be added here.

 

[William Gaatjes]

QFP. Not much else needs to be added here.

Sigh read this about gravitational redshift.

A central prediction of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity is that gravity makes clocks tick more slowly — time passes slower when you're close to a massive body like the Earth, compared to when you're further away from it where its gravitational pull is weaker. This prediction has already been confirmed in experiments using airplanes and rockets, but a new experiment in an atom interferometer measures the slowdown 10,000 times more accurately than before — and finds it to be exactly what Einstein predicted.


The result shows once again how well Einstein's theory describes the real world, said Holger Müller, an assistant professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley. "This experiment demonstrates that gravity changes the flow of time, a concept fundamental to the theory of general relativity." The phenomenon is often called the gravitational redshift because the oscillations of light waves slow down and move into the red part of the spectrum when tugged by gravity. A report describing the experiment appears in the February 18 issue of the journal Nature.

Müller tested Einsteins theory by taking advantage of a tenet of quantum mechanics: that energy — and therefore matter — exhibits both particle-like and wave-like characteristics. The cesium atoms used in the experiment can be represented by matter waves that oscillate 3 × 1025 times per second — that is, about 30 million billion billion times per second.

When the cesium atom matter wave enters the experiment, it encounters a carefully tuned flash of laser light. The laws of quantum mechanics step in, and each cesium atom enters two alternate realities. In one, the laser has pushed the atom up one-tenth of a millimeter, giving it a tiny lift away from the Earth, to a realm where Earth's gravitational field is slightly weaker. In the other, the atom remains unmoved inside Earth's gravitational well, where time flies by less quickly.

Just as an optical interferometer uses interfering light waves to measure time or distance to within a fraction of a wavelength, an atom interferometer uses interfering matter waves. Because matter waves oscillate at a much higher frequency than light waves, they can be used to measure correspondingly smaller times and distances.

Müller and his colleagues used the interference between the cesium matter waves in the alternate realities to measure the resulting difference between their oscillations, and thus the redshift.

The equations of general relativity predicted precisely the measured slowing of time, to an accuracy of about one part in 100 million (7 × 10-9). This is 10,000 times more accurate than the measurements made 30 years ago using two hydrogen maser clocks, one on Earth and the other launched via rocket to a height of 10,000 kilometers.


According to Einstein's theory of general relativity gravity curves spacetime. Image courtesy NASA.

"Two of the most important theories in all of physics are quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity," noted Müller's collaborator, Steven Chu, a former UC Berkeley professor of physics and former director of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL). Chu was one of the originators of the atom interferometer, which is based on his Nobel Prize-winning development of cold laser traps. "The paper that we are publishing in Nature uses two fundamental aspects of the quantum description of matter to perform one of the most precise tests of the general theory of relativity." Müller noted that the experiment demonstrates very clearly "Einstein's profound insight, that gravity is a manifestation of curved space and time, which is among the greatest discoveries of humankind."

Far from being merely theoretical, the results have implications for Earth's global positioning satellite system (GPS), for precision timekeeping, and for gravitational wave detectors. "If we used our best clocks, with 17-digit precision, in global positioning satellites, we could determine position to the millimeter," said Nüller. "But lifting a clock by 1 meter creates a change in the 16th digit. So, as we use better and better clocks, we need to know the influence of gravity [to a greater precision]."

Müller is building ever more precise atom interferometers to measure the gravitational redshift. Eventually, he hopes to build an experiment capable of observing another prediction of Einstein's theory: gravitational waves. These tiny fluctuations in gravity, generated by interactions between massive stars or black holes, are thought to propagate through spacetime, but have as yet only been observed indirectly. To filter out noise from Earth's gravity and other perturbations, like a passing truck, such an experiment would have to involve at least two atom interferometers separated by a large distance. An ideal spot for the experiment would be the Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory at the former Homestake mine in South Dakota.

The implication that i am thinking of is the following, an electron is affected by gravity as well. let us take an hydrogen atom. As an electron is in a position around the nucleus, the bottomside of the atom is facing the centre of gravity of the earth (or just facing the earth) The upper half or part is facing the sky. This is not really the case , but it is still relevant because it is about position relatively seen from the nucleus and from a strong gravity source.
What i am interested in, if gravity still has an effect on that scale(although small compared to the other forces). Because if that is the case, then it would mean that the trajectory of the electron around the nucleus is affected differently whether it is between the earth and the nucleus or above the nucleus closer to the sky. Meaning in stronger gravity or weaker gravity. Maybe it is nothing and a certain threshold must be reached.

Let's assume this has an effect.
Since this would mean time is not an constant what does this mean for this formula ? It would give in my opinion an proper explanation why uncertainty exist about the trajectory. There is another modulation going on but only if gravity can still exert a force enough to modulate the electron. In effect the space time is curved and as such the oscillation that can be seen from the electron around the nucleus is distorted. As such it is not only the measurement that has an effect, it is also the space time warping that is playing a role. And if that is the case, the result will be different every position where the gravity is different because then the space time warping is different. Maybe it is not relevant. But up till now i have never gotten a good answer. I know that around the nucleus gravity has not much effect. But can it be seen as zero effect or does it still play an role ? I find this interesting, maybe it is nothing. Maybe it is. If it is nothing we can discard it and go on. If it is something , what does it imply ? These are interesting subjects. Not that small mind talk you prefer. I don't mind if i am wrong, just give my undeniable proof why i am wrong. And not an accepted hypothesis that is accepted because it works in some scenario's and totally fails in other scenario's.

 

[Daedalus685]

Yesterdays SMBC strikes a good tune with this thread .

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1984#comic

Good times

 

[William Gaatjes]

Yesterdays SMBC strikes a good tune with this thread .

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1984#comic

Good times

:biggrin:

 

[Biftheunderstudy]

You have to remember just how much weaker gravity is than EM especially on the scale of a electron and timescales involved. The effect your describing is effectively a tidal force and should, in principle, be calculable...but very negligible.

I had almost forgotten that article on the nuclear decay with a periodicity of a year. Most physicists that I talked to will tell you that you generally look for the obvious periods and then throw them out. Those include day-night cycles, 60Hz, lunar cycles and solar cycles.

Nuclear physics is a very active area of research, we don't know nearly as much as we would like about how nuclei work -- but it is sadly one of those fields whose funding is slowly getting cut off.

 

[William Gaatjes]

You have to remember just how much weaker gravity is than EM especially on the scale of a electron and timescales involved. The effect your describing is effectively a tidal force and should, in principle, be calculable...but very negligible.

I had almost forgotten that article on the nuclear decay with a periodicity of a year. Most physicists that I talked to will tell you that you generally look for the obvious periods and then throw them out. Those include day-night cycles, 60Hz, lunar cycles and solar cycles.


Nuclear physics is a very active area of research, we don't know nearly as much as we would like about how nuclei work -- but it is sadly one of those fields whose funding is slowly getting cut off.

Thank you for your response. ^_^.


I think you are right because it does not always produce ready to be used results. There the problem can be found. People want short term results to turn into profits. Because of that it is human nature to protect ones own research and theories. As such there is not much collaboration as there could be and should be.
I do agree that gravity on that scale has not much influence. But if we assume it still can have an effect : The problem is to avoid the uncertainty principle. For example, you know what the result of the interaction would be and as such you should be able to calculate back to the real state of the to probe subject. When you do a known measurement with a precisely controlled interaction, i think the results would still different then calculated.
That's why i think gravity even how small it's effect is, must be incorporated as well. Also, gravity has a time lag on those scales. Similar as an result force. As such the distortion is not where the gravity is strongest but comes later. It is position depended. Depended on where the gravity exerts it's force the distortion will lag behind.


Simplified view which i think is the case if gravity can still exert an effect :

I think if gravity has an effect it is as the transfer function in this picture.
Only gravity would not be described as a straight line but as a curve because of the space-time curvature. But onlu if it can exert a force.

 

[Biftheunderstudy]

As with any area of physics, before your theory can even be looked at in a serious way it must be able to show something mathematically. That means you must be able to reproduce an experimental result using new math that your theory describes.

Once it can do this, it has a chance. Then you must show that it doesn't break other areas of physics -- that your theory doesn't just solve one problem.

This is about where string theory is, it can mathematically show many experimentally observed phenomena (mostly because it has them built into the theory), but it has problems finding the "right" gravity theory that doesn't break something.

MOND (modified newtonian dynmaics) is a theory devised to explain one phenomenon (flat rotation curves of galaxies) to try and negate the claim of dark matter. The theory was fine tuned to solve this problem but quickly ran into trouble when faced with other galaxies so it was modified again. Then other tracers of dark matter were found and it now fails to explain the observations again (bullet cluster, intracluster xray gas, weak and strong lensing). The constant modification of the theory to fit observations is...ugly, not necessarily wrong but not how we like to come up with theories from first principles.

What I'm trying to say is that if you want your theories to be taken seriously you need to provide a rigorous mathematical description and prove that it can solve even one problem without breaking the rest of modern physics.

 

[William Gaatjes]

I understand and fully agree. But since for me it has no real importance other that pure interest, i will have to prioritize it behind my programming and designing. To be honest, i was kind of hoping that a real theoretical or practical physicist/ mathematician would think : "what a load of crap" and afterwards after a good night of sleep, start thinking about and use it for his or hers research theory and solve what could not be solved while as you correctly stated not breaking any experimental proven subcatagory of physics. ^_^

EDIT:
Forgot to mention that above transfer of sinus functions must be applied in a matrix calculation for 3d spheres.

 

[Taejin]

It looks like I was right about you from the start. You post things as fact when you know they are false. You say something in every post specifically to annoy people. And you ramble simply for the sake of rambling, knowing (or, at least, claiming to know) that your rambles are lies. I guess that makes you HT's first troll.

Gaatjes is a special kind of insane. You can try to reason with him but he comes back with totally incomprehensible gobbledygook.

He's made a thread in P&N where he complains about oncogenes in GE food. I had a bit of a back and forth with him but nothing you say gets through.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Gaatjes is a special kind of insane. You can try to reason with him but he comes back with totally incomprehensible gobbledygook.

He's made a thread in P&N where he complains about oncogenes in GE food. I had a bit of a back and forth with him but nothing you say gets through.

Listen troll. You have not provided me with anything i already knew.
In that thread i have put you at your place multiple times with cold hard facts that there are no tests done. When we talked about BSE or the mad cow disease. You had the guts to mention that there is no relationship between BSE and vCJD. Well, i dare you to eat BSE meat. Because i know you will not eat it. Those prions have been proven to be transmissable between different species as i have mentioned. Third, I have mentioned my worries about bt cotton and they are proven tight.

bt-cotton is weaker then the natural cotton plant. the added protein expression (cry toxins it is named) against insects did not work at all. The plants need more water. And the same amounts of pesticide as the natural cotton plant(which was the argument of buying and using bt-cotton. bt-cotton = less pesticide but again that was proven wrong). And add the fact that bt -cotton seed is 4 times more expensive as normal cotton seeds. Add the the fact that the bt-cotton supplier has bought up all natural cotton seed suppliers and only sells bt-cotton seed.
Oh yes, Now monsanto produces bollgard2 with 2 proteins. You people seem to forget that the plant itself when nonstop producing a pesticide also needs more nutrients and water. Also, the plants have more problems in India where it can be a lot warmer, this also translates in different behaviour and gene expression of the plant. Or do laws of physics not apply to genetically modified plants ?
You do know the difference between cold blooded animals warm blooded animals and the effects on protein folding and gene expression right ? The same effect can be seen with plants. Temperature dependence is also a very important aspect.

Add the fact that US farmers who do not have used any GE mais are sued because the pollen of the ge seed from the neighbour traveled over to their land infecting their natural seed.

Add the fact that in bt mais, the whole plant (also in the corn it is to be found) produces these extra proteins which are natural insecticides.
I mentioned before and i will mention it again that no tests have been done what the effect will be on humans. One example : nicotine is a natural pesticide and a poison. What happens when people use large quantities of it ? Oh yeah right...

Those GE cauliflower produce proteins. To express the extra genes the plants also received a gene for an enzyme to produce reverse transcriptase. No tests have been done what will happen when people consume large amounts of the cauliflower. Again not tested.

Add the fact that the producer who is the same producer of rBGH claims that there are no cases of mastitis in dairy cattle and that those same cows are pumped full with antibiotics to work around bacterial infections which can also be found in the milk. In the EU rBGH is banned but up till thisday monsanto, yes the same company is still lobbying for the use of rBGH in the EU.
Did i mention that it is widely used in the US ? I have more and more. I can thrash you any claim you make any second because of your lies and FUD.

 

[Taejin]

Listen troll. You have not provided me with anything i already knew.
In that thread i have put you at your place multiple times with cold hard facts that there are no tests done. When we talked about BSE or the mad cow disease. You had the guts to mention that there is no relationship between BSE and vCJD. Well, i dare you to eat BSE meat. Because i know you will not eat it. Those prions have been proven to be transmissable between different species as i have mentioned. Third, I have mentioned my worries about bt cotton and they are proven tight.

bt-cotton is weaker then the natural cotton plant. the added protein expression (cry toxins it is named) against insects did not work at all. The plants need more water. And the same amounts of pesticide as the natural cotton plant(which was the argument of buying and using bt-cotton. bt-cotton = less pesticide but again that was proven wrong). And add the fact that bt -cotton seed is 4 times more expensive as normal cotton seeds. Add the the fact that the bt-cotton supplier has bought up all natural cotton seed suppliers and only sells bt-cotton seed.
Oh yes, Now monsanto produces bollgard2 with 2 proteins. You people seem to forget that the plant itself when nonstop producing a pesticide also needs more nutrients and water. Also, the plants have more problems in India where it can be a lot warmer, this also translates in different behaviour and gene expression of the plant. Or do laws of physics not apply to genetically modified plants ?
You do know the difference between cold blooded animals warm blooded animals and the effects on protein folding and gene expression right ? The same effect can be seen with plants. Temperature dependence is also a very important aspect.

Add the fact that US farmers who do not have used any GE mais are sued because the pollen of the ge seed from the neighbour traveled over to their land infecting their natural seed.

Add the fact that in bt mais, the whole plant (also in the corn it is to be found) produces these extra proteins which are natural insecticides.
I mentioned before and i will mention it again that no tests have been done what the effect will be on humans. One example : nicotine is a natural pesticide and a poison. What happens when people use large quantities of it ? Oh yeah right...

Those GE cauliflower produce proteins. To express the extra genes the plants also received a gene for an enzyme to produce reverse transcriptase. No tests have been done what will happen when people consume large amounts of the cauliflower. Again not tested.

Add the fact that the producer who is the same producer of rBGH claims that there are no cases of mastitis in dairy cattle and that those same cows are pumped full with antibiotics to work around bacterial infections which can also be found in the milk. In the EU rBGH is banned but up till thisday monsanto, yes the same company is still lobbying for the use of rBGH in the EU.
Did i mention that it is widely used in the US ? I have more and more. I can thrash you any claim you make any second because of your lies and FUD.

QFP and cliffs: be afraid of the reverse transcriptase

 

[Born2bwire]

Gaatjes is a special kind of insane. You can try to reason with him but he comes back with totally incomprehensible gobbledygook.

He's made a thread in P&N where he complains about oncogenes in GE food. I had a bit of a back and forth with him but nothing you say gets through.

I wrote him off MONTHS ago man.

 

[CycloWizard]

Gaatjes is a special kind of insane. You can try to reason with him but he comes back with totally incomprehensible gobbledygook.

He's made a thread in P&N where he complains about oncogenes in GE food. I had a bit of a back and forth with him but nothing you say gets through.

He feigned coherency briefly and I bit. Oops. What is that line from Young Frankenstein, something about the ravings of a lunatic mind?