Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

+1 athiestsFollow

#1 Dec 18 2006 at 6:49 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Quote:
Zeng and two members of his UNL team recently found double helixes of ice molecules that resemble the structure of DNA and self-assemble under high pressure inside carbon nanotubes.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061213123744.htm

well. This one dimensional ICE apparently just happens to form itself into a pattern that resembles DNA doesn't make it look good for the God/Creation pushers.
That The Pattern "such as LIFE/DNA" is something that came just happen to show up in ice molecules under a certain set of circumstances pretty much must mean that any pattern can form in the universe under a certain set of circumstances.

unless of course it merely intonates a deeper universal pattern under which ALL things follow and of which this is but an example of some molecules following it just as DNA follows it and just as all things must follow it to some level, but that's just crazy talk.

Edited, Dec 18th 2006 9:52am by Kelvyquayo
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#2 Dec 18 2006 at 6:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Maybe God wanted it to form ice DNA, Mr. Smart Guy!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#3 Dec 18 2006 at 6:54 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Maybe a race of people made of frozen water are about to start taking over!

Thank Bob for global warming!!
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#4 Dec 18 2006 at 7:01 AM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
All hail our new Ice Overlords!
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#5 Dec 18 2006 at 7:01 AM Rating: Decent
Ha! Take that all you silly believers! Your God has abandoned you!


Let the heretical orgies begin!
#6 Dec 18 2006 at 7:12 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Uh, maybe god IS the Double Helix.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#7 Dec 18 2006 at 7:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
bodhisattva wrote:
All hail our new Ice Overlords!


This is what I thought of immediately. Yes, I'm a total geek.

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#8 Dec 18 2006 at 7:18 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
The Elinda of Doom wrote:
Uh, maybe god IS the Double Helix.


looks like the pagan snake worshiping doctors got to that first




I like theses though

Quote:
DNA = 2 Individual streams of North / South pole magnets & the Neutral particles of matter they orbit as
a common core. Understand these twisting strands do not represent DNA at it's most reduced form.The True form of the magnetic field's signature of DNA or anything else is reduced to one complete magnetic formation."BEFORE IT GROWS" into these complex twisting magnetic strands or any other complex formation and networking.


Edited, Dec 18th 2006 10:24am by Kelvyquayo
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#9 Dec 18 2006 at 7:57 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Just how, exactly, do you make a one dimensional helix? By definition, I'd think a helix occupies at least two dimensions and more likely, three. Someone care to explain that to me?

Totem
#10 Dec 18 2006 at 8:06 AM Rating: Decent
Calvin wrote:
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning
#11 Dec 18 2006 at 8:15 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Totem wrote:
Just how, exactly, do you make a one dimensional helix? By definition, I'd think a helix occupies at least two dimensions and more likely, three. Someone care to explain that to me?

Totem




The helix itself wouldn't be one-dimensional. The points that it is comprised of are one-dimensional.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#12 Dec 18 2006 at 8:28 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Even the points of a helix would have to occupy more than one dimension though. In order for it to take up space it needs to have a location on the X, Y and Z axis. It still doesn't make sense that it could only have one physical property.

Totem
#13 Dec 18 2006 at 8:54 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Totem wrote:
Even the points of a helix would have to occupy more than one dimension though. In order for it to take up space it needs to have a location on the X, Y and Z axis. It still doesn't make sense that it could only have one physical property.

Totem



If a point had an X,Y,Z with it, it would be 3-dimensional. One-dimension is simpy the unconnected dots.
They are the building blocks of the dimensional universe.


It is arguable though whether any single dimensional point or zero-dimensional point in time/space is nothing more than just the universes version of "raw data" concidering that everything that HAS an atomic structure is also comprised of one-dimensional points.

This is the basis of the "Nothing Really Exists" arguments, because if we are made of 1-dimensional points which as you say "don't take up space", then essentially we don't "really" exist in any tradistional sense of the word.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#14 Dec 18 2006 at 9:09 AM Rating: Decent
I swear I've seen this episode of Star Trek: TNG.
#15 Dec 18 2006 at 1:44 PM Rating: Decent
Kaelesh wrote:
I swear I've seen this episode of Star Trek: TNG.


Is that the one where the computer translated the lifeform sawing the crew were "ugly bags of mostly water"?
#16 Dec 18 2006 at 5:57 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
BloodwolfeX wrote:
Kaelesh wrote:
I swear I've seen this episode of Star Trek: TNG.


Is that the one where the computer translated the lifeform sawing the crew were "ugly bags of mostly water"?



I think he's talking about either Where Silence Has Lease, where Data and Pulaski have a cute little bonding moment pondering the notion of non-dimension being a dimension.

or if he is sticking with the original post perhaps both The Naked Time of the original series and The Naked Now of NextGen where the crews get infected with a disease that travels along stings of water molecules.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#17 Dec 18 2006 at 6:48 PM Rating: Decent
Kelvyquayo the Irrelevant wrote:
BloodwolfeX wrote:
Kaelesh wrote:
I swear I've seen this episode of Star Trek: TNG.


Is that the one where the computer translated the lifeform sawing the crew were "ugly bags of mostly water"?



I think he's talking about either Where Silence Has Lease, where Data and Pulaski have a cute little bonding moment pondering the notion of non-dimension being a dimension.

or if he is sticking with the original post perhaps both The Naked Time of the original series and The Naked Now of NextGen where the crews get infected with a disease that travels along stings of water molecules.


I Smiley: bowdown before your Trekkie knowledge.

Teach me.
#18 Dec 18 2006 at 7:19 PM Rating: Good
I did the double helix with Kelvy's mother last night, it was fantastic.
#19 Dec 18 2006 at 10:00 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

Ice-9! Smiley: eek


#20 Dec 19 2006 at 2:15 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
But that's my point, Kelvy. In order of anything to occupy space, say, on the X axis, it also has to occupy space on the Y and Z axis, otherwise it is a contradiction of terms. Nothing can be on a longitudinal line without having some thickness or depth to it, or it wouldn't exist. The only single dimension I can think of where something-- or rather nothing, ie zero --can be is the 4th dimension, time. But once you give something a physical property like molecules, it must hold a point in space, thus occupying at least three, and to my unscientificly oriented brain, four dimensions.

Explain this to me. Obviously smarter people than ol' Totem are making a distinction somewhere that is woooshing over my head.

Totem
#21 Dec 19 2006 at 6:20 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
you are correct. Anything that is physical must have 3 dimensions.. otherwise it is either data or energy.

The label of this ice as "one dimensional" is indeed misleading.
This is from the 2001 article:

Quote:
Researchers Model Four Kinds Of One-Dimensional Ice

...the ice crystals in the tubes are "quasi-one-dimensional" because they are almost but not quite mathematically one-dimensional ( that is, a line with no width). The four new ice crystals that his team modeled follow the two-dimensional "Nebraska" ice that he, Koga and Tanaka modeled in 1997....


"Right now, there are 13 types of (three-dimensional) ice that have been discovered in nature. We earlier reported the two-dimensional 'Nebraska' ice and this time we found four members in one-D. They all satisfy the 'ice rule' that every water molecule (except on the surface) forms four hydrogen bonds with its nearest neighbor water molecules."




probably some geeky math rule that let's you label something one-dimension if it simply meets some set parameters, such as the type of bonding that they do.

Good brainwork! Smiley: clap


____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#22 Dec 19 2006 at 7:12 AM Rating: Decent
trickybeck wrote:
Ice-9! Smiley: eek


This is what I thought of, too! And yet, in the past couple of weeks I've twice been asked to list my favorite books, and every time I forget to list CAT'S CRADLE, which is just too friggin' awesome to not be listed on a list of favorite books. (I could have totally excised the last six words from that sentence. But I didn't.)

And, just to nitpick--the atheists don't need any +1 in the science of figuring out the origins of stuff. All of the evidence points to Godless evolution, and none whatsoever points to Bible Fairy Tales. So with this +1 we're scoring about 2,000,001 points of science to Creation's big fat goose egg. Think anyone will wise up when we get to 3 mil?
#23 Dec 19 2006 at 6:52 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Quote:
All of the evidence points to Godless evolution,


No.
Even if all the "evidence" pointed to evolution it still wouldn't mean "Godless evolution" as you put it.

understand? The scientific notion of evolution has nothing to do with proving God anymore than sunrises.


Quote:
and none whatsoever points to Bible Fairy Tales.


Well,
One, why do you assume that it's got to be a traditional Christian argument? and Two there are proofs of Great Floods and other such tales of nations and other things that are in the Bible.
in other words even if athiests were able to firmly disprove the Bible there would still be all of the other people that never believed in the Bible to convince. Many people of other cultures don't even believe in a God like we have ever understood it. They really do believe in the "force" and karma and gods and all other manner of wahtever people can think of.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#24 Dec 19 2006 at 10:49 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Totem wrote:
Just how, exactly, do you make a one dimensional helix? By definition, I'd think a helix occupies at least two dimensions and more likely, three. Someone care to explain that to me?

Mathmetically helixes occupy three dimensions. They are formed by drawing a straight line on a cylindrical plane.

I would surmsie that Kelvyquayo is trying to describe a 3 dimensional helix in which the line line has no width or thickness.
Totem wrote:
But that's my point, Kelvy. In order of anything to occupy space, say, on the X axis, it also has to occupy space on the Y and Z axis, otherwise it is a contradiction of terms.

Singularities supposedly have zero volume. Cosmic strings supposedly have 1 dimension. And domain walls etc.
Totem wrote:
can be is the 4th dimension, time.

The fourth dimension is not time. It is a paralell extension of the third dimension.


CPL is boring.
#25 Dec 20 2006 at 2:01 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Huh. I always thought time was the fourth dimension, but now you're telling me it occupies the vertical or Z axis. Is this correct, Allegory?

Totem
#26 Dec 20 2006 at 4:05 AM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Well the z axis is part of the third dimension, the fourth would have a separate label, such as w. It is in discussion how many dimensions we exist in and if there is a limit, but mathematically you can create any number of dimensions for any object you want. Tesseracts are four dimensional "cubes." An n-sphere is an n+1 dimensional sphere.

Time is only referred to as the fourth dimension when discussing space time fabric involved in Einstein's theory. Time is treated as part of a four dimensional manifold there.

Dimensions are added by extending a rank of dimension parallel to itself. For exmaple take a line segement and extend it parallel, you get a square. Take a square and pull it "upwards" in parallel you get a cube. By extending a cube in parallel (very difficult to visualise) you get a hypercube, a tesseract. This can be continued forever. And just as you observing from the third dimension look down onto a slide of paramecium (approximately two dimensional) and can see everything inside of them so to could someone observing from a fourth dimension see all layers of your insides simultaneously. A sphere passing through a 2d plane would look like a circle that suddenly appears, grows larger, shrinks, and then disappears. Likewise a higher dimensional hypersphere passing through a 3d polyhedron would look like a sphere that suddenly appears, grows larger, shrinks and disappears.


Flatland is a nice, short little book that helps explain the relationships between higher and lower tier dimensions.

Edited, Dec 20th 2006 6:12am by Allegory
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 289 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (289)