It doesn't - Jan doesn't know what he is talking about
It doesn't. The repair mechanisms just make any mistake less likely.
The mechanisms have evolved. It they got too good, the species that embodied them wouldn't get enough random mutations to be able to adapt to a changing environment, and would have died out.
That might be seen as a form of calibration, bu there's nothing careful about it.
<snip>
Working at CERN is a very high status job for physicists. The people who work there are going to include a relatively high proportion of status seeking creeps who will do anything to get to the top of the pecking order. Every organisation has a few of them. The rest of us work around them.
The ones that get into CERN would have to be particularly good at their work to get tolerated in that kind of kind cooperative project.
<snip>
It the soup theory was aiming to get to DNA-based life in one hit, it would have very bad numbers.
No competent modern author would make that mistake. if you break up the soup theory into a series of the correct smaller steps you might get better numbers, but there are probably a very large number of plausible smaller steps, and life wasn't compelled to progress through the most plausilbe route
Including quite a few for which there are plausible explanations which he doesn't know about
We would be less hostile to speculations base rather less flamboyantly comprehensive ignorance.
<snip>
Clearly Einstein was.
Newton's theory of gravity wasn't his speculation - Wren and Hooke formally proposed the inverse square law for gravity, but Newton had invented calculus which gave him the tool to go from the law to actual elliptical orbits.
Wegener had looked at a lot of continenal outlines before he came up with the idea of continental drift, and backed it up with matching fossils from forerly adjacent areas.
You aren't remotely in that category, and only Trump-level egomania could make you silly enouhg to think that you might be.
It evolved. If you know just a little bit more about biology you have heard of the hox gene (actually hox genes)
John Larkin likes to think that he designs his electronics. Nothing he posts here suggests that he does.
The fact that your posted "speculations" insult the intelligence of pretty much everybody who gets to read them?
Which is to say that they are willing to flatter John Larkin as fulsomely as he seems to think that he deserves.
They aren't sycophantic enough to keep John Larkin happy.
Electronic design is mostly about putting together circuits that work in particular situations, and anticipating all the subset of those situations that might stop them working and working out how to deal with them. It's very rare to need a new topology. Some people know about a lot about the range of topologies used in different applications. Others get excited about re-inventing the wheel
Sure. We can do saltation
It's what makes modern cells work. The subject of this thread is "How life came to Earth" and if it started up here, the first life is unlikely to be either all that complicated or DNA-based.
Everybody has ideas. The trick is to pick out the good ones and discard the rest.
<snip>
They've probably learned not to express them within earshot of you.
People who are proud of their ingenuity are particularly susceptible to "not-invented here" and the even nastier "not-invented-by-me".
On a sunny day (Sun, 13 Feb 2022 13:09:20 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
OK, I have no problem with that, using math all day long in programming for example,
But having a mathematical model does _not_ mean you can just declare it as the final truth, It needs verifying against experiments again and again. For example 'relativity' does _not_ provide such a mechanism and its models as such are quite useless,
I give you an example (aliens told me, is good for a 'nobble price' on your planet though):
You probably have read that clocks run slower in a gravity well (Einsteinian speak).
Now I will show you why a Le Sage model predicts that. In free space Le Sage type particles hit matter from all sides including your 'pendulum'; and it gets 'compressed' in a way.
Close to say a big mass, like for example a planet, some of the Le Sage particles are intercepted, the flux so to speak is less, compression of your pendulum is less, it gets longer and the swinging period slows.
1) there is a limit to this: mass so big, all particles intercepted. 2) all matter, atoms, elementary particles exhibit this effect, should even red-shift their spectrum.So here the mechanism its very simple.
There is an experiment that can be done on earth, the careful observer will notice a directional vector sitting on the planet surface, and maybe electron orbits in the horizontal plane will be faster than those in the vertical plane. And then there are super-conductors and . OK I am not allowed to give you more alien science as you are a humming bean, but take it from ;-
Having the Le Sage mechanism, is like knowing about electrons when designing circuits. Without that and math only, its a dead end - and endlessly repeat a few equation that Einstein derived from some experiments is a dead end road. I have spoken, :-)
While that is true, it is - AFAIK - entirely useless if you merely need to /use/ magnetism and magnetic effects. No one calculates impedance or the strength of a motor by the use of special relativity.
Electronics and electrical engineering are applied fields. You don't need to know /why/ things work the way they do, you need to know how to use them in practice. A little bit of the "why" can be interesting, and it is always useful to have a bit of knowledge beyond your field, but a course on special relativity in an electrical engineering degree would be a waste of time.
Enjoy your fantasy world.
Just don't let your daughter near s.e.d. - reading your posts would be too embarrassing for her.
/Everyone/ has ideas.
The only strange thing is that some people have this twisted concept that /they/ are special in regard to ideas - that /their/ ideas are somehow better than everyone else's, or that only /they/ have good ideas.
Maybe it is because in the past, you have had a couple of unusually good ideas. It happens - people get lucky. If you also have some reasonable skill in the relevant field, good connections with the right people, and enough determination and courage to run with the idea, then you can achieve success with it. That's great - it's good for the person, and (often) good for others.
But you have got yourself into a kind of narcissism or megalomania where you think /all/ your ideas are great, and other peoples' are not. Perhaps you've had too many people around you - at home or at work - who kept telling you your ideas are good and worth considering. If you were into politics instead of electronics, maybe you'd be at a podium telling people your ideas of injecting bleach, nuking hurricanes, or shining bright UV lights insight your body - they must be good ideas because you are a "very stable genius". Fortunately for the world, you are just a harmless electronics engineer.
Your ideas are like everyone else's. Mostly they are rubbish, mostly derivative, mostly they don't stand up to scrutiny or fit with reality. Most of the good ones have already been thought of by someone else. Occasionally you'll have a truly terrible idea and not recognise it before things go horribly wrong (we all do that sometimes), and occasionally you'll have a really good idea.
However, your evaluation filters are broken. You don't realise that most of your ideas are rubbish, so you don't filter them out yourself before opening your mouth and proving yourself a fool. You don't realise that everyone else has ideas just like you, and condemn them for having better filters than you.
It's a shame. It makes you look /so/ stupid, so ignorant and unthinking, and also so nasty and unpleasant. I am pretty sure that is an unfair image of you, but it is the impression you give.
I agree. It is only about 1/400 th of the volume of our galaxy.
But there are a hell of a lot of stars within 10k ly even so. There are
133 within 10ly.The milky way is densely populated with stars in the plane of the galaxy. Aiming at the densest regions of stars like they did with M13 once probably isn't likely to yield results since the stars in globular clusters are too close together for their own good (and get ever closer by flinging unlucky ones off to infinity).
/Informed/ speculations are fun and more than acceptable.
My manager^2 in the bit of HPLabs that recruited me was pretty laid back, but he had one rule: you must know the literature.
And little fleas have lesser fleas upon their backs to bite 'em.
Eventually in a quantised world they get too small to be viable.
Viral phages that attack bacteria are also quite interesting and some of them may yet have therapeutic value. Progress in this field is slow but steady as the various pieces are found and understood.
Tardigrades only go back about about half a billion years. They haven't changed all that much - they are good enough to beat most things in terms of staying alive (if only just) in very hostile environments.
All mathematical models are simplifications of reality. Once you've got it more or less right there's not a lot of point in re-testing it in the region of interest.
As soon as you move to a different region of operation you do need to rest it against reality to find out of the previously negligible effects you could previously get away with neglecting had become more significant.
Don't be stupid. The satellites that create the Global Positioning System are moving quite fast enough to require you to correct for relativistic effects.
The switch from cyclotrons to synchrotrons was required because the particles being accelerated in synchrotrons were moving close enough to the speed of light that relativistic effects had to be figured in.
Who cares why, The question is whether it predicts it accurately - and it doesn't seem to (from the little that I've read).
<snip more ill-informed nonsense>
Absolutely. But it is one of those insights that makes electromagnetism somewhat more coherent.
No is your mantra. Maybe is mine.
..........
But modern science and technology developed mainly in Christian countries. The Jesuits have been great scientists and mathematicians.
...........
I think that all EEs take a couple of physics courses. I took two, but they didn't get to QM and relativity. That's not a "failing", as relativity is not used much in electronic design.
The big failing in modern EE courses is too much easily-forgotten mathematical rigor and too little development of electrical instincts.
You snipped my question: why do you post to SED? Is it yet another venue to insult people?
Are you a biologist?
Do you design electronics?
Some competant biologists have done the math. It doesn't look promising. So other possibilities might be condidered.
Or wonderful.
I absolutely do! As Phil H says, inventing things is the most fun you can have standing up.
Do you enjoy your World of No?
She isn't interested in electronics. She is interested in DNA and motorcycles. She's a PhD botanist and a certified BMW motorcycle mechanic. I didn't breed any delicate girls.
Besides, younger people don't post to usenet.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.