Enigmatic hair
How does one strand tell the next
Where, how much to curl?
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Darwin Schmarvin
Recently the NY Times ran a squib in its Science Section about crickets in Hawaii that were being decimated by a parasitic fly whose larva burrow into the cricket and kill it. This fly is attracted to the cricket by its distinctive chirp and lays its eggs to the fatal detriment of the cricket. On the island of Kauai, since 1991, these crickets have been in sharp decline as a consequence. However, more recently the population of these crickets has risen dramatically as they have fortuitously lost their ability to chirp by a genetic mutation that eliminated a protuberance on their forewings that, when rubbed together, produces this clarion call. And this genetic change has all occurred in less than 20 generations according to researchers.
There is a branch of evolutionary science (not based in “intelligent design” or God-directed genetic mutation) called the “eonic effect” which proposes a non-random or environmentally-directed pattern of evolution. This somewhat contradicts Darwin’s basic claim of “natural selection,” a totally random process of genetic mutation which then preserves the more beneficial of these mutations through the better survival and reproduction of various effected species. It seems to me that pure Darwinian evolution could not have produced this cricket’s almost-complete genetic mutation in just 20 generations. The reason for my skepticism derives from the fact that such a random mutation should take many generations to first occur. Then, because both forewing protuberance and non-protuberance crickets would successfully breed (the parasitic fly still to kill the former), many, many more generations would be needed for this mutation to become rife.
I have sensed for a long time that the eonic effect has been at least a partial contributor to biota evolution (including for our own species) … mainly because of the immense diversity of plants and animals that has occurred in the relatively short period (even if tens of millions of years). Clearly, non-agenda-driven statisticians could contribute mightily to our better understanding of the push and pull between these two seeming contributors to evolution.
(You may ask: How then do the female crickets find the non-chirping male ones to mate? The answer is there are still a few chirpers left ... soooo ... all the non-chirping males congregate near the male chirpers and, when the females come acallin', they are usurped by the non-chirpers. I wonder how the Darwinians would explain this one? Survival of the non-fittest? What happens when all the chirpers die off? Perhaps the females will start using escort services?)
There is a branch of evolutionary science (not based in “intelligent design” or God-directed genetic mutation) called the “eonic effect” which proposes a non-random or environmentally-directed pattern of evolution. This somewhat contradicts Darwin’s basic claim of “natural selection,” a totally random process of genetic mutation which then preserves the more beneficial of these mutations through the better survival and reproduction of various effected species. It seems to me that pure Darwinian evolution could not have produced this cricket’s almost-complete genetic mutation in just 20 generations. The reason for my skepticism derives from the fact that such a random mutation should take many generations to first occur. Then, because both forewing protuberance and non-protuberance crickets would successfully breed (the parasitic fly still to kill the former), many, many more generations would be needed for this mutation to become rife.
I have sensed for a long time that the eonic effect has been at least a partial contributor to biota evolution (including for our own species) … mainly because of the immense diversity of plants and animals that has occurred in the relatively short period (even if tens of millions of years). Clearly, non-agenda-driven statisticians could contribute mightily to our better understanding of the push and pull between these two seeming contributors to evolution.
(You may ask: How then do the female crickets find the non-chirping male ones to mate? The answer is there are still a few chirpers left ... soooo ... all the non-chirping males congregate near the male chirpers and, when the females come acallin', they are usurped by the non-chirpers. I wonder how the Darwinians would explain this one? Survival of the non-fittest? What happens when all the chirpers die off? Perhaps the females will start using escort services?)
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Gravity's Rainbow
Here are some thoughts about gravity that have been keeping me awake for lo these many nights:
- We were somewhat led astray in Physics 101. A bowling ball and a golf ball do NOT fall to Earth from the same height at the same rate. Gravity is a function of the density of opposing masses and the distance between them. Since the bowling ball is more massive than the golf ball, it falls slightly faster, but because the mass of the Earth so overwhelms the mass of these two balls, the difference is so slight as to be almost immeasurable.
- In the U.S., force is measured in poundals (a function of the existing gravitational pull of the Earth). Mass is measured in pounds, ounces, etc. I find it a little strange that the weight of things on Earth (a force) is given in pounds, etc. when they really should be given in poundals (or newtons … or dynes).
- We know a lot about gravity except what it really is? Clearly gravity exists at the celestial level. It even seems to exist at the molecular level. (Isn’t this how dust bunnies come to be?) And I even believe that it exists at the sub-atomic level. Otherwise, how can black holes have such massive gravity when all their atoms have been crushed down to their most elementary particles? Beyond this I cannot speculate except that gravity may, in the very end, be another dimension. (Einstein said that gravity was a “warp in the space-time continuum”. I suspect that, if he were alive today and given the speculation on a 10-dimensional world, he might also label it another “dimension".)
- Speaking of black holes, their massive gravity keeps even light from escaping their grasp. Doesn’t this suggest that photons have at least some mass however minute? Also, Einstein’s “gravity lens” bends light around large stars. This too supports the idea that photons have some minimal mass since their “mass” is clearly influenced by the gravity of these large stars.
- Matter, by its mass, has gravity; energy doesn’t (at least in many scientists’ opinion). Is this the major difference between them? When matter is converted to energy (say through fission), it seems to lose its gravity. And if energy can be converted back into mass (a controversial postulate*), must it re-acquire gravity first?
- Gravity can seem to emanate from empty space. Consider the donut. Its center of gravity, when horizontal is at the center of its whole … so one cannot balance it on a pencil in this orientation. If one had a donut the size of the earth and someone fell from outer space toward its center of gravity, would the faller keep on going through the whole and back into space? If one was walking on the surface of this weird planet toward the hole, at what point would one’s adhesion to the surface become unstable enough to jeopardize one’s safety?
- Gravity seems to act instantaneously across the vastness of space (consider Pluto obediently staying in its orbit), whereas a gravitational wave (a fluctuation in the curvature of space-time which propagates as a wave) is said to travel at the speed of light. If the Sun were to suddenly disappear, how long would it take for the planets in our Solar System to fly off into space? At the same time someone on Pluto saw, after a 4.1 hour delay, the Sun's light go out … or instantly? I propose that, if it would be instantly, then there is more evidence that gravity is indeed another dimension.
- Gravity, it seems, has organized the matter in our universe into planets, planetary systems, solar systems, and galaxies. However, once converted to energy, this same universe tends to dissipate due to entropy. Therefore, entropy’s antithesis (in two different ways) is gravity.
* In 1998 researchers at Stanford University's Linear Accelerator Center successfully converted energy into matter. This feat was accomplished by using lasers and incredibly strong electromagnetic fields to change ordinary light into matter.
- We were somewhat led astray in Physics 101. A bowling ball and a golf ball do NOT fall to Earth from the same height at the same rate. Gravity is a function of the density of opposing masses and the distance between them. Since the bowling ball is more massive than the golf ball, it falls slightly faster, but because the mass of the Earth so overwhelms the mass of these two balls, the difference is so slight as to be almost immeasurable.
- In the U.S., force is measured in poundals (a function of the existing gravitational pull of the Earth). Mass is measured in pounds, ounces, etc. I find it a little strange that the weight of things on Earth (a force) is given in pounds, etc. when they really should be given in poundals (or newtons … or dynes).
- We know a lot about gravity except what it really is? Clearly gravity exists at the celestial level. It even seems to exist at the molecular level. (Isn’t this how dust bunnies come to be?) And I even believe that it exists at the sub-atomic level. Otherwise, how can black holes have such massive gravity when all their atoms have been crushed down to their most elementary particles? Beyond this I cannot speculate except that gravity may, in the very end, be another dimension. (Einstein said that gravity was a “warp in the space-time continuum”. I suspect that, if he were alive today and given the speculation on a 10-dimensional world, he might also label it another “dimension".)
- Speaking of black holes, their massive gravity keeps even light from escaping their grasp. Doesn’t this suggest that photons have at least some mass however minute? Also, Einstein’s “gravity lens” bends light around large stars. This too supports the idea that photons have some minimal mass since their “mass” is clearly influenced by the gravity of these large stars.
- Matter, by its mass, has gravity; energy doesn’t (at least in many scientists’ opinion). Is this the major difference between them? When matter is converted to energy (say through fission), it seems to lose its gravity. And if energy can be converted back into mass (a controversial postulate*), must it re-acquire gravity first?
- Gravity can seem to emanate from empty space. Consider the donut. Its center of gravity, when horizontal is at the center of its whole … so one cannot balance it on a pencil in this orientation. If one had a donut the size of the earth and someone fell from outer space toward its center of gravity, would the faller keep on going through the whole and back into space? If one was walking on the surface of this weird planet toward the hole, at what point would one’s adhesion to the surface become unstable enough to jeopardize one’s safety?
- Gravity seems to act instantaneously across the vastness of space (consider Pluto obediently staying in its orbit), whereas a gravitational wave (a fluctuation in the curvature of space-time which propagates as a wave) is said to travel at the speed of light. If the Sun were to suddenly disappear, how long would it take for the planets in our Solar System to fly off into space? At the same time someone on Pluto saw, after a 4.1 hour delay, the Sun's light go out … or instantly? I propose that, if it would be instantly, then there is more evidence that gravity is indeed another dimension.
- Gravity, it seems, has organized the matter in our universe into planets, planetary systems, solar systems, and galaxies. However, once converted to energy, this same universe tends to dissipate due to entropy. Therefore, entropy’s antithesis (in two different ways) is gravity.
* In 1998 researchers at Stanford University's Linear Accelerator Center successfully converted energy into matter. This feat was accomplished by using lasers and incredibly strong electromagnetic fields to change ordinary light into matter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)