[Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
Hi All, 5-23-09 Time, like truth, is subjective; it is a feeling about something. In terms of natural selection, it is to our advantage to be able to predict what is going to happen; and time is a series of events, heart beats or sunrises, that lets us keep track of things. Jack Smith Jones Beene wrote: - Original Message From: Mauro Lacy Only velocity exists, physically. From then on, time is derived as t=v/s. That is, in physics time is no more than a mathematical construct. I meant: t=s/v Which comes first - the chicken or the egg? Why not say that only time and space exist, physically, and that velocity is derived therefrom ? After all, there are ways to measure time independently of velocity, but no way to measure velocity independently of time.
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
Harry Veeder wrote: You mean the general phenomena of 'motion' rather than velocity. Yes. I've said velocity to be able to write the formula: t=s/v First it comes motion, and after that we can talk about rate of motion(i.e. velocity) and from then on we can talk about time. Incidentally, that's probably the reason why the second(the unit of time) is called that way. Please note that when we observe or measure time, we always do it indirectly. In an analog clock, what we observe is displacement of the small hands, at a given fixed angular velocity. A digital clock, although not so obvious, is similar, because a digital clock depends on an oscillator. And we know that an oscillation is produced from (and is equivalent to) a rotation. So again what we are observing is angular displacement, at a given angular velocity. So, time is in reality a compound unit. A unit of displacement per unit of velocity. This is probably not obvious to us because we have made velocity the compound unit. But that can be changed. We can define the unit of velocity, let's say, the /velox/, and from then on define the second as /meters per velox/. We can define the velox in an equivalente way as the SI second is defined. And this is straightforward. First it is convenient to define the /angular velox/. By example: The angular velox is 1 / /x/ times the angular velocity of the electron spin. That is, it is an angular velocity such that when the electron has completed x revolutions around its spin axis, our unit velox vector has completed one around its own. From then on, the linear velox, or velox for short, can be defined as a velocity such that when our unit velox vector has completed one revolution around its axis, our unit linear velox point has displaced 1 meter over a straight line. Alternatively, we can define the linear velox as the absolute value or modulus of the tangential velocity of our unit angular velox vector, with a radius r=1/(2*pi). Now, our unit second is defined as the time that it takes to displace something 1 meter at a velocity of 1 velox. All this confussion comes probably from the influence of the calculus, where we define velocity as the derivative of motion respect to time. That is a great achievement, and a very powerful mathematical technique, but nevertheless we must not forget that, regarding the reality of the subyacent physical processes, we're grasping at straws, so to speak, when doing that. Harry - Original Message - From: Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar Date: Friday, May 22, 2009 11:51 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE Velocity does not need to be measured to exist. I'm talking about the intrinsic physical existence of movement, not about measurements. And what you say is anyways probably not true: you can measure velocity comparing it to other velocities, by example. Like in those two velocities are equal, or that velocity is 2 times that other velocity.
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
Taylor J. Smith wrote: Hi All, 5-23-09 Time, like truth, is subjective; it is a feeling about something. In terms of natural selection, it is to our advantage to be able to predict what is going to happen; and time is a series of events, heart beats or sunrises, that lets us keep track of things. You're right, regarding the general conception of time. But we're trying to define 'physical time', that is, the subyacent reality (or not) of time in the domain of physical processes. Jack Smith Jones Beene wrote: - Original Message From: Mauro Lacy Only velocity exists, physically. From then on, time is derived as t=v/s. That is, in physics time is no more than a mathematical construct. I meant: t=s/v Which comes first - the chicken or the egg? Why not say that only time and space exist, physically, and that velocity is derived therefrom ? After all, there are ways to measure time independently of velocity, but no way to measure velocity independently of time.
[Vo]:Kiplinger comments on FEDERAL SPENDING
This would seem to be encouraging news from May 23 2009, The Kiplinger Letter: Excerpt: FEDERAL SPENDING: Gaining prominence in Washington: Science research...even basic science, which doesn't yield quick economic payoff. It's cheering news for business, which struggled against President Bush distaste for a large federal research role. Congress will approve spending billions more on basic and applied sciences in 2010 and beyond. Later this year, lawmakers will dole out about $135 billion in fiscal 2010 to more than two dozen federal agencies, labs and other facilities working on everything from antiviral drugs to batteries to water reclamation. That's 18% more than this year and 27% more than Uncle Sam forked over in 2008. Plus it doesn't include more than $1 billion allocated for science research in 2010 in the stimulus package. Particularly promising areas worth noting: More funds for high risk, high return research at private companies...usually small ones...on projects that might otherwise not get done at all. Among them: Nanotechnology for improving energy storage. Software for weather forecasting. Deep-sea-mineral detection. Superlightweight ceramic and composite materials. Awards for medical innovations, such as alternative treatments for cancer and other early stage biomedical work that lacks the data for the big federal grants. And more cooperative energy research with university and private firms. Perhaps MPI or Ultraconductors will be able to secure a tiny slice of the pie. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
Mauro, Although I do not completely disagree with anything you say, you still have not made a good case for the assertion that velocity (motion) is more basic, as an underlying measurement standard - or prime-variable, than is time. In every case you site, you are in effect eliminating 'relativity' considerations by injecting the POV of a preferred viewer. For instance, when you say: Please note that when we observe or measure time, we always do it indirectly. Not exactly true ! Or at least it is the same situation when we observe and measure space, since we also do that indirectly as well. Any observer must depend on physical inputs - inputs that either the viewer instigates, or else the viewer receives - such as reflected photons. You must eliminate the local viewer - in order to make the case for what is to be the most basic variable in our mental understanding of how to measure anything. And of course that is hard to do, in the abstract. But all-in-all, let's step back a moment. Isn't this exercise little more than a tempest in a teapot? I mean- what are the furthest implications which you could imagine for the correct answer, even if there were one? OK - moving on... And being one who like to indulge in meaningless trivia on occasion - and for the sake of argument, I will contend that only with time as the prime and most basic variable - is the local viewer and his particular POV most nearly eliminated. This is because the universe does contains it own mechanism for gauging duration accurately, a universal clock if you will; and this functions to eliminate the local POV of any viewer throughout the entire expanse of space. That mechanism can be reduced to the standard clock with a ticking rate of 1420 MHz - and is timed precisely by the spin isomers of hydrogen; and most importantly is available everywhere in the Universe, independent of POV. The ball is now in your court. Jones
[Vo]:GATC and ESP
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/04/does-dna-have-t.html Does DNA Have Telepathic Properties? DNA has been found to have a bizarre ability to put itself together, even at a distance, when according to known science it shouldn't be able to. Explanation: None, at least not yet. Scientists are reporting evidence that contrary to our current beliefs about what is possible, intact double-stranded DNA has the “amazing” ability to recognize similarities in other DNA strands from a distance. Somehow they are able to identify one another, and the tiny bits of genetic material tend to congregate with similar DNA. The recognition of similar sequences in DNA’s chemical subunits, occurs in a way unrecognized by science. There is no known reason why the DNA is able to combine the way it does, and from a current theoretical standpoint this feat should be chemically impossible. Even so, the research published in ACS’ Journal of Physical Chemistry B, shows very clearly that homology recognition between sequences of several hundred nucleotides occurs without physical contact or presence of proteins. Double helixes of DNA can recognize matching molecules from a distance and then gather together, all seemingly without help from any other molecules or chemical signals. In the study, scientists observed the behavior of fluorescently tagged DNA strands placed in water that contained no proteins or other material that could interfere with the experiment. Strands with identical nucleotide sequences were about twice as likely to gather together as DNA strands with different sequences. No one knows how individual DNA strands could possibly be communicating in this way, yet somehow they do. The “telepathic” effect is a source of wonder and amazement for scientists. “Amazingly, the forces responsible for the sequence recognition can reach across more than one nanometer of water separating the surfaces of the nearest neighbor DNA,” said the authors Geoff S. Baldwin, Sergey Leikin, John M. Seddon, and Alexei A. Kornyshev and colleagues. This recognition effect may help increase the accuracy and efficiency of the homologous recombination of genes, which is a process responsible for DNA repair, evolution, and genetic diversity. The new findings may also shed light on ways to avoid recombination errors, which are factors in cancer, aging, and other health issues. end
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
Jones Beene wrote: Mauro, Although I do not completely disagree with anything you say, you still have not made a good case for the assertion that velocity (motion) is more basic, as an underlying measurement standard - or prime-variable, than is time. In every case you site, you are in effect eliminating 'relativity' considerations by injecting the POV of a preferred viewer. For instance, when you say: Please note that when we observe or measure time, we always do it indirectly. Not exactly true ! Or at least it is the same situation when we observe and measure space, since we also do that indirectly as well. Any observer must depend on physical inputs - inputs that either the viewer instigates, or else the viewer receives - such as reflected photons. When we measure space, we measure space, that is, we measure the underlying physical reality we know as space. There's a POV, and a measurement process, of course, but there's also something underlyingly real(altough as I've said, this is also debatable in the case of space) that we're measuring. When we measure time, we measure displacement in space at a certain velocity. There's no such quantity as time, physically. We are not measuring any intrinsic physical property, but abstracting a value from other physical properties(movement.) That's what I meant with 'indirectly'. Not the indirection that results from the measurement process, but the one that results of deducting time taking as a basis changes in displacement, that is, taking as a basis other physical properties. We later on attribute reality to this abstraction, which is incorrect, physically speaking. You must eliminate the local viewer - in order to make the case for what is to be the most basic variable in our mental understanding of how to measure anything. And of course that is hard to do, in the abstract. But all-in-all, let's step back a moment. Isn't this exercise little more than a tempest in a teapot? It is, in a sense, but it's not in another(epistemological). More about that below. I mean- what are the furthest implications which you could imagine for the correct answer, even if there were one? The furthest implications are that you have no right in physics, epistemologically speaking, to talk about relative time scales, or which is the same, time dimensions. You can do it, of course, but epistemologically speaking, you'll be not doing good, sound physics. The best thing you can do regarding time in your physical model, is to define an absolute time(because that's what time is, a mere abstraction with no real existence) If you do that, the other real physical properties will reflect the underlying changes to which they are subjected. That is, you will not be masking the reality of the physical processes under time distortions and correlations of your reference frames. It's better if you stick to putting 't=0' in all your reference frames (that is, if you define 'now', 'instant' and 'instantaneously' independently of the velocity of anything) and later take the real consequences of the observed physical phenomena. That way, your physical model will be more according to reality. OK - moving on... And being one who like to indulge in meaningless trivia on occasion - and for the sake of argument, I will contend that only with time as the prime and most basic variable - is the local viewer and his particular POV most nearly eliminated. This is because the universe does contains it own mechanism for gauging duration accurately, a universal clock if you will; and this functions to eliminate the local POV of any viewer throughout the entire expanse of space. That mechanism can be reduced to the standard clock with a ticking rate of 1420 MHz - and is timed precisely by the spin isomers of hydrogen; and most importantly is available everywhere in the Universe, independent of POV. That's incorrect, as I've showed before. Frequency is again not a direct measure of something physical called time, but of a number of cycles(rotations) during a *given* duration of time. It is a consequence of rotation, which is a result of angular velocity, which is the real underlying physical process(i.e. circular *movement* around a center, at a certain *velocity*(rate of displacement.)) The ball is now in your court. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: The furthest implications are that you have no right in physics, epistemologically speaking, to talk about relative time scales, or which is the same, time dimensions. I believe your argument would be negated by successful results from John G. Cramer's experiments: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/21/ING5LNJSBF1.DTL When NASA dropped funding for such advanced projects, John received funding from public donations. His present status: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/05/20/1938752.aspx Since two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time, Cramer's entanglement experiements will require the dimensionality of time. Terry
Re: [Vo]:GATC and ESP
Umm, if we are talking nanometer distances... water is, due to naturally h+ and oh - dissasociation, going to have pockets of charge. mighten they not be moving towards each other, but towards the same patch of water? On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/04/does-dna-have-t.html Does DNA Have Telepathic Properties? DNA has been found to have a bizarre ability to put itself together, even at a distance, when according to known science it shouldn't be able to. Explanation: None, at least not yet. Scientists are reporting evidence that contrary to our current beliefs about what is possible, intact double-stranded DNA has the “amazing” ability to recognize similarities in other DNA strands from a distance. Somehow they are able to identify one another, and the tiny bits of genetic material tend to congregate with similar DNA. The recognition of similar sequences in DNA’s chemical subunits, occurs in a way unrecognized by science. There is no known reason why the DNA is able to combine the way it does, and from a current theoretical standpoint this feat should be chemically impossible. Even so, the research published in ACS’ Journal of Physical Chemistry B, shows very clearly that homology recognition between sequences of several hundred nucleotides occurs without physical contact or presence of proteins. Double helixes of DNA can recognize matching molecules from a distance and then gather together, all seemingly without help from any other molecules or chemical signals. In the study, scientists observed the behavior of fluorescently tagged DNA strands placed in water that contained no proteins or other material that could interfere with the experiment. Strands with identical nucleotide sequences were about twice as likely to gather together as DNA strands with different sequences. No one knows how individual DNA strands could possibly be communicating in this way, yet somehow they do. The “telepathic” effect is a source of wonder and amazement for scientists. “Amazingly, the forces responsible for the sequence recognition can reach across more than one nanometer of water separating the surfaces of the nearest neighbor DNA,” said the authors Geoff S. Baldwin, Sergey Leikin, John M. Seddon, and Alexei A. Kornyshev and colleagues. This recognition effect may help increase the accuracy and efficiency of the homologous recombination of genes, which is a process responsible for DNA repair, evolution, and genetic diversity. The new findings may also shed light on ways to avoid recombination errors, which are factors in cancer, aging, and other health issues. end
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 As the smoke cleared, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar mounted the barricade and roared out: The problem with so called time dimensions, is that they lack underlying physical reality. Time does not exist as such, at the physical level; that is, there's nothing inherently real in the mental construction we call time, at the physical level. 'Time', in fact, is the motion of matter in space. Whatever they are. It is an emergent phenomenon. You start there. To fixate on 'time' as some entity unto itself is to reify this relation of matter and space into something it is not. - -- grok. - -- Build the North America-wide General Strike. TODO el poder a los consejos y las comunas. TOUT le pouvoir aux conseils et communes. ALL power to the councils and communes. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkoYMlwACgkQXo3EtEYbt3F3HQCdHY4kzO+BHFNNH2VuypsRdMng 910AnRUnR/nM2ZUbjOqpXkkTbYbKdKMx =jJ5z -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
This discussion is somewhat re-discovering or describing Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System of physics, a unified theory: http://rstheory.org/video/rs-101 A motion or space/time unit is the fundamental particle of the universe, and exists in 3D. Note it is not a unit moving around in space it IS the space and the time --difficult to visualize, I know, but not as hard as modern physics theories with many dimensions 3 ( which I think are mostly bogus, BTW ). Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale Arizona US http://HoytStearns.com -Original Message- From: Mauro Lacy [mailto:ma...@lacy.com.ar] Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 8:52 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE Jones Beene wrote: - Original Message From: Mauro Lacy Only velocity exists, physically. From then on, time is derived as t=v/s. That is, in physics time is no more than a mathematical construct. I meant: t=s/v Which comes first - the chicken or the egg? The problem of which comes first is even more difficult in the particular case of discussions about time, because the very notion of first involves the notion of time, i.e. it involves a temporal sequence. Why not say that only time and space exist, physically, and that velocity is derived therefrom ? ...
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
Terry Blanton wrote: On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: The furthest implications are that you have no right in physics, epistemologically speaking, to talk about relative time scales, or which is the same, time dimensions. I believe your argument would be negated by successful results from My arguments(and they are not mine, by the way, I just happen to expose and defend them, because I've thoroughly thought and meditated on them, and found them to be sound) cannot be negated, nor affirmed, by an experiment, because they are epistemological in nature. They can only be negated, affirmed, or comprehended, through the use of sound thinking. John G. Cramer's experiments: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/21/ING5LNJSBF1.DTL When NASA dropped funding for such advanced projects, John received funding from public donations. His present status: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/05/20/1938752.aspx Since two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time, Cramer's entanglement experiements will require the dimensionality of time. Terry
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. wrote: This discussion is somewhat re-discovering or describing Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System of physics, a unified theory: http://rstheory.org/video/rs-101 A motion or space/time unit is the fundamental particle of the universe, and exists in 3D. A motion does necessarily needs to be described as space divided by time. I've showed that before. Note it is not a unit moving around in space it IS the space and the time --difficult to visualize, I know, but That sounds like what I'm trying to say, but I wouldn't talk about the space and the time, but about the space and the velocity. We can think of a motion as a displacement of a discrete entity in what we may call 'empty space' (but this can probably be simplified further.) That motion has an intrinsic velocity. The most basic motion is probably a circular one, which has an intrinsic angular velocity. Those are physical realities. The rest is an abstraction, including probably the very concept of 'space' we're using as an aid here. That is, space is also an abstraction, being in reality the sub-product of (very specific) motions. not as hard as modern physics theories with many dimensions 3 ( which I think are mostly bogus, BTW ). Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale Arizona US http://HoytStearns.com -Original Message- From: Mauro Lacy [mailto:ma...@lacy.com.ar] Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 8:52 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE Jones Beene wrote: - Original Message From: Mauro Lacy Only velocity exists, physically. From then on, time is derived as t=v/s. That is, in physics time is no more than a mathematical construct. I meant: t=s/v Which comes first - the chicken or the egg? The problem of which comes first is even more difficult in the particular case of discussions about time, because the very notion of first involves the notion of time, i.e. it involves a temporal sequence. Why not say that only time and space exist, physically, and that velocity is derived therefrom ? ...
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
On May 23, 2009, at 8:43 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: The furthest implications are that you have no right in physics, epistemologically speaking, to talk about relative time scales, or which is the same, time dimensions. I believe your argument would be negated by successful results from John G. Cramer's experiments: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/21/ ING5LNJSBF1.DTL When NASA dropped funding for such advanced projects, John received funding from public donations. His present status: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/05/20/1938752.aspx Since two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time, Cramer's entanglement experiements will require the dimensionality of time. Terry It is interesting to me that the planned experiment described is very similar in some ways to the means I suggested to establish FTL communication: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FTL-down.pdf One difference is the use of a moving lense at Alice's location, to change the detection mode to particle vs wave. A particle detection eliminates the interference pattern at Bob's location. This has a similar problem to my method, which is the practical problem of being able to establish an interference pattern at both Bob and Alice's location. Such a pattern establishes the wave-like measurement. Cramer's method uses slits to accomplish the interference pattern instead of the wave splitters I suggested, and this is probably a major improvement. I would think using straight line communications for the experiment, as shown in Fig. 2 of my article, instead of fiber, would greatly reduce the noise and reduce the number of photons that lose entanglement due to interaction with the fiber atoms. Perhaps the planned use of Anton Zeilinger's periodically poled crystals, instead of down converters, to vastly increase the paired photon production will overcome the fiber limitations. Cramer has a beautiful plan. I hope it comes to fruition. If the practical problems are overcome then the results will be most interesting. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
What I find most interesting is that it is funded by people who know no physics but want to physically know. Terry On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: On May 23, 2009, at 8:43 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: The furthest implications are that you have no right in physics, epistemologically speaking, to talk about relative time scales, or which is the same, time dimensions. I believe your argument would be negated by successful results from John G. Cramer's experiments: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/21/ING5LNJSBF1.DTL When NASA dropped funding for such advanced projects, John received funding from public donations. His present status: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/05/20/1938752.aspx Since two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time, Cramer's entanglement experiements will require the dimensionality of time. Terry It is interesting to me that the planned experiment described is very similar in some ways to the means I suggested to establish FTL communication: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FTL-down.pdf One difference is the use of a moving lense at Alice's location, to change the detection mode to particle vs wave. A particle detection eliminates the interference pattern at Bob's location. This has a similar problem to my method, which is the practical problem of being able to establish an interference pattern at both Bob and Alice's location. Such a pattern establishes the wave-like measurement. Cramer's method uses slits to accomplish the interference pattern instead of the wave splitters I suggested, and this is probably a major improvement. I would think using straight line communications for the experiment, as shown in Fig. 2 of my article, instead of fiber, would greatly reduce the noise and reduce the number of photons that lose entanglement due to interaction with the fiber atoms. Perhaps the planned use of Anton Zeilinger's periodically poled crystals, instead of down converters, to vastly increase the paired photon production will overcome the fiber limitations. Cramer has a beautiful plan. I hope it comes to fruition. If the practical problems are overcome then the results will be most interesting. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:GATC and ESP
In reply to leaking pen's message of Sat, 23 May 2009 10:15:40 -0700: Hi, I think you are almost on the right track. There was recently a demonstration of how water molecules could align with one another to a depth of hundreds of thousands of molecules away from a surface. In so doing they form a dielectric layer(*) that has the effect of communicating the charge from one side to the other. The implication is that the charge pattern along the DNA strand would be thus communicated and the strands most likely to be attracted, would be those with the closest matching opposite charges IOW with the matching pattern. * In a capacitor, the presence of a dielectric effectively reduces the distance between the plates. Umm, if we are talking nanometer distances... water is, due to naturally h+ and oh - dissasociation, going to have pockets of charge. mighten they not be moving towards each other, but towards the same patch of water? [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Fri, 22 May 2009 17:37:22 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] Which comes first - the chicken or the egg? The egg came first. It was laid by a non-chicken who was so dumb that it didn't even realize that what came out of the egg was a different species, and looked after it anyway. It has to be this way, because mutations occur in genes, which then get expressed as the creature grows. Now I hope never to hear this silly conundrum ever again. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:GATC and ESP
Exactly. the more i think of it, the more i wonder also... a lot of dna movement in liquids , the charge and polarity, is based on the final few bps on each end. I wonder if same bp ends but different strands would end up together... that or size in general. you know, the same thing that makes western blots work. On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 10:08 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to leaking pen's message of Sat, 23 May 2009 10:15:40 -0700: Hi, I think you are almost on the right track. There was recently a demonstration of how water molecules could align with one another to a depth of hundreds of thousands of molecules away from a surface. In so doing they form a dielectric layer(*) that has the effect of communicating the charge from one side to the other. The implication is that the charge pattern along the DNA strand would be thus communicated and the strands most likely to be attracted, would be those with the closest matching opposite charges IOW with the matching pattern. * In a capacitor, the presence of a dielectric effectively reduces the distance between the plates. Umm, if we are talking nanometer distances... water is, due to naturally h+ and oh - dissasociation, going to have pockets of charge. mighten they not be moving towards each other, but towards the same patch of water? [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
