jesus this question makes no sense, dude.
It seriously is like asking, "if snow is just cold water, why do we age?"
I will talk slower then.
If the lifetime of a quark is very long, and we are just made up of quarks, why do we not "last" very long in relation?
meh
at then ends of DNA there is non-coding called a "telomere."
aside from other functions, one funtion is to give the machinery that replicates your DNA "space" to run off the end of the important DNA. Think of it as though you tied a can of paint to your car and you wanted to paint a line down a dead end street. You would need to run off the end of the street a bit (by the length of your car) to actually have the can of paint reach the end. this is the telomere, sort of.
each time you make new copies of your DNA, you lose a little bit of the telomere, until finally you have no more room to run off the end of the DNA and effectively copy all of the DNA. you age…. and then die.
at then ends of DNA there is non-coding called a "telomere."
aside from other functions, one funtion is to give the machinery that replicates your DNA "space" to run off the end of the important DNA. Think of it as though you tied a can of paint to your car and you wanted to paint a line down a dead end street. You would need to run off the end of the street a bit (by the length of your car) to actually have the can of paint reach the end. this is the telomere, sort of.
each time you make new copies of your DNA, you lose a little bit of the telomere, until finally you have no more room to run off the end of the DNA and effectively copy all of the DNA. you age…. and then die.
thank you, that wasn't so hard was it limpy?
why do you think that we were designed to die? given the fact that we could theoretically live forever, why would we have a built in expiry date?
meh
I will talk slower then.
If the lifetime of a quark is very long, and we are just made up of quarks, why do we not "last" very long in relation?
you are way way off on scales here.
what i mean by scales is as follows:
quarks don't age.
the things that quarks build don't even age (subatomics: electrons, protons and neutrons).
The things that the subatomics build don't even age, in this context (atoms).
It would be hard to even say that the things that atoms build (molecules) age.
What ages in life cycles is the DNA, as i described above.
yes, DNA is a molecule, but it is HUGE, and it is more a code than it is anything else. it is the biggest descrete molecule known.
we are not governed by quantum theory. at all. on a philosophical level, maybe we are… but we are far more governed by the rules of the biology of our planet earth, which is likely very very very different on any of the other planets that support life.
thank you, that wasn't so hard was it limpy?
why do you think that we were designed to die? given the fact that we could theoretically live forever, why would we have a built in expiry date?
If we didn't die then nobody would ever do anything with their lives. Or at least I wouldn't. Every once in a while I go through a mid-life crisis which reminds me to never take a day for granted.
It's also comforting to know that one day all the suffering and misery in the world will end. Imagine if all the tyrants that ever lived in our world never died? Also overpolulation. Whistler would get tracked out too fast.
you are way way off on scales here.
what i mean by scales is as follows:
quarks don't age.
the things that quarks build don't even age (subatomics: electrons, protons and neutrons).
The things that the subatomics build don't even age, in this context (atoms).
It would be hard to even say that the things that atoms build (molecules) age.
What ages in life cycles is the DNA, as i described above.yes, DNA is a molecule, but it is HUGE, and it is more a code than it is anything else. it is the biggest descrete molecule known.
we are not governed by quantum theory. at all. on a philosophical level, maybe we are… but we are far more governed by the rules of the biology of our planet earth, which is likely very very very different on any of the other planets that support life.
is it not possible though, that we can exist on the quantum level as say the next step in evolution?
meh
If we didn't die then nobody would ever do anything with their lives. Or at least I wouldn't. Every once in a while I go through a mid-life crisis which reminds me to never take a day for granted.
It's also comforting to know that one day all the suffering and misery in the world will end. Imagine if all the tyrants that ever lived in our world never died? Also overpolulation. Whistler would get tracked out too fast.
why do you have to do anything with your life, you think we we designed to get a job, build a house, have a career, get the high score on donkey kong?
at no time will all the suffering in the world end, come to grips with it and try to do better, it is what you can do
whistler already gets tracked out too fast, are you suggesting we cull some of the population?
meh
where the hell is keefer and craz?
meh
why do you have to do anything with your life, you think we we designed to get a job, build a house, have a career, get the high score on donkey kong?
at no time will all the suffering in the world end, come to grips with it and try to do better, it is what you can do
whistler already gets tracked out too fast, are you suggesting we cull some of the population?
what i meant was that whis gets tracked fast enough as it is so we don't a bunch of 2000 y/o skiiers sideslipping down everything. death is nature's way of controlling this.
you don't have to do anything with your life but the world will be a terrible place if nobody had any ambition to do anything. no ambition to ease suffering and make life worth living for other people.
suffering in this world will end because life on earth will end and eventually the world will end. maybe evolution will then continue on another planet and life will start all over and the new planet won't make the same mistakes. propably already happening.
is it not possible though, that we can exist on the quantum level as say the next step in evolution?
think he's saying, and i agree, that we already exist on a quantum level when we look at the smallest building blocks of our bodies but what governs how these building blocks behave is our DNA coding. The next step of evolution would ony change our DNA coding.
Say you could stop the aging process then, imagine the chaos that would follow. Has anyone read Bruce Sterling's short story "The Moral Bullet" which is in the Globalhead collection? Good times.
thank you, that wasn't so hard was it limpy?
why do you think that we were designed to die? given the fact that we could theoretically live forever, why would we have a built in expiry date?
some interesting questions here:
Depends on if you believe in evolution or intelligent design (some may question the intelligence aspect of the second theory based on the fucked up product we observe around us everyday, but i digress).
Assuming evolution: we need death to allow evolution to occur, without it we would still be very simply lipid micelles, with a bit of self replicating amino acid in them. Probably life would not even get started unless, evolution could occur without reproduction. However once you throw reproduction into the equation, you have to balance the equation with death otherwise we (or any organism) would rapidly use up all our available resources and kill ourselves off (like some not very well designed viruses)
Assuming intelligent design: even if we could live for ever, shit happens and folks would die from accidents or boredom. So there has to be a way to replace folks which means reproduction, and in turn that needs the balance of death. Another argument could be made that if you lived for ever would you want to go to heaven, and alternatively hell would pose little or no threat and we can't have that now can we?.
Please let me demonstrate the ride around; really it's no trouble.
Gooch: the only answer you'll ever need: "It has something to do with Global Warming".
Try it. Works for every question.
9/11
lets assume it imploded from a central point ie. the middle, then expanded outwards in all directions at the speed of light
No, let's not, because that's wrong.
how can there be an inside and no outside?
What is beyond everything? If there's something beyond it, it's not everything, is it? Take me down to the paradox city, where the girls are green and the grass is pretty!
so how long did it take to create the universe then?
yep. asking what existed before the universe is also paradoxical.
I'll need you to explain this with a diagram cause I don't see how that is possible
I'll need you to buy me a drink before I talk nerdy to you any more.
say what? are you saying that because they travel at the speed of light, time doesn't move and thus they actually go faster than the speed of light?
no, that's not it.
if the universe is 156 billion light years wide, and it started in the middle and worked outwards at the speed of light, wouldn't it only be 28 billion light years wide if indeed the universe is 14 billion years old?
Don't shoot the messenger, that's what it say here, so it must be true
hhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101age.html
Also (ripped from another forum, I am not that smart), there is a common misconception that the age of the universe (13.7 billion years) is equal to the radius of the observable universe in light years but it is actually a little more complicated than that, because spacetime is highly curved at cosmological scales (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Dltt_is_Dumb.html).
So we only say the most distant objects we can view are up to 13.7 billion years old, but we don't say they are up to 13.7 billion light years away. Working out how far away they actually are is also a little more complicated as it involves their comoving distance. This is the difference between how far away they were from this point in space when the light was emitted from them and how far away they are theorised to be now, due to the metric expansion of space.
The metric expansion of space is a process where the metric that defines distance changes over time, meaning that in a given time any unit of measurement will change by the same factor as any other unit of measurement. So 1 meter becomes 2 meters, 1 billion light years becomes 2 billion light years, the universe doubles in size - all in the same amount of time.
As an example, the cosmic background radiation that we measure now was actually emitted around 13.7 billion years ago. The matter that the radiation was emitted from (which has since formed into galaxies) was only around 40 million light years away from the matter that formed into our own galaxy when the radiation was emitted. But those galaxies that formed are now theorised to be around 46 billion light years away from us, due to the nature of expanding space.
So using the comoving distance, the current radius of the observable universe is around 46 billion light years, giving an overall diameter of around 92 billion light years across.
But this is only the observable universe, and we do not know how much more there is than it is possible for us to observe. But we do know that the WMAP data puts a lower bound on the size of the whole universe as 78 billion light years and our observable universe is theorised to be larger than that.
some intesting discussions here:
http://www.bautforum.com/questions-answers/57581-how-wide-universe.html
Hope that helps, some.
Please let me demonstrate the ride around; really it's no trouble.
Forum jump:
