Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:29:24 GMT P van Rijckevorsel wrote:



Archimedes Plutonium schreef
Question: these cell walls of plants are they carbon?

+ + +
Obviously so
+ + +

Question: these chloroplasts of plants-- do animals or bacteria have
some inverse or reverse entity?

+ + +
? ? ?

Are there any intermediates in plants, and by that I mean any cell walls
of plants that allow for calcium to be the basis rather than carbon?

With my Trek carbon-fibre bicycle, I tried to make a human skeleton
system out of carbon. If it is impossible then it would impossible for
the reverse of trying to make a plant whose framework is no longer
carbon but that of calcium.

If true, what I suspect is the impossibility barrier is the electrical
system
that each living organism possesses. If you switch calcium for carbon
or carbon for calcium then you destroy the electrical communication
system of the organism and so a replacement is impossible.

Chloroplasts. The inverse or reverse in animals (the compliment) would
be some organs or system of animals that makes or allows animals/bacteria
to move around. Plants are stationary for the most part. In bacteria that
are
able to move around such as the flagella. Then the inverse or reverse or
Compliment of chloroplasts is the flagella for certain type of bacteria and
those
bacteria would then be members of the animal kingdom.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

So the algae with both chloroplasts and flagella--where do they fit?

M. Reed

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:29:24 GMT P van Rijckevorsel wrote:



Archimedes Plutonium schreef
Question: these cell walls of plants are they carbon?

+ + +
Obviously so
+ + +

Question: these chloroplasts of plants-- do animals or bacteria have
some inverse or reverse entity?

+ + +
? ? ?

Are there any intermediates in plants, and by that I mean any cell walls
of plants that allow for calcium to be the basis rather than carbon?

With my Trek carbon-fibre bicycle, I tried to make a human skeleton
system out of carbon. If it is impossible then it would impossible for
the reverse of trying to make a plant whose framework is no longer
carbon but that of calcium.

If true, what I suspect is the impossibility barrier is the electrical
system
that each living organism possesses. If you switch calcium for carbon
or carbon for calcium then you destroy the electrical communication
system of the organism and so a replacement is impossible.

Chloroplasts. The inverse or reverse in animals (the compliment) would
be some organs or system of animals that makes or allows animals/bacteria
to move around. Plants are stationary for the most part. In bacteria that
are
able to move around such as the flagella. Then the inverse or reverse or
Compliment of chloroplasts is the flagella for certain type of bacteria and
those
bacteria would then be members of the animal kingdom.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Sorry, Cereoid et al., but Archie is just so much fun to answer.
With my Trek carbon-fibre bicycle, I tried to make a human skeleton
system out of carbon. If it is impossible then it would impossible for
the reverse of trying to make a plant whose framework is no longer
carbon but that of calcium.

Arch, have you heard of diatoms? They are single-celled algae with shells of
silicon. Would you be interested in making a human skeleton system of silicon?

Chloroplasts. The inverse or reverse in animals (the compliment) would
be some organs or system of animals that makes or allows animals/bacteria
to move around.

Not sure I follow you, unless you are referring to the fact that chloroplasts
make food, while moving around is how animals ger food. But then there are
sponges -- animals which do not move around, but "absorb" food from the
surrounding water.

Then the inverse or reverse or
Compliment of chloroplasts is the flagella for certain type of bacteria

Then you would have to have multiple inverses/reverses for chloroplasts:
flagella for some, cilia for others, ameboid movement for others, and in
multicellular animals, muscular contractions. Of course, muscular contractions
are not organelles of a cell as chloroplasts and those others are. And then,
too, bacteria have no discrete organelles, as plant and animal cells have.

Did you study biology in grade school or high school? None of what I have said
is all that advanced!

Jie-san Laushi

Huodau lau, xuedau lau, hai you sanfen xue bulai
_____________________________________________
to email: eliminate redundancy

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Are there any intermediates in plants, and by that I mean any cell walls
of plants that allow for calcium to be the basis rather than carbon?

To say that 'bones are made of calcium and plant cell walls are made of
carbon' is an utterly ridiculous oversimplification. Bone is composed of
a melange of several different calcium minerals, and is also about 1/3
protein. Plant cell walls are (generally) composed of pectin, pectic
acid, various glucose polymers and proteins. Pectic acid is formed from
pectin molecules glued together with calcium and magnesium ions. Bone
and plant cell walls are not analogously derived structures, and there
is no inherent dichotomy to be found.

With my Trek carbon-fibre bicycle, I tried to make a human skeleton
system out of carbon. If it is impossible then it would impossible for
the reverse of trying to make a plant whose framework is no longer
carbon but that of calcium.

Pectic acid is high in calcium and serves as a structural substrate in
plant cell walls. Clearly there is no deep underlying quantum spookiness
going on which prevents plants from using calcium as a structural
component. The same goes for the inverse, as there is an abundance of
carbon in animal bone.

If true, what I suspect is the impossibility barrier is the electrical
system
that each living organism possesses. If you switch calcium for carbon
or carbon for calcium then you destroy the electrical communication
system of the organism and so a replacement is impossible.

Of course an organism would have problems if you swapped its calcium for
its carbon and vice-versa. They are two wholly different elements.

Chloroplasts. The inverse or reverse in animals (the compliment) would
be some organs or system of animals that makes or allows animals/bacteria
to move around. Plants are stationary for the most part. In bacteria that
are
able to move around such as the flagella. Then the inverse or reverse or
Compliment of chloroplasts is the flagella for certain type of bacteria and
those
bacteria would then be members of the animal kingdom.

Some plants have motile sperm, with a flagella. Plants therefore have
both chloroplasts and their (your) "antipode", flagella. Your reasoning
about bacteria being animals because they move is about 200 years outdated.

Perhaps you should try less writing and more reading.

http://www.c14dating.com/bone.html
http://sunflower.bio.indiana.edu/~rh.../cellwall.html

Quegmo


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

In article ,
Quegmo Backwater wrote:
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Are there any intermediates in plants, and by that I mean any cell walls
of plants that allow for calcium to be the basis rather than carbon?

To say that 'bones are made of calcium and plant cell walls are made of
carbon' is an utterly ridiculous oversimplification. Bone is composed of
a melange of several different calcium minerals, and is also about 1/3
protein. Plant cell walls are (generally) composed of pectin, pectic
acid, various glucose polymers and proteins. Pectic acid is formed from
pectin molecules glued together with calcium and magnesium ions. Bone
and plant cell walls are not analogously derived structures, and there
is no inherent dichotomy to be found.

ANd there are plants (well, algae, or are they still algae?) like Chara
that have an external calcium compound coating. And most phyla of animals
have either no skeleton or a skeleton made of chitin, another organic
polymer. Even many vertebrates lack calcified bones.

Chloroplasts. The inverse or reverse in animals (the compliment) would
be some organs or system of animals that makes or allows animals/bacteria
to move around. Plants are stationary for the most part. In bacteria that
are
able to move around such as the flagella. Then the inverse or reverse or
Compliment of chloroplasts is the flagella for certain type of bacteria and
those
bacteria would then be members of the animal kingdom.

Some plants have motile sperm, with a flagella. Plants therefore have
both chloroplasts and their (your) "antipode", flagella. Your reasoning
about bacteria being animals because they move is about 200 years outdated.

Don't get him started on sperm or he'll go into his penis routine. He
concluded from the pili of bacteria that the penis is the most important
organ, ignoring that fact that most animals, including most vertebrates,
don't have intromittent organs, yet do just fine for themselves
reproductively. Plants seem to do fine without them too.

Perhaps you should try less writing and more reading.

Don't get your hopes up.

someone wrote:



Not sure I follow you, unless you are referring to the fact that chloroplasts
make food, while moving around is how animals ger food. But then there are
sponges -- animals which do not move around, but "absorb" food from the
surrounding water.


The inverse or reverse or compliment of chloroplasts is not motion itself but
linked to motion. It is the nervous system. So whereas chloroplasts are the
source of plants gaining energy from sunlight. The complement of that in
animals is the nervous system.

We can safely say that every animal has some sort of nervous system where
the brain is part of the nervous system.

And unlike chloroplasts which are organelles of the cell, the nervous system
are whole cells in a collection.

So the compliment of chloroplasts of plants as organelles of cells in animals
it is a large grouping of whole cells as the nervous system.

So, are there any exceptions to that? As I said earlier, there are probably
exceptions to anything proffered for biology because biology is wavelike and
waves are never distinct. So if I can get the exceptions down to a tiny few then
I will have arrived.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Beverly Erlebacher wrote:


ANd there are plants (well, algae, or are they still algae?) like Chara
that have an external calcium compound coating. And most phyla of animals
have either no skeleton or a skeleton made of chitin, another organic
polymer. Even many vertebrates lack calcified bones.


Chitin poses a problem. And unless I can wiggle out of the problem, I am stuck.

One possibility is that calcium for animals is linked with the electrical system
in animals in that you cannot get the fast motion with large mass unless it was
calcium based. Chitin based is okay for tiny mass.

Not sure whether I can wiggle out of this.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Chitin poses a problem. And unless I can wiggle out of the problem, I am stuck.

One possibility is that calcium for animals is linked with the electrical system
in animals in that you cannot get the fast motion with large mass unless it was
calcium based. Chitin based is okay for tiny mass.

Not sure whether I can wiggle out of this.

One possibility is that there are 5 Kingdoms. One with a calcium framework (animals
of large mass) another with a carbon framework (plants), another with a chitin
framework (animals of small mass), and the last 2 with no framework.

I wiggle out of the problem be calling low mass animals with chitin their own
kingdom.

I mean, in physics we have the 5 basic forces-- Coulomb, StrongNuclear,
WeakNuclear, gravity, and antigravity. So, I wiggle out of this jam by giving
the chitin animals their own kingdom.

Don't know if I like that solution as of yet.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

I mean, in physics we have the 5 basic forces-- Coulomb, StrongNuclear,
WeakNuclear, gravity, and antigravity.

What happened to electricity and magnetism?

Jie-san Laushi

Huodau lau, xuedau lau, hai you sanfen xue bulai
_____________________________________________
to email: eliminate redundancy

userve (Jie-san Laushi) wrote in message ...
I mean, in physics we have the 5 basic forces-- Coulomb, StrongNuclear,
WeakNuclear, gravity, and antigravity.

What happened to electricity and magnetism?

Jie-san Laushi

Huodau lau, xuedau lau, hai you sanfen xue bulai
_____________________________________________
to email: eliminate redundancy

Bingo, Jie-san. Keeping this on botany topic, I ask how often the
posters in this meadow consider the plants in the context of their
energies. Can anyone out there explain the how and why of my using
simple and natural electromagnetic fields to permanently change the
structure of perennials? I have products to support my idea. Does
Archie have anything tangible in support of his ideas? Can he change a
vine into a tree?
CELLSPACING

-Gaiawar

In article ,
Jie-san Laushi wrote:
I mean, in physics we have the 5 basic forces-- Coulomb, StrongNuclear,
WeakNuclear, gravity, and antigravity.

What happened to electricity and magnetism?

Yeah, and anybody who even reads the science page in the newspaper knows that
EM and weak nuclear were unified into the electroweak force years and years
ago!

In article ,
Archimedes Plutonium NOdtgEMAIL wrote:

Chitin poses a problem. And unless I can wiggle out of the problem, I am stuck.
One possibility is that calcium for animals is linked with the electrical system
in animals in that you cannot get the fast motion with large mass unless it was
calcium based. Chitin based is okay for tiny mass.

There are and have been some good sized and fast chitin animals. I've seen
a fossil crustacean about two meters long. Cephalopods and many decapods are
fast. One the other hand, most vertebrates are not very big. For every big
catfish there are a zillion species of little minnows. Most species of mammals
are mouse size or not much bigger. Ditto reptiles and birds and amphibians.

Not sure whether I can wiggle out of this.

Wiggling out of evidence that your theory is bogus is hardly the attitude of
a scientist.

One possibility is that there are 5 Kingdoms. One with a calcium framework (animals
of large mass) another with a carbon framework (plants), another with a chitin
framework (animals of small mass), and the last 2 with no framework.

Silly ideas. There are squid that weigh over a ton. No chitin, no bones.
There are vertebrates that weigh less than a gram.

I wiggle out of the problem be calling low mass animals with chitin their own
kingdom.

Wiggle away.

I mean, in physics we have the 5 basic forces-- Coulomb, StrongNuclear,
WeakNuclear, gravity, and antigravity. So, I wiggle out of this jam by giving
the chitin animals their own kingdom.

Don't know if I like that solution as of yet.

Nobody else does, but that's never bothered you before.

Can anyone out there explain the how and why of my using simple and natural
electromagnetic fields to permanently change the structure of perennials?

Why don't you and Mr. Plutonium discuss this directly off the group, & leave
the rest of us out of it?

Iris,
Central NY, Zone 5a, Sunset Zone 40
"The trouble with people is not that they don't know but that they know so much
that ain't so."
Josh Billings (Henry Wheeler Shaw), 1818-1885

Beverly Erlebacher wrote:


Yeah, and anybody who even reads the science page in the newspaper knows that
EM and weak nuclear were unified into the electroweak force years and years
ago!

I am surprized that you do not have an open enough of a mind to be able to
distinguish between that which is factual-established-science. And that which
is known by experts in physics as probably "either speculative or scaffolding".

Just because the news and magazines and books flood readers with Standard
Model or black holes does not mean those things are true.

In article ,
Archimedes Plutonium NOdtgEMAIL wrote:
Beverly Erlebacher wrote:


Yeah, and anybody who even reads the science page in the newspaper knows that
EM and weak nuclear were unified into the electroweak force years and years
ago!

I am surprized that you do not have an open enough of a mind to be able to
distinguish between that which is factual-established-science. And that which
is known by experts in physics as probably "either speculative or scaffolding".

I know that it's factual-established-science that one of the five forces is
electromagnetism, not "anti-gravity".

Just because the news and magazines and books flood readers with Standard
Model or black holes does not mean those things are true.

What, like the "anti-gravity" force? It's true that the media flood readers
with ads for all kinds of electrical appliances. I am so brainwashed to
believe that electromagnetism exists that I'm sitting here drinking coffee
and eating toast made using such devices. More importantly, if the EM force
didn't exist, how can they bill me for using it? The whole world must be
brainwashed. Hmm, this thing I'm sitting at is 'plugged into the grid', so
it will still work if I pull the pl