GDG

I'm still waiting to hear what observations are not explained by PT that are explained by EET. You can measure the rate of plate movement today, but AFAIK nobody has measured any corresponding increase in the Earth's diameter. In the absence of a plausible mechanism to explain expansion, EET is just a bizarre hypothesis. Without a mechanism, it is difficult to come up with testable experiments, for observations that could support or rule out the viability of the hypothesis. So far, I haven't heard anything that really supports the idea, and much that says that it does not merit consideration as a serious theory.

I'm not sure about horses, but in tortiseshell cats the color variation occurs due to mosaicism. The genes for the enzymes responsible for the skin/fur pigmentation are carried on the X chromosomes: in females, the genes on one of the two X's must be "silenced" so that they don't have a "double dose" of those genes (otherwise, males would only have a half dose). The silencing occurs during development, but essentially at random, with the result that patches of skin express the allele from one X (from one parent), and other patches express the allele from the other X (from the other parent). Perhaps horses have a similar system.

Because, taken as a pair, all values except for mass and momentum can cancel out: the pair is thus equivalent to a pair of photons of the necessary energy. I suspect (without having done the calculation) that the reaction increases entropy, thus favoring photon formation.

As enzymes are all proteins, it is not likely that much of the enzymes are escaping from your digestive system and getting into your circulatory system. Most proteins are denatured by the very low pH in the stomach, and digested into small peptides and amino acids in the intestine. Unless your enzymes are formulated in vegetable oil, there is probably not much to worry about. In fact, I would wonder if it is possible that they have any effect at all. What enzymes are you taking?

There are some efforts in that direction. The main problem is that the cell surface receptor that the virus uses typically has a function (although sometimes this function is unknown), and blocking that function may not be the healthiest thing to do. This is especially a problem when you don't know what the receptor protein does.

You have two different types of blood cell antigens, the ABO antigens, and the Rh factor (+ or -). If you are "A+", your blood cells carry the A antigen and the Rh factor. If you are "B-", your blood cells carry the B antigen, and do not have the Rh factor. If you are O+, you do not have either A or B, but do have the Rh factor. If you are "AB-", you have both the A and the B antigens, but not the Rh. The prenancy complication you are thinking of relates only to the Rh factor. If the mother is Rh- and the father is Rh+, it is possible that the baby will inherit the father's Rh factor and be Rh+ too. Since some of the baby's blood passes into the mother's circulation via the placenta, the mother's immune system may react to the baby's Rh factor and produce IgG antibodies. These antibodies can then pass into the baby's circulation via the placenta, and cause hemolysis (disruption of the blood cells), which is generally not good for one's health. Having a different ABO blood type usually does not cause the same problems because the mother is more likely to make IgM antibodies to these antigens, and IgM does not easily cross the placenta. The baby has a chance of inheriting whatever each parent has (or in the case of AB, either A or B). Thus, if both your parents are "O", so are you. If one parent is A and one O, you may be either A or O (depending on whether the "A" parent carries one or two A genes). If one parent is AB+ and the other is A-, you could be A+, A-, B+, B-, AB+, or AB- (but not O). For transfusions, you basically have to avoid giving someone blood that has antigens that the recipient does not have. Thus, O- (lacking A, B, and Rh) is the "universal donor", and AB+ is the "universal recipient" (because it already has all possible major antigens).

If I recall correctly, the product in question was a monoclonal antibody that specifically binds a portion of the antigen close to the membrane (as opposed to the more distal part, where most antibodies bind to this antigen). Not a vaccine, which would be a chunk of the antigen itself. When there is no selection pressure, there will not be many mutations. Or rather, the mutations that occur will typically not be competitive with the original sequence, and will die out. If mutations decrease the fitness of the organism, then you'll get those mutations only if the environment changes so that selection pressure favors them. That a sequence is "highly conserved" is our hint that that part of the sequence serves a vital function. Now, we change the virus's environment. Suddenly, that particular sequence (or that epitope of the antigen) is selected against. In this environment, the mutated sequences (which arise spontaneously all the time, although not necessarily at a high frequency) suddenly have an advantage. Then, the viruses with the mutation will proliferate, and possibly out-compete the original version. You end up with a shift in the antigen sequence, and eventually the antibody stops working.

The reference to the bombs was just convenient, as a measure of the energy required to make a kg of mass. An "antimatter bomb" would convert 100% of its mass into energy: if you were to make a kg of mass, you would need that much energy. 210 megatons is about 8.8 x 10^8 gigajoules.

The energy of chemical bonds is orders of magnitude weaker than nuclear binding. Consider also the distance scales: chemical bonds (interatomic spacing) is on the order of 1-2 Angstroms (10^-10 m), whereas the size of the nucleus is on the order of 10^-15 m. Since electrostatic repulsion scales on the inverse square law, the repulsion at the nuclear scale will be (10^5)^2 times as strong. This is a very steep potential at those scales. Not going to happen.

My guess is that they're all powered by transformers that are plugged into 60 Hz AC lines. Bb is a little over 58 Hz.

The problem is that the only things we have to make nanomachines out of are atoms. How is a molecule, held together by chemical bonds, possibly going to force two nuclei together forcefully enough to overcome electostatic repulsion? I suspect that the nanomachine (or the surface of any macromachine) will deform long before you get close to achieving fusion. It would be like trying to crush a diamond between two sticks of butter. I doubt that this is something that will ever work. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged A head-on collision by itself would not be enough to cause fusion unless the particles are moving extremely fast: this is why serious attempts at fusion use extremely high temperatures (plasma tokamak) and/or pressures (laser implosion). If the nuclei have enough energy to fuse, they're not going to be deflected by a mere nanomachine. It would be like trying to focus machine gun bullets using paper towels. Chemical bonds just are not going to survive under those conditions.

Yes, matter and energy are different forms of the same stuff. Matter is much, much more concentrated. Take a look at the antimatter bomb thread: the amount of energy equivalent to a 1 kg mass (of anything) is the amount of energy you would get out of a 210 megaton explosion (4X the size of the largest nuclear device ever detonated). That is a lot of energy to try and stuff back into a 1 kg box. I doubt that anyone is likely to try it The second problem is that we have no way right now of controlling what kind of matter we would get. Particle accelerators focus huge energies in a very small space: some of that energy gets converted to matter -- and almost instantly back into energy again. Most of the matter comes out as highly unstable particles, which decay into other particles, which may ultimately decay into protons, electrons, neutrinos, and photons. Very difficult to accumulate any mass that way...

With the flu virus, the two most antigenic proteins are neuraminidase ("N") and hemagglutinin ("H"), which are found on the outside of the virion. Each comes in several varieties, which virologists have numbered, hence subtypes like H5N1, H2N2, etc. All of the 16 H and 9 N varieties exist in natural reservoirs (mainly birds), and the viruses readily "mix and match" their antigen types to generate all possible combinations. We develop immunity to each of the antigens to which we are exposed, thus if you were exposed to a flu strain having H3N3 last year, you're likely not susceptible to any strain this year having either H3 or N3. And since your immunity lasts for more than a year, only a few combinations of H&N are likely to slip past your immune system and cause illness. These, of course, are the strains that become pandemic. This also explains why you need a new flu vaccine formulation each year: if the virus was the same as one a few years ago, most people would be immune, and the virus would not be able to spread. Closing in on the point: within each variety of antigen (the 16 Hs and 9 Ns), mutations occur. Thus, the (e.g.) H12 you encounter this year might be a bit different from the H12 that popped up several years ago. Mutations happen most readily in the part of the protein that is not essential for activity (each of these proteins has a function), because a sufficiently large mutation renders the antigen "new" to your immune system. Stated another way, there is a selection pressure against the old, unmutated antigens. The antibodies discussed in the article bind to a highly conserved region on the antigen. At some point, if use of the antibody becomes widespread, there will be selection pressure against that conserved region as well. We can then expect to start seeing flu virions having a mutation at or near the antibody binding site.

Basically, you would want something that is highly infective, highly lethal, and easy to deliver. The first two you do by breeding or engineering, the last by formulation and packaging. And of course, there's a relevant Wikipedia article.

I would strongly advise against it. Once the solvent soaked into your cornea, you'd probably really regret it Besides, you're going to need some sort of contacts to start with, anyway. Might as well get something safe.

By rough calculation, a 1 kg antimatter grenade should yield around 210 megatons. For comparison, the largest nuclear weapon ever built (Tsar Bomba) had a yield of 50 megatons (although it was designed to achieve as much as 100 MT). When tested by the USSR, detonating at an altitude of 4 km, the seismic shock from the blast registered between 5.0 and 5.25. The Tsar Bomba weighed 27 tons, and measured 8 m long by 2 m in diameter -- too heavy to strap onto a missle. Even the plane used for the test had to be specially modified, and the bomb was dropped with a parachute, to slow it down long enough for the plane to get clear. The grenade would theoretically be 4 times as powerful. Need a long fuse for that one...

Probably not. When doing x-ray crystallography, one rotates the crystal bit by bit over more than 180[math]^{o}[/math]. If an atom was "hiding" behind another, it should show up at some point when illuminated from a different angle.

Sorry, Occam's razor is exactly why nobody seriously considers EET a scientific theory. Plate tectonics fully explains the observed phenomena, while EET requires some as-yet unexplained and unobserved mechanism for causing the expansion. Far simpler to follow PT, which is supported by numerous different observations. If EET made testable predictions that diverge from PT, and the observations supported it, there would be more serious adherents.

Fluorescence involves the absorption of a photon, and the emission of a second photon having a lower energy (longer wavelength). You're not getting the same photons out that you put in.

We assume that the universe and its laws are the same in all directions and all locations because there is no reason (in general) to assume otherwise. Sure, it is possible that the speed of light is different in another part of the universe, but unless (a) you have a theory that relies on or explains it, and (b) you have some experiment that could distinguish the different possible results, scientists will rely on the simplest theory that fits the facts.

I have this vision of a box emblazoned with the warning: DO NOT OPEN - NO USER SERVICABLE PARTS INSIDE. Black holes would be ... hard to handle. Obviously, you can't just pick one up, even with tongs Most proposed BH wranglers would use electrical charge as a handle: pump the BH full of electrons, and keep the charged BH in a strong electrical field. I'll leave it to you to calculate how strong the field has to be in order to support the weight of a small BH, not to mention keeping it centered in its enclosure. Wouldn't do to have the BH bumping up against the walls... Well, not so much walls as radiation shielding. You'd probably want to have the box anchored very solidly to the foundation, and even then you'd have to worry about earthquakes. Between the gravitational gradient and the ultra-powerful electromagnetic fields, I'm not sure you could keep silverware in your kitchen. You could put the box in a Faraday cage for the EM fields, but every time you opened the top to drop in your garbage, it would snatch the watch off your wrist. Frankly, I wouldn't go anywhere near the house... Now I'm imagining a funny scene in which the apoplectic OSHA inspector goes ballistic Enjoy, Grant

You may want to check the FAA website before you proceed: they have regulations that cover model rocketry. Using a substantial piece of metal triggers a greater degree of scrutiny...

AFAIK, there is no cure for ebola yet. Probably the biggest advance was the development of antibiotics. Before penicillin, many infections could be lethal or disabling. A cut on your arm might lead to an infection that required amputation. What else? How about anesthesia, without which surgery was a very grim affair. Insulin, so that diabetics no longer die before the age of 25. Analgesics (painkillers) like aspirin, which let people function without constant pain.

Well, you want awesome, you have to pay for awesome $50 is what, 3-4 CDs? A WoW upgrade? One textbook? All of the "special effects" type contacts are available with or without prescription -- not just for those of us who need vision correction. Of course, you get to go through the hassle of learning to wear contacts. The question remains: how bad do you want "awesome eyes"? Not that I'm advocating this; I stopped putting up with contacts several years ago.

"Sci" is what separates scifi from straight fantasy. Individual preferences vary. I like lots of sci in my fi. Yes. Black holes evaporate by pair production (Hawking radiation), the rate increasing asymptotically as the mass decreases. Above a certain mass (planetary?), the rate is slow enough that you don't notice the evaporation. I'm sure you can find the equation for this, probably in Wikipedia, and play with the mass/time parameters to your heart's content. Small black holes evaporate quickly; the evaporation looks like hard radiation, increasing exponentially in intensity. Big bang at the end... I don't think you get an accretion disk unless the thing is spinning. You would probably see a very bright, hot sphere, as air heated to plasma temperatures while compressing and falling in. That sphere, of course, would be immediately plunging into the ground, and probably sending a geyser of superheated plasma out the bore hole. You'd only see a black sphere if you managed to float it in a vacuum. Yep, most likely. A pinch hard enough to simulate a small black hole would suck mass into the warp, and when released would essentially explode. Enjoy! Grant