Asimov

Houshase: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3058260/ Maybe .Glasses problems tend to be heredity but environment is a factor.Age of onset can be hereditary as well. Myopic children tend to be more myopic than their parents. Why? It is normal to lose near focusing ability over 40 or so.This is for sure hereditary.This means you cant adjust your focus from far to near work like reading. This is presbyopia relieved by reading glasses, not farsightedness. Sufficiently hyperopic { farsighted} people need glasses even to see far though their near vision is even worse. without glasses. Hyperopia or far sightedness can occur at any age as can myopia or astigmatism.Astigmatism requires glasses or contacts with more power across one meridian, called cylinder lenses. Think of a football or spoon curved differently along different meridians. I theorize evolution is a factor in what seems a fairly recent epidemic of myopia. Near work is a factor likely but also a person with myopia long ago had less chance of surviving to pass on genes...Glasses even the field somewhat and the gene gets passed along.

Stringjunky: "The idea is well-intentioned but, as you realise, the consequences would probably be largely negative" If you are referring to the penicillin bullets and spikes instead of airbags you are correct about my realizing the largely negative consequences. Otherwise you have no idea what I realize. Thiamine supplements in alcohol should be beneficial to those with thiamine deficiencies often associated with alcohol abuse. That would only be one of millions of excuses to abuse alcohol. Actually any excuse will do. Trust me. I wouldn't forgo thiamine supplements in alcohol that could save a few lives because it would give some people one more excuse to abuse alcohol.I doubt many would need the excuse.Alcohol shouldn't be sold because it kills so many abusers?

John Cuthbar: Colorful analogy.Spikes would kill more than they save.To be on the safe side don't suggest it to your Senator Airbags do kill some.So do seat belts but they save more than they kill.Unlike penicillin laced bullets likely. Still none of the government's business IMO.I was only suggesting thiamine supplements in relation to alcohol abuse and thiamine deficiency.You raised a good point though.. Abusers by their nature though tend to disregard the hazards and generally wouldn't drink larger quantities because the alcohol has thiamine.I have no stats or references of course.Generally habitual abusers drink as much as they can. They cant get any drunker because of the added thiamine.That would sell..I drink gallons of skim milk, not because it is vitamin supplemented. Never even think of it. Better than the spike analogy?As a former beer abuser all I cared about was cost, calories and bang for the buck.I drank as much as my body could stand.

Sorcerer: Wow, they sure smm sure of themselves. "It is satisfying to note that such straightforward corrections can potentially resolve so many issues at once," Das said. OK, except for a few little details like maximum entropy and 2nd law of thermodynamics. Aren't there a few others? Infinite black holes? Infinite Star Wars sequels?

Jagella: " John Lennox, for example, has said that atheism is wishful thinking in that it is the hope that atheists will never have to meet God." Thanks, I never thought of that. Maybe some atheists.Reminds me of my brother before he died. Claimed to be atheist but followed a sorta religious lifestyle just in case. You know, do unto others, no blasphemy, respect your elders etc. Don't know how or if that might have worked out. Seems atheism has become a sort of religion where the atheists have faith that there is no God.Lack of proof is considered proof I guess. Ever since the first religions, followers have been claiming to be persecuted and have been.. Religion has an important place in society but scientific methods need not apply.Scientists don't try to aggravate or persecute the religious but their opinions are offensive to religious people whose religion generally requires defending their belief.Say what you believe and let the chips fall as they may.Scientists have been known to be opinionated. Never argue religion with a naked man. Happened at the YMCA locker room.

Strange: i see what you mean so far.Thanx

Lanr12: Tech for self guided curving bullets is here and now. I assume some type of targeting is involved. Didnt see the movie.Some bullets can bend in flight with smart muscles.About $10,000/ bullet, not at discount stores yet. Types of smart bullets[edit] Wikipedia In 2008 the EXACTO program began under DARPA to develop a "fire and forget" smart sniper system including a guided smart bullet and improved scope. The exact technologies of this smart bullet have not been released. EXACTO was test fired in 2014 and results showing the bullet alter course to correct its path to its target were released. In 2012 Sandia National Laboratories announced a self-guided bullet prototype that could track a target illuminated with a laser designator. The bullet is capable of updating its position 30 times a second and hitting targets over a mile away.[2]

Strange: '"A homogeneous distribution of mass will not form a black hole." I never knew that. Some clarification or links please. Also this need some have to determine the mass of the known universe while others wonder if the whole universe is infinite seems strange. http: //curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/101-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/general-questions/579-what-is-the-mass-of-the-universe-intermediate

Alexander1304:The Universe is all of time and space and its contents. Wikipedia. I have read this or similar since I could read.How can one have more than one of everything? Does this theory and others that propose more than one universe require a new definition of universe or is this a contextual thing were broad meanings are taken for the word universe and the physicist uses different definitions based on context.This is done in physics and other fields.Photons are said to have no mass but have momentum.You know what momentum is..

Henry: I too have little regard for religion per se. Not exactly against it. Some get a lot of good out of it, gets them through the night.. Others? An excuse for killing or as a means of making money or acquiring power.Gives religion a bad name,justifiably. Can Science explain everything in the universe without a God? It certainly cant explain everything. Not at this time.Possibly hidden distance variables in QM for example.Have those been discovered or confirmed or denied or explained.Not by Bell last I heard.He doesn't rule them out.Woopie! Must be other things science cant explain yet.. Can you think of anything? Could science ever explain it all?,Seems solutions present more problems that need answers. I'll wait and see. Wont hold my breath. Would explaining everything in the universe by science prove no God? Hardly.Maybe God uses what we might call science to do or get things done. Want proof?.Sorry,none I know of.

Becki: I was not aware that the gastrointestinal issues are the first to present in pellagra. It affects the whole body with the three D's. dementia, diarrhea and dermatitis. Dementia can be slow to detect, skin irritation may present gradually but diarrhea tends to be pretty quick,and maybe the first noticed.The gastrointestinal tract can be less tolerant of discomfort than the skin in some ways.An itch on your hand may be more tolerable than one in your colon.

Strange: "It is still not a black and white issue. It might be important to save some species and not others, for example." I would agree with this.We are saving some species and not others.On the one hand we protect apparently doomed species to the detriment of jobs and industries {some owl} as our activities eradicate others {plastic bags and sea turtles} .We are having an effect.Which we save and which we prolong is important but who decides which.I think maybe we should protect certain species and allow others to pass on. Who decides which and by what means? We may be the first sentient species, does this carry some responsibility or not. The ultimate responsibility seems to our own species.To other species,sure, but not to our detriment.We are fooling with mother nature and have little idea what we are doing.

Shokel: All vitamins may be depleted to some degree but the proximate and main problem is the thiamine deficiency most common in alcoholics. All nutrients are addressed with emphasis on massive amounts of thiamine for this reason.The thiamin deficiency or kidney or liver or other failure can kill long before the other vitamins are much of a factor. Also called Korsakoff's, alcohol is not always involved. it is a form of cerebral berri berri and causes massive brain and memory loss. Permanent. Usually fatal when finally diagnosed.If not fatal the person must be cared for for life. See "The Man Who Confused His Wife For a Hat" My feeling is that it could be largely avoided if alcoholic beverages were thiamine supplimented.

Strange is correct of course.Do you mean,why the universe has to be a space time continuum in the first place? Who says it had to be? It might just happen to be the way it is. Totally different methods,laws or variables might have been used or always been.We cant comprehend a universe like that.Philosophical realm I suppose? We are creatures of 4 space time dimensions and cant likely visualize otherwise.

Googlekoph: If this happened years ago you may not find a cure but to know the cause would be nice. Some therapies might help. .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music-related_memory#Neurological_bases

Sun7867: Strange nailed it. We are vehicles for propagating DNA though. To them, nothing more.. These mindless entities have used organisms for their purposes and are most successful.Life finds a way that works and stays with it until it dies.Pretty simple.DNA's use of us is fortunate as we wouldn't be here otherwise. I don't think one should consider us to be diminished in any way by this selfish use of our bodies.Philosophically, spiritually or otherwise. My DNA made me do it officer. Might try that.Take a deep breath then exhale into the mouthpiece. We consider ourselves the top dogs but are we really? What constitutes success.Microorganisms have more biomass than any other life form on the planet.Talk about successful.They don't kill for fun or religion and have done a terrific job of terraforming this planet to suit themselves.If we screw it up they will adapt or fix it or both. And we are the ones with brains. Consider E.T.s with mindless bodies and their seat of intelligence in their equivalent of DNA. Finding our DNA mindless, would we even be considered sentient or just bags of chemicals and organic circuits living by instinct only and propagating mindless DNA? Oh they would admire our technology for such non-sentient beings but look at the civilizations that bees and ants and termites and wasps construct.

Thanks, makes total sense though not what I expected. You explained it well.

Optimistic cynic: Y

I should have said less transparent rather than opaque. My post was off the top of my head. Research would show that active mechanisms maintain maximum transparency in the transparent components of the eye.The outer layers of the cornea act as pumps.I don't believe translucent skin has any such mechanisms. Doesn't need it. The slightest fluid imbalance affects the transparency of this very transparent tissue. The epithelium heals very rapidly. The location of your abrasion is also important. Off the pupillary axis may not affect your acuity after healing. Iron foreign bodies on the pupillary axis leave rust that must be drilled out, often to Bowman's membrane.I hate this. This leaves an acuity affecting scar THE PATIENT MUST BE TOLD OF THIS IN ADVANCE. People that had 20/10 vision don't consider 20/20 normal. The crystalline lens gives about 1/3 of the refraction of the eye and before 40 adjusts the focus of the eye from far to near. A ring of muscles around the lens change the thickness and power of this lens. Then readers eventually are needed as the lens stiffens with time{presbyopia} unless the person is myopic enough to remove their glasses to read up close. A good thread? Why does everything stiffen with age except what we want to? Backs, lens, knees etc.

I'd rather this thread not drift into things like creation versus evolution or wave particle duality etc. I would like to see if I can post a non controversial thread on this forum! Maybe global warming next thread. Sight historically gives a selective advantage.It depends on transparency of the media of the eye for light to reach the retina.The cornea, aqueous, vitreous gel are very transparent and get this in different ways. The cornea is made up of water and an extracellular matrix of materials that one might think should be opaque.They are organized in such a way that transparency and refraction occur. The cornea does most of the eye's refraction.it is a complex tough structure of 5 specialized layers made up of many more specialized layers.Rather thin.It is very sensitive of course, far more than the white of the eye. There are two complimentary theories regarding transparency.. Lattice theory states that fibrils less diameter than the wavelength of visible light cause destructive interference of any scattered waves except those in the direction of the incident light.Some think it is the relatively small distance between the fibrils related to the wavelength of light that provides transparency.Any insult to the cornea affects it' transparency.Edema, swelling.Pain and redness surrounding the cornea. Animals achieve transparency by various mechanisms for different reasons in various tissues, another tread perhaps.

"It would help if you all went off and learned some basic physics." Why be so darned insulting? Whether you believe it true or not is irrelevant. Me and my philosopher buddies? Strange! What is wrong with you? I will always be learning "basics' Cant speak for whom ever you refer to.. Something you and your closed minded buddies are overlooking.Things like conservation of energy and mass- energy at it's most fundamental level.. My philosopher buddies? You mean like philosophers like Einstein and Ehler? Calder and Ferris and Sagan were pretty good philosophers, physicists too. They would all be pretty good company.Far as I know Enough said, outta this tread! For real. Disapointed. Thanks for the rather terse input, sorta. Your friends are nicer.Your problem.

Jarussell. thought Id leave you with some thoughts and a link.Members and I have made our case. Stanford is not chopped liver. Lots of physics and a prestigious bibliography.I believe you may be thinking on a more fundamental level similar to what Ehler and Einstein meant by mass energy sameness.Einstein's word. Believe it or not.Google it if you like or wade through all those references. Philosophy and thought experiments are invaluable tools not to be discredited .Anyone not like what I say? I am 70 go around me. Honk if you feel better. " There are two main philosophical interpretations of E = mc2. The first is that mass-energy equivalence teaches us that "mass" and "energy" designate the same property of physical systems. This is the weaker of the two interpretations because no further ontological claims are made. The second interpretation is that E = mc2 entails that there is only one sort of fundamental stuff in the world." http://stanford.library.usyd.edu.au/archives/spr2004/entries/equivME/#2 My view and definitely not unworthy of opinion as implied elsewhere. [ The 2nd interpretation is fundamentally correct IMO. Notice I say fundamentally.} (This is discussed further in Section 2.) Recently, the history of E = mc2 has also attracted the attention of some philosophers. This is primarily, though not exclusively, because this history shows that E = mc2 is a direct consequence of changes to the structure of spacetime brought about by Special Relativity. (This is discussed further in Section 3.)

My humble views:Define damned for one thing. Nothing describes any religion in its entirety. If there is a God ,God likely existed before religion. We invented it for our purposes, both good and bad. I doubt God would have any use for it.Misuse of religion is mankind's worst evil and continues to be a bain on humanity.I find all religions silly. Still I know of many who get peace and happiness and strive to be better persons through religion.I dont try to belittle them. Respect them as you would have them respect you. Helps many deal with mortality and gets them through the night. P.S. Never argue religion with a naked man. Learned the hard way at a YMCA locker room.

I prefer english but octopodes sounds impressive. Whom is cooler than who also. Thanx Swansont about Haidengers brush. I forgot that long ago. I Only started thinking about polarization and color perception in humans as octopodes may use it in color perception or even vision perception. Unproven I think but viable.I cant see how it would work or be needed in humans but I wonder. I do think it may be involved in our vision perception to some small degree. I have various pseudoisochromomatic plates and polarized stereopsis tests and used polarized light and red green filters and viewing polaroid filters at various angles today with no results I can see other than increasing or decreasing the darkness. Duh. I wasnt expecting anything but it was fun. Looking down the highway we see reflections of the sky on the highway that look like water. The light is polarized though and we can eliminate this effect with polaroid glasses. I use them canoeing to see rocks and fish. The Gannet is a diving fishing bird whos eyes adapt instantly to underwater. Wonder if thay have polaroid vision. Corneas are very transparent because the fibers have a latice arrangement that is spaced such that visible wavelengths slither around and under the fibrles and pass through almost totally. Clearer than glass. An inexpensive evolutionary change of this lattice arrangement would polarize light. My speculation, no sources unless you can find some. Would have loved to do my Doctorate paper on something like this.All we had were monkeys, rabbits and mice and there was no internet to google.No Gannets.

An old, old question. Did something come from nothing? If there was ever nothing and then something , then something had to come from nothing.Logical? Trite but accurate. Huck Finn: "We had the sky up there all speckled with stars,and we used to lay on our backs and look up at them,and discuss about whether they was made or only just happened.I judged it would take too long to MADE so many.Jim said the moon could a LAID them; well that looked kind of reasonable,so I didnt say nothing against it, because I've seen a frog lay most as many ,so of course it could be done" Actually their view is just as valid as any other opinion. And more poetic. Fun to speculate but we may never know. I do know we live in a space-time continuuom and cause and effect appear to be a vital part of it. Hard to imagine a universe rife with cause and effect that wasnt caused. Possible of course. Maybe it was frogs, or turtles all the way down.