Proteus

When I use my brush my mortars using my electric toothbrush and watch the clock of my microwave oven, it vividly vibrates due to the vibrations of my skull, yet when I turn off the light and look at the light of my printer, it's perfectly still, even though the surroundings appear totally dark. Why does my brain react differently to the numbers of the clock than to the light of my printer? Why do only the numbers vibrate, and everything else in the environment, even if isolated in darkness, appear still? Is this an optic effect, caused by a possible lower frequency in the light of the clock, or some kind of neurological or other effect, perhaps caused because my brain interprets the numbers as concepts rather than ordinary visual input?

With "new material," I meant new theories or hypotheses. Apparently, to most magazines the theories or hypotheses must already have been propounded by others, and they merely present these in a more accessible form to the public. Actually, I have many essays I would like to publish, covering subjects ranging from psychology to physics and geology to biology.

Are there any actual magazines that publish new material? The ones I've tried all explicitly stated that new material would be rejected.

A book is a bit of a bulky answer to a single question. It will usually take reading the entire book to find the answer, and the rest may be too abstract (too much focus on mathematics and too little on logic), too hypothetical, too much metadata (when who what where), or not on my level (either below it, above it, or, most likely, both). Surprisingly, after a second search with one search term less, I did find a lot Google results for private physics teachers, and contacted them.

A paper similar to mine… hm, I tried a few search terms on Google, but then I realized that it is very unlikely that I'll find a paper that it similar. My papers are rather unorthodox. They, are, after all, speculative, but in a way that contradicts many mainstream science. It's not that it uses a lot of speculation, mind you: but the little speculation it uses is rather heretical. Another problem is that some ideas in my papers, while original, are often very simple, making it difficult to make the paper of a length that is considered respectable. Since it contradicts mainstream science, I have little mainstream science to build on — only deductive method. Moreover, they often concern things of which little is known yet, anyhow, and the mainstream hypotheses they contradict have an equal lack of arguments because of this. I think I'll just consider myself a quack. I do not see how viXra would harm the reputation of my hypotheses.

How do I best publish papers that contain new, and often hypothetical material? Most science magazines reject new material.

In the impossibility of public education, how could I best find a private teacher for advanced, master level physics?

I thought humans belonged to a separate order. Apparently simians is the correct term for apes and monkeys collectively.

I did read that alcohol doesn't destroy the neurons themselves, only the dendrites, and that these dendrites, unlike neurons, could regrow; when they do, however, they may do so in another way than the original way, causing loss of earlier memories. This may be somewhat compared to the brain damage from extasy: the serotonergic axons regrow after they've been destroyed, but in the wrong direction, with nearby areas becoming hyperinnervated and more distant areas remaining denervated.

Is there any proven way to prevent brain damage from alcohol, for example through combination with supplements?

Some capuchins go through great lengths to obtain the kernel from certain nuts, first peeling, the drying, and finally cracking them open with a rock and anvil (BBC Life: Life's Challenges), I was therefore wondering if chimps are really the most intelligent primates, or if we're just biassed because they're our closest genetic relatives.

Yes, but it's the "correspondence between fermions and bosons of identical mass" that I don't understand.

"The correspondence between fermions and bosons of identical mass that is postulated to have existed during the opening moments of the big bang and that relates gravity to the other forces of nature" How and why does this correspondence relate gravity to the other forces of nature?

Are there any comparative studies of the prevalence of schizophrenia, depression or other mental illnesses over the years?

Mouses apparently contribute to causing RSI, so how about keypads? Are keypads okay, or are waccoms the only solution. I'm using a laptop keyboard and as yet can't find a wristpad, but does it suffice if I simply raise the keyboard at the back, so as to create a slope? That way, there's no contact with the corners of the keyboard. Also, are there any exercises for RSI?

People have attributed various mental and physical benefits and drawbacks both to sexual abstinence and sexual activity. Purported benefits of abstinence would include increased testosterone, acetylcholine, dopamine, lecithin, phosphorus, calcium, mental energy, sensitivity, creativity, and spirituality, while purported drawbacks are insensitivity, anxiety, emotional suppression and, resulting from the latter, even physical symptoms. Purported benefits of sexual activity would include increased immunity, oxytocin, vasopressin, mental energy, testosterone, dopamine, sensitivity, creativity and spirituality (!), and reduced pain, anxiety, depression, risk of prostate cancer, risk of heart disease, and death rate, while purported drawbacks (aside from increased risk of STDs) are reduced dopamine, acetylcholine, prefrontal activity, increased risk of prostate cancer, insensitivity. The lists go on. Obviously, very few of these claims are even consistent, and even fewer are proven. The only of these claims which I have thus far found to have been consistently (so far) confirmed by research are that sexual activity increases immunity and reduces death rate, while abstinence increases testosterone. I have found almost no research on the mental effects of sexual abstinence/activity. I know of no one who has as yet measured the neurochemical or psychological effects, yet there have been plenty who have made unbacked claims about it. Taoism and Hinduism see sexuality as something spiritual. Freud and pre-sexual revolution scientists saw it as an obstacle to emotional growth and well-being. Post-sexual revolution scientists have generally seen it as healthy. I'm growing tired of sorting through all the bigotry. I want facts. This is significant to me because I have been sexually abstinent for the past few years. Be it because I had personal issues with sexuality or because of its effects on neurochemistry, I found it made me more creative — but because of those personal issues, I am biassed. Now, a doctor has attributed a variety of symptoms I've been suffering from since about the same time to abstinence, including liver, stomach and bladder complications. A gastroenterologist has already confirmed that the former are psychosomatic, and in all likelihood so is the latter. This isn't hard to understand, as these organs all lie directly underneath diaphragms (urogenital and thoracic), which move with breathing and so undergo strain in case of troubled breathing, as can occur during stress. The same doctor went on to say that abstinence was only likely to drain me of mental as well as physical energy. My query: has anyone found actual RESEARCH about this? I'm tired of claims which have no basis except for biassed intuitions.

Interesting. I wonder if this phenomenon has a name. Yes, I think this is the most likely explanation. After all, if it did spread from one nerve to another, the entire nerve would be affected. On the other hand, in the brain it may easily spread from two adjacent areas even if the parts they represent are wide apart. For example, the eyes lie above the thumb. The upper and lower molars lie adjacent to one another in the brain whereas in the body their nerve endings are disjunct. Where the molars on the same side, and where they on the back of the mouth? The left and right teeth are quite wide apart, and I'd assume the upper and lower teeth are separate (though adjoining), so if it was a cerebral effect it would have to be. But how far can such reactions go? Also, perhaps there is at least sometimes some peripheral element to it. A spinal disc herniation may cause numbness in the toes, for example. But in this case, that's because the same nerves transmitting to the toes are affected. Still, are there any other examples in which separate nerves react with a sensation to the same stimulus?

Is it possible for the stimulation of one nerve to cause a reaction in another nerve not connected to it? I can't give any examples, but I think I've felt such sensations before. It could be that the places in question were actually part of the same nerve, though, but is it possible for this to happen for different nerve branchings?

Psychiatry is excessively one-sided. That doesn't mean that it's entirely useless. It can be useful if it's combined with psychology. We always need the two sides, analytical and holistic, yin and yang — even in something which is in itself as holistic as the human mind. Medicines might not be very helpful for environmentally determined depressions, but it's excellent for biological depressions. Considering that our brain uses both chemistry as more complex processes, it's bound that both will have deficiencies or disorders now and then. There's diabetes, after all, which is a genetic deficiency of insulin, so why couldn't there be a genetic deficiency of serotonin? It's just wrong to attribute all, or even most, mental illnesses to chemistry. Sure, chemistry almost always plays its part (as does psychology), since that's part of what determines our differences in personality, but even so, medicines aren't always necessary. It's not like a kidney disease. Whether it's chemical or psychological, mental illnesses can be dealt with in both ways — though to what extent depends on to what extent they're chemical or psychological. What's more, mental illnesses can be useful, which is something else which sets it apart from physical illnesses. Very few physical illnesses can come to its use (though they do exist), but almost all mental illnesses can be useful in some way. This is because the mind is so complex that a single gene expression will interact with the mind in innumerably many ways, and these will randomly cause a number of advantages or disadvantages.

I'm searching a reliable source discussing the long-term aftereffects of orgasm, or abstinence thereof, on dopamine levels. Some sources claim that orgasm decreases dopamine through prolactine for several weeks, but I've found no sources confirming this. I'm also looking for research papers on the long-term effects of orgasm on serotonin and noradrenaline. I've found plenty of papers on the effects on hormones, but none on the more important monoamines.

That's very interesting. I googled it and read the article. Unfortunately, people are more likely to trust a 5000-year-old dangerous drug than a safer one that's just a few years old, because they're used to the idea, and everyone else has been using it before them. Also, as long as the aroma- and olfaction-enhancing effect can't be replaced, alcohol will likely still be used in gastronomy, and from there its use spreads to other circles, where it is used as a drug.

Hm, of course mimicking the taste isn't hard. But the aroma seems more unique for a particular molecule. More unique still seem the aroma- and olfaction-enhancing effects, which I've never heard any other molecule to have. This latter thing is important, as it not only enhances the taste and smell of the beverage, but also of food, which is probably partly why alcohol is popular in gastronomy.

No idea about the de-icer, but I've done some research and found a few things: Alcohol causes a "burn" sensation because it is an irritant. If so, are there any other, more or less harmless irritants that could be used to simulate the burn? Small amounts of floating alcohol can simulate the taste and aroma of large amounts of dissolved alcohol (Encyclopedia Brittannica). According to some people, pure ethanol is odorless. Is this true? The apparent odor of ethanol could actually be due to its aroma-enhancing effect. Ethanol increases the aroma of other volatiles through a "physicochemical effect" (Oxford Journals, A.A. Williams and P.R. Rosser: Aroma enhancing effects of ethanol). Ethanol also increases sensitivity to odors (Richard L. Doty: Influences of ethanol ingestion on olfactory function in humans). Is there any way to imitate these effects? It's unfortunate that a substance having such valuable sensory effects happens to be an addictive drug.

Are there substances which mimick the burn, flavor or aroma of alcohol, yet aren't harmful?

That's amazingly helpful, and the best, most informative post I've ever read on this forum. Thanks for elaborating, it's all noted down.