sunspot

No matter what universe model one uses, they all intuitively require some type of logical beginning that is hard to pin down. Even with a steady state model, one can ask, where did it come from? Once it is there, all the models work fairly well. But how does one get to something substantial to get the ball rolling? If we begin at the reference of the infinite eternal, it is the only show in town. What one would see if they were on the infinite eternal reference? One would be a point that can define infinity. The next question is, how do you fit a finite universe inside a point that defines infinity, if a finite sized universe will appear smaller than that point? It seems impossible. Unless, one puts on some reference magnifying glasses to make the original point look bigger. This would make room for finite size. This could be done by slowing from C so the point reference stretches out from a point so infinite distance will appear further away. If we slow from C the infinite mass will fall to a finite level, with the difference between infinite and finite mass still close to infinite. With the infinite eternal reference, eternal, the potential energy lost by forming the finite reference is recycled.

I have no more physical proof for this than others have for other dimensions or parallel universes. In both cases, one uses acceptable math to create a mathematical construct for reality. This is the beauty of math. If you notice in this analysis, I have all the universes of our hearts desire stemming from this pinacle eternal reference. Pick one or pick them all. We do not have to create or put this infinite construct anywhere, because it is eternal or was always there. Like you said, it is impossible to make, because one can not create an eternal infinite reference from the energy within finite universes. Only the other way around is possible.

When forest fires burn they release CO2. As the level of CO2 rises in the atmosphere this promotes plant growth. Commerical growers will often add CO2 to the greenhouses to increase productivity. Greenhouse gases in a greenhouse, now isn't that cool. Besides plants, CO2 is also scrubbed from the atmosphere by rain water to form the water soluble, nongaseous, H2CO3 or carbonic acid. This rains into the oceans, which have a pH around 7.8, which is basic. This forms CaCO3 for the shell fish, which is nongaseous. The only CO2 that we got to worry about is the CO2 which gets above the earth surface (plants) and above the clouds (water). Even forest fires can add CO2 up there. In the Nova program they said that smoke from big forest fires rise 100,000+ ft. If we have drought or even snow due to an ice age his means less water in the atmosphere scrubbing the CO2 and less plant life to absorb CO2. The result will cause CO2 to increase. What is good about global warming is that it adds more water to the atmosphere, through evaporation, and will help scrub out the excess CO2, while increasing plant life, so it can increase its contribution. As far as global warming. It is happening. We should embrace the change since new species will evolve.

I didn't read the link until now, but it seems reasonable. What I don't understand from the article is why do neutrinos form during the collapse. Is it due to atomic disentegtation? I also thought neutrinos can go through matter like crap through a goose. That aside. One of things that world leaders are afraid of is Iran using a nuclear fission reactor to make plutonium from uranium. The Iranian are feared capable of adding two more protons to Uranium to make plutonium. That makes them more powerful than the sun, on par with super nova. Actually more powerful then supernova, since they don't even need the pressure of a shock wave. When I was talking of only fission level energy I was saying just that. A fission device is used to light a fusion device in H-bombs. The difference in energy output is quite significant. I am sorry if I question the state of the art thinking. But in the light of being able to making Kg quantities of plutonium, I do not see why it is necessary. All it does is assume conditions impossible to prove or disprove.

I am playing the devil's advocate to learn. Look at this scenario. If we heat iron to 10K celsium, the iron will become a highly ionized vapor, with questionable magnetic properties sinces its magnetic electron states will no longer be the same. It will be hard to hold all the outer electrons never mind keep them in separate D-oribitals for magnetism. If we take the iron and pressurize it in the center of the earth, we will get solid state or metallic iron, since the melting point of solids increase with pressure. The crowded pressurized atoms create a different affect allowing substantial magnetism that we observed. In the center of star, or even in the center of the BB, the pressure, by keeping everything close could result in different sub-particle properties and distributions.

The point at V=C, plugged into the special relativity equations is like the top point of a mathematical pyramid. It defines a mathematical point where all universe theories converge and from which they all can eminate. In other words, if the universe began at this mathematical state, there is suffiencent energy to make any finte universe one's heart desires, while still having potential energy left.

I would like to post an observation for discussion. I will try to walk on eggshells since extrapolation of the existing understanding tends to get censored and banished to speculations. If one plugs V=C into the special relativity equations, we get infinite relativistic mass, infinite distance contraction and infinite time dilation. Although it is only a mathematical state, if you look at this singular state, the energy needed to make this reference can encompass the energy requirements any theory about the evolution and makeup of the universe, since it has infinite gamma in mass, distance and time. For example, if our universe is assumed finite it is a subset of infinite mass, distance and time since it has finite mass, size and longevity. Add all that energy and it is still not enough. If the universe is finite but cycles, it will still be a subset. If the universe has finite mass but continues to expand forever, it is still a subset. Even multi-dimensinal universes each containing finite parameters within mass, size and longevity would be still be a subset.

Materials in nature are not only sensitive to temperature but also pressure. The pressure may not be something we can control or even simulate in the lab.

I would like to pose the question, why are there so many orientations within psychology? The reason I ask this, is that psychology has become the replacement for religion for many atheists for the healing the soul. What they get to chose from is rational polytheism. Is there any indication that psychology will eventually evolve to rational monotheism?

The question I would like to pose is, how does one know if what was/is produced in particle accelerators is natural or artificial? Just because we can make it in the lab does not mean it is natural. With particle accelerators we are adding a lot of energy, magnetic force and shattering natural things into fragments that don't last. How do we know we are not producing both natural and/or artificial things? For example, we can make polyethelene in the lab but it does not occur in nature. If we assume it is natural, than one can extrapolate fantasy stuff that will logically follow. For example, If we assume natural polyethylene, than maybe the oil deposits formed from the polymerization of ethylene. This follows logically but is a deduction based on an unnatural material, i.e., cart before the horse. Or I can take an basket of apples and smash them with Gallagher's sledge-o-matic and then collect the pieces and come up with the theory that the basic building blocks of apples are juice, sludge and peel fragments none of which actually make up a ripe apple in their fragmented guise.

Here is another area called speculation, even though the electron moves with significant speeds around a nucleus to be slightly relativistic, which can account for the uncertainty. Maybe the problem was my trying to introduce the MDT model of physics. What makes this model different than all the rest is simplicity. It only takes a shifting in perspective. It does not need to speculate other dimensions, speculations which are not censored seeing there is no tangible proof only mathematical necessity. Personally, I have no problem with that because it is a good academic exercise that can open up the imagination, even if it is hypothetical. Is there a monopoly on hypothetical?

I am trying to offer a way to model the cell in terms of hydrogen bonding. I did not make up the fact that hydrogen bonding is the basis for the DNA double helix, template relationships, the secondary structure of protein, the translation of proteins, the usual properties of water, to name a few. Observation has also shown this is a dynamic variable as the DNA helix separates, new complexes are added, etc.. Why is focusing on this fundamental variable of life considered speculation? Personally, selling my hydrogen bonding model of the cell to the highest bidder, would be better for me. But what happens to all the empirical dinosaurs when they are made obsolete? I am trying to give everyone a heads up first. Unfortuneately, the blind man's prophesy called statistics is clouding common sense.

We cannot control the heat-up and cool-down cycles of the earth, although we can try to predict and be prepared for them. One also needs to attempt to separate politics and science when dealing with the cause and affects of global warming. Computer simulation is important for predicting whether but hasn't increased the prediction odds much beyond 1950's low tech. It looks prettier, I love the doppler radars, but the models are still all over scales for major predictions. I was watching this special on PBS the other night about natural fires caused by lightning and how some plants and animals have adapted to it. This makes me think that forest fires and such, have been happening for a long time and have contributed to greenhouses gases way before humans, and will continue to add greenhouse gases even if we stopped using fossil fuel. A 40,000 acre forest fire is a lot of CO2 and NOx.

It is a sad day when good science is called speculation. I often attempt to build a conceptual understanding to create a meeting of the minds. I am hoping to stimulate fresh discussions without criticizing of the limitation of existing ideas. If the machine is not broken don't fix until it is broken.

The thing I do not understand about supernova is why they explode. If all the exothermic fuel is spent and the building up of higher atoms like iron is higher enothermic, where does the energy for explosion come from? It would appear to me that gravity should overcome something so deplete in exothermic output potential. Another observation about higher atoms is our ability to create higher than natural atoms on the surface of the earth. Some of the early ones were made with fission products and did not even require fusion caliber energy.

The hydrogen ghost was not meant ot be taken literally but was only used to create a visual image of the hydrogen. This is true. However, as a first approximation, I would like to assume that these molecules are set up to cater to the needs of the hydrogen protons. In other words, to ignor the nucleus of the atoms within DNA does not have an negavitve affect on modelling the DNA. To be more rigorous these need to be taken into account since different atoms set up the conditions that will define their bonding properties. But as a first approximation, bio-chem ignors the nucleus and lower electrons by averaging the affects. The hydrogen model does the same thing by averaging the affects of covalent chemistry into the states of hydrogen protons that are created. The secondary bonding, hydrogen bonding, is why DNA does what it does while remaining a stable molecule. If one goes back to the archives of hydrogen bonding from the late 1950's hydrogen bonding was not limited to N-H and O-H, but C-H bonds were also thought to participate. As time went on, H-bonding was made more restricted to O and N. But more recently, science has rerecorded the old 1950's data. Essentially, all the hydrogen within the cell are involved at some level with some hydrogen protons at very low interaction potential. This is new/old perception is important because it suggests a physical basis for the potential. It has to do with electronegativity. Electronegativity is a term to describe the affinity of an atom for electrons. Something more than simple charge balance occurs within different atoms. Some atoms, like oxygen, is able to hold more electrons that it has protons (anions). While most metals prefer to have more protons that electrons (cations). In other words, if we mix oxygen atoms and most metals atoms, they do not remain with zero charge. Oxygen takes more than it needs while the metal gives up more than it needs to stay neutral. This can not be explain with electrostatic force alone. I asked myself, self, what could be tipping the scales? The first thing that came to mind was the magnetic force. In other words, electron orbitals are the result of the EM force. If the electrostatic force is out of proportion, when cations and anions form, then maybe magnetic force subtraction or magnetic force addition was tipping the scales toward cations and anions, respectively. This premise is not without precident. If one adds same spin electrons to an orbital an excited state will result. Opposite spin electrons are more stable due to magnetic addition. The charge balance is the same in both cases, yet simple magnetic considerations result in two different atomic scenarios. The next question was how is this possible while also having the electrons with additive spin in all the orbitals? What came to mind, recently, was the shape of atomic orbitals. The S-orbital is spherical, while the P-orbitals are 3-dimensional (x,y,z) dumbell shape. What the P-orbitals allow is magnetic addition in 3-dimensions for greater magnetic addition. The x-lobe has two opposite spin electrons. Because these two are perpendicular to the y and z-lobes, there is further magnetic addition between these additive spin electron and those in the y and z-lobes. The S-orbital only has the electron pair magnetic adding. The extra magnetic addtion in the 2P orbitals explains why F, O, N, are three of the top four in electronegativity. The last of the top four is Cl which has 3P orbitals. All these attempt to gain extra electrons so they can benfit by the 3-Dimensional magnetic addition. The magnetic addition is more significant for lowering energy than the electrosptatic potential created due to having too many electrons with respect to protons. The D-orbitals and F-orbitals are not so 3-Dimensionally perfect, with respect to magnetically adding all the electrons in the atom. They will actually cause magnetic subtraction which will result in most metals becoming cations. It pushes electrons away against the electrostatic force attraction of equal charge. As we layer atoms within orbitals to make higher atoms, one gets a atomic composite orbital strucuture composed of layers of magnetic addition and magnetic substraction, with the outer orbital layer influenced by the summation affect beneath it. This explains why Cl is less electronegative that F. It has a 2S-orbtial between the 2P and 3P orbitals, which takes a little bit away from the 3P-orbital. Distance may play a role but with all atoms nearly the same size this affect is small. Getting back to hydrogen. It has an 1S orbital with one electron. When it reacts with oxygen to form water, the 2P stability of O attempts to take the electron away for more magnetic addition. This magnetic stability within oxygen is part of the reason hydrogen can float among the oxygen. Some become more cationic instead of covalent. The hydrogen that stick to the oxygen faces another problem. The orbitals of oxygen are hybridized into SP3 orbtials. What this means is that the bonding orbitals behave as though the 2S and 2P orbitals of oxygen have merged into a new type of pseudo-orbtal that has some character of both. This partially screws up oxygens full P stability because it is 25% S. This helps hydrogen to share by making O less magnetic stable. But on the other hand, the 1S orbital of hydrogen is sharing electrons with the SP3 hybrid orbitals. This imparts 2P character onto the electrons shared by hydrogen. This is the kicker. This causes the electrons that hydrogen is sharing to exist further away from hydrogen (on the average) than is indicative of a 1S orbital. What is significant about this, although an O-H bond has a charge dipole, the negative oxygen end is magnetically stablized to some extent. While the positive charge of H is not only due to less electron density, but also due to the electron density it has, partially existing outside the 1S orbital. If we add it together, every hydrogen proton in water carries a net burden of additional potential. This is how the hydrogen ghost is modelled. All the hydrogen are energized relative to O, N since these are more electronegative and will benefit by being slightly anionic. The hydrogen can lower potential by forming a hydrogen bond with O and N. But since this will destabolize the magnetic stability of O and N the O and N will resist or pass on the burden to its own covalent hydrogen, causing some form of hydrogen to retain at least some residual potential.

Is there data to support multi-universes or is this just math conjecture? One needs to be careful with what is needed to close the math being used to define reality. Many attempt to justify the fudge factor by convincing others that this is reality so they can convince themselves. Show me some tangible proof. If we look at the accelerated expansion, this makes no sense. If it is an accelerated expansion, doesn't that mean that the BB or creation occurred at a snail's pace? Or did the universe have haver an initial fast acceleration, followed by a slowdown and then all of a sudden a few years ago it begins to speed up again.

The hydrogen bonding model of the cell is practical because it simplifies complex chemicals, like DNA, into their hydrogen bonding ghosts. In other words, if we were to take a picture of DNA and color all the hydrogen green and everything else red and then put on a pair of red sun glasses, all we would see would be the hydrogen. If we do this for the whole cell, we would only see hydrogen protons interacting and corrdinating, from the cell membrane to the DNA. This is the ghost of life. The hydrogen ghost simulation is possible with current computers.

The value of any orientation is based on its practical value. One could model life in terms of subparticles but it would be impractical in the field. Currently life is based on life molecules, like DNA, RNA, proteins, etc., which does have practical value since it is easier to investigate this level of interactions. What the hydrogen proton brings to the table is a variable that is common to all the life molecules. This would be a practical way to simulate cells since it is a global variable that it easy to investigate. Let me give an example. The main component of life is liquid water. It properties are based on hydrogen bonding. When a protein is dissolved in water and begins to form its structure, hydrogen bonds cause it to form a helix, while hydrophobic and hydrophillic affects typically place the hydrophobic organic groups in the center and the hydrophillic polar groups on the surface. Changes in the hydrogen bonding potential within water due to anything floating around within the water (most things exists with hydration spheres), will have an impact on the surface hydrogen bonding potential of the protein. Water is everywhere in the cell (90%). Everthing within the water will impact the local and the global hydrogen bonding potential of the water. With all the big wigs of the cell, i.e., DNA, RNA, proteins, dependant on hydrogen bonding to define their shapes and dynamics, while also induced by water to expose polarized areas, I can see the cell being coordinated through the water via the hydrogen proton. This is not speculation, it is common sense. The thing that needs to be ironed out is how to define the basis for a hydrogen interaction that can make it a global variable. The idea of floating on top is not exactly rigorous but has practical value. In water it is evident by the pH affect. In the DNA double helix, during transcription the floating is only a half affect. The hydrogen stays attached at one side but will float away from the base pairing into the arms of the transcription complex. The full floating of the hydrogen of water implies an higher potential that helps the partial hydrogen float.

It is a bit esoteric. One of the conceptual problems that I believe many are having is that it is generally assumed that distance and time are merely variables for measuring location in space and time. The photon demonstrates that measures of distance and time are not only quantitized but can travel through all distance and time references, while mainitaining the integrity of distinct distance and time quanta. This occurs because distance and time (wavelength and frequency) are also potential quanta. Maybe using distance and time as the two aspects of energy potential is leading to some confusion, but it is that simple. These same two potential quanta are also responsible for other phenomena like EM force. Getting back to the esoteric, we have a particle with mass, at V=C-, relativistic distance and time will become nearly maximized. Picture the same mass particle at V=C-, but now only showing half distance contraction and half time dilation. One would say that is impossible since the mass is still almost infinite. But that is what photons do. Even though they are massless they are traveling at C, so distance and time should be experinecing maximized special relativity, but instead they show fractional variations of the max,max. Blackholes, at the event horizon, suck all but the lowest increment of potential out of photons giving them the expected max, max in distance and time, i.e, infinite wavelength. The infinite wavelength energy quanta, with nearly zero energy value, imply that the time and distance potential of photons is actually zeroed at the speed of light reference. Deviation from the speed of light reference in distance and time gives the photon energy potential in distance and time. Although this appears backwards, it makes sense since matter contains potential which can only exist if it deviates from the speed of light. While the more the distance and time expression of photons deviate from the C reference, the more energy they define. I am not just trying to be different for the sake of being different. This orientation has practical value. The two references of the atom is due to differences in time and distance potential. This is not vigorous math but it does help outline the task.

This is something I have presented to the biologists, but they seem to be waiting for the chemists to OK it. So I went to the chemists, but they seem to be dragging their feet. Maybe they are waiting for the physicists. The premise is the hydrogen proton is the basis for life. It is even more findamental than DNA. From the perspective of the universe, the hydrogen proton or hydrogen is the main component of the universe. It is the most likely candidate for life. If we look at the water molecule, hydrogen is bonded to oxygen, with strong covalent bonds, among the strongest for a single bond. But in liquid water, the hydrogen proton is able to jump around from oxygen to oxygen as reflected by pH. In pH, H2O actually exist as OH- and H3O+, at a moderate level of 10-7 moles/liter at neutral conditions. The hydrogen moves in and out of strong covalent bond fairly easily. The hydrogen proton is the fastest thing in water by almost two orders of magnitude. One way to look at this affect, is that the hydrogen of liquid water is sort of floating, in a figurative way, above the electron clouds. It uses the electron orbitals of oxygen almost like a negative nucleus. The orbital electrons within water, don't migrate much in water since water is a poor conductor of electricity, but the hydrogen proton sitting on the top of the fixed electron clouds, defines a special layer of chemisty. Most thing like rocks, minerials, oil, are based on electrons. But life is different in that it has the hydrogen layer floating on the top of water. The hydrogen proton, via hydrogen bonding, is the basis for the properties of DNA (base pairing, helicial structure, reacticity, etc.), RNA, protein and water. This extra layer of potential, defined by the hydrogen proton, the most abundant material in the universe, is what makes the living state tick. If we take away hydrogen bonding, all the activity of life would end. The chemist ignors the nucleus, once they know the atom, and they ignor all the electrons in atoms except only those on the top that participate in chemical bonds. Chemistry only require working on the top. The same can be done with a hydrogen proton model of life. In other words, as a first good approximation, one can define molecules, like DNA, RNA, proteins, etc., in terms of their hydrogen protons

Is there any reason why the exothermic output from the lightest elements fusing could not create the endothermic potential to create higher atoms from iron, since these early reactions generate the highest energy output, well within the range needed for building higher atoms? The way I see it, the iron core of the earth is assumed to form because of the weight of iron in the earth's gravitational field, causing it sink to the center of the earth. What is the problem with solar iron sinking due to solar gravity and thereby placing itself in a fusion environment that can build up higher atoms? Besides it won't be easy to excape the hydrogen and light atom density.

We are both correct. To travel at C it must be massless. The photon is massless and travels at C. But it still creates an affect in space and time that does not display the reference affects of something traveling at C. The affects we see are wavelength and frequency. There is a spectrum of these photons, all traveling at C. The combinations of D (wavelength) and T (frequency) all multiply to C. The departure from what should be V=C in distance and time, defines the energy of the photon. It sounds upside down but it is consistent with observation. For example, if we had a particle of mass=0+, it could approach C before mass got infinite. It would also show near max distance contraction and max time dilation which will be defined by its velocity. Bump it up to C (and remove the mass), all of a sudden the max distance and max time is not all that forms. There are also things like gamma rays with minimial distance and time expressions. Since this is furthest from the logical extrapolation of max, max, it defines very high energy potential. On the other hand, the infinite wavelength from the event horizon of a blackhole is sort od what one would expect at C. These have essentially zero energy since there is no departure from the time and distance reference expected at C (one should see infinity pulled to a point).

Beaurocracies are based on a miltary chain of command. During wartime or during emergencies, beaurocracies are at their best, since they contain a feed-down chain of command, with a wide range of specialists at the lateral levels. But during peace time, one has this large standing army with too little to do. The solution, typically, to keep the troops sharp in case of an emergency, is to create a lot of busy work, usually paper work. During the emergency, the paper work is often bi-passed for the sake of efficiency and speed of response. The forms can be filled out later when there is idle time and less to do. During the emergency there is often both a feed-down and feed-up system, where the leaders give the orders. This trickles down the chain of command to the people in the field doing the actual work. They report their progress, which works up the chain of command to create new feeddown. It is a very useful system. During peace time, beaurocracies still work feed-down with the feed-up aspect bogged down by politics within the chain of command. Peace time is more a dog and pony show, with the chain of command trying to look pretty and therefore ressitant to anything that has even the slightest possibility of smudging their make-up job. Being cynical is the safest position because it prevents change. It is more complicated that, with all the marginally useful busywork of beaurocracy, taking up so much time and effort, while stunting free thinking. There are so many chefs arguing against that even making a simple soup becomes a major undertaken. When I was in my early twenties, I was in the right place at the right time and inherited the position of the acting director of a graduate school program that was on location at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. I had been the assistant to the director and his contract had expired. My job was to be a liason between the university and ORNL, gather projects for the fall sensester, and prepare student papers for publication, until they could find a more experinced replacement. At first, I went through the proper chanels at the lab, but was bogged down, via the feed-up chain of command. I was never good at bull. One day, I got the naive idea, that since I was a director, of sorts, maybe I should deal with the Director of the Lab and skip all the middlemen, since we were both directors (dah). As it turned out, the Director was a very nice guy, who took a liking to me because of my naive optimism. After courting this relationship by discussing the historical relationship between the lab and university, the Director gave me the key the city, as well as a road map. This allowed me to go down the chain of command and after a few day I had everything I needed in the works. After that I could never quite fit into the beaurocracy because my next jobs placed me closer to the bottom of the beginning of the tech ladder. I was fortunate, at first, because my new boss was a master of politics and innovation and he had the key to the sister city at the nuke weapons facility in Oak Ridge. I learned to become innovative from his open brain storming managment style but I never learn the art of politics, since I figured ingenuity would tips the scales. I did not fully understand the sterility of a beaurocartic environment and had to go it alone.

Selective advantage and disadvantage, as pointed out by Edtharan, can be correlated to generalization and specialization of behavior. The Koala has become a specialist at eating eucalypus. This is good in a controlled environment but may pose a problem if the environment changed too much. The rat or other rodents, are more generalized in their eating habits such that if the environment changed drastically they have already been experimenting and could more easily adapt to change. An analogy betweeen selective specialization and generalization is connected to the contrast between children and adults. Almost all children, especially when they are small, don't like veggies, or will only eat certain foods. In this case, mother nature, or their mother will create a controlled environment for them to make sure they eat something. As the child gets older, their tastes change and their understanding of nutrition will increase and they will migrate toward a generalist eating style. This makes eating more flexible and allows less dependancy on mother nature to maintain a controlled environment. This is not true in all cases. There are many adults that have very specific requirements, based more on infantile specialized subjectivity.