sunspot

This is a natural affect caused by the wiring of the brain, which I have experienced. A sensory input comes into a particular sensory system and the signal then flows into the sensory cortex, for example. The neurons that fire within the sensory area of the brain, allow us to sense the input. All a dream has to do, is trigger the neurons to fire in same area of the sensory cortex, and the same sensory stimulation will occur. The observation of rapid-eye movement during dreams also suggests the unconscious stimulation of the visual areas of the brain, during dreams, can send neural currents in the opposite direction along the optic nerve, causing the eyes to flutter. Picture if one was in the woods at night. It can sometimes be kind of spooky. It is not uncommon for one to begin to see things lurking in the shadows. The unconscious mind triggers the visual areas within the brain starting from within our imagination or frontal lobe. The current from this neuron firing will flow up the optic nerve into the eyes. The bounceback in the eyes, overlays our actual visual input, to create a dual visual perception. The sensory systems are wired one way into the brain, but are not polarized against countercurrent flow.

Let me give an example of unnatural behavior being the normal. Picture Nazi germany before and during WWll. It was the cutural norm for most of the german people to perscecute the Jews, Catholics, Gypsies, etc.. Just because culture makes a behavior acceptable does not automatically make it natural by any stretch of the imagination. I think the fence that everyone is balancing on is; defining natural behavior might create a problem with respect to socially acceptable behavior that might be unnatural but is nevertheless fun to do. This is loosely analogous to natural morality getting in the way of immorality.

Where I am going with this, is connected to the nature of hydrogen bonding, where, for example, the hydrogen of water want to share the unbonded electrons of oxygen of another water molecule. I claim that the potential to form this bond is not equally distributed between the oxygen-hydrogen dipole, but that the hydrogen carries the most potential. The example I gave of F- anion being stable, allowing this anion to hold more electrons than it has protons cannot be explained by electrostatic force alone. A balance of charge should result in a neutral atom. The unity of the EM force, suggests that magnetic addition is creating the little extra attraction potential to make this anion stable, allowing it to overcome the expected electrostatic repulsion. Oxygen is also highly electronegative or can hold more electrons than it has protons in its nucleus. This stability is also due to EM integration or magnetic addition overcoming the expected electrostatic repulsion. As such, within O-H bonds of water, the electrons are pulled closer to oxygen exposing the positive charge of hydrogen. The stability of oxygen due to magnetic addition cause the hydrogen to carry the burden of potential, i.e., the oxygen lowered potential or it would not have taken the electron density in the first place. As such, when a hydrogen bond forms with another water molecule, the hydrogen needs the electron density much more than oxygen needs to give up electron density due to its magnetic stability. This analysis is subtle but is very pivotable to understanding how one can model cells in terms of just the hydrogen bonding hydrogen. Hydrogen bonding defines the active and structural properties of DNA, RNA, proteins and water and allows one to theorectially integrate the cell using only one variable; hydrogen proton potential. The thesis is DNA, RNA, proteins and water all create hydrogen bonds with nonoptimized distance and angles, leaving residual potential, distributed throughtout the cell, within the hydrogen protons of the hydrogen bonds. Biochemistry is convinced the potential of hydrogen bonds are distributed equally between the hydrogen and O or N making the model a moot point. I am convinced that it is distributed unequally with the hydrogen containing residual potential from its orginal induction. I could use the help of the physics community to help settle the debate. The unity of the EM is my best argument where magnetic addition can alter the expected electrostatic dipole potentials. It works with F-, while oxygen and nitrogen also use the 3-Dimesional 2P orbitals to allowing the EM to integrate lowering electrostatic potentials.

Below is some of my eariest reasoning that led to the model. The idea of the MDT, or mass, distance and time potential (relativity) being able to alter all the laws of physics came to me later, to help others understand. If we look at particle matter there are two distinct classifications (not in the traditonal sense). Common matter; neutrons, electrons and protons and maybe photons last as long as the universe. They are essentially eternal particle configurations. I will call these long phase; lasts a long time, to help distinguish this class. At the other extreme is the transient phase composed of particles and particle configurations that last a very short time. Most of the experimental and theoretical matter is transient phase. The long phase has been shown to be composed of the transient phase, at some fundamental level. The question I had was, how can long phase be so stable and last so long? The answer was time dilation. In other words, long phase is simply transient phase that was time dilated during the formation of the universe. Its eternal stabilty is inherant within its time dilated reference. If this was true, than maybe common matter was also relativistic mass and distance contracted. The distance contraction could explain why such tiny particles can interact so beautifully at long distances via the forces of nature. They would see things as being closer or distance contracted, making it much easier to integrate with even distant objects. The various distances of force interaction could mean various distinctions of distance potential or distance relativity. When I looked at mass, since the mass of the electron was less than that of the proton, it followed that the proton has more mass potential or mass relativity than the electron. This mass imbalance within these two long phase particles suggested that the relativity potential did not have to be uniform in all three parameters. Each parameter could somehow vary independantly. If this was true, all particles could be defined as simply MDT, with various particles defining various ratios of mass, distance and time potential. Transient phase can be high in D and M but was low in T. The electron was high in D (orbitals/mobility/charge, etc.) and T (eternal) but low in M. This might imply that electron transitions were mostly changes in its majority parameters of DT (wavelength and frequency), this would explain energy having a range of D and T, but no mass. After pondering further, I realized that if MDT particles were composed of the tiniest, near infinitessimal subunits of mass, distance and time, relativistic velocity close to C (circulation/spin of the tiny subunits) alone could explain the entire spectrum of particles state. One can crank up the D and T a lot and M only a little and one would get an electron. If one then lowered the D of the electron, it would define the electron's MDT parameters of an inner orbtial electron. If a critical parameter values or ratios were reached the electron will change into say a positron. With the building blocks so small it was all inclusive down to the tiniest theoretical particles and with special relativtity creating infinite gamma at the speed of light, the tiny finite subunits could also be used to explain universe size MDT. There are two extreme states of the MDT model, MDT=C and MDT=0. The first has all the parameters of our subunits at C. This is the eternal reference of infinite mass, distance and time. This includes everything including other dimensions, whatever adds up to infinite parameters. The second has no mass, disance or time potential. This is nothingness. Nothingness is the theorectical zero point below the tiny subunits of the three MDT particles. The potential between these two extremes creates the tiny subunits of the model; MDT=0+ and the finite universe; MDT=C-. The two pillars of the model MDT=C and MDT=0, remain, and maintain the two finite extremes within the finite universe. Connecting the potential between the two finite extremes are all the MDT's states in the middle, which define the material diversity of the universe. The two pillars pull the diversity continuum into two directions simulataneous creating expansion type phenomena (toward MDT=C) and contracting phenomena (toward MDT=0). Here is the slick part. If we look at nothingness or MDT=0, it would exist maybe once, or not, for an instant. An analogy would be like going into a dark room where a lamp is off. Its maybe once or not existance would make it hard to know where the lamp is, if one went the room. If it began to blink on-off, (MDT=0+ and MDT=0), we would not only know where the lamp was in the room, but we would also be able to distinquish between the on and off nature of the lamp. These are a conceptual image of the three subunits of the MDT model as defined by MDT=O+. The where is the distance potential subunit, the on is the mass potential subunit, and the blink frequency is the time potential subunit. The complement of the subunits is the (MDT=C and MDT=C-) blinking, so to speak, between an eternal/almost infinite MDT reference. This supplies the relativistic potentials to the three subunits, to create the almost eternal particles of common matter (among everything else). With none of the observed particles of the universe having all C parameters or all parameters even simultaneously all close to C, the physical requirement of MDT=C-, to express all the almost infinite relativistic potential energy, even for one blink, is the upteen particles within the universe.

The Bohr or planetary model of the atom is appropriate for the hydrogen atom and maybe helium, but after that the orbital shapes change into the P-orbitals. These shapes are more like an asteroid with a close approach to the sun and then a long sweeping journey back into space. The d-orbitals begin to break down the planetary model due to donuts shapes, where the center of the doughnut remains a fixed distance from the nucleus or sun. I am not aware of any such phenomena in our solar system, although that does not preclude their existance. The EM force can explain all the shapes with magnetic addition playing a pivotal role. Without the magnetic addition, all the atoms would look like the Bohr atom and chemistry as we know it would not be the same.

There was a comedy variety show back in the 60's, which is still around in reruns, led by the comedian Flip Wilson. One of his characters had the explain-all line "the Devil made me do it!". No matter what the character did inappropriately for laughs, the "Devil made me do it", explanation shifted all the responsibility to a third party, so the character could get away with anything for laughs. It is funny. The modern psycho-science uses a line very similar to Flip Wilson, "genetics made me do it!" The question I have is, with psycho science unable to define consciousness in any consensus way, how can they extrapolate genes into an output behavior, without any valid bridge? Was this line borrowed from Flip Wison and modified enough to avoid copyright violations?

I am just pointing out an alternate explanation of the observational data. I realize it is not consensus thinking and is controversial, but it would not only help define who are the fittest males, but also those who are not going to take any unnatural sh...t. The female naturally protecting her young can become so ferocious as to stand down a larger preditor. The larger preditor, will put aside its blind hunger compulsion under the shock, lowering the potential of the instinct for more ability to weigh the contrary result that might happen. If one continues the primal male battle scenario, the larger male either goes limp under the shock or satisifes the potential with a male. Either way, the male potential left behind will go after the females to pass the natural or appropriate natural resulting breeding behavior to the young. Eventually, selective evolution toward the natural use of the breeding instinct, shifted the behavior toward the modern theory of the stronger natural passing on their genes. The exceptions are left at the perimeter. As an unrelated example of natural and unnatural behavior, rape is morally and social wrong, and I do not condone it in any shape or form. During ancient warfare, it was appropriate for the conqueoring army to spread their genes to the females of the losing culture via rape. Warfare is unnatural caused by social stresses, leading to another layer of unnatural behavior. Eventually, the unnatural path of rape became the right of way, until culture rediscovered natural behavior.

Ophiolite raises an excellent point, with humans, modern culture is actually quite new on the evolutionary time scale. The first modern cultures, beyond migratory and hunting/gathering, are about 6000-7000 years old, while fossil evidence have human remains from at least one million years. Culture is constantly changing for both better and worse. The natural human is put into this constantly changing cage leading to unnatural stresses and unnatural behavior. The natural I had in mind is the basic set of behavior apart from all that is induced by unnatural stresses. Many people discount religious documents for defining natural behavior, however if one think logically, observation of human behavior is not new. It is one of the oldest sciences. Great philosophers did it thousands of years ago and many of these writings are still appropriate today. The advantage of the ancient observer was that culture was just beginning the transition from natural simplicity into the radidly changing cultural cage. The changes were far more obvious between the two simpler data sets.

Sorry about my too quick to conclude thought analysis. I stand corrected. In the following link http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap001123.html, there is a nice movie of the red spot, as well as some of the local wind bands. Although this is a very limited view of Jupiter, one may notice that the counterclockwise circulations, including the red spot, appear to be large and stable. The clockwise circulations attempt to form, but seem to break up. I may have got my directions backwards but it appears to lead to the same affect. To add one additional observation to the analysis, it has been proven that the core of the earth rotates faster than the surface http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/050825_earthcore.html. If one considers the amount of friction (against the high density viscoplastic mantle) that needs to constantly be overcome to keep this faster core rotation going, one would expect a tremendous core energy source. The same is more than likely true for Jupiter. It is probably more than a uniform perpetual rotating machine. This is reflected in the less than uniform kinetic energy in the atmosphere.

Actually as an engineer, I preferred the old timer science approach to development. I worked in Oak Ridge and there were many amazing Old Timers who had to create something out of nothing during the Manhattan project and the Cold War years, using very simple equipment by modern standards. Yet they got the job done in record time. The great men of science did not have all the fluff of today, yet they are the great men of science. They invented the A and H bombs and all the needed technologies and even put a man on the moon with computers less powerful than modern PC's. The fluff prevents one from having to rely intuitive library research skills, reason and ingenuity. The fluff is more comfortable for management but often gets in the way of rapid and cost effective innovation. The fluff uses up too much resources but usually looks prettier. If one is trying to do step one of a project and a single experiment comes out near what one expects, go to step two, instead of beating step one into the ground. Working on step two will provide more insight into step one than all the fluff. My advice is to practice, when one can, reinventing the wheel, so to speak. Try to come up with what has already been done, every now and then. This helps one become more logical and ingenius because one has something to compare their effords too. The skills of invention learned can be extended into new areas. On the other hand, if one's goal is moving up the company ladder fluff will work better for that, because it is the concensus approach.

I used to go hiking in the mountains of NH, especially in the presidential range and Mt Washington. Mt Washington, especially was almost always in the clouds like 330 days a years. One could hike from the base and see the clouds at 4000 ft and hike into them. Meet the clouds in the air. Maybe a mostly mountainous world with plateaus for farming. This creates the low pressure and temperature needed.

Low pressure systems on earth are based on the condensation of water as cloud and rain. If the earth had no water on its surface, there would only be high pressure systems and circulations due to the coriolis force. The forward or clockwise circulation of the red spot of jupiter is a low pressure circulation, but not due to water. It may be due to heat is rising up from equatorial region of the planet pulling in colder air from the poles. Without the counterclockwise eddies of water based low pressure systems, the forward circulations of Jupiter can not cancel, but become reinforced by there being only forward circulations, keeping the red spot storm active for centuries.

Marketing attempts to increase desire with the hope one can be manipulated to express one's innate desire with their product. Since these are unnatural objects of desire, they don't work for long, requiring more doses (fanaticsm compensates doubt). Once the herd starts to move (fads) fear of being left behind (keeping up with the Jones) takes the place of desire, making one do what they originally thought was foolish.

Don't get me wrong, I do not believe that anyone should be persecuted for what they believe or do, as long as it does not hurt anyone else. When the gays were let out of the closet, a wide range of perversion came from the back of the closet and followed them into culture seeking their own rights. Are these all due to genes? Just because a dog humps a human's leg, does that mean the bum blasting animals is a natural part of nature? Human's are capable of anything. Just because it exists does not make it natural behavior. If one looks at the breeding behavior of animals, it is not uncommon with social animals for the males to fight. There is a saying among guys that a stiff di..k has no conscience and can make a man do what he will regret later. Maybe this competition evolved from a defensive need against being taken for a female because of confusion within the lower brain.

The EM force can decouple if the moving charge causing the magnetic forces stops all motion. This will cause the magnetic force to become zero leaving only electrostatic force. What I was asking is whether the EM force is truly integrated. I already believe the answer; yes, but was seeking a second opinion. The goal is something very subtle that existing chemisty theory can not seem to see. I thought the physics community could help shed some light. The logical explanation of the F- being able to hold more electrons than it has protons appears to be an example of the magnetic force integrated with electrostatic force, allowing the expected charge repulsion to be neutralized to some extent. Charge is still conserved, but the EM force fields are interchangeable, since magnetism results from charge (in motion) or magnetism is essentially electrostatic force in motion. The magnetic force vector(x) is perpendicular to the current (y)and to the electrostatic force vector(z). With the 2P orbitals 3-D in x,y,z directions, the magnetic force field direction in one orbital lobe run parallel to the electrostatic force in another orbital lobe. This parallel field direction of the EM force within all the lobes subtract in the case of F-. I hope I didn't confuse things but it is subtle.

Let me explain myself in a way that should finally be clear. If we look at the flouride anion F-, it has nine protons and ten electrons. If the electrons and protons were static or stopped suddenly in space, the charge imbalance would mean that one of the electrons or negative charges would need to repel and the rest of the electrons would flow into the nuclesus and cancel out with the protons. If we next give the ten electrons motion (two in 1S orbtial and two in 2S orbtial) and six the 2P orbtials (below), there is still move negative charge than the nucleus has positive charge. The stability occurs because of the 3-D magnetic addition of the 2P orbtials. If the electrons were given motion so they occupy the 2P orbitals but there was no such thing as the magnetic force, the electrons would reamin fluffed out, but the extra electron would be slung out faster than pure charge repulsion due to the centrifugal force. Fortuneately for chemistry, the vector force stemming from the magnetic addition essentially acts like either an extra postive charge that can balance the extra negative charge, or a minus negative charge that cancels out the extra negative charge repulsion. Either way, the negative charge is conserved, but the addition of the magnetic force vectors, essentially more or less cancels out what should be the effect of an extra negative charge.

The logic of all the laws of physics being adjusted by mass, distance and time relativity, and therefore can be defined by just these three variables, is logically consistent. The trick was not to look at the three variables as traditional mass, distance and time or it doesn't work. Rather I called the three variables mass, distance and time potential (relativity). These three potential variables have multiples sub-components. The confusion may be in the choice of names; I was trying to be consistent with special relativity so I carried the names forward with the word potential after it to distinguish it. The most pregnant variable is distance potential. It amounts to all things that are somehow related via distance. Traditional distance is one aspect, all the forces of nature are related via distance potential, as are velocity, entropy, universal position, even charge defines distance potential. The wavelength aspect of energy defines distance potential. The frequency aspect is an aspect of time potential. Time potential was the hardest to define because of the traditional perception of time. What is powerful about the model is because the variables are so pregnant with meaning and compact, one can do very complex analysis with the greatest ease. The first applied or practical example I was hoping to do was MDT cosmology. The MDT model can predict six cosmology models (MDT, DMT, DTM, TDM, MTD, TMD) two continuum, two wave and two unexplored quantum expansion models where BB breaks up into chunks.

So the integration of the EM force is only a mathematical concept with no basis in practical reality? I realize a moving charge creates magnetism but is there only a one sided integration?

I am going to end this analysis here, for the time being. I am going back to the fundamental premise; the potential imbalance within hydrogen bonds. Once that is proven scientifically, everything else follows logically. I worked under the assumption is was and extrapolated from there. The point I would like to present today is to contrast the empirical nature of the life sciences with the more rational sciences. For example, in exams within physics, chemistry, math, engineering, one can solve unknown problems using only basic principles and a little ingenuity. For example, the chemistry student can be given an alcohol molecule, they have never seen before and be asked to predict its reaction based on the reagents supplied. The logical principles of chemistry make this possible. Within the life sciences, apart from the biochemistry, this is not possible. When I was younger in both high school and university, I was strongly attracted to biology, but never bothered to take it. There was too much memory work for my tastes and very few fundamental principles, like in math, physics, chemistry, engineeering, where one could predict and invent things using a little ingenuity and a small set of principles. The genetic theory is the cure all but has a lot of practical limitations. It was during second semester organic chemistry class that the author of the textbook (Morrison and Boyd) pointed out the importance of hydrogen bonding for biomaterials, and suggested that it needed to be explored, yet nobody seemed to bother with that path or could figure how to exploit it. Years later that became my goal. After many many years, I found that by using hydrogen bonding to explain life phenomena, the life sciences can finally be brought to par with the rational sciences. Let me give multicellular examples; the human body. The primary hydrogen bonding potential gradient is between the brain (nervous tissue) and the blood supply. Cellular differentiation is based on hydrogen bonding gradients. The chemistry is important but it represents the material capactiance behind the hydrogen bonding potential. The model is holographic with a similar analysis used at any level of the living state. The basic ideas are gradients and potentials.

I realize this is a touchy subject but I would like to get other people's opinion whether homosexuality is natural or unnatural behavior. I personally believe it is unnatural. I have two logical arguments to support by opinion. The first can be understood with a hypothetical scenario. Picture if the whole world decided to embrace homosexuality and become such. In maybe 100 years the human race would not longer exist because there would be no babies or not enough artificial babies to offset the rapid decline in the population. According to evolutionary thinking there are two prime directives in nature; survival of the species and survival of the individual. As such, this rapid decline in the humanity would violate survival of species and would create a backlash of sorts. The so-called homophobes, would be a natural response to the situation. Currently, culture calls the homophobes unnatural and homosexuality natural. But when these natural preditors were taken away by law in the 70's and 80's, the queer were like deer, overpopulating, creating a terrible disease that decimated their numbers. A lot of good people were lost. My second argument is based on personal observation. Over my life I have had many gay and lesbian friends. Putting aside their sexual orientation, which I always did, the one thing I noticed is that they were all special people; bright, witty, empathic, fun loving, kind, generous, etc.. It made no sense to me why someone with such good genetics would naturally want to withdraw these from the human genetic pool. Almost all would have made good parents, passing on positive personality traits to their children.

I am not sure if I agree with randomness. One only has to look at eco-systems. They are orderred in a very specific way. If humans add some randomness to an eco-system, like harvesting all the big tree within the rain forests, the system breaks down. The natural instincts of the animals are optimized by the an orderred environment.

Physics has shown that the EM force is an integration of the electrostatic force (due to charge) and the magnetic force. The question I have, is this just mathematics or are these integrated in reality? As a way to clarify my question, if one looks at say the F- anion, it contains one more electron than it has protons. This anion is relatively inert inspite of it having an extra electron, i.e., very weak base. Does this mean that the magnetic addition of the electrons absorbs the electrostatic force of the extra electron, such that the effective electrostatic force drops making act like it only has a partial electron charge?

The f is, there is another layer of potential within the cell called hydrogen bonding potential. Did you ever stop to think why the life sciences are more dependant on empirical models than any other branch of science. The reason is, this large branch of science is missing something very important and are trying to ignor it with statistics. If one adds what is left out, i.e., hydrogen bonding potential, the life sciences become more logical, allowing things to progress faster.

Should we outlaw animals killing other animals? Are not some animal put here on earth to be food for other animals? Should we lock up wolves for killing deer? Why do these preditors have the right to kill food animals? The answer is that there is a natural order. To forbid animals to do what is natural is to make them unnatural.

I realize that the ideal and the real are far apart and apathy will amount to no change. However, if one dreams big sometimes small positive changes can occur. The garlic is not a good scenario because it implies roughly equal segments of the pie. That comes does to special interest groups defining the segments. The onion sets levels of priorities with that which benefits all in the middle. The majority will get screwed in the garlic scenario.