sunspot

About a year ago, I came upon the above logic, that all the laws of physics could be expressed in terms of just three variables; mass, distance and time relativity. I was able to develop one possible way to accomplish this. I call it the MDT theory or the Mass, Distance and Time Potential theory. If anyone is interested I would be willing to teach it on the forum; if the editors do not object.

Duplication of the DNA I am going to add one last layer to this introduction of the Hydrogen Bonding Model of the cell. In the past, I took a freshman college biology textbook and paralleled the hydrogen bonding analysis to the standard biochemical analysis. The practical value of the model was that only basic observational data, basic principles of chemistry, and logic were required. This last layer of this introduction will explain some basic hydrogen bonding considerations that can explain why the cell shifts from RNA to DNA synthesis late in the cell cycle. The explanation is rather simple. As was shown before, the DNA defines a higher hydrogen bonding potential than the RNA due to its two higher surface tension distinctions in its pentose sugar and thymine base. As such, DNA monomers will also define higher hydrogen bonding potential than RNA monomers. As the cellular water potential increases, due to the accumulation of all the proteins needed for the two daughter cells, the increasing aqueous hydrogen bonding potential within the cytoplasm favors the production of DNA monomers. During cell cycles a potential paradox occurs within the nucleus. In particular, if the aqueous hydrogen bonding potential of the cytoplasm is increasing during the cell cycle, why does the DNA want to unpack into a lower hydrogen bonding potential state (for widescale RNA synthesis and DNA duplication) instead of packing tighter into a higher hydrogen bonding potential configuration? The answer is also quite simple. The increase production rate of RNA and then DNA monomers flowing into the nucleus will lower the aqueous hydrogen bonding potential within the nucleus causing the DNA to increasingly unpack. In other words, the aqueous hydrogen bonding potential within the cell becomes segregated by the nuclear membrane. All these monomers (plus ATP) flood the nucleus because of the increasing nucleus reaction kinetics. Once the DNA is duplicated, the doubled DNA is no longer active for synthesis. To my knowledge a third strand of DNA does not form. With the monomers concentration still high, the doubled DNA seeks a further lowering of hydrogen bonding potential. This provides the protential for enzymes to fix any improper base pairing (optimum base pairing implies the lowest equilibrium potential). Eventually, the monomers realize, there is no longer any chemical potential in the nucleus, so they return to the cytoplasm for recycle, where a secondary chemical potential exists. The DNA begins to feel the nucleus water potential increasing. This induces the DNA to begin packing toward condensed chromosomes. The packing toward condensed or totoally packed chromosomes appear to get a momentum going that causes them to exceed the nucleus water potential. This causes them to increase the nucleus water potential beyond the influence of the cyctoplasm. One important result is the nucleur membrane being induced to increase its hydrogen bonding potential until it disperses due to its higher equilibrium surface tension.

I would like to propose an onion model for govenment priorities. Nobody likes paying taxes, but it is easier to swllow if one feels they are getting some direct benefit. As such, in the center of the onion are those things which benefit everyone. For example, clean water and air, roads, firefighting and police, national defense, etc., benefit almost everyone. The next layer of the onion is for the future and the past. This layer would be for all children from conception to age 4, and for all seniors older than the average life expectancy. The children are the future and their personality is formed by age four. Optimizing the children is an investment in the future of our culture. Someday, they will be the leaders and innovators of our culture, such that giving them all the best start will lead to the best finish. The seniors older than the life expectancy, have already paid their dues and should be given respect and incentive to live as long as possible. Blending the two would be beneficial to both. The next layer of the onion is for the prosperity of culture. This layer of the onion is for education and R&D. The cultural environment to produce even one more Bill Gates means hundreds of thousands of direct and support jobs and hundreds of billions of dollars of national wealth. Layers beyond this are for special interests groups that benefit only a narrow range of the population. It is sort of the state of our current govenement. When the economy is good and revenues high we can afford many more layers of the onion. But when things are tough these outer layers of the onion can be thinned out out pealed off as needed.

Metabolic Oxidation Potential I would like to add another layer to the onion. I am not going to go into great detail with respect to cellular metabolism, only a single, but very important consideration. The terminal electron acceptor of cellular metabolism, for the most energetic metabolic reactions is O2. Oxygen is highly electronegative and the two O's of O2 can easily accept extra electrons. Consider the effects of the aqueous hydrogen bonding potential. When it is high, the hydrogen of water also needs electron density. This will increase the potential for O2 to accept electrons from metabolism, due to the hydrogen trying to share its unbonded electrons. If we look at a cell getting ready to enter the cell cycle, the membrane will desaturate and the cation pumps will increasely reverse. This lowers the membrane potential, such that the inside of the membrane increases its effective aqueous hydrogen bonding potential. The result is the observed increase in the cellular metabolic potential and an increased production of ATP (energy unit of the cell). This gets the ball rolling. The ball beginning to roll will cause the cellular synthesis to increase. The result is the increased production and steady accumulation of the protein materials needed to form the two daughter cells. This accumulation of proteins, implies the accumulation of relatively high hydrogen bonding potential materials within the cell. The result is a steady increase in the aqueous hydrogen bonding potential, and the observed steady increase in the metabolic oxidation potential and ATP production. If we look at enzymes they are highly specific with respect to reactants, almost like a key and lock. Along with this enzyme specificity, enzymes have one important thing in common. They pull the attached reactant into an excited state. This excited state of the reactant helps to temporarily lower the hydrogen bonding potential that is built into the enzyme's structure. After the reaction, the product key no longer fits the enzyme lock, releasing the product, resetting the enzyme specificity and the hydrogen bonding potential of the enzyme, for another cycle. As the aqueous hydrogen bonding potential climbs ,during the cell cycle, so does the average hydrogen bonding potential defined by all the enzymes due to their immersion in water, increasing the rate of synthesis within the cell. The increase production of ATP also plays an important role.

Sorry about my laziness with respect to calculating the distance to Mars divided by the speed of light. But the point still remains that the light from the edge of the universe is not real-time data. It is what happened billions of years ago, because of the time it takes for light traveling at C to reach us from those long distances. As we get closer, the red shift is less and the data is more recent (relatively speaking). If I am not mistaken the closet galaxies (almost realtime data) are slightly blue shifted. If would almost appear that the universe is a scrapbook of the life of the universe with the farthest objects the universe's baby pictures, when it was most rapidly expanding. As we get closer and closer we go through its toddler years, then its childhood, then its adolescence, finally the closest data are its adulthood pics. Although this is consistent with the data time delay, it logically creates a very different picture of the original universe. The logically consistent scenario would imply an expansion that does not condense out into matter/energy, until the universe was already highly expanded. While the condensation would have happened as trillions of galaxy level mini big bangs already distributed thoughout the universe. This scenario is consistent with the time delayed data and the most energetic state of things happening roughly 10-15 billions years ago. The original energy pressure waves caused the highly distributed universe to expand further. This scenario readily accounts for the uniform microwave background, the holographic expansion of the universe, galaxies forming within the first 100M years, and the data time delay.

If one assumes that inside our spaceship, life goes on as usual, we would be time dilated, distance contracted and our mass relativistic increased, with respect to a fixed earth reference, but our experimental results would be the same as they are on earth. The logical implication is that all the laws of physics can to be expressed in terms of just mass, distance and time relativity. In other words, if the change in just these three variables is sufficient to adjust all the laws of physics, so they are the same in any references, all the laws of physics can be expressed with only three variables. Conversely, if these three special relativity variables were not sufficient to adjust all the laws of physics in any reference, the laws of physics would not be the same in all references.

I have a question. According to Einstein and his theory of Special Relativity, the laws of physics are the same in all references. What does this mean exactly. Does it mean that if we travel near the speed of light, life on our spaceship would go one as usual (with mass, distance and time relativity) such that if we conduct experiments they would yield the same results as someone on earth. Or does it mean that all the ions in our body, by going near C, will give off extreme magnetic fields so as to disrupt our bodies, such that the ions will behave by the laws of particle accelerator physics?

The thing that has always bothered me about the light from distance galaxies is that it takes a finite time to reach us. As such, the light we see is from the distant past. The light from something 10Billions lights years away actually left the object 10 billion years ago. We do not know what it is doing today, only what it did 10 billion years ago. If the universe is say 10-15 billions years old and the most distance objects are that old and are accelerating away, doesn't that really imply what these objects were doing near the beginning of the universe. What they are doing today, we will not see for another 10-15billions years. For example, if we sent a robot to Mars and say it about to fall into a hole and we sent it commands to turn, it would have already fell in the hole before the visual signal ever reached us, and our commands to turn would reach it after its had been lying in the hole for weeks.

The wave-particle duality of gravitrons?

Comparing DNA and RNA Both DNA and RNA will form hydrogen bonds in the same way, via base pairing, and will both have the extra nonhydrogen bonded hydrogen built into the bases The differences between DNA and RNA are quite simple and comes down to only two things. The first has to with the slight differences within the pentose sugars of RNA and DNA. The first pic is the ribose of RNA and the second is deoxyribose of DNA. The two differ by only the -H on the deoxyribose and an -OH on ribose (botton right of the pentose). The -H of deoxyribose will create more surface tension in water than the polar -OH group, causing the DNA to define more surface tension in the water than RNA. This amount to the sugars of DNA inducing a higher aqueous hydrogen bonding potential. The second aspect has to do with the base pair difference between RNA and DNA. The only difference is that DNA uses thymine and RNA uses uracil to hydrogen bond with adenine. Both have the other three bases in common. The only difference between these two is that thymine in the first pic has a -CH3 group where uracil of the second pic only has a -H. This little distinction for DNA creates more surface tension in water. The higher surface tension of the DNA will increase the aquoeus hydrogen bonding potential and therefore the hydrogen bonding pootential of the DNA causing the DNA to form the double helix. The lower surface tension and hydrogen bonding potential of the RNA allows it to form both double and single helixes. Relative to the histone packing proteins discussed earlier, the lysine and arginine residues of the histone packing proteins not only have all those extra hydrogen bonding hydrogen, but they also contain short sections of -CH2-CH2-CH2- before these hydrogen. These organic sections will ball up to lower the surface tension within the water, but they will nevertheless add some extra hydrogen bonding potential value or surface tension to the local water. The net effect is that the histones will prefer the DNA over the RNA because of DNA's higher hydrogen bonding potential value.

Here is another paradoxical example which may help make things clearer. There is a position between the earth and the sun where one would become weightless due to gravity pulling equalling in both directions. One would not fall either way. If we remove one of these two large masses, our weight will increase, even though the total mass of the system has decreased. Since weight is Mg and mass has decreased, the effects of gravity have increased. What the implication of this analysis is, gravity waves can cancel, where the crest of one wave can cancel the trough of another. When we removed one of the masses, we also removed one of the wave sources. This implies that gravity waves use wave addition where an opposite gravity force direction reverses the crests and troughs. In the example above, we have two decaying sine waves (with distance) above and below x-axis, decaying in opposite directions, but canceling completely where the wave crest/trough of the two decaying waves are the same height. Let me clarify this further by looking at the center of a star. If we assume spherical symmetry there is always a complement point on the opposite side where the waves will cancel, such that the center will have no gravity due to the waves canceling. But at the same time, this does not mean that there are not a huge number of gravity waves in the field at the center, only that the center is a point where all the waves in the field overlap and cancel. If one assumes a strong gravitational field in the center of a star, with umpteen waves all cancelling out, and one also assumes the conservation of energy, then it follows that all this canceled out gravity energy needs to go somewhere. The most logical place is into increased mass and/or increased mass density. If one looks at mass, it is composed of tiny units. Even in stars the high mass is mostly space. The increased mass or mass density could mean increased mass and/or decreased distance between mass. Within stars, the increased mass and/or decrease distance due to the conversion of gravity into mass density, within its center, is burnt off via fusion. My hope is that this little change of perspective will make it possible for the standard theory to become complete. In other words, for jollies, use these assumptions and see what happens.

I would like to add one more layer to the model; cell membrane. The cellular membrane will create a potential across itself due to the pumping of cations. In very general terms, three sodium cations are pumped out and two potassium cations are let in. The cation inbalance makes the outside positive and the inside negative. This is sort of an interesting way to make the membrane potential, in that only the movement of cations creates both the negative and positive sides of the potential. This is not coincidental, since the movement of cations is tuned to the hydrogen bonding hydrogen within the water. Relative to the membrane potential, the positively charged outside of the membrane competes with the hydrogen of the external water for the electrons of the oxygen of water. This implies a zone of very high hydrogen proton potential. This potential is transmitted into the external water, to help spread out the potential. It can be shown that this helps attract reduced food molecules toward the cell. In other words, reduce materials increase the surface tension within water (increase the hydrogen bonding potential). As such, the external membrane ,by defining high hydrogen bonding potential, also define an equilibrium position for high surface tension materials. This also helps lower the potential within the external water. Relative to the inside of the cellular membrane, the negatively charge inside implies a relatively rich electron density area of the cell that defines very low aqueous hydrogen bonding potential. With the DNA so huge and at least partially packed and containing so much structural hydrogen bonding potential, a hydrogen bonding potential gradient is established within the cell between the cell membrane and the DNA. The rest of the foundation materials within the cell can be shown to define equilibrium positions within this primary gradient. What is slick about the DNA, is that he negative charges on the exposed phosphate repel the inside of the membrane helping to anchor the DNA pole of the gradient away from the membrane. Getting back to the food materials equilibrium stuck on the outside of the cell, the cell will use the potential within the membrane to transport this food in. What this involves is the local reversal of the membrane potential where the local inside briefly becomes positive, and as such now becomes the new best equilibrium place for the food. Unfortuneately for the food, the cell quickly resets the local potential, via the sodium pumps, to create nonequilibrium for food, with no way to back out. This nonequilbrium state of the food is then addressed in a number of ways by cell in an attempt to restore the hydrogen bonding gradient within the cell.

One possible way to answer the question is to play the universe expansion backwards. I am not suggesting a cycling universe or not, but only to help make sure assumptions can work in a reversible way. If one can not pack the popcorn back in the kernal, maybe there are problems. For example, if the universe is assumed to just appear as an energy field, if one plays it backwards, one needs to be able to make the universe disappear from an energy field and reform empty space.

One possible way to answer this question is to define eternity using special relativity. In other words, if one traveled at C, time reference would become eternal with respect any inertial reference. As such, all one needs to do is slow down from C and time becomes less than eternal. In that respect, matter helps makes eternity finite. If all matter goes back to C or energy, eternity will be restored. In our universe, we have both matter and energy such that both eternal and finite reference exist side-by-side. I do not believe there will ever be only mass in a universe without energy for eternity to completely end.

If we look at a sphere of metal with a tiny hollow core, an object in the tiny center will see gravity pulling it radially outward in all directions. Shouldn't this summation effect stemming from gravity place the center object under tension instead of compression?

Jung did a good job showing how similar mythology appears in cultures where it can be shown that there was not direct transmission of info between the cultures. One may argue that aliens, Atlantis, etc. spread the seed of mythology eons ago, but this is hard to prove. The collective unconscious is different in that it is something that is self observeable. The archetypes of the collective unconscious are assumed empty at birth and are memory organization software based on collective human experience. In this respect, they become programmed by our exposure to culture making them generic human with a cultural flavor. With respect to mythology, all that was needed to happen was one person having a profound set of dreams, for example. If this stemmed from the collective unconscious, since the rest of the members of the culture have similar programming of the archetypes, the dream can strike a resonance since they express something that is slightly below consciousness. This would spread the collective expression to others because it seems right for some reason. As culture advances, so does the collective programming. Eventually, the old myths no longer strike a resonance, since the arcehtype expression have evolved along with culture. This sometimes requires replacing the old gods with the new. For example, in ancient Greece the first organzied myths or archetypes were the Titans. These became replaced by Zeus and others to reflect the advancement in collective cultural sophification.

I would like to present something interesting for contemplation. The term center of gravity is a mathematical concept that makes dealing with the gravity between objects easier. But if one looks at the center of gravity of say a sphere, the gravity force vectors will all cancel, such that the center of gravity has no net gravitational force.

The DNA foundations for hydrogen bonding As was discussed earlier in this topic, hydrogen bonds have a disproportionate distribution of potential, with the hydrogen containing more potential than the highly electronegative atom. If we look at the base pairing along the DNA double helix as show in the figure below something subtle is also evident. In particular, one will notice that the thymine/adenine base pairs have an extra nonbonded hydrogen bonding hydrogen, while the cytosine/guanine base pair have two unbonded hydrogen bonding hydrogen. What this implies is that each base pair has residual hydrogen bonding potential built into its foundation structure. In a cell, where the DNA is not being duplicated, the DNA will exist in both packed and unpacked states. The transcribed genes are unpacked, while things like junk genes, etc., are packed with various layers of packing proteins. In the figure below, the most important amino acids that are used for packing the DNA are shown. The significance of lysine and arginine are all the extra hydrogen bonding hydrogen along these amino acids side chains. The positive charge aspects bind with the negatively charge phosphates of the DNA. This neutralizes some of the electron density that have been helping to stabilize the extra hydrogen bonding hydrogen within the base pairing. But beyond that, packing causes extra lysine and arginine residues to become part of the packing structure. This places extra hydrogen bonding hydrogen in physical positions where they can not form hydrogen bonds effectively. This allows packed DNA to define even more hydrogen bonding potential. The significance of this is that there is a potential between packed and unpacked DNA. The so-called junk genes, for example, are actually there as an anchor, so to speak, that resists unpacking and which can help induce repacking via the potential they create in the nucleus water. The aqueous hydrogen bonding potential within the nucleus of the cell, will help the packed/unpacked DNA foundation form an equilibrium structure that can be pertubated by pertubations of the hydrogen bonding potential within the cellular water that passes through the nuclear membrane. One of the most obvious is connected to the lowering of the membrane potential during cell cycles, i.e., the average aqueous hydrogen bonding potential of the cell increases. This begins a series of events ultimately leading to the condensation or total packing of the doubled DNA into chromosomes. This creates a DNA foundation with a maximize hydrogen bonding potential. The lower of this maximized hydrogen bonding potential within the DNA (chromosomes separate and unpack) contains an energy capacitance that helps the separation into two daughter cells. The eariest cell cycles did not have to be so molecular fancy as today. They only had to push the DNA foundation up and over the hydrogen bonding energy hill.

I agree that there are significant differences in chemical properties due to the number of neutrons within the nucleus. For example, diffusion rates are faster for H than D. One could separate these isotopes based on their distinct diffusion rates. However, what I was originally speaking of was that the chemist does not need to know the physical configuration of the nucleus, for example, proton orbitals, to be able to approach chemistry. If a chemist was interested, say in super extreme pressure chemistry, where nuclear reactions and atomic disentegtations begin to occur, than the induced excitation of the proton orbtials would be very important. The point of my bringing this up, had to do with creating perspective, so I could introduce how cells are integrated via the hydrogen bonding. I was using this analogy to show that molecular foundations, like DNA, are a nucleus of sorts for hydrogen bonding states. An intro to this will be my next post.

I did not copy this or anything I write. Years ago, I took, I think it was Walt Whitman's advice. He said something to the effect, " learn all that you can by reading the works of all the great thinkers, and then forget it all, and try to come up with your own ideas. Although knowledge of the hydrogen bonding has been around for quite some time, everyone wrongfully assumed that both hydrogen and the highly electronegative atom participate equally in the hydrogen bond. Intuitively, I saw this to be false and worked to explain why. This little extra for the hydrogen makes all the difference in the world and allows the cell to integrate via the hydrogen bonding. As an additional example, to make things clearer, if we look at Cl- ion, it is a very weak base. The question that came to my mind is why should this be, if it has an extra electron and therefore extra negative charge. The best answer was that the magnetic addition defined by the 2P orbitals not only allows Cl- to have more electrons than nuclear protons, but its also stabilizes the extra negative charge so well as to cancel out what should be strong electrostatic attraction to any positive charge. Something similar is true for oxygen and nitrogen (also have high electronegativity due to 2P orbital magnetic addition). This cancels out some of the electrostatic affect on the negative side of a hydrogen nitrogen or oxygen dipole. Hydrogen is not so fortunate and therefore carries a higher burden of potential within O-H or N-H bonds. Hydrogen wants to form the hydrogen bond, nitrogen and oxygen care less due to their stability. The next post will discuss how the DNA is the most important foundation molecule for the hydrogen bonding potential within the cell. I realize everyone also believes that the DNA is the king of the cell, but in reality the DNA actually plays a very important support role.

This model took many paths during its development. The hardest and key component only came to me last year about this time. This key has to do with using existing principles of chemistry to define hydrogen bonding potential within static hydrogen bonding states. Early models used physics speculation, which was impossible to prove with existing data and theory. The heart of the analysis is connected to the high electronegativity of oxygen and nitrogen. If we look at water, the high electronegativity of oxygen causes the shared electrons within its covalent bonds with hydrogen to become skewed toward the oxygen. This reveals some of the positive charge on the hydrogen. The result is a molecular dipole. Pardon my crude analysis. This is where it gets subtle. The high electronegativity of oxygen allows the oxygen to accommodate the extra electron density that is delocalized or else it would not have taken it in the first place. If we look at a single water molecule, the oxygen aspect is stable even though it has slightly more electron density than it has protons in its nucleus. Again, if this was not stable, it would have not taken the electrons in the first place. The hydrogen proton also wants electron density but loses out somewhat due to the higher stability or electonegativity of the oxygen. The reason this is so, is connected to the full 2P orbitals of oxygen allowing magnetic addition of the six electrons in a 3-D arrangment. The magnetic addition overcomes the induced charge repulsion of having extra electrons, due to the EM force being the force integration of both the electrostatic and magnetic forces. The S, D and F orbitals do not magnetic add quite as well as P orbitals, resulting in atoms with these orbtials as their outer orbtials, all having lower electronegativity. Getting back to our water molecule. The stability of the oxygen implies that the hydrogen carries the burden of potential. The oxygen doesn't need external positive charge for stability, or else it could just give back electrons to its covalent bond with hydrogen to get the same effect. As such, going into a hydrogen bond, the hydrogen carries the primary burden of potential. When the hydrogen forms a hydrogen bond with the oxygen of an external water molecule it lowers its induced potential. The oxygen will lower its charge potential, but it will lose some of its 2P orbital magnetic addition. These two opposite affects may or may not be a wash for oxygen, but the bottom line is that hydrogen lowers its potential in two ways (electrostatic and magnetic), while oxygen only lowers potential in one way (electrostatic). What this subtle analysis implies is that if a hydrogen bond forms but is not optimized with respect to both distance and angle, more residual potential will remain within the hydrogen of that hydrogen bond than within the oxygen or nitrogen. The living state, especially the proteins, create odd angles and nonoptimized bond lengths due to their bulky amino acid side groups. This creates molecular configurations with a large number of hydrogen bonding hydrogen that contain lingering potential.

I would like to propose a follow up. The creation story of genesis had little to do with physical creation. What the bible is really talking about is the birth of human consciousness, "Let there be light". Think of it, animals are snooping for food and not looking at the stars or questioning the universe. But, about seven-eight thousand years ago, the prehumans went through a profound change, where all of a sudeen modern or sophisicated culture appears, requiring a more advanced human mind. Each day within genesis, new partial awareness of the world around appears, until Adam. He was the first modern human male (genetic mutation stabilized). His awareness of being separate from the mindless harmony of animal instinct creates loneliness due to his separation from prehuman instinct. He is all alone even in the company of others. Modern human female counsciousness then appears in the guise of Eve.

Most people, both creationists and evolutionists forget that the bible's science (I say science loosely), is only a tiny fraction of the bible. A larger fraction is about ancient history and larger fraction is about human nature. The latter is the best part of the bible since much of it is still appropriate today. I woud like to present a bible point that gets the goat of both the religious and the scientific communities, yet should be seen as a bridge. It is about the story of Cain and Abel. Cain is the tiller of the soil and Abel was a herder of animals. Cain kills Abel. This implies that farming supersedes nomadic herding. This is implicit of fixed higher human culture appearing because of the invention of farming. When Cain is about to be sent away by God for the murder of Abel, Cain is afraid and says" whoever shall come upon me will kill me". The question becomes, who were these whoevers, if only Adam, Eve and Cain were the only three humans on the earth at that time. Adam and Eve wouldn't hurt Cain their only son. The answer, is consistent with science. The whoevers were the prehumans, who looked like humans (fossil evidence) but had not yet to reach the consciouis level of modern cultural sophisication. God feels sorry for Cain and gives Cain a sign for protection. This story is not too far from archeology evidence, where the first modern human culture appears very close to time predicted by the bible for Adam, Eve and Cain. (within a 1000 years).

What goes on with respect to the physics of the nuclei of atoms, is not 100% necessary to study chemistry. All the chemists needs to know is the number of protons within the nucleus, to know the atom, and the atomic orbitals being used by the atom. This is not to say that the physics of the nucleus and elementary particles is not important. But for the chemist, chemistry begins at the outer orbtial layers. The reason I made this knit picking distinction is connected to the introduction of a new frontier in chemistry. This frontier is associated with modeling cells in terms of a single variable found within all cells, i..e, hydrogen bonding. As a first approximation, to get this new science up and running, I did something very analogous to the separation between physics and chemistry. Using that analogy, the model is simplified, but still useful, by viewing molecules as the backbone, analogous to an atomic nucleus, with the molecular distinctions playing a role in hydrogen bond distinctions. In essense, molecular states create an interactive hydrogen bonding layer of dynamics within the cell, where molecular classes set the foundation for the hydrogen bonding distinctions. For example, the DNA is a very unique foundation class for hydrogen bonding in that the entire molecule can define dynamic (breaking and reforming) and static (slight vibration) states of hydrogen bonding. During a nonreplicating cellular state, only part of the DNA becomes hydrogen bonding dynamic, while junk genes, etc. stay static. During the duplication of the DNA, the entire molecule becomes dynamic. RNA is only a little different, chemically from DNA. This change in the chemical foundation alters the properties of the hydrogen bonding. When DNA is present, long RNA becomes mostly static as ribosomal RNA, while short RNA classes, like messenger RNA, exhibits dynamic hydrogen bonding. Proteins are different chemical foundations from both RNA and DNA, being mostly static hydrogen bonding with some proteins having a catalytic zone of dynamic hydrogen bonding. Proteins have animo acid diversity that can alter the potential defined by their static hydrogen bonds. This allows proteins to define a very wide range of hydrogen bonding foundation states. The integrating medium of the cell is the water. Water can exist throughout the range of the static and dynamic hydrogen bonding states displayed by DNA, RNA and protein. It can also be in equilbrium with high surface tension molecules like lipids. This allows water to not only be in equilibrium with the exterior of the local foundation molecules, but the continuity of water within the cell, also allows the water to connect the hydrogen bonding gradients between the various foundations molecules. I am not saying that the contemporary biochemistry of the cell is not important, just as the chemist does not say that the physics of the nucleus is not important. What I am saying is that just as the chemists can start outside the nucleus, the hydrogen bonding model can start outside the molecular diversity and still produce useful results. After the foundation theory is set in place, the hope is that others can help interface the model to existing biochemistry.

If one defines consciousness as self awareness, this implies imagination. In other words, if one had no imagination, one would respond in a mechanical way to sensory stimulus. With imagination, consciousness can linger in the imagination, thereby disrupting a purely mechanical sensory feedback loop. The distinction between these two states of mind is the basis for self awareness.