Sayonara

You mean, putting it in the simplest possible terms, this brane dimension is a 'short cut' which gravity may traverse but which EM may not?

What about the core of a black hole? Is this the mass of a star that is so cold that it has collapsed into a tiny pellet of supersolid, or is it so dense and highly pressurised that it is extremely hot? (Actual question )

Then you might try to answer our questions wherever possible, instead of immediately changing tack and talking about something completely different. You may also consider approaching your explanations in a systematic fashion that builds torwards your postulate, by describing the evidence from first principles and working upwards. This can be easily achieved through the employment of compound sentences - the fulcrum of any successful language.

I made a definite point of not making a comment. There's no point making a thread full of junk and seeding it with 'clues', as you put it. Post your entire theory with all applicable explanations and you might gain some credibility.

You have no idea how lofty.

By applying the principle of Occam's Razor to this statement we can clearly demonstrate that you are talking out of your arse.

Are you saying a meteor has hit Russia, and we're all doomed? Or are you just posting random articles and attempting to draw tenuous links like a NON-scientific type person? What you seem to be building here has a name, Zark. It's called a 'house of cards'.

I wish you'd stop saying things like this. I mean first off, what data? And what are you doing with that data that is so unique? And secondly, why fall back on conjecture when you have hundreds of years of perfectly good science and theory to work with? This all goes back to that scientific method argument which was never satisfactorily concluded.

When, exactly?

Wow, you seem to have found the best answer to anything ever.

It was the Holy Hand-Grenade of Antioch. Unfortunately (a) it was the only one of its kind, and (b) the Giant Rabbits have adapted to it anyway.

Except for the scorpions, snakes, buzzards, vampires, alcohol and Mexicans.

Giant rabbits from beyond the toffee moon could wipe out our civilisation, but you don't see me reading up on them.

Thanks for your efforts to restore the threads guys - I know a lot of forum admins who would have just said "tough". Cookies for everyone!

Of course we do - but if you're not familiar with Think Tanks the idea is that everyone brings something unique. Not everyone can have all the pieces of the puzzle. With a problem like HIV to work on, it's at least worth a shot. Not heard anything about the vaccine trials yet, sorry. Asked Google yet? Righto, I'm off to get mildly drunk in celebration of my late start at work tomorrow...

Since this is a Think Tank thread, I suggest we depart from the usual point/counterpoint flow of discussion and take a modular approach. Let me explain... Say we start with a basic outline for an idea (such as, ooh, decoy RBCs). If a part of it is problmatic or just won't work, we snip it out and replace it with something that will. Hopefully this approach will mimic selection processes, and the idea will evolve towards something that is both workable and practical.

Yes, the short RBC lifespan is a double edged sword - we get rid of massive amounts of viral RNA that would otherwise have been used to infect active cells, but we are forced to use a method for permanent replacement of the T4\RBCs. It's pretty obvious that this approach will not stop the virus (at least, not very quickly), but if it could be made to work it might slow down the spread of infection to a remarkable degree. Let's review what we have so far: Advantages: RBCs expressing T4 could act as decoy targets for HIV RBCs have no nucleus and therefore cannot duplicate viral RNA Infected T4\RBC destroyed in liver after about 3 months, taking sequestered viral RNA with it RBCs are extrmely numerous in the body and are transported through most tissue groups - effective exposure of the virus to T4\RBCs will be phenomenal Problems: Expression of T4 itself may reduce oxygen transport into and out of RBC Effects of viral RNA held within a T4\RBC difficult to predict Erythropoiesis and thrombopoiesis processes must be modified in a way that results in permanent T4\RBC production (although not all RBCs need express T4) Viral target erythroblasts may be a problem Other factors: Immunosupressance due to the action of HIV may actually help the therapy progress without triggering a large immune response Offshoot Concept: Non-nucleated cells expressing T4 receptors could be produced in vitro, and introduced to the patient in order to act as 'mouse traps' for the HIV virus. Such entities would require a tissue match with the patient - the easiest way would be to clone them from the patient's own tissue.

Since an erythrocyte does not carry out protein synthesis processes, would it not be the case that an infected RBC would fail to get 'flagged' as infected?

The idea here is for the virus to discharge its genetic material somewhere where it will not be able to replicate - the use of a red blood cell as a decoy target is the optimum approach as they have such a massive presence in the body. However, it could just as easily be any cell that will not duplicate viral RNA. It might even be fat deposits. Since RBCs have no active protein processes, it would be necessary to specify T4 production during the cells' development in the bone marrow (which would of course be a feat, but then this is all conjectural.) Could you please elaborate on the viral target erythroblast problem, as I suspect this may be pivotally relevant.

Do you mean that superpresence of T4 would incite increased immune activity, or that viral material in erythrocytes would? If the latter, I would expect that viral material injected into a red blood cell would be sequestered and therefore (a) not detected by the immune system, and (b) completely biologically useless due to the lack of a nucleus in the blood cell.

I got a sticky thread? In your face pseudoscience! :owned:

Damn my squinty CRT eyes. Ta

It seems that pseudoscience, while often colourful, sometimes stimulating and - on occasion - entertaining, suffers from shortcomings which are dependent on the wielder of the hypothesis under scrutiny. Unlike conventional scientific theory, which is based upon a continually progressing and narrowing identification of event-level observations that can be demonstrated and explained via the scientific method, there is no unilateral standard within pseudoscience that restricts any one individual or group of individuals to a single approach to any given problem. Without such control, it is only a matter of time before any pseudoscience hypothesis spins wildly out of control. I cite most of the threads in this forum as evidence. Additionally, it is not always possible to move from Step 1: Observation & Hypothesis, to Step 3: Theory. The reason for this is that without specific protocols and the will to apply them to their fullest extent, anyone wishing to propound a pseudoscientific idea is more likely to rely on hyperbole, flights of the imagination and 'joining the dots' to mould the observations into a shape that fits with a predetermined conclusion. As we have seen many times over this sort of approach does not last long. So where to go from here? The aspiring pseudoscientists among us (Hi Zarkov) need some flashcards methinks. The failure of an individual to accept, understand or believe a widely accepted theorem or principle does not make that theorem or principle incorrect. As such, it cannot be cast aside whenever convenient. Because of (1), where an established theorem or principle clashes with a pseudoscientific hypothesis, the observed effects upon which the theorem or principle are based should be explained in terms of the pseudo hypothesis. If (2) is not possible, the pseudo hypothesis must incorporate full proof as to why the theorem or principle is incorrect. When new information is presented of which the pseudoscientist was previously ignorant, and which contradicts any part of the hypothesis, the hypothesis should be reviewed rather than argued over. Dogma is no substitute for data. Attack is not the best form of defence. A good hypothesis should not need to be defended. Criticism is not necessarily cynicism. Passing off any hypothesis as fact, science or truth is nothing short of pure folly, regardless of whether or not the hypothesis is pseudoscientific. Playing the intellectual property card in order to refrain from posting evidence is not justifiable. All members' IP addresses are logged with every post, and associated with the username for which they have registered personal details. Finally, a word of caution to the Pseudoscience Lite masses. While striving to be different is an admirable quality, it is in no way a good reason to cast aside whichever scientifically established theories one can find outlandish alternatives to. There comes a point where it just gets silly (re: Nasca Lines thread. Yes, satire.) Did I miss anything out?

It seems that pseudoscience, while often colourful, sometimes stimulating and - on occasion - entertaining, suffers from shortcomings which are dependent on the wielder of the hypothesis under scrutiny. Unlike conventional scientific theory, which is based upon a continually progressing and narrowing identification of event-level observations that can be demonstrated and explained via the scientific method, there is no unilateral standard within pseudoscience that restricts any one individual or group of individuals to a single approach to any given problem. Without such control, it is only a matter of time before any pseudoscience hypothesis spins wildly out of control. I cite most of the threads in this forum as evidence. Additionally, it is not always possible to move from Step 1: Observation & Hypothesis, to Step 3: Theory. The reason for this is that without specific protocols and the will to apply them to their fullest extent, anyone wishing to propound a pseudoscientific idea is more likely to rely on hyperbole, flights of the imagination and 'joining the dots' to mould the observations into a shape that fits with a predetermined conclusion. As we have seen many times over this sort of approach does not last long. So where to go from here? The aspiring pseudoscientists among us (Hi Zarkov) need some flashcards methinks. The failure of an individual to accept, understand or believe a widely accepted theorem or principle does not make that theorem or principle incorrect. As such, it cannot be cast aside whenever convenient. Because of (1), where an established theorem or principle clashes with a pseudoscientific hypothesis, the observed effects upon which the theorem or principle are based should be explained in terms of the pseudo hypothesis. If (2) is not possible, the pseudo hypothesis must incorporate full proof as to why the theorem or principle is incorrect. When new information is presented of which the pseudoscientist was previously ignorant, and which contradicts any part of the hypothesis, the hypothesis should be reviewed rather than argued over. Dogma is no substitute for data. Attack is not the best form of defence. A good hypothesis should not need to be defended. Criticism is not necessarily cynicism. Passing off any hypothesis as fact, science or truth is nothing short of pure folly, regardless of whether or not the hypothesis is pseudoscientific. Playing the intellectual property card in order to refrain from posting evidence is not justifiable. All members' IP addresses are logged with every post, and associated with the username for which they have registered personal details. Finally, a word of caution to the Pseudoscience Lite masses. While striving to be different is an admirable quality, it is in no way a good reason to cast aside whichever scientifically established theories one can find outlandish alternatives to. There comes a point where it just gets silly (re: Nasca Lines thread. Yes, satire.) Did I miss anything out?