pioneer

As a simple experiment, say we moved to a position in empty space, away from a galaxy, where the gravity is approaching zero, is there still space-time? Or does time and space begin to break down? Or, say we moved between two planets where gravity vector cancels or equals zero, is there still space-time? Or do cause and effect in space-time begin to break down at that point? I tend to think space-time will be there even without gravity, but the presence of gravity will impact space-time. If we separated a clump of matter into two and moved it apart, the original gravity will lower relative to the original single clump as well as in the space between the two separating pieces. The space-time in the middle will lower curvature and head toward the base state where there is no matter. This will create a special effect that looks just like expanding space-time. This brings us back to the first two paragraphs; two experiments to see if space-time exists at zero gravity.

There is life, that is harmful to other life, such as cancer and bacteria. When we kill this, this is defensive killing. If such life posed no harm, we would live and let live. There are bacteria in our gut that are welcome to stay. With abortion, the unborn is not usually harmful to life. In this case, this is not defensive killing, like with cancer, but offensive killing. Although, most women would call it defensive, since an unwanted child may adversely impact their social life. But that is more of a metaphorical life being defended by killing actual life as defined by science. Real life (unborn) is a threat to mystical life of hopes and dreams; religion of sorts?

If we went to a magic show, and watched an expert magician perform his tricks, we can not depend on our sensory systems alone, to help us define reality. We need to use some logic and common sense. If we see him levitate, our common sense tells us he is in violation of gravity, even if we appear to see that. If the trick is far more subtle than that, we may believe what we think we see, having little useful common sense. If we didn't know it was a trick, but used only our eyes, we could use the scientific method to correlate what we think we see. The magician can perform the trick many times, until what we see appears proven. On the other hand, if what we see does not correspond to our logical common sense, we may doubt what we have proven, even if we think we saw it proven in a meticulous way. As other members of the scientific audience, tell use what they saw from other angles, we add that to what we think we saw, filtered by what we know can and can not be. Eventually, the subjective tricks disguising reality disappear and we can finally see reality.

Regardless, abortion will terminate life using the above definitions. We will also try to terminate the life of cancer, because killing the cancer saves more life then we destroy. Abortion does not add up quite the same way since it is a net loss of life. Here are some more definitions from a dictionary; The first two are from science to mean physical life. The second two are more from metaphorical, philosophical and religious. Abortion violates all the science definitions by terminating life, but may not violate philosophy and/or atheist religion. But we have separation of church and state so we can not use religious arguments.

Since the human mind created the computer, and the computer did not create the human mind, the human mind may have created the computer in its own image. A hammer is an extension of the arm and fist. Even science can lose track of cause and effect and place effect as the cause. The question I would have is how good did we do at unconsciously simulating the mind with the computer and could the modern computer still fall short? Clothes are like the hide of an animal. The hides of animals did not form in nature to look like designer clothes. Although the way they fit is getting closer to the natural.

If you look at the way science defines life; (wikipedia); The religious view is actually closer to the science definition, since at conception all the conditions above are met. The political science view of abortion is true only after we terminate the science definition with an abortion. The abortionists seem to have cause and effect backwards, which happens in the irrational world of political science.

If you look at the cell membrane, it acts like the largest dynamic capacitor for the cell. ATP energy is used to pump cations so the cell can store potential energy within the sodium/potassium cationic gradient. Many of the transport enzymes depend on this dynamic energy capacitance to help drive their transport mechanisms. A defect in a transport protein, can impact how any enzyme works. While tweaking the dynamic energy capacitance of the membrane, we can create global changes in all the enzymes. This is done during cell cycles, using the unsaturation of the lipids within the membrane. This alters the energy potential by making the capacitor more subject to ion reversal and voltage drop. Another way to store energy within a cell is by storing the energy as food chemicals. These chemicals have energy capacitance that is stored as chemical potential. When this chemical potential reaches a critical level, we have the energy needed to drive cell cycles.

The difference between live and dead cells is connected to energy. Without energy the DNA does not do anything. Although DNA might be able to replicate in some other circumstances, this is due to some stored energy capacitance, instead of dynamic energy streams like ATP. Since energy is what drives the machinery of life, one would expect that energy also has some connection to genetic changes, since these can not occur unless there is some energy to drive it. We often look at life in the middle and not at the front end. Both can cause us to see the same thing in different ways. For example, we have a machine that makes other machines. If we unplug it, it is a pile of metal and plastic that looks exactly like the one that is plugged in, but it doesn't do anything. If we plug it in, it gets powered up and starts to get busy again. If the current, going into the machine and/or moving between its components starts to get erratic, due to voltage changes, the machine may start to make mistakes, have pauses, trip a breaker, fry parts, etc. If we don't consider the power source as being a source of any potential problem, it might looks like the machine's own parts are doing this. I suppose we can model that empirically, but cause and effect would never appear to be an option since we don't use that variable.

An engineer is a contriver, which means they can come up with solutions to practical problems using applied science. I would say at least some of the engineers go into it for the challenge; if "some" say it can't be done, they will try to do it. A good engineer does not have to buy off the shelf, but can contrive, invent or improvise, what he needs. Terrorists have learned to recruit people with these practical skills, since the terrorist access, to off the shelf, is limited. Iran can not easily buy nuke supplies off the shelf, so they need to recruit engineers to contrive their own version of the same things. The better the talent the less time it takes. Luckily, the terrorists don't have access to the most imaginative engineers. Or, too many of their recruits appear to get involved more with company politics, reducing their contriving time. Middle management pays more but has other responsibilities that get the engineers away from the job of contriving. Some of these new responsibilities may involve field positions and sales meetings.

If fundamental particles don't have density, where does the density come from when they combine to form classical particles? If we took a 1Kg weight of iron and compare that to all its fundamental particles, the first has density while the second does not. What changes? Does the particle-wave duality shift more toward the particle side of equilibrium for density and more toward the wave side of equilibrium to not form density?

One way to answer this question, is to first consider the definition of death and use the opposite definition for when life begins. When the heart stops one is considered dead. Therefore when the little heart of the unborn begins to beat it is alive. Death is not defined as when all the cells of the body finally die, since fingernails and hair continues to grow after we are buried. Before the little heart beats in the unborn, it would be analogous to the fingernails and hair of a dead person. which no religion defines as still being alive. Since life and death are opposites, if we define life a given way, we should use that to define death; opposite. If only biological life is important for life, do we commit murder when we throw a legally dead person in the grave while their hair is still growing? No, because we will use a dual standard. On the other hand, if we define life as birth where there is no need for extra medical assistance, premature babies, then all medical assistance that sustains other phases of life would come under abortion. If we were to cut that off, that is no different than abortion and would be a woman's right to choose. But we would not define it this way due to a dual standard.

Scientific Method, although extremely important, is actually only the first half of the process associated with discovering reality. The second half is connected to the reality checks associated with the engineering method. For example, finding a statistically meaningful occurrence and then testing this observation and/or its theory in the lab for verification, may satisfy all the requirements of the scientific method. But this would never be enough for engineering to convert this into a production process. Production needs science that is either fully rational and/or can approach cause and effect with 99plus % reliability. There is much stricter reality check than is required of pure science. For example, we can apply the scientific method to infer the composition and mineral distribution on a particular location on Mars. But from the engineering point of view, no engineer would pre-lable all the collection containers, with an elemental analysis based on those scientific method predictions, even before we launch the rocket. It may satisfy the scientific method but not the entire engineering method, which will have to confront hard reality and suffer the consequences. Not all science can be extrapolated, beyond the scientific method, all the way through the engineering method. But those science things which can, are very close to what we know as reality, since these aspects of science can used to produce repeatable results, in the factory, sometimes in the order of millions or billions of repeat units.

I am of the POV that the symbols of Creation are talking about a subset of evolution, connected to the dawn of the modern human mind. If we take the literal time frame of Creation, it doesn't coordinate with the sciences of cosmology, geology, biology, etc.. But it does coordinate fairly well with the rise of human civilization. That is my bridge for reconciliation. Let me give an example of the misunderstanding I see. Einstein wrote his paper on relativity in 1905. Before that publication, this important idea did not exist. If relativity is true, relativity has actually existed from the beginning of the universe. Einstein did not invent anything, but brought a natural phenomena to light. We place the 1905 date on relativity, based on when it first appeared to wide spread human consciousness in a published form. We don't say relativity is actually billions of years old and try to debate the 1905 date. In my POV, the symbols of Creation dates when these original evolutionary concepts appeared. The new version of the human mind was now getting up to steam, and was also beginning to invent other things needed to set up civilization. Like relativity, it is not dated when the actual phenomena entered the universe, billions of years ago, but when it was published. Those writings are very old. To turn this around so one can see how silly the debate is, for now on, to be consistent with the requirements of the evolution-creation debate, if evolution is indeed true, Darwin did not invent it in 1858, when it was published. It was always here. It was invented by nature billions of years ago. To say Darwin came up with the idea 150 years ago, is sort of like what religion is doing. It is out of touch with reality, but is nevertheless true in the sense of first awareness within human history With the rise of civilization, the human mind expanded. The knuckle dragging pre-humanoids (intellectual sense) went from picking fleas, to starting to ponder the universe, nature and other whys??. The first human theories to be put into publication is about 7000 years ago. They created the original concept of universe, sort of like Darwin invented evolution. But neither invented anything, since these were both there long before Darwin or Adam were around. Both merely brought it to light for other humans, "let there be light in the darkness". Common sense doesn't apply in the religious battle between evolution and creation. Science believes evolution started billions of years ago but also says it was invented in 1858. There is a paradoxical inconsistency, just like in religion. If I wished to start another irrational debate, we can debate 1858 versus 2-billion years ago. That would be just another 7000 years ago versus 13 billions years ago.

There is a simple thought experiment that can show relative motion, within space-time, can, at times, create an effect that can violate the conservation of energy. Here is that thought experiment. We have three references in a triangle, all with the same mass. To one of the references. we add sufficient energy until its velocity reaches relativistic velocity V. Lastly, we ask all three references to tell us the relative velocities of the other two references. The two stationary references will see one moving reference and one stationary reference. The moving reference, using relative reference, will see the two stationary references both appear to be moving. A major problem appears, when we do our energy balance. We only added enough energy to move one reference mass at V, but relative reference allowed one of the htree references to see two masses moving at V, which would require twice the actual energy used. Based on the energy balance, the three references are not relative because only the two stationary references complete the energy balance. The reason for the perpetual motion in the third (energy) reference, is SR has three variables M,D,T. If we only use D,T we avoid the requirement of the energy balance. This allows us to create energy out of the void. Say we used the relative reference, which sees twice the amount of actual energy that was added. We don't tell them, but let them think in terms of this relative reference energy assumption. It is sort of mean but it can still be funny. We will tell them, we will slow one of the two other references (both appear to be moving) to their zero velocity, to get back half their observed energy. We will then use that energy to bring them up to the velocity of the remaining reference. Using the energy balance (real not illusion), to get this to work, we will need to put the final effect before the cause in their reference. They have the actual energy so we need to slow them first, so they think they are moving. This will give us the energy needed to add to one of the other references, so they appear not to be moving (relative to the original V). Using relative reference and perpetual motion energy, we will need to mess with time in their reference, putting the future before the past to be consistent with actual energy.

If you look at the traditional family unit, it is loosely based on socialism. One or two parents may do all work, but they will share with the family. Not everyone has to pull the same weight, but all share. It was also sort of a totalitarian state, where the parents set the laws and allocated resources to the family group. The liberals helped to break up the basic socialist family unit. It changed family more toward free enterprise. If the husband or wife thought they were not getting their fair share and/or they could do better elsewhere, they break the socialized arrangement in favor of free enterprise. In many cases, the once dependent citizens (children) are more on their own in this free enterprise system. When the traditional family was closer to socialism, there was less need for a socialist form of government, since the family took care of many of these things. With the liberal breakup of the traditional socialist family unit, in favor of the free enterprise family, now there is more need for government socialism.

If you do an energy balance, around any human, their total caloric value as a bio-unit (if you placed that person inside a calorimeter), had to be inputted somewhere along the way, or else they would be in violation of the conservation of energy. Genetics can not create energy value out of the vacuum of space. If you weight 200KG, that all had to be inputted. Genetics can not create perpetual motion; get more out than we put in. That being said, input-output=accumulation. If the input of caloric energy exceeds the output of caloric energy, we get accumulation. If accumulation gets to high, we call that obese. The cure suggested is to address the input aspect of the equation. But it does not address what goes into the mouth. Instead it tries to reduce the caloric value inside the person. One can eat a pie, but we genetically make the body act like this is only one piece. A cheaper method is only eating one piece of pie and skip the genetic part. It creates the same energy balance. We also have the output (of energy) aspect of the equation. We can exercise or use the muscles of the body to increase caloric output. If we wish to increase medical costs, maybe we can genetically increase the metabolic rate so any action uses more calories. There is a show called the "Biggest Loser", which is about people 240-450 pounds. They compete by losing weight. One could argue that all these people have genetic conditions. If they weren't on the show, one might be able to use that argument. The show is an experiment that shows that genetics, even if not favorable, is not a done deal. One needs to keep in mind the energy balance equation and find a balance between input and output. Some lose 200 pounds over the process of the season. Mind over genetics.

Before I started writing, I did a lot of research growing gem quality crystals. I was more into hydrothermal and molten flux. I learned about diamonds, but never has the pleasure. Relative to writing, being original is harder that being a parrot.

Diamonds have been made in the lab for decades, with gem quality diamonds, even in rare diamond colors, fabricated and sold by companies such as Chatham Emeralds. Making diamonds is not as difficult as it sounds and can be done with things around the well stocked lab. Quality takes some tricks. One piece of equipment needed is an anvil press. Picture two pyramids touching apex to apex (top to top). Hydraulic pressure is applied to the bases of the two pyramids, causing the pressure or pounds/in2 of small hydraulic press to become amplified, where the two apexes meet. Using this technique one can generate 1Million PSI or better, at the apex junction, using an off the shelf couple of ton press. It was invented back in the 1950's. At the apex junction of our anvil press, we place impurity free carbon in a special capsule made of material like tungsten carbide. If we want a colored diamond, we add a pinch of the impurity needed for that color. There are also catalysts one can add, including water. To prevent the capsule from crushing, when we crank up the press, we place a donut assemble parallel to the bases of the pyramids, where the two apex meet. This has high tensile strength and supports the lateral pressures so the diamond has to stay put. Then we apply the pressure and heat; presto

Doesn't that show a cause and effect relationship with respect to evolution, i.e, genetic movement toward a goal? If evolution was not goal orientated, the effect we see could also appear before the apparent cause. A previous random mutation, could just so happen to work out for the bacteria later in the future, when human begin to use antibiotics. The first is like the wrecking ball swinging, so I duck; cause and effect. The second is my shoe becomes randomly untied. As I bend over to tie it, the wrecking ball misses me. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI tend to think that evolution is driven by environmental potentials, which in the case of bacteria are the new medications we add to their environment. The goal of life can become set by the environmental potential, with continued life needing a specific range of change. For example, I predict that all desert life has the ability to retain water in an efficient way. This commonality across the entire spectrum of life in the desert does not mean a common ancestor developed this ability and split into plants, animals and bugs. What it means is a common goal that could have been set at any time in evolution. The odds of thousands of life forms all having their shoes randomly untie, at the time, then all ducking at the same time, makes less sense, than all desert life seeing the same potential and needing to adapt on its own. They all duck in their own time. When I lived in northern florida, they had trees the locals called "live oaks". This type of oak tree, only loses about half its leaves during the winter, with the remainder staying green. Normally oaks lose all their leaves in the winter. These oak tress may be adapting to the subtropical climate, but are still retaining some of their former adaptation.

Say there was a pandemic, where some virus was inserted into the DNA of a scattering of humans world wide. This would not be useful evidence to show that they all had a common ancestor, since the insertion could occur in months and not require millions of years of breeding. This common feature, if equated to evolution, would imply viral information is one of the many tools of evolution. It is good way to lengthen the DNA for future junk gene features and/or as clay for future changes. Every flu season some humans get more DNA information (times millions years). Say we had a viral pandemic, like AIDS, which started with the monkeys and drifted to humans. Eventually both critters built up an immunity. This does not have to mean humans and apes swung from the same tree, except maybe on a particular day. I am not saying we don't have a common ancestor. This is not smoking gun proof since alternate scenarios are all around us.

I think the efforts of the various news organizations, both the liberal mainstream media and the conservative media, should be considered campaign contributions. This would limit how much bias they could pump out returning the media to objective news. It would be interesting to compare the dollar value of these contributions, using each media outlet's advertising rates, to see which party's propaganda machine contributes more.

When it comes to humans, those with the most selective advantage within the environment called culture, do not necessarily have the most children. In this case, the selfish brain is overriding the selfish gene. There is a brain advantage to this. What is also being passed on is useful brain information and resources. The rich guy could afford to have 100 children to pass on his genes. However, his selective advantage is within his brain and mind, through learning, experience and ingenuity, which is hard to pass on to 100. He will concentrate his brain based resources to a smaller classroom instead of an overcrowded classroom. School is better the smaller the class, since you get more individual attention. If human genetics was at the top of the pile, like in nature, human would mindlessly reproduce to make as many replications as possible. Now we have more genetic piles. But since the brain is higher, there is no advantage to this, since he would spread the brain influence too thin. Often in culture the first born or first son has an advantage. This is not due to the genetics being better the first reproduction cycle. I am not sure if there is any proof to that. This has to due with the mind, with only one child, easier, to cross brain transfer. Dogs living with humans are part of this environment. So they need to adapt to a situation where the self gene is not always in effect and the brain is planning reproduction. In this case, the use of the dog is not genetic but has a brain connection; helper or companion. We will often neuter the dog to eliminate the selfish gene, since that can be an inconvenience.

When we talk about people with condition X, there is a reality connection between the risk and the condition. But risk analysis will give risk even to those who will never acquire condition X. Risk analysis is similar to stereo typing. There is truth in stereo typing, in that one can find at least one example for the generalization. One could say their is a risk of being attacked by a purple skinned person, since there is a high rate of crime in this population. Does that mean we need to worry about all the purple skin people, because of the group risk due to the stereo type? If you increase the fear, people might buy this and decide to detain everyone with purple skin. Or we could be honest and say, just because there are examples of purple skin people with this risk factor, we can not honestly pass this attribute to all the members of the class. We are not skillful enough to separate the group, so we spread the stereo type to all, just to be safe. The police cost has to go up, since we need to screen all the group for violence, just to be safe. The good members of the purple skins will need to pay the police to be screened to give them a magic star, so we can ignore them later. How about doing it this way. If we create group medical stereo-type to spread the risk, even to those who will never actually get it, if they go for a screening and don't have it, it is free. This would not make economic sense, which is why the risk technique is used. If we did that, one would have to be more careful about stereo-typing and/or better narrow the risk to exact people to make it economically feasible; fewer feebies. This might help the system evolve its approach away from stereo typing.

Go to an animal rescue shelter and see how dogs can be changed. The genetics aren't changed, brain software is. We can't change the hardware, but we can change the software and make it possible for the dog to have selective advantage in a new home. The selfish genes would imply once broken it will be the same under similar conditions since genetics is it. Pet owner go to trainers, so the same dog ,in the same environment, will have more advantage in their homes.

The genetics will form the brain. The brain has certain natural capacities based on genetics. However the brain is far more flexible and has a level of autonomy apart from genetics. There would be no need to go to school if the genetics was all the brain was. We can learn new things the genetics can be proven to have no way of ever encountering in evolution. As an analogy, one can buy a PC with a certain configuration. This is analogous to the impact of the DNA. This will set the baseline. This configuration may not be the best for running games. It also might have a windows operating system, and may not take well to MAC applications. But other than that, one can use that system for applications that we having even thought of yet; analogous to new things genetics has never yet encountered. For example, the dog may not be able to do calculus due to genetic limitations within the brain. But the genetics behind the brain may not have anything within the brain that deals with red water bowls with a little light on it. If red water bowls with a little light becomes a common fixture for many generations, selective advantage might begin to hardwire this since this is where water is. A good analogy in the computer world were web cams. People used these external devices using a USB plug-in. It was not part of genetics (part of the computer configuration) but added externally through learning. Now manufacturers (genetics) make web cams an integrated capability. Whether one uses it or not now, it is now part of the computer's (genetic) capacity. Not everyone will make use of it but it is there. Relative to canine management, the positive impact of training lies in its ability to get "one up", on the inertia of genetics, via the dog's brain. It also lies in the ability of the trainer not to get "one down" on the inertia of genetics. Dogs have good natural instinct, which can be degenerated, at the brain level, by a neurotic owner. The dog learns bad habits and loses natural instinct because the owner wants FiFi to be a problem child or a fighting dog that needs mothering or fathering. Often rescue organizations, who receive these broken dogs, can fix them so the animal is new. All they do is get the dog closer to their genetic instincts, and may add a few tricks like roll over not part of the genetic package. This is not always true of dogs since their environment includes humans as part of the package. Human can work the brain of the dog. Mutt dogs are often healthier and have better over all survival genes. But selective advantage will go to pure bred dogs with superficial advantages even if it has hip problems down the line. In the wild this would be different but not when it come to humans and our use of brain over genetics. Machine come from the brain and exceed genetics but often have analogies to genetic capacity.