pioneer

It may have been simply due to the practical needs for migration. Standing upright offers a better way to vent heat. What walking vertical also increases the vertical distance between the heart and brain. This increases the blood pressure to the legs. When we sleep the vertical differential is close to zero. Walking on all fours has the brain-heart differential somewhere between sleep and awake slouching on the sofa. This is where you daydream instead of get to business. This slight lowering of the blood pressure to the brain, relative to ape design parameters, would slightly cool the brain during continuous exercise. Another simple possibility was the arms got shorter, the legs got longer or the torso stretched. Any of these will all start to tip the body so the head is the lower than the heart making heat loss even worse. The transition critters that try to stick to old school will over heat first and fall by the wayside. Selective advantage goes to those who figure out how to orientate the body in a way to keep the body and brain cooler.

There is a way to address uncertainty with only one assumption. It has to do with making time a type of potential. The uncertainty affect can be simulated using a camera and motion blur. This is done when the shutter speed is too slow to capture the motion speed. The uncertainty in distance or distance blur, is related to time, with excess time potential left in the photo, creating the uncertainty in distance. This is not an artifact of experimental measurement being to slow. The uncertainty is due to extra time potential inherent with the object. If we change the experiment, adjust the shutter speed to match the motion or time element of the object, we lose the uncertainty and get a sharp picture. The time potential is balanced. If we use the same picture to photograph it twice we will get what appears to be the same object in two places similar to a quantum jump. This is also extra time potential with the shutter reset analogous to the slow shutter speed. We can combine these affects to create uncertainty between quantum states. In terms of chaos and determinism; if we could go from the initial to the final determined state as fast as is theoretically possible it would take x amount of time. This hypothetical scenario is analogous to building a puzzle using the fastest most organized approach. In the real world there will be much more trial and error so it takes longer. Chaos reflects more time potential having to be processed before it will reaches the final state. This can involve both quantum and uncertainty. This directly related to system energy with more energy often allowing more uncertainty. If we look at a photon, we observe wavelength and frequency. The frequency has a time or clock feature. So if we could hypothetically remove the wavelength aspect of energy, from energy, and leave just the frequency aspect to move at C, it would no longer act exactly like a wave, because it would move in a discontinuous way, with wave breaks. In chaotic systems the wave addition is not really symmetrical for long. Statistics implies excess time potential. For example, is we throw a coin it will come up 50/50 head-tails over time. But it will not do this every two tosses continuously. There will be a time delay between reaching that magic 50/50 number even though it is determined to happen. The universe has too much time potential on its hands.

There is a way to address uncertainty with only one assumption. It has to do with making time a type of potential. The uncertainty affect can be simulated using a camera and motion blur. This is done when the shutter speed is too slow to capture the motion speed. The uncertainty in distance or distance blur, is related to time, with excess time potential left in the photo, creating the uncertainty in distance. This is not an artifact of experimental measurement being to slow. The uncertainty is due to extra time potential inherent with the object. If we change the experiment, adjust the shutter speed to match the motion or time element of the object, we lose the uncertainty and get a sharp picture. The time potential is balanced. If we use the same picture to photograph it twice we will get what appears to be the same object in two places similar to a quantum jump. This is also extra time potential with the shutter reset analogous to the slow shutter speed. We can combine these affects to create uncertainty between quantum states. In terms of chaos and determinism; if we could go from the initial to the final determined state as fast as is theoretically possible it would take x amount of time. This hypothetical scenario is analogous to building a puzzle using the fastest most organized approach. In the real world there will be much more trial and error so it takes longer. Chaos reflects more time potential having to be processed before it will reaches the final state. This can involve both quantum and uncertainty. This directly related to system energy with more energy often allowing more uncertainty. If we look at a photon, we observe wavelength and frequency. The frequency has a time or clock feature. So if we could hypothetically remove the wavelength aspect of energy, from energy, and leave just the frequency aspect to move at C, it would no longer act exactly like a wave, because it would move in a discontinuous way, with wave breaks. In chaotic systems the wave addition is not really symmetrical for long. Statistics implies excess time potential. For example, is we throw a coin it will come up 50/50 head-tails over time. But it will not do this every two tosses continuously. There will be a time delay between reaching that magic 50/50 number even though it is determined to happen. The universe has too much time potential on its hands.

Charge is based on a convention. Positive and negative reflect an age old opposition of opposites, like good and evil. It follows the traditional template in the sense the negative principle was of the world and is assigned to the electron and negative charge which fluff up matter to create reality. Pure positive charge is often compacted in terms of nuclei and not as fluffy and is more like the foundation of reality. The positive charge, when broken down this far is not exactly equal and opposite to the negative charge, since positive is a trinity. If you look at Christian symbolism, God or the positive principle it is also a trinity, with one down aspect or son who came down to earth -1/3e. I am not suggesting a biblical connection, only it is an interesting coincidence. It is possible the labeling of quarks also used this basic symbolism, at an unconscious level.

The DNA and the cell are intimately connected. The fact remains the DNA apart from a cell has no life nor can it replicate either. The other way around has some features of life. If we separate the two, cell body on the left and DNA on the right, which is alive and which just sits there? The best observation that suggests the DNA plays a very important secondary role is the molecular stability of the DNA. It is not designed to be reactive unless acted upon. If the DNA was semi-stable able to break and reform spontaneously within water it would more make sense.

There are bacteria that live in the gut, for example, which are useful. How does the immune system determine friend from enemy?

If you look at basic observation, it appears to indicate that the DNA, although the template molecule of life, plays a support role. It is given the lead role based on an unproven assumption. That assumption is life began with some version of genetic replicators. This has never been proven but we treat it as true without any requirement of proof. We need to look at what we can prove. Cells, like red blood cells can continue to be alive without DNA. But DNA is useless without a cell body, except in the above hypothetical scenario. Based on that the hierarchy is cell body then DNA. We could take a cell, remove the DNA, spread out all the cell material, add the DNA back, and it will never put the cell back together again. DNA is reactionary not proactive. Another observation that suggests the same thing is cellular replication. When the DNA is duplicated it is taken off-line. After it is duplicated it is packed, off line and totally inert, yet the cell is alive. When the daughter cells divide the DNA is gradually brought back on-line. What this indicates are the cell bodies are restoring DNA functionality. The DNA can do nothing until the cell body provides it enzymes. Some mutations occur when the DNA is off-line, indicating a cell body role. If you look at a maturing ovum, again the DNA is taken off-line, duplicated and then 3/4 of that is expel from the main cell body. That DNA is junk in terms of what the cell body has in mind. When the male and female DNA merge the cell body will shuffle the genes. When it starts to divide, the DNA is still off-line. If you use a computer analogy the DNA is like the hard drive. It is the device with programs and data. We can add viruses, new programs or even bad data clusters; defects. The cell body is the rest of the computer with the user interface devices that allow input and output and access to the hard drive. Recently scientists added a new hard drive to a cell body and the cell body didn't seem to mind. However, it will need to go through the hard drive and figure out the programs available.

The topic is the God delusion. I am suggesting genetic brain structuring due to constant worship behavior and religious programming. Even if you assume God is from the imagination, the brain may be set up to generate this, which would make it a part of natural selection and evolution. The idea of a God delusion may be the delusion. Mythology was part of all ancient cultures. Even the America Indians have a rich tradition of myths. This involved gods or spirits. The most advanced cultures, which dominated the ancient world all had mythology. People were not literate but would learn these stories by word of mouth. The small patches that may have existed, without religion, if they existed, were absorbed like a dinosaur. Reason is associated with Greek and Rome both of which were big into mythology. Name one dominate culture that did not have some form of worship? Natural selection and genetic drift. A possible source of evidence that suggest learned behavior can be incorporated into genetics can be seen with art. Compare caveman drawings to a modern artistic child, who is untrained. There is an drastic improvement in basic innate skill. Not every caveman was an artist either. It may reflect a relative percentage. With religion, mythology, natural spirits or whatever, it is collective training for 10,000 years.

Sex for males and females is different. There is social stigmatism for a girl getting too much. It is not as bad as it used to be for women. If a girl wants sex, she can get it easier than a guy. It harder for a guy to go up to the average girl and say, buy dinner and movies and you can have sex with me. The payment is suppose to go the other way. A nice guy doesn't know how to negotiate the price. The bad boy he is able to lie, coax, bull, and cheat for a much better value. Many pay with lies and looks. Another aspect is some girls just want sex with no attachment. The nice guy is more likely to do the right thing and think in terms of a longer term connection. The bad guy doesn't want any attachment. He may not even call back. He is into quantity. The bad guy is very obvious what he wants. The nice guy wants the same thing, but is trying to be less obvious and respectful. The bad guy is looking at her chest while he talks and the nice guy is making good eye contact. There is less ambiguity and complication. Back to the stigmatism. The bad boys are worse than what a girl may feel in terms of the bad due to guilt and inhibition. If she calculates bad, she will feel less bad around the bad boy and can go farther, all the way to nasty. Ask any woman who has had a bad boy if she reached nasty. The bad guy is still worse, and to him this is expected and nasty normal, so less inhibition. With a nice guy there is too much good to cover as much nasty ground. I am not talking about relationships but quick fixes. When it is time to settle in a marriage the good guys win. He might get a slightly used car driven fast on weekends. Hopefully the skill set that was learned by the women will be brought into the relationship to give the nice guy some of those bad boy rides. Not all women are like this. I am not stereo typing, but the topic was girls who like bad boys.

Relative reference can create perpetual motion. For example, we have a normal train leaving the station. The twin engines use 500 gallons of fuel to get the train to 30 MPH. From a stationary reference the fuel and the kinetic energy add properly. But if one is on the train, they will think their reference is stationary and will see the country side outside the window appear to be in motion at 30 MPH. With only 500 gallons of fuel and relative reference we can give mountains, lakes, bridges, etc. motion all the same time. If relative reference is valid, with no preferred reference, we can create endless energy this way. All we need to do is slow that mountain the background, from inside the train, and harness all kinetic energy to make electricity. If we apply relative reference to space, are we on the train? Or is there a preferred reference so we don't create perpetual motion?

Here is something to consider. Humans have been practicing religion since the beginning of civilization, if not longer. Until modern science, this was the way people orientated themselves and explained reality. Thinking about gods and spirits was something people did most of the day, by default. That adds up to is roughly 10,000 years of programming that, according to evolution, should have created an imprint on the human brain and may have been induced as part of genetics. Natural selection was decided by religion for 10,000 years, from caveman to modern. The deviates would have their genetics beheaded. Natural selection would shift the brain genetics to maximize adaption to the training. That, in turn, would be in the direction of religion. For example, the domestication of dogs and cats changed the innate behavior of these domestic versions compared to the wild. They have relatively small brains and education is rather thin. But with religion the same domestication of the pre-humans to modern humans will have a much deeper behavioral impact. The result may be you can take humans out of religion but maybe not religion out of humans. It may be part of genetic and the brain structure similar to an modern instinct. This is an application of evolutionary theory and natural selection.

Another way is to downplay your wealth and worth. Pretend it is less or you got hit hard in the stock market. There will still be woman who will like you anyway, even with a moderate worth. If flashing the cash is your lure, than you are going to attract barracuda. This is high maintenance and can be more risky in terms of your concerns. The nice girls interpret the flash differently. Either she will think you are a player or she doesn't have a chance. This is what you are looking for. She will be lower maintenance and your sharing will make her a mate for life. Foreign women, who are beautiful and intelligent are looking for husbands. There are Christian countries like Russia, Rumania, Hungary where the gals are foxes. Many are old fashion women in modern bodies. These countries are only beginning to develop and many women are still in a time warp. If you like old world charm and women seeking the basics of family. Play down the wealth to find someone you can trust and love.

The neurons are connected through synaptic gaps by water. Water is the wild card variable since it represents the continuous phase. If we added salt to a glass of water the ions dissolve and the properties of water change making it more corrosive, for example. If we add brain to water it does the same thing except the properties of water becomes structured for consciousness. Being the continuous phase it defines the holistic properties. Here is how to look at it. Enzymes will not work without water. There is nothing that can replace water and allow a cell to work. The water is almost as important as the biomaterial itself. It takes these two to tango. This unique connection between water and life is everywhere. One part of this dance team is more fluid and the other more structured. Consciousness is a blend of fluidity and structure with both highly integrated.

All these examples of relative motion are all showing how the same event looks different, depending on the reference. But there is a preferred reference which allows one to better know the relative motion within all the references in terms of energy conservation. For example, someone watching the train will see the train in motion. From the reference inside the train it looks like the country side is in motion. The second reference creates the illusion their reference is stationary even though all experiments will indicate it has kinetic energy. The amount of energy used by the trains engine will never be enough to make the entire country side move. It violate energy conservation if we consider inside the train a valid reference for anything beyond what is going on inside the train. But even that is suspect in terms of reality energy.

Relative reference does not always reflect reality. Relative reference can create illusions. For example, you are in the train, and have the ball sitting on your lunch tray. The train begins to take a turn. Relative to your reference there does not appear to be any force acting, yet the ball mysteriously moves due to telekinesis. That is the theory for that reference. The person sitting on a hill watching the train also sees the ball start to have an additional motion. His theory based on his reference is centrifugal force. If they were both the same we would not have this problem. Nobody in the train will believe telekinesis. Instead they will shift reference in their minds to a better zero reference and conclude the train is turning, i.e., use the hill reference, because their reference is not adequate to give a good explanation. When velocity approaches relativistic one need to include the third or mass parameter because some of the references will create illusions that violate the conservation of energy.

These cultures not only have the poor, but a class distinction below the poor. This is part of a social approach using relative reference. If a millionaire hangs with billionaires he may feel a social inadequacy, i.e, little dog, even though it is blessed. But if the millionaire hangs with the middle class he is the big dog and can stride more lively. By having a class below poor, we lower the floor and using relative reference it makes the poor feel better. If you just merely got rid of the fourth class, leaving the poor the same, now they are at the bottom and wouldn't be as content. It would affect their sense of pride causing social unrest. If someone from the second class is feeling depressed. They can walk among the poor class to realize their blessings. One can get feedback as the poor people sort of looking at you with more respect. If that doesn't work then you walk among the fourth class. Then you get you mojo back as they beg to the wealthy man. You are now ready to get back in the rat race. It reminds me of a Rodney Dangerfield joke, if you are overweight and wish to be thin, hang with fat people. It is all relative state of mind. It is not as simple as getting rid of the fourth class even if you could. The result would be an upward migration to restore the relative class floor. The first class doesn't want too many new members because it there is only so much pie. Maybe they need to add a fifth class such as lepers to boost the fourth class morale.

This has been considered in the past. The way it was originally proposed is to do selective breeding. When test tube babies became a reality the debate was taking sperm from the males with the most desirable traits and breed this with brainiac super models. It sounded good in theory until one realized they may never be allowed to breed. The flip side of the coin is if we wish to shift the population to superman and superwoman you need to phase out undesirable breeding traits. It didn't go further than debate. With advances in genetic manipulation, the debate is back but in way that allows everyone to breed. We breed, pull out the defects, and add a few choice extras under the hood. There is an interesting social consequence. The baby is no longer entirely yours, genetically, but it is part adopted. It has less in common with the parents in reality, but more in common with their imaginary image of the ideal child. For example, a frail set of parents breeds and adds the super athletic genes. Now the child does not have the parents needed to make use of that capability. The parents may need to farm out that obligation, to surrogates, who will act as adopted parents for the adopted genes. Say you add a dash of Einstein, how does a parent know how to help that child, if they are slightly above average? When they are adding these genes in their fantasy baby, they picture the final result grown up. There is going to be far more work and cost then ever considered. You could end up with a large generation of repressed gifted children who rebel. This would be good plot for a science fiction novel.

Phosphorus is interesting in that it can collect light energy into a semi-stable state and slowly release as it glows. Octopus can do this phosphorus affect with biological energy such as ATP, instead of light. So we reverse it; make ATP from sunlight and phosphorus. The ATP is also the same stuff that drives muscles. The entire device would be sun light, then phosphorous, to ATP, driving this huge arm that moves a large crank to generate electricity. The last part was too funny to resist. But the first part might work.

The independence of measuring rods and clocks from their past history sorts of sounds like time travel backwards is not possible. Maybe the idea was, to prevent the argument of future humans playing jokes on us. If they could time travel backwards, we can't rely on any measurement, since jokes could occur due to children playing with their new time machine toy. This argument could challenge anything since we can't depend on accuracy. The thing that comes to mind is the long jump in the 1968 Olympics by Bob Beamon where it broke the world record by 21 inches. I could picture future kids with a time machine playing a prank on those silly primitive humans and getting a lot of laughs. They just tweaked the calibration.

It does create a paradox. Bacteria divide or reproduce very fast yet changed less than apes who reproduced much much less. The paradox continues, the bacteria's machinery for assuring exact genetic duplication is primitive and should make more mistakes compared to apes, yet apes are able to evolve faster. It appears to be an exception that breaks the rules, which is against the law. Therefore is unlawful to discuss. I comes down to environmental potentials changing the DNA. There is no good place for bacteria to evolve in peace since they are typically surrounded by higher life forms that keeps them in their place. The places where they can live in peace are crappy environments which don't help. There is pressure from the top to keep the bottom. Bacteria turn out to be very useful slaves within the human body performing tasks without having any honor as full genetic citizen. They do rebel at times, but even medicine keeps these low life renegades in their place. Their selective advantage is being able to make tons of these to keep ahead of extinction. They plot their revenge and try to thin out of the top to release some of the downward pressure. But apes with excellent genetic duplication and slow reproduction rates are able evolve faster because there is not much in the way of downward pressure.

I essentially agree with evolution, although I often argue to the contrary. The problem I have had is understanding some anomalies that suggest there is more order to the direction of evolution. Maybe I am missing something. For example, the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics. If we add it up, for about a billion years these bacteria had no resistance to these drugs. In a relatively short time, they were able to evolve what couldn't be done for a billion years. This suggests several things. 1) The bacteria evolution was induced by the environment. They never had to evolve this ability to resist, until we created this environment. At least in this one example, a change in the environment speeded up evolution and cause specific things to occur that didn't occur randomly in a billion years. 2)The more constant and persistent the change in the environment the faster will be the evolution. This why they tell people to ease up on the antibiotics. If we trick the bacteria into thinking the environment is not permanent, they do not change as quickly. What this suggest is, if the environment is stable, such as within stable ecosystems, evolution is slower and is more dependent on chance, such as a billion years to not be able to develop antibiotic resistance. If we change the environment, evolution speeds up in the direction of the environment. The higher the environmental potential, the faster the evolution. We are proving this theory, in real time, as we speak. 3) If this environmental potential can alter the genetics faster than just a billions years of random, somehow it appears the environmental potential is able to conduct to the DNA to get directed changes. What didn't change without a push changed with a push. Relative to the bacteria, some of antibiotics do not exist naturally. There is no natural basis for a past connection to the DNA. If this was a natural compound maybe somewhere in memory there is a gene that could explain the quicker turn around. In a short period of time the genetics changed to accommodate artificial compounds. One way explain why evolution may have missed this is due to the nature of collecting samples. The most likely samples to find, are from those things that had the most units at one time. This would be stable populations where the environmental changes is not drastic. Drastic changes in environment, according to the theory would cause rapid genetic change. But this is not stable, at first, but rather is heading toward a new stable state. There may not be many of these rapid change transitions animals. They will be the holes in the data. It is not until selective advantage, working the stable environment, that will will get more units. With the bacteria, it is not until the population really starts to built until we realize the resistance. By then the prototypes that made it all possible may no longer provide us fossil evidence.

If we do it backwards and integrate a constant, we get velocity. If we integrate that we get acceleration. If we integrate that we get the acceleration of an acceleration. This occurs in nature and would be due to a force that is accelerating in magnitude, such as a forming star where the mass is building up the gravitational force with time. The result is a distant falling object accelerating it's acceleration. One can do that with magnetics by boosting the electricity in an acceleration of current. If we integrate that we get an acceleration of an acceleration of a force. This may also occur in nature. Here is one possible scenario. Say you had an exploding star, not an impulse explosion but building as gravity resistance is decreasing. This give us the acceleration of force. This is going into the expansion acceleration of the universe.

Look at it this way. If we sent a light beacon to a star that is 10 light years away it will take 10 years in our reference to reach it. A light year is how far light travels in a year. If you were sitting on the photon, it would appear to happen almost instantaneously, due to maximum time dilation. If we travel less than C, the result is the earth would see 10+ years while the moving reference would see 0+ years. One of the conceptual problems has to due with relative reference. Only the reference with energy added to created velocity will have real time dilation. If you don't add energy you don't get any.

The universe is expanding relative to the galaxies. Below that level things appear to be bound by gravity. This suggests maybe there is a practical limit to gravity. The theoretical limit is infinite but in the practical world it doesn't do very well beyond galaxy size. This could be due to dark energy with seems to truncate gravity beyond about the galaxy size.

Thinking what you said. Single cellular organisms have their own lines of defense. Multicellular sort of takes defense away from most of the individual cells, and gives the responsibility to a group of specialty cells. It sort of an odd design in the sense, two lines of defense would make more sense. In terms of military strategy, we put the best troops of the immune system, as the front line doing most of the work. We also have a secondary force with each cell able to handle low level assault. This would seem more air tight. The question I asked is, if the current system is more evolved there must be something about it that makes it a more efficient system or a system that is more conducive to evolution. Did anyone ever consider that maybe some virus and the like are suppose to get through. There is nothing to say that virus can't have the opposite affect of sickness. I was thinking about the excellent immune system of sharks and how they never seem to change over a long time. They may be too tight which is good for them but not as conducive to change. The other half had to do with efficiency. This had to indirectly do with the power of positive thinking. Does the nervous system play a role in directing the immune system? I look at it this way. Nerve cells are smart tissue and the macrophages are smart in their own autonomous way. The nerve tissue near a cell is monitoring the environment. When you get an invasion, the water near the cell changes the nerve sounds the alarm. It would explain, at some level, how things know where to go. It is not Keystones Cops, but seems more directed. When you cut you finger one can feel the sensory signal and almost immediately the troops are deployed. This gets our attention sort of focusing the mind-brain on the cut-pain. The dog licking the cut is also stimulating nerves. Is there a correlation between the brain-nervous system complexity and immune system complexity?