pioneer

I am only trying to brainstorm this and not just swallow conventional wisdom until other possible scenarios have been at least addressed. I am not married to any one thing, but like to look at more than one angle. I just assumed that is what a scientists is suppose to do. If a scientists is required to put on blinders, then I guess I am not such a scientist. The way I interpret this is, the idea that nothing can escape a blackhole, which was the prediction of math, is experimentally wrong. Sorry for the bad news. Don't blame me , those pesky astronomers did it. Not only is energy escaping but jets of matter. Is it the gamma entraining the matter? If it was, then we have our medium for refraction. Another possible analogy is a big bubble of air floating to the top of a glass of water. It will push up the water, i.e., low energy output, before the bubble finally breaks the surface. One should not be sad about the blackhole. This is a good time since it was getting a little boring. Now there are new things to consider. This will add new life into an old problem, which will advance things further. I was getting a little ahead because I was already working on part 2. It is not carved into stone, but I was brainstorming one possibility. A possibility I really like, which may have nothing to do with reality, but pushes the envelop of thinking, is what if the matter coming out of the blackhole has been so compressed it has formed atoms with 200 protons, just to use a number. This is not possible with stellar gravity. But say this turned out to be the only type of material with the needed refraction. This is not there as a assertion of reality, only a seed for the imagination. Nothing can escape a blackhole, was a good imagination seed in its day.

Sorry this is long, but I was on a roll. What I am trying to describe is the subjectivity within culture, where objective standards do not have to line up with subjective standards. Money is one means that allow subjective to exceed objective, but since humans are more subjective than objective, this baseline of subjectivity appears objective. Let me give a real life example. Britney Spears is in the American Tabloids due to her child custody battle. When she was younger, she was a media entertainment darling. She was subjectively inflated to star status and earned the wealth from her star status to reinforce her subjective enhancement. For many young girls she was the subjective high bar to emulate. Now that she is a young woman, the tabloids are sort of trying to cancel out the subjective enhancement to show the young woman, as she really is. She was always that same person, but the celebrity and wealth inflated that. But the inflation, although subjective, reinforced her own subjective assessment of herself, and may have helped her performances. It was not so much the inner Britney was different, but her mask was shinery. The tabloids have subjectively gone the other way in that they have not only cancelled out the subjective enhancement, but have been able to depress her objective scores for her IQ, EQ. For example, say one took an IQ test and scored 135. The next day we give a similar test, but with different questions. This time we have someone with a drum looking over your shoulder. They beat the drum while you take the test. Unless you have the focus of a Zen master, the distraction will change the results. It is not that the IQ decreased, only the test parameters have subjectively change. Originally, Britney's drummers would beat the drum and give answers. But now the drummer is trying to mess her up and distract her. Ironically, all that Britney had to do, was lease out the EQ and IQ of good nannies and teachers and then accept credit for a well adjusted child. She tried to do it like a working mom, using her own objective skills. Without the proper social inflation she sort of fell short of the subjective standards. The child's father will have the money to lease then needed EQ and IQ and will be given the credit for raising a child who will turn out well. That is unless the tabloids try to depress that subjectivity with distractions. Truth = objective data in culture Truth, although a philosophical concept, is analogous to the objective data that a scientist creates in the lab. This raw data, if reliable, is useful to the scientist, to help him extrapolate other objective relationships. But with humans more subjective than objective, the data in not always objective, but can be presented in a way that allows a subjective enhancement. For example, dress for sucess, does not change the objective IQ, EQ. This is used to create a subjective enhancement, which works, since most people are more subjective than objective. Money makes this easier. One could also use force, to break into a store, to create the same affect. Relative to the objective data outputting from the person, the objective data has been fudged. It is sort of like a scientist, after his experiments, taking away some bad data points and only presenting selective objective data. One is not lieing about the data, since the data was collected under the proper experimently protocol. We are only presenting the best real data. So if we assume this data is true, which is sort of is, the objective conclusions can change. That is the entire purpose of this enhancement. Humans being mostly subjective, are not confined to objective output. That would not fit into the ambience of subjectivity. One would not go into an interview dressed like they are most of the time, when they are being themselves. This would be too objective. One needs the subjective embellishment. It is not easy to be totally objective in the subjectivity of culture, since the majority will think their subjective baseline is what is objective. Full objectivity may appear subjective relative to this baseline. If one went to an interview dressed in their favorite home sweats, this is who you are objectively. But that would be interpretted as someone who is subjectively rebellious. One may even get depressed subjective evaluation for their IQ and EQ, scores based on this objective data. One is sort of obligated to play by the rules of the cultural subjectivity, unless you have money, then the same depressed subjective scores can get a subjective boost. Hugh Hefner can walk around in a night robe. But if the average person did the same thing and could not inflate, it is different. I would like to go back the previous scenario about the natural disaster, which disrupts culture, so money is no longer able to inflate EQ and IQ. The person who took the house by force, used the laws of the jungle to get their subjective enhancement. A stranger walking by, might assume subjective enhancement. He stops to talk with the new home owner and asks him about his house. The home owner is not confined to objective data output and may not want to say that he stole it. Instead he may lie and say he built it. There is no way to check this data, so the stranger takes it a face value, and objectively concludes his original subjective enhancement evaluation, actually has a basis in objective reality. The new home owner could also output different data that is half true or half objective. He may say that I didn't build the house but my friend did, and he gave it to me. This data may depress the subjective evaluation. He would still get a boost for having a nice shelter, but not the same amount. If the data output was fully objective and he said, I didn't build anything but used a gun to forcefully take the house, the subjective evaluation may be dependant on the subjectivity of the person. He may still inflate the IQ numbers for his ingenuity but depress the EQ number for being a brute. Because of the importance of subjectivity in culture, total objective output may not allow one to achieve the subjective baseline. But people are too smart for one to totally fudge the output data. So the compromise is spin and embellishment. Force can be used to create embellishment. But money allows one to lease embellishment and subjective spin. Here is how I see the net social dynamics, and why these are important. The spin and embellishment, being subjective, does not allow an objective steady state to form. The data is not objective enough for that purpose. However, it adds chaos, while objectivity is trying to crystalize out. It is sort of the heat that causes the diamond to slowly form. If the objective diamond was to crystalize out too fast it would have defects. Instead the subjectivity keeps the pot warm so it can to build slowly to perfection. The human imagination is not limited to cause and affect, but along the subjective way, bit and piece of objective reality will also appear. Even in science we generate data but will also use subjective spin and embellishment. This may come in conflict with other subjective spin and embellishment. But as time goes on, a new piece of the diamond will crystalizes out and remain. Later we may notice a defect and need to heat the pot again withmore spin and embellishment to correct the defect. Science 1000 years from now, may be quite different than today. To assume what we do today is the final answer is the subjectivity in science. Some will remain, but the subjective baseline of culture does not give one an objective baseline to help objectively determine the amount of spin. For example, if a scientist found the perfect job with the pay needed for all the social subjective enhancements they ever wanted, part of their drive will be to protect the green milk coming from that cow. This is human nature. Very few will be so objective as to put themselves out of this good job, if the data said so. There is more to scientists than just objectivity, there are also subjective needs. It is easier to be objective if it does not adversely affect subjectivity. As for me, I sort of place myself between a rock and a hard place. It sort of a simulated natural disaster, where I was not able to make use of the subjective enhancements to help inflate my numbers. This position is below the subjective baseline of culture. This was an objective place to examine IQ and EQ, since the position did not allow normal inflation. After a while a more objective baseline formed. I am adding a little spin and embellishment to boost my numbers. Objective truth or data does not always work at the cultural baseline or where it becomes more inflated.

One possible way to look at food animals; if in nature, in an animal is food for other animals, then nature designed them to be food animals. Maybe nature provided mechanisms to make this role more tolerable. We should not eat preditor animals. These are not food animals within the natural design of things. If one does not eat a food animal, one is trying to alter the natural design of nature. The vegatarians are part correct, in that they eat plants, which are food for other animals. Their dilemna is that the animals, which eat this same food, are food for other animals. They may feel a projected kinship. They would not wish to be food for a preditor, so they empathize. But this empathy does not mean that food animals don't instinctively know their natural role. Cows have been used for food for a long time. Yet they seem to like humans inspite of their tragic role in the food chain. They don't like wolves, and run from them, even though these hardly eat them.

I am not trying to equate money with the objective measure of IQ or EQ. What I was saying money can cause a subjective affect. Being subjective it doesn't change the hard numbers, but can alter perception subjectivity within the observer and also possibly subjectively within the person. Picture a hypothetical scenario, where an asteroid hits the earth and disrupts culture, such that money is no longer of any value. The logistics are all messed up and everyone is just trying to cope and survive. Nobody wants to lease out IQ or EQ because they need it for their own survival. In this scenario, all the subjectivity is gone. If one needs food, shelter or even motation to cope, one is on their own. The objective numbers are more important, than any subjective change due to money. Whether one was rich or poor, if they have the IQ and EQ, they would have advantage. The carpenter may be able to build a good shelter. Another person may try to buy this shelter, but since money has no value, he can not buy the shelter and get the credit for ingenuity. But what he could do, is go back and get a gun and threaten the carpenter. Before money, force was the means to inflate the IQ and EQ. If he can force him to leave, he now has the best house. The stragglers see his new house and subjectively give him credit for being the most on the ball. Violence and fear was the original subjective enhancer of IQ, EQ. One could use violence and fear to lease out the IQ and EQ of others, to create subjective enhancements. In older days, wealth was often centralized to prevent money from changing the social subjectivity away from the king. Money was an evolution way to do the same thing. It did not use fear to lease IQ, EQ, but catered to desire. This is a more efficient way, since it gave the leasee something work harder for; subjective enhancement. This allowed more subjective inflation so more can share in it. If you take away b the subjectivities of desire and fear, then we are back to the disrupted culture above, without money, violence, with only objective IQ, EQ left. Depending on which motivation is being used, fear, desire or objectivity, the subjective evaluation of social IQ, EQ, will change social distribution. In fourth world countries, where economics is not well developed, old time fear is used. Brutality gives one a top position, as though this primative action has subjectively enhanced IQ-EQ. The top dog may forcefully or monetarily lease the expertise of advisors and yes men and women. If you look at the leader of North Korea, if we took away the fear-money to reduce him to objectivity, he is an average Joe. If we add back the subjective inflation, he is a world leader. I am not making any moral judgement, only that human evolution must have a reason for giving these subjective enhancements such an important role in social dynamics. One explanation is that humans are more subjective than objective. The importance is this, caters to the strong suit of the average human.

That is true. Light works the same way as it passes through different materials. Light will bend more in the denser diamond and less in the less dense alcohol. The type of refraction possible with gamma should tells us the nature of the medium. One might try different things in the lab to see if anything on earth could cause the same level of refraction. This may not prove anything, but it could give us a feel for what is needed. If no material on the earth can do this, then exotic things could be needed.

If you look at the anatomy of a habit, it often starts out innocent enough and is often something that brings some level of satisfaction. It is often part of a creative data gathering where the results give a good feeling. The action and memory of this process/result are given an emotional valence of satisfication by the brain. The next step, is recreating that feeling of satisfaction by repeating the action. As long as the action keeps generating the feeling, we keep repeating the action. This can cause us to learned it by rote. This is implicit of a subroutine forming in the brain. For example, say one gets a job and has to get ready for work. One may try different ways to budget their time, so they can get to work while also feeling ready to go. This final efficient system, leads to satisfaction, so it will be repeated. Eventually, it gets learned by rote, until it is a habit. It becomes a subroutine in the brain, that only needs activation. An interesting experiment is to mess with your morning routine. Change the order. If you shower first, try to have breakfast first. If you start with coffee, drink it at the end. The result will require more conscious effort because the subroutine will also be active, trying to set the order. The result will feel less satisfying, until we achieve a new level of satisfaction. Habits are hard to break, because the alternative is not yet satisfying, and the subrountine will lead one down the old satisfying path.

One place where anyone can get some of the basics are pyrotechnic supply companies, that sell supplies that allow one to make their own fireworks. There is a company that caters to school laboratories, like High Schools. One can get basic glassware. I used to experiment with hydroponics and needed some beakers and graduated cylinders and they had all the basics. I got some acids and bases from a pyrotechnic site, so I could adjust the pH cheaper than what was sold at hydroponic sites. Here are few links; shop around. The second site is cheap for glassware. http://www.vgdllc.com/home2.htm http://www.researchsupply.net/index.php

Time flow has a connection to energy. For example, the ticks of the watch are indicating the flow of time, because the potential energy in the watch is decreasing. When the energy is gone, the ticks will also stop. If we look at an electron, its shows a cyclic change of state where the energy stays the same. This is moving forward in time, only relative to a reference, which is showing a decrease in energy. But in its reference, with its energy at steady state, there is not net flow of time. This allows it to last forever, more or less. When humans measure time, we always use a system that is lowering energy. This can be mechanical, electrical, or neural. These systems are moving forward in time because of the loss of energy. When we compare other systems to this time, we are assume they also moving in time, even if, like an electron, they don't age much after billions of years. I like time potential, since this allows system to store potential energy and not age. When it gives off its energy, its time potential decreases. This is not human reference dependant but only dependant on potential energy. An SR reference has more potential energy or time potential, than a fixed reference and therefore is able to last longer with the laws of physics. The laws of physics determine how fast the energy is bled off.

Refraction demonstrates how light can appear to slow down. It is like light bending in water, increasing its travel distance, then it exits out the other side, and then resumes. Energy's electric field causes charges, within the refracting medium, to try to follow and align with photons electric field. But there is a time delay. Although the overall frequency stays the same, the waves coming from the charge occilation are out of phase with the incoming radiation and add to form a composite that is longer. I am not sure what type of materials gamma needs to cause a phase change that increases its path, like light in water. What came to my mind was a gamma jet being refracted. The cooler energy appearing first implies it is not chemical but more nuclear, since there is much less phase delay at the level of the chemical state. The foam may work but this is speculation and can't be demonstrated. One might be able to set up a nuke medium that will refract gamma. Common sense is not always important to physics, exotic is always better.

If you look at the DNA, a genetic mutation does not necessarily imply the entire gene has totally changed, nor a brand new gene or gene train has been inserted, such as by a virus. A mutation can simply be one base pair that is incorrect. The protein that is made, might now have one animo acid different. If it so happens this amino acid is at the active site on an enzyme, then the enzyme's entire chemical reaction may change, since it will now have to bind something else. If this enzyme is in the middle of a train of enzymes, needed to make a very specific molecule, one of the precursors cannot be made and another chemical begins to flow to that enzyme. So there is a backlog and something new in the cytoplasm. The DNA reacts to this change, sort of like something has enterred the cell. This may cause genes to unpack. These alters the protein grid, such that during the next cell cycle, the two daughter cells begin differently. It is a ripple affect, where even a little chaos, begins a non-steady state, that culminates in a brand new steady state, i.e., evolution. Once it makes up its mind, the cellular system has lowered energy, due to the higher level of molecular efficiency being restored, i.e., removes all the backlog.

Money is sort of the water, that waters the many gardens within culture. Money is very organic. Any aspect of culture can grow with this water. The purpose of this topic is to present an experiment, to determine the affects of watering the IQ and EQ (emotional quotient) with this cultural water. The angle I had in mind is best explained with a thought experiment. Say we had two men, both with an IQ of 100. One of the men has to work without resources, the other is given $1M. The problem we give them is to build a house. The man without resources may form a crude shelter out of a cardboard box. The man with the money can ask around and get himself directed to a builder, who will then use the money to build his house. After they are both done, we ask strangers who has the higher IQ. Most people would subjectivity assume the one with the nice house, that he built, has the higher IQ. Technically, he did not build anything, but sort of leased the higher IQ of others, to subjectivity boost his IQ. As an example of money and EQ, say we have two men who are both grouchy and rude. One has no resources in this experiment, and the other is given the $1M. The first person may be seen for who he is. The second man can hire someone who is willing to tell him that he is strong and misunderstood, for a day's wage. In both experiments, the objective testing may not change. But the money can cause an enhancement that appears to subjectively boosts IQ, EQ. Let us run this experiment from a slightly different angle. We start with two millionaires, both with very respectable IQ's and EQ's, who travel in similar social circles. We ask one of the millionaires, for our experiment, to pretend he lost all his money in a bad investment. The basis of this experiment is to determine whether, his objectively tested IQ, EQ, will see a subjective lowering. The odds are, if he gained any previous subjective enhancement, that would be lowered due to the bad judgement. The question is, would subjectivity cause a a further subjective lowering to below his objective IQ and EQ? For example, he may be removed from the A-list, but put on the B-list; social probation. But would being on the B-list cause a subjective lowering in his IQ, EQ, below objective measures? I presented this because it is controversial and ripe for opinions.

Color associations have been around for a long time. Ask anyone their favorite color, that answer will tell one something about their innards. The reason I discussed what I did is connected to evolution. Animals evolve based on the potentials set by their environment. One can not swap an Amazon eco-system with a sub-artic eco-system, or vice versa, since each has evolved based on that environment. A mutation for Amazon survival in the sub-arctic, would have no selective advantage. It would be aborted. The only mutations with advantage, have to work in that environment. These color associations are very ancient, due to the simple observations from which they stem, ie.., fire and water, which any human could see. In that sense, they defined the psychological environment, for 1000's of years. If genetic evolution occurred in humans, it occurred primarily within the brain, mind, etc.. The 5000 years in that environment should have favored mind modifications based on that long color environment. Favorite color can still be correlated to this long environment of traditon. Modern times is like taking an Amazon plant and putting it in a northern greenhouse. It unique characteristics remain because of its ancestry. It would take more than a few generations to make it look artic in nature.

One way to look at this is using a photography analogy. If I took a picture of an explosion, if my shutter speed was too slow, I would get motion blur. We don't exactly know the position of any fragment due to the blur. But based on the blur one can know we have momentum. If we use a shutter speed, that stops the motion, so we can know the exact position, the object looks like it is not moving. Relative to the Heisenberg Uncertainty, the shutter speed problem is caused because the electron is moving about 1/14C, so it has a different observational reference or slight SR. If we measure position from our reference, we get motion blur. If we increase the shutter speed, we can't pin point the momentum. We as scientists remain in one reference, although the equipment can generate one of two shutter speeds. As such, we can never cause one photo to show exact position and momentum. Let me give an analogy. Say we were in a train station and saw an SR train go by. It would appear distance contracted. From the point of view of the SR train, it would see the station look distance contracted. From our reference, the front of the train, with the train so contracted arrives just an instant before the middle. But from the train's reference, the front of the train is normal and arrives sooner that the center. This ambiguity is the uncertainty. One possible analogy, is a fat person behind a holographic lense, that makes him look thin. I am not being rude calling him fat. He is our good humored lab assistant, risking life and limb, taking darts in the gut for science. If we shot a dart, at the side pants pocket, of the image of our assistant in the holographic lense, we would hit the lab assistant, somewhere in the gut. What we see, is not what our assistant sees. We are using dead aim for the pocket on the image, but our assistant thinks we are purposely trying to impale him. Say we had a reference bell, that was a standard, and therefore in neither reference. We place it to the right of the holographic lense, but not in the view of the lense. If we asked out assistant to step to the right to trigger the sensor, the thin person in the lense, would need to move further. So the thin image would appear to move faster to the bell, or he would appear to get there after it was triggered, i.e., position or momentum.

Isn't the data we are discussing the time delay between gamma and the cool energy from a blackhole? If you are correct, this can not be blackhole since something is escaping. One of the conceptual misunderstandings of GR is the nature of a GR reference. If we had an SR reference, with a block of solid D2, because of the distance contraction in our reference, we would see the block appear to get skinnier. At a high enough velocity, the atomic distances would appear to look like nuclear distance, such that, based on what we see, fusion should begin. But it will not, since in the moving reference, the distances remain the same. It is still just a block of solid D2, sitting on the table in the moving or SR reference. If look at the sun, if GR was causing an SR type of reference affect, so distance contract and time slows, fusion should never occur. The heat might be there, but the D2 distances would never get close enough in the SR reference to allow the nuclear forces. We know the distances have to get smaller, or else fusion can't occur. So the GR reference does not follow the same rules as an SR reference. One will not fall forever into a blackhole, since the distances are not SR reference. The reference is the opposite, where time-distance reference, gets smaller so we can get the fast frequency and close distances needed for compaction to occur. Look at it this way, if an asteroid headed toward the GR reference of the sun, if does not slow before enterring. It accelerates the entire way, covering the last bit of distance faster than when it was farther away. That is, if we factor out friction. A black hole would have to be generating negative gravity, or have a friction affect around it, to cause a levitation so we just sit there. Here is one possible measureable example of GR reference. The core of the earth rotates faster than the perimeter. According to current GR references, it should be going slower and lingering behind, but it leads. It is not indicative of an SR reference, but sort of its reciprical. If an asteroid hit the sun, all the sun will do is vaporize it and cause it to be absorbed into the perimeter material. A blackhole can not just vaporize it. It has to compress it immediately, since the amount of space is tiny. The amount of work is much higher since it has to overcome the nuclear repulsion as well as chemical bonding and some ionization. With the blackhole also absorbing energy, it is shooting itself in the foot, since this energy would make it easier to get hot states for matter transformation. The net result is, a blackhole can only compress so much at a time.

Colors can have an affect on mood, which in turn can have an impact on recall. Traditionally, colors like red and yellow are warm colors, i.e., colors of fire, while blue and green are cool colors, i.e., colors of water. That sexy red dress has one of warm colors and is more likely to stimulate warmth or hot emotion, which then brings to mind imagery. When one has the blues, their mood is cooler. The color red of Santa Claus's suit adds warmth to the cold December chill. He also has white, which causes the emotional warmth to be more positive, where the warmth is less due to desire but love. The chimney association of Santa's entrance, is connected to the fire that warms the house. That fire leaves the house but Santa flows into the house. Yellow is associated with intuition. Red is associated with emotions. Blue is associated wth thoughts, that are as deep as the sea or high and expansive as the sky. Green is the color of nature and natural instinct. If we blend these colors, intermediate states occur. The purple robe of the king is a blend of red and blue, or emotions and thoughts; i.e., wisdom. The color orange is yellow and red or intuition and thought, i.e., intellect. The traditional color of females is pink, which is white and red; love. While the red dress and black stockings, is the earthy side of emotion. Many girls now seem to like blue, since more are interested in careers. The colors of FSN are shades of blue with some white. It is a science forum where thoughts and the positive efforts of science are important. One possible experiment would be to set the color of the room, with lighting, and see and if its traditional data association is easier to recall, when the tradtional color is present, as compared to other colors. One can even use unfamiliar words, which are explained at first, to see if the color helps people remember, when its tradtional color is present or not. For example, would impestuous be easier to rememver with red or blue. My color vision is odd in that my left eye has a slight nuiance toward red and yellow, which can only be seen by looking at white. My right eye has a slight nuiance toward the blue and greens, under the same conditions. The optical input crosses within the brain, such that my left hemisphere is projecting cooler, while my right hemisphere is projecting warmth or hot. In other words, the color nuiance is not from outside but projected from inside. When both coordinate, there is no net nuisance since they cancel.

The focus with religious discussions, are often on the unproveable aspects of God or Creationism. But on the other hand, religion has been around for a long time, so it provides a huge data set with respect to the evolution of humanity and the human mind. If you factor out the metaphysical and only look at religious motivations and its impact on history, it has a lot of fossils, which show how the human mind evolved over time. What we think today, although evolved, is only about 1% of the data. Go back even 50 years, and this modern point of view, was a little mosquito. It evolved from things before it, like human came from apes, and dinosaurs. Irronically, when it comes to human evolution, which was less physical and more emotional-intellectual, the scientific mind uses sort of a creationist's approach, thinking that its modern theories of the mind didn't logically evolve from anything that came before it. Freud and Darwin are sort of the Adam and Eve of the modern era. Religion acts more like evolutionists, when it comes to the human mind, in that they keep 5000 years of fossil data in mind, using this solid data to help them extrapolate a nice smooth curve to the present. Many religious people embrance science, since it is part of that evolution of the human mind. They also know where it all came from. It didn't begin 100 years ago. The ancient people were not us with old clothes. These dinosaurs were very different than us. Religion has good documentation of who they were and how and why these became mammals, then humans, then us. One of the modern concerns that I see, is the scientific philosphy, centered on the modern Adam and Eve, are, sort of trying to be modern by using a path that has been documented by religion to have already occurred. It would be like a scientist meeting a person who is trying to alter their genes so they could become an ape. Science would try to intercede and tell them this was a precusor state and is not the direction of forward progress. But if that person was unaware of coming from apes, it is new to them, so they think it has to be modern and more advanced. With a collective philosphy that is only 100 years old, that blanks out the past before this, anything from that past, looks brand new, so it appears to be a step forward. Religion are the human evolutionists and are trying to say it has been done. But the pseudo neo-creationists can't see that.

The two base pairs, each only have one lowest energy way to hydrogen bond. If the bases are incorrectly paired, that means the DNA double helix will have points of higher energy potential or hot zones within the double helix. I can see how UV radiation could add energy, and causes hot zones to form easier. When the UV is removed, these can't lower energy, but are stuck there. From there, it depends if the sense strand is still good. Conceptually, a faster way to find these, is to look directly for the hot zones. There will only be four possible signals with two possible good and two possible bad. This could be done at the level of H-bonding energy. Once you locate them, then the search is narrowed for the traditional gene search. One could eliminate sectors up front, allowing large DNA to be reduce to 1-10%.. One may be able to do this with a modification of NMR, where you take a nice chunk of DNA, and see if any of the characteristic peaks are there. This may not tell you where, but could be used to narrow down the amount of DNA to look at. One would have to physically make all the hot spot environments, first, to calibrate the mechanism.

Using a loose definition of life, fire has all the characteristics of life. It metabilizes organic materials. But can also eat inorganics and metals. It is able to sustain itself, as well as reproduce, as long as there is food. It can reproduce into separate entities, which can also reproduce. It can even become \a multicellular firery organism, as all the little fire cells merge into one huge firery organism. This can also reproduce, radiantly. If that isn't enough selective advantage, it can also give off tiny spores called embers, which can float in the air, land and come to life. It can dominate its environment with its many selective advantages. We can kill the firery beast with water, which is the medium used by the other forms of life on the earth. Ironically, water can also cause the beast to appear, via lightning. Human have learned to tame it, like a beast of burden. But at times, the beast still breaks free and creates havoc. I like raising little fire ponies when I go camping. They dance and sing with the sound of hisses, crackles and pops.

One of the biases of blackholes, is that matter can not excape. This has never been proven. Maybe this observation proves that blackholes are not perfect when we feed it too much. I look at a black hole this way. Say the blackhole formed from a huge star. The gravity summation is limited to the mass in that star. When matter is pulled in, it has to be compressed to extreme densities, but the blackhole gravity is sort of finite, until full compaction in its very center. It does the best it can at the perimeter, but a large asteroid made of iron, for example, is going to put up a fight and resist be compacted its finite perimeter gravity. The trash compactor temporarily ejects excess material so it can chew easier. But it still has this matter in its gravity scope, and will collect it on the next pass. This material is opague to gamma but radiates heat/light with weak energy first. But the gamma burns through, so we see it later. I remember a summer job in a corrigator plant (box cardboard with the sinewave between layers of paper). I was utility and one assignment was to clean up a bales of recycled board that had split. I had to pickfork it into this vaccum uptake, that could pull the pitchfork out of your hand. Luckily, the intake had a curve so the pitch fork couldn't take the corner. The material was being sucked up onto huge silo. I was in good shape and fed the material so fast, that I made beast choke. If the blackhole eats too much, it can also choke and has to hurl chunks. If it did not, the compression heat in the undigested matter could cause it to fluff up. It goes out of business for a while, until it is able to get back on line. Pulsars without any apparent history of a major local nova, could be a choke. It hurls chunks, until it can get the upper hand and then reforms again.

I was reading about the structure of HIV and its various genes and proteins. It is actually quite complicated but very facinating. HIV begins as RNA. It carries its own enzymes that can turn RNA into DNA and insert the DNA into the host. Its original RNA is a little messed up at first, due to a hairpin turn that makes it hard to make the DNA. But there is enough RNA exposed to make a little protein, first, that will straighten the RNA out. Then the RNA can make the DNA and insert the DNA. This inserted DNA can sit and wait, or become active, causing more of the original RNA. Many of its genes make the proteins it needs to fortify the new RNA, so it can exit, reattach and enter. When it enters, it will sacrifce its shell. While the cell is busy munching, the stuff in the middle gets down to business. HIV's outer most surface is composed, in part, of membrane material it scavenged from its previous host cell. This membrane is studded with the protein that it uses to attach to a new cell. HIV is strange in that these little surface proteins start out very long. HIV has an enzyme that cuts that long protein into a bunch of similar bite size pieces. HIV seems very well prepared. One of its biggest assets of HIV and biggest problems for researchers, is that because HIV forms DNA from RNA, it tends to be error prone. The result is the DNA can come out in a wide number of ways, causing the final RNA to mutate . Once we get a handle on one vulnerability, HIV can changes the rules of the game. The one thing I don't understand, is why the cell makes the monomers for DNA, so the HIV's RNA can form DNA. The cell is not in the cell cycle, such that DNA monomers floating around could be a problem, otherwise. RNA and DNA differ only by two minor things. The RNA has an -OH group on the pentose sugar, while DNA has -H. One of the bases of DNA differs by an -CH3 group, where RNA has an -H group. To get the DNA monomers, implies HIV causing a reduction potential within the cell or at least near where these materials are made? HIV is not fully affective at copying the RNA to DNA. Does the number of defects result from using more of the three common nucleic acids or too much of the fourth where RNA and DNA differ? Is it hard or easy to add the -CH3? Treatment Strategy The more I learn about things, the easier I can come up with ideas. Biology has so much data and observation, where to begin?? Irregardless, I think I have an HIV strategy. It is sort of an extrapolation of my final questions. The immune system cells that HIV infests, are not the type of cells that will typically divide. So what we do is remove the critical gene (enzyme) or two, which are needed to make one or more parts of the DNA monomers. Essentially we modify the host cell, and restrict it making only be able to make RNA. It doesn't ever really need to make DNA, so it should not miss what we remove. All else should be go. What this does is screw up HIV. The only thing HIV can now do, is the precursor foreplay, but it will now be unable to convert its RNA into DNA, since there are no raw materials to work with. This should cause its affect to be much more restricted within the infested cell, such that the cell may be able to figure it out, since the problem is simpler, with much lower concentrations of materials being made by the lonely HIV virus.

In my humble opinion: 1) Global warming and cooling is part of the natural cycle of the earth. This has happened many times before and will happen many times again. If this warm-up cycle is part of the earth's nature cycle, then it will not matter what human do, anymore that it did a million years ago. 2) When weathermen (women) bat 90%, locally, I will have about 50% confidence in global models. How does one expect a more complex model to be more accurate then the simpler, small scale models? It comes down to faith. I am just using common sense and rational proportion. 3) In my opinion nature is better off during global warming than cooling. Ask the prehumans during the last ice age, whether that was fun. The cool down leads to the need to readapt, which can be progressive. While the warm-up is for nature to multiple, all the new and improved lifeforms. 4) Most of the doom and gloom is sci-fi, with no direct proof. It works on the emotions, like any good form of entertainment, but lacks solid data. If they could at least, show all these things occurring during to the last major global warm-up, then it would have some credibility. There should be evidence of NY city (Manhattan) having flooded during the last warm-up. Instead it is done with sci-fi and emotional drama. 5) The affect of the CO2 is probably overblown, just like the latest data indicates the CFC's are no longer responsible for the majority of the ozone layer problems. That both follow the doom gloom text book, so I would have to assume, the same type of eventual judgment will also occur. 6) CO2 is not a hazardous material like it has been classified, since it is an output of all animals and an input of all plants, so it is natural gold. The sci-fi turned it into something that it wasn't, so the sci-fi looks real. It is like saying ice cream can spontaneously combust and can cause burns. That way we can sell them cake, since this is not subject to spontaneous combustion. 7) The green footprint movement became a joke, as soon as they came out with carbon offsets. That addendum meant only the little feet have to get greener. The big feet are allowed to trample the earth. The greenfoot movement is suppose to be a kingdom, where the royalty gets to trample the earth, with the masses willing to sacrifice and bear the burden. 8) Liberal movements try to fix one problem and end up with two. It is like taking your car to have the battery cables checked. In the process of fixing the battery cable, the mechanic slips with the screw driver and puts a hole in the radiator. Then he says, you're going to need a new radiator. 9) Finally, humans give themselves more credit that they deserve when it comes to thinking we are destroying the earth. One can not destroy the earth. It is like saying if I drop a grain of salt on the rug, I will destroy the rug. The best we can do is alter the earth; nature will adapt. Destroy the world is sort of like ice cream spontaneously combusting. It is there for emotional impact and is not suppose to be looked at rationally.

Maybe the affect is similar to sound waves. Sound will travel faster in a solid, than in a liquid and then in a gas. The longer wavelengths are seeing a favorable transmission medium for rapid transmission. The Gamma is seeing a less favorable medium for its slower transmission. This could be simply due to gamma interacting more with matter and losing time between absorption-release, until it finally leaves the medium. Say we have a steel plate. We shoot a strong laser beam at one side, to burn a hole through the plate. This takes 2 min. Before we ever see the laser light, on the other side, we will see IR, then visable energy, as the metal plate begins to glow. Finally after two minutes the laser light exists. All the energy left the lazer beam at exactly the same time. If we were 5 light minutes away from this metal plate, we would see the IR coming first, after the switch was thrown and two minutes later the laser. What that observation seems to indicates is the blackhole can also throw out very dense matter that can act as a barrier to gamma, but is able to conduct weaker energy quite easily. I am not sure what this implies in terms of materials. A blackhole is a giant intergalactic trash compactor so it should be fusing before final compaction. Some of this material may get ejected. A blackhole may be good for space dust, but feed it a good size object; squeak!!

The way I interpret is they copied the sequence of genes from another lifeform synthetically. If their copy is good, it should work as well as one made by nature. It does not create life any differently than inserting DNA from one lifeform into another. They sort of copied the Mona Lisa but didn't make an original work of art. Irregardless, this capability could come in handy, in the future. The next step would be to understand the logic of DNA. One might want a green haired reptile with big eyes. Based on the logic of DNA, we would calculate the genes and their organization, and then use the above technique to fabricate these gene sequences, like an original work of art. We know which genes do what, but the not all the logic of the ordering. If we took human DNA, and slice and diced it, and then put the puzzle of genes into another order, without losing any genes, it may not follow the logic to act the same way. It is sort of like building a bridge, one needs to set the footers and build the towers before the paving the road.

Here is how I look at the DNA. The centromere regions remains fully packed during the day to day life of the cell. This is one extreme pole of DNA's configurational potential. As we unpack the DNA, this extreme potential lowers, as the DNA unpacks further and further. Next we have the unpacked but inactive DNA, and then the unpacked and active DNA. The extreme opposite pole of the DNA, compared to the centromere, is the nucleolus. This zone of DNA contains have the longest lengths of RNA. One way to look at it, the centromere are rich in packing proteins that contain lot of postive charge. The nucleolus is rich in long lengths of negatively charged RNA. This long RNA tends to linger longer then the smaller mRNA, making the nucleolus the opposite configurational pole. If we get back to the junk genes, so to speak, since they are not needed as part of the active genes, if these get packed away, they help add a little extra to the packing pole of the DNA. These could also be collected in partial packing configurations, which are a configurational potential step down relative to the centromere. The DNA could use this to shift its configurational polarity a little closer toward the nucleolus. If we go outside the nuclear membrane, the activity in the cytoplasm sets a potential on the outside of the nuclear membrane. This can be chemical flux, as well as based on H-potential. This is the wild card variable that will have an impact on the configurational potential of DNA. It affects the bottom end of the DNA configurational polarity, i.e., active. Since the DNA is a gradient potential, shifting the bottom pole shifts both poles. It may require unpacking some new DNA to get the needed genes into the game. The top end just lost some of its impact, while the bottom end is stronger. This shift in DNA's structural polarity may then allow the nucleolus region to get larger, for the needed extra ribosome precursor production. This analysis does not preclude all the chemical affects that occur. These add fine tuning to the DNA's configurational potential. For example, when helicase attaches to the DNA, it looks for starter regions on the gene and stops at termination regions. Genes are set up with a gradient potential or else the helicase could go from A to B or B to A. Point A allows helicase to define the best equilibrium on the DNA. Point B would cause it to form a composite in nonequilibrium, which is why this means, time to leave. At the same token, just because DNA is unpacked, this does not mean that helicase has to always attach to all the starter regions, all the time. The DNA can also tweak the starter potential to make it more or less favorable. This is following is only presented as an intellectual example, the cell does not do this. If we took an active gene and moved it closer to the upper pole or centromere's potential, but not allow it to pack, its configurational potential will now be closer to that of packed genes and away from active genes, due to the impact of configurational structures on the water. This will not be a favorable equilibrium place for helicase. This is where the unpacking enzymes find their equilibrium. The presence of our unpacked DNA, being forced not to pack, may cause a local potential that affects a small zone of local packing, ie., creates nonequilibrium. The way the DNA is packed, does not allow it to release this potential, by itself. This will require an unpacking enzyme to go there, to form a composite that will, at first, allow it to define equilibrium. If we pull our original gene back toward the nuclear membrane, the change of location will now affect the newly unpacked gene. It may now define nonequilibrium and may need to repack to define equilibrium. The new place, will also affect the potential of our gene's starter zone, causing helicase to return, since it is able to form an equilibrium composite. I realize this is oversimplified but one has to crawl before they can run.

The living state appears to have too many variables to make the math easy. Say there were twelve forces of nature instead of four, the physics math would get extremely complex, such that experimental empiricsm might be a faster approach. Those able to follow the mathematics would be few in number, making it harder to teach and transfer this skill. Statistical math is useful when there are too many variables to express the math with cause and affect equations. For example, say we had a crowd of people. The person at one end has story to tell to the person at the other end, but the crowd is very dense. So he passes the story to the first adjacent person, who then passes it on, etc., until it reaches the final person. By then the story has been modified. To mathamatically model this, every person in the chain needs to be one of the variables. But each person is a complex system with their own unknown variables. Statistics compares input to output to get an average result, with relative ease. But the problem with statistical math, it doesn't really tell one how the data was massaged along the way, but only the final result of all the massaging. Some people could be embellishing the story, while others are downplaying the embellishment. If the final result comes out only slightly embellished, one may not know, at one point, it was more embellished. Not knowing this internal data, can cause one to draw conclusions, which are perfect with respect to input-output data, but not with respect to the path of the migration. If this input-output conclusion becomes standardized, with the premse a little off, other rational extrapolations don't fully add up, creating the impression things are far more chaotic. One gets pigeon holed into statisical analysis, since the apparent number of variables increases due to the input-output assumptions. Biology needs is an approach that can reduce the number of variables so the analysis is simple enough, to where more people are able to use math beyond statistics. It takes an attitude of what things have in common instead of how they are different. How things differ adds more variables. Whereas how they are the same, reduces the number of variables. If we had a group of people, one could narrow this group down, to what they have in common. Or one can assess how each person is unique. If our need is to determine how this group, will act as a group, common features make the analysis easier. If one is trying to model the cell, looking for a common thread, or two, makes it easier to rationally explain bulk dynamics over a wide range. If we focus, instead, on the uniqueness of each individual thing, the variables get too numerous. For example, our crowd are all Red Sox fans. Now I can predict how they will react to the ebb and flow of the baseball game. If I focused on uniqueness, I would feel the need to include that fact that Jane has brown hair, a cell phone, and is wearing a green blouse. So if someone predicts she will cheer for a homerun; what about her brown hair? Brown hair girls may be less flamboyant, than a blond, and this will have somewhat of an impact. This variable appears necessary even though it is not essential. But to factor that out, we might have to go back and use statistics since we just made the analysis way to complicated for causual math. I see this contrast between commonness-differences, the philosophical problem, faced by the H-potential model. This is a common thread approach, but the analysis is a conceptual framework at this point. It can't take into account, the observation that Jane has a tatoo on her right shoulder and a toe ring on the left foot. That would be possible later, after the framework is scientifically set and it is time to start fluffing it up.