pioneer

I would like to help you ,Tearfeather but the nomenclature is a foreign language to me. I can visualize chemicals structures much easier. The best approach for making transitional cells, from stable cells, is to think in terms of hydrogen bonding. Any DNA differentiation, in terms of its active packed and unpacked shape and content, implies a different hydrogen potential configuration. The protein grid creates a H-potential capacitance, which parallels this, which causes the DNA configuration to maintain a steady state default, with some tweak, flexibility. That is how daughter cells reset the DNA. The protein grid makes the chromosomes default toward the equilibrium shape. One simple technique for making transition cells, is to add the nucleus of one cell differentiation, into the protein grid of another cell differentiation. The result will be a configurational H-potential between the nucleus and the odd protein grid, with the system trying to reach a steady state. The trick is to use the two extreme H-potential states (differentiations). This gives us the widest bandwidth and the most time for manipulation. If you look at stems cells advancing toward differentiated cells, the stem cells use the same principle of the nucleus and the protein grid being out of synch. The protein grid is seeing the input affect of neighboring cells, and is always one step ahead of the DNA. Eventually steady state forms, with both the DNA and the protein grid finally on the same page. At that point, we need to change partners to reset the nonequilibrium.

Tailoring drugs to race is the first logical step toward tailoring drugs to the individual. There is no one medicine, which works as affectively, and at the same dose, for all people. The current approach makes, a one size fits all, with the hope that everyone is a size 10. But there are all sizes. The same is true for laws against controlled substances which are shown to adversely affect health. Law is also metered out, as a one size fits all, rather than a spectrum, where risks assessments are characterized to the individual. From a practical point of view, there are two social forces that make the ideal, of tailored medicine and tailored prohibiiton, much more difficult. Political correctness is one social force, that pitches one size fits all. One is not allowed to focus on differences, but needs to assume uniformity. For the good stuff we are all the same. For the bad stuff we are all the same. The paradox is, if we are all the same, why do only certain people make these decisions for all. Doesn't that imply that difference exist? The other social force is, statistical research is very cumbersome. Because it can lead to conflicting studies or allows fixing the game, FDA approval often takes years, until the slight of hand is sufficiently filtered out. So if we made a skin medicine, tailored to Mary, it would takes years to get to her and would end up costing about $10M for a 4oz jar. The state of the art needs to upgrade to rational approach, that can speed up the entire process. Statistical medicine is just too expensive to implement beyond a one size fits all approach, without esculating the costs of medical care.

When male gamete cell's replicate and divide into sperm cells, we begin two complete sets of male chromosomes. These become halved, to form four sperm cells. Does this mean only half the sperm have the Y? Or do the Y also divide, to form four half-male sperm? Or are all combinations possible, such that we get male sperm, neutral sperm and gay sperm? Then is it off to the races, with one type having the highest energy? If the distribution is highly skewed could crowding alter the logical outcome? It is sort of like if the faster runner is at the back of the Boston Marathon, it can get boxed in, allowing slower runners to get to the finish first.

I was using the conservation of energy. One could make this example fancier by subtracting heat due to friction to recalculate the final kinetic energy. The same analysis could be done with momentum, with the total momentum conserved. The final mass is higher so velocity lowers. If our train track was like a roller coaster ride, with hills and valleys, one could also subtract or add, the potential energy of the gravity, to get the more instantaneous velocity, as the rain accumulates in the train. If we start to add turns, since the water is fluid, its momentum will keep going forward while the more solid train corners. If the water didn't spill, we would have to reaccelerate the water into a new direction, causing some of the kinetic energy to be used up, to become the gravity potential within the waves that we would create. This would settle as heat. The conservation of energy makes it easier to scale up to complexity.

Matter and anti-matter is a misnomer, since both have the same type of positive mass. The only difference are the charges are swapped. The result of a matter blackhole, pulling in antimatter, would be to compress the reference of the anti-matter, until they become run-of-the-mill neutrons. These would then be further compressed into the blackhole. The blackhole is magnifying the local space-time reference into the reference needed to make higher and higher energy states of matter. That means information going into the blackhole will be compressed beyond recovery. If one could decompress the reference, one would make atoms again, but they would all be random, needing to reform from scratch. It is sort of like putting your hardrive into an auto compactor at the junk yard. We would have to melt it down, refabricate it, and then reprogram it. Even energy will be blueshifted. So if we start out with a radiowave signal to transfer the information, we end up with gamma rays, which is not a very useful way to transfer information with matter, since it tends to be very destructive. If we red shift that, it is nothing but noise. The fact that there is a debate whether information is conserved suggests that the assumption of what a blackhole reference is, is incorrect. It does not have a SR type reference. If it did, gravity would change reference without matter ever changing physical properties, such as on a rocket travelling close to C, where the laws of physics would stay the same. This is not what occurs. Gravity changes the physical properties, because the matter is brought physically closer. This allows fusion and other things. For example, if one had a block of solid D2 on an SR reference, the information of that state of matter would be conserved. If we place it into the high gravity of the sun, it would fuse and disrupt the info. The solid D2state may never exist again, if higher atoms begin to form. We can still make solid D2, but it would have to be done from scratch. We many have to start with atomic disentegration and built up from there.

I heard about this on the TV and thought it was a good example of good statistical studies leading to irrational results that will be overturned with the next set of studies. The reason I say that, statistical studies are based on a blackbox, where we measure input and output and then create a correlation. But not knowing what is in the blackbox typically leads to short term hype followed by another study that will say the opposite. When I thought about this, I came up with the perfect analogy to describe how something mathematically valid can still lead to the wrong conclusions. For the blackbox in this study, we are going to use a soda machine. Our inputs are coins or paper money, and our output are cans of soda. Since it is a blackbox, we don't need to know what is going on inside to be able to run this statistical experiment. Based on this scientific study, coins are 50% more likely to produce a soda can on the first try. This is a blackbox study that needs to stay closed. If we had opened it instead, we would have seen the paper money scanner needs the money in 1 of 4 orientations, no folds and not to wrinkled. Based on our blackbox data, one possible theory for why coins output more soda cans on the first try is, metal-attracts metal, which is why coins output soda "cans", with a higher level of reliability. Based on the scientific data and the black box, that is not a bad theory. If we could look inside the blackbox, one could refute this, but the blackbox rules in such studies. The next study, decides to strengthen this theory by assuming since metal helps metal, than maybe paper money does better with plastic soda bottles, since they are both based on carbon. After that set of experiments, the opposite occurs. The coins are actually 51% better for plastic??? This study concludes, it is not "like attracting like", but an oil and water affect, where the metal repels plastic so they come out better. The 1% is within the margin of error so we keep both theories. In real science, the rational theory comes first, then you run the experients to prove your line of reasoning. Nobody would have come up with metal coins attracting metal soda cans and then to try to run that experient. But with blackbox studies, one can come up with anything since one only correlates input-output data, and reasons later. Relative to the alcohol study, the next will show alchohol repels plastic soda bottles.

The environment is important for determining which mutations will have any value for selective advantage and evolution. An easy experiment to prove this, is to switch a couple of eco-systems. We will move a sub artic eco-system to the Amazon and vice versa. Neither eco-system will be equiped to deal with those new environments, because each environment set constraints for determining which mutations had selective value. Inspite of that, if we look at the basic features, of both sets of plants and animals, there are certain features that still both have in common. All the animals will have one head and two eyes. All the plants have roots and leaves. Both have creatures that fly. The single heart is common to all the animals, etc., These are not environmentally based. They appear to be a logical DNA extrapolation not based on mutations. In other words, the DNA defines a type of molecular potential, which lines genes into a default schema. This basic schema is what mutates within an environment. For example, a two headed animal could have many selective advantages. While one head eats, the other can be on guard, allowing it to escape. The two-headed animal would be better in a fight. It has two sets of teeth and can attack its opponent from two angles at the same time. Although this is a monstrosity, protypes do occur in nature, which shows the genetics can sort of simulate it. Yet, DNA defaulted to one head inspite of random mutations and the possible selective advantage of this strange animal. One may argue that maybe the two heads led to conflicting reactions. One wants to go left and the other right. But selective advantage would cause the two-headed animals that coordinates the best, to get stronger. This suggests, the DNA, by its molecular nature, will produce certain default life structures. When animals ended up with four legs, this was a DNA default. Two legs and two arms was also a default setting. One way to look at it is to use a chemistry analogy. Diamond is a form of carbon that has a tetrahedral structure. This is a default pattern based on the chemical orbtal structure of C, at very particular conditions. If the conditions are not proper for diamond, another default is graphite. If the conditions are not correct for this, then we get carbon soot, etc., If we look at the DNA, as a molecule, lower lifeforms have more variety, i.e., soot, char, charcoal, etc. As it advances we get some graphite and then some diamond. DNA will not form structures like salt crystals, i.e.. two headed animal, because it configurational potential defines defaults.

In ancient times, rape was part of the war drama. The winning team could further disrupt the losing culture, with foreign offspring. The losing culture ends up with a generation of half-breed children, which makes it harder for them to recouperate, making it much easier for the winning team to keep the culture off balance. One also needs to consider war/rape from the point of view of procreation. War is hell, with blood and death all around, even inside one's very being. Whether one witnessed death, or had to participate in the death of others, the idea of life having almost expired, may create an imperative to breed. It just so happens the females available are from the enemy. Plants make their seeds, late in the season, just before the plant's death. Rape would spare the lives of many of the enemy females. The males release their war rage/fear of death, through the creation of life, such that many females would be spared to allow them to raise the children. Although the mother was accepted, as a causualty of war, her child would face tough times, being a half-breed without a fixed cultural identity.

There are two time distortion affects. One is where time appears to slow down, during critical events, such as war, accidents or close calls. There is also the opposite affect, where "time flies when you are having fun" or time appears to speed up, such that hours can go by, and we feel like we have been at it, for a much shorter period of time. When time slows down, this is usually associated with some extreme state of stress. When time speed up, this is usually associated with the opposite, or a state of enjoyment. The first is trying to avoid something and the second is in a state of fully embracing whatever gives us the enjoyment. The first is a differential type of affect, while the latter is an integral affect. This would suggest the left and right hemispheres playing a role in how we perceive time. If we go into a pure left hemisphere affect, time gets highly differentiated, i.e., slows. If we go into a purely right hemipshere affect, time gets highly integrated, i.e., speeds up. For the most part, we use both sides of the brain, at the same time, so the two affects cancel. There is an old bible saying, "Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom." From a time perception point of view, this culturally induced perpetual fear, would cause time to slow down more often, i.e., an accident always about to happen. This would allow the ancient people to become more aware of subtle things, that might cause them to unknowingly make the wrong call. The result was the left hemisphere got a better workout, compared to a free spirited nature child, where time flies in paradise. For example, if you asked someone what happened in those 2 seconds before they had the accident, they can do into a lot of detail. Ask the person playing the video game for three hours, having fun, they may summarize those three hours with about the same number of words. The fear of God, in ancient time increased the left hemisphere work-out. It made the day drag by, requiring culture help fill in time with activities. If one could find their joy, then they could return to right side paradise.

Since the rain is falling downward, vertically, and not adding any horizontal force, the addition of the rain, will simply add mass to the train, such that the total mass will increase. If we assume the kinetic energy is conserved, one divides the original knientic energy, by the total mass (rain plus train), and resolves the equation for the new velocity. One way to see what is happening, the rain has no horizontal velocity component when it enters the train. When it enters the train, we need to accelerate this rain up to train speed. Some of the train's kinetic energy will go into the rain, for that acceleration, lowering the original energy of the train. The total kinetic energy will be the same, only now it is distributed in both the train and the rain, causing the combo to go slower.

Change of state, used for measuring time, can also occur, without the use of distance. If we had a light flashing, on-off, but fixed in position, one can also use that to measure time. One may say, we still use distance, because the energy coming from the light has wavelength. But the flash does not change the distance of the wavelength. The only part of the cycle where energy is given off, is when the light is on. If time always had to include distance, in some form or another, that would imply during the off cycle, since no energy or wavelength or distance is being expressed, time would stop. I used to use a variable called time potential, that would express all situations where time and distance are occuring at the same time. When the flash is in the off cycle, no time potential is being expressed. The reference time will still lapse, in this example, but without time potential. The time potential is being conserved until it is expressed again during the next on cycle.

The entropy change for cancer, is one cell inputting small materials. with higher level of disorderring. It then orders these into proteins, DNA and RNA to form another daughter cell. The difference between mother and daughter state doesn't change much entropy. But from small food molecules to another daughter cell, the change of entropy is quite high. If you look cancer within the human body, it stems from cells that are part of a multicellular organism. Each cell type is differentiated, which limits which genes are used. The cancer has all the genes needed to make a basic multicellular lifeform, but stays as a single cellular entity. If it could shuffle the working genes, into those used by a lymphocyte, then the cancer would become a viable lifeform. Cancer has all the genes, needed to be a viable single or multicellular lifeform. But genes alone, is not enough. It needs to get the genes to change their differentiation to become alive. Potential genetic advancements can lie dormant, unless these genes are able to find their way into the active genetic grid. My long ramble about selective advantage was trying to show how selective advancement doesn't always have to coordinate with the most progressive genetic state. Let me give an example, say there was a group of tough dinosaurs. Genetic advances that give selective advantage may need to be connected to making dino offspring bigger, stronger, faster, damage resistant, etc. Say one of the dino's offspring mutated a semi-advanced voice box, that allowed him to generate a more advanced array of sounds. Although this is advanced genetically, and could lead to language improvements, this behavior will be odd to the rest. He is the ugly duckling, that the dominant member may need to kill. He would have been better off with a simple genetic improvement, such as a thicker skull, in that particular environment. Selective advantage does not always go to the best genetic improvements, unless these happen to be useful in that environment. Here is an interesting thought, how about a president's exam. The person with the highest overall score in intelligence, ingenuity, statemanship, etc., becomes the president for the next four years. This would be closer to using a genetic type criteria to define who has top selective advantage. Current selective advantage would never let this happen, since many in power may not be among the final contestants. Currently, we are asked to pick among smooth talking entertainer types. I am not saying he/she who becomes president, from this batch, are not qualified. Only they are the most qualified in the environment, created by the current selective advantage. The genetic choice would have to alter the environment, so that person could gain even more selective advantage. But the current selective advantage would resist. It would be an interesting polarization between genetics and selective advantage for dominance. Genetics would only have the power of the presidency protecting it from extinction. But with that singular selective advantage pinacle, genetics may overcome. It is sort of like the dino example, with a huge neighboring Dino (power of the presidency) , saying, " I like the odd noises that little dino makes. If anyone touches him, I will deal with them personally. All the other dino's, will hate this at first. But as the new noises starts to grow on them, they begin to distiquish the sounds and learn to make their own sounds. Before long, this is the way of the future. Genetics just needed an intersession.

The cancer exists as long as its environment is able to support it. If a human was placed in the desert, and was not adapted to it, he would not be lifeform for long, either. I am not pro-cancer or anything, but cancer is like many lifeforms, having become specialized to an environment. As long as its human eco-system is stable, it prospers and multiplies. It also has a selective advantage, within the human eco-system. If we didn't interceed for the weaker cells, it would dominate the environment. It has the genetic change, plus selective advantage, criteria for evolution, if one assumes an amoeba is as evolved as a human being. Multicellular is rated higher, which is why we fight cancer and not delight in its strength. Cancer is an example of a genetic change with a very distinct selective advantage, both working together, leading to a de-evolutionary state. The genetic-selective advantage criteria is a two edge sword. The combo can imply forward or backwards progress. It depends on the environment. One could argue that although evolution moves forward over time, selective advantage can act as much as a drag as it can a pull. As a human example, monarchies are often portrayed as good blood lines, which was the old way of saying good genetics, before we called it genetics. They knew it was due to the breeding process. Yet this selective advantage, was often a drag on the progression of humanity. It could, at times, be a cancer, that would eat a culture into extinction. Monarchies were able to set up an environment, that gave them selective advantage. This could have required keeping the people poor, hungry, tired, uneducated and afraid. It is very likely, that better genetics were among the subjects, due to less inbreeding, but the environment was designed, by the king, to give selective advantage to the king. It is possible, since human can alter the environment to favor themselves, genetics and selective advantage will often break down, except in very long term cycles. Hstory shows a gradual progress inspite of the constant drag, due to selective advantage not always equaling evolution. A classic example was Copernicus. He could prove the earth went around the sun. This should have been placed him at selective advantage. But the environment resulted in him being detained until his death bed. This would have alterred the environment, such that those who had selective advantage in the old environment, had an uncertain future. The choice was to keep the environment the same and let evolution wait. This is probably why evolution is so slow. Genetics is often the pawn in the selective advantage game of chess.

The easiest is store bought peroxide (hydrogen peroxide) and any type of weak acid. One can use a drop of lemon juice in water for citric acid. If you prefer limes, oranges, strawberries, grapes, apples, almost any of these will work, and will also add a little fruit fragrance to the O2. They all contain any one, or a combination of, citric, maleic or lactic acids. I used to make fruits wines years ago, and these are also slightly acidic. Here is the marketing slogan; Fruit-O2. Anyone is welcome to this idea. Who knows maybe someone can become the new O2 mogul. Don't drink or it will give you gas, simply smell it, for that O2 blast.

On the train reference, not looking out the window, the train appears like it is the same, as it was, when it was sitting at zero velocity. If one looked out its window, it will look like the train station got skinny. If it flashed its front light, exactly at the censor, in its reference, it would expect we would know the front of the train was at that point at that time. But from our stationary reference, we will see the train looking distance contracted. It will appear like the entire train has narrowed. To maintain a sense of proportion, it will narrow relative to its center point. The result is that although the train has actually triggered the censor, it will look like this skinny train, has not yet reached the censor. What happens is sort of analogous to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. One can either know position or momentum but not both. Or we can know, by its calculated speed, it should have triggered the censor (momentum), but the distance contraction will make it uncertain where the front of the train is. If the light was in the dead center of the length of the train, then the distance contraction will shink into this center, allowing the momentum-position to coordinate. A good analogy is a have a fat person stand behind a large lense that makes them look really skinny. Next, using dead aim, fire a bullet at the flag dangling on the side of his belt. Based on the lense, we would hit the fat guy in side, because his real position behind the lense is uncertain. If we are told to aim for hardened target on its his belly button, we would hit it, since the center is not dependant on the type of lense we use. If we told the fat guy to take a step sideways, to hit a bell with his hip, the skinny image would look like it still has to move a little further, but the bell already rang. The relativity lense will mess with our expections.

An amino group and a carboxyl group are common to all amino acids. These two groups react, between two different animo acids, to form the peptide linkage. With two animo acids stuck together, we still have an animo on one side and the carboxyl on the opposite side of the two. These are also reactive with other animo acids. The result are long polymer molecules; proteins. The animo acids link like the cars of a protein train. The R- groups are the 20 different types of side chains that stick out of side of each amino acid. Some of these are short, some are long, some have negative charge, some have postive charge, others are organic with no charge, other are organic with resonance structures. When the protein train forms, it is like a long string, with all different sized -R strings sticking out sideways, close to each peptide bond. Near the peptide bond, there is also hydrogen bonding hydrogen. These will turn the long protein string into a helix. While all the -R side strings, using their own weak secondary bonding forces, also try to attract. The final shape, depends on the -R groups. Some proteins look like long helixes, while some end up looking like very large, odd, 3-D shapes. In cells, the protein chains are made from RNA templates. As the protein train comes off the template, is sort of like a long string of tickets that one may try to win at an arcade. As the first tickets come out, they start to get their helix twist, at the same time, the R- groups pull and tug for their shape affect. This sort of starts a snowball affect, that the rest of the protein train further builds upon. When these snowballs are released, they rest a spell, so their structures can fine tune. The rest is sort of like an oven, where they are subjected to H-potential. When fully baked, the cell transports them to their proper place, all shiny and new.

That is fine. I was using this example to contrast SR to GR or gravity. A reciprical of SR appears to work fairly well, conceptually to explain GR reference. Here is some new thinking off the top of the head. At V=C, with SR the relativistic mass/energy would have to be infinite. With the black hole, the reciprical would imply zero relativistic mass-energy. There is no space-time left for virtual mass-energy. There is no exchange in void space because there is no space-time left. All we have is the real thing compressed into a point-instant reference. This does not necessarily mean, the blackhole only has one point, just all points in that zone need to occupy the same point-instant reference. Or the behavior within the entire zone, is the same for all the point-instants. The reason I say multiple point-instants, I remember reading that super particles have an upper energy limit. Maybe each of these occupies one point with the point-instant reference, inside the center of a blackhole. This allows us to rank blackholes, with rank based on how many points it has collected in its point-instant reference. It only needs one to qualify, after that its point-instant refernence gets more points. I know this sounds strange, but a point-instant reference should be able to exist as continuum, just like any other form of reference. That is consistent with the primordial atom having size, with all its point instants existing within the reference of a point-instant continuum. This reference was huge by point-instant standards, about the size of a grape. All we need is SR is expand the space-time reference for virtual mass-energy.

This is a can of worms that political correctness opened up. The premise is we are all babies, unable to cope with anything that hurts our feelings. If your feelings are hurt, seek a lawyer, and we will punish the bully. Although I think the students were out of line, the religious right are learning to play by the same game, the liberals have been using for decades. It is easier to see how silly it is when someone else is doing it, who is normally the type of person that sits and takes it. If the teacher put an x-mass tree on their desk, all heck would break loose. Technically, the separation of church and state cuts two ways. It not only prevents the state from forcing religion, but it also protect religion from the state. The teacher represented the state and was an example of the state taking away rights of a religion, by negating it, with public funding. That is why those who preach anti-religion, on the public tab, are just as vulnerable, as a religious person pushing their view, on the public tab. The religous right never used this angle to fight back, until now. The liberals have successfully turned mature adults into emotional babies. This new generation of conservo-babies, have just cut their first tooth.

Gold has an almost a perfect balance between the proton's in the nucleus and the electrons in its orbitals, which makes gold very inert. It has little chemical affinity for materials like glass. Gold is also the most malleable element, able to be beaten thinner than a hair. This property is connected to the inert nature of gold. Gold is so stable, it has little need to lower energy further by forming large crystals. This allows us to beat the gold thinning and thinner before fracture. Usually, we tear it, since it is not very strong due to the moderately weak bonding between the atoms in metallic gold. It is a very soft metal. One way to simulate gold leaf, is to use fine metal powders within acrylic suspensions. (Metal Affects Paints by Modern Masters Co.). Basically spray paint, a thin 1-2ml coat on teflon, HDPE or glass and then peal it off. You can make complex cutout shapes using masking tape and an exacto-knife. A little heat from a hairdrier can to make it easier to pell off. If you wish to decorate a say a glass with a gold rim, mask off the design. Use a thin coat of a bonding primer to stick to the glass and then spray the metal. Some of these metal paints are reactive metals, that allow you to create the look of tarnished copper, rust, etc. This is done using an acid solution that promote rapid oxidation. One can make a new vase look like it has been sitting the ground for centuries. I hope that is what you had in mind at a fraction of the cost of using gold.

As an example, K is larger and heavier than Na. The K is more reactive than Na, because the Na will hold its final electron a little tighter. One part of the explanation has to do with the larger size of K. This causes this last electron to be a little further from the nucleus. The EM force potential decreases with distance. The second part, is connected to the extra positive charge of the larger K, relative to Na, causes K's inner electrons to be pulled in closer. This closeness better shields the outer electrons, so K last electron isn't held as tightly.

Could enough global warming act as a buffer against the possible nuclear winter caused by an asteroid collision? Using the current political climate, say the collision was going to occur in 10 years, so we decide we need to stop global warming. The temperature finally starts to fall, everyone is happy, then, " bang!" Oh crap, it got a just a little too cool. If the global temperature was warmer, there would be far more water in the atmosphere. This would allow the fine dust to clump so it is able to get heavier and fall to the earth. This could shorten the nuclear winter. If the oceans were bigger, this increases the odds the asteroid will strike water and make less dust or add more water with the dust. There may be a temperature, where the asteroid simply creates a balance that lowers the temperature to perfect. If the asteroid makes the right size hole, this could lower the oceans to where coastal cities become more inland. The extra ocean water due to global warming may align them better. I am just messing around. The catatrophic odds are low across the boards.

The only reason the New York Times made a correction, using an oversight statement, is they got caught. Let's use a little common sense. Obviously, this add was guarenteed to create controversary. This was calculated to sell newspapers, since people would want to see for themselves. But to buffer themselves, from being part of their own news-publicity creation scam, they worked out a deal. The deal was found out and they used the old scape goat in the newspaper trick. If the Democrats had been able to run with this, and turn the tide of public opinion, then they would have been able to handle this in a different way. These pin heads are out of touch with the mainstream, which is why subscription is down. I am under the impression the Democrats have no leadership abilities. They are, though, the masters of gossip and soap opera. I am assuming there are counting on enough women and children to fall for this. I am not saying the Repulicans are perfect. But it is hard to function properly when one is surronded by a nagging political party that specializes in gossip. They have no sense of values, so they are not afraid to do what is needed. There should be an investigation into the NY Times to see the political connections. This won't happen since the Republicans don't want gossip, and Democrats are ready, with a new pile of mud, to make sure. The lack of real political leadership is why this is a do nothing Congress. Good leadership is able to make the compromises needed to get things done. One can not expect all, or nothing at all, and then use gossip, to call the other person names, because they wouldn't give you the store. If there was a Democratic president, congress and senate, then they would try to ram rod through policy. This policy will not hold up to rational debate. The puppet masters need to pull all the strings, unchallenged. I get the impression the Democrats want a Monarchy of celebrity, with one party being the intellectual ruling class, for the rest of the naive riff-raff. My advice to the Democrats is to raise their bar of standards. They have some good ideas, but are spending too much time entertaining. This is a good time to work out a mud slinging cease fire with the Republicans. They should also use this time as an opportunity to evolve their ideas, using constructive feedback of debate, so when it is closer to election, these ideas will be in advanced version 1.4 instead of 1.0. There is nothing wrong with shifting ones mind, if it is due to progressing understanding. The Democrats may have coined this as, wishy washy, but it is smarter than bull-headed pride. The voters will know the difference at election. The naive riff-raff is a little more on the ball then the Democrats think. They will know the difference between a TV polititian and a leader.

Another way to look at mythology, is not to look at it literally, but figuratively and/or symbolically. For example, the fable of the tortoise and the hare. Obviously, these were not magic animals who could talk, nor did they compete in a race put together by the odds makers in Vegas. But it teaches a lesson, comparing stick-to-itness, to someone who gets all pumped up and plows into something and then loses interest. The hare gets way out in front, gets confortable/bored and then starts to slack. The tortoise, although slow catches up. The lesson is similar in meaning to the bright star burns brightly, for all to see, but soon fades. The weaker star is not so impressive, but in the end it is the one that still remains. The reason mythology and fables were affective, they taught life lessons without getting too personal. They got the point across without directly confronting the ego. In other words, if you said to the bright star, you will burn out if you don't slow down, the person may take that common sense advice, as an insult. If you say the hare got ahead and started to slack, it is nothing personal. This doesn't impact the human ego the same way but leads one to water, or to the understanding, one needs to stick to it. One classic example, is the fantasy world or mytholgy in Gulliver's travels. It is totally fictional with many lands of make believe. But what the author was doing was creating a satire about the people of his day. All the little Lilliputians were the people, who thought they were so powerful and important. The author could not confront the status quo of the day, directly. He had to create a make believe mythological place, that got the message across. Everyone was able to think about his message, without having to worry about the backlash from the insecure egos, going into denial. Religious mythology is not as subtle, but often confronts the ego headon. Harry Potter is very popular, yet where are the rationalist, there. They need to be consistent and debunk this, so children don't learn fantasy. The reason we do not try to debunk these myths, it has a postive impact on many children, inspite of being a modern system of mythology. It teaches lesson of good and evil, with the good of love and friendship, winning in the end. The darkside does good near the beginning. It is like the hare that starts out so quickly, only to be overcome in the end.

Lets change this a little. Say we have a block of solid deuterium on a table in that ship. If we were traveling fast enough, the earth reference would see this block distance contracted. In the limit, within the zero reference, it would looked like the deuterium atoms are close enough for fusion. Yet on the ship, it is still just block of solid deuterium. This cuts to the heart of the confusion with gravity reference. If the gravity reference was the same type of affect as the SR reference, the deuterium should never be able to get physically close enough to fuse. From our earth reference, all systems would appear go, but if the GR=SR reference was true, the solid block will stay just like it was. The fact, that the distances do indeed get physically smaller inside the center of a star, implies another type of reference affect that is not the same as SR. This reference is actually closer to the zero reference, since the needed distances, we measure for the nuke forces, under low gravity, is what is needed to occur at high gravity. The only real difference is the gravity reference within the star displays an extended reference, that we can only see piecemeal (atom to atom) in our reference. The net affect is that gravity creates a magnification reference, that makes the nuclear distance-time reference, the overall reference for everything in that space. In other words, if one is traveling near C using SR, they will stay the same. If one could hold a bungie cord, so one had the same uniform velocity, while falling into the blackhole, i.e, cancel out acceleration, they would be squished into the local microscopic reference. There would be nothing left to you but highly packed material. If you came out the other side, you would be nothing but sub-particles in a hot material stream. Look at this from a practical level. The distances are very close and the time scale associated with nuclear reactions are very fast, as evident in the very high frquency energy, such as gamma that is given off. The affect is not distance contraction and time dilation, but distance-time expansion where all the affects go faster than in the zero reference. In the solar fusion reference of tiny distances and times, it looks like humans are huge and never appear to change based on our reference time scales. The GR reference acts more like the reciprical of the SR reference affect. Say we had a relativistic ship that is falling into a gravity field but with uniform velocity. The total reference affect would be SR and GR=1/SRg. If the two are balanced, one could end up back at zero reference, even if one was still moving near C, due to the high microscope gravity affect.

One way to look at this EM affect is to compare the beginning and the final state. A free hydrogen proton may have little magnetic affect, but if it can secure a spot among the orbitals of a molecule, the magnetic affect plays a role in stablizing the final charge. The stability difference between the initial and final state is the potential. I will need to go to the physics section of the forum to iron out the wave-particle nature of the electron in orbitals. That is a very formal way to look at this. But in less formal chemical terms, in neutral water, the H20 has the affect of increasing the oxidation rate of O2, relative to O2 in air. The H2O is causing the O2 to become more affective at taking electrons. The water is acting like a catalyst, that is helping the O2 and Fe, climb the activation energy hill, leading to the oxidation. Irregardless of the mechanism, this implies the water is exerting an electrophilic affect. This is how one pulls things up the activation energy hill. If we increase the pH, the rate of oxidation falls. What we are adding is -OH which is nucleophilic, which cancels out the electrophilic catalyst. It does not change the affect of the negative dipole of H2O, but adds to this affect. It only takes away the potential of the positive or H side of the H2O. If we decrease the pH, we are adding extra electrophilic H+, thereby making the H2O catalysts far more affective, due to the addition of H3O+. The amount of O2 that can dissolve in water will increase with increasing pH. While the amount of O2 that can dissolve in water will decrease with decreasing pH. With an acid, although the amount of O2 is lower, the corrosion rate is higher. While with a base, although the amount of O2 is higher, the corrosion rate is lower. The corrosion affect is inversely dependant on the amount of O2. So it is not the O2 concentration that is of primary importance. It how we tweak the electrophilic potential of neutral H2O, which implies the hydrogen. This data provides a way to calculate the H-potential (electrophic) of liquid water. If the catalytic potential was equally distributed over the dipole of water, it should not matter whether we add acid or base. The base should have the advantage of the higher O2 concentration, but the opposite occurs. The catalytic affect of neutral water (electrophilic) is connected to the H. I seem to be knit picking but the implications of H2O, having a lopsided potential within its dipole, which is electrophilic, i.e., H-potential, has a lot of very important implications. The life science theory needs total update. The observational data is still good, but it needs total reinterpretation. One is not looking at some charge neutral affect, when dealing with H-bonds, but with a lopsided electrophilic affect. One can not honestly look at DNA, RNA and proteins in the same way again. The extra H along the DNA double helix are not there for decorations. They generate potential. Addendum An EM explanation may be more complicated than is needed. The idea of H being induced to have a electrophilic potential by the O of water may be sufficient. The O does not end up with an equal/opposite nucleophilic potential, since the high electronegativity of O allows the O to stabilize its electrons. This lopsided potential is evident in the cataylic affect of H2O on liquid phase oxidation using O2. The reason this oxidation analysis is important, is that it deals with the very atoms that are used as the standards of chemical analysis. Oxidation and reduction are based on the O and H standard, as are pH. Water is then used as our standarized reference media. Neutral water still acts as an electrophilic catalyst. It is not a neutral affect that one would expect from balanced potential, where one affect cancels the other. If you look at liquid water, it is highly hydrogen bonded. A neutral dipole affect has the means to neutralize potential. But inspite of hydrogen bonding, the water still acts with an electrophilc affect. Even with H-bonds, the neutral pH affect still occurs. This is due to the O also displaying an electrophilic affect for the electrons in its water molecule. For simplicity, if we normalize the electrophilic affect of water, relative to the O and H, the net affect is what I refer to as the H-potential. If we look at H bonding H, as a first approximation, the H carries the burden of an electrophilic potential for the electronegative atom-H (EA-H) combo. The H needs to H-bond to another highly electronegative atoms, to reduce that potential. But it can never really zero out, since these bonds will display partial covalent character, allowing the more electronetative atom to reassert its higher electronegativity and then pass some of the burden back. The H-bonding within water, causes the H-bond energy to get stronger and strong due to this pass the buck affect. When we start to retranslate the life science data, if one assumes the H is essentially on its own, trying to its lower it electrophilic potential, in a world of highly electronegative atoms, who will try to shift the burden back, we end up with life molecules maintaining electrophilic potential. The dipole does not cancel out, but shifts the burden to the H. Water is a poor conductor of electrons. The O is too electronegative. The way water conducts potential is through the potential in the H. The electrophilic potential of the H is everywhere. They are all on their own, but are also connected, so that the overall H-potential is minimized. The potential can never really go away 100%. The living state keeps trying, leading to a dynamic steady state that is trying to do the impossible. If we just look at the H and its burden of potential, ignorring everything else for the time being, life minimizes H potential when it forms C-H bonds. The H is finally in a state, on in own energy scale, close to zero. H2 would be even better for the needs of the H, but the H still has to deal with the highly electronegative O, which makes the C-H bond about it. But this is short lived in the cell, due to the electrophilic nature of the water-O2, causing corrosion/metabolism back to higher H-potential. The cell stays in a constant state of recycle between high and low H-potential. This may seem like a tiny potential to be able to be a driving force for life. One way to put this into perspective is to look at lightning. This is due to the electrophilic potential of the H and cloud/rain/hail hydrogen bonds. All the hydrogen work together causing affects in the 100M volt range. They can pull electrons from the earth with the same ferocious potential. That is a lot of combined electrophilic potential. In life, the little H ants can make the larger DNA double helix worm wiggle for genetic expression. We only need to change the mindet from one H one H-bond, to residual potential and a community affect, where the H work as a team to create affects where the sum of the parts become stronger than the parts, i.e., sort of the lighting within the cell organized by bio-structures.