pioneer

Linseed oil and a rag will often spontaneously combust. There is often a warning on many types of wood stain that contain linseed oil. It has to do with the drying process causes the molecules to align and give off heat. If the heat is not allowed to dissipate, it builds up and causing a fire. Pine trees and pinesap is what is used to make turpentine. Here is a little blip about turps.

When there was only hydrogen, there are a very limited number of chemical affects that can occur. There are certain radical states of hydrogen in an ionized cloud. There is H2 as a gas, liquid and solid. But in modern times, chemical affects can explain things like dark matter. It would easier to simulate dark matter in the chemical lab than it would be to do it in the physics lab. Any endothermic reaction will not give off energy. It will absorb energy and will not give off any emission. It will appear like it is not there, or look like dark matter. Here is Florida during the summer you can see little dark gray clouds floating near bright white clouds. These are dark matter clouds. What they are doing is absorbing the light with very little emission back. If you melt a solid or vaporize a liquid one would get the same type of affect. If you look at the background microwave radiation of the universe, all you would need to generate microwaves are polar molecules rotating. That is how a microwave oven works. The microwaves generate an electric field that causes the polar water molecules to rotate in an attempt to align with the dipole. This causes friction, whic heat things up in a microwave. Even if the background came from the beginning of the universe, there may be chemical affects that parallel or contribute to this background.

It depends on your goals in life. The PhD will make you an expert and would be very desireable in the private or public secotrs.. It also gives you the option of remaining in the university system, where you can teach and/or do research. The MBA helps if your goal is the private sector and you wish to move up the management ladder or to even start your own business down the line. If this your goal, the best way, to get into a top notch MBA program, is to work for 2-4 years and then let the business sponsor you. That lets you know how the industry works and the MBA will create a tailored fit. Most accepted applicants in top MBA programs prefer the age of about a PhD person, but with several years industry experience in lieu of thesis. If you go directly into the MBA, you may never do any bio-work. You could be recruited by a top notch computer industry, for example, and skip right over your undergraduate education. You may vision yourself making a cure for something, but after an MBA you may end up marketing shoes. The pay will be excellent, but you can lose connection to your first love in the process. If your bio-chemical company pays tuition, it become a relationship that creates a continuity up the ladder that combines all that work in three areas of expertise. When I was young I went up to MS and put off the PhD. I wanted to get in the trenches and do some science and get paid well for it. The goal was to work 3-5 years and then go for the MBA. Almost all companies will pay for continuing eduction and some will allow a leave of absence. When you return you have an elevator up the company ladder. I took off in my own direction at the time it was ripe for the MBA and decided to do theoretical science. I wanted to stay in science instead of doing budgets.

Let me build upon the beaver's unique ability, among animals; built huge structures and alter the environment by making lakes/ponds. Humans are presumed to originate from apes. What that means is we have a stake in making the ape number two. If it wasn't number two, than it would hurt our sense of pride. So we need to slant the standards to make that a sure thing. If an ape learns to use a stick to catch ants down an ant-hole, then that is celebrated as the proof. But what about the massive building projects of the beaver and the lake they made? That doesn't count, the stick in the hole is far mare advanced. I am messing with you. Actually apes are at the top of the animal intelligence chain. But if you look at ape behavior, they sit around, play and groom each other. If the apes become more dynamic at all, they either what to have sex, eat or fight to establish pecking order. The bottom line is, apes may be very intelligent for an animal, but they are basically lazy. The beaver, although not as intelligent, is highly motivated. He is essentially a workaholic. What he lacks in book smarts, he makes up with with his motivation. The beaver would make a good motivational speaker at an ape convention. If apes were as motivated and got off their butts and used their higher intelligence, with the motivation of a beaver, they would become something that is much closer to the missing link. If we look at this in the opposite direction, if the workaholic beaver suddenly got the intelligence of an ape, they may decide they need to build a second floor on their dam/condo. Maybe they also need to use mud for insulation, etc. They are workahilics and would be constantly pushing the envelope using their boosted intelligence to a higher degree. If you look at the advancement into civilization, one can see a sudden rise in motivation. Larger public works projects become the norm. Humans become driven to push the envelop of skills in all directions. Science won't like this, but the early motivating factor for civilization was religion. An analogy in modern times are the Muslim extremists or terrorists. Their behavior is not too intelligent, since they can never beat the extensive logistics of the western world. But what they lack in clear sighted rational vision or intelligence they make up with via their determination and their motivation. This is driven by their connection to a sort of twisted version of the Muslim religion. The adaptation needed for the last ice age played a role in forcing the lazy pre-human apes to get off their butts and use their intelligence. But the real quantum boost into civilization was during good times. The natural human tendency is to rest on your laurels during good times. But they suddenly had this strong motivation that went beyond adaptation. The gods of their imagination, were both their fears and their desires. Farming was not just based on the advantage of food (desire) but it was also based on what the gods would do if they screwed up (fear). But if they were succesful, the gods would also bless them with fertility (desire). The motivation was both the push of fear and pull of desire. These are still the strongest motivating factors that drive human motivation. I am not getting religious on you, but the story of Adam and Eve and the tree of knowledge of good and evil, tells of the shift from lazy paradise. It began with the motivation of bad judgement desire that ended in fear. Fear took over as the primary motivation with desire slowly returning. When the desire gets too strong the gods (motivation) became fear again. The reason for this is that fear is the strongest motivator. Desire ends when the goal is reached and then you smoke a cigarette and sleep. But even if one escapes the fear, there is no permanent rest because the fear is still out there ready to get you another day. Early religion was perpetual fear and a desire that was out of reach in this life. Day-to-day desire to forget about the fear was regulated by law, which then used fear. The lazy human apes had little time to be lazy but were pushed and pulled. The beaver cultures were the ones that built empires. Within the logistics of those empires intelligences also grew. Roman was motivative intelligence.

Most models of the universe are more geared toward physics. I would like to add something associated with the time between the formation of the primal hydrogen and where gravity takes over to make structures. In this span of time, chemical affects should be the dominant affect. For example, if we have an expanding cloud of ionized H, the H and electrons are sharing in a very openly distributed way. This is sort of like glue that just keeps the hydrogen from diffusing away. Essentially the EM forces and the outer orbitals of H help bind the cloud. The further down the energy levels the electrons can get the more stabile the H atoms. The coolest zone will be on the outside of the cloud, since energy can radiate the easiest there. Eventually, H2 forms since this will become more stable than H atoms when temperature drops to a certain point. The bond enengy is 103 Kcals/mole. The formation of H2 makes the hydrogen much more inert, such that the H2 begin to quickly diffuse away from the cloud. The hotter cloud is still bound by the sharing of electrons. What the inert and rapid movement of H2 away, brings to the table, is more contact with open space, eventually allowing liquid and solid H2. As liquid and solid particles of H2 form, the ionized cloud continues to cool giving off H2 at its perimeter, that is quickly diffusing away. These little liquid/solid seeds collect H2 and get bigger. The growing specks of liquid and solid H2 continue to slow down as they grow. The result are a carpet of gravity seeds as the ionized H cools and the H2 spreads out. Using these little seeds gravity is now able to can act much easier. It is hard to prove but it does give a simple way to seed the early stars. Part of the reason I went this way to seeds the earliest stars, was the practical difficulties of maintaining a stable center of gravity within light material that is very prone to diffusion. Even if a slight density discontinuity formed, it won't just sit there. As soon as gravity begins to focus in, it is gone. Rather that play dice with the earliest stars I figure give them some meat to bite into. The chemical angle gives slow chunks onto which centers of gravity could get a much easier bead.

I don't mean to speculate, so here is my logic. If we try to get matter to C there are only two ways. The first way is forbidden, which is add enough energy so the matter travels directly at C. This causes relativisitic mass to reach infinity. But this doesn't decrease the mass potential but adds to it. The only way left is for matter to lower potential is to give off energy. The movement toward lower matter potential ends with some C output. When all the matter is gone all we have is energy and little need for the force potentials of matter. All that there is left is energy. This still has some potential and will only reach zero potential when the wavelengths all reach infinity. This is the only wavelength that fully overlaps a speed of light reference. At C it looks like infinity is pulled into us, such that infinite wavelength is the only one that can overlap this in one cycle. Infinite wavelength energy is not energy. The reason this is so is that infinite (wavelength) divided by zero frequency does not equal the speed of light. It is a mathematical discontinuity that is not a constant. What that means is infinite wavelength energy travels at C, has no mass, no energy, since it is not energy per se. While an infinite number of these will amount to nothing in terms of mass/energy. Their only impact may be to maintain C reference as the lowest potential state or ground zero.

The one animal, besides humans, that has the most impact on the environment is called the beaver. They are excellent lumber jacks, often able get trees to fall where they are easier to use. Their dam and home building skills can alter entire eco-systems, permanently. Sometimes the beaver community gets really carried away and they undergo massive construction projects, with dam/condos hundreds of meters long, with running water and traps to catch fish much easier. They have even devleoped their own type of morse code, with their tails, that works both above and below water so they can keep in touch. The beaver is nature's engineer. They are not smart in the same way as an ape, just far more able to generate practical and tangible output of epic proportions.

Evolutionary psychology should actually be the mind evolving genetics and not the other way around. The reason I say this is to look at evolutionary time scales of other genetic changes. Compare this to the time scales associated with the advancement in human behavior. If the latter was due to mutations, one would have to answer the question, why didn't the DNA mutate more randomly and change the body as fast? If you look at animals and animal behavior physical differences tend to outweigh or balance behavior difference. Look at schools of fish. The environment will have impact but this too is environment pushing DNA. For example, I could take a baby from a primative tribe. If the DNA is the king of the hill, it should be impossible to train them to do anything. But if we bring him/her up in a modern environment, some things may remain the same, but many things will change. Does that mean the DNA has changed? After a few generation, there will be few distinctions. Many of the babies will advance along side modern children. Does that mean 5000 years of evolution was programmed into the DNA in 60 years? If you look at the evolution of human behavior, since we could train a someone from a primative tribe, to get up to steam with modern behavior in only a few generations, suggests it was not genetics that was limiting the advancement of behavior, but it was connected to the social environment. If their social environment had been much more condusive to behavioral evolution, it would have happened much faster. For example, not to get religious on you, the behavior of the earliest Christains, would still be acceptable in modern times. It may not be for everyone, but it was harmless and doesn't really violate others. But the behavior of the Romans ,at that time, would not be tolerated, since it would lead to behavior that goes way outside what would be modern. If you think dogs fighting is cruel, how about wild dogs versus humans. Yet this less evolved behavior was in charge at that time, slowing progress. What it amounts to is social Darwinism slowing behavior evolution. The social Darwinism has it connection to the conservative path of nature and evolution. The human mind is able to exceed this pace, but can get too far ahead. It can lose it connection to the natural pace of nature. So nature, via social darwinisn, pulls the reins back to slow the pace back to nature. It may be a tension of opposites to make sure we stayed aligned to all the evoluton that came before us, that set the stage for the future.

I am a generalists and not a specialist. My knowledge of the jargon is a little weak so pardon my elementary neuro-speak. I understand things are not as simple as I make it. What I am drawing is a rough outline on the back of an envelop that discusses only positive potential. Once the design is settled there, then it is time to do a better architect drawing. The things that have been constructively added are better for a second pass. A neuron uses upwards of 90% of it ATP energy to help maintain the membrane potential. The exterior postive charge try to get back into the neurons to lower this potential energy. This is done by distributing the potential to minimize the global potential within the brain. I am only talking about all the surface potential. If did a brain scan of someone doing a particular task, one can see the activity of the potential. Say we were doing tests on the visual cortex. We use two different environments, one which is well known to the subject, and another that is unknown. The brain activity will be different in both these situations. We reverse, this experiment with another person, who knows the unknown environment of the first person, but doesn't know his known environment. This allows us to make sure the same input is the same in both. The results will be reversed for the same input. The affect of the input is not only based on the working of the sensory systems, but is also dependant on the driver inside the brain. Most brain scan experiements use volunteers. Run the same tests with forced subjects. The results will come out differently. The visual cortex may be shunted by the person. They may be preoccupied by being forced to do this test against their will. The data, when averaged will now move the visual cortex (so to speak) or make it appear that the frontal lobe is now playing a greater role in the visual input. If this is accepted, due to the driver not included, science takes a left turn when it should have been going straight down the middle. One can not always depend on the subject to tell us their state of mind, since there are also unconscious processes at work which they may be unaware of, which can cause the data to shift. For example, paying and not paying the test subjects will have an impact. Some will try to follow the experiment, while some are mercenaries who are only there for money. Consciousness needs to be part of any real model so we can filter out its impact of experiments. The cerebral has its own surface charge potential trying to lower potential. Since it needs to lower potential everything is ready to fire. Once a breech occurs, there is a run at that zone that propagates like a chain reaction. Each neuron is trying to bail out its own ship and dump it in others. All the neruons help get rid of net potential but shifting it down to the core. The core distributes some of the potential into the body and some back up stream toward the cerebral. It has it own way to distribute the potential. The result are continuous loops of cerebral-thalamus-cerebral. Say we hear a startling noise. The body often gets triggered into action before we even have time to think about what may have occurred. The loop is triggered by the noise, with the core already sending potential into a cascade to help prime the body for possible action. The recycle back to the cerebral can either fuel the imagination or can trigger an awareness in the imagination of a possible source of the noise. Reasoning comes later. Hydrogen bonding is everywhere within the living state. This one variable allows one to simplify complex systems. It makes the model of the brain much easier. It interfaces the charge potential with all the biomaterials that are responsible for maintaining and tweeking via the H. Right now, I have to do this the hard way, since I am not yet allows to create simplicity. The hard way has the disadvantage of having to pull the potential out of the context of all the bichemical mechanism that we all know are integrated with it. If we analyse the hydrogen potential of structures, they add up to the potential hierarchy that I am trying to express without conventional data. I was hoping to build this background, in some of my original post, the cell in one variable, but got bogged down in details. I was up the challange but had to improve our understanding of ATP and DNA. That must have been taboo or something.

Much of my early/limited training with SR stressed relative reference. But after thinking about it, SR can also be used to define absolute reference. The way to understand this is too look at relativistic mass. This is not reference dependant, but is energy dependant. Conservation of energy implies that to make mass or relativistic mass will require energy. So if we had two references and they appear relative, one only has to look at the relativistic mass, and this will determine the absolute velocity or knietic energy. That allow one to compare the two relative references on an absolute scale, that is energy and not reference dependant. Let me give an analogy called the SR work-out. What we do is go to a track where there are runners. We sit in a chair and focus on the fastest runner, and using relative reference we are now moving and he is now stationary. This allows us to burn calories like a runner while sitting still. This relative reference affect can happen when we use two parameter SR, i.e., space-time. If we include the mass parameter, so we are using three parameter SR, then we need to do a mass/energy balance. This breaks the logic of the imaginary workout, since the runner is the only one that actually moving based on an energy balance. Two parameter SR analysis has some important applications, but it can lead to some imaginary scenarios if we limit ourself to two parameters, Three parameter SR isn't as much fun for the imagination, since it always leads to absolute results that are based on conservation of energy. Two parameter SR is one of the ways, young people can cut their teeth, so they can learn abstract thinking. It is opened ended. In that respect it is still a very important mental exercise. But it also shows what can happen to solid logic, if we leave out a parameter or two. Even math logic can add up using only two parameters but can end up far away from reality.

One way to look at the speed of light of energy is that this is its ground state, i.e., C is the zero state of energy. When a force like EM acts, the potential energy of the system lowers. This movement toward the ground state of zero potential energy produces energy. The EM force achieves the ground state piece-meal until the final cancelling of charge, then there is only energy, i.e., force potential is zero at only energy. Only energy is the state of lowest potential. Mass and charge contain potential energy and force potential and are actually at a state of higher potential. Force acts as a way to lower this potential energy back to only C and C reference.

Here is a quote from the article suggested by BenTheMan. http://webphysics.davidson.edu/physl...auss_Text.html In other words, if we have a hollow mass shell, the field is zero inside. If I introduce another mass inside that shell, to fill in the hollow, the field is still zero, but the inner mass does not just evaporate due to zero gravity. It still has it own gravity. The surface now has to change. What I originally was saying, at a distance center of gravity appears to apply, but as we get closer depending on how the hollow is filled in, will affect the surface we which will see, when we are up close.

I read the link about the charges and hollow shells. Where I am confused is whether gravity acts the same way as charge. With magnetic fields we have sort of positive and minus, or north and south magnetic poles. But gravity doesn't exactly have a north and south pole.

I do not doubt the validity and the usefulness of all that is known about brain function, down to the tiniest detail. What I was trying to do was think in terms of the movement of potential. Let me give an analogy between where I am heading and what is the state of the art. Picture an automobile (brain). We know how the various parts work and how they all function together. We can even takes parts and dig deeper and are able to determine how its componets work. This is all very useful information. What is left out is the driver. This variable is not part of the analysis, even though that is the purpose of the auto. Picture this, we have a car in the garage. We know every square inch. The next day, we notice their are dents in the fender. Since consciousness is not one of the variables of primary concern, we need to explain this in terms of what we know for sure. Maybe during fabrication, the metal of the bumper had built in stresses that are now being released, causing the bumber distortion. This is a good explanation based on just the variables we include in our analysis of the auto. If we included a driver, the explanation changes quite a bit. It had nothing to due with built in fabrication stresses, but rather it was due to teenager taking a joy ride. The driver of the brain is consciousness. It is easier to ignor this and just investigate the auto sitting in the garage. You can still start the motor and describe how the brakes work but now brake wear is evaporation and not the young teen driver braking and steer hard around corners. With the garaged auto model, we need to come up with a better brake pad that doesn't evaporate, instead of teach the driver to brake easier. I could have done it the easy way, but I realized this is incomplete and can lead to explanation that may not jive with reality. We need to begin developing ways to include the driver. The parked auto analysis of the brain is still very important. Once we add the driver then we have man and machine. When I looked at the ideal neuron, I only followed the current. Many of the mechanisms that you presented are important but would be more appropriate for a second pass through the model after the basics are set. Again, in the ideal and simple neuron the positive current flow goes into the dendrites. There are resistances, but the net flow goes that way. I extrapolated the current into a rough loop around the neuron. In other words, if we drew a black box around the neuron and only looked at the flow the primary input is dendrite and primary output is axon. When we scale up to the brain, this basic mechanism does not change. We follow the net flow of current and see where it is going. What many don't like is making the cerebral the zone of lower potential. We pride ourselves with having big brains with the cerebral the biggest factor. What the big cerebral allows is the amplication needed to flow up hill. With the core at highest potential is can flow back but needs to focus. If we reverse the potentials and make the cerebral at higher potential and the core at the lowest potential, current could only go down. The first model provides the possibities of focus and loops. This accomodates the counter position of the unconscious mind. The second model would only be implict of a single point of reference, which is not observed. Let me run through a consciousness experiment to show how it adds up. One is a stanger in paradise such that everything is new. There is no hard data in memory that corresponds exactly to what you are seeing. The input in the sensory systems, fire dendrite analogs and current flows toward axons. There is cerebral divergence, but the sensory firing and the path through the cerebral, net increases the core potential. This higher potential is lowered by current flowing back up cerebral. This will trigger Ideas and association to pop into one's head, as the backwash current triggers associations within the memory we already have available. What I called the backwash current are the pathways of the unconscious mind. We can add the center of consciosness . I will call this the ego. The ego can only be part of the total core backwash. Some has to go to the unconsious mind to create energy for that dynamics. Irregardless this makes human consciousness a high potential phenomena. In very simple terms, we stir this ego potential around the cerebral. Theis high potential flows down low potential dendrite tubes, and can cause them to fire. Picture it this way. The ego has x-potential. To ge that down the tubes may require a very complex firing sequence to absorb that potential. Let me put it all together. The brain waves fire a wide spectrum of memories in a very cyclic way. This global firing not only defines who we are, in a nutshell, but it contantly sends high potential to the core. The backwash current provides steady power for the center of conscious (ego) and the complementary unconscious. When sensory input occurs these also fire neurons. The selective firing induce lower time average potential in these zones, due to time average membrane reversal. These become the lowest potential zones that attract ego current. Or the sensory induction gets our attention, by causing our ego current to preferentially down these tubes. The recycle of the ego current and all the cerebral firing increases the core potential. The backwash current has it own pathways, also firing cerebral memories. It will also become attracted to the lowest potential zones, i.e., other stuff firing unconscious pathways. Psychology has indirectly mapped out some of the backwash pathways. What we current have is the sports car called the brain. It is parked in garage. Once we include the potential loops of consciousness, now we have a driver.

Irregardless of the mechanisms of ion pumping and the affect of neuro-transmittors and such, the surface of the neuron is full of cations. I am only following the potential flow and not concerned with mechanisms. The fact remains when synapses fire the direction of Na+ is down the dendrite tubes. This occurs because the dendrites are at lower potential than the axon. All the details of the mechanism are important, but not necessary when it comes to following the potential. This potential is generated by ATP and the Na+K+ pumping. It is stored within the accumulation of the cations on the exterior of the neuron. The movement of this potential along the surface of neurons and into/out of neuron is more important to help us understand and simplify the potential movements of the brain. Let me add something to the model presented. Because the cerebral is at lower potential, the backwash current will not only induce surface tension for possible branching, but in the short term it will increase the potential around dendrite and can cause them to fire. For example, we think, or use our sensory systems and that fires cerebral neurons. This goes to the core. The backwash, by being at higher potential, than the cerebral, needs to lower potential when it accumulated in the cerebral. The best way is down dendrites. This implies, firing which spontaneously triggers other memories that become conscioous. The result is a loop that becomes self perpetuating. This gives us an easy place to add consciousness. The current models are way too complicated and make the brain sterile in the sense that they don't even make provision for consciousness. The simple movement of potential and backwash current gives us a mechanisms for interactive and self sustaining loops. This gives a way to add consciousness the picture without having to get unconscious.

To model the brain in way that allows us to integrate it one needs to look at something very fundamental. The easiest way to begin is to look at a basic neuron. The neuron has two basic branching processes, the axon and dendrites. Typically, current as cations, enters the dendrite, flow through the cell body and out the axon. The axon, in turn, dumps the cations back into the dendrites. What this configuration implies the axon is at higher potential than the dendrite, which is why it can dump the charge directly. The dendrite uses the cell body to act like gates in a canal, to push the charge up the hill. Once it reaches the axon hill, the axon pours it down the dendrite tubes. The dendrites can pump out charge directly but not into the axons. Wit the dendrite at lower potential and axon at higher potential, this configuration also causing potential to flow from axon to dendrite on the same neuron, via the migration of potential on its outside surface. It is a big loop with respect to a single neuron. It goes out the axon, along the outside of the neurons body, down the dendrite tubes, through the body of the neuron, and then back out of the axon, etc.. This neuron circulation helps the dendrites recover from firing, since the loop allows surface charge, on that neuron, to flows to the dendrite to help speed recovery. This basic schema is important, because it is also used by the brain. The primary firing matter of the brain is the cerebral matter. Although it is using both dendrites and axons, net current flows into the thalamus region, located at core of the brain. There are axon bundles for this net flow of current to the brain's core. The net result is that the cerebral is analogous to the dendrite (lower potential) and the thalamus analogous to the axon (higher potential). Although we wish to make the cerebral the top dog, we need to look in terms of where the current flows. To keep the analogy to neuron function going, there is also a backwash current from the thalamus back to the cerebral, that is analogous to the flow on the surfacce of a neruon from axon to dendrite. One may ask why this is important? Around the thalamus are features that are responsible for the creation of long and short term memory. Here is the flow. The cerebral fires. The current goes to thalamus or core. This signal triggers the memory storage mechanism. Finally, the backwash current goes back up to the cerebral and helps physically store memory. If you look at neurons and their branches these look like trees. As the branches get smaller they will increase their curvature. The higher the curvature, the higher the surface tension, the more potential. Since the smallest branches is what the synapses use for memory, the backwash current, by being higher in potential, increases surface tension making it easier for new branches to grow into new memory connections. Our brains constantly bulk fire as reflected by brain waves. This implies a constant background current to the thalamus and a constant backwash current, even when one is just staring off into space. With humans we tend to focus on a limited number of things at one time. This narrow range of attention, in light of the brainwaves bulk firing, results is a much more concentrated backwash where we are focusing. In other words, brain waves assures a steady current and backwash. If we dam the backwash, with our concentration, we can get more pressure at the point of focus. This is what allows humans to learn to quickly. An animal can not dam up the backwash like humans. It tends to distribute for slower learning.

There is no way to prove the innards of protons are time dilated, although using this assumption, many things adds up in a simple way. One possible explanation for the perpetual extreme time dilation is connected to the unified force. For simplicity, the BB model assumes unified force at the very beginning when things were very extreme. As things cooled, the other forces begin to become more differentiated. To make this theory work, the innards would still have to be integrated by unified force. The unified force was only in affect (unified) in the BB model when space-time was extreme. Using the time dilation assumption, that would make protons little artifacts of that time, which they sort of are. Outside the time dilated reference needed for the unified force, the conditions change, and unified force appears to us as the four forces. The unified force inside, maintaining time dilation, is like a white light. As it shine into less time dilated references it goes through a prism of sorts that break the white light (so to speak) into its four colors. When we bust apart a proton and disrupt the unified force, since the unified force is not stable in this lower reference, we get only the prism colors. The result are the innard parts just can't remain stable with prism forces alone. Their life expectancy is no longer based on the unified force, but prism forces.

Negative mass would be the opposite of positive or regular mass. So if we had half negative and half positive mass we would have zero mass. For space travel, we build the inside of regular mass for living quarters, and the shell of negative mass, so it adds to zero mass. This way the entire composite would be able to travel at C due to zero mass. At C the positive mass would increase to infinity but the negative mass to negative infinity so that there is not net use of energy while we travel at C. This is all well and good ,but how would you make negative mass? If we move positive or regular mass we need to add energy. To make negative mass we would need to take away energy. Since mass can exist down to absoute zero, we would have to break that barrier into the negative side of abolute zero so we can generate negative mass/energy. This is all done in play since we can't even reach absolute zero yet.

I believe you and stand corrected. I think I went through the math many years ago and the results are sort of coming back. One can model the interaction of two spheres by assuming the gravity comes from the center of gravity of each mass. If we had a bunch of hollow mass spheres, but you didn't know these were hollow, one could not deduce if they were hollow, or not, based on how the centers of gravity are interacting. We would know the mass by the interaction, but not if this mass was hollow or not. Or would you? Addendum If we compare a hollow mass shell to one that is solid there is one big difference. Both will have gravity fields beneath the surface, but only the solid sphere will have actual mass in the zone of the interior field. This mass is not only bathing in the field but helping to generate it. The hollow sphere has a field but is only empty space inside, i.e., virtual mass? This is only meant as an analogy. The hollow mass sphere is sort of like an actor who plays a doctor on TV. He can talk and act like the ldeal doctor but his doctorability is on the surface. Most people meeting him might wish he was their doctor due his very refined bedside manner. That is the attraction. As you go to his office to interview him, as a potential doctor, you realize he is not too up on your specific medical needs. But at the same time, his charm and mannor makes him seem like he would be perfect. So you are in a conflict, due to an attraction and a gut feeling that makes you think your maybe should try elsewhere. But since there is a good balance of motivation, you continue the interview, i.e., orbit. He scheduals an appointment for a physical, the next day, since you have remained indecisive as to whether you wish to go or leave and he is trying to build up his practice. You are sort of locked in now due to indecision. He is more than an actor but also a smart guy and does his research on the things that concern you, to fill in that hollow spot that is making you indecisive. The next day, he has his normal attractive charm, but has also added data that helps to settle some of your scepticism. The result of the fill-in is you begin to spiral even closer toward him, losing doubt. The more he fills in the gap, you eventually make your final decision to merge. The orbits of the planets and moons of our solar system may reflect the subtle differences between the gravity fields within solids and hollows. The hollows don't have to imply empty but may be something like the fusion core of a star having energy pressure that rarifies matter so there is more virtual.

Actually an easier way uses NMR or nuclear magnetic resonance. There are only two base pairs that have either 2 or 3 hydrogen bonds. If you know how many H-bonds you know which base pair. You scan to find the 2233233232323... sequence. The rest of the DNA and the bases are implied in the sequence. This tells us the base pair but is still ambiguous as to which base is on which of the two stands. There is another tell, that can also use the NMR, and would need to immediately follow the first scan. It has to do with only one base, of each base pair, having extra nonbonding H. The first scan looks for 223322 and the second 11212121

One compromise is to have the whalers go retro. To whale one has to use hand help harpoons and small boats and tote it to shore the old fashion way. This type of whaling is dangerous and a lot of work and could help damper enthusiasm. It will also give the fast whale a fighting chance. At time Mooby Dick is able to even the score. The whale watching tours teach whales to like boats and humans. This may be helping to make it much easier to hunt them. It is like feeding the bears or deer. Once people begin to do that, they lose their natural defensive fear. In the case of bears, they look for you to give them food. This plays into the hands of hunters, since the bears are now much easier to lure and add to the trophy case. This may help the whalers. All they have to do is dangle a camera, while hiding the harpoon behind them. Not to long ago a whale mother and calf swim up a river. Many were concern and worked so hard to right the pair so they would go back to sea. It may be possible that they swam upriver to hide from preditors. It is also possible that everyone worked hard to put them back in harms way. Luckily, the mother flipped off the do gooders and waited until the coast was clear. She then snuck out to avoid those crazy humans.

You are a geologist, so your generalist range only needs a practical limit. It assumes the theory of plate techtonics is valid in all its assumptions. Beyond that, there may not be any need to go further. But if that theory had a problem and a slightly different theory was to appear, what followed logically, may now has some new hidden kinks. Let me give you a for instance. The plates float on supercritical water. This lowers the adhesion between the solid crust and the molten mantle. The logic for this is that hydrothermal water can dissolve into the mantle. This assumption is based on a technique for making hydrothermal quartz crystals. The seed crystal is placed at the top and the raw stock is at the bottom. The bottom is at higher temperature than the top. The water dissolves the stuff more at the bottom, due to the higher temperature, and then deposits it at the cooler top, because the cooler temperature results in super saturation. The critical water will keep dissolving downward until the raw stock gone and displaced upward to the top. http://www.roditi.com/SingleCrystal/Quartz/Hydrothermal_Growth.html This is often counter intutitive to most physicists but make sense to most chemists ,since chemical potential drives things toward lower energy and can even appear to defy gravity if the potential is strong enough. If the final crystal, at the top of the device, was to break its little platinum string, it would sink due to gravity. But as long as this material stays attached to the cooler ceiling, the water keeps working downward. With the earth, the water keeps seeing higher and higher temperature as it dissolves downward toward the mantle. The temperature above is cooler allowing the water to get rid of dissolved minerals due to supersaturation. It sticks the minerals onto other solid strata renewing its capacity to keep dissolving downward. When it reaches the mantle it now becomes grease for plate movement. It dissolving ability is still in affect. This can be demonstrated or simulated in the lab, but it alters many of the existing extrapolations. For example, since water would be dissolving downward, using chemical potentials, which makes minerals net displace upward, then volcanos would become part of the upward displacement. In other words, the direction of the water, due to the thermal gradient, sort of makes the water acts like a heavier material that is sinking. The same potential causes the minerals to become net displaced upward as though they seem lighter. At the mantle, the upward displace creates volcanos. Using some further chemical considerations, we can use that same water to assist both the making of new crust and its subversion back for recycle. If we assume the mantle is too hot to sustain the covalent bonding of water, what we get is O and H acting sort of independantly. The hydrogen is too hot to form H2 but would form something more like H+. There is nothing carved in stone that indicates the mantle has the correct proportion of atoms and O to make perfect oxide crystals. The O of the broken apart water could provide the extra O that is needed for stable minerals. For example Si2O is not as good as SiO2 to form more crust. If O is lost by such a process, than that would imply that H+ would begin to accumulate in that zone. It can't do much there, since O is its best companion, so it will need to diffuse to where there is more O. The best place are the subversion zones, where crust is coming back into the mantle for recycle. There the H can help release the O for their own needs. To come up with this I had to go much further in many directions. I had to figure out how to break the density/gravity hold by using chemistry. It works but is was counter intuitive to the island called physics. But that assumption created a entirely different set of conditions for theory.

The justices are not scientists. They know how to deal with the laws of culture but not the laws of science. That were not qualified to make that decision anymore than Einstein was qualified to argue constitutional law. What the justices had to do was weigh the evidence presented. But since the R&D money is stacked on one side of the scale and does not reflect balanced research, the result of applying their wisdom to this biased data ends up becoming bull. One has to get outside the irrational debate and think with calm logic. Too much of anything is not good for you, but at the levels of concern, the CO2 will not have any direct negative impact on the living state. CO2 does not act the same way on the living state that harmful things do. The CO2 may pose secondary problems, such as global warming, but it as of itself is one of the raw materials that life on earth depends upon to function. If we took it all away, the affect on life on earth would be more devastating than if we increased to the levels of global warming concern. It is no more of a polutant than is water. If we took away water, life would also die. If the amount of water was to increase in the atmosphere we would also have bigger storms. If we used nuke power to make steam to pump into the atmosphere we could make bigger storms. By the standards of polution, now created, water would now be a polutant. We need to tell everyone that water is very dangerous to life. Anyone making soup is now contributing to dangerous weather. If you water your lawn and that evaporates, get ready for a fine. We need to cover all lakes since this water polutant can cause all types of problems. I am being silly, but there are two affects overlapping. The first is the nature of the actual molecules either CO2 or water; both are necessary to life. The second is what happens if we go way overboard with either one. The first should create a sense of rational calm since it is part of life. But the second might create fear. But the fear from the second affect has spilled over onto the rational calm of the first affect, making people afraid of something natural. To help justify that fear we needed to change the label to polutant to help cater to the fear. We could do the same thing with water if someone convinced the herd that irrigation is adding more water to the air causing storms. The fearful of the land would use that as an excuse to bully so they can spread irrational fear throughout the land. If one will not do it the easy way (just go along with the frightened herd) then we will makes laws that will make you afraid the hard way (the long arm of law can now beat you into the collective fear). One needs to separate these two things in their mind. The merchants of doom and gloom will not allow this to happen because the rational calm might flow over and cause their panic trump card to lose some power. That is why my gut tells me that this is a game with a hidden agenda. Everyone can make better decision when they are calm. But the movement is stirring up fear so everyone makes a quick fix decision. It is like the herd is being funneled down some cattle chute using fear. One has to follow the money trail to see who benefits most by the fear.

If we look at the gravity equations, the math accommodates gravity acting all the way to infinity. But for all practical purposes it should get so small at a certain distance to be considered negligible. If two mass were stationary even this negligible could act causing the bodies to attract. But if you look at our universe, things are not stationary. In fact, the red shift appears to indicate an expansion with things moving at relativistic velocities. Since GR is modelled as compression in space-time and SR can also cause changes in space-time, does the SR create space-time noise that makes the affective range of weak gravity become ambiguous at long distance? This is a very loose analogy and should not be taken literally. We have a basketball in the middle of a large lake, which is bobbing making waves. As the distance increases, the circumference of the wave front increases, such that the amplitude energy gets distributed lowering the height. Eventually, the waves will be so small that they get hard to see. If there are some small waterbugs swimming near our equipment, which is already having a hard time to triangulate the basketball's position because of the subtety of the wave, the little bugs will add noise. The noise is small but the waves from the basketball are also very small. We may be able to filter out the noise but the extra effort makes it harder. If you look at the expansion of the universe, especially an accelerated expansion the SR noise is getting louder causing gravity to look closer. I often wondered why the universe is expanding relative to galaxies, which seem to have sort of a bandwidth of size. It does not expand in a random way that included a bandwidth of size that is much larger to reflect the random affect of effective gravity able to reach all the way to infinity. This suggested the affective gravity, due to SR noise, makes it look close. It may still be able to see all the way, but the noise creates indeterminancy. This theory can explain the paradox of how an acceleration expansion will lead to an eventual compression of the universe. With the SR of the acceleration expansion increasing the SR noise, gravity and GR is induced to look closer or its determinant range sort of gets pulled in. The expansion, itself moves the mass apart compounding this problem. The closer determinancy of gravity in the light of segregated matter, will allow local GR to increase at a much faster rate. It is not being pulled apart by other galaxies thereby avoiding some type of counter affect. The increase in local GR also means the space-time reference is compressing. Eventually, that reference will catch up to the expansion. In other words, if we could travel at C, extreme distances would appear to be pulled into our reference point due to distance contraction. When the local zones finally can generate extreme GR reference, the local reference will begin to appear like it emcompasses the edge of the expansion. At that time the brakes are applied. The compressed GR reference essentially allows gravity to see much better through the SR noise, allowing it determinant range to extend further and further to the edge. The theory also creates simple reasoning for why galaxies from a contiuum of matter, assumes BB for the sake of argument. Forget about the very beginning but lets start with an expanding continuum The SR will also create noise. The affective range of gravity is all the way to the perimeter, but the SR noise causes tweaks in the otherwise uniform gravity profile. The result are slight gravity ambiguities that increase with time until the determinant vision clears. I think it would be useful for someone to come up with an experiment to prove or disprove the affect of SR noise on the determinancy of gravity.

Often what we call the truth, is just our best educated guess, which continues to evolve with time. An anology is a semi-solid data ball with a diffuse atmosphere above it. When it finally compacts, we get truth. But in the meantime, if we assume the fuzzy truth is a solid, because it is fluffier that it would in its final steady state, one can make connections that would not be possible it is was more compact. Maybe a blackhole compresses information to a dense point. This will not be the fuzzy ball we are used to seeing. In that respect, the fuzzy part may not transfer, only the final compression. Or something like "The Euclidean path integral over all topologically trivial metrics can be done by time slicing and so is unitary when analytically continued to the Lorentzian. On the other hand, the path integral over all topologically non-trivial metrics is asymptotically independent of the initial state. Thus the total path integral is unitary and information is not lost in the formation and evaporation of black holes. The way the information gets out seems to be that a true event horizon never forms, just an apparent horizon." become a=b. The fuzzy gets compressed into close packing. If we were to fluff the dense point a=b back, so we can interpret it in terms of the state of the art, it may not add up the same. As an analogy, two women may be talking and one says she likes the other's dress. This fuzzy truth goes into the black hole of the second women's mind where it is compressed into a nice feeling. But when she thinks about it and begins to decompresses the input, it now says "back stab". So she confronts the other woman on what she actually meant. The other women, goes literal on her and tells her the exact words or fuzzy data she imputted. Now the second women is a little confused since the decompression is still coming out different than the input. So she decides to give a complement about the other women's new shoes. This creates input into the first women, into her blackhole for compression. As she thinks about it decompression may now involve combining the complement with the original subtle, but by the book backstab. But the other women may have liked her shoes. But the original fuzzy data may decompress this with ambiguity. If they had use solid truth straight up, it would not have led to an esculation of expanding theories that are based on nebulous truths. The current esculation of theory shows the truth is getting fuzzier. Solid truth should only line up in a very limited number of ways. Fuzzy truth allows for much more variation since the big balls can appear to touch more things, which would be restricted if the balls were smaller. Science needs a type of blackhole to help compressed the big balls and make them smaller. When this is decompressed, by a white hole, it will add up better.