pioneer

An easier way to see the gravity profile inside a spherical shell is to make the shell huge and place oneself inside. In this situation, the shell looks like a vertical wall directly in front of you and another vertical wall behind you, but at a very great distance. The operative word will be distance. The gravity force drops off with the square of distance. This means the strongest gravity will be directly in front of you. What is behind you will still exert gravity but being so far away it affect is very small. If we make the ball smaller and smaller, and you hold your relative position, the dynamics will not change. The only affect will be more vector cancelling. Only in the center of gravity are all distances exactly the same. Anything off center will cause you to be closer to one area of the wall and gravity will pull you in that direction with a net force. Lets do the same thing with GR. We have our huge sphere and we are quite close to what appears to be a vertical wall in front of us. This area will exhibit the highest gravity affect on us so it has the max GR affect. The wall far away, but directly behind us, generates the same GR, but because it is so far away, its affect will diminish by the time it reaches us. The max GR, is at anywhere near these huge walls. It will get lower inside if we move away from this huge walls and drop off with square of d. If we were to go outside the vertical wall of the shell the gravity will be even higher. At this point not only is that wall pulling us toward it, but the distance vertical wall far away is also pulling in the same direction. If we didn't know this was a spherical shell but thought it was a vertical wall, one might conclude the wall had to be thinker that it was. That is what I was referring to as a false positive. It adds up mathematically, so it is positive with respect to what we think it is. But it is negative in the sense that the wall, in reality, isn't as thick as we thought it was. This is a joke of nature that may explain perpetual orbits. For example, the earth sees the sun's closest surface appearing to generate extra gravity. It sort of uses the math that works at great distances and gets fooled in believing the sun is such and such. Once it gets close, it isn't what it appeared to be. It can not do what it suggested from a long distance. The potential that can't be expressed remains but in the form of orbital velocity. GR is an advanced version of Newtonian gravity, but because of its more abstract nature, somehow physics got fooled by the false positive. They just kept orbitting. One had to got back to the classical basics to set the record straight. Now GR has a better starting point to close the deal. Under the current system we can generate all types of false positives or theories that mathematically add up, but which don't reflect reality.

The Iraqi war ended after Sadaam was overthrown. After that it has been a occupation that is still labelled a war. Like in occupied Germany and Japan after WWll, the America was there to stabilize and help rebuild the countries so they could become peaceful-autonomous. The US does not create an empire. Many of the places we helped are free to be ungrateful without fear. American are too generous and gentle. We never ask to be repayed or even expect simple gratitude. The difference in Iraq and other occupancies is that foreign fighters are coming into the Iraq trying to destabilize the rebuilding of Iraq. The Democratic party in America, the liberals, and the liberal media, have sided with those who are trying to destabilize Iraq. In other words, the terrorist hate American being there. The Democrats and the liberal media hate American being there. These two are essentually on the same side. The liberal media gives extra attention to all terrorist activities, helping the terrorist promote their fear way beyond their humble numbers. This may be due to economics, with the fear helping them to sell soap. The media is sort of like second hand terrorist smoke. The media has done more to make be insecure than the terrorists themselves. It appears they have the same agenda and are on the same team, helping each other. On the other hand, one will rarely see the media going into the Iraq to show the positive things that are happening. It can't be 100% bad. One will rarely see anything that looks like it is helping American propaganda. The govenment tries to put some positive psin, but this quickly spun to back to the darkside to help the terrorists. Balance reporting would cause many to change their attitudes away from fear. Without the fear and outrage (terrorist specialty), the terrorist would lose their foothold and the media would not be able to sell as much soap and terror. When the report comes from Iraq, the good news is not going to be good for the terrorist team; terrorists and the liberal media. They will try to spin it so they can give further support to their terrorists allies. The Democrats have gotten so involved in their political games they picked the wrong horse to win just to take a contrary position. They even worked hard to throw debris on the track to help fix the race. They need to get on the winning team so we can bring closure to this. They can't keep helping the terrorist, for their own political aims, because even they are suffering. They need to show good sportmanship. It will go a long way.

Carbon dioxide is not a polutant. If we made a enclosed eco-system, with plants, bacteria, bugs, birds, animals and humans, and increased the CO2 to the level, to what we anticipate 30 years down the road, and put this into the eco-system it would better off not worse. The plants would grow better and will make more O2. The extra veg would then trickle its affect into the eco-system. Extra CO2 is often used in greenhouses to assist expensive crops, like orchids, to make them grow better. It is not always used, because it is not always cost effective. With wheat it would cost too much for the results. There is plenty of evidence to show CO2 helps vegative growth. If we next add, a real polutant to our eco-system, the affects would be the opposite. The eco-system in full or part will get worse with increasing concentration. With CO2 things don't get worse but better with increasing concentration (at the limits of global warming concern). If we could filter out all the CO2 from the eco-system, the plants would get stunted and the eco-system would suffer. A real polutant should cause the eco-system to improve if we totally reduced it. CO2 does not fit into the logic line of any other things that are usually associated with toxins and polutants. Obviously, one could create artifically high CO2 to cause harmful affects. The same can also be done with H2O. So CO2 is as much of a polutant as H2O. In other words, neither fit into the polutant category since they both do good within a wide range. They both have a required baseline before an eco-system is able to achieve optimum results. If anyone pitches CO2 as a polutant they are feeding you a line of bull. If the global warming people don't retract the label of CO2 as a polutant, then this demonstrates either lack of reason or deliberate deception. If global warming is true one should not be afraid to set the record straight since it won't really matter, either way. If it is part of a used car saleman's pitch, to make you afraid, so it is easier slide other things past. Putting aside CO2 not being a polutant, but something good for nature, this does not discount the fact that extra CO2 can cause other affects. The science does indicate a greenhouse affect, where we can grow crops out of season and in places they normally don't grow. I don't see a problem so far. The rest of the extrapolation into hotter summers, bigger storms, melting polar caps, flooding, changing of the ocean currents etc., if these were to happen it could lead to many problems for humans. There might be some truth to this. But it could also be a little exaggerated to make everything seem more imperative, i.e., drama for the motivating fear factor. One of the things that made me believe that it is being exagerated for the needs of a fear game, was connected to the carbon offset credits. On the one hand, I am told the boogey man is about to get us. But on the other hand, I can ignor the boogey man by trading trade cards. It sort of gives conflicting signals. The people telling me to run are telling me they are exempt from the boogey man. If the boogey was really coming I would expect them running with me and not sitting back and letting me run. I am going stop and watch to see if the herd is being funneled into some type of meat processing plant.

Sorry about the slow response. I was off in other areas. The two approaches of specialization and generalization can be compared to building a car. Two specialization teams are asked to build the motor and the body for the car. Both teamsmight be able to build the latest and greatest designs, exceeding all expectations. But will the motor fit into the body? We can end up pushing the frontier in two areas but they may not interface very well. Now we need more specialist to fix the problems that the two first specialists just created by going too far in one direction. Now a generalist would have to design compromises right at the start to make sure they both fit together. This means the engine may come out of much lower quality than the specialist and the body not as aerodynamic, but the ensemble will nevertheless be designed to fit together in a way that it is functional. One can end up with lower quality parts. After the two specialty teams grudging make the needed compromises they end up about the same place but after a lot of after the fact revisions. Let me give you an example that is easy to see. Particle physics has made this beautiful engine for matter that is the new state of the art. But if we extrapolate it, it doesn't really fit into the body of chemistry very well. Once they finish that motor, the next logical extrapolation will be to make that interface so we can tweak the quarks and make a new molecule. Once that attempt is made, it will require major revisions to get it to fit. It will have to skinny down and may even appear to be going backwards. Once it finally fits, then it may start going forward but in a new direction. If we look at socialology of the past 30 years, it tried to evolve out of the context of the historical traditions of conversativism. It did optimize the needs of exploratory living styles, but are the children better off since the optimization of the exploratory styles required breaking the family? Often one thing get fixed into a better state, but typically breaks something else. The specialist can't always see very far beyond his own optimization. One can't hold them accountable since they didn't do it on purpose. It was just a result of a narrow vision that couldn't see very far beyond itself. What we now need is a whole new batch of specialists to fix these problems. They will break something else, requiring more specialists. I suppose in that respect, specialization is a better way to create jobs.

I recognize that subparticles have been given time dilation by velocity. But inspite of that, it is not enough to make them last as long as they do inside a proton. One may argue that within the proton, the innards are in a type of balanced equilibrium. When one aspect begins to fade, it gives off energy that pumps up something else. When this begins to fade it releases energy back to build up the first thing, etc. But still, how does the shell prevent leaks? Actually it does leak, resulting in the various force fields that come from the particles. Why doesn't this bleed off of internal energy cause the subparticles to undergo transitions? I guess it does. For example, when nuke force cause fusion, some innards come out. An interesting observation about the EM and gravity forces fields is that both can act at very long distances. It is almost like the innards can see to infinity. Or in their reference, distance is so contracted that they can interact because everything seems to be much closer. This is consistent with distance references overlapping to where the innards can share. The reference needed for the extreme time dilation would fit the bill. With gravity being modelled as GR, then innard interactions via gravity would amount to conservation of relativity with the SR associated with the time dilation losing potential with the result GR relativity increases.

I agree with you. The gravity is highest at the surface of the shell, which is why the internal balloon will not pressurize but will pull a vacuum. If we apply GR to this same situation, the space-time affects are highest at the surface and are lower at the center of gravity. The expansion of the balloon is analogous to space-time expanding at the center of gravity. The shell analysis for gravity, does not change, irregardless of how thick the shell is. Even if there is only a small hole in the center of gravity space-time expands at the center of gravity. In this situation, the gravity trough within space-time should have a little hill in the middle. The fusion core of a star, causes an energy expansion of matter. Net mass convection is moving outward from the sun's core via the mass of the solar wind. So there is a hollow or GR hill in the center of the sun caused by the fusion. This little hill at the bottom of the GR trough is the false positive. At a distance, the way the math works, this center of gravity is treated like the entire mass is concentrated at that point. Even with a bunch of hollow shells, the center of gravity is still mathematically modelled using center, even though, in reality, there is no matter there. Somewhere along the line this math simplification became a dogma that implies that the center of gravity is the zone of highest GR. The classical model would say there is no gravity in the center but GR says opposite. It is not GR saying the opposite, but a false assumption has made it that way. So if we look at two separated bodies like the earth going around the sun. The hollow in the sun's center of gravity looks filled in from a distance since the mass will act using the mathematics of the center of gravity. It is possible that mass at a distance can be fooled by this false positive. But as the earth gets closer and sees the center of gravity is a false positive, i.e., it is not the bottom of a GR trough but it has a hill there, the left over potential energy becomes velocity or SR causing the orbit. It is sort of like a conservation of relativity where the system tries to minimize potential.

The reality of the sun's anatomy, is that nobody knows for sure what is going on inside, until we have hard data. The best we can do is make an educated guess. For example, if an alien creature was found, we could all stand around and guess at its internal anatomy. Eventually, some type of consenus would form, based on what we know on the earth. If we took a meat cleaver (already dead) and cut it in half, the odds are, there would be all types of things nobody anticipated. As long as we keep it whole (no hard data) we can all go along with the consensus and be satisfied. Some may look at this best guess into a type of dogma and then extrapolate as though it is actually based on hard data, never realizing it is just the best guess we are able to formulate without looking inside. That being said, since we can't cut the sun in half and actually see the reality of the situation, we are limited to extrapolating what we know. At the very least, the consensus theory needs to be conceptually consistent across the board. One can not put things in place that have conceptual problems simply because consensus science wants some closure. That is why I asked the question of iron being fully ionized. Depending on how we answer that question conceptally changes the analysis. We still don't know what is inside the alien sun, but our guess should be a little closer. If we leave it unanswered then who knows if an error is being propagated all the way through our analysis of the universe until we are way off. Say the concensus believes the alien has one heart. We all accept that and then take this to the next and then the next step. If it turns out it has two hearts, then everything that was accepted is way off. So what does science do at that point, let the house of cards fall or hide the data since this would throw sand in the gears of a well oiled machine. The machine is doing its job well, but it may not be designed for the sand. Maybe it is well designed and can handle the sand, but we need to see. My gut tells me that the iron will not remain fully ionized and exist as one huge iron molecule that is sharing all the electrons. There will not be enough space for all the electrons to arrange themselves in way to allow their magnetic addition to be anything but repulsive. The electrons will end up with too much magnetic repulsion, due to their motion, such that charge balance will be hard to maintain as electrons push outward This will cause the iron nuclei to charge separate. The iron will need to get some of those electrons into orbitals to help reduce magnetic repulsion of the electrons so it can maintain better charge balance. Hydrogen does not suffer this same problem, since the hydrogen is very small and energetic enough to contribute to positive magnetic attraction during close quarters. I don' t see what the problem is with putting the iron above the fusion core. It makes it easier to explain sunspots and solar flares without having to pull a rabbit out of the hat with elaborate theories. But these are actually needed because the heart is assumed in the wrong place. The science is doing it job. But conceptually inconsistencies make it harder.

Try this reference for a start; http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GLOSSARY/MODERN.HTM Modernity is essentially looking at the present as being dicontinuous from the past. Rather than a building upon tradition, it more like the illusion of starting from scratch. For example, if a band redoes a song from the past modernity creates the illusion this is brand new and cutting edge. In that that example, modernity is short term thinking that can't see long range thereby creating the illusion this is the first time this happened. But on the other hand, it also has the advantage of not having to be continous with continuity of traditions that may have their own limitations, allowing one to break off into a new direction that may be beneficial to the future.

If we were to begin with a hollow spherical shell of thinkness X, made of thick guage metal, like a metal basketball, the very center will define the center of gravity. If I was to put an object in the ball, off center, it would not go to the center of gravity, but would move to the closest wall. The reason this is so, is that we need mass to generate gravity and there is none in the center of gravity. One can do this with vector addition to get this same result. Let us make this situation even more complicated. Inside the iron shell we place a flexible balloon, which is also spherical and centered at the center of gravity. The balloon is thin so the shell is still the dominant mass. What the balloon will do is stretch and move toward the perimeter. All the walls of the balloon willl be off center such that vector addition will cause each point on the balloon to attract toward the /closest and highest mass. The result will be a slight vacuum pulled at the center of gravity. This paradox occurs because the shell is rigid. The term center of gravity was invented to help model the gravity attraction between two bodies. Each body is treated like all the mass is concentrated at the center and the results appear to work each time. If we took two such double shelled spheres with their internal vacuums, they would attract as though all the mass was concentrated at the center of gravity, even though there is little or no mass at the center of gravity but is undergoing a state of a partial vaccuum. The term center of gravity if there for the ease of math, but it doesn't always tell the entire story of what is actually occurring within the center of gravity. In the case of these two situations attracting from a distance, their centers of gravity will create a false positive for each other, or make each other think this is where all the mass is concentrated. When they get close, they will realize the false positive, and rotate around a new center of gravity, which also contains no matter, which is also a false positive. The kinetic energy of the rotation, is the potential energy that can't be released due to the center of gravity played a joke of nature i.e., false positive, that will only look like a postive-positive at longer distances. The earth is spinning with the solid iron core spinning a little faster. Because the crust and the core are both solid, the perpetual spin would suggest a situation sort of like the above, with a hollow at the center of gravity, which is creating a false positive for the rigid solids. The moon barely rotates suggesting a more continous solid. While its movement around the earth may be in response to the earth's hollow. This is an interesting thing to ponder. I an not married to this but it does create some interesting food for thought that can explain things like the almost perpetual motion of planets around the sun. Gravity just can not close the deal, such that the potential energy becomes motion. The false positive suggests a reason why gravity can not close the deal.

Here is an observation that appears to indicate time dilation. As a little background if we turned water or H2O into a plasma, the life expectancy of the parts remains essentially the same as the sum of the parts. One could take away energy and H2O will reform, all the parts are conserved. On the other hand, if we took at proton and broke it into its parts, the parts last much less time outside proton, than they would if we left the proton intact. The question is, are the innards of a proton in a state of time dilation within the proton? If we break it open to expose it parts, these same parts last the same time in any reference. But since the earth reference is much slower, there is less time dilation such that their clocks only appear to last for the briefest instant within our reference. There is no life expectancy change in the water/parts example. But the relative life expectancy is very drastic in the case of a proton. If, for the sake or argument, we were to assume this time dilation premise, for something to show that much time dilation (long life of proton versus the life of its exposed parts), the calculations would imply that the parts in the stable proton, would need to be just a tiny speck below C. Or the innards would have to be something that is almost pure energy but not energy in the strict sense, since energy needs to travel at exactly C. That sort of adds up to matter being condensed energy. With C- and C being so close, mass/energy interchange should be easier, since only a tiny bump would be needed to move back and forth. This could explain why the interconversion of mass/energy/mass occurs very easily. I am not trying to upset the cart. Only this seems to add up easier, without having to bring anything new in, outside basic SR considerations.

Thanks for the insight and references, Martin. But the question I asked had to do whether the iron is fully ionized. If the electrons are free to move around, such that no iron has it own personal electrons, things can get closer and much denser. If an atom retains, any personal electrons, there will be stricted electron space around it. For example, in chemical bonding, atoms can get closer when they share electrons. The more electrons that are shared, such as in double and triple covalent bonds, the closer the atoms will get to each other. What prevents getting any closer are the electrons that don't share. These create zones in space, associated with each atom, where space is restricted. If we had fully ionized iron, there is no restricted space, allowing the iron atoms to get close. If iron gains any electrons, that remain permanently attached (nonionized) the restricted space between iron atoms grows. The little H proton is so small, it will never gain a permanent electron at the conditions within the sun. The electrons will alway be sharing among all the H, more or less, so restricted space never gets in the way of the H getting denser and denser, jst as long as charge balances. Even if one asumes fully ionized iron with extreme energy electrons moving in a way that creates, essentially, one huge iron molecule, it would appear to me that electrons would hit the iron nuclei, to make neutrons, causing the iron to disintegrate into smaller atoms. By gaining some electrons to become bigger in space, it can float up and away from the fusion energy, where it has less electron energy, remaining stable. It would still be a huge iron molecule, but with electron void space. In this orientation there is plenty of room for free range H-protons to diffuse into fusion core. Even if they need electrons to maintain charge, they conduct/share the electrons that are within the iron molecule shell. They only need to entrain the electrons of the inside of the floating iron shell.

The current understanding is that the core of older stars is composed of iron since this is the final exothermic atom to form and is heavier than all the lighter atoms. This has a conceptual problem that needs to be investigated. It has to do with the definition of density, with is mass/volume. At the temperatures of the core, will the iron be totally ionized? If it still retains even one electron in a stable orbital configuration its volume will increase, thereby lowering its density by many orders of magnitude. It will become a walnut in a football field. It will only take 55-60 hydrogen peas in the same football field to exhibit the same or higher density. Here is an analogy if we put a chunk of iron in water it will sink. If we fabricate it into the shape of a boat, so there is open space, it floats on lighter material. If we go at this the other way, and have the iron core fully ionized, is only the weight of a iron nucleus sufficient to overcome the repulsion of 26 protons (positive charges) with a core of iron with maybe 10-15 positive charges all exposed? That does not seem likely. If the Fe is neutral to make it earier to sink, won't is become too fluffy to sink? How close does H have to be to be able to fuse. Is is more than 55-60 peas in a stadium? Here is what I see. What we have is a fusion core, mostly hydrogen. Then maybe an iron shell composed of iron atoms that have gathered orbital electrons. The iron still sinks if it is entrained higher, but this outer shell above the core, is as low as the iron is able to sink on the fusion sea. If we bubble gas from the bottom of a pool of water the bubbles and water sort of combine and just well over. Solar flares do not just well over but act almost like eruptions. This suggests the iron shell, above the core, is a type of crustal shell. As pressure builds in the fusion core, the pressure breeches a weak spot in iron shell, causing a jet of pressure. That would make sunstops, thickened iron areas that shield core heat.

Fluoroantimonic acid is the king of acids. It is called super acid. It is formed from from one of the former champs antimony pentafluoride. Aqua regia or the queen's bath is still up there. The queen's bath or nitric and hydrochloric is one of the few acids that can dissolve the king of metals, which is often seen as gold due to its color and resistance. Aqua Regia was an alchemist concoction during their research of trying to turn lead into gold. They needed to know the limits of gold before they could figure out how to turn lead into gold. It didn't happen but they did come up with many of the basic chemistry lab supplies of today. What is interesting, the alchemist discovered a non-acid liquid that could dissolve gold. It was the liquid metal mercury. It will form an amalgon and then begin to dissolve the gold if the mercury is the bulk phase. They would then boil the mercury and make the gold reappear. Call EPA. After a few of those experients, dementia would often set in. They took the hit for the gipper and thanks to their personal sacrifice at the alter of early science, they set the stage for the conversion to modern chemistry. Additional Info When I was a development engineer in Oak Ridge, one of my final projects ,before setting out on my own, was to develop the technology needed to decommision the Li isotope separation facility. It used Mercury as the solvent or the continuous phase in the isotope separation. After the system was drained there was still 100,000 pounds to account for. Being a hands-on guy, I would put on the coveralls and explore the historical facility even climbing on top of some of the large equipment. It was sort of dimlly lit and quiet. But during explorations, I could imagine the sound of all the excitement, sort of flashbacks to the busy activity of its hayday. I was fortunate enough to be able to talk to many of the old timers. Their stories fueled my imagination and allowed to see former glory. I considered myself an old time engineer, i.e., fast ideas and experiments, then move on to the next stage. I wished I had been a part of that early development effort. It was a unique time and circumstance, within science, where the scientists led the rapid pace and the beaucrats would play the role of support. One could get the impossible done in record time, since the bearocrats were doing what they did best which was organize and expedite. Even they did the impossible. When beaurocrats play chef the whole process gets drawn out and bogged down, since the mission becomes secondary to political power games. This may be due to less skilled personel leading, and this is their best effort. Because of previous mercury techology, which I had invented in 3 weeks, I was given lead development engineer in this project. I was playfully called the mercury man. This could have been my life's project. The facility was huge. It would have taken decades to recycle, all the way to my retirement, i.e.., assumes beaurocrats chefs leading the charge. Because of my early enthusiasm and cavalier attitude about mercury, such as stories of people walking on pools of mercury with hip boots, it was very likely, I have become over-exposed to the mercury. I began to become more and more off the wall. In retropsect, it was the early stages of dementia. I remember writing a technical report that used alchemy considerations. I am sure it is on file. That went over like a brick ballon. Rather than test me for possible mercury over-exposure, I was treated like I was a rebel and was stripped of my authority to make decisions. I regained some of my equilibrium ,,during a probation period, but was never quite the same. I soon left to pursue an illusion, that I was going to evolve science to another level. What began was an esculation into the deep dark places of the mind. The need for self healing became how I developed my prolific creativity. Where once the unconscious would become spontaneously active, now it is a faithful dog that fetches from the deep layers of the mind. Too much time trying to break the bucking bronco has atropied my social skills. That is why I hide, anonomously. I am not bragging, maybe I am, but I have more direct experience with the workings of the human mind than anyone out there. I did not sit on the sidelines watching others so I could develop my theories. I had to put on the coveralls and get in the trenches and wrestle the beast. If I had to depend on most of the " acceptable stuff" I would gone over the edge. I tried it at first, the stuff was useless under those conditions. I needed to develop things from scratch, while collecting real time, data. I used to go by the screen name "sunspot". I was banished from this forum for being too militant. That was good for me. Maybe I needed to burn out the last of the mercury. I feel more rational now. In retropsect, I began way outside the box trying to get back in. I could not figure how to get past the sentries, so I decided to lay seige. So I surrounded the six sides of the box ,with my armarda of ideas, and started to pound the walls to see if I could make a breech. I had plenty of ammo and I was able to manufacture ammo ideas as fast as I needed to. What I didn't count on, was the box had nukes. They nuked me by pulling the plug. It was actually good for me, because I was having too much fun making war. The last of the dementia was really cranking out the weapons. They weren't all weapons, I was also lofting food and drinks at the same time. After that, I went to the other science forum and the physics forum, with a little more caution, because I thought they might also nuke me. Although I was initially thinking strategy, a seige was not necessary since their wall seemed a more permeable to ideas. This is a teaching forum, so teachers need to limit the scope to help the students build background. They need to keep the walls of the box tighter for the needs of students. The other forums were not as involved in teaching, so the walls of the box were more permeable. This semi-permeable access allowed me to get closer and enter the box. It gave me an opportunity to inspect the walls. I was also able to gain some important recon. Many of those inside the wall would often argued the differences of acceptable opinions. I was able to see points of vulnerabilies much better. At first I figured, rather than barrage the box with saturation bombing, pin-point is better. But it still lead to the problem of the box having nukes to my conventional weapons. As I went further into the box, all miltary strategy became moot. I realized, I not wish to harm what was inside the box, since it seemed good. I was really trying to make the wall more organic. The walls of the box is the like the bark of a tree. This is where the tree grows. If the bark is surrounded by a heart of stone, this will stunt the growth. Maybe my seige had really been directed to the heart of stone. With things inside looking better than expected, I wandered deeper into the box to see if maybe the heartwood was rotten. Maybe there was a type of disease that was eating the heart that required the stone wall. What I came upon was the inner santuary of the box. It was a box inside the box, that had it own fortifications. Its walls weren't defended. The strength of its structure, is the test of time. Being near the walls of the inner santurary brought back memories of the past when I was once allowed to moves freely inside the santuary. It suddenly dawned on me, what I had been trying to do. I had been trying to return home.

Another side of evolution is selective disadvantage. In other words, if changes are slow, than what mutates will not be an advantage at first. It will be force to adapt until it finally becomes an advantage. Let me give an example. Say the first mutant lizard, on the way toward flight, grows some extra flab on his arms. It is not yet functional for flight. Bit in the mean time, it could slow him down, when he tries to run from preditors. It has the future potential to evolve into flight, but for right now it is a big disadvantage. The flab gets caught in the brush. He has to find new ways to compensate for this disadvantage joke of nature. Maybe this disadvantage now requires moving to higher ground, where there are fewer preditors or even learning to climb trees. Holding on in the tree, he is still easy to spot due to the flab. Many have to jump from trees and most break their necks and get caught anyway. But one day, one glides to the next tree. What had been a selective disadvantage, which required much more need to adapt, becomes an advantage. The next generations inherit this as an advantage after many prototypes. Or selective advantage are the quantum jumps where there is stability. While selective disadvantage is the continuum of prototypes between jumps, which are being pushed due to an original disadvantage. Once that step is reach, then the offstring get to strut their stuff and push the envelop and evolve the skill further through selective advantage.

Another reason we now need to go to the comets for life materials and even the water on the earth, is that current solar system genesis theory got changed. They got rid of the old sun/solar system formation theories, which had provided all that was needed, in favor of supernova remnants. The new logic is the solar system is the supernova pieced back together, more or less, via debris recolliding where our solar system is. The space debris in the form of comets and asperoids gives us the iron for the iron core of the earth, the earth's water and now even life itself. It became a theoretical chain reaction. The physics represents an advance in thinking, but some of the logic has a major conceptual problem. Here it is. The center of a dieing star is assumed to form an iron core as the nuke fuel materials are used up. Iron is very dense and is the last exothermic atom to form. After that atoms become endothermic. This terminal atom means the end of the line for ouptut and sinks due to its high density. The connceptual problem is iron has too high of an atomic weight to be fully ionized at the temperatures of a star core. If Iron has any electrons in the inner most orbitals, its density becomes less. In other words, iron with even 2, 1S electrons is a walnut in a football field. All it takes is 26 or so, H-protons or grapes in the footaball field to be denser. Density is mass/volume. So a smaller mass/smaller volume can add up denser then a higher mass with a much higher effective volume. Or 27 grapes in a football field is denser than one large walnut in the same volume. Using better conceptual consistency, here is the way this extrapolates. The sun becomes the second life of a first generation star. The floating iron (plus orbital electrons) above the denser H fusion core, becomes an effective shield that is holding in energy that needs to vent. Eventually Sun-1's pressure builds until it blows big chunks away. After the sun the cleared the exhaust vent, what was left over was Sun-2 as gravity pulls it back into shape. The ejected materials becomes the debris for the solar system. The rarity of stars with solar systems indicates that either most are first generation stars, or most second generaton stars blew their stack just a little too much, to keep their materials close enough to form their own solar systems. The sun and solar system amounts to localized remanants of a mini-supernova. If we assume all the material ejected had the same momentum, the heavier stuff would not go as far and would form the rocky inner planets. The asteroid belt after Mars may have been the affect range of the bulk of the rocky junk. The ligher gases where ejected much farther to become the gas giants. When all was said and done the earth had the periodical table to work with. The sun may have taken time to stabilzed allowing planetary formation more autonomy at first.

If science had all the answers and everything today was correct, then science could retire and stop. The observation that the numbers of people in science is increasing, show there is more room for improvement. Thinking outside the box of science is an attempt to look beyond what we think we know, to formulate better understanding, i.e., bigger box. Many people think the current box is just fine and that is all that there is. This is not corruption. A scientist should be open minded since we are no where near the final truth in anything. If one thinks the box is the final reality, than their science becomes a religion. The members of the science religion, often see themselves as the guardians of the truth and will fight with religious vigor in attempt to beat back the infidels. Most of science becomes tiny battles right on the outer surface of the box. One has to have most of their body in the science box to be allowed to have one finger outside. If too much of the body goes outside the box..., well it is not a pretty sight. The Catholic Church used to do was a thing called a jubilee. If you did really well by the teachings of the church for extended time, they would allow you to leave the box as a reward for extrordinary service. The jubilee was only meant to be temporary and then one gets pulled back into the box again. Linus Pauling and Vitamin C was an example of an out of the box jubilee. If one is on jubilee without approval by the church (out of box) they become treated like a sinner who has no place inside the box. If you wish to get back in the box, one have to renouce everything outside the box and then do some type of penance. That may involve sweeping floors. Sometimes there is mercy for the prodigal son who returns, since it brings new joy to his father, who kept a place for him in the box as his inheritence.

CO2 is not a polutant. It is a natural output of animals. I do not breath out benzene or mercury but I do breath out CO2. It is natural. It is no more of a polutant than a plant outputting O2. Both support aspects of life on this planet with our CO2 the food of the plants. In other words, if we put aside global warming, the amount of CO2 is innocuous to life. CO2 should not be lumped with things that are harmful to life. It is in a class all by itself, since it is part of the life cycle of the earth. It is like eating too many grapes can make you sick. The grape should not be classified as hazardous because someone ate ten Kg in one sitting. That being said, if CO2 causes global warming, the earth should know how to compensate since it has been using this gas for billion of years. The earth may not know how to deal with benzene or viagra since these are alien. If humans were not on the earth, the oil deposits came to the surface, started to burn at industrial rates, the CO2 levels rose, global warming occurred, the earth would go through a period of change not destruction. If a volcano explodes, 10 years later nature is back creating a new eco-system. The concern for global warming is not for the earth, since we are adding more CO2 food for the plants. The concern is for humans. Have we become so unnatural that nature will leave us high and dry? Look at it this way, another doom-gloom concern is the projected population growth, into the next couple of centuries. Will there be enough food and water for the earth to support that many people? Global warming will lengthen the warm part of the year allowing longer growing seasons. It will also make more evaporation and rain for more fresh water. This is the earth making it easier for greater human population. The short term quick fix is forget about the future population, only now counts. You are not a tree with your legs planted in the ground. If the water goes up move to higher ground. If it is too hot for you head north. All you are doing in making a little sacrifice, for more food and water for the future.

The comets shows how easy it is to form amino and nucleic acids. The truth is, science can not explain the formation of life on earth. The comet is a fudge factor to help gloss over the lack of good theory to explain how things on earth could amount to life. But it still does not address how comets got their life to starte in the first place. If it came from a former planet that broke up, how did that get its life started? By using comets, since data is much more difficult to get, than on the earth, by many orders of magnitude, it gives speculation more freedom, since almost all new theory becomes even more difficult to disprove. On earth, we can do the test much easier and come to the truth. With comets one can always say we need a different type of comet. If costs a trillion dollars to farm all the comet types, then speculation will linger. That is all well and good, but it can create bias that circumvents good theory. Let me give you the key bias that is messing up sciences ability to form life on earth without the need of comets. It has to do with fossil fuels. The assumption is, the fossil fuel stems from ancient animals and plants. Look at fossil fuels logically, when animals die in the woods, there is natural recycle going on. The scavengers eat, then the bugs, then bacteria. When this is done, there is only bones left to make petroleum? Dead thing stink for a reason, which is to attract recycle. When a tree falls in the forest, after the termites and bacteria are done, we have compost. This becomes food and nutrients for the next generation. The little that is left over, becomes all the coal in the world? Even if trace upon trace, adds up to something substantial, why does petroleum typcially form major deposits? Do animals die in a pile? Does this happen even under the oceans? Or were their bacteria dead zones? In other words, if we found traces of oil and coal everywhere and not concentrated into deposits, then the logic of fossils might make sense. An alternate explanation of these deposits, is the early earth produced the materials for these deposits before life was on the earth. From this vast range of organic materials life emerged.Life then used this as part of its food, changing the carbon dating, to create the illusion that this formed at the times we think it did. The earth forms deposits of other minerals, instead of even distribution. Organics deposits is consistent with this. If we forget about the fossil fuel bias, and look at the ancient earth making gunk and goop before life, we have a lot more starting material. The fossil fuel is an advance or processed version of the gunk-goop. The tar pits wth dinosaur remains were not the burial caldrons of dino's, but a sticky pool of earthy tar that many dinosaurs fell into and added to. The scavengers, bugs and bacteria had enough sense to let it be. This is more logical way to preserve/add and avoid the restraints of bio-recycle. Here is an old engineering trick for separating light weight organics from heavier oils, that could have allowed the earth can separate the goop from the gunk. It is called steam distillation. If you bubble steam through the goop-gunk, the light weights organics will go up with the steam, at lower than expect boiling point, i.e, less heat destructive. For example, If you mix kerosene and heavy oil and steam lance it, all the kerosene will come off with the steam below it boiling point, leaving the thicker oil behind. The light weight will condense, phase separate and become concentrated. If one was to assume the earth making gunk and goop before life, than the original composition of gunk and goop had a lot of raw materials at a wide range of molecular weights. The steam distilled light materials could then condense higher up in the sky. Some of it will fall and get beat and churned by the rough ocean waves. This makes an emulsion that becomes more and more stable, i.e., lotion of life. It is not life yet but we now have a brought spectrum of materials to get started. The bias of fossil fuels makes less material for pre-life. So now science has to leave the earth and look elsewhere in an attempt to compensate. The result is one bias leading to another and another and another, etc.,

Most of you young people are too young to realize how good we have it today compared to even 30-40 years ago. The EPA didn't form until 1970. Before then there was little push for the modern technology that captures polution. Autos use do burn leaded gas so lead was everywhere. Much has been done, since then, with emissions safer today than in the past. I am not saying it is perfect, just that everyone is over reacting to less. Back in the USA in the mid-sixies Laby Bird Johnson, who was the wife of then president Johnson started a polution campagn, that was geared toward people throwing trash anywhere, especially roadside. It sort of reflected the cavalier attitude where rivers/air were the natural sewer. Many rivers were not safe with some even catching fire. She wanted to clean up America's roads. That sort of change some of the old habits. The EPA came into existance at the end of that same decade. What has changed the most, is the state of the analytical equipment. The early equipment was not too accurate so standards were much lower. If one had 50 PPM (parts per million) of X is was consider safe since it was about as good as we could measure. Out of sight out of mind. Now we can see down to parts per trillion for some things so if it has 50PPT, panic city. We can still see it, so it weighs heavily on our minds. If you plot pollution as a function of time say 1950, it has come down. If you plot panic as a function of time from 1950, it rises with time. Maybe we need to polute. The data seems to indicate that people were calmer with more polution.

If one went back into time to a place they had never been then that was not the past. That past did not include you. Check the history books. If one went back to their own past, that past did not include you being your current self. Again one can check the records. It didn't happen. Think of it this way, if I could time travel back to cavemen times and appear with body in tact, and add myself highly evolved with no evolutionary precidence, it would sort of be like Adam/creationism. Something with no historical precidence would appear all assembled apart from the natural physics and history of that planet. Here is a fictional sci-fi scenario. The planet earth's history was uneventful all the way to its destruction. It was lush but nothing high evolved. So way in the future, someone decided to time travel to earth and change its future. Adam was the the time travel pioneer that changed the balance so the future could change, with evolution being given the kicked it needed. The job was tough and Adam stopped working. So they time travel him a babe called Eve to be his lab assistant. Now Adam is working again. God was the next generation time traveler that kept the body behind. That way he could shuttle back and forth and give instruction from high council. I am just kidding. But you are doing a creationism scenario. Or at least unconsciously given them the physics to make it possible. We can take the scientists out of religion but not religion out of the scientists.

If you look what a hallucination is, it amounts to an imaginary episode, that projects into reality, to create the impression it stems from reality. In other words, if I see a pink elephant, it only exists within my imagination. It is not real, yet my reaction will make me think it exists in reality, as though actual sensory data is coming into my senses from the outside. When in fact the sensory input starts within the brain. When we sleep and dream, the external sensors are shut down. But dreams can appear real, at times, when they impinge upon the sensory areas of the brain. The body will react as though actual external input is what is causing this induction. Hallucinations are an important type of data in the sense they shows that it is possible for the inside of the brain, to trigger the same neural induction, that are often assumed to only work with external data. Most people do not have the vivid hallucinations like the topic of this discussion. For most people the hallucination/projection is suble. The small child waiting for Santa Claus might have an imagination projection that will overlay their reality, which may affect them in an emotional way. The chimney now appears to induce feelings like Santa is in the chimney. Orson Wells' radio broadcast of the invasion by Martians, made the imagination very active to where many began to believe. Many began to panic like the Martians were actually there. Nobody saw any, but they knew they were there, due to the emotions that are normally assumed to require reality input, being induced by the imagination. The input on the sensory areas of the brain is part real and part imagination, but is often interpretted like it is all real, coming from the external environment. That is why philosophers work so hard to explain reality. They are aware of how the imagination can become a projector shining through the eyes. The state of one's unconscious mind will dicate the type of movie overlay. What we think we see and react to, is a combination of the two. When someone buys a new electronic toy, the projector is active. As the object looses it original radiance, this usually means the projector is either starting to dim or is beaming its inner light somewhere else for us. We prefer to call that free choice, rather than call it a type of hallucination. Psychology is really the study of the projector. By knowing which movie is playing it allows one to see reality in a somewhat better light. Sometimes psycholgy doesn't try to shut off the projector but tries to put a nicer movie in the projector, so the projector gives us a better hallucination. If one can project good into a bad situation life becomes much better. The old gold miners projected gold in their claim and may have never found the big vein, but spent a lifetime with hope and excitement. There is even another aspect to the projector. When everyone thought the world was flat, this beleif became the movie for the projector. Everyone would look at the world around and see that it was flat, since the projector was working much better than their rational grasp of reality. But then Columbus came along and a second projector overlayed the first. This projector led him like the old gold miner but in this case the projector was actually projecting reality onto the imaginary world of his day. In other words, he did not have proof of the gold but worked on a gut feeling. The unconscious does not just project fanatasy but can project better reality.

The water shroud or extended water around bio-chems, due to water being the continuous phase or dominant material in the cell, can be addressed easy enough with current understanding of H-bonding. But one needs to modernize this understanding to highly electronnegative atoms being stabilized by being negative with the result H carries the potential if we wish to address situations like the extra H within the double helix. This approach is more flexible and provides a way to mix oil and water. Rather than extrapolate on the DNA I would like that sink in. Instead I would like to look at Na+ and K+ cations. In water these cations exist with hydration spheres or extended water structure. The cation is the pit of the cherry and the extended water is sort of like the flesh of the cherry. The Na+ hydration sphere is larger than that of K+. They both have a single positive charges but their EM effectiveness is different. In other words, K is more reactive in water than Na because K+ is a little more stable than Na+, causing K to release its electrons easier to the water. The less electropositive K+ (more stable than Na+) will therefore have a smaller hydration sphere. Nature makes use of this size difference when pumping Na+. The Na+ cherry is bigger than the K+ cherry and therefore takes more energy to pull off its extended water, so it can skinny down and get through the cation pump. But once it is outside, the larger water flesh returns making it harder to skinny down and work its way back into the cell, spontaneously. The K+ cherry starts out smaller and therefore this makes it a little easier to go back and forth, i.e., takes less energy. Picture Na+ about to be pumped. We need to burst its water shell so it can skinny through the narrow channel of the Na+-K+ pump. This snap of the water sends a potential disturbance into the nearby water. The Na+ competes with the H of its extended water. When its bubble burst, this sort of relaxes the local aqueous potential shifting the local water. When a K+ appears in the inside of the cell, its forms its water ball and creates a slightly different disturbance associated with higher H potential but not as high as had been with the Na+ cation and its hydration sphere. When material is transported in the cell, its uses the potential stored within the membrane that the cation pumps creates. The reversal alters the types of cherry signals that are entering the cell, in an opposite way that is created by the forward cation pumping. It is a type of complex binary coding at the level of H. If we add to this the extended water signals coming from the input chemicals, the membrane sort of paints a picture in the cell's water of what is happening at the membrane. Actively transported molecules continue to be transported along protein rails, using ATP energy to move them along. What this internal transport train is also seeing are the high H-potential waves due to the Na+ cherries reforming as the local membrane potential is used up. This has the affect of transmitting increasing H potential down the train. ATP, with all its O groups, helps lower this aqueous potential to reflect the needs of the bulk aqeous potential, i.e., average membrane potential is negative. If nothing is being transported into a cell, there is no local Na+ inpulse so ATP is not needed at that zone. If stuff is coming in at a fast rate, the local Na+ impulse conducts down the train requiring more ATP diffuse into the transport train to reduce the increased in the H-potential signal. ATP and ADP have their own extended water shrouds, which differ. As ATP converts to ADP, the ADP creates its own disturbances within the water. The ATP is not just limited to the membrane but is found everywhere. The mitochondria, by being the primary output source of ATP, are the big guns in the cell which sort of propagate their own bulk disturbance in water, with in this case are more connected to a lower H-potential signal. With the lion's share of the ATP energy of the cell going into the cation pumping, the affect of the ATP is to lower cell's H-potential. This is reflected by the inside of the cell becoming slightly negative. But the membrane potential, via the external high H-potential (positive), keeps attracting materials, causing reversal of potential in an organized way. The mitochondria, now has to use ATP to put out these brushfires. The ATP energy budget is distributed in a way that minimizes H-potential. But the mitochnodria are also within the water which has an impact on it. This water is a function of all the other things that glow or not. Pardon my chemistry terms like cherry, glow and big guns Sometimes it is easier to paint a visual image of complex things using simple analogies. More on the extra H within the DNA double helix I don't like answering my own posts but I thought it would be useful to discuss some of the rational behind the extra H within the DNA double helix. The DNA double helix is a very stable bi-molecule making it useful for the templates called genes. The extra H that can't form H bonds, add some extra potential to an otherwise very stable situation. If nature didn't have a reason for this extra H potential, it could have added -OH groups instead of the -NH2 groups, so it could avoid having any extra H. But this would have been too stable for the needs of life. What these extra H do, among other things, is give the DNA double helix some extra potential to do a little better than the double heliix, with respect to achieving minimum potential. In other words, these extra H help the DNA take the bait, separate the helix, with the hope the final state will lead to an even lower potential. If these -NH2 groups had been replaced with -OH, to get rid of the potential of the extra H, the DNA would have zero incentive to separate the double helix since it would already be as low in potential energy as is possible. Once the DNA double helix separates and the organic innards of the single helixes see the affects of the water, these extra H will also help counter surface tension by helping to stabilze the water relative, to these H not being there. In summary, the extra H give the stable DNA bimolecule incentive to separate. They also give extra stability within the water if and when the DNA decides to separate and expose its organics innards. The extra H help narrows the potential bandwidth for helix separation in water relative to there not being any extra H. As was shown in an earlier post, the two different features of RNA, relative to the DNA, i.e., the -OH on the pentose sugar and -H instead of -CH3 on one of the bases, causes RNA to have a lower H-bonding potential. This allows more variable helix structures including the single RNA helix. As such, when RNA forms on the DNA it partially forfills the hope of the DNA by lowering the potential of the DNA relative to the DNA double helix. That is all well and good for the DNA. But with respect to the RNA, by combining with the DNA its potential will see an increase. Eventually, the loss by RNA will begin to outweight the partial gain the DNA. This will cause the RNA to strike out on its own, causing the DNA double helix to reform, since the DNA double helix becomes better than exposure to the water. In modern cells, this is all assisted with enzymes. But in ancient pre-cells with little or no enzyme support, these simple built in potentials, might have allowed this to occurred, spontaneously on a small scale. If we add the affect of the cation pumping, which is to lower the H-potential in the interior cell water of the cell, the DNA now sees an even more favorable environment with respect to exposing innards to water. Some mechanism of cation pumping even proton pumps was one of the most important breakthroughs for life due to making everything easier. This is relatively simple in the sense of few components, it still uses the lions share of the cells energy and is still quite conservative in cells.

If we could go back into time doesn't that means that the molecules of the body would also have to redistribute to where they were in the past? Some of my body water might have to go back into a cloud. The DNA of childhood may have to go back into the cow that gave the beef that I ate. I am sort of playing, but most people imagine themselves staying the same when going back in time, only the rest of the universe will change. Even if it was possible, how do you keep your body in synche with one time and only change the entire universe for a different time? If one went back in time exactly 10 years, with both you and the universe staying in synche, you might not even be aware that you came from the future, since everything in your body would be just like it was. You might feel a little dizzy as the last future stuff leaves, maybe even feeling a vague memory trace for an instant, sort of like a deja vu. The path back to the future may not be the same if one believes in chaos. If could only be the same if the universe was integrated in a systematic way such that the lowering potential to the future always reaches the same state. Chaos theory should not allow for time travel since going back to the future, from the past, would change the future. You go back unaware that you traveled back. The bird crap that hit you that day (first time around) now hits the person next to you due to chaos. The auto accident that was a near miss now gets you. At a cross road of life, you now chose another path. When it should be time, to be the first to time travel, you are somewhere else. So it never happens.

The problem with using aliens to seed the earth is that it ignors the question of how did life form on this alien planet? We can only go back so many generations of aliens seeder until we run out of time; assuming the universe is 15B years old. If life could somehow appear to make the first alien seeder, then it is also possible the mechanism occur on the earth. One of the things one must consider when using numbers, distance and time conventions, is that they were chosen for convenience. The English system ft (foot) was probably based on the length of a kings foot about a size 10. The king was not some type of universal bearer of standard, more terrestrial. In the orginal Farenheight system ice formed at 32 and water boiled at 212. The metric system tried to make it more convenient using water. They just so happened to agree on 0 and 100 instead of 32 and 212. If some politians holding the purse strings wanted, 10 and 69 that would be it. The numbers that you present may correlate but they correlate to the present earthy convention and not some type of universal standard. One cubic centimeter of water weighs one gram. That is also convention. The centi-meter could have been 10% bigger and the gram (1.1) cubed, simple because it was the only container there that day. They might have still called these centimeter and gram. It doesn't really matter. Once the standard was set, everything adds up because convention is just a point of reference one which we build everything. The second is close to the rest heart beat of someone who is sleeping. The early clock makers could have just as easily picked their own heart rate. The day could still be 24 hours but the minute would have 60-120 seconds depending how much energy he exerted during calibration. I often wondered why time didn't go base 10. Say 100 metric seconds to a metric minute, 100 metric minutes to a metric hour, and maybe 100 metric hours to one solar day. It would boil down to 15 current mins per metric hour. It would have been awkward at first, like the english system going to metric, but once it caught on everyone would just go with the flow. Maybe it was a labor thing, with nobody wanting to work a 160 metric hour work week.

Here is a mind example to ponder in psychology. It has to do with how reality can be seen differently, depending if one is a specialist or a generalists. A specialists will narrow their focus so they can see things close up in all its details. The generalist has a wider view and sees more of the picture, but because of the wider field of view, often misses out on the details. Both are important, providing both details and context. Here is an illustration of this contrast. We have a photo. The specialist will use a narrow beam of light to focus on one part of this photo. This will allow him to look at its many details. As we zoom it, we notice a female who, by her pose and thin athletic build, looks like a dancer. Being close, we can see the anguish on her face. We also notice, by the label on her sweats, that she is wearing bargin mart. Based on this data one may logically conclude she is a struggling dancer who appears to be practicing, with her anguish suggesting her losing her motivation. Next, we open up the field of view to see more of the picture. We lose some of the tiny details but now we can see more of the picture. What now appears are other dancers. Some are sitting and talking. Others are stretching. Many appear more stylish than are original dancer. Based on this wider field of view our logical conclusions now change. Now she is not practing but maybe she is at a dance try-out, with the calm stylishness of the other dancers, suggesting her new, not that good or even having a bad day. Next, we open the angle of view, to see the entire picture. The details are fuzzier still but now we can see the entire picture. We notice that our dancer is now at a premier dance theatre. We also notice there is a man in the front who is yelling at her. She is the center of his attention. That explains the anguish on her face. It turns out she is the prima dancer who is being pushed to her limit by her coach. Maybe her bargain mart sweats reminds her of her early days when she was hungry. If the person with the widest view (generalists) was to suggest to the person with the narrowesr view (specialist) the girl in their sight was a prima dancer, they would think that he was off his rocker. The two different views of the same picture, close or far, lead to different things. Both are consistent with what they see but both see different things. We live in a world of specialists who can see the details of closeness. Often theory is created based on this close-up view. A generalist may see a different picture, but may be too removed to see the details. There should be more emphasis in the generalist view, since it can help get rid of some of the logical bias created by looking too close for too long. But there is not really a good generalist track in science to help this along. What we have may require much improvement.