pioneer

Factoring out genetics, the immune system learns from experience. As such, giving the immune system schooling by exposure makes it smarter. For example, the little child who eats the food he drops on the ground, i.e., one minute rule before mother catches him, will expose himself to more things than a child who eats only what is sterile. The sterile eater may avoid certain things but he doesn't exercise his immune system. The dirt eater may get short term health conditions from this behavior, but as their immune systems learns, they are less vulnerable in the future. The difference may be between short term and long term benefits. Another example, are the rough and tumble kids who get more cuts and bruises. These cuts are going to expose them to a greater variety of things than if they covered themselves in a suit of armor. But this is also schooling for the immune system. It could cause a problem, but it can also lead to a better immune response during future falls and spills. If you look at the situation of NUR1301, his parents maybe tried to avoid immunity school but now have problems. These problem may have caused NUR1301 to be forced into a rigorous immunity home schooling. Maybe we needed to find a better balance between avoidance and exposure, to school the immune system. If you make a graph with medical advances going up over time, sickness should be falling with time. An analogy is GM building a new model auto. If it has a ten year cycle, if they are improving that model over the ten year cycle, the number of trips to the mechanic should be falling with time. If we plot esculating medical costs and assume that to reflects the state of health, the improving medical state of the art is causing more health problems? For example, I get a cut. I can let nature take its course and have a nasty looking scab for a couple of weeks and maybe a scar when I am done. Or I can go to the doctor who can accelerate healing and avoid the scar. The first scenario may be schooling my immune system better than the second scenario, since the second will add something synthetic to speed the natural process. During the next cycle, the first scenario benefits from a smarter immune system, while the second scenario still has the immune system on vacation, so it needs the pampering again. The second scenario is still quicker, but the first is catching up naturally. The question that arises, is it possible to not only delay immune school but to deprogram the natural immune system by alterring how its responds to situations by including things that have never been on the earth? If one had bionic legs overlayed onto their legs they could run faster and jump higher. Over time, the leg muscles will conform to the bionics. Now the legs are molded differently making normal running much less affective. A person who never had the speed of the bionic may be able to advance to the stride of sprinting easier, than those who legs have been reshaped because of the running bionics. When something new comes down the pike the natural immune system is a little closer due to he schooling, While the synthetic immune system is further away and needs even newer bionics to compensate. The advancing medical is making better and better things to help us overcome and speed up our recovery. But could this also be causing the natural immunity school to becomed delayed or stay on vacation?

I need to go back to the beginning. If you look at a single H2O molecule, the O has higher electronegativity than H, and withdraws electron density away from the H. The result is a dipole with H slightly positive and O slightly negative. If we could equalize the electrons to remove the dipole, it would form again, since the dipole moves H2O in the direction of lowest potential. Thehigher electronegativity of O is stabilzed by the extra electron density (negative charge) or it would not have taken it in the first place. The net result is the primary burden of potential is on the H. The H-bond in cells are mostly due to H being connected to O and N. With both of these being highly electronegative, and being stabilzed by taking electron density from H, these with alos pass the burden of potential to H. The H will try to lower this potential by forming H-bonds. If we look at the DNA double helix, in every base pair, there are more possible H that can form hydrogen bonds than there are possible H-bonds. If you look at adenine the upper N has two H and only one H-bond. In the bottom pair, both cytosine and Guanine both have an extra H (5 possible and only 3 forming). What that means is each of these extra H retain near max H-potential. They would like to lower this potential but they structurally prevented. What these extra H do is cause the DNA to retain H-potential, with every base pair having one or two of these max potential H built it. This is part of the configurational signature of the DNA at the level of H-potential. Since RNA does not have to always form a double helix, these extra H can interact with the water a little better and alter their potential. This give sthe RNA a slightly different signiture, even though it has the same H. In RNA, any particular combination of loops, straight single helix or double helix, the sum of all these H will give it a specific H-potential signature.

If a particle had spin and was moving at C, does the spin have to align perpendicular to motion to avoid the surface going faster than C? In other words, if it spun like a wheel with the hub moving at C, the surface would cyclically get ahead of the hub and need to exceed C. In a perpendicular spin, the surface stays at the same translation postion of the hub.

Human sexuality is hard to solidify since conditioning can be a factor, which has very little to do with natural instinct. Back in the 1950's Marylin Monroe was sort of the male's ideal image of a female, ie., full figured. A decade or two later that changed to females who were thin. These studies would have to be repeated over many generations and fads to factor out cultural condtioning before we could see what is natural. One of the problems of many studies of the distant past is to project current times and attitudes onto the distance past. If a study of humans wearing animal furs was conducted in Victorian times the theory might go something like, this; they put on furs on to avoid the shame of being naked. Most ould go along with that theory, since that would have been the bias du jour. The very distant humans were not us with caveman clothes. If one went to the most primative tribe on the earth and asked their theory it would probably be closer to the minset of the distant people. It would still be too advanced, but it would have less gap compared to modern humans. They may say, it is to honor the spirits of the animals that fed them. The modern human may project what the $1000 suit does for them. It would have little to do with honoring animals but with enhanced human vanity. The affect of clothing is still quite primative even in modern humans. Nice clothes can indeed make one feel better or enhanced. If you analyize the clothing there is no physical properites that transfer to the body. The affect is not based on anything in physical reality. Instead the magic is based on subjective imagination and some type of induced dreamworld. One only has to go back to the fads of a previous generation. To look at that today, it looks so silly, yet at the time the dream make them strut. The dream world of the very distance people was not our dream world. Yet our dreamworld is often projected into distance times, for our times.

I agree that hydrogen alone can not fully explain cell. It adds another layer to what we already know. It complements existing understanding and adds the addtional understanding of how cells integrate. The easiest to see is connected to the cellular membrane potential. This is where a cell puts the majority of its energy. So it must be important to the cell. The net affect is the inside of the cell membrane in induced negative. Since the water is everywhere, this constant negative induction is conducted into the water. It has the affect, of lowering the hydrogen-potential of the global water. As such, the water around everything in the cell is less demanding for electron density. This means the hydrogen bonding of everything is a little looser than if the water was not seeing this negative induction. So if we take a protein out of the confines of the cell, to investigate, it will see a slightly different external water than occurs within the cell. That is part of the reason the results often come out empirical. It is not exactly the same situation as occurs within the cell. It is a good approximation. If we add the complementary aquoeus affect due to the cell membrane, we will be able to generate results closer to the reality. Average water potential is only useful in a very limited way. We also need to know the more specific local water potentials. To do this one has to work with a reciprocity, i.e., bio-materials inducing the water. This is where the known structures of the cell become mirrored in the H-potential affect they will create within the water. Let me give an example. If we look at the DNA double helix, this structure is the best way to bury the organic aspects, i.e., bases, sugar, to lower their surface tension affects, which can increase the potential of water. Or to minimize the potential in the continuous bulk water phase, i.e, 70-90%, these organic groups are buried to minimize the potential in the bulk water. In other words, if we started with two DNA strands and used hexane, instead of water, one would not get the same structure, since the continuous phase of hexane would bury all the charge/polar groups. For the DNA to be useful for transcription we need to separate the helix. By doing this we are causing the organic groups to have more contact with water. This will have the affect of increasing local water potential near the separated the double helix. Or the water around the separated double helix will define more potential than the water near the double helix that is still together. It is more compicated than that, but these two states of DNA will have two different impacts on the local water.

I am trying to tone down my confidence so it doesn't come across like arrogance that is trying to compensate for lack of understanding. The one variable is hydrogen potential, which includes H-bonding but extends into other aspects of hydrogen such as reduced hydrogen. If I asked you to explain all we know about life in one paragraph it would not be easy inspite of the thousands of good research papers, books and extended knowledge on the subject. It is easier to a favorable audience, that has plenty of background, like yourself. But in that short space, those who know a limited amount about life science, would have a bunch of questions. The H potential model covers the same scope. It is not developed that far, but I tried to do a wide variety of application over the entire range. I don't think I could ever write a paragraph that will answer all the critics. Without some background, the discussion will get bogged down into comparing what is known with something that reaches different conclusion, due to adding the affect of the extended water. The ATP example should allow one to see the importance of the water attached to ATP. This addtion of the water is entirely consistent with all the observation but adds a little extra to the analysis that changes things. I don't mean to offend anyone, but I simple follow the logic. Maybe what I need is a suggestion of what I could do to make it easier. I am not looking for a trick question but a thoughtful question to settle it. Let give another example of how extended water is consistent. I will explain why the DNA forms a double helix and RNA has more variety. If we look at one helix of each, there are only two simple chemical differences between the two. The first is the pentose sugar of RNA has an -OH group in the position where the pentose sugar of DNA has a -H group. Relative to the extended water, the -OH on the sugar of RNA can form a hydrogen bond with water, and therefore pull in a little more electron density from the water than can the -H group of the DNA. This lowers the hydrogen bonding potential of RNA relative to the DNA. This gives the RNA more flexibility with respect to the types of helixes it has to form. The higher potential of the DNA causes the need to form double helix. The other difference is connected to only one of the bases. Chemically the DNA has an -CH3 group on the same position, the base of RNA has an -H. When a single strand is open to the water, both of these groups create a surface tension affect like oil-water, with the -CH3 group creating more surface tension in the water than the -H. In other words, the -CH3 makes it hard for the water to hydrogen bond due to this organic group taking up more space in the water in an unfavorable way, than the tiny -H. This will increase the local aqueous hydrogen bonding potential, since more water will be put in a position where it can't form h-bonds. As such, the DNA has another built in feature that further increases its H-bonding potential. The result is DNA will form a double helix and RNA has more flexibility. To extend this in another direction, if I see methylation on the DNA, I know that aspect of the DNA has been induced to even higher potential. This may make it a little more difficult to separate the helix there.

My theory for body hair loss in humans relative to our pre-cursors, is connected to the need for more vitamin D. The human skin, when it gets tanned allows the creation of vitamin D. Maybe the diet changed, causing hair loss, which in turn, allowed a means to replace the deficiency. If you compare modern males to females, males usually have some chest hair while females will usually not. Maybe the faster loss of chest hair in the females, allowed the tanning of more skin around the breasts allowing more Vit-D in their breast milk. This may have added an extra boost to the babies. Their little bodies get more used to higher vitamin-D, so when they stop breast feeding they need even more surface area for sun exposure. If you look at hair loss in humans, like on the head, it form patterns. They are often referred to as pattern baldness. It is also possible, that the prehumans may have formed pattern baldness on the body. This would be a simple way to cause groups to divide and separate. Maybe the patchy semi-hairless apes learn to fit in by learning to make a body toopay, i.e., animal skin. It could have been a mother trying to protect her odd baby, covered it in an animal skin. Others soon learned to copy.

I am not married to this but presented it a think outside the box. Heat is usually associated with the bulk movement of atoms. If we heat a block of iron, the Fe atoms are vibrating more, causing the metal to expand. In solid Fe, we have a situation different than an Fe atom. The main difference is the outer electrons are sharing within the solid metal. This sharing allows electrical conduction, since sharing allows replacements. In an atom, the electrons will simply follow the Fe nucleus. But in a solid, since the eouter lectrons are sharing within the matrix, they are not stuck to one atom, such that Fe motion/vibration becomes relative motion to the sharing electrons. The movement of the positive nuclei, alters electron distances, as they move around and share, for seconary emissions. In the earth's solid iron core the temperature should ionize electrons. The magnetism suggests the Fe vibration is kicking up lower electrons to take over the D-orbitals to restore the magnetism, inspite of electron loss.

The relative basicity of can looked up in any chemistry book, with OH- being a stronger base than Cl-. Relative basicity is the measure of how easy that entity is able to share electrons. Because Cl- is a weak base, it can not share the electrons that easy, allowing the H to leave. If you look at anything in the cell, everything is surrounded by water. Water is the dominant material within the cell in the order of 70-90%. When a protein forms in water, it places its hydrophobic groups on the inside and its hydrophilic groups on the surface. The operative word is "hydro or water". The potential in the water is at the level of hydrogen bonding. Or the hydrogen bonding potential in the water causes the enzyme to place its hydrophobic groups in the interior and its hydrophilic groups at the surface. If we used a different solvant, without H-bonding, one would get a different enzyme. For example, in hexane the opposite would occur, with hydrophobic groups preferring to be on the surface. In biology and biochemistry, the enzyme is often modeled out of the context of the water that surrounds it, even though this water is what is creating a dual potential to give it its proper shape. This is a good first approximation. But how does one justify taking the enzyme out of the context of the extended water structure that will surround it? I don't wish to be mean, but this first approximation is not fully reflecting reality. If we look at ATP, it is does not exist like it is drawn in bio-books. It will actually have extended water as part of its structure. There are plenty of O atoms on the triphosphate for the hydrogen water to bind too. If you explain ATP out of the context of the extended water you will get one explanation, which is a good first approximation. If you look at the reality of anything dissolved in water, the explanation will have to include the water since the water is part of ATP extedned structure. Look at it this way, all the hydrogen of water, have an electron withdrawing affect when they bind onto the the many O of the tri-phosphate. The net affect is that the final potential in the ATP is different with or without water. The water itself, is the continuous phase of the cell, with everything in the water having an impact on the local and global potential of the water. So the water around the ATP is not just its own water, but is also connected to the aqueous potentials which are created by the environment the ATP is in. Many things can happen, but the most important is called the cell cycle. At the onset, the membrane will unsaturate i.e., more fluid, and the cation pumps become more prone to reversal. The result is the cellular membrane potential gets lower than it was. Because of the change in the global water potential, the activities of the cell shift to the needs of the cellular replication. In a modern cell there are all types of extra biochemistry going on. But the general mechanism has not change in billions of years. The extra stuff helps to make the entire process far more perfect but the bulk affect can be explain with 100% correlation by taking into affect water potential at the level of hydrogen bonding. Let me give one global example. When the ion pumps reverse the inside of the menbrane will become less negative. What this means is the water of the cell now as less bulk reduction potential, i.e., less negative influence because of the lower negative induction at the membrane. This means less bulk aqueous potential with the metabolic oxidation potential. Or the lower negative charge in the water implies less oppposing affect on the oxidation potential, allowing the metabolic oxidation to occur easier, resulting in higher metabolism. Again there are many things going on, but the direction is consistent. Here is the problem and solution as I see it. The first approximation method is good. But it is not the final solution. I have mellowed. At one time, I would have held the first approximation's feet to the fire. But I don't want to fight anymore. I am ready to generate the step. A Few More Comments I realize that my explanation for carbon monoxide poisioning was not correct. But the question was nebulous. It did not say carbon monoxide poisoning in humans. That was easy. I had not been addressing multicellular applications, but was limiting myself to single cellular. The question I saw was, what would be the affect of CO on a single cell if it was exposed to CO? The CO will react with O2. If the CO gets deep enough inside the cell, it will impact the O2 of metabolism. Also the ATP discussion was not as complete as possible. The ATP is active at the terminal phosphate group. The positive charge on the terminal P is the sweet spot on that molecule. If we add the affect of hydrogen bonded water onto the ATP, this will be electro-withdrawing making that P more positive so it can react even easier with the -OH group on an enzyme. Because the hydrogen bonded water is withdrawing electron density from the O's of phosphate, this means the O of those attached water will see slightly more electron density. This extra electron density allows one of these water to be the easiest/closest water to add to the second phosphate to make the (OH) end cap of ADP. The ATP will carry the water with it via h-bond that will help make the the ADP end cap. You won't read that in any book. I just used simple logic. If we use an historical perspective, the discovery of the cell was the first major global understanding of the living state. Much cateloging had been down with the diversity of life, but the understanding of the cell allowed a global explanation that could be used to explain all aspects of life. Although this rasied the bar, it could not address the common link that could explain the cellular innards in a global way. So science went back to cateloging the microspopic structure to show similarities in cells. The genetic theory was the next important global variable. Within the genetic templates of the DNA were all the ingredients needed to make any protein within the cell and therefore was able to correlate all the innards. If there was an affect, that meant a protein or protein train, which in turn, had a genetic basis. Genetic theory helped to narrow down research and change simple cateloging to better predictions. What is still left to explain in the mysteryof life, is how does shuff know where to go? We have cateloged where it goes. We also know it comes from the DNA. Even the DNA will make more DNA. But once it leaves the DNA, how does everything know where to go. In cell cycles. the mother cell separates the contents and the daughter cells start out disorganized. Yet everything finds the correct spot so the cell can become active. To answer the hows of directed movement we need another global variable.

Evolutionary theory is the accepted posture of science when it come to describing the progression of life. But if you think about evolutionary theory, it is actually liberal arts history. History deals with facts and dates, which are often better in terms of accuracy and completeness compared to the evolutionary data set. Based on their well documented data, historians forms theories but leave room for furhter debate. Evolution uses a one-dogma approach, which is blasphemous to debate. It sounds like a religion to me. Let me put it in perspective. Which has the most solid data. The American Civil War or the history of the dinosaurs? Obviously, the Civil War data is far more complete with only tiny discontinuities, if any. Yet many things are still open for debate inspite of far better data. Evolutionary theory is supported with far less data yet it doesn't allow any deviation? Evolution should be properly transferred to the liberal arts category of history. If we wanted to know about ancient Egypt, we call in the scientists to dig for facts. Other scientists then debate the meaning but leave the door open to the historians to debate the bigger issues more. Evolutionary history may have the worse, relative data collection, yet it is the only area in hisotry that insists on conformity to its one dogmatic approach. Maybe the less you know the more one thinks they know. Maybe scientists should leave evolutionary history to the specialist who have a better perspecitve of the pitfalls that occur defining history theory. It is sort of an analogous to historians being in charge of science. Obviously, they have their own bend, which would approach science much differently. This is the heart of the problem between evolutionary history-science and religion. The kettle is calling the pot black. Religion used to have a monoply for dogma. Evolutionary history gave science a way to act like religion, i.e., dogma based on historically thin data. It is a religious war.

I was not sure if this was chemistry or physics. It might be a blend of the two. If I see something that is red hot, it gives off red light. I can also see things that are red even at very cold temperature. How can the same color appear one by heat and the other without heat? I have a speculation to put on the table. The cold temperature red occurs via EM forces at the level of the electron and negative charge, while the hot temperature red is also due to EM forces but occurs beginning at the positive charge in the nucleus. For example, if we heat CO2 gas, the CO2 will bend, vibrate and change direction quickly due to collision. What this means is that the nuclei are increasing their range of motion at temperature increases. The heat goes into the movement of the heavy mass nuclei. The electrons are trying to keep up and maintain lowest energy but undergo EM affects due to the increased motion of the positive nuclei. Let me explain this with an illustration. Picture if the electrons were stationary like the nucleus, and the protons acted like the electrons. If we inputted enough energy to ionize an electron in a normal atom, and added this to the orbiting protons of the illustration atom, it would not ionize properly, since the energy now has to move a mass that is 1000 times heavier. We get the same EM potential but the bigger mass makes it much less affective in terms of the needed charge separation. The heat is the added boost to compensate for the heavier mass, so the protons and electrons can separate to the distance needed to get the EM energy output. The other way around, allows the electron to move without heat. We get the same charge separation without as much thermal energy since we do not have to compensate for the movement of heavy mass. If you look at the iron core of the earth, the vibration of Fe nuclei, could create a type of ionization of the electrons, from the inside out, that allows the iron electrons to remain in the potentiated state of magnetism. It is not easy to ionizes electrons in the center of a solid. It could take a lot of heat to move the heavy iron nuclei enough to create a small electron ionization type affect into the magnetic Fe state. Just like red hot takes a lot of heat to generate moderate EM energy transitions.

Language is important but it importance is in transferring thoughts. I can go into the Amazon forest and find a new flower, for example. There is a language problem if I try to tell someone since it does not yet exist in language. If I show them without saying a word it is easier to transfer. If I try to explain it in terms of what I know, like color, size, texture and try to explain its fragrance it is sort of like this, that and the other thing, I can only transfer the image in my mind so far. The imagination of the person will try to fill in the rest. If I did it to ten people and told then to draw it, one may get ten different loosely similar drawings. The variation is due to the subjective affects of the imagination. This need to overcome this subjectivity helped language to evolve. If someone said the boy ran to the park. I don't know if he jogged or ran since running is sort of relative to what one thinks it means. The debate will break out with half thinking jog and other running, due to the subjective nature within all the people hearing these words and not knowing exactly what the person defines as running. The person may say he ran quickly to the park. This is now a little clearer. But someone then may look at the person speaking, who can't even run, and think maybe his definition of quickly is a little faster than a walk. Now he says, he ran quickly to the park at the pace of someone on a high school track team who does the mile in 6 mins. Now we are getting even clearer. Now the imaginary fog between people is lifting and all see the same thing. The simple nouns may have been first since they are easy to make and create, since they can be pointed to in reality and compared to what the eyes see, i.e., dog. If there is a pack of dogs, adjectives then needed to evolve to help dispel the subjectivity of which dog. Verbs are sort of clear but are harder to transfer than nouns, like the example of run. One now needs to begin evolving adverbs and propostional phrases, etc.. Even when you can do all of that, there is still human subjectivity. For example, the data and arguments of global warming does not lead to only one consensus image in the imagination. There is still subjectivity. To convince someone, when the language of hard data won't do, language now goes after the subjectivity directly and manipulates at that level. We go back to the ancient visual cortex and present visual data out of wack to create an imaginary reality. This is sort of language going backwards from clarity back to the days of subjectivity. Spin does not clarify meaning for reality but caters to the imagination, with emotional induction being used to help trigger the imagination and to help make the person irrational so rational clarity can be avoided in favor of an image in the imagination. Mythology was the concensus spin at a time when subjectivty was high. The level of human subjectivity is much lower today, but spin still works. The animal sees reality and acts with the cause and affect relative to their animal nature, i.e., visual cortex. Humans departed from nature via an imaginary reality that language both helped to induce, i.e., mythology expanded, while also helping to gradually clarify reality at the same time. Language is still used to bring one in either direction. One can live in the world of fiction and spin or one can live on the world of hard data, or anywhere in the middle, which is probably the natural balance.

I don't think Obama implied invading Pakistan. It sounds more like using covert ops to take the heat off the Pakistani government. We make covert agreements, so the leadership can still talk the talk for his people. Then he can show us where to go, and then act very surprised and outraged. He gets his browny points and we deny all knowledge. Obama's problem was addressed by Hilary. Don't say everything you think or play your cards a little closer.

There is a difference between nuke states and chemical states. But if you think about, it how does an nuclear proton different from a H-proton? The only difference might be a little mass due to the mass burn. In that case, the nuclear proton is only a lower potential state of an H-proton. So he are not talking about apples and oranges but red apples and yellow ones. The life sciences are observational and empirical. The observational took and takes a lot of hard effort to iron down something. Each little thing is treated as it own little special thing, each being given a power word. One can see something and identify it even if one doesn't know what it does at first. This becomes the seed of future investigations. From all these things one begins to see patterns and how they relate. What I have tried to do is reduce dozens if not hundreds of patterns down to just one basic pattern, which is common to all the patterns. Maybe my brain fart is connected to not wishing to fill my memory with too much data to where I lose track of the forest because of all the trees. There are thousands of people already doing that. I prefer to look at the forest as a whole and work downward toward the largest bulk patterns. There are not many trying to do that. This is where extra helpers are needed If you were in the woods, you can see the bark on the trees and the small differences between two trees of the same speciies. But from that perpective the only patterns you can see are those right in front of you. But looking at the forest from a satelite view, one can see bulk patterns that may not be very obvious to someone who is bush wacking. I may see a wedge of similar trees of about the same color. The specialist can help me by telling me, what you see is actually three types of trees. Thanks, I now know what I need to do to be consistent with you. The specialist may say, really, these trees go all the way to the river. Thanks, that changes the center of where we thought these three tree types originated.

The idea of modelling the cell in terms of H-bonds is not something I came up with out of the blue. When I was taken O-Chem as part of my ChemE curriculum, the text book we used was Morrison and Boyd. My specialty was polymers. In a brief few chapters on bio-polymers, the author stressed that work was needed on the affect of H-bonds on bio-polymers. That was in spring of 1976. In polymers, the unique poperties of plastics are often due to small secondary forces. For example, teflon is just weak F interactions. This gives it it non-stick properties. So, I could see how H-bonds should have an impact on the bulk properties of bio-polymers like DNA. But, at that time, I had never taken any biology. I was more practical minded and didn't like memorizing all the $10 latin words, so I avoid it. I was not allowed to skip biology and go right into bio-chemistry, so I stopped. It wasn't until another 6-7 years, that the idea was resurrected again. I was now a development engineer. One of my projects was to see if it is possible to do an anaerobic denitrification in open waste acid ponds, as a cheap way to clean up acids ponds common the nuke trades. I was still stupid when it came to biology and bacteria. But I had creative ingenuity. The experts in the field said, it was impossible. The consultants were nice and all but they knew how hard it was to control bacteria even with tight standards. Little blips could make the bio-reactors shut down. I was asked to do it where there was very little control over variables, in open ponds subject to weather, leaching, they had almost the entire periodic table of the elements due to decades of R&D, nitrates that were 10-100 times what were considered optimized in the bio-reactors, etc., Because I was stupid in biology, I was also ignorant of what couldn't be done. My job was to make it work. As it turned out, I not only had a green thumb but a slimey thumb for bacteria and the impossible became the new way. This gave me a sense of confidence that traditional wisdom has room for improvement. It also required that I learn something about biology for presentations. After the success of the project, it started to make me think about the H-bond model again. About a years or so later I began one my first passes through single and multicellular situations. At that time, my biology knowledge was disjointed, so I made use of idiot biology, i.e., the thing-a-ma-jig has an extra OH group compared to the widget. It was more geared toward figuring out how to connect things at the chemical level via H-potentials. I could see in terms of chemical structure, but the bio-lingo just wouldn't stick. It was almost ten years later that I decided I needed to bite the bullet and learn bio-lingo and see if my basic theory could work within established biology, at least at a freshman level textbook. It worked fine with me able to translated the book and explain unexplained things, at the time, like how the parts of the Na-K pumps find each other. The problem was my physics treatment of the base variable needed an elaborate research study to help me define the basic variable. I figured a few hundren applications would make the base research a viable thing. But it was hard to find an audience due to my overlapping branches of science. The applications meant nothing to the physicists and the physics meants nothing to the biologist. The biologist is more by the book so even the applications seemed to go over poorly, without experimental proof. This last pass, about 6-7 years later, was connected to trying to establish the variable without needing any physical resources other than using the well established principles of physical-chem. I was good at P-chem. But now I have forgotten much of the biology lingo. I see the structures and can can see the connections to the H-bonding and can extrapolate. I need help making sure my next and final translation is by the biology book. Carbonoxide is not a poison per se. What it does is absorb oxygen to form carbon dioxide, which in the cell becomes bi-carbonate. You have two affects going on, the first reduces the metabolic oxidation potential by capturing O2 that should be the terminal electron acceptor. The cell has to go into an anaerobic mode so it can continue to make energy. But it can't do that for too long compared to having more O2 to drive the metabolism. Secondly, bi-carbonate is HCO3-. Normally the waste products of metabolism should be CO2 and H2O which equals H2CO3 if there is plenty of O2. The H2CO3 becomes HCO3- which theoretically gives off an H. But with CO and O2, the result is also HCO3-, but now it needs to gain an H. This loss of the H from the local water, will mess things up at the level of hydrogen potential. This is more connected to the so-called poison affect of CO. I am not a biologist and I am sure there are enzymatic things also going on. But with the H-analysis, I would assume gradients. The loss of H can change an entire H gradient potential within a range of proteins causing affects that could even be a little more distant than one might expect. The future hope of the H-model is to see how far the affect goes so we can predict which proteins lose efficiency. What that does is give the research team valuable insight to help narrow a search. We will still need both teams, the H-team to narrow the search and the other team to get into the trenches, like they do now, but the latter will have more certainty up front. This is essentially what I am saying. Picture this, instead of worrying about H, C,O, N, Na, K, Ca, Mg, P, S, Fe, Cu, etc., we model all of these only in terms of the final H potential states all these induce. Now we only have one variable to worry about, that has a range of possible potentials. This gives us sort of the ghost (for the lack of a better term) of life. We model the ghost. Since we modeled H, C,O, N, Na, K, Ca, Mg, P, S, Fe, Cu, etc., in terms of H, when we pertubate the ghost system with H, we should eventually be able to back translate to H, C,O, N, Na, K, Ca, Mg, P, S, Fe, Cu, etc., and the use that to predict the particular molecule that implies the H pertubation needed to create an affect. The bio-team gets into the trenches and tries the prediction helping to tweak both systems.

Migration was beneficial for human evolution in that it put pre-humans in contact with a variety of new environments, requiring more need to adapt, compare to remaining within a balanced eco-system. The last ice age probably had a very significant impact on human development. Necessity is the mother of invention; routine does not need adaption. One does not really need language to learn simple tasks. Monkey see and monkey do, allows one to mimick even without language. Even modern children often do what their parents do and not what they say. Where language becomes important is transfering what is in the mind. People can't see what is going on in another's brain, so they can copy. Language is the bridge between human minds and imaginations. For example, if a leader of a tribe gets his weapon, others will follow, even without anything said. But if the leader has a stategy in mind, he needs language to transfer what is on is mind, reducing his running around. One can explain how to change a flat tire. One can also learn this skill, even if nothing was said, by watching how it is done. The first uses the person's imagination and the second the visual cortex. The first is more contaminated with human subjectivity. Teaching with language and doing are often two different things; unknown fears can make it hard to do. The doing after seeing, i.e., visual cortex, often dispels the subjectivity. As language got better, a second world developed in the imagination. This was originally populated with more and more imaginary subjectivities. The result were mythological affects populating this inner reality. Before language, if someone had an imagination episode and began to panic, there was no way to transfer this to others except with symptoms of panic. Everyone goes on alert, looks around and sees nothing, so there is restored calm in the group. The leader may give him a dope slat for disturbing the peace. The person snaps out of it, sees the calm of the group and returns to calm. With language, the same imagination episode can now be transferred, into the imagination of others, causing others to panic and the group to remain on false alert for much longer. Mythology may have been induced by language (imagination/subjectivity) and helped language to evolve to help transfer the things of the imagination.

If you look at the three points (person, lure and procreation), procreation as sort of the north pole of the compass, with person-lure the needle. It does not have to always line up north all the time to find the goal, just so long as it averages north over in the long haul. An analogy is a student trying to Ace a course. That is the long term goal or due north. But in the meantime, shortsighted lures will also occur. There is the party, relationships, friends, pizza, etc.,But in the end of the term, if he aces the course, he has kept the time average alignment of the compass north, even if the compass needle shifted east and west during the course of time. If one spends too much time, east, west and even south and ends with a B or C in the course, their final alignment was not north but maybe NE. It is not natural anymore but synthetic. It is the same with food. The body may be optimized with X-diet. That is due north. But the body is also designed to get by with much less and still keep going. Most of history had much less than optimum. If one is good during the week and decides to eat pizza on Fridays, Ice Cream on Saturday, one may still be in a state of good health. The long term goal is still focused due north, inspite of short term movement of the needle. The use of condoms and all types of birth control including abortion shows how much attention is given in respect to the pull due north. It is sort of like walking down a path to the lake. Some will go straight to the lake. Others will meander along the path, to smell the roses, delaying reaching the lake. But when you reach the lake, your alignment is still north. Religious morality tries to create the tighest needle tolerance with the least deviation east-west, with south forbidden, since it leads to nothing. Aetheist may not like this scientific grade compass and would prefer a knock-off style compass with slack tolerances, but one should respect the value of the staightest path. But on the other hand, the knock-off compass, by virtue of its loose tolerance, often allows for new adventures that can take one off the beaten path. That can create hardships but also wisdom in own way. Part 2 Let me add another layer to this analysis that is connected to humans. The lure of desire and pleasure creates babies. But that is only half of the story. Once the baby is born, it requires tending to, which for human could last 18 years or even longer. The formation of a baby is long term relative to the shorter term impulses of desire and pleasure. But child raising is even longer term. In some respects it is sort of the north pole for the north pole of procreation, within humans. In old time tradition, the couple would date, innocently, to see if they were both aligned to the long term commitment of marriage and family. If this worked out for both, they would marry and use the shorter long term goal of procreation to help line up their mutual desire toward procreation and the requirements of child raising. In modern times, the lure is often lined up with the shorter long term goal of procreation, first. The girl gets knocked up and then they marry hoping they are aligned to the longer term north pole. If not they get divorced. The second or longer term north pole is particular child dependant. If the distant north is fuzzy, the lower brain of the male might will line up with another procreation north pole. Mothers tend to stick with the longer term commitment to their children. She may add more to the brood, but this can have an impact on the male. If there is not clarity in far north, but fluctuation, his closer north may flucuation and shift his needle. Homosexuality is a unique situation. The closer north pole does not align with procreation, since that form of sexuality is not functional that way. The alignment is more connected to the secondary north. But again it is not aligned to the needs of physical children. But since that secondary north can point in any direction that is child dependant, the child may be something that is not tangilble but is something that is within. Many homosexual males are ho's because there is no secondary alignment but there may still be a primary alignment that leads to nowwhere. Others form monogamous pairs with a secondary alignment, not an actual child but the inner child in each other, with the closer north pole lining itself up with this this longer terms caring of each other. With tradtional child raising the inner child of the parents are projected onto physical children. In a homosexuality the inner child is projected onto the inner child of each other. It is still child raising but not in the physical sense. I know this sounds strange, but parents get to live their childhood again through their children. It is a time to improve one's past and make-up for lost time or things that one felt they may have lacked or wanted. The homosexual needs to make up for trials for being different. The inner child is able to grow easier in an environment that is understanding, accepting. The secondary alignment is OK in the sense of inner child raising, it is the primary alignment that is often the source of debate. But if one looks at the distant north pole as the primary mode of alignment all is well.

I agree that experiment proof would make it easier for others to see. I have no problem with that. But I am in a catch-22 situation of no resources to create the data until I present data which needs resources to generate. The work around this guard dog of science is to use the highest form of science which is based on logic and rational arguments. If you go back to my first post of this discussion, which discussed the basis for hydrogen potential, and how it carries the burden of potential, an experiment would be nice. It could help define relative potential in a range of situations. But it is not essential to be able to rationally extrapolate from there in a qualitative way. That is the strength of this analysis. One can do more science with less resources. Maybe the mistake some are making is assuming this is the same as the current empirical nature of the life sciences, which needs a a bunch of statistical experiments to be able to say anything with certainty. The analogy that we have is, I have developed the equations needed to define projectile motion in a world where only experiments are assumed to be able to predict the place where the projectile is going to land. Before the experiment I know where it is going to go, in a world where that is considered impossible until the arrow lands. A cheap way to prove the analysis this would be to get me on a team that is already doing some type of experiment and I will predict results. I will use reason to tell them what will happen in their experiment before they do the experiement. Ijust need to get up to steam so I can understand what they need. Enough soap box let's talk about an advanced application. If you look at the DNA it forms a double helix, which is held together with H-bonds. There are only two base pairs, one has three H-bonds and the other two. The basic section of the DNA is called a gene, with spacer zones between each of the genes so these genetic memories are separated. With the hydrogen model we can now address features of the H-coding within the DNA. It is not a binary code like a computer that will always use an on-off switches between two states. Instead it is code that uses 2 or 3 hydrogen for a more complex signal. There is an on-off feature when the DNA double helix separates for transcription. But there is also a variable feature, that allows the gene to give off a signal that is more dependant on its environment. For example, packing proteins add more positive charge to the DNA, which is how they bind, changing the potential defined by the variable switches at the level of the H. It is the same gene but in variable H-states depending on its environment. The DNA is even fancier than that. If you look closely, the hydrogen bonding within the base pairs of the double helix have extra H nearby that can also form a hydrogen bond. But there is only room for one h-bond in places where there are two possible H. The result is another aspect of the H signal, where either H can be on or off or both can be partially on. It allows for another variable signal feature at each H-bond. There is one additional feature that requires going out on the limb. This would definately require experiments to prove if it occurs or not. Here is the theory, the DNA double helix is able to conduct H potential down its length sort of like electricity going through a wire. It is not H current but an energy signal at the level of H potential. There are aspects of the DNA that stay packed all the time. This is the highest potential pole of DNA's H-gradient that transmits current signals down the active gradient. When genes are undergoing transcription these are gaps in the circuit. The genes have their own start-stop hydrogen bonding, with the start and stop defining the base current signal within the gene. There is also bulk current due to the gradient between levels of packing down to transcription gaps. The DNA constantly makes itself known with a complex H profile.The DNA is a elaborate hard-drive that can be pertubated by the rest of the cell and vice versa. We would have to bring in the physicists and mathematicians in to model even the DNA with H-potential accuracy. It sounds very complex but there is way to simplify the hierarchy to make it easier to begin. I ready to rock-n roll, but I am a little awkward at the waltz. That was a long time ago. I have to think back.

One way to define science, is to contrast it to liberal arts. Science tries to be as objective as possible to phenomena, whereas liberal arts is more sensitive to the subjectivities behind various opinions. One exception could be history, which is considered a liberal art. History is composed of facts and dates. Based on these facts, historians attempt to fill in the blanks behind the motivations and affects of history. But being a liberal art, it is sensitive to subjective opinions, i.e., liberal art. In that respect evolutionary theory is closer to history than to objective science. One place where history and science differs, is that history is OK with opposing subjective explanations of the facts, i.e., theories, as long as the data seems to add up using a particular subjective theory. It can rationally recognize the limits of the data and what can be proven. Science tries to narrow the explanations down to one to create a universal explanation. In that respect, evolutonary theory is more subjecitve than history, in that it is less objective to the subjectivity of its own opinion. In other words, evolutionary theory is liberal arts history, but real history has an extra layer of objectivity to the affects of its own subjectivity. It is hard to define science, since aspects of science are liberal arts. In other words, aspects of science are given too much subjective liberty, without having the objectivity of liberal arts to see it is only subjective. Science may not fit a hard definition but be more like an onion. The core is the solid stuff that is universal and beyond doubt or question. As we get closer to the outer most layers it gets more subjective. This is where science has merged with the liberal arts and gotten even less objective because it cannot see that it has enterred the realm of subjectivity. Let me give an example. Art is part of the liberal arts. An artist essentially plots their media, such as paint, on a flat 2-D plane to create drawings. Math can also be used as the pigments to plot drawings on the 2-D plane of cause and affect. Some math drawings have the clarity of a photograph and accurately define reality. These math drawings are near the core of the onion of science. Some math drawings are abstractions that touch people subjectively. Empirical drawings in math may be clear to the artist who drew them. But because the hard lines are fuzzy, the by-standers, looking at their art, may project their own subjectivities and alter the real intension of the artist. That is the marvel of liberal arts.

Take this example. We have two masses separated a distance, analogous to say two charges, as you put it. Before the masses touch and heat up due to repulsive forces, gravity potential will still lower. With the EM force, the charges will have motion before they touch and EM style energy will be given off. So if gravity is the same it will have motion (check), but what about the energy given off since the potential of the two mass system have gotten lower. I understand that once one forms a star, or something, one can equate the energy of gravity with heat due to the interaction of the matter in confined space. The energy of interaction, say in the earth, due to gravity, is due to EM repulsion caused by gravity. It is an EM affect caused by gravity confining matter it is not gravity output energy. If there was no EM forces, there would not be the same repulsion heat.

Yes it is possible to model the cell in one variable, i.e., hydrogen bonding. About ten years ago I took a freshman level biology text book and translated it into the hydrogen bonding model. What I didn't have at that time was a good way to explain the nature of the hydrogen potential. But intuitively, I knew it was possible and decided to work under this assumption to see how far I could go. There were no limits. I original called my variable hydrogen potential. But it was theorized as a physics variable, instead of something simple in chemistry. I extrapolated with this nebulous variable and figured I could close the physics with the help of others, once I got things rolling. I also did a lot of work modeling the brain in terms of H. In the end, I just could never figure out how to open a door for myself to turn the idea into a living. There is no review process for a new branch of science, especially one that covers the entire scope of living state, i..e, in potentia. Working from the outside, nobody knew me, or my abilities, and nobody wanted to learn. After my final, of many disappointments, due to the lack of imagination in science, I gave up and stopped trying. About two years ago I decided to give my various theories one more try. I was approaching 50 and rather than chase young females, I decided to give the theories of my youth one more try. I had put everything on the back burner for 5-7 years and I had fresh eyes and began from square one. I was able to make a contact at the National Academy of Science in US and was asked to submit at paper based on my outline. I redefined DNA in terms of hydrogen potentials. I tried to limit my scope to one thing, which was hard for me, since the model was being treated in 3-D. It was not published since the format was expecting experimental data. I finally realized I needed to be able to define my variable in a way, where I could not be given the bum's rush due to experimental protocol. It took many trials and reactions within science and physics forums to finally iron it out. Now the variable should be easy enough to see. Since I developed this independantly, and since noone had the vision to help, that gives me a future zillion dollar monopoly within this new life science, state of the art. I need partners who would not be upset about hard work for insane pay. I can see the big picture, but many others will be needed for the details and proofs. It is going to start out like Microsoft in a garage and built to an empire.

If you look at the natural basis for sex, it is procreation. That is why it involves sperm and eggs. Sex is also very pleasureable. The pleasure is the carrot on the string, which helps lead to the goal of procreation. Females get knocked-up all time, when they go for the lure. Nature put a premium on this pleasure, so procreation can occur easier. The problem with humans is they are short sighted and tend to think the lure is the goal instead of the lure to a goal. A good analogy is eating. Eating is also very pleasureable. Nobody would say the natural goal of eating is to give oneself pleasure. If that was the case, we would let people eat fried foods and ice cream all the time.The real goal of eating is to feed the body with fuel and nutrients. The pleasure of eating is the lure that helps lead up to this goal. It keeps up going to the fridge so we can add fuel and nutrients to the body. With sexuality, the lure of pleasure, if seen as the goal, and not the lure, can lead us to both healthy food and junk food, with phychology helping to justify junk food, since it sees the lure as the goal. I am not saying, junk food here and there, is always bad for you. Sometimes the pleasure of eating is reward all by itself. But like the eating lure, for the natural goal or the needs of the body, there is also a sexual pleasure buffet that is healthiest for the needs of the natural goal of procreation. The buffet should have deserts but it is composed mostly of things good for you. In natural times, the carrot or lure of pleasure lined up with procreation. Humans teach us the carrot is the goal and not the lure. It has to do with short sighted thinking, which can't see the big picture. So the horse is allowed to twist and contort to eat the carrot lure, since that is called the goal. The natural alignment got messed up. We should to do a social experiment and make the pleasure lure of eating the short sighted goal and see what happens. The result should be a parallel universe to the state of modern human sexuality. If eating glass brings pleasure, it is OK with this short sighted system. Without the third fixed point of the natural goal of body health, one will be able to rotate the horse and carort axis any which way, allowing even unnatural states, just as long as one gets the lure in the end. The STD's are sort of an analgous to the side affect to eating poisin mushrooms in the stew of life, because these taste good and bring pleasure. The analogous response by the medical community is to come up with a medicine so one can continue to eat these rather than say these aren't good to eat.

I define intelligence as things computer can't do, since intelligent computer do not yet exist. My calculator can add faster than me, so at that level is it more intelligent? Adding is very useful, to be able to do in one's head, but it is a skill. The calculator is more skilled at adding, but not more intelligent since intelligent computer don't exist. I can memorize things, but my computer can do it faster and better. That too is a skill, with the computer more skillful that I am. One can do research and bring together all types of data and ideas to create new relationships. The computer is a faithful dog that can fetch the frisbe for you. But this is an area where the computer will get its butt whipped. That is intelligence and not skill since the computer is good at skills but lacks intelligence. Being able to dance like a prima ballerina takes intelligence. It is not analytical intelligence, but I would challenge the best robot to do better. How about a work of art that can anticipate the future or stir the soul. Computers can generate art but not this type, which takes intelligence. .

I agree that the math has functional capability but it treats the world like it a casino, full of gambling tables and risks factors. Often subjectivity can be used to present the correlation whichever way one prefers. I can say x will increase the risk 2% or I am 98% certain that X will not affect you. The former gets more mileage for further study. If a=b and b=a, we are done and there is nothing there to manipulate people with. A study may say that eating peanut butter increases the risk of an allergic reaction. I never had a problem before. But now I have an increased risk? How did that study make my body more vulnerable to peanut butter? It does not apply to me, yet culture can force me to get with the program. Bu then again, since the study magically increased my risk maybe the herd knows this so I better get with the program. Better science would say you, you and you don't eat peanut butter. While you, you and you eat all that you want. This removes the spin of politics and affects of nannies.

EM force also creates kinetic energy. If two charges attract their kinetic energy will increase. As this occurs, EM energy is given off as the system composed of two charges lowers energy and/or force potential. If we take a cloud of inert gas, subject to gravity, and do an energy balance, its overall gravitational potential energy is highest at the beginning or it would not be able to contract without gaining energy. The result of the attraction will be a lower energy state of the overall system, i.e., GR increasing. Or increasing GR implies lowered potential. If the potential is lowering where is the energy difference going?