pantheory

I think my meaning was when naked pictures were put in front of me concerning naked men and clothed men, that I expect that my brain would not show more unusual activity when the men were naked -- as it would when women were naked. This is not to say that I have had little experience looking at naked women //

Concerning the link michel posted: I hope that I would not be spending extra time and interest concerning same-sex nude bodies. Maybe the volunteers had more bisexual interests than normal But I always knew the part about staring at naked girls making one smarter, since I was very young //

For a mainstream discussion of these newly discovered galaxies one can find it in the astronomy/ cosmology forum, and also in the Science News section.

This astronomy/ cosmology news article seems appropriate for this forum to discuss. Strange New "Species" of Ultra-Red Galaxy Discovered http://www.scienceda...11201125358.htm] We can discuss mainstream interpretations of these galaxy observations on this thread or discuss alternative interpretations/ speculations Here.

If you replace the "probably" with "possibly" or "might," concerning surface water then you would have a safer bet. Maybe within a couple hundred years we might be able to send a probe toward a new Earth. I expect it would be much easier to terraform Mars than it would be to inhabit a non-solar planet let's say 20 light years away. It's still very intriguing though. //

What's going on with these mysterious, ultra-red galaxies http://io9.com/58649...ra+red-galaxies From their appearance astronomers cannot explain such old appearing very red galaxies accordingly within the first ~700 million years of the universe, according to the Big Bang model. Discuss your mainstream ideas/ possibilities on this thread. If you have a non-mainstream alternative explanation, discuss them here in the speculation forum. //

Yes, I think this Medical Forum is the right place for this posting. I think the scientific interpretation would be that people today that believe in such a "blue-blood" reptilian origin royalty idea would have psychological or mental issues that need treatment //

The only single valuable quality this claim has is it's humor But I seem to be less productive in my own sense of humor concerning providing a cool reply as others have done here.

Maybe the message would go something like this: there's a great looking young woman just a couple of blocks away whereby you seem to match her desired-partner profile, but be quick about it since this same message has also been sent to 11 other users in the same vicinity in the last 5 minutes But take heart, 7 of the 11 are also females.

I always hoped the weekend would be more active, but I guess not I'm of the opinion that these exact observations are what will finally provide the coup de grâce for the Big Bang model (BB). Specifically as viewed by the James Webb telescope, very large old-appearing elliptical galaxies at the centers of a large galaxy clusters, less than a billion years after the supposed beginning of the universe according to the BB model. I expect that such observations will start to appear within two years after the James Webb is fully operational. One quandary that I have always wondered about concerning the BB model: If the universe were expanding, the density of galaxies in the past would have necessarily been greater. To my knowledge, no observations have ever claimed observing a higher density of galaxies in the past. To the contrary, there have been many observations which imply that the observable universe appears to be less dense the farther back we look into time. The answer to this problem to date that I know of has generally been: the farther away we see galaxies the more difficult they are to see so naturally we will see fewer of them. This, I think, is not a valid answer since we have many studies and observations that claim to see large galaxies like the Milky Way 10-12 billion years ago. If we can see large galaxies that far away we should be able to make a volume survey to determine galactic density estimates of Milky Way sized galaxies or larger, 7 billion years ago in several locations. Since the Inflation era, accordingly in a constantly expanding universe that is close to being flat as is presently believed, when the radius of the universe was 1/2 its present radius, the density should have been 8 times as dense based upon the volume of sphere. This should be easy to observe. No one in the mainstream seems to ever question this very long-standing "problem of Density," which also seems to be strong evidence against the BB model IMO, or any model which asserts based upon redshifts, that the observable universe is expanding in any measurable way. Here's another link concerning the OP observations: http://io9.com/5864931/whats-going-on-with-these-mysterious-ultra+red-galaxies //

I would like to see some others that here who may have the same or different opinion, plus maybe a moderator or two who might think that we will soon stop seeing very large, old appearing galaxies at the farthest distances. //

I totally agree. Never heard of the Mediocrity principle before but Wiki informed me. Maybe in 20 years after the James Webb goes up etc., I expect many more will have come to these same conclusions. I also never thought of the cool verbiage "lost in time." I'll have to add this catchy little phrase to my book with your permission

Strange New "Species" of Ultra-Red Galaxy Discovered http://www.scienceda...11201125358.htm I was thinking about putting this article in the science news section here but realized that the comments that I wished to make are not mainstream, so they would be considered speculative so I posted the article here. As long as they have been using the Hubble and VLBA/ VLBI (long baseline radio telescopes) they have been seeing at the farthest distances very old appearing galaxies like we can find in our local galactic neighborhood. I expect when the James Webb goes up they will also see the same thing. It has always seemed likely to me that a number of the furthest of these galaxies which are supposedly only a few hundred million years old and estimated to be larger than the Milky Way, are probably as old or much older than the Milky Way galaxy was when their presently observed light was emitted. If so, this would imply that the Big Bang model is the wrong model of the universe. I have collected maybe a dozen articles/ papers similar to the one above concerning "old appearing galaxies" in the very distant universe. This does not necessarily imply that the universe must be infinite in age, but I believe such observations continue to be strong evidence to support the assertion that the universe is probably many times older than what the BB model could allow. //

Interesting. The more reliable info that is put into it, probably based upon prompted questions, the more likely will be the validity of the output/ suggestions/ info etc. I expect we will see such "smart-suggestion pods" in less than 10 years. The many advertisers for such systems seemingly could help the manufacturers defray the costs of the devices, probably making them relatively inexpensive to the many that might be interested. Along with special devices I would expect software providers to also offer such programs to be used with PC's.

This is not just an assumption of the BB model, this is part of the Big Bang model itself. Many might call it hypothetical but there has been a lot of theoretical physics written concerning it, whether right or wrong. The same theoretical physics concerning the beginning was written to explain why there is also an observed abundance of helium, deuterium, lithium, etc. (light elements) than stellar theory would allow. These retrodictions have been claimed to be one of the foundation pillars of the BB model. If it turns out that there is a lack of symmetry discovered that "proves" that anti-protons are less stable particles, to explain the lack of observed anti-matter for instance, then some of this theoretical physics will have to be rewritten for the BB model as well as for both the standard model particle theory and quark theory. //

Sounds interesting //

This question has been posed many times. The consensus answer would probably be that it would be very difficult to detect in the first place. One means might be to first be aware of large volumes of extensive gamma ray production. Once detected observe the circumference of a galaxy, cluster, or supercluster producing the gamma rays. This might be a sign of matter anti-matter interactions at the boundaries where matter and anti-matter would accordingly be interacting. Once a particular galaxy or volume is thought to be producing peripheral boundary gamma rays then one might look for anomalies in the forms of other radiation, gravitational interactions, brightness vs. redshift anomalies, etc. I don't expect we will ever discover anti-matter stars or galaxies because I believe they probably don't exist, but according to present theory the possibility is still there. //

An infinity of empty space without field or characteristics to it, such as totally empty space outside the physical universe, would seem to be a concept without possible meaning to it, in my opinion. But there are many others that also would agree with you and think that this concept makes sense to them -- so it is not devoid of logic. I think it is only a matter of definition and function and is inconsequential concerning physical reality. As to your example, "empty space" has a definite and certain meaning within the bounds of the universe. Every existing cosmological model today proposes that the ZPF extends throughout the physical universe. If so empty space cannot exist such as in your example. The space within the box must accordingly contain the Zero Point Field and cannot be totally empty, which of course has been demonstrated though countless experiments. In common language one could call it empty space, but in physics/ reality it is not empty. //

That's what I hoped that you meant I choose a slightly different perspective because the ZPF is everywhere within the universe in all cosmological models that I know of. So in my model nothingness does not exist within the universe. I choose to use the word non-existent as to any conceptual volume outside the physical universe. Conceptually we seem to totally agree on the general idea of it however, maybe a slight difference of chosen semantics In my own model the meaning of space is meaningless in the absence of matter and field. In this way I agree with Einstein when he said "When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: (he said) Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter."(parenthesis added) In my own model there could be no theoretical meaning to space at all outside the bounds of matter and field. But if the space outside the confines of matter contained the ZPF, then the space would not be void and could have theoretical consequences to its existence. My views concerning what the boundary of the universe would "look like" can be seen in my last posting to you regards, Forrest //

swansant, I know this question was directed to owl, but I hope neither of you would mind if I added my two centavos here Explanations should clarify a favored meaning of a word that better adds clarification to a concept. In this case the word is "hole." Some definitions of a hole are: an opening through something (hole in sock); an area or volume where something is missing -- a void within the whole; a hypothetical volume that is uncharacteristically different from its surroundings (black hole, worm hole). Where the definition of a hole is "a void within the whole," then the hole can be understood as a relative condition of "void" and a physical place that one might be able to point out like a doughnut hole. In this case one could say the hole is something that exists within reality. Where the definition of a hole is a hypothetical location "uncharacteristically different from the whole," then the hole may not necessarily be real concerning its physical existence. Maybe the best example of this would be if the universe were molded in a Riemann torus (doughnut like shape). One could physically access any location within the form of the doughnut, but could not access the doughnut hole itself because this location would be outside of physical reality, so therefore this hole would have no physical existence or location to it, just a conceptual one, therefore the hole would not be real (not part of reality) in a physical sense. //

Right on top, cool. This was my answer concerning how space should be understood and defined, transferred from the Big Bang thread: I believe space is best defined and understood as the volume which matter and field collectively occupies. This excludes/ eliminates hypothetical space that one might consider that might exist outside the bounds of matter and field. The same thing applies to the similar definition that: space is a limited extension of matter. (i.e. that the extension is limited to the volume that matter collectively occupies but not beyond the extension of the ZPF.) The "absence of matter" is a cool definition but it includes an infinity of "potential space" beyond the possible extension of matter and field (if it is finite), which I believe is an unnecessary theoretical complication. Of course the definition of space should include distances between designated matter, as well as areas or volumes encompassed by designated matter. If one believes/ theorizes and infinite universe concerning the extension of matter and field, then simply "the absence of matter would be good, but what about the volume that solid matter occupies. What would you call it? By saying that "space is a distance, area, or volume designated between specified coordinates," seemingly could simply define space for both finite and infinite models, providing one does not give any character to space such as being able to warp, expand, be digitalized, etc. My primary definition for space is based upon my own cosmological model which is finite concerning the volume of all space which would be equal to the volume of the universe, and is based upon a universe finite in time, matter, field, and finite in every possible way, but vastly older than the BB model proposes. As to what the end of space would look like in a finite universe if you could be there? In my model matter particles cannot exist without the pressure of the surrounding field, the ZPF. But let's say in our mind's eye what would it look like? Answer: You could not see anything because there would be no light coming from it. More accurately there would be nothing there, not even space. Only a vastly separated field particles could accordingly exist at the limits of matter and field, the perimeter of the universe.

Got it

owl, I'll be very brief since this is a Big Bang thread. I believe space is best defined as the volume which matter and field collectively occupies. This excludes/ eliminates hypothetical space that one might consider that might exist outside the bounds of matter and field. The same thing applies to the similar definition that: space is a limited extension of matter. (i.e. that the extension is limited to the volume that matter collectively occupies but not beyond the extension of the ZPF.) The "absence of matter" is a cool definition but it includes an infinity of "potential space" beyond the extension of matter and field (if their extension is finite in volume), which I believe is an unnecessary theoretical complication. Of course the definition of space should include distances between designated matter, as well as areas or volumes encompassed by designated matter. Any more discussion between us on this matter I think should take place in a related past or future thread of yours or mine , or both ? We both have enough related old threads, I think, without needing a new one, if you wish further discussion. //

I agree that they now believe the expansion rate of the universe was and is variable, but this is not what they asserted prior to the early 1990's. This quote from the 2001 article and link that I posted for you states that the standard model a few years prior to 2001 was quite different. Starting in 1980 was the first Inflation hypothesis, about the same time the dark matter idea was being seriously analyzed. The general changes to the Big Bang model since about 1948 (Gamow) went like this: --The original BB expansion of the universe was believed to be constant after beginning times, hence the words Hubble constant means a constant rate of expansion as formulated as a constant recession velocity designated as H0 in the Hubble distance formula. It you can understand the Hubble formula then you can understand what I am saying. http://hyperphysics....tro/hubble.html Some thought that this expansion rate might be slowing down over time (which would have necessarily changed the Hubble Formula if valid) but there was no accepted evidence to support this proposal. --next came the criticisms concerning the perceived Horizon and Flatness problems. These problems seemed to be serious enough to change the theory. Hence the Inflation hypothesis was formulated which most believed in one form or another, solved many of the perceived problems. So the general Inflation idea was added to the BB model including the various versions of it as possibilities. --about the same time came the failure of general relativity, the mathematical foundation of the BB model, to predict the orbital velocities of stars in our galaxy, along with other spiral galaxies rotation rates, and also velocities of galaxies in a cluster. All considered this a monumental problem so theory again needed to be changed. To account for this discrepancy between theory and observation the dark matter hypothesis was proposed. Most also agreed that this theory change could solve the observational problems if dark matter existed. --next the observations of type 1a supernova seemed to contradict the Hubble formula. The closest galaxies concerning their redshifts seemed to be farther away than the Hubble formula could allow. Eventually this problem became serious enough that a new force was proposed, dark energy -- which was later added to the standard model. The most widely held idea was that of Einstein's cosmological constant being dark energy, but instead of it being a constant rate of accelerated expansion, observations concluded that it needed to be a variable changing the expansion rate, which we now call lambda. --next it was realized as a great problem that a BB beginning could not be explained mathematically concerning Einstein's cosmological equations, so a BB beginning was put aside and now the BB beginning is considered just an hypothesis by many or most theorists today. After the very beginning accordingly resulted in a hot-dense universe that the BB model now begins with. No more 10-43 sec after the bang this happened, then that happened, etc. http://en.wikipedia....Big_Bang_theory Now the model is called the Lambda, CDM, Inflation model of Big Bang cosmology, or similar words to that effect. (your quote) The proposal that the expansion of the universe is variable after the proposed Inflation era, originally came from the study of type 1a supernova by Pulmutter and Co. as they relate to the Hubble distance formula, and were not derived from Friedmann's expanding universe solution to Einstein's cosmological equations. Remember. the BB model could be considered only one single theory in it's whole, that I believe will be entirely replaced, maybe within a couple of decades after the James Webb goes up. Of course that's just me , but I expect the theory to keep changing until then. The next thing that I expect to change is the asserted age of the universe. Since they can now "play with" changing expansion rates of the universe, they can now propose that the universe could now be much older. I think this will soon happen within maybe a couple of years after the James Webb goes up. I also expect a number of unintentional false claims that dark matter has been found, dark energy, Big Bang neutrinos, etc.

Of course this is good news but how this wave 1 protein is delivered to the malfunctioning parts of the brain still seems to be in development. If a oral medication or injected medication into the blood stream is developed, then this would be much less intrusive than a direct delivery system. The primary problem however is the beta amyloid plaques which gum up the gray matter. Merck and a few others are trying to develop Alzheimer/ senility drugs to at least slow down amyloid plaque build-up in the aging process. I think this degrading problem should be also treated simultaneously with this wave 1 protein treatment to improve connections, if possible.