pantheory

yes, but the implications extend out to atomic particles and the prevalence of matter over anti-matter. http://www.scienceda...10714072416.htm http://lhcb-public.w...ch/lhcb-public/ A major implication of these studies/ experiments implies possibilities why there is more matter than anti-matter in the universe. Two of these possibilities that were discussed in these two publications were based upon their preliminary conclusion concerning masons suggesting: that anti-protons have a different rate of particle decay than protons, and the second possible factor discussed involves the speculation that this lack of decay rate parity could be accentuated by frame dragging effects in spiral galaxies which accordingly might account for more matter than anti-matter via creation or decay mechanisms. http://www.scienceda...00524161338.htm //

Hi Iggy, For about 40 years the universe was thought to be expanding at a constant rate called the Hubble constant. Here is a link. http://www.eso.org/~...rs/EPN/epn.html This idea started to change in the early 90's based upon studies of type 1a supernovae that could not be explained by standard cosmology at that time. The authors of the study, Riess and Pulmutter, suggested that the observations could be explained if the universe's expansion rate was accelerating. This interpretation lasted until about 2001 when even further supernova brightness seemed to be explainable if the universe then was expanding at a decelerating rate. Today standard-model cosmologists now believe the rate of expansion of the universe varies over time. Here is the website concerning my history as a theorist in cosmology and theoretical physics. http://www.pantheory.org //

I expect the speculation is valid concerning the rate of radio-active decay and solar neutrino production in general that I would expect might also relate to the rate of particle decay in some cases. But as to anti-protons, there are very few thought to be created in our solar system to start with, or arriving from interstellar space. //

It has been obvious to me and many others for over 50 years that anti-protons should be expected to be less stable than protons. The only surprise to me is that it has taken them so long to make this discovery which would obviously explain why there is so little antimatter in the universe. What has stopped the progression of research I think, is the unfortunate belief that the reason for anti-protons decay is because of their encounter with protons, instead of a natural decay like free neutrons decay, which is what I think will be their final conclusion. I predicted this in my theories maybe 50 years ago. Since such a discovery must be very difficult, researchers must be congratulated if this "discovery" is sometime confirmed. //

In my view for a long time now we have been going in the wrong direction concerning most theories which will eventually require a number of u-turns, including in some cases almost complete replacement of models. I think the geometry of the universe is entirely Euclidean where time is needed only for calculations involving time intervals. I think we are presently pursuing incorrect theoretical models and are continuing down the wrong paths such as particle theory and gravity theory, and that the final theories will all have kinship with each other and will need far less complication to explain them verbally or mathematically. I put math as second. First comes understanding, then one might derive the math. I believe all calculations will come with tolerances in both the macro and micro worlds based upon unpredictable hidden variables long ago proposed by aether models. The absolute fundamental nature of the universe will always be our ultimate goal and I fully expect we will gain at least a broad understanding of its simplicity within this century. I expect these simple concepts will eventually be taught and understood in elementary school (mathematics aside). I think that any such fundamental models could be described mathematically, but better understood by computer modeling. Math today is prized above logic. But eventually I expect that all the math will be directly derivable from the logic, therefore a logical understanding of every theoretical subject must come first.

newts, (parenthesis added) I agree with your above statement as being a major hurtle stopping the progression of science to find the "final theories." Funding/ grants/ jobs in science usually go to those following the mainstream, including flights of fancy that have mainstream models as their premise, such as string theory and brane theory, quantum gravity, for example. Almost every alternative model outside the mainstream becomes partially or totally self funded if continued. Most believe that to cater to too much theoretical freedom would probably cause as many problems as it might do good which may often be true. But for almost everyone to point in the same direction as they seem to be doing today reminds me of the stock market. Contrarians in the stock market are often more correct than the mainstream. I think the 20th century involved over a century of theoretical mis-steps in many wrong directions concerning most theoretical fronts having at least some failure of logic, warped space, quantum theory, quark theory, dark matter, dark energy, the BB model, pure energy, "a priori" pulling forces, are on my "bad" theory list. Although I think there are still some good theories out there such as natural selection, chemical theory, plate tectonics, etc. I believe all final theories once generally understood will be totally logical, even though nearly all theorists today unfortunately believe the opposite. Most would probably assert that it is highly probable that reality is not logical , or something to that effect.

Although I don't believe in an infinite universe I would like to hear it from you since I think it will be closer to the truth than the BB model. They sure are but what is your point? Say whatever you believe and I think you will be on the right tract, if not I will correct you //

The existence of these underground lakes seems like a likely possibility based upon the present evidence. Such lakes would be closer to being fresh water lakes because of the continuous freezing and thawing processes. They might contain some kind of primitive life and if so would become a type of natural reserve and lab for study. If not these lakes might eventually become large food depots containing transplanted earth sea/ lake life, that could feed space travelers or space colonies in the vicinity The primary central underground ocean below might be too saline (like the dead sea for example) to support life according to some models. It also will be much easier to drill down to one of these lakes than it will be to drill down to the much deeper ocean(s). //

John, I agree with you. I believe eventually the better theory will win out also. But history has shown that often the author of technical paper(s) and founder of a theory dies and maybe 50 to 100 years later or longer the theory is rediscovered and "eventually" wins out. Unfortunately "eventually" can involve a long period of time One prime example was Gregor Mendel and the theory of genetics, and of course there are many other examples. Even if not confirmed and one or more errors are found in the experiment concerning the possibility of faster-than-light neutrinos, the OPERA experimental results still may lead to new physics related to observations and contentions but unrelated to faster-than-light neutrinos. Such a discovery might have a big impact on present-day theory. As a theorist I consider this as real a possibility as faster-than-light neutrinos. Here is the theoretical error(s) that I presented/ proposed concerning the CERN/ OPERA results: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/60916-not-faster-than-light-neutrinos/. //

I like your posting and attitude, nicely presented This would seem like a valid statement in principle but it is my opinion that it does not work in practice. Even if one could get a valid non-mainstream idea published in a mainstream journal, which is extremely difficult to do, my experience is that relatively few if any potential readers will bother reading an idea that they have never heard of before, or will dismiss such ideas out-of-hand after a brief perusal without even trying to understand or consider the possibilities of them. //

There have been discovered epigenetic differences between some identical twins genetically, concerning animals. Concerning identical twins, I would suspect epigenetics as being suspect concerning genetic expression deficiencies such as possibly type 1 diabetes. The causes of epigenetic differences between identical twins probably can occur during conception or soon thereafter, but such causes of differences are now only speculative at best. //

It would appear that your symptoms may not be related to just one cause. It depends upon what substance x is, but it would seem that six months is a long time to tie substance x with some of these symptoms. Are you taking any regular medications? If so most have varying side effects concerning some individuals. For a proper analysis to diagnose most of your symptoms you need an extended blood test. For "no thirst," look to a low sodium blood level which is generally age related and may require medications other than increased salt intake. Lack of hunger may be hormonal or a symptom of drug side effects, or other. Smoking puts stress on all organs but especially lung and heart function involving circulation. The feet are the most difficult part of the body to maintain circulation which seemingly could be a cause of pain and itching. How this affects the pain in just one foot might relate to diminished blood flow in the peroneal artery as you speculate. As you have heard a million times, if you wish to live very long pain free you need to quit smoking. Since you are probably addicted to nicotine you could switch to nicotine gum. Exercising increases circulation which could mean your problems are poor-circulation related. Cardiovascular exercising from 15 minutes to an hour a day is healthy; longer than that age a person as well as stressing the joints. Joint pain can have many causes such as arthritis, taking a couple of aspirins can reduce the associated swelling and pain. Other causes can be associated with the side effects of various prescription drugs, especially the blood pressure medication hydrochlorothiazide. A likely cause for joint pain is inadequate water intake. Vitamin B deficiency will not be corrected by a single pill. The most common is vitamin B12 deficiency. Any such deficiency might be diagnosed by blood tests. I expect that if you take a treadmill stress test that some related sporadic heart function deficiency will show up. I expect that at least some permanent changes in lifestyle are needed, plus treatment medication will probably be needed for at least awhile. //

I am a theorist and for the most part would agree with your above proposals. "Hidden in plain sight" is somewhat of an enigmatic phrase, instead I would use the phrase "logically apparent." I agree there are no extra dimensions, no entropic death of the universe, but a finite universe could also be much older, not just infinite. This may not be a very diplomatic statement You can attract more proponents with sugar rather than by using vinegar, but "branes" is not a bad play on words for humor //

Sounds good. That's why I'm here rather than "there." I've also noticed little moderator sarcasm here while maintaining a sense of humor without disrespect, which I also think is good for all.

The present model asserts that space expands at the same rate during any given time frame within the observable universe. The idea is that within galaxies and galaxy clusters gravity counteracts expanding space so that expansion within galaxies and clusters is small or close to non-existent so that expansion cannot be observed there. In these spaces between galaxy clusters and within large voids gravity accordingly does not compensate for the alledged expansion of space so that the expansion of the universe that we believe we are observing by galactic redshifts, stems from these volumes and voids.

For your wishes as you have explained them I don't think a Uterine Transplant is the right option for you. I think you need to go to an in-vitro clinic and have a number of your eggs removed over a period of several months. You can have these eggs cryogenically preserved until you are ready to have children. You could then have the eggs fertilized by your husband, boy friend, or sperm donor, or you could wait until you are ready and then have the eggs fertilized. At that time you could hire a surrogate to carry your baby through pregnancy to delivery. I think this is the best option if you do not wish to have children in your 30's. There are more risks for both you and the baby if you are 40 years of age or older before you get pregnant, and a lot more possible complications and risks with a Uterine transplant for both you having one or more babies. Also the cost would probably be very high. You also would never have to deal with birth control when you are not ready to have children yet. And of course adoption could be a great choice too that would not require the same financial burdens of medical procedures. // //

There is little difference between males and females concerning masturbation? The drive for sex and procreation are motivated by sex hormones produced by the sex organs of both sexes. Psychological damage may result for those that masturbate but believe that masturbation is wrong for religious or other convictions, but sex with other individuals is no different concerning psychological damage. As long as "excessive" sex does not cause physical damage or have decease potential, sex in any form is not unhealthful or even has been shown to have health promoting aspects.

Maybe the control freak hypothesis would apply to some moderators as it might apply to some law enforcement people. I've been in a number of other forums and believe I have seen this elsewhere. Sometimes postings can be a misunderstanding which the moderator interprets as bad intent or against the rules, which by my own experience happens. As for this forum, I haven't seen any of these obvious misinterpreted responses by moderators yet, which leads me to believe that the moderators that this forum has chosen, along with the rules of the forum, are both very good -- and hey, even the best can make mistakes from time to time but it seems to take many "mistakes" to get into trouble here so congrats to the moderators and forum. Most other forums do not have a system of appeals. I don't know about this forum. I think before any disciplinary action is taken that the accused should have the right to explain his actions off thread if he wishes, after he has been warned concerning probable immanent discipline but before the moderator takes any adverse action. This would make it harder for moderators but I think better for the forum in the long run.

I agree. The pituitary gland produces several different hormones throughout life. If it is not functioning properly then there could be many related maladies. The question becomes: can hormone replacement therapy treat all of these problems adequately and does a person want to be dependent on injections their remaining life? (rhetorical). If they can grow a new pituitary gland in-vitro and have it implanted in an accessible part of the body where it can continuously produce these hormones, then I would prefer this procedure to injections for life if it were me. Also the main point I think is that they can now produce some organs without necessarily having to provide scaffolding for it if the proper techniques are used, which provides new insights and possibilities for research concerning growing a variety of organs in-vitro. //

Cap'n Refsmaat, Congrats on a great interview.

Yep, here's the latest: pituitary gland grown in-vitro without scaffolding. http://www.sciencene...nd_grows_itself First organ grown in-vitro and transplanted: Bladder http://news.national...4_bladders.html -- and as you said my friend, that's only the beginning.

In the U.S. there are present laws against selling tissue for profit excepting for research purposes. If you are a non-profit there are restrictions but money can exchange hands. New laws will be needed in time, but will certainly first face ethical considerations and ramifications. As far as Adipose derived stem cells are concerned, since they can only be differentiated into the tissue that you mentioned bove, their present application is very limited. Differentiation is just one problem. Another is their application. Most applications today are done by surgery or by needle injections to specific locations to treat injured or permanently damaged tissue. The only present application for ADCs outside of research in the U.S. that I know of, is for cartilage repair. For ADC's the research is to have them revert to a more primitive type of stem cell that can become a larger variety of tissue, the most desirable being pluripotent. The methods by which they can be induced to become pluripotent stem cells are a major push in today's research. There are a number of treatments in Mexico using ADS's that propose to cure a number of maladies. See link below. The most probable outcome I think will be that such treatments cannot hurt you. I think much of their hype is bogus and that most of these treatments will be stopped within a couple of years unless they can provide evidence to their validity, which I do not believe they will be able to do for the most part. http://www.stemcellm...m-cell-therapy/ The patient's own stem cells are usually better when possible since the infused stem cells do not face the transplantation/ rejection response issues, but stem cells in general have an immune privilege whereby they are not as easily rejected as other foreign tissue. In Mexico they are simply matching blood types but for a more certain stem-cell engraftments, tissue typing/ matching such as required for organ transplants are more certain, but much more difficult to find a match even though the match does not have to be as close as in organ transplants. Embryonic stem cells do not generally have the same transplant problems since the immune system of the zygote has not yet developed and therefore there are few chemical markers on their exterior that could cause rejection by the recipient. for further info you can contact me at pantheory.org@gmail.com //

I agree, very interesting. Of course the implication is that this is just the beginning of computer microscopic interface analysis in medicine. Other than histology they are making good strides in computer interface digital pathology. Diagnostic medicine as well as treatment determinations, especially I think treatment combination analysis/ determinations/ therapies will follow in maybe the next decade or so. After that I would expect to hear of computer genetic analysis and diagnostics. There seemingly will be no end to its medical applications. //