mrburns2012

just to note, this may not always be the case. during my childhood i was likely exposed to a whole lot of germs and stuff yet i have developed allergies. everything from eating a few worms to get a bar of chocolate to one rather disgusting event where i was splattered with the rotting sheep brains.

 

still managed to develop a number of allergies. and i've been allergic to penicillin since infancy as apparently i nearly died from that one.

I think the current thought on this idea is that there's a limited time frame (probably up to infancy years) when the immune system actively develops tolerance to both self antigens (so we don't become allergic to our own cells) and nonself antigens (eg. potential allergens). After that, eating worms and cat fur probably won't help.

The problem is that there are new information being discovered each day. If the rate of school learning were to remain constant, you might not have enough time to learn the such information by the time you finish college. At least, that's true in some of the sciences.

The most widely accepted theory on aging is that free radicals (highly reactive molecules) cause cell damage and this causes aging.

Where do the free radicals come from?

Cells oxidize or burn food for energy. This creates oxidation products. Your body cleans the oxidation products out of the cells and this goes into the urine to be expelled from the body. If the oxidation products are not cleaned out fast enough, background radiation will change them into free radicals and this will cause cell damage. Cell damage slows down all of the functions of the cells. It slows down the rate at which cells divide. More cells start dying than what are being reproduced, and this is the cause of aging. Less living cells in the glands decreases harmone production. When damaged (old ) cells divide they pass on the cell damage to the next generation of cells.

The cure for aging is to increase the speed at which oxidation products are cleansed from the cells. So there will be no free radical damage, cell divisions don't slow down, causing no aging.

Antioxidant vitamins were found to slow the aging process around the early 1970s. They allow the body to clean the oxidation products out of the cells faster, causing more unination.

The theory is simple. Megadose [Very Large Doses] on vitamins that slow aging and clean the oxidation products out much faster, and aging can be stopped or reversed.

A tug of war with time. Pull faster backwards then time is pulling forward, and aging goes backwards; you get younger. [8 hours sleep per day minimum required]

I cannot prove this to you over the internet.

I have already proven this theory to be true.

I am a 57 year old teenager. I have been seriously trying to get younger for the last 17 years. Since I was 21 in 1973, I have been megadosing on vitamins. In 1992 I saw that I could push it further and reverse aging; I looked about 27 in 1992 when I was 40.

During the last 2 years, I have seen, [and the people I work with have seen] my face get younger by about 6 years. I am putting on more living tissue all over my face. I use the face as the indicator, but this works on the whole body.

I appear to be about 18 years old. I do have thin hair, and some grey but I am expecting this to get younger later. I still have a full head of hair if I do a comb over.

I stand up for 7 hours per day cleaning a bakery warehouse and stacking pallets with heavy items. I can do martial arts like a young man and can do a fast 100 yard dash like a track and field guy. I can out work many young men.

I am physically able to do things that a 57 year old man cannot do.

I have informed government scientists and doctors about this, about a year ago, and have seen various people checking me out.

Note: Megadosing on vitamins must be done with a knowledge of what you are doing. Too much vitamin A or D can kill you. Too much C also has side effects.

I learned by experience through the years what to do about the side effects, and just keep on taking the large doses of vitamins.

I seriously believe I have succeeded in reversing aging on the cellular level.

Every cell is young and undamaged and naturally want to divide fast.

I don't need to use Human growth harmone to try to force fast divisions like some are doing.

 

I am putting this on pseudo science because it would probably be locked or moved here anyway if I put it anywhere else. But, I consider this to be real science that I have experimentally proven. I did the experiment, for many years and got the results. I really believe I have reversed aging on a cellular level.

No, cells don't want to divide simply to be "young," because cell division costs energy, accumulates toxic wastes, and increases the risk of cancer. They only divide when doing so is necessary for your overall health, ie. skin cells, liver cells, mucosal cells of the large intestines, etc... divide regularly to avoid the build up of toxins that tend to accumulate on those tissues. Cells that are not exposed to as much toxins like muscle and neuronal cells don't divide as rapidly because they don't need to.

If im right, theres only a set amount of things to learn in the universe before you learn it all, and i know theres alot of time until so, will we or any other civilization learn it all so science is no longer science and it is just learning already recorded things?

 

I hope im wrong.

Why?

WolframAlpha definitely needs improvements. The response to my question, "Where is Osama Bin Laden?" wasn't anywhere near sufficient. So much for "predicting" the answers

There's a relatively new journal (Journal of Visualized Experiments, or JoVE) that publishes videos instead of traditional texts. So instead of spending money on expensive lab gear and put yourself at risk of exposure to pathogenic microbes, you could check that out. Unfortunately I think the majority of the videos in that website require a some sort of subscription. But there's a free 1-day option that might be sufficient for your needs. I haven't tested this, but I think you can simply start a new account when one expires as many times as you need to.

image for FAIL

It's good to have an ambitious mind, but there is a lot more to learning than reading books (the reason for science labs, etc...). You might think that you can get away with learning from the internet, but by learning so much advanced information without any direction or basic understanding, you're essentially loading your mind with word salads. Once they overload your brain, they may start spewing out everywhere... and I think it's beginning to show in some of your posts. I think it's a lot better for you to pick up a biology course at school and start from there. If you really like what you are learning, it'll be evident by your performance at school. And there's no reason why you wouldn't have extra time for yourself to learn extra stuff if the pace of your school is too slow for you.

Empathy is the ability to understand other's feelings, so I would think critical thinking is required for that to happen. You may be thinking that empathic people should feel sad when they see that others are sad, or angry when others are angry. However, empathy is not the ability to mirror other's emotion. But you're right in that people under intense emotional states can act and think irrationally.

Edit:

I looked up "Simon Baron Cohen," and apparently someone else has already debunked the guy's ideas:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~ssiegel/papers/baron-cohen.html

I don't know what the article is trying to say, but I remember learning that there is always some glucagon secretion even when blood glucose is high. And because glucagon and insulin are secreted by different cells, I don't see why they can't be produced at the same time.

are you trying to make it sound like i'm just 'showing off' to try to impress people? I am painfully well aware that the experts have forgotten more than I will ever know about it. theres nothing that I've said that the experts dont already know. but the experts are keeping this stuff to themselves. or they dribble it out to the masses in cryptic lawyerese through the ministry of information.

 

I'm simply sharing what little I've been able to piece together over 30 years with others who might find it interesting. obviously that doesnt include you.

I am going to admit that I'm no expert, but the little I've learned about the nervous system compels me to be at least a bit skeptical about the information presented on this thread. Ideas in here on midbrain function, "fractal pyramids," "why", "what," and "how" organizations, etc... may be speculative at best, but appear to be presented as no less than widely accepted facts, i.e. ideas without controversy. I strongly admire and support anyone who is willing to help others learn what they have learned, but I also believe that speculative ideas should be presented as such. Anyway, I apologize if my post seemed condescending to you or if I had misjudged you on your ideas and assertions since it was not my intention discourage anyone from sharing information.

the cerebellum is easy to understand...

I'm not sure most people would agree with you on this one.

For example, if you were to ask a typical neurologist or an expert (i.e. w/ a PhD) on neuroscience for an explanation on how the brain works, would they be able to come up with the same answer you've provided us. If not, then your explanation isn't anything resembling "common sense."

the brain is a pyramid but its a fractal pyramid. it divides into 3 parts (midbrain, cerebellum, and cerebral cortex) each of which divides into 3 parts (input, output, and processor) each of which likewise divides into 3 parts and so on and so on. this probably continues right down to neurons.

 

(in addition, each of the 3 parts is divided into 2 halves)

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

the cerebellum is concerned with 'how' to do what we do.

the cerebral cortex is concerned with 'what' to do.

the midbrain is concerned with 'why' we do what we do. (at different 'times' we have different goals)

What's a fractal pyramid?

Edit: Nevermind. I see what you're trying to say. The idea that everything is organized into 3 subdivisions sounds too convenient to me, not the way I've been taught.

I've observed ghosts in independently recorded films like Casper, Ghostbusters, The Ring, The Sixth Sense, and many others. Any scientist can independently verify my claims are true.. I kid you not.

On a more serious note, I agree that not all people who have claimed to have seen ghosts lied. It's been proven that physical and chemical alterations to the brain, which is tangible and not merely some abstract concept conceived by religious zealots, can alter the senses like auditory, touch, smell, vision, etc... In other words, even external stimuli aren't always necessary for "ghost" sightings to have some logical explanation.

so http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/begin/tour/ is a website that i looked at to learn as much as possible about genetics, and on the link it talks about in the dna section{the first one on the top left of the little black screen} how only a and t can connect, and c and g can connect. yet in the next slide it shows how they get put as dna and include what appears to be random sequencing orders, is that just a typo or am i misenterpriting?

 

thanks.

This picture explains it all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DNA_chemical_structure.svg

If the picture doesn't isn't helpful, you might first want to read some basics of organic chemistry. If it doesn't even help then, you're too far ahead of yourself.

So our assignment is to build a vertical egg launcher. materials are all inclusive. the egg can be in a container - our plan includes a protective box the size of a tissue box. the launcher must be able to fit in a 3 meter2 box and be able to be lifted by two high school aged kids. it is graded by time in air and points are subtracted for horizontal travel distance.

 

any ideas????

If my math is right, a 3 m^2 box area is 1.7 m x 1.7 m. I'd try to fit myself inside that box and launch the egg myself after a little bit of practice. Quick and easy .

Wow that's incredible! I have such a bad memory that I'd forget the mnemonics before the mnemonics can help me remember the actual information.

As for Electrical engineering; as far as I know it has more physics than Math in it.

If you're trying to avoid physics at all cost, engineering might be a problem.

I noticed that earlier too. For some reason, the OR keyword only works like expected when the number of results are a lot smaller i.e. you get more results with OR than AND.

Here's one

http://www.google.com/search?complete=0&hl=en&safe=off&q=1+OR+2&btnG=Search

"1 OR 2"

26,740,000,000

Why schizophrenia is not likely just a visual phenomenon:

According to the American Psychiatric Association, patients with a diagnosis for schizophrenia should meet following criteria:

1) Characteristic symptoms e.g. delusions and grossly disorganized behavior, lack or decline of emotional response, etc...

2) Social/occupational dysfunction for a significant of time since onset of symptoms

3) Continuous signs of the disturbance persist for at least six months

Do you think vision is absolutely required for someone to become delusional and unresponsive?

Intentional or not, Pioneer seems to be saying that genetic changes that cause a species to diverge should be called vertical evolution whereas genetic changes that simply lead to variations within a species be called lateral evolution. I think the lack of an understanding of how a species is defined is part of the reason Pioneer is having a lot of trouble expressing himself.

Anyway, why add more words to the dictionary when no one even reads it anyway?

Pioneer, if you have time, I recommend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Definitions_of_species

I like your enthusiasm, but I think learning to work with your peers is just as important as learning about liver enzymes themselves.

Anyway, it's hard to answer "why certain things happened at different rates" without knowing what "things" happened. Of course I could simply assume what you'd observed, but I could just as well assume a lot of other things.

A quick search for "Famous People with Dyslexia" on google can reveal lots of evidence that US schools are not wasting their time with special accommodations. Many of these "famous" people even include authors and screenwriters. And I'm sure there are also lesser known Joes out there who may be dyslexic, but are successful otherwise.

My question is quite off beat. I am a film maker, and I am trying to get a shot of flowers withering within 60 seconds. I have asked dozens of Bio/Chem professors about how I could accomplish this. Most of them agree that any chemicals strong enough to destroy the molecular composition quickly enough to see visible withering or drooping would be potentially very harmful to my cast and crew.

 

I am curious, does anyone know how I could electrocute a bouquet of flowers in a vase in a controlled manner in order to produce the effect that the flowers have died?

 

Any help or references are kindly appreciated. Thanks in advance!

Just a wild suggestion, but have you tried good ol' heat, e.g. from candles, microwave ovens, conventional ovens, etc...? It's less toxic, less hazardous, cheap, and could potentially to give the effect you're looking for.