GDG

Spacetime already supports that much energy. Consider that E = mc^2 does not apply only to antimatter: all of the matter around you is tightly bundled energy. If you anhilate matter and anti-matter, you're really just spreading the energy density out thinner. As for warping the fabric of spacetime, I think we call that "gravity."

A quick search in PubMed ("calorie restriction, human") brings up: Luigi Fontana, "Modulating human aging and age-associated diseases" Biochim Biophys Acta (2009) (in press) doi:10.1016/j.bbagen.2009.02.002 This is a review of the current human research.

All reasonable precautions, but keep in mind how easily bacteria swap genes. The danger is not just that your crippled E. coli would revert, but that (a) they could potentially acquire the necessary genes from other bacteria, and (b) they could potentially share their new THC-synthase genes with other bacteria, not so enfeebled. Imagine some of your cutaneous staph A picking up the THC genes: persistent "contact" high Seriously, though, I agree that it is possible to reduce the risk to reasonable levels.

We in the pharmaceutical industry usually categorize pharmaceuticals into "large molecule" (e.g., proteins, antibodies, enzymes, etc.) and "small molecule" (your typical organic molecule type drug, mw<500). You can use biotechnology to work on both types of project. If you are interested in inventing new protein-type pharmaceuticals, you probably want a degree (PhD preferred) in molecular biology. What you would want is training in how to design (or modify) protein sequences so that the resulting molecule has the activity you are looking for, and then the ability to engineer the gene (plasmid, vector, etc.) so that you get efficient production. If you want to make small molecules, the best degree is Medicinal Chemistry (Synthetic Organic Chemistry a strong second). Applications of biotech to small molecule development are usually more limited -- setting up the assays used to test candidate drugs, etc. However, some companies also invest in exploratory biology, i.e., letting you try to determine cytokine receptors, signalling pathways, etc. that might lead to a therapeutic intervention.

I typed "electromagnetic submarine" into Google and got the following link, (along with many others)

Of course, E. coli is right at home in the human gut. Could be unpleasant to become infected/colonized with your experimental strain, and be persistently high...

My recollection is that neanderthals had massive jaws & jaw muscles, and still had a higher cranial capacity than us modern humans: in other words, I don't think smaller jaws was necessary for brain expansion. My guess is that the main advantage was making more food available, i.e., cooking renders some foods edible that otherwise aren't. (For example, don't eat raw tapioca or asparagus, and mushrooms require cooking in order to extract any food value from the chitin in their cell walls.) Cooking naturally led to outdoor BBQs (indeed, the outdoor BBQ was probably the first form of cooking), which necessarily required the invention of beer, upon which all civilization is based :rolleyes:

Everything in that post after "Onesimpleprinciple over two years ago" belongs in the psuedoscience category.

The energy all comes from the string: it's just that the string is absymally bad at moving air. By coupling it to a resonant sound box, you increase it's air-moving efficiency -- the large flat surfaces of the soundbox move air much more effectively.

Unfortunately, the presence of sperm in your ejaculate is not a guarantee of fertility. There are still other possible disorders, such as your sperm being malformed or non-motile (incapable of swimming). Certainly, though, the presence of sperm is a necessary condition

I believe he is thinking of hemophilia and other X-linked recessive disorders. I do not know of any sex-linked hereditary diseases in which the female is more susceptible. X-linked recessive disorders happen because the male receives only one X chromosome: if it has a mutant allele (e.g., for a Factor VIII deficiency), he has no other X chromosome to compensate, and the recessive allele is expressed. In females, having two X chromosomes, the "good" allele can still be expressed (although there may be a gene dosage effect).

Hard to say, because pain is still not completely understood. For example, you may feel pain in a phantom limb (e.g., you may feel pain in your right hand, even after your right arm has been amputated at the elbow), despite the complete absence of pain receptors in that limb. Destruction of the pain receptors does not guarantee elimination of pain. According to Wikipedia, neurogenic shock is caused when autonomic motor control over blood vessels is interrupted. You've defined your affected set of neurons as sensory, so it is not clear whether neurogenic shock would result or not. In the absence of sensory input, we don't know whether the brain would respond by increasing or decreasing blood pressure. Keep in mind that "shock" in the medical sense does not mean "startling", but instead refers to a failure of the circulatory system, typically due to a large loss of blood or a large decrease in blood pressure (e.g., due to excessive vasodilation). Neurogenic shock is caused by the latter -- in the absence of stimulation from the autonomic nervous system, blood vessels may relax, resulting in lowered blood pressure. Thus, neurogenic shock does not depend upon pain. As for the coroner's jury finding, I cannot tell from the article cited whether the jurors have any medical training. Most likely they are not medical experts, and thus I wouldn't put too much weight on their decision, which seems inconsistent with the definition and typical etiology of neurogenic shock (at least as defined by Wikipedia). As for the subjective effects of this torture, I think a lot would depend upon how quickly the receptors were disabled. It could be that the victim would not feel anything other than a sudden and disconcerting numbness. Alternatively, you might feel that you were being roasted alive: when the receptors gave out, there would be no counteracting signal that temperature had reduced, and you may or may not permanently feel that you were roasting. Whether this would cause loss of consciousness or not is pretty speculative.

Indeed, they would fold in a stiff breeze. How sturdy could 40' wings be if your total weight couldn't exceed 50 kg (110 lbs)?

Probably nothing. Telomeres get shorter as a necessary consequence of the way that chromosomes are replicated. You can slow down the process by not undergoing as cell divisions as rapidly -- this is probably the mechanism by which calorie restriction extends life. Or, you can "reset" the telomeres periodically by inducing the enzyme (telomerase) which adds the telomeres to germ cells. Tumor cells that have become "immortalized" typically have activated their telomerase. This illustrates one of the potential side effects of resetting your telomers...

Hmmm, this sounds extremely speculative, so I will answer in kind (i.e., without reference to any published research -- I extremely doubt there is any). If this targeted torture only stimulated the receptors (I'll use that term instead of the acronym), I'd say that you'd experience a wave of excruciating burning sensations, that would subside when the stimulation passed. Whether you retained consciousness or not would depend upon your tolerance for pain. However, you've specified that the receptors are in fact destroyed (proteins coagulated: I'd say that your intent was that the receptors be non-functional). In that case, all input from those receptors would be cut off. Hard to say exactly what you would experience. Oliver Sachs has reported patients in which the sensory nerves have been severed in a limb, where the result is that the patient comes to believe (unshakably) that the limb does not belong to them. People fall out of bed trying to throw their own leg (which they believe belongs to someone else) out. The patient may consciously understand that it is completely impossible for someone else's leg to be attached to them, but other parts of the brain provide input that must be reconciled. Just as in cases of hemispheric neglect, the brain confabulates. By analogy, then, I speculate that having lost all sensation in your skin, you would feel that you were wrapped in a shroud, or in someone else's skin. Possibly this would be extremely intense, psychologically, and you would be prone to tearing at your skin, trying to "free" yourself, with no possibility of relief. I suggest you not try it

First, energy does not come only from the Sun. Second, if you are talking about turning tubines in a hydroelectric dam, the energy is coming from gravitational potential energy, as water flows from a place of higher potential to a place of lower potential. Technological improvements have only increased the efficiency of the energy extraction, not increased the amount of energy available.

"Specious" means fraudulent or untrue. Particularly applied to arguments that do not stand up to scrutiny.

I would first make sure that it is legal to carry in your country: pepper spray and mace are regulated in some countries. Next, check the can: it should say something about the temperature range for storing the can (e.g., "keep below 30oC"). If you keep the can under that temperature, you should be fine. Also a good idea to have a training course regarding how to use the stuff. A bit of instruction and practice helps you to avoid spraying yourself in the face by accident

Sorry, this is completely untrue. With regard to drug development, animal testing is required by law in every country of which I am aware, and there is no effective substitute. Even though you can model some biological systems by computer, biological systems are too complicated to completely model. Even with animal testing, one sometimes finds unexpected side effects. There are zero effective ways to replace animal experiments for development of drugs, or even new cosmetics. With regard to cosmetics, you can boycott new products (old products don't need more testing), or boycott cosmetics altogether. If it is a question between developing a new drug that might save the health of one of my children sometime in the future, or the lives of 100 lab rats (bred specifically for medical research, BTW), I'll pick my children every time. So, are you a vegan as well?

Since each brain hemisphere receives half of the input from each eye (e.g., the right brain hemisphere receives the left half of each eye's input), you first need special glasses (or a complicated experimental setup) to prevent both hemispheres from seeing the same thing. The other problem is that it is difficult to talk to the "right" brain, as it typically does not appear to be in control of language or speech. Bottom line, I do not know of any research that would answer your question.

Since keratin is the primary component of your hair and epidermis, it would probably render you bald and flayed. Think "burn victim" over 100% of your body. Your epidermis is the first defense against infection, so you would be extremely susceptible to opportunistic infections. It would be a real fight to survive. Wouldn't be pretty...

The d and l nomenclature defines optical isomers by the direction in which they rotate polarized light. R and S is what chemists use to define the actual structure of a molecule that has an asymmetric center. Suppose you have a molecule of 2-chlorobutane: CH3-C(H)(Cl)-CH2-CH3 That second carbon atom is asymmetric (chiral) because it has 4 different substituents. To figure out whether this molecule is R or S, first figure out which substituent has the lowest atomic number (H in this case). Mentally orient the molecule so you are looking at the chiral carbon, with the C-H bond facing directly away from you. Because carbon with 4 sp3 bonds adopts a tetrahedral configuration, you will see (mentally) the central carbon atom and the other three substituents arranged around it in a triangle. In this case, you'll have as substituents CH3, Cl, and CH2CH3. Next, assign priority to each of the substituents based on the atomic number of the atom that is actually attached to the central chiral carbon atom. Clearly, chlorine get top priority in our example. For the methyl and ethyl groups, both have a carbon atom bound to the central chiral carbon, so to decide priority between them you look at which atom has a higher priority substituent of its own. In our example, the methyl group has only Hs, while the ethyl group has 2 Hs and a CH3: the carbon in that terminal CH3 give ethyl priority. Finally, look back at your molecule and follow the substituents around in order of priority, highest to lowest (Cl, ethyl, methyl). If following the substituents takes you clockwise, the asymmetric carbon is called "R": if counter-clockwise, it is "S". If the molecule has any other chiral carbon atoms, repeat for each one. It is not uncommon to see a chemical name preceeded by ®®(S)(R/S)®, showing the stereochemistry at each of several chiral centers. "R/S" of course means that you have a mixture of both isomers. Of course, whether the molecule is R or S does not tell you whether it is d or l. As to what R and S stand for, I assume they derive from the Latin for right and left.

If you ingest enough alcohol, it apparently affects the composition of the fluid in your semicircular canals (the position/gravity/inertial sensors). As for the paper, here's one. PubMed is always a good source if you are looking for published research.

You might be interested to learn that "random mutagenesis" is (perhaps "was") a standard technique in genetics. Take a population of organisms (bacteria, yeast, fruit flies, etc.), expose it to a mutagen (radiation, mutagenic chemicals), and screen the population (or its progeny) for mutations of interest. You wouldn't necessarily need to grow each specimen to tree size...

In astronomy, everything with an atomic number higher than 2 is considered a "metal."