sunspot

Hallucinations appear to be examples of projections from within, stemming from the unconscious mind. A visual projection can be seen as a movie projecting through the eyes overlaying reality data. These probably use senory wiring to create what appears to be a sensory input. Maybe rapid eye movement might reflect the electrical impulses from the unconscious mind going into the eyes. They then bounce back from the eyes into the sensory cortex to create sensory imagery. Your fatigued state made it difficult for the ego to repress these images so they became conscious. In psychology, these would represent the unconscious mind using projection to give insight to the conscious mind.

Although I am no expert on neurobiology maybe this example might help. If you went for a hike in the woods, in another state, you would notice a bunch of trees that were new. Without much familiarity with these trees, you would probably just see a bunch of unusual trees. If someone familar with the trees told you which were which, you would begin to see the very same trees differently. In your mind, a certain tree would change from a generic image of a tree into say a swamp oak. At that point, you would also notice distinctions from other trees and well as variation from swamp oak to swamp oak that were hidden before. The sensory signals into the eye did not change, only the way the data was processed within the imagination. This analogy almost indicates the same data input projecting onto an image/concept within the mind. The better the image/concept the more data that is conscious. In other words, each day of hiking would add more and more layers of details to the inner image allowing more and more sensory data to become conscious. The scientist sees the most subtle distinctions due to his or her inner image being highly refined.

If viruses attach to specific sites on certain cells, does this imply that their origin comes from similar cells? In other words, if they originally formed from a particular cell, the viruses protein coat might be on the cell's DNA near where its complement membrane protein gene is. Both proteins, i.e., virus coat and membrane protein, both diffuse to the membrane. The virus continues to diffuse out of the cell when the concentration is high. Maybe at lower concentrations, it returns to the membrane near/at the neighboring genetic protein.

DNA and RNA also differ by the pentose sugars. RNA's pentose sugar is more oxidized (extra -OH group) and the DNA's pentose sugar is more reduced (-H instead). The same is also true of thymine and uracil. The extra -CH3 group on thymine of DNA is more reduced than the -H group on uracil of RNA. Two big differences between DNA and RNA that appear to reflect thse differences in reduction potential, are that the DNA always forms the double helix, while the RNA has more options. Secondly, the DNA is much larger than the RNA. Amazing what a little extra reduction or oxidation potential can do.

It does not make sense that particle matter would exist within the center of a black hole since many particles would need to occupy point space. This should be highly repulsive and should convert particle matter into energy. The paradox is that although near infinite frequency or near zero wavelength energy quantum should be created within the point center of the black holes, the black hole gives off zero frequency or infinite wavelength energy at the event horizon. Maybe this paradox implies that the created energy does excape, but its change of reference from black hole center to inertiasl converts it to such a long observed wavelength that it is not detectable with our experimental capability.

If the speed of light is the same in all reference, how can a reference state created by gravity effect energy if it travels at the same speed in all references?

I am not sure if it is possible to isolate cigarettes from environmental causes. Back 20-30 years ago smoking in the work place was common. Blue collar workers in factories, with all the chemical presents, such a solvents, machine oils, plastic monomers, etc., smoked these chemicals through the cigarettes. Does anyone know what percent of smokers over the past 50 years survived without cancer? Maybe we need to look at what allows certain people to resist the effects. Maybe one size does not fit all.

Testing theory via the scientific method is ideal. But experiments needed for some theories are out the reach due to a limited amount of resources. Should one just stop due to lack experiemental opportunity or should one continue forward, hoping that they can eventually prove a theory with old and new data that was generated for other purposes? Cosmology theory would be hard to directly prove yet contemplation of such has created insight into particles physics where experiments can be conducted.

Here is an interesting theory. With the amount of chloride within the oceans, does anything think it could be possible for the early earth to make molecular oxygen via the reduction of chlorine into chloride?

Neurons use a lot of oxygen and can not function for long under anaerobic conditions. The single brain cells may still show some anaerobic biology but the overall brain mechansim is without the needed energy. Without the coordinated firing of neurons there is no consciousness or life.

Something that has always baffled me is, how could the earth form an iron core when there is so much oxygen present within the mantle and on surface of the earth? Wouldn't the formation of a metallic iron core have required a very substantal reduction potential? In other words, if one was to take all the average ingredients of the earth, and then heat and pressurize it, the iron would a very strong dominating reducing agent like hydrogen or carbon to be added to keep it from staying oxidized. With the core 1000 larger than the surface water, there should be a lot more hydrogen, carbon, etc., type compounds on/within the earth, maybe 1000-10000 times more. Venus can hold a lot of atmosphere such that all the resultant water and CO2, from the reduction, should be much higher on the surface.

Space/time are often said in the same breath but do they always exist proportionally together? For example, a black hole is not a point in space-time but only a point in space with an extension of time since it last longer than an instant while occupying only a point in space. The reverse of a black hole would have an instant of time within extended space, which sounds like a rapid expansion in distance without time. It is sort of like space expanding without time.

It is interesting that most of the matter within the universe is common matter, while common matter lasts as long as the universe. The rest of the particles within the univere are a small percentage of the universal mass yet are the basis for most of the theory. Hey conceptual, your theory is interesting, how come you never finished it?

A black hole appears to be a point singularity with respect to distance but not to time. A black hole may define point space with respect to inertial reference, but it does not define a point of time since it lasts longer than an instant within inertial reference.