Dov

My posting "Universal Fractal Approach" refers to the possibility of "a fractal link between the sought unified theory and the presently known state of the universe and the behavior of quarks according to Quantum ChromoDynamics, i.e. that as the distance between two quarks decreases, the magnitude of the color force between them also decreases. Thus, if quarks are close enough together, they can behave as free particles, and conversely, the color force becomes stronger between two quarks as they move farther apart..." The QCD phenomenon involves strong interactions based on the exchange of mass-less gluons. Is there a fractal link between QCD and cosmic frame dragging ? And between mass-less gluons and the "space-time" frame around a large spinninig mass ? And between gluons entanglement and space-time entanglements ? And I still think that cosmologically the term "distance" is preferred to "time", since it is "distance" that effects the universal energy/mass (E/m) relationship and not time, that happens to be a special local (milky way/our solar system) living organism term, proportional to time.

What do you think about the plausible possibility that "frame dragging", the warping of space/time by a spinning mass, is in fact warping of a form of the continuously diminishing m as it is becoming-a-form-of-energy as D (distance mass travelled since big bang) is increasing ?

So Calypso may be an assset to music?

Universal Fractal Approach I look everywhere for expression of fractal constitution of matter and of process. This stems from my gut/rational assumption that every phenomenon cannot but be based on and be an elaboration of a smaller-scale similar phenomenon. Having an information background in some Life sciences I see ALL aspects of Earth life as a fractal affair (postings in Evolution/Morphology/Exobiology). But I feel that every studied basic phenomenon everywhere may and can and should be analyzed for the variety of its possible/probable/plausible fractal predecessors. Thus, with only scan occasional information background in cosmology, I wonder if, for example, there is a fractal link between the sought unified theory and the presently known state of the universe and the behavior of quarks according to Quantum ChromoDynamics, i.e. that as the distance between two quarks decreases, the magnitude of the color force between them also decreases. Thus, if quarks are close enough together, they can behave as free particles, and conversely, the color force becomes stronger between two quarks as they move farther apart, which runs counter to forces such as electromagnetism and gravity, which increase in magnitude as two bodies approach one another.

Universe E, m and D. I posted this also in Astronomy and Cosmology, soliciting also there... Still hoping to get some comments on the rationale of the following relationship between the universal energy-mass-expansion: For the total universe energy E on the left side of the equation let the right side of the equation be the sum of values of m(1+D), where D is the Distance from point of Big Bang and the sum is for all (spatial) values of D from D=0 to D=selected value. Both m and D vary continuously. From D=0 singular m decreases continuously as D increases with expansion ( and vice versa?). This appears rational and true-to-universe, and implies that eventually nearly all mass will be so diminished (and also diluted localy) that it would practically be zero by our reckonning. Is'nt it possible that such a relationship may offer plausible solutions to some presently puzzling cosmological questions ?!

Universe E, m and D. Hoping to get some comments on the rationale of the following relationship between the universal energy-mass-expansion: For the total universe energy E on the left side of an equation let the right side of the equation be the sum of values of m(1+D), where D is the Distance from point of Big Bang and the sum is for all (spatial) values of D from D=0 to D=selected value. Both m and D vary continuously. From D=0, singular m decreases continuously as D increases with expansion ( and vice versa?). This appears rational and true-to-universe, and implies that eventually nearly all mass will be so diminished (and also diluted localy) that it would practically be zero by our reckonning. Is'nt it possible that such a relationship may offer plausible solutions to some presently puzzling cosmological questions ?!

The Cambrian Explosion is explained very clearly and lucidly in the October 2004 issue of Scientific American (http://www.sciam.com) : "The Hidden Genetic Program of Complex Organisms" (Biologists assumed that proteins alone regulate the genes of humans and other complex organisms. But an overlooked regulatory system based on RNA may hold the keys to development and evolution) By John S. Mattick

You can now find an interesting RNA world view update by John S Mattic in the October issue of Scientific American. And I can't resist pasting here three of many of my conjectural (how otherwise ?)postings on this world in another forum : ======================== From: "dovhenis" Date: Sat Jul 19, 2003 7:41 am Re: RNA update Here is an RNA update review you should not miss : http://www.nature.com/horizon/rna/background.html Per my "armchair scientist" conception of Life, even prior to any browsing in this review, each RNA is both a prime pre-DNA archaic edition of a DNA gene and the DNA's tool. In pre-DNA life this RNA edition lived independently and/or cooperatively with other RNAs. The consequent more complex DNA life evolved into symbiotically-associated collectively-dependent genes, though, and the original primary RNA forms have been retained as tools for their consequent collective-members DNA editions... This is my gut feeling... DH ==================== From: "dovhenis" <henisdov@n...> Date: Mon Jul 22, 2002 6:53 am Re: Nature of Life Looking back at a couple of paras in a conjecture posted earlier at : http://www.biobitfield.com/henis/ "The first time a peptide served as a template for its duplication was the first appearance of an archaic gene, and the occurrence at which the factors involved in the formation of the duplicate were drawn to stay in a stable association, maybe in the form of a nucleolus, was the occurrence leading to Cellular Life". and "Per Pasteur's "all life must come from previously existing life" the pre-membraned pre-celled peptides were a form of life. If we regard as an "organism" a unit element of a continuous lineage with an individual evolutionary history this has applied also way back at the earlier evolutionary phase of present-day organisms". It is logical/reasonable to conjecture that throughout their evolution from single archaic to chromosome-association-members genes have been and are now as living organisms as the single or poly celled organisms that evolved from/by them in their drive to proliferate, in the process of accummulating-maintaining bubbles of life-energy. DH ======================== From: "dovhenis" <henisdov@n...> Date: Sat Jun 1, 2002 9:28 am Re: More On Genome Structure The challenges of making sense of genome structure when chromosome size and number vary widely between closely related organisms are highlighted in this News Feature : http://www.nature.com/nlink/v417/n6887/full/417374a_fs.html http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf? file=/nature/journal/v417/n6887/full/417374a_fs.html I do not tire and I am not exasperated in my effort to convince open minded persons that all challenges of making sense of genome structures, even facing widely varying chromosome sizes and number within closely related organisms, are explainable when you adjust your concep of Life. Again and again ad nausia: it is not the Cell that is the base unit of life; the Cell is but the structural shell that houses the Genes, which ARE the base units of Life and existed at a pre-cellular era. The individual Genes have (and still do) evolved and speciated and associated and competed and strove to survive and replicate in the same way as mono- and poly-cell organisms evolved and speciated, Life being a fractal phenomenon. We do not yet know the Origin of Life earlier than the archaic gene era. This is not different from not yet knowing the nature of the pre big banged universe. DH

sorcerer, I would'nt presume to be able to comment on your points re the 3 rRNA strands, but I suggest you might find some hints in http://www.wordiq.com/definition/RRNA

If you have'nt yet seen it please look at the following site for a very brief precise updated review of the RNA world: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/RNA_world_hypothesis Of course experimental routes targeting simmulation/duplication of archaic occurences are problematic because of the very low probability of duplicating the then media constitution and energetic conditions...We might have to be forever satisfied by most scientifically probable conjectures...

Enhancing the evolution calender RNA-to- DNA- to Proteins is the extensively expanding area of Viroids studies. The following accounts are from The Scientist ,Volume 18 | Issue 16 | 23 | Aug. 30, 2004, by Leslie A. Pray: (A) Viroids are single-stranded, singular RNAs sized from 250 to 400 nucleotides, unprotected by any protein coat; they have no functional open-reading frame. So, unlike viral RNAs, viroids do not encode any proteins. This raises several questions: How do viroids cause disease? How do they replicate without the aid of a helper virus? And how do they move from cell to cell and host to host? Their self-complementary, circular nature and secondary structure (which allow viroids to self-cleave) provide some answers. Most recently, the identification of viroid-specific small interfering RNAs has led investigators to believe that RNA silencing also plays a role. (B) There is growing evidence that small RNAs, believed to play an antiviral defense role in many organisms, may be acting as double agents. In March 2004, an international team of scientists reported that viroids, small infectious particles of naked RNA, may be employing RNA-silencing machinery to work their damage. Several weeks later, another international team announced the discovery of microRNAs in the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), suggesting that miRNA-mediated gene suppression might play a role in animal-virus pathogenicity. Many researchers say this is just the beginning. "In the past, all of these small RNAs were totally overlooked because they are so small in size. If they got any attention at all, they were considered unspecific degradation products. Now, we are starting to understand that they represent a sort of cross-talk between viral or viroidal sequences and endogenous genes," says Martin Tabler, Institute of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, Crete. EBV, a large DNA virus responsible for mononucleosis and a number of other diseases, including Burkitt lymphoma, is tough to beat; it hides from the human immune system and infects for life. Rockefeller University's Sebastien Pfeffer, lead author on the EBV study, says that he and his collaborators were looking for evidence that animals defend against viral infection using the same kind of posttranscriptional silencing pathways that plants, insects, and other organisms use. But instead of antiviral RNA activity, they discovered viral miRNA activity. According to Pfeffer, the data suggest that miRNAs could be involved in tumor formation and may explain how EBV hides so well. They also give scientists reason to look for miRNAs in other viruses. Says Pfeffer: "miRNAs are found in practically every eukaryotic organism. Other viruses could have them too." RNA SILENCING: A WEAPON OF CHOICE? Viroids are single RNA molecules that have no protective protein coat and do not encode a single protein. While not all viroids inflict damage, some do so severely. A potato spindle tuber viroid (PSTVd) infection can reduce yields by 50% or more. As Ricardo Flores of the Valencia Polytechnical University, Spain, explains, "Viruses can induce disease by means of proteins encoded in their genomes, but viroids cannot. So the question is, how?" For years, most researchers believed that the viroids induced disease by interrupting an unknown host factor (i.e., protein) and thereby disrupting normal cell functioning. This hypothesis was proposed in the mid-1980's, when scientists identified a region of the viroid genome, the "virulence-modulating" region, whose sequence, when altered, affected virulence. But the mechanistic details of this viroid-host interaction remained a mystery. In 2001 it was suggested that, rather than interacting directly with the host, perhaps viroids use small regulatory RNAs to influence host gene expression. In March 2004, Ming-Bo Wang and colleagues from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Canberra, Australia, provided the first experimental evidence suggesting that, similar to EBV, the key to viroid pathogenicity may indeed be RNA silencing, but in this case, siRNA-mediated, not miRNA-mediated. The investigators found that engineered tomato plants expressing viroid-derived, noninfectious hairpin RNA had symptoms mimicking those of viroid infection. Hairpin RNA is a key player in the RNA silencing pathway: When cleaved by a Dicer enzyme, it generates siRNAs, which in turn guide RISC complexes to degrade target RNA. In this case, the target RNA hasn't been identified, and Wang says this is a necessary next step. "This is one of the most exciting things in the field," says Flores. "But more evidence is needed before deciding which of the two alternative hypotheses is correct. If you want to prove this hypothesis, you have to identify which host mRNA is degraded." For Tabler, the results are "surprising and actually a bit puzzling." They raise interesting questions about how nuclear-replicating viroids such as PSTVd exploit RNA-silencing machinery, which is located in the cytoplasm. Future findings aside, both studies nonetheless confirm the ubiquitous nature of small RNAs and point to an additional, pathogenic function for RNA regulatory mechanisms. Says Andrew Ellington, University of Texas: "It's exciting to see the small RNA world sow its oats."

Organism, do you think that the "ability to use and process: Icon, Index, Symbol" was feasible/possible before development of language hence terms? Seems to me that "symbolic thinking" is a follow-up of language development. Try "thinking" without words. You can do wordless melody "singing", you can do wordless portraying of objects/animals, but - I think - you can't do wordless thinking...and I think in this case it was the words (terms) formed in our brainy system that enabled and led to practical and abstract thinking and to the accelerated expansion of human's "intellect".

Yes, it'd be interesting to make a fresh mix and start all over again...

Yes. Look at the terrorists and the suicide terrorists.

Eager and looking forward to learn what the big bang was supposed to be and what are its implications re the relationship between energy and matter and time-distance.

Yes. How arrogant! (or how ignorant!)

I'm starting the above case with the original apple that big banged. It consisted of all the energy/mass of our universe. Let's first agree on it, then turn our attention to its sub-units...

E = m(1+D) In an earlier posting I wrote that I was prompted to tackle the subject of "Time" by a vague idea that whereas Time is a real factor for living entities, in the case of Universal matters a Time element is proportional to distance and does not warrant a separate dimensional term... This thought still bothers me. What say you ? Elaboration: Suppose that in E = mC^2 FOR THE WHOLE UNIVERSE the E is constant. This mandates that since C is constant also m is constant. This bothers me. Now, if the right side of the equation is m(1+D), where D= Distance from point of Big Bang, then both m and D vary continuously, and the original initial m decreases continuously as D increases with expansion. This appears rational and true-to-Universe, and it implies that eventually nearly all mass will be so diminshed (and also diluted localy) that it would practically be zero by human reckonning. I hope we tackle this Universe-Size matter first, and consequently examine if/how it is applicable to subUniverse-size matters.

Re AzurePhoenix's question(# 54): Dov (Hebrew)= Bear (English) = Ursus

Scientism, Webster and Modern Science. ------------------------------------------ It shakes and saddens me to find that the present Webster definition of "scientism" is, scientifically, a distinct regression from the 1965 Collegiate Webster definition. Here is my case : A) "Scientism" defined by the present Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, One entry found for scientism: noun 1 : methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist 2 : an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences , and the humanities) B) From my postings in General Sciences, SCM on 04-24-2004 and ABCD on 04-04-2004: 1. "Scientists" are persons learned in science or investigating scientifically. By the 1965 collegiate Webster "Scientism" is a method or doctrine characteristic of scientists, and the proposition that methods of natural sciences should be used in all areas of investigation. 2. If all "scientists" would have embraced "scientism" and thus be "truly scientific" most scientists would find themselves sharing similar opinions or attitudes in regards to most matters or issues. However, the fact is that "scientists" are not apart from non-scientists in regards to opinions or attitudes about a host of matters or issues. Together with non-scientists they comprise disagreeing or even hostile groups, especially in most opinion- or attitude-groups regarding social, moral, ethical or religious issues. 3. The two main reasons for this situation are (a) that social, moral, ethical, religious and other humanistic issues, unlike physical matters, are not conidered scientific even by scientists thus not analyzed nor assessed or treated scientifically, and (b) that many or most scientists have not adopted scientism concurrently with acquisition of various levels of knowledge and of technical expertise in the field(s) of their interest. 4. It is posited (a) that many or most scientists may be persuaded that each and all humanistic matters and issues are, for humans and for human societies, natural sciences that are functional for humans and serve humans in the manners that intra-and inter-cell proteinaceous accessories are functional for cellular genomes,and (b) that scientists embracing and practicing scientism would inevitably hold and share similar opinions or attitudes about humanistic matters and issues, and/or otherwise would not be hostile towards others holding opinions or attitudes different from theirs. 5. The functional equivalence of biological and humanistic affairs evolved as follows: There were two similar revolutionary evolutions in the history of Earth's Life Evolution. The first revolutionary evolution was the "celling", by membrane, of the pre-celled archaic genes-associations plus their (nucleolus like?) retinues. This evolved in the course of the ongoing ubiquitous development of self-replicating life entities in the direction of ever higher complexity. The revolutionary aspect of this evolution was being no longer at the mercy of all environmental circumstances but, instead, having some control over many of them. The following Darwinian evolution of poly-celled life has been a continuation and an extension of this revolutionary evolution. The second, recent, revolutionary evolution has been initiated, in a similar vein, by the primates that adapted from life in semi- or tropical circumstances to life on plains. As their changed living posture led to modified perceptive/adaptive capabilities Humans have gradually replaced adaptation to changed circumstances with self-evolving cultures/civilizations for control and modification of much of their circumstances. This is essentially similar to Life's earlier "celling" evolution, but with culture functioning for Humans for changing/controling their circumstances in lieu of protein toolings that function for in-cell genomes for adapting their cell’s physiology to changing circumstances. Cultural aspects, ALL human cultural matters and aspects, function for individual humans and for human communities of ALL types and sizes including for human phenotypes (distinct ethnic/national/cultural communities) in the same manner and for the same ends as biological systems function in cells. This is plainly in accord with the fractal nature of Earth Life. end. DH

Add this to "common Origin" : Plants and animals share the building blocks and fundamental biochemistry that evolved before the two kingdoms presumably diverged from common single-celled ancestors. But with their radically different cell structures, plants and animals are thought to have pursued largely independent evolutionary routes. Innate immunity turns out to involve strikingly similar mechanisms in both plants and animals. One can find resemblances in the receptors that recognize pathogenic components such as lipopolysaccharide; in the signaling systems that initiate responses through kinase cascades; and in the defense mechanisms, including reactive molecules such as nitric oxide. There are both functional and genetic similarities between plant and animal innate immunity.

You are right, Swansont. Even as I was writing I felt that I was becoming increasingly incoherent. My original urge to tackle the subject of time was a vague idea that whereas Time is a real factor for living entities, in the case of Universal entities Time is proportional to distance and does not warrant a separate dimensional term...

And still another modification, following a look at http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101shape.html according to which the geometry of the universe appears now to be flat. In this case, if the location of the Big Bang has become the center of the expanding universe, the spatial Universe axes are three and the location of events in the Universe might eventually be stated and distances between locations might be determined, and Universal time is then proportional to the distance between events, and: (1) Universal Time : A Term proportional to the distances between events. (2) Absolute Universal Time : The Term applied to the distance of an event from the location of the Big Bang. (3) Special Time : The Term applied to distance between specified events. Biological Time is a Special Time specified within a location since Life, being a bubble of energy, originated and evolved under an energetic system unique to each location, the characteristics of which are set by the nature of its source of originating energy. DH

Suggested modification of the earlier version: (1) Time : The length of a specified section of a specified spatial axis of our Universe along which an event occurs or exists. (2) Absolute Time : Measured along the specified Universe spatial axis from start of the Big Bang event. (3) Relative time : Measured along the specified Universe spatial axis from an arbitrary occurrence. (4) Units of Time : Defined arbitrarily, per Universe spatial locations and circumstances. DH

e-mailed to Scientific American in Oct 2002, not published. (1) Time : One of the dimensional axes along which action, process, or condition occurs; it is evident and expressed by change of ambience. (2) Absolute Time : Measured from extrapolated start of the Big Bang event. (3) Relative time : Measured from an arbitrary occurrence. (4) Units of Time : Defined arbitrarily, per Universe spatial locations and circumstances. DH