pioneer

The mixture of acetone and chloroform can not be separated fully with simple distillation. The reason is these will form an azeotrope. This is sort of a pinch point after which what was in the pot (higher boiler) now becomes more concentrated in the vapor phases. Below shows the azeotrope pinch point of propanol and water. One trick to break the acetone-chlorform azeotrope is to do an extractive distillation, where you add some water (third component) and then distill.

All science is useful and the most important tool is the brain, so the best solution would be to cut resources but not manpower. The science manpower needs to figure out ways to do their science without the same level of resources. Science sort of creates its own recession problem, since its requirements don't allow accepted science, without a high resource requirement. For example, measuring ant foot size could be limited to one month of data collection instead of stretching this over many years. Science can still be done with less cost. But since the experts need to appease those who are less knowledgeable, who may not be able to extrapolate this limited data, the requirement for appeasement can get very expensive. In tough times, the appeasement cost may not be justified and the entire science is shut down. When I was a development engineer, if I had a theory and needed to test it, I might only run a couple of experiments and then move forward. If I needed to appease a more rigorous standard, this would not have been enough to precede. I could be made to linger until others feel comfortable with something they are less knowledgable of. Luckily, my projects were goal orientated and I was left alone during development, so I could move faster. I could stretch my budget farther and move with less time. If I had to go by the book of science, tis would have amplified both the resource and time requirements, so if the economy had turned, I might be vulnerable in the next year's budget due to the structural snail pace standard beyond my control. I would rely on the experts to do the right thing and by-pass the protocol in recessions. This keeps the science moving at the rational level when appeasement resources are limited.

The muscle fibers are composed of proteins. Energy molecules added to these muscle proteins, cause these proteins to change their configurational shape and compact. Without the energy molecules they will relax back to the previous configurational shape that is more expanded. When we have two opposing muscles, a simple solution is shift the energy chemical back and forth so one contracts and one expands. Since the muscles are controlled by the nervous system, this can be done more efficiently via ionic signals from nerves, which alter the local water potential and thereby alter the equilibrium protein shape, even when the energy molecules are present in both sets of muscles. This allows quicker turn-around without energy molecule flush. Relative to a mechanism, if we use ATP this withdraws electron density from the proteins. The proteins sees this loss of electron density and contract. When we recycle the attached phosphate, the electron density is released back to the protein and they fluff out. Cationic currents from nerves are positive and also withdraw electron density. This adds extra equilibrium contraction to one muscle group, so even if the other muscle has ATP, the first can pull harder. The result is muscle tone, with both wanting to pull but nerves making one pull harder.

I sort of see what you are saying. When we see objects at the observational limits of the universe, the light we see is from the past state of those objects, and not their present. However, the light we receive is in our present, causing us to confuse what is going in the past with observational now. For example, say I was 10 years old and 20 light years away from the earth. I transmit a picture of myself today in terms of simultaneous time. (we can't measure simultaneous time but one should be able to understand the concept). In twenty years, earth receives this picture because it takes light twenty years to go 20 light years in distance. Based on simultaneity, I am now 30 years old, but based on the signal (picture) the earth receives in the present, they say I am 10. When I was 10 and took that picture, I was walking west at 3 MPH. But I only went about a mile, stopped and e-mailed the picture to earth. Then I went east back home. The picture the earth receives shows me going west. They then assume this is in their present and extrapolate me going west for the next twenty years. Conceptually simultaneously exists, however light can't move fast enough for us to measure simultaneously, since the gap in distance causes a time delay. One interesting consideration is since light travels at C, according to relativity, this means in its reference it sees complete time dilation and a point distance contraction. That means anything within finite time and distance is contained with its T,D point reference; simultaneous. Light also has finite components we call wavelength and frequency, that we see moving at C taking time to reach us. With the light are the conditions needed to meet both simultaneous and time-distance delay we measure. Also since C is not reference dependent, C-simultaneity is not reference dependent. However, reference motion impacts the finite measurement of the signal in space-time. The universe we see is a history books of the past, since there is universal C-simultaneity, since at C all finite is simultaneous. It makes sense the farthest object moves the fastest since at the very beginning of the universe the BB gave the fastest motion. Science seems to confuse this past with an expanding universe; analogous to me at 10 going west and then we extrapolate my speed and direction. We don't know actual C-simulataneity,

One common modern example of these thalamo-cortico-thalamic circuits, in action, is what we call falling in love. This is a collective human experience, which is beyond the conscious mind to create for itself. We can't choose to fall in love out of the blue. These collective dynamics is not cultural or history dependent, since it is thalamic in nature. To get the circuit loops going, we need a trigger for the thalamus. The effect is a heightened awareness, especially of the other person onto which the trigger is based and then projected onto. The output to the cerebral is collective in nature, but each person will interpret the internal output in the context of their own experience. It is a very creative state of mind with much music and art created. The cerebral memory appears to be arranged in layers. As an analogy, consider a piece of paper with blue and red dots. If we were to use red colored glasses to look at the paper, what we would see are only the blue dots. If we switch to the blue glasses, we will see the red dots. The falling in love will shade how we perceive memory and reality; rose colored glasses. These dynamics appear to be connected to the induced limbic potentials (limbic chemical combinations and concentrations), with love having it own unique blend. We will interpret the thalamus loops, not only within the context of our temporal memory but also within the memory layer provided by the thalamus. The thalamus circuit output appears to be spatial or 3-D in nature. Its central place in the brain makes it spatially integrated within the entire brain. The rose colored glasses, by helping to focus on a layer of our memory, helps to turn the 3-D output, into something easier for the ego. Love is not exactly rational, nor is it linear, so it is less than 2-D (cause and effect) but more than 1-D. For the sake of argument the output to the ego could be 1.5-D.

There are different types of science. Science that is applied and practical tends to maintain funding longer since it often leads to revenue generation. For example, the science needed to develop the next generation of semi-conductor material could mean $billions. This is investment science, so it makes sense to invest, even in hard economic times. There is also science that helps us better understand nature but is not considered an investment science. For example, knowing the foot size of army ants might be nice to know, but during hard economic times not knowing this will not have any impact on anything beyond those who specialize in this. This is more fair weather science that we splurge on when we have extra money to burn. Another consideration is certain projects in science are more expensive. The science pie is finite and some tend to need a bigger slice of the pie. This can make less available for other. For example, what will be spent on a supercollider could pay for a lot of lower budget science. Empirical science tends to need more resources than rational science. As an example, a math approach may only require office space and a computer. An empirical approach for the same thing, may take many years of blind experiments using expensive equipment. If you cut the empirical budget, it could be paralyzed. Yet it may still have more than enough if the approach had been more rational in the first place. Another consideration is specialization. This works well in good times when the entire assemble line of science is up and running. But during tough times, it can lead to bottlenecks. If the needed tools require another team and you loose some of this team, due to budget cuts, the base science can be placed in stall mode waiting for funding to return. The old time science of say Edison was very efficient since he was more or less a one man band doing the job of an assemble line. I would tend to think science should also be planning for this and trying to improve theories so these are less cost dependent for science. Say you could make operations cheaper for the same thing, science expands with the same resources. Ingenuity becomes important in tough times. The ability to improvise, when you don't have funding for the latest off the shelf, can keep science moving. For example, one may need more computing power but can't afford the upgrade. One may have to improvise using less money than a new computer. But if you don't how or are used to just buying off the shelf, one will sit idle waiting for the economy to turn. Science should not have an entitlement state of mind. Rather it should have more a spirit of self reliance. If science is nothing but a good paying job with all the social frills and prestige of awards, one thinks they are entitled to, economics can hurt the ego. Monument building is harder in tough times. If one does science to seek the truth, necessity is the mother of invention, and tightening the belt will lead to new directions.

The thalamus is the most wired part of the brain, with input/output going nearly everywhere in the brain.The thalamus has also been shown to be critical to consciousness. Damage to the thalamus can render a person brain dead. Another observation are thalamo-cortico-thalamic circuits which wire/loop the thalamus to the cerebral matter. What I would like to do is pose the theory that these loops allow the integrated perspective of the thalamus (all the brain) to relay data to the cerebral mind which shows up as inspiration; enhanced consciousness. If you look at the conscious and unconscious minds, the unconscious mind contains more data. For example, with hypnosis, one can recall data that might have slipped from the conscious mind, but is still stored in the unconscious. The thalamus by being wired everywhere, is not as limited to only our conscious data. Based on all the data, the thalamo-cortico-thalamic circuits will output to the cerebral. Being the center of consciousness, it can make one temporarily more conscious by simply tweaking consciousness. The interpretation of the inspiration, via ego consciousness, however, will be limited to what one is consciously aware of. This makes interpretation of thalamo-cortico-thalamic inspiration temporal dependent, since one's place in space and time will set the conscious grid for possible interpretation. Let me give a possible example; building the pyramids. This was quite the engineering feat and appears to be beyond the conscious technical level of the day. However, there is nothing they did during the building process which was not within the realm of what was available. This became parts of the subliminal data. The more integrated position of the thalamus would induce the thalamo-cortico-thalamic inspiration, that would be interpreted as coming from the gods. It is like having all the ingredients to make a new meal, but a meal without conscious precedent. The thalamus, but being an integrating factor, loops the new possibility to the cerebral. The inspiration, via enhanced thalamic awareness, helps the conscious mind create the new.

Another way to look at life after death is figuratively. Life perpetuates itself beyond death, via DNA that is passed on to the offspring. Before we knew anything of DNA, good observation could still see their late grandpa within the eyes of their new grandchild. Maybe this became reincarnation. Later in time, although this theory was not considered scientific, these observations were nevertheless good and the original theory useful, since it would become the platform for the transition of thoughts. I work under the assumption that although many of these theories can not be supported with modern science, they were based on observations. They sort of express the beginning of theory; beyond ape man. What is interesting, Christianity stops reincarnation. In other words, death implies reincarnation of the soul into immortality instead of biological recycle. If we work under the assumption of a hint of figurative truth to this, it implies the brain (spirit-soul) over matter (DNA). Or the impact of the brain/mind is passed forward into the DNA. For example, after wars when the male herd is thinned, there is an increase in male birth rates. The DNA is not that smart, but the brain is. Science is not advanced enough to make this connection yet. Once it takes into consideration the impact of water, we have a continuous matrix to the brain for change. Until that time science remains an upgrade to the ancient theory of reincarnation.

Religion is not so much of the mind as it is of the heart or emotions. As an analogy, someone may love their spouse, even if at the rational level they are wrong for each other. If the choice becomes follow the mind or heart, it is a no-win situation. Since the heart is more ancient/natural/collective than the temporal cultural mind, a loss of heart might impact health more. It is possible those who leave the group liked the friendships of otherwise nice people, but could not rationalize their theory. They followed the mind and lost their heart. A bunch of intellectuals may not have as much open heart, beyond being cynical. This may satisfy the needs of logic, but this group may not give them the same sense of intimacy, since intimacy is irrational to the rational mind.

One can condition someone over a long period of time using a trigger to activate the conditioning. For example, say every time someone spoke another person rolled their eyes and said, "here he goes again being a know it all," Eventually you don't have to say anything, but can push the button with a roll of the eyes. Say the wife's nagging included a look on her face, all she needs to do is create that look without actual nagging. The gun has been loaded for years and this will pull the accumulative trigger. That would explain the man appear to sense her nag, with her quiet (body language trigger).

Here is an interesting irony. The bible sort of places humanity in a unique position in the universe, since during the seven days of creation of the universe, man appears. This indirectly implies that humans are the most intelligent form of life in the universe having been hand selected with the formation of the universe. Based on all the data ever collected, science has never been able to refute this last statement; humans are at the top of the food chain in the universe. Don't get me wrong, there are good logical arguments to extrapolate other life and even more intelligent life, but all this logic lacks any hard data. The material perspective can not prove this theory is not true, while the philosophy of science works in favor of the Biblical theory, due to the only evidence we have places humans at the top of the universal food chain. The irony is to argue against this, without any data support, places science in the position of a religion; mythology without hard evidence. However, science has faith in what can not be seen or proven. Religion is in the place of good science, being supported by the only data, without a single hard data point that can refute this theory. It is not based on faith but on the data since humans are intelligent.

ATP is the mini-me of O2 or oxygen. Both accept electron density rather than give up electrons like carbon-hydrogen compounds. In a very loose sense, ATP is sort of analogous to the positive pole of a battery, pulling electron density. When the muscles use ATP, motion is added to stored electron density to create sort of a local current.

One of the problem is that we are placing human value judgement's on god's intent. This is called the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Satan said, if you eat of this tree you will be like a god knowing good from evil. I suppose that brings comfort and security. But this turned out to be a con job. This is analogous to a small child trying to second guess the intent of their parents. "I will suffer if I can't watch my TV show". Based on the child's knowledge of good and evil, he will indeed bring himself suffering onto himself and his parents (guilt) since he knows best, like god. Animals act via their instincts and not via some subjective philosophical value judgement of good and evil. Their inner actions and results are neutral with respect to human value judgements. They act via what is called the tree of life. It is similar to the evolutionary tree, reflecting the eons of advantages and forward momentum of life perfecting itself. Once you add subjective knowledge of good and evil, to this momentum of life, you start to undermine life and bring suffering. For example, the lion hunts and kills animals to survive. There is a balance in nature with respect to their actions, which are morally neutral. Next, let us add a human subjective apple from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For now on, all the killing of the lion will be called evil. Say we can get the lion to buy into this and deny his instinct, he will suffer. Then we will say god is not perfect since he makes the lion suffer. Wisdom is more advanced than knowledge, since wisdom remains while knowledge changes. What is evil yesterday is now good, and what is good today we may decide will be evil tomorrow. Salt may someday soon be evil. Once we pass this apple around and the black market adds salt to its many goods and service to meet the needs of this new victimless crime, then we will wonder why god allows suffering.

There is another side to this coin. Say men wanted to go out for female sports, such as try out for all the female professional soccer teams. Many males can't make the male upper leagues, but could earn a reasonable living if they could compete in professional female sports. What would happen is too many men would get the starting spots, squeezing out too many females from their own sports. I understand it is suppose to be a one-way street, with most men used to saying, yes dear, to even the most irrational demands. But say men stopped, yes dear, to any one way street. In the next Olympics, the males and females can now compete in both male and female events. This would allow the female teams to have new world record times and distances that will be about the same as the men's team. Would this work for equality? Separate sports for females, already protects females, so more females have an opportunity to compete. Stacking advantage upon advantage for the females only shows that men and women are not equal. It is considered discriminatory for all male colleges, but is not for all female colleges. One of the hidden strengths of females is getting their way with one-way streets, using some irrational emotional appeal and illogic to get the men to think this is being reasonable. The high maintenance wife does not get her way because of her ability to make sound judgements. She has an irrational strength that allows her to get her way.

The easiest way is use simple potentials. A resting neurons has a membrane potential; inside negative and outside positive. The outside positive is connected to Na+ ions while the inside negative is connected to K+ ions. When neurons fire there potential reverse via the Na+ and K+ reversing places. The axon give off Na+ ions. It is much easier to release Na+ where there is less Na+. This means places where a neuron has already fired or fires more, so there is less Na+ and more K+ over a given time average. This is on the surface of an active dendrite. The dendrites do the opposite. Their firing means more K+ on the surface, more of the time than an axon. These will tend to move in the direction of less K+ and more Na+ to meet somewhere near an axon. When you think about a given thing certain neurons for that memory fire more. This is where the potential for more connections is stronger. If you stop thinking about something (after finals and during summer break), these same neurons fire less, while other neuron fire more altering the branching direction.

One difference was polytheism versus monotheism. Say we worked under the assumption religion was a fantasy, polytheism is a more dissociated disorder. If the entire effect stems from a single source, the personality is far less dissociated. The barbarians had a dissociation problem with polytheism. As an analogy, say science had 4 theories for the same phenomena. Most people, to avoid the confusion, would pick one and stick by that. The Romans were the same way, with people tending to favor one of the gods; become part of a cult. But being a specialty, they lost the completeness. But say instead, you had to learn all four, for completeness, since each treats the same data somewhat differently. This can create confusion. Say someone found a way to integrated the four theories into one, one will have an easier time, since they only need to look at the phenomena in a single way. Christianity does become a trinity, but this was still one source for all effects, with two sub-filters mediating these effects. For example, our instincts include hunger, thirst, sexual desire, etc. The one common link is instinct, but there are many distinct expressions. Polytheism had a similar hierarchy, but the output was a little more random via the whims of the gods who often fought and tired to undermine each other. That would be like having instincts, but where one is not sure if hunger means eat, fight or whatever. One might specialize in a cult to learn eat from the eat specialty god. Monotheism did not have to specialize since it thought in terms of instinct allowing the entire spectrum. With less dissociation it was easier to deal with the barbarian dissociation.

According to all the data science has collected, there is no proof of intelligent life outside the earth. The rest of the pro extra terrestrial theories, although very reasonable in terms of logic, are still all pseudo-science, since they lack any hard proof. Based on the hard data, and the philosophy of science, all we can say is humans are the most intelligent creatures in the universe, like religion says. Science has yet to prove otherwise with hard data, although it does give reasonable arguments that lack proof. Putting aside the philosophy of science, which in this cases supports religion, I nevertheless think it is useful to think beyond the short sighted philosophy of science and speculate using rational assumptions even without proof. Rational assumptions allows one to by-pass the limits of empirical data collection, if the facts and logic add up. Empirically, religion wins, but rationally science has good legs to stand on. I not a fundamentalists, but was just showing the limits of the philosophy of science. The ancient religious theory of humans being unique in the universe is still supported by the data. We have tried for centuries to disprove this theory, but it still stands the test of time, based on the best available technology.

This suggests that the brain plays a role, since the brain is more aware of the need. Neurons do not undergo cell cycles as much as other cells. Neurons are designed to be less effected to DNA replication mutations, by default. These differentiate, via branching and synapses via external potentials. There is a forward pressure to the DNA, or else real time experience could not induce the differentiation changes. The brain is wired everywhere in the body, especially to the areas associated with reproduction. When such need arises, the DNA sees the forward neural pressure to make more males.

For example, biology makes most of its assumption out of the context of the water. The DNA double helix is actually a quadruple helix with two helixes of water. If we take the water away, there is no bioactivity to the DNA, yet this is not part of the equation. Market branding keeps this going. Another science market brand is connected to probability. This assumes there is enough energy for full randomization, but fails to take into consideration that the odds change when we have partial energy randomizations. For example, we need to add enough energy to shuffle a deck of cards completely before the calculated odds apply. If we don't add enough energy to the shuffle, the odds are not the same. Market branding sells the idea that full energy randomization is dogma, with this dogma preferred far and wide. Relative to mutations, different parts of the DNA mutate at different rates, which implies we do not have sufficient energy for full DNA randomization. This allows the cells to change odds. Yet market branding ignores tells us we can ignore this and just add other fudge factors. The reason partial energy randomization occurs comes back to water, which another market brand fails to take into account. Brands X and Y are part of all school lunches and dinners and therefore builds up bias for these brands.

What Rome could not do with atheist intellect and might they did via Christianity. The barbarians hordes were not afraid of men, but gradually became more pacified and domesticated as the Roman Christian influence began to spread.

Facts can be conditioned with marketing. For example, it may be a fact that more people prefer brand X. This study can be repeated hundreds of times by independent labs to achieve the same results, since all the labs would witness the same product sales count. But this fact might be due to brand X being better or can also be due to brand X having the best marketing team. Say schools decide to bring brand X into the lunch room, so the students are not only more familiar with brand X, but also have time to get used to and acquire a taste for brand X, it can then be a proven fact that more students prefer brand X. Say brand X lobbies to keep brand Y out of the classroom, the fact will remain that brand X is the preferred brand by all the schools.

A theory will set up a conceptual framework within the brain from which we will perceive reality. The facts are not always the facts, per se, since the conceptual framework can create its own unconscious expectation of what the facts appear to be. For example, an old theory was the earth was the center of the universe and the sun moved across the sky from east to west. Based on this theory, it was a well known fact that the sun moves from east to west. However, in reality the sun is not moving, rather the earth is spinning. One may notice how the original theory helped defined its own facts, simply because it placed this observation within the parameters of its own framework. To deny east to west, back then, makes you appear to deny the facts everyone can plainly see. Once the earth changed its position as center of the universe, into moving around the sun, the facts for the same observation changed, since we will now interpret them in the context of the new framework. The earth is spinning. Relativity uses curved space-time to further alter the facts of this observation. Sometimes you can't critique a theory via the facts, since this is a fixed fight. Theories make people unable see the same facts in another way, since the framework of the theory will place this fact exactly in the spot expected. So one needs to approach the framework itself. Copernicus could not deny east to west, so he needed to shake the framework so those under the spell of their own expectations, could see the facts in a newer way.

Another way to approach this is consider the situation of one person who the doctors say has 1 year to live, to another who has 50 years. The shorter life sentence will increase fear consciously or unconsciously. Behavior become impacted by the fear. The longer life allows one to postpone this. When the idea of eternal life is presented to the first Christians, many lost their fear of death, which had held them as slaves to law. The Romans had to crank up their terror tactics in an attempt to increase their fear, again, so they could continue to enslave them. Centuries later, this Christian lack of fear of death was what made the Christian soldiers, of the Roman empire, their best soldiers. To honor these soldiers, the emperor made Christianity the religion of Rome.

Empirical theory is also different from rational theory. Rational theory can fail with one bad data point. Empirical theory has developed special fudge math designed to absorb a lot of bad data so it does not impact the theory as much as a rational theory. This allows less than rational theory to linger. A special form of empirical theory, using the concept of risk, is even more watered down, allowing more bad data (does not apply) than good (does apply) and still qualify as science theory. For example, I might claim that eating oranges increases the risk of cancer. Even if 99% of the collected data does not cooperate with my theory, my theory can still be considered valid simply because we use the risk umbrella allowing a lower standard. Rational theory has the hardest standard, with science moving in the direction of the more watered down standard. At that point, politics can come more into play, since bad data is no longer a way to discredit any theory. Relativity is a rational theory that does not have to use the fudging math to absorb bad data. Rather it works very nicely using the harder rational standard. Say Newton had invented bad data hiding math instead of calculus. This could have prevented the need for relativity for decades.

The idea of life after death helps create will power. It also helps one plan longer term. As an example via a mental experiment, we begin with a large group of college students. We will tell one half of the group, when they graduate there will be no jobs after college. The other half we tell them there will be good jobs available, but one needs to work hard to get the best jobs. Which group will show more will power and will plan longer term? If all that you do has no reward in the end, why work so hard? Short term reward is better. After the four year experiment, we tell everyone this was an experiment and there will be plenty of jobs for all. Which of the two groups will make the future stronger? One path is evolutionary and one path regressive.