iNow

Thanks for the extra details and clarifications.

It was truly my pleasure. Thanks for giving me to the motivation to open up some long dormant knowledge.

The idea of the brain's neuron surfaces being loaded with positive charge, that needs to lower, cuts to the heart of why we need synapses.

I'm confused by this. We have synapses by virtue of the fact that we have neurons. The synapse is the space between neurons. So, saying that the neurons are loaded with charge is the reason we need synapses seems contrary to the much simpler anatomical description.

This could also be deduced directly from the firing of the dendrites.

Now, I know for a fact I've corrected you on this before, but dendrites are a part of the neuron which receive the signals from other nerve cells. There are two types of dendrites, basilar and apical, the former more common in the body and latter more common in the cortex. They don't "fire," but receive and transmit signal.

Based on this when an axon goes hunting to make a synapse, say on a dendrite, since its little tip is very high in potential, it is going to look for the soft spots on the dendrite which appear to be at the lowest potential. This is reflected by all the right stuff on one spot on the dendrite surface. If it is not the right stuff, the surface potential is too high, such that the axon tip is repelled causing it to continue its search.

We still do not fully understand the entire mechanism responsible for increasing axonal filopodia (axon extrusions into the cytoplasm), but there is EXTENSIVE work indicating that glutamate is responsible for mediating synaptogenesis, or in simpler terms, the growth of new connections between axons and dentrites. The growth of dendritic branches is directly influenced by glutamate, as well as AMPA, NMDA, actin, calcium ions, and glial cells..

Considering this information, I'd suggest that your proposal of this process being entirely mitigated by aggregate potential gradients unnecessarily limits the true scope of this body of research and also ignores mountains of existing evidence.

To picture absolute motion in an absolute frame, read this work of mine.

 

<url removed by iNow prior to posting>

 

Warning - This post may vanish in a short time period. This is due to it directing you to interesting points of view that can not be compressed small enough in size to fit into a mere forum post.

Complete disappearance is not very likely. Have you checked the Speculations forum yet?

Yep, this is fine too, if it makes more sense to the scientific mindset. It is essentially what I am saying, i suppose . I just haven't heard it phrased that way. Or maybe simply, non-random behaviour in life? Anyway, I think most would get what I mean.

 

cheers

I'm not married to it or anything (unless it's picked up in the general lexicon... then, I want royalties ), I've just noticed most attacks on your presentation seem to center on the disagreement surrounding the words "unconscious" and "collective." However, I don't think my phrasing accounts for your interest in the "collective" aspect of it.

Is this somehow tied to they ideas of Jung? He wrote a lot of great books, and one I particulary enjoyed was "Modern Man in Search of a Soul."

http://books.google.com/books?id=U6lMnx8AQsYC&dq=&pg=PP1&ots=dgSx4-7F7Q&sig=U5PKDzIg8IFvY1cSVqTNPHUK6js&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26oi%3Dspell%26resnum%3D0%26ct%3Dresult%26cd%3D1%26q%3D%2522modern%2Bman%2522%2Bjung%26spell%3D1&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title

So the internalist idea is unprovable and the externalist is untenable, yet you still maintain memes exist?

The only real decision to make is whether memes and memetics are merely pop psychology of the worst kind or simply pseudo-science.

Perhaps we should let Richard Dawkins have some comments;

 

Faith in the meme perhaps?

 

Oh Dear, he could be describing Memetics, couldn't he?

Is there anybody here is claiming without shadow of a doubt that memes exist, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong? Come on, mate. Please. Be more respectful than that.

Also, when was Dawkin's last work on memes? Give me a citation for his last published paper on the topic. I'd imagine that he started focussing on the problem of irrational faith for a reason.

That's the beauty of science, and most scientists who understand it's core... Ideas are not truths, and can be rejected in the face of contradictory evidence. Religion, on the other hand, claims that the stories they share ARE truth.

This thread isn't about memes. You're entire approach thus far has been ad hominem. To paraphrase you, "Dawkin's clearly has double-standards when he says religion and irrational faith are detrimental to society since he spent a few years studying memes, and memes don't have any proof. So, therefore he's obviously wrong when speaking about faith."

I contend that, despite any work on memes (and thank you, btw, for helping me realize the weak footing on which this concept of memes actually stands) which Dawkin's has done, his point about belief and faith in the face of contrary (or NO) evidence being detrimental to us as a people is, remarkably, valid.

Yea it is true, scientists are now believing that water we are using is Extra Terrestrial. According to new research most of the water came to earth by meteorite shower as per the theory of Panspermia.

Hi Rajdilawar,

Which scientists are those? Also, isn't the theory of panspermia specific to "life" and not "water?"

I'm reluctant to accept your statement without citations or support, but would be interested in further information if you have any available. Take care.

Definitely plant more plants. You can also turn them into biochar and bury it your garden for some amazing crop yields. So, you grow plants, which take carbon out the atmosphere, then char those plants at low temps and low oxygen to create porous charcoal, you smash that up and put it in your dirt, and you grow better plants and repeat the process. It's called "Terra Preta" and was first discovered in the Amazon.

http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/555prostagland.html

The atmospheric CO2 has increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to 367 ppm in 1999 and today's CO2 concentrations have not been exceeded during the past 420,000 years (IPCC, 2001). The release or sequestration of carbon in soils is therefore of prime importance.

 

Soil organic carbon is an important pool of carbon in the global biogeochemical cycle. The total amount of organic carbon in soils is estimated to be 2011 Gt C, which constitutes about 82% of the global organic carbon in terrestrial ecosystems... <read more at link above>

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=IO9hjqWtHKYC&oi=fnd&pg=PA3&dq=History+and+origin+of+Terra+Preta+soils+and+future+perspectives&ots=2uRho-m-dn&sig=hQibGXUWYgCrqTN2Q5CG6iIdF7E

The pain from headaches, as much as it feels like it's inside the head, isn't. I'ts usually a diffuse sensation originating in the scalp, or the muscles and veins in it and in the face and neck (depending on the type of headache: vascular, myogenic or cervocogenic).

 

It's not the pressure of inflamed tissue that causes the pain. The pain relatated elements of inflammation is the release of substances like prostaglandins and histamine which sensitize and activate (respectively) primary afferent (pain) fibres.

I genuflect in your general direction. Thank you very much for such a clear and concise explanation. I plan now to research further the concept of inflammation and the effects of prostaglandins and histamine on the pain response.

So, if I wear a white gold necklace when my neck is sore, is that going to make me feel better? Or, does that only work with magnets?

EDIT: I love learning new things and correcting errors in my thinking. I just spent the last 45 minutes reading about headaches, inflammation, and prostaglandins. I'm no expert, but damn did I correct some issues in my thinking. It was also interesting to see what the data shows, as I could draw very strong links to the half truths I previously held.

For those interested (off topic, I know, but hey... white gold powder and health? Come on...), the following two sites were very concise and clear:

http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/555prostagland.html

http://www.doctorsforadults.com/topics/dfa_head.htm

.

Some interesting thoughts. I am getting a better feel for your philosophy on this subject having read more of your posts. However, there are a few key details which I believe you are fundamentally missing, and I will do my best to explain the mechanisms actually in place without attacking your concept.

When the neurons place the Na+ on the surface, they are using the cation that has the most apparent postive charge and the most tightly bound water in the first hydration shell. The inside is richer in K+ with its lower apparent postive charge and its less tightly held first hydration shell. The situation that is created, are the neuron surfaces are covered with a lot of postive charge, with a relative strong first hydration shell that is relatively stable, relative to K+. The neurons repel each other's positive surfaces, but are anchored so they are not able to move relative to each other. The result is positive potential looking for ways to reduce this potential.

The neurons are not "placing" their ions at the surface. There is, in fact, a difference in potential across the membrane wall of the nerve cell, just as you imply. When the cell is at rest, the outside of the cell wall membrane has a positive charge and the inside of the membrane has a negative charge. This is called it's resting potential. It results from the differences of positively charged ions of sodium (Na) and potassium (K) to the negatively charged cytoplasm outside the cell. Additionally, it's useful to note that there are more Na ions concentrated outside of the cell and more K ions concentrated inside of the cell. This is important since, as you correctly mentioned, the "amount" of charge "expressed" by each ion is not equal.

Per the above, the concentrations of ions on either side of the cell wall membrane are not in equilibrium, and it has to be actively maintained. This is where the sodium-potassium pump comes into play. This pump actively transports the ions against their concentration gradients.

The points where the positive charge on different neurons is able to approach the closest are the synapses. This closeness indicates, this is where the positive charge repulsion will be at a minimum. But since the synapse retains a gap, this implies the positive potential is never zero. The direction of the Na+ current from axon to dendrite or axon, is reflective of the movement from higher toward lower positive potential.

There are actually openings in the cell membrane called sodium (Na) gates and potassium (K) gates, and it is these which allow the respective ions to cross. In very rough terms, the sodium on the outside of the cell goes to the inside, and the potassium on inside of the cell goes to the outside, causing a temporary reversal of the cell membrane potential... it changes polarity.

Since the sodium is on the outside, it reacts first to the propogating signal from the neighboring nerve cells. So, the sodium gates open first, and sodium floods into the cell. It is after this happens that the potassium gates respond, and potassium evacuates the cell, thus restoring the resting potentials net charges. The sodium-potassium pump then pushes the Na ions out of the cell and the K ions are pumped back into the cell, and the original distribution of those ions are restored.

This propogating signal is called the action potential. It actually does begin at one spot on the cell membrane, but then spreads to adjacent "sides" of the membrane and then across the synaptic cleft.

One can almost look at the brain as this big bundle of positive charge that is trying to find ways to discharge the potential, i.e,, into synampses.

 

The hydrations sphere of Na+ is an extension of the positive potential that is on the surfaces of the neurons. In other words, the Na+ does not exist just as isolated Na+, but as Na+ plus hydration. The value of this water is when neurotransmittors appear in the local water, but before they bind onto synapses, these chemicals have their own hydrated what that reflects their polar/nonpolar atoms in their structures. It is sort of an additional tweak at the level of the H ,that affects the surface Na+, even before the neurotransmittor binds to the membrane.

I suppose this is the part of your post that sounded most interesting. It seems to make logical sense. I would, however, like to see some detailed clarification, if possible, also some studies along these lines. After all, logic makes people think that heavier objects reach the ground more quicky, but empirical data proves this is not the case. Empiricism beats logic any day.

Neurotransmittor may have more specificity at the synapse, but its appearance anywhere outside of neurons has an impact before it begins to bind. The cerebral spinal fluid is an extension of the surface water. As features in the core of the brain add chemicals, the positive potential gets tweaked.

I am not familiar with the idea that neurotransmitters may carry some charge... that they are ions, but I am honestly not sure. This may, in fact, be the case, but it doesn't trigger any recall from my 4 years of study. If you are able to provide some support that NTs carry charge, then that's great, but until then I'd caution you not to carry this line of reasoning too much farther.

It is in the cell body of the neuron that the neurotransmitters are produced. These molecules are transported down the axon to the axon terminal, and are stored in vesicles, which are like little bundles or balloons. It is only when these vesicles "fuse" with the cell membrane of the axon terminal that they released into the synapse. What happens then is the neurotransmitters will ONLY bond with certain specific receptors on the neighboring nerve cell. It as if there are a series of locks on the neighboring nerve cell, and the neurotransmitters are keys. The key must fit the lock, or the door will not open. (Note - Nitric Oxide (NO) is not stored in vessicles, and it diffuses through the cell membrane instead of being released by fusing with the axon terminal. It then activates enzymes in the neighboring cell which produce something called "second messengers.")

They may be how the brain associates memory to valance. Any emotional response, often implies core region chemical input into the CSF. The bulk positive potentials of the brain, gets sort of primed to reflect the best possible way to lower the tweaked positive potential via the synapses. This can not be a random, since any neruon can absorb there chems. There needs to be specific synaptic selectivity for these chems to trigger associated memories.

Again... not so sure about this, but hey... I'll give it a definite maybe. It really is important that if you are going to use logic and deduction to understand a system that you are not working from a set of false premises. Houses built in sand will topple, ya dig?

In the interest of transparency, I want to state that I spent some time refreshing my knowlege of this subject by reviewing the links which I tied to many of the words within my post. I'd be glad to elucidate further on any of these points as needed, but am myself a student of life and don't hold all of the answers either.

Speculation is fun, but science is funnerer.

FYI, bubble text is only allowed in General Discussion threads. Not as big a deal in Pseudoscience as in Physics, but let's keep Gir and the rest in GD, please.

Hey. No problem. Let me know if I should edit it. How would one know about this anyway?

So, that aside...

How about it? Non-Random Behavioral Trends in Multiple Life Domains?

i guess i would agree that the number of cigarettes consumed per day increases with age. my father tried to quit once but he is always with people who smoke. so he went back to his vise and now he is totally dependent on smoking. but i noticed, he sometimes doesn't finish the entire cigarette. about a quarter or half would be left from the cigarette before he throws it away. he is 60+ now. does this mean anything significant?

Probably that he now only smokes to satisfy the withdrawal and he no longer enjoys them like he used to.

Semantics and preconceived notions seem to impose an impasse when discussing the idea of unconscious intellect. What about replacing the term, perhaps with something more aligned with what you're truly discussing... like:

"Non-Random Behavioral Trends in Multiple Life Domains"

There is a definite art to hand-waving. It only works if everyone can understand the waving. If not, then you have to pull out a pencil.

Well, I'm a pretty proud sort, confident to my own detriment at times, but even I would hesitate before waving my pencil around in a scientific forum.

These citizens, with no allegiance to this country, are the ones you want to defend by using our own Constitution against us. How can this be seen as anything but support for their missions? All these people want to do is kill Americans and you want to argue that they should also be able to use our Constitution as a weapon against us. Is that what you call allegiance to our flag? Is this the freedom you care about? The freedom to kill and maim Americans while hiding nehind our Constitution?

This is blatant jingoism, and it's disgusting. It is exactly this type of archaic isolationist thinking that is preventing us from tackling the more potent problems we face as a global community.

It's not Us and Them, and you need to stop generalizing about large masses of people whom you identify under a common label.

Yeah, its a shame that he's not quite as well known among the general public.

He would be if he wrote a book about Paris Hilton or Brad, Angelina, and Jen.

"But I think it is a serious issue to wonder about the other platonic absolutes of say beauty and morality."

Long ago there was this statement..

Absolute motion | Absolute frame | ...the outcome of the examination of such a structure, predicts changes that if converted into mathematical equations, become identical to equations known as.... | These four equations | My source is outersecrets.com.

 

Then you, iNow, changed the subject entirely.

Actually, I asked if you'd heard of of some scientists who did amazing work on relativity. My point was in challenge to your desire to have an absolute, or preferred, reference frame. My hope was that you'd offer us a more scientific source for your claim.

If there's an absolute frame of reference, then it's right now. Strangely, the "right now" I typed moments ago is somehow different yet encompassed within the right now I typed this time... and further, they both are encompassed within the right now you have while reading this. This is a proposal... a hypothesis I have been formulating for a few years... not absolute.

but i dnt know wat all of them are thats why i would liek

you guys to tell me the name of sum astronomy, physics,

space, related like the theory of relativity, or laws of thermodynamics

wat are the names of other laws and theories that are important to

the topics i named

Okay... Try this then:

Six Easy Pieces - Richard Feynman

Six Not-So-Easy Pieces - Richard Feynman

The Magic Furnace - Marcus Chown

Black Holes and Time Warps - Kip Thorne

Origin of Species - Charles Darwin

Just a couple off the top of my head, so don't stop there. Learning this stuff is more of an approach to life... a path... than it is a final destination.

Evidently

So, for all these years I've been working off of a false assumption. Time to open another book and correct my own crap.

At least I said it confidently.

Aspirin is a COX inhibitor. Inhibiting cyclooxygenase reduces the production of prostoglandins and other substances associated with inflammation and so reduces pain.

Curious though... doesn't inflammation imply an increased blood flow to the region... hence more pressure on whatever anatomy may "contain" it (in the above example, the skull)?

Yes you do !

Please do tell me how I've misinterpreted you then so we can move beyond this childish set of interactions.

Making asses of Us and MEs.

Hmmm... What is your goal? You're basically asking us to share with you the entire galaxy in 10 words or less. Can you give more detail?

Btw... my first thoughts were Kepler, Copernicus, Maxwell, and Darwin.

Are there any adults on this forum ?

I assume you are frustrated by the manner in which I called your claims nonsense. I accept that. However, I find your "relative systems" and "absolute foundations" logic rather lacking, and expect you to provide more credible citations than "outersecrets.com" to support such claims. That is all.

Are we there yet?

Okay...

The opening salvo of your link is, "Throw away all that you know to be true. If you approach this document with any level of knowledge, you will know it is garbage, and we don't want you to make this conclusion." I've paraphrased, but that's the gist.

Then, they give me the "photons have no time" and so can you argument. Photons are massless, we are not. Bunk claim number 1. Travel at infinite speed of course implies no passage of time... like a photon. How is this done? Great question. Does the author try to answer it? Nope. They say belief in this proven logic is flawed and that a "monkey see, monkey do" approach is what limits us.

Honestly... the first half of the article is some jibber jabber that uses big words in the wrong ways. It's slight of hand, and silly, and hence my confidence when scoffing at your posts.

These variables ranging from zero to infinity, only exist RELATIVISTICALLY, due to man not being able to look across the depth of the dimension of Time, thus taking time out of the visual observation equation. The end result leaves that which appears to be a change of the magnitude of the objects motion, when in fact it is only a change of spatial velocity alone, and not a change in the overall magnitude of the object's motion across Time- Space !

Brilliant! Do these guys have stock I can buy? This is so money baby, and you don't even know it.

Thanks for the site gonna check it out.

Looking more closely at that link, it really doesn't speak much about the subject. I tried also searching "white powder gold" and two sites came up. One was more crap, and the other required a $25 subscription (which, I wasn't willing to pay), so I cannot attest to it's craptitude or non. Enjoy.

Ok first off i'm not trying to sell this stuff, I just want some info.

No worries, bro. This thing, this thing that THEY are selling, is crap though.

I also don't know why asprin relieves headaches but it does.

A headache is from lots of pressure in our skull. Your blood flowing through the brain influences this pressure. Aspirin thins the blood, hence the pressure is reduced, and your headache is relieved. I didn't go to med school either though.

I think its supposed to be a superconductor and when it attaches to cells it stimulates the elctrons to fire more rapidly.

Gold would have to be extremely cold (like minus 273 degrees cold) to be superconductive, and electrons don't "fire." Electrons are considered elementary particles that are negatively charged, but this is an oversimplification that ignores some very key bits of information.

My whole point for posting is to find out if anyone does have information with studies to back it up. If it doesn't work I would expect a study to be published saying it didn't work.

You might start here:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=monoatomic+gold+health

I searched "scholar.google.com" for the term: "monoatomic gold health."

Sorry if I seem like a @$$ but if you haven't done any research on it I don't feel you are qualified to dismiss it.

I haven't done any research on creationism or unicorns either, but I feel my dismissal of those subjects is perfectly valid. Any schmuck can make up a load of crap and try to pass it off as science. I personally am lucky enough to know a bit of science and tend to tell the schmuck's they're full of malarky.

This is one of the transcripts from David Hudson... http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/freenrg/hudson.txt

 

Here is one about the biological effects of it...

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/Ormus.html

 

Here is another site with some info

http://tribes.tribe.net/ormus-online/thread/c22b9028-dcf6-4004-8ace-a0831660a0a2

Again, a website proves not truth. Anybody can have a domain name and type whatever they want. I caution those who take such claims seriously to remain skeptical in the absence of evidence. Also, there are two very important words I advise you learn very quickly. These are "peer" and "reviewed," often accompanying the term "journal."

One site said about how it cured cancer, MS, AIDS and much more but had no facts to back it up. Sorry I can't find this site atm but if I do I will post the address.

See previous comments regarding websites. I can find websites that claim god created the earth in seven days, and others claiming that the holocaust never happened. This doesn't serve as evidence for either of these claims, only evidence of how misguided many in our culture remain, despite millenia of evolution.

Now, I'm not arguing against you. I'm trying to help you in fact. Please, ask more questions, just don't run from answers which disagree with preconceived notions.

Btw... I lived in NY before moving to TX. Where in the state is "Batavia?"

Try to remember that an allergic reaction is your body rejecting some chemical or molecule, etc. It touches your skin, or your lungs, or your stomach and your body sees it as foreign. So, it attacks it with histamine, a protien used by the immune system to combat the foreign body.

While it's possible that some combination of items caused the reaction (like the tequila and raid and kerosene heater and your dad's hand and falling asleep on the floor ), whether it be different foods or articles of clothing or your boyfriends cologne... the most likely possibility is one thing caused it.

I'm allergic to creationists, but I'm not using "allergic" in it's normally defined sense.

Yes, no, yes, no, but I think you are all being blind.

Science is about skepticism, and evidence. Show me a prediction which we can test. Show me how this prediction does better than existing theory. When evidence comes in that confirms your prediction, I will abandon my acceptance of the former concept and explore in greater detail the new one.

Ben, you've really gotta warn a brother before opening a thread like this. I almost shit myself just reading the title.