pantheory

A new technology: A peeping Tom and voyeur's dream come true? Superman vision from a cell-phone? Wanna see my favorite pics on my cell? Also seemingly future medical applications along with countless other conceivable and more socially acceptable, wonderful applications? http://www.utdallas....ageCenterColumn

Saw this in the science news today. The article is entitled "Serious Blow to Dark Matter Theories? http://www.eso.org/p...c/news/eso1217/ The purpose of the study was to find dark matter around the sun and its surrounding mass relating to gravitational influences within our solar system. According to their observations and conclusions, none was found.

They still would appear to be very massive based upon their gravitational influences, so I would guess them to be highly condensed burned-out stars absent the BB theory and present stellar evolution theory. Black holes as a Singularity is mathematical theory absent any possible observational confirmation at full scale, therefore conceivably just one possibility concerning black holes in general. Black hole models as a more condensed form of matter is the alternative theoretical idea. (quote from top link, shown below) http://www.answers.c...tional-collapse http://www.answers.com/topic/gravitational-collapse#ixzz1sKMjRIbh There are black hole hypothesis proposing such ideas as quark stars, compressed fundamental particles or strings of some kind, and a number of other proposals and ideas. //

michel123456, I think your description of the comparison of space and time is apt, but I think that dimensions are just man's mathematical description of reality. 1D space is a line with two directions. The sum of time seemingly could be characterized in 1D. But the progression of time might better be characterized as a vector which is more restrictive, which I believe may more aptly describe man's invention of the concept of the progression of time in the first place. //

Since this is a news site we should not discuss details of particular possibilities but I generally agree with most of your statements. I will now comment on your statements, but not necessarily in apposition A "good" MOND model, in my opinion, must have reasoning to it -- like Einstein's model where he proposed that matter warped space to explain the logic of his equations, whether valid or not. In retrospect, Newton's mathematical model of the inverse square law of gravity provided an intuitive understanding of gravity mechanics in that the same inverse square law equally applies to magnetism and light, concerning the dissipation of a "force/ power" from its source. I think Milgram should receive Kudos for his MOND, but on the other hand, there is a recognition of the discrepancy concerning the failings in a logic /vision/ approach to explain why his model does not work in the galaxy cluster arena, and also the other venues that GR/ Newton can better explain with the inclusion of dark matter. I know you used the plural when you said MOND model"s" implying there are other versions. The success of Milgram's MOND concerning retrodictions is considered by some to be much better than the retrodictions of Dark Matter concerning stellar orbital velocities in spiral galaxies. I'm also a fan of Modified Newtonian Gravity possibilities but realize that any final model of gravity, both mathematical and otherwise, must ultimately explain all observations in all arenas. Based upon this same reasoning, Milgram's MOND also needs similar modification to explain other arenas. Of course in the same way Dark Matter might also be looked at as the logical basis needed to explain changes to the mainstream equations. Not just Migram's MOND, but in my opinion all new and all existing mathematically based hypothesis/ theories in all of physics that may be lacking in logic and reasoning, will likewise ultimately fail to accurately predict in all venues and circumstances, resulting in them respectively being dismissed, changed, or replaced. //

Thanks for the informative/ news links concerning both some of the latest on MOND and the struggle to find dark matter. As I said in my opening post, MOND is most certainly not the last word on gravity but I think it might eventually contribute to solving the puzzle. Since there are a number of galactic effects and motions that MOND seemingly does not explain, most astronomers and theorists believe there is something physical there to explain these effects, hence dark matter. But the question then becomes "is that something really matter of some kind," or maybe it could be instead energy based like EM radiation, and/ or etherial in nature which could be particulates that might be mass-less at rest, a variation on the dark matter idea? -- that a Modified Newton Gravity Model of some kind, might eventually be a part of? //

Missed that one. He certainly is "Enchanting"

Hi michel123456, We have had such discussions of time and I have found we have much more agreement than differences on this subject. But, let's discuss our differences so that perspectives might be improved, OK? I'll go in the order that you presented your "knowledge" characteristics of time. BUT I would like to start with a perspective if you don't mind. Instead of saying "we know," concerning all of these characteristics, I believe it would be better to say that "present theory and perspectives based upon observations assert that": 1,2,3, etc. As to this my preferred definition of time is an "interval of change" which is man made concept with absolutely nothing more to it than its definition, in my opinion. As we discussed before, it is difficult to imagine a change without motion so I think we are in agreement on this point. Yes. Changes of distance to a gravitational field effects the rate of particle spin and particle decay, as well as the measured passage of time, which are a function of the changes/ motion of matter at a distance from a center of gravity. So we are in agreement. I'm not too fond of the common terminology of this phrase since I think it is based upon the proposed mathematical use of time rather than the logic of it. I would prefer to say that time can be equated with motion but there is no direction to it such as the idea of time going/moving backwards. So in this way my explanation is a little different perspective, and yours is the presently accepted perspective. Not that I disagree, its only that I think such ideas confuse the understanding of how simple time really might be. Yes. For change/ motion to occur their must be a motivating force of some kind -- which would be times cause. For atomic matter the primary internal motivator results in atomic spin and atomic particle spin which perpetuates time. I would use different wording. I would say that logically time can be linked to space to form a new concept, both logically and mathematically. Since galaxies move relative to each other as well as the background of galaxies, no absolute X,Y, Z coordinates can be determined unless we consider only a point in time where there would be is no motion to consider. For predictions of future events, motions, related forces, and effects, we must add the consequences of time, which mathematically can be accomplished by calculating quantitative time intervals as they relate to motion, hence X,Y,Z, T and the invaluable perspective of spacetime. Again I would choose different wording without being in disagreement. Instead I think a preferred perspective is simply that the passage of time has a different rate for different observers having different relative motions to each other, or to the prevailing gravitational fields. My reasoning for all simply this. The Cartesian coordinate system is also an invented concept for calculation purposes as is time. In my opinion there is no simpler man-made concept that I can think of than time: when defined as: An interval of change (with nothing more to it). This simplicity is in sharp contrast to the concept of time in quantum physics and related cosmologies. A prime example I think is Sean Carol's book "From Eternity to Here" -- The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time. Sean Carrol is a Senior Research Associate in the Department of Physics at the California Institute of Technology. He is a theoretical cosmologist specializing in dark energy and general relativity. In Sean Carrol's opinion, which is based upon some current ideas in quantum physics and field theory, time may be such a complicated concept that it might take more than a century to even come up with a valid theory of it. So from my perspective of time being one of the simplest of quantifiable concepts, to his whereby time is one of the most complicated of all theoretical entities. Probably the prevailing scientific opinion is that the truth concerning the nature of time lies somewhere in between these two perspectives As to what else do we know about time? -- time definition (science related) : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues; a duration; an interval or continuum of continued progress of existence and events; A non-spatial continuum in which events occur in succession from the past through the present to the future, etc. -- time is normally defined as a quantifiable interval, unlike a time frame which can be defined as a static condition. -- the cause of time requires potential energy, and the passage of time involves kinetic energy. -- time is a mathematical tool. Deleted Philosophical direct implications and temptations

inadvertent posting

Only the active ingredients listed must be the same concerning FDA certification of a generic. Manufacturing methods are not normally listed in such patents. Even if the active ingredients are exactly the same, processing methods of manufacturing can alter the rate or percentage of absorption, which often differ amongst individual users. Inactive ingredients can also effect the absorption rate by decreasing sensitivity and side effects for some users, by being more palatable, easier to assimilate, being catalytic by improving the desired effects, acting as a buffer, etc. etc. By not listing an ingredient as being active and by giving it another stipulated function/ purpose, branded drugs can sometimes outperform their generic counter-parts for reasons unknown to all except the manufacturer who may not wish such disclosure. After the patent runs out if generic testings do not yield similar results, the FDA can require further disclosure of the percentages of inactive ingredients as well as manufacturing methods. Such future disclosure possibilities is a condition of their patent. They do not, however, have do reveal manufacturing methods related to drug costs. If the manufacturer has a big winner, they often can figure out how to keep improving their product, maintaining a new patent, and thereby staying a step ahead of their generic competition. The other side of the coin is that generic manufacturers could do the same, but rarely would risk the expenditures because their profits are usually a function of their costs and services rather than their company name being associated with "the best quality." Of course most claims of superiority by brand names are baseless with such claims as "after years of testing no other product works better" (since most generics would work the same ) //

I recall designing such a flying car back in the late 1950's and early 60's. It appeared more advanced than operating models today, and it had more advantages such as no wing span since it was based upon contrary rotary blades on the bottom with a protection shield, a four hundred pound load not including fuel, running off of salt water as one fuel component, and the other fuel being a reactant of several possibilities, piston driven, steam jettisoned combustion engine. Could have designed it burning petrol or ethanol fuels but that was too practical and simple for me. Unfortunately neither the idea nor the car ever flew -- since it was only a concept car and I was only a teenager. I still don't see anything on the horizon that will be both legal in cities and/or affordable in the foreseeable future.

Interesting article.

I think it would be better to bet a six pack (or its equivalent in wine or strong spirits) and hopefully meet in 10 years to collect. I would be 99 years old in 30 years. But in ten years regardless of the outcome of who buys, if we both show up we would both be winners in one way or another It appears that we may be in the same time zone PST? even a better chance for me to pay off the wager -- and if I should luckily win the bet then we both must imbibe the wager, hard to beat that bet btw, is your avetar Ming the Merciless from the planet Mongo?

Although present interpretations in both fields may be very difficult for anyone to understand concerning smacks of speculation but take heart, in less than 30 years most certainly more of it will make greater sense , or less of it

DrDNA, I generally agree with your statements but your "professional integrity" could not be involved if you are a bio-chemist (hence DrDNA?) nor could your financial future be involved too much as a taxpayer unless you are also a betting man, and then it would probably require a substantial wager on your part, right? with some way to confirm such a bet. The best bet I think would involve a wager such as what percentage of technical papers, in Arxiv for instance, would have major theoretical changes or replacement of theory in either of the present models in quantum physics or cosmology? If more than 20% in either field might be a good bet concerning 20 years from now, in my opinion. If your bet instead would be more than 50% in both fields, then I think you better get pretty good odds or make the wager no more than a six pack If you also buy an extra one for yourself when you make the bet, then you can't lose // Thanks imatfaal, I agree that your perspective generally agrees with today's consensus of theorists

Yes, I agree. Not only might the particle be different from what we think, it may not even be matter. All we really known is that something is bending light more than what accepted lensing equations could allow, or equations involving orbital velocities at the galactic scale -- needing the assumption that something is there causing these effects other than baryonic matter -- or one or more equations could be wrong. //

Here is the latest on a dark-matter search. The brunt of most cosmic searches for a dark-matter particle is <b>based upon an assumption</b>:&nbsp;&nbsp;<b>that dark matter has an anti-particle that when interacting with its particle counterpart will produce gamma radiation</b>. Within the energy ranges tested from 200 million to 100 billion electron volts (GeV), when evaluating 10 of the roughly two dozen dwarf galaxies known to orbit the Milky Way, the LAT system did not detect any WHIMP gamma related radiation/ energies, based upon the given assumption http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/dark-matter-insights.html

"Relative to what?" is the only question concerning anything and everything of a quantitative nature concerning measure. Strictly mathematical ratios are a different matter. Some must always remain constant if the laws of math do not change. Pi is a prime example. The fine structure constant, on the other hand, is a ratio based upon particle physics which is hypothetical/ theoretical proposal and therefore no certainty as to its continuing constancy, ~ 1/137 . Another constant in physics having the same problem is called mu ( μ ) which is the ratio of a proton to an electron which is ~ 1/1,836. Again theory alone predicts the constancy of this ratio. One can never validly say that "no one still has any idea of this or that", or that "no one really understands or knows" as a general statement because there may be tens of thousands of people who in every way truly know and understand the truth of the subject, but such published explanations (if any) are very rarely read by mainstream theorists so therefore the public could never learn a valid alternative explanation or have knowledge of the persons having such knowledge or understandings. The internet may help in time concerning some rare cases, whereby an unknown scientist could be decades, scores, hundreds, or even many thousands of years ahead of his time which could be based upon very advanced knowledge with great complications, or instead such knowledge could be the simplest of logic, and understanding that has for whatever reason totally escaped the realization by the mainstream. I think the latter is much more likely, but most would guess the former is more probable. //

Of course! If all the info is out there then I think we should let people pay more if in their opinion it works better. I don't think it is an open and shut case either that generics are always the same as branded products . Although the active ingredients may be the same, better processing methods may effect absorption rates, for instance, or inactive ingredients may work as a catalyst for bodily processing. Drug manufacturers that make such claims must show evidence for such claims or they can be sued for false advertising or otherwise stopped from false advertising by the FDA or its counter part in other countries. //

I like the hypothesis that although not as efficient a system as with some other mammals, it has the flushing advantage once a month for pathogens of numerous possibilities, that might otherwise result in infertility or death. For the same reason it might decrease the incidence of transmission of such pathogens to males which might have similar consequences. Like many things in evolution it could be a tradeoff having both advantages and disadvantages.

IM Egdall, Here was an article in Scientific American which I think is usually pretty reliable. http://blogs.scienti...lty-connection/ The article reports a faulty connection to an oscillator that when properly reconnected exactly accounted for the observed 60 nano-second differential. I have read other articles, however, that dispute the exactness of this assertion and even mentioned other out of spec. components that could even increase the 60 nano-second discrepancy. My guess is that they still have not determined the cause of the discrepancy but it would seem that nearly all now generally agree that there was a discrepancy involved based upon much circumstantial evidence discussed since then.

I don't think there is that much controversy involved. Most researchers would agree that alcohol can have beneficial side effects for most people. The keywords I think are "moderate consumption." Most researchers would define moderate consumption of alcohol to be no more than 3 normal sized drinks per day for men. And women because they are normally smaller, no more than 2 drinks per day. Beyond this amount many researchers believe possible negative effects of drinking could outweigh any positive benefits. Any arguments I think would concern the quantity of alcohol advisable rather than possible beneficial side effects. //

Sounds like a good strategy concerning your engineered aids-gobbling bacteria. As an aside, your bacteria could conceivably attract many aids viruses instead of just one. To dispose of these bacteria and their internal aids viruses, some type of anti-biotic would seem like the easiest avenue of disposal. Another idea would be to infuse foreign T cells (probably animal) that could efficiently gobble up/ attach to the HIV cells like they do for a number of animals. They subsequently would be disposed of by other immune cells. Artificially produced anti-bodies also sounds feasible. Another strategy might be a viral coagulant of some kind that could aglomerate HIV viruses disabling their cell invasion capability while enabling their normal disposal by the immune system.

I think the mainstream answer goes something like this. Magnetism is supposedly one of the fundamental forces of nature accordingly like the Strong Force and Weak Force. In today's physics these forces are supposedly carried by particles. For magnetism these particles are thought to be virtual photons which by contact accordingly transfer their force. The Zero Point Field (ZPF) is thought to be the source of these virtual photons and their production accordingly results in a magnetic field which can effect susceptible materials such as iron, which is the strongest reacting natural element. In classical mechanics Maxwell proposed his equations of magnetism based upon an aether model, a field of physical particulates which accordingly flowed in the ZPF causing the magnetic effect. The magnetic lines of force were not accordingly flow lines but instead lines of least resistance to an actual field flow which accordingly effected the physical orientations of electrons producing their related waves resulting in the vector forces supposedly causing magnetism. Over a long history there have been a number of mechanical field explanations for both magnetism and gravity stemming from the mechanical actions produced by the ZPF. Here is one such paper. http://arxiv.org/html/physics/9908024