Endy0816

A number of hunters and non-hunters are accidentally shot each year. Presumably Bigfoot looks less human than our fellow humans and yet we still shoot them on a regular basis.

Best explanation I've ever heard was in one of Jim Butcher's short stories. Magical invisibility, rapid healing, and a ton of intelligence.

That would be about what it would take for a breeding population to stay off the radar.

I recommend starting over at the beginning. Explain how Fuller's jitterbug is supposed to work and maybe we can find some equivalencies.

If it is part of a useful methodology I would like to know. I'm just not going to go out of my way to understand an alternative method if I already have a valid one at hand. I can't imagine most people are any different.

Try and just present your case. If you start crusading against "injustice" you are just going to get banned and none of the mod's will lose any sleep over it.

You are probably going to have to go lower tech. If you have the money/skills/access you could manage it. Looking up custom DNA costs would be the place to start.

Most plants will pick up a given dye in their water supply quite readily. Glycerine I just recommend so you can also preserve the result. Simpler and less expensive.

Are you talking about a color photo?

What about just setting the cut flower in a mixture of fluorescent dye and glycerin?

 

We do?

never mind, I misinterpreted something :'(

I'm mostly withholding judgement until we observe Hawking radiation. I don't doubt it does exist, I just don't like too much speculation on a speculation.

Anyways I think that is what OP is roughly describing. The possibility of Baryon number conservation violation. Considering we have real world observable violations, it is likely not the issue it has been made out to be.

I was thinking it might instead obey B-L conservation. Just a best fit approach though, not something I'd want to take to the bank.

[math]\int e^x = f\mu_n + v(d)[/math]

The joys of LaTeX

[latex]\frac{-eL\lambda R}{2N_{A}}= f\mu ckm_{e}[/latex]

Maybe thinking of Binary Translation? Includes both static and dynamic binary translation.

Ternary and reversible logic gates are what tends to come up most often when talking about quantum computing.

Most systems have some sort of trade-off, though I think reversible logic gates have a lot of promise.

AFAICT = As far as I can tell

Why would I compare what two? I missing some part of thoughts above.

 

If you mean by "not widely accepted" you meang eometry is not mainstream, then you may be correct. I know my last formal education of geometry was in 9th grade. Many people may not understand geometric terms like triangle, polygon, sphere/spherical, octahedron, polyhedron.

 

Many people avoid math like it was a disease and I must admit to be very dense in the brain when it comes to mathematics. I guess that is why I like geometrical math because teh visual part doesn't require all those complex fourmale of algebra etc...

 

most of that goes way over my head, tho I have have learned some simple algebra stuff along the way in doing my geometric explorations and ponderings of their specific numerical sets as potentially related to all aspects of our cosmos. imho.

 

I.e. my personal pursuit of theory of everything via relatively simple geometric pursuits. imho

 

r6

I mean in general why compare an electron to a muon instead of the tau?

Fuller came up with or popularized a number of novel concepts, many in widespread use today, but he was still fairly eccentric. If his writings give you additional insight, all the better, but most will be approaching a given problem from a different direction.

Why would you compare the two?

Fuller's Synergistics isn't widely accepted, which will likely be a stumbling block here...

I look for references, the quality of the publisher and the credentials of the author.

This: http://www.nature.com/ja/journal/v58/n1/abs/ja20051a.html

is a good example.

On peer reviews, they are generally done at the publisher level. There may or may not be an actual "review" written out somewhere. Certainly though any good publisher will have one done prior to publishing the paper.

Retroviruses are also known to be linked with certain cancers because of their altering genetic data. The retroviruses used in gene therapy are also used to correct genetic defects, not alter good genes.

Subjective as to what constitutes a "defect".

Either way though still a case of using your intelligence to directly counter the evolutionary mechanism.

Don't want to get too deep into designer genetics. Everyday technology is much more real world impacting. Not going to make genes disappear overnight, but neither will you be limited by them.

I think you've chanced upon the Information Paradox. There are thoughts that if Hawking radiation does exist, then the informational content is preserved in some other fashion. Very open ended subject at the moment.

 

Tumour cells tend to shut down mitochondria, the sites of oxidative phosphorylation and the intrinsic pathway of apoptosis. The former is beneficial for the transformed cell because, typically, the cells in the interior of a tumour will be experiencing conditions of hypoxia (even if the tumour cells have induced an angiogenic response, the resulting blood-vessels tend to be rudimentary, leaky and disorganised with many dead-ends) and so it is preferable for them to rely on Oxygen*-independent substrate level glycolysis as a means of generating ATP (even if the energy yield is less than the output of the citric acid cycle and oxidative phosphorylation). The pyruvate generated from glycolysis is often shunted into the lactate dehydrogenase-catalysed production of lactate, rather than into the pyruvate dehydrogenase-catalysed production of acetyl CoA for entry into the citric acid cycle. The lactate is then extruded by transformed cells to be taken up and used by respiring stromal or tumour cells, thereby saving glucose for use by hypoxic tumour cells. The latter is, of course, beneficial as it allows tumour cells to survive even in the presence of signals that would ordinarily seal their demise.

 

It has also been suggested that the use of a ketogenic (low carbohydrate, high fat - medium chain triglyceride) diet may be beneficial for cancer patients, since the diet relies on the consumption of food that does not increase plasma glucose levels, but produces ketone bodies (D-3-hydroxybutyrate, acetoacetate and acetone) that can be used as a Carbon* source for energy production. These bypass glycolysis and are metabolised by mitochondria in the presence of Oxygen*. Normal cells can adapt to using ketone bodies to produce ATP but tumour cells rely on high glycolytic flux and so would not be expectedto survive on this alternative fuel source. Some in vivo and clinical studies have reported decreased tumour growth - even in cachexic patients, however a different study has reported negative results.

 

 

*Out of a mark of respect for the chemical elements, I like to capitalise the first letter of their names, have done so since I was 11 and not about to stop now. I hope that this is not too disconcerting for readers.

Makes sense. Hadn't looked at them from that angle before though.

Mainly concerned about them leading to the death of healthy cells under low oxygen conditions. Would save a number of lives if we could alter their code. Just need to be free to do so without concern for causing cancer ourselves or giving cancer an edge.

 

Like telomere lengthening?

 

That, generalized treatment at the DNA/RNA level, and overhauling Mitochondria.

Calorie restriction is one method we could use today. Can cause significant health and wellness issues though.

Probably the group size is relatively small.

Knowledge/Acceptance of one's own death and possessing information they feel is necessary to share.

On a number of occasions death bed confessions are met with skepticism. Either being seen as senile ramblings or attention seeking.

 

The word secret has a lot of different meanings to it and knOWLedge can never be destroyed,therefor,it seems that it's always fear added with a little bit of knowledge mixed with confusion "can cause the animal to be put down."

 

If a person earned/gained his own Knowledge,what would that person have to fear?

 

The Bene Gesserit 'Litany Against Fear'

I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

 

Reprisal,against friends,and family. Not uncommon,to this day...

I think it would be more than 3 years anyways. There are a number of longevity techniques we can't use presently, because they stand a good chance of causing cancer themselves.

That's okay though since black people were savages a few hundred years before that...

That is where that sort of logic takes you. Nowhere good.

The physics book would be testable in a way the religious books are not.

Really the answer to the original question. You can test everything and work through the logic to arrive at your own conclusion.

The parties have changed since then. Almost the opposite today with the democrats being seen as more supportive of minority rights.

Your own attitude is prejudicial. Can't hold anyone or anything responsible for the past indefinitely. If people can change then so can the groups composed of them.

One cell hooked up with chloroplasts, another with mitochondria. From them we got the tree and the finch.

There's actually good evidence they used an internal ramp instead. Basically avoiding the issues associated with a long external ramp.

Backed up by an actual density study and the partially unsealed "notch".

We mainly just need a steady state for societal integrity reasons. I don't think anyone can deny that humanity hasn't had some kind of impact on the environment. The planet is pretty adaptable, human societies are not. More than a few have vanished due purely to environmental reasons.

Much of what nature throws at us isn't preventable. In contrast controlling emissions is relatively easy.

Generally we don't lose research once it is completed. Not like a number of the more transient boondoggles out there. In a number of areas we actually have greater efficiencies as a result. Waste to Resource, along with processing improvements.

Getting late local time, take my random thoughts as you will.