I posted the link to the article I am responding to and you can access it by clicking on the topic.(though I doubt they will ever read this, but since this blog is purely for my own gratification, that's irrelevant).
The biggest portion I have troubles with is an issue that I have blogged about in the past: accept proof as truth. The problem with this particular declaration is that proof is biased itself. We have proof that the universe is expanding, that the universe is shrinking, that God (Yahweh) exists, that God doesn't exist, that evolution exists, that evolution doesn't exist, that black people have an average IQ of 62, that black people of have an average IQ on par with the world average (89). We can present "proof" without third person verification and people are supposed to accept it? We present "proof" from highly biased experiments or tests and people are supposed to accept it as fact? I don't think so. The article also demands that we ask for evidence. Evidence is likewise easily skewed. The article says to ask questions. We can ask and ask and ask, but that doesn't mean we will get answers, much less correct answers or answers that answer that which we ask (non sequitur).
I do have to agree with the article on some points, however. People don't ask questions, don't try to find evidence or proof. People won't accept anything radically different than what they have been taught or come to accept as true and that is certainly a problem; it will certainly hinder human progress, as the article puts it.
The article also touches on people not accepting scientific findings because of the government and corporations. They shouldn't just accept the findings, no matter what, but the government and big corporations have suppressed evidence and skewed tests/results more than enough times that it is a warranted reason to deny what is presented because we don't know what has been suppressed (if anything), or what was manufactured merely to give the conclusion that government/corporations wanted.
"Unfortunately, this fear is motivating people to replace science with a belief in magic, from seemingly harmless magic such as Ginkgo biloba, echinacia, and açaí, to tragic magic such as using coffee enemas to cure cancer, or even insisting that beet root can cure HIV. People fight genetically engineered food, and think it's wrong to patent life and crop seeds -- and they blame science for these problems. But these issues are about law, morality and corporate greed, not science." Interesting, I think. People fight engineered food because they don't know how it was changed and don't think they'll get an honest response if they ask, not to mention how engineered foods may react to their body's chemistry relative to non-engineered foods. The "magics" are used just as much because they are cheaper as it is a matter of actual belief in their curative properties. Ever heard of the placebo effect? Enough placebo episodes are considered proof by some of their effectiveness. Isn't that what science can be, according to this article? The article is rather paranoid, to an extent, as well. To some those issues are about law, morality and corporate greed, but not most; it's about poor science from mainstream sources, poor science put into popular "knowledge" and correct science being suppressed.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Cancer
Supposedly, people get cancer because of mutations to the genes, including oncogenes and tumor suppressing genes. I'm curious, then, why they haven't use gene replacement therapy for cancer treatment; after all, if you can replace the faulty oncogenes and tumor suppressing genes with working ones, wouldn't the cancer at least stop spreading, if not get rid of it all together?
I wish I had done more research on genes, gene splicing and gene replacement therapy. Even still, I'm sure there is another way to make genes more sturdy, more stable and less likely to mutate beyond things like vitamin A, or different option, add a gene or two that regulates the other genes to be sure that they stay how they were originally, or at least when they were healthy (inhibitions on carcinogenesis?). I should research this...
After a little bit of research, I have concluded some gene therapy/genetic splicing involving the cell replication process of earthworms is the best way to go to defeat cancer; due to their cell replication speed, they are the only species not to have cancer remain beyond the very beginning stages, in which no damage is done to the creature. It appears as if we have the technology to do this, at least in vitro, to prevent cancer, as well as to use this in a manner similar to stem cells to replace cancerous organs with healthy organs. The only real problem I can foresee is that it will affect aging, either speeding it up or greatly slowing down the process due to the speed of the cells' replication and, therefore, DNA breakdown speeds from constant, high speed translations.
I wish I had done more research on genes, gene splicing and gene replacement therapy. Even still, I'm sure there is another way to make genes more sturdy, more stable and less likely to mutate beyond things like vitamin A, or different option, add a gene or two that regulates the other genes to be sure that they stay how they were originally, or at least when they were healthy (inhibitions on carcinogenesis?). I should research this...
After a little bit of research, I have concluded some gene therapy/genetic splicing involving the cell replication process of earthworms is the best way to go to defeat cancer; due to their cell replication speed, they are the only species not to have cancer remain beyond the very beginning stages, in which no damage is done to the creature. It appears as if we have the technology to do this, at least in vitro, to prevent cancer, as well as to use this in a manner similar to stem cells to replace cancerous organs with healthy organs. The only real problem I can foresee is that it will affect aging, either speeding it up or greatly slowing down the process due to the speed of the cells' replication and, therefore, DNA breakdown speeds from constant, high speed translations.
Negation in Mathematics
-1*-1 = 1 Right? I don't think so!
Why does -1*-1 = 1? I have searched and searched the internet for an answer, but nothing has come up with a satisfactory answer; they're all based on how English operates or they just say "math will break without it." Why would math break without it?
I think it is just based on English, or to sum it up, a linguistic translation into a mathematical operation.
Negation in math fails, particularly in economics. Let us say I owe a company $100 so my current balance would be $-100. If I tell them I'll pay them $-100, would that mean that they would pay me $-100? I think not; I would still owe them $100. Another example would be in electronics; a negative charge with a negative charge just repels each other, it doesn't combine into a positive charge.
A mathematical translation from a linguistic operation indeed.
Why does -1*-1 = 1? I have searched and searched the internet for an answer, but nothing has come up with a satisfactory answer; they're all based on how English operates or they just say "math will break without it." Why would math break without it?
I think it is just based on English, or to sum it up, a linguistic translation into a mathematical operation.
Negation in math fails, particularly in economics. Let us say I owe a company $100 so my current balance would be $-100. If I tell them I'll pay them $-100, would that mean that they would pay me $-100? I think not; I would still owe them $100. Another example would be in electronics; a negative charge with a negative charge just repels each other, it doesn't combine into a positive charge.
A mathematical translation from a linguistic operation indeed.
Manned Mission to Mars
It has been dreamed about, thought about, written about and had films about, but it has never been done. Colonize or explore? Science or socio-economical? Long-term (10+ years) or short-term? All questions asked and explored. As anyone with any interest in space science that writes anything, I shall explore the possibilities myself, if that hadn't been clear by the title of this post.
The first thing is that it should be done with one to two short-term stays in preparation for the final long-term stay. The two short-term stays would be smaller vessels that would carry equipment for both scientific exploration of the planet as well as housing and, I'm sure it could be done, a greenhouse. It's too bad we can't beam forward some medieval peasants and have them go along - they could help build some nice walls and such there, too. Heh. No? Fine. The short trips would be purely for setup, staying the minimum length of time possible while still being able to do what needs to be done in preparation.
The long term stay would need a huge ship (5 times bigger, perhaps) for both shelter in case the one set up by the previous visits falters, food storage, safety in case of terribly inclement weather, a place to input scientific data and communicate with Earth or/and a space station, as well as carry inside of it a small vessel that would be capable of getting them off of the planet and close enough to Earth (though preferably all the way) so they can rendezvous with a shuttle to bring them back to Earth's surface.
Really, there should be a space station set into orbit around Mars before sending the long-term shuttle, for a variety of reasons. Safety, weather updates, communication, data transmissions, a refueling point for any shuttles going to and from the surface. Ideally, it would work as a dock for a space shuttle that would be parked there for the surface-dwellers in case something goes awry without using the long-term spacecraft's space on a space faring vessel in its hulls.
Terraforming would be ideal, but I'm not so sure it would be good for the first set of long-term Mars residents. The third, really, so we know for sure that we can be there without too many problems that we can't counter.
In terms of location for the settlement, we should probably go Apache or Comanche style - built partially in rocky mountain/cliff face for extra shelter and support. I can't imagine anything else would be able to stay up, at least at first, without natural assistance. The people staying long-term could even put together shelters away from such outcroppings while they are there.
Number of people: ~125. Deaths will happen. Procreation will probably need to happen. 50 "civilians", 20 doctors, 25 scientists in various areas, 20 people able in building things (particularly buildings) and 5 botanists to take care of the plants in the greenhouse(s).
The greenhouse(s) would be needed for a few reasons - 1) food, 2) getting more O2 into the air, and 3) a little taste of home for the psychological state of the settlers.
The first thing is that it should be done with one to two short-term stays in preparation for the final long-term stay. The two short-term stays would be smaller vessels that would carry equipment for both scientific exploration of the planet as well as housing and, I'm sure it could be done, a greenhouse. It's too bad we can't beam forward some medieval peasants and have them go along - they could help build some nice walls and such there, too. Heh. No? Fine. The short trips would be purely for setup, staying the minimum length of time possible while still being able to do what needs to be done in preparation.
The long term stay would need a huge ship (5 times bigger, perhaps) for both shelter in case the one set up by the previous visits falters, food storage, safety in case of terribly inclement weather, a place to input scientific data and communicate with Earth or/and a space station, as well as carry inside of it a small vessel that would be capable of getting them off of the planet and close enough to Earth (though preferably all the way) so they can rendezvous with a shuttle to bring them back to Earth's surface.
Really, there should be a space station set into orbit around Mars before sending the long-term shuttle, for a variety of reasons. Safety, weather updates, communication, data transmissions, a refueling point for any shuttles going to and from the surface. Ideally, it would work as a dock for a space shuttle that would be parked there for the surface-dwellers in case something goes awry without using the long-term spacecraft's space on a space faring vessel in its hulls.
Terraforming would be ideal, but I'm not so sure it would be good for the first set of long-term Mars residents. The third, really, so we know for sure that we can be there without too many problems that we can't counter.
In terms of location for the settlement, we should probably go Apache or Comanche style - built partially in rocky mountain/cliff face for extra shelter and support. I can't imagine anything else would be able to stay up, at least at first, without natural assistance. The people staying long-term could even put together shelters away from such outcroppings while they are there.
Number of people: ~125. Deaths will happen. Procreation will probably need to happen. 50 "civilians", 20 doctors, 25 scientists in various areas, 20 people able in building things (particularly buildings) and 5 botanists to take care of the plants in the greenhouse(s).
The greenhouse(s) would be needed for a few reasons - 1) food, 2) getting more O2 into the air, and 3) a little taste of home for the psychological state of the settlers.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Mathematical Theory
In school, we are taught mathematics. 2+2=1 and all of that jazz. Unfortunately, we are never taught that outside of things like money, maths is purely theoretical with no true basis in reality. Money, obviously, is very clear cut on what is one cent and what is not. In things like measurements in engineering or architecture or whatever, there is no such things as precisely one inch; you may have to look closely or have an aide to help you see better, but it is impossible for something to be one inch. In geometry, if you try to calculate the measurements of a triangle using two sides, you'll never be able to get a correct answer (in reality) because the measurements they give you aren't correct.
The way maths are taught in schools is great for learning formulae and practice the best ways for you to get an answer, but it really needs to be emphasized how truly incorrect the assertions they give you are once you get passed the formulae. It's frustrating when people don't understand why buildings fall when an earthquake happens or the wind is too strong or are hit too hard. Realistically, with the imperfect calculations we make using very rounded numbers (typically not smaller than 1/100), it isn't surprising at the poor infrastructure of our buildings. If we were precise enough in our measurements and our calculations to the nearest 1/100000000000 for everything we built, everything would be much more stable and sturdy. I realize that requires a lot more work, but wouldn't you think that using some effort would be more than worthwhile when creating the things we live in and use daily? Eh, I guess I am a dreamer, after all.
As an addendum, we are never explained the reasons for certain mathematical theories or procedures, like a negative number multiplied by a negative number equaling a positive number. This certainly doesn't work in the real world (like with money), or physics or chemistry.
The way maths are taught in schools is great for learning formulae and practice the best ways for you to get an answer, but it really needs to be emphasized how truly incorrect the assertions they give you are once you get passed the formulae. It's frustrating when people don't understand why buildings fall when an earthquake happens or the wind is too strong or are hit too hard. Realistically, with the imperfect calculations we make using very rounded numbers (typically not smaller than 1/100), it isn't surprising at the poor infrastructure of our buildings. If we were precise enough in our measurements and our calculations to the nearest 1/100000000000 for everything we built, everything would be much more stable and sturdy. I realize that requires a lot more work, but wouldn't you think that using some effort would be more than worthwhile when creating the things we live in and use daily? Eh, I guess I am a dreamer, after all.
As an addendum, we are never explained the reasons for certain mathematical theories or procedures, like a negative number multiplied by a negative number equaling a positive number. This certainly doesn't work in the real world (like with money), or physics or chemistry.
The Subject of Time
What is time? If you ask a random person, they will probably give you something to do with clocks, hours or the sun. It's interesting how people define something only by how it is measured. Some other responses will most likely be something along the lines of being nuclear, revolutions, Newtonian or a dimension. Nuclear is another method of measurement, as are revolutions. Newtonian is sequential event sets, typically predefined, especially after happening (they will always happen if you go back in time, the silly notion). A dimension narrows a definition of time down a little, but still doesn't describe it outside of being completely vague.
I am somewhat along the lines of Newtonian time.
Time is purely change. If nothing changes, then time hasn't "passed" so to speak. There is no time travel as you traveling would also be time "passage." The closest thing possible to time travel would be going to a point where things hadn't changed in a specific way yet, though there is certainly no guarantee of things changing to a specific way at all. Change is plastic.
We measure time for multiple reasons. The first is to standardize preset events, like sporting events or the opera. With standardization comes, to an extent, control over what is going on around you. We are certainly a species that is in love with controlling. The second is to put prior changes into perspective in terms of how much has changed between the history and the present, typically to give a lesson, but to also to help you supposedly understand where you came from, the why you came to be and why it is where you are. The third is to help us feel insignificant so we are more easily manipulated into believing in things that haven't changed or will endlessly change while still maintaining consciousness; a divine being or beings. It can make us feel quite insecure to realize when we die, things still change and before we came to be, things had changed, that we aren't in control, that we aren't all there is. As a species, we tend to need that kind of humility, though we certainly don't need the manipulation that is added by those looking to control or fill with a waffle of an answer on the questions of "how" and "why" to matters of existence.
Really, time is another example of Homo Sapiens arrogance. Time, according to us, revolves around us, or us it as it may be. We measure it purely by our perspective with no attempt at neutrality.
Time as a dimension is an interesting concept, really. Typically, we think of time as a dimension surrounding the others that we pass through. If time was a dimension, why couldn't the other dimensions encompass time and time passes through us? Better yet, with time surrounding the other dimensions, what if the other dimensions had already passed through time, but they are now just trying to catch up to where they are supposed to be after passing through time?
I'm sure the first rebuttal will be "what about memory?" Clearly, we can perceive change, otherwise we wouldn't have much of a personality, especially much diversity in personality. Since our memories are pretty much recordings of the change we have perceived, we can remember the changes that have gone previously (as imperfectly and incomplete as we do). Keep in mind, just because we remember a certain process of change doesn't mean that if we rewind the change, then interact with it as it goes on in a different manner, doesn't mean it would change in the same way. Plastic.
Having our measurements of time is important nowadays, though it certainly wasn't necessary 2,000 years ago. We didn't need any units of time to know when to grow or harvest our crops, as it would be apparent what needed to be done when after experiencing on meteorological cycle. Would we have developed time as things progressed if we hadn't done so as early as we did? Certainly, as it is now necessary when dealing with how our economy and social agendas are set up. We just need to remember that time is more than how we measure, but that it is, purely, change.
I am somewhat along the lines of Newtonian time.
Time is purely change. If nothing changes, then time hasn't "passed" so to speak. There is no time travel as you traveling would also be time "passage." The closest thing possible to time travel would be going to a point where things hadn't changed in a specific way yet, though there is certainly no guarantee of things changing to a specific way at all. Change is plastic.
We measure time for multiple reasons. The first is to standardize preset events, like sporting events or the opera. With standardization comes, to an extent, control over what is going on around you. We are certainly a species that is in love with controlling. The second is to put prior changes into perspective in terms of how much has changed between the history and the present, typically to give a lesson, but to also to help you supposedly understand where you came from, the why you came to be and why it is where you are. The third is to help us feel insignificant so we are more easily manipulated into believing in things that haven't changed or will endlessly change while still maintaining consciousness; a divine being or beings. It can make us feel quite insecure to realize when we die, things still change and before we came to be, things had changed, that we aren't in control, that we aren't all there is. As a species, we tend to need that kind of humility, though we certainly don't need the manipulation that is added by those looking to control or fill with a waffle of an answer on the questions of "how" and "why" to matters of existence.
Really, time is another example of Homo Sapiens arrogance. Time, according to us, revolves around us, or us it as it may be. We measure it purely by our perspective with no attempt at neutrality.
Time as a dimension is an interesting concept, really. Typically, we think of time as a dimension surrounding the others that we pass through. If time was a dimension, why couldn't the other dimensions encompass time and time passes through us? Better yet, with time surrounding the other dimensions, what if the other dimensions had already passed through time, but they are now just trying to catch up to where they are supposed to be after passing through time?
I'm sure the first rebuttal will be "what about memory?" Clearly, we can perceive change, otherwise we wouldn't have much of a personality, especially much diversity in personality. Since our memories are pretty much recordings of the change we have perceived, we can remember the changes that have gone previously (as imperfectly and incomplete as we do). Keep in mind, just because we remember a certain process of change doesn't mean that if we rewind the change, then interact with it as it goes on in a different manner, doesn't mean it would change in the same way. Plastic.
Having our measurements of time is important nowadays, though it certainly wasn't necessary 2,000 years ago. We didn't need any units of time to know when to grow or harvest our crops, as it would be apparent what needed to be done when after experiencing on meteorological cycle. Would we have developed time as things progressed if we hadn't done so as early as we did? Certainly, as it is now necessary when dealing with how our economy and social agendas are set up. We just need to remember that time is more than how we measure, but that it is, purely, change.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Homesexual Marriage Being Illegal or/and Anti-Religious
Sparked from a status message from my wife, people are quite unsure as to why homosexual Marriage is illegal here in the U.S. Pretty much everyone agrees the only reason is due to (Christian) religion. I disagree, though it may have some subconscious influence. I think the reasons are thus:
1) Procreation. Homosexual couples cannot have children without a heterosexual relationship and we sure needed our population to grow when the country first started (just like now, the government doesn't really count natives) to production up and to start up our economy, not to mention keep those going and expanding over time. We also needed personnel to fight against our various motherlands as well as the natives.
2) A range of discomfort to fear. For this, I should say, of being approached in hopes of starting a homosexual relationship, especially in a very forward manner. Most heterosexuals that are propositioned by those of the same gender are very uncomfortable when propositioned or, when around homosexuals, fear being propositioned.
3) Fear of the self. I can't say, first hand, about women, but I know most men, when they are first discovering themselves, fear they are homosexual and for a bunch, that fear never goes away (which is why calling someone gay, a fag, a homo, et al) is reacted so strongly to when used as an insult. The reasons for this fear is rooted in religion, though that isn't, shall we say, the (obvious) reason given. The reasons are the taboo of homosexuality, the fear on non conforming to what is the norm (heterosexuality), and social conditioning (from society, from parents, from friends, from T.V and many others I am sure). Unfortunately, all of those religions stem from religion. I'm sure some will say no, that our evolution created sense of procreation is also a reason, but I find that to be dubious as there is evidence of homosexuality in most animals as well as the beginning of written/drawn history.
More reasons will probably come up, though as I have shown, religion isn't the only reason for homosexual marriage being disallowed.
1) Procreation. Homosexual couples cannot have children without a heterosexual relationship and we sure needed our population to grow when the country first started (just like now, the government doesn't really count natives) to production up and to start up our economy, not to mention keep those going and expanding over time. We also needed personnel to fight against our various motherlands as well as the natives.
2) A range of discomfort to fear. For this, I should say, of being approached in hopes of starting a homosexual relationship, especially in a very forward manner. Most heterosexuals that are propositioned by those of the same gender are very uncomfortable when propositioned or, when around homosexuals, fear being propositioned.
3) Fear of the self. I can't say, first hand, about women, but I know most men, when they are first discovering themselves, fear they are homosexual and for a bunch, that fear never goes away (which is why calling someone gay, a fag, a homo, et al) is reacted so strongly to when used as an insult. The reasons for this fear is rooted in religion, though that isn't, shall we say, the (obvious) reason given. The reasons are the taboo of homosexuality, the fear on non conforming to what is the norm (heterosexuality), and social conditioning (from society, from parents, from friends, from T.V and many others I am sure). Unfortunately, all of those religions stem from religion. I'm sure some will say no, that our evolution created sense of procreation is also a reason, but I find that to be dubious as there is evidence of homosexuality in most animals as well as the beginning of written/drawn history.
More reasons will probably come up, though as I have shown, religion isn't the only reason for homosexual marriage being disallowed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)