new theory, volume of space linked to health
Archimedes Plutonium
first thing I noticed was that the fish tank was gone from the office.
I have a fond memory of about 5 years ago when I went to this dental
office and the dentist's two small children were in the office. And I
like to probe the minds of young children, perhaps tease. Anyway, I
asked the young boy how many fish were in the tank, and he started to
count them. And I started to laugh and laugh. Because obviously, the
tiny fish do not stay still, and this poor little boy was getting up to
over 50 counted fish when his sister started to help him out.
But, getting back to the purpose of this post. The fish tank, I was
informed was removed because the fish got a fungus, and once you get
it, the tank has to start all over again with new fungus free fish.
So, I know that fungus are opportunists. But I am wondering on the
theory of this incident. I am wondering if all fish tanks are tombs
just waiting for the inevitable fungus to destroy the entire contents.
And that the smaller the tank, the death fate quicker.
But also, the above can be theorized further. And applied to
important things such as the biosphere out in Arizona of an artificial
environment. That all artificial environments are death traps for its
contents simply because once you impose boundaries, you in effect
shorten the life span of the contents inside. Thus, a human confined to
a biosphere will have a shorter life span than if he were not
restricted to this artificial environment.
Call the theory Volume of Space linked to Health. For it is about
artificial environments lessening the lifespan of all the organisms
confined except for the killing organisms. For example fungus in the
case of fish confined to a tank. And other organisms confined may have
other killer organisms. And the point is that a confined artificial
environment is suitable for some species only and species not suitable
will live a shortened life than if they had not been confined.
It is as if a given volume of space has Optimal Suitability only for
certain specific DNA species, and if a species or organism not of this
favored status is placed inside this confining space, then the
inevitable result is a shortened lifespan.
The implications are that the biosphere in Arizona, by theory is a
shortened life death trap, no matter what is done.
And if this new theory is correct, it has important implications to
genetics and to volume of space. That a species DNA requires a given
amount of space and any less space will shorten the lifespan of that
species DNA. And of course if the space is shorten dramatically, then
the species goes extinct. One can see this in action now, in Africa
where habitat destruction for rhinos and wild dogs and other animals
has imposed boundaries and has marked them for extinction.
Here we have a link between space, and that of the health of
organisms or species. A small space such as a fish tank is not suitable
for fish, but is highly suitable for fungus or other growths that will
kill the fish. So, the smaller the space, implies that a smaller
creature will eventually come to rule that space and its other contents
are doomed to a quicker death than if never confined.
This theory, if correct also implies that the health of large
organisms such as humans, is increased by expanding of living space.
Thus, an imperative to wander out into outer space and to colonize
outer space. And it seems rather difficult to see how colonizing say
Mars will make humans on Earth more viable and increase the overall
lifespan of all of humanity, but somehow it does.
So, we have a link between volume of space of habitat and an increase
in the lifespan of the organisms and species involved.
In history we can see some aspects of this theory. With the
re-discovery of the New World by Columbus in 1492, it made the
viability of the human species better, even though some diseases were
passed across the Atlantic.
And, increasing space helps those species on the verge of extinction,
because the pressure for their last remaining habitat is somewhat
relieved. Thus, if we colonize Mars, then perhaps some Earth animals
will be saved longer by the new space opening up on Mars.
Nick Ferrala
work here. The first one, of confining or artificial space, is clearly
seen with humans right now. One of the hottest areas in the health and
environmental industries is Sick Building Syndrome (SBS), caused by
confining people in artificial environments (houses and buildings). Given
certain conditions, mold and bacteria can grow, become airborne and produce
a whole range of ill effects. This was seen to become much more prevalent
some years ago with the energy crisis, when buildings were made to be
tighter to save energy.
The other principle, the expansion of the human population, relates to
basic ecological principles concerning organisms, suitable habitat and
especially the availability of resources, namely food. That's why
organisms of some type will always move in to an available area or niche,
because it represents greater resources and greater opportunity for
biological success (survival and reproduction). Your thoughts on human
expansion into space are interesting and correct as far as the success of
the human population is concerned, but in terms of human health there are
many potential problems, as we create more artificial environments and more
problematic situations such as those seen in SBS, Legionaire's disease,
etc. One thing is for sure...these things will all create a heck of a lot
of discussion, controversy as well as opportunity for scientific research
and discovery, especially to solve the constant barrage of new problems
that we create.
Nick Ferrala
Binax/Northeast Laboratory
>
Archimedes Plutonium
Nick Ferrala <nfer...@binax-nel.com> writes:
> Interesting, Mr. Plutonium, but really 2 completely different principles at
> work here. The first one, of confining or artificial space, is clearly
Well, thanks but this new theory of mine has many gaps in it at the
moment, but I rather post it roughly and later refine it to remove the
gaps. For instance I need to clarify the zoo-keeper gap. But most
important of all of this is the theoretical notion that volume-of-space
is intimately connected to DNA. And to be able to say, given a volume
of space with certain features, then, one can predict what DNA is *in
harmony* with that volume-of-space.
This volume-of-space and DNA in harmony is a reverse order of Darwin
evolution. It is flipping around by 180 degrees of Darwin evolution.
For example, given a volume-of-space of 1 meter x 1 meter x 1 meter
that is full of water and at constant temperature 25C. (Which is
commonly known as a fish tank) That this volume of space is destined in
1999 to have fungus/bacteria/mold rule this space, the moment added
energy is stopped.
Given another volume-of-space that is the oceans of Earth. That this
volume of space is destined to have some plant life rule this volume of
space and all other forms of DNA are temporary and will perish in these
oceans.
What I am attempting to do is to link volume-of-space (with certain
physical conditions), to that of the actual DNA/RNA structure. That
some structure of fungus DNA is the most harmonious structure for a
particular volume-of-space and needs no added energy.
And, whereas some zoo animals in fact live longer in a zoo than if
they were in the wilds where no imposed boundaries such as the glass
walls of a fish tank or fencing of the animals, however, the zoo
animals need constant attention and so this added energy by the
caretakers of the zoo, it is this added energy that keeps the zoo
animals living longer than if in the wilds. Same with the fish tank for
we supply energy to the system to keep the fish alive, but if this
added energy were stopped then the fish would quickly die and that
volume-of-space would revert quickly to a form of DNA which has a DNA
structure that is the most harmonic tune with that volume of space and
take over.
So, what I am proposing is that we get the genomes of many species
and we get the volumes-of-space where those genomes flourish and we
thus link the specific genome structure to that volume-of-space.
In the distant future, some scientific archive will have huge
tabulations of the genomes of many species and also have tabulations of
volumes-of-space, and links to special sites on that genome showing
that those sites are what makes for fungus the ruling DNA for fish
tanks under certain conditions.
By doing this research work, we link physical space, physics, to DNA,
biology. It is as if each volume of space has only certain DNA that is
harmonic to it and that other DNA is out of tune and will be only
transitory in that volume of space.
It is not a formula of equality, ie an equation, but a chemical
process. A chemical reaction. Volumes-of-Space connected to DNA are
chemical reactions.
Give someone a volume of space, say 1 cubic centimeter or 1 cubic
meter, or
1 billion cubic meters and give some physical conditions to this volume
of space such as temperature, density, how much water etc. Then,
suppose we had a complete list of every organisms genome, then, from
that list we should be able to match a genome that will rule that
volume of space. Other DNA genomes may live in the volume of space only
temporarily before going extinct within that volume of space.
Obviously the human genome would never rule a volume of space that is
1 cubic centimeter simply because no human could fit into a cubic
centimeter. But there exists a DNA genome that is superior to all other
DNA genomes for one cubic centimeter of space under certain physical
conditions. Perhaps a bacteria or virus DNA/RNA is most harmonic to 1
cubic centimeter of specific conditions.
A fish tank will allow fish to live in it only because humans provide
the energy for the fish to survive, but the moment this energy is
stopped, then, there exists a DNA genome for which that specific fish
tank is in greatest harmony and will revert to.
The most important aspect I am trying to unravel in this new theory
is to link volume-of-space (physics parameter) to that of the structure
of DNA genomes (biology parameter). And if this theory is correct,
whether in partial or in whole, would mean that we can look at a
specific genome of say a rat or liverwort or whale or donkey or elm,
examine its genome and be able to point at a structure of that genome
and from this structure compute its corresponding Volume of Space with
Physical Conditions.
This new theory implies that each DNA genome has a volume of space
that is in harmony with the genome, and if it is out of harmony means
that the species is only temporary to that volume of space and will
eventually perish from it and be succeeded by another species whose
genome is more in harmony with that volume of space.
I am saying that if we could fully list every species genome, that
each has a Volume of Space where it is in maximum harmony. And we can
pinpoint certain strings of the genome, say of fish and of fungus, and
point to the string on the fish that proves that the fish will die in a
Volume of Space that is a fish tank, and point to a string on the
fungus genome that proves that this string is in maximum harmony with
the volume of space that is a fish tank.
What keeps the fish alive in the fish tank and the zoo animals
lifespan longer than its wild counterpart is the fact that _added
energy_ is constantly supplied to these volumes of space. The instant
the added energy stops, then the DNA that is in harmony with that
volume of space begins to take over.
The thought just occurred to me that if I can link volume of space
to genomes, then, some tests are readily available. Consider that the
human genome is different from the ape or monkey genome, but not by
much difference. But this difference would make for a difference in
Volume of Space from that of apes and monkeys and humans. Thus, the
difference in DNA structure of ape from human requires that ape Volume
of Space be so much less than human Volume of Space. Call these
structural DNA entities the volume-of-space-genes. Should this be true,
then we may have a new tool for anthropology dating.
Nick Ferrala
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> In article <3733044B...@binax-nel.com>
> Nick Ferrala <nfer...@binax-nel.com> writes:
>
> > Interesting, Mr. Plutonium, but really 2 completely different principles at
> > work here. The first one, of confining or artificial space, is clearly
>
> Well, thanks but this new theory of mine has many gaps in it at the
> moment, but I rather post it roughly and later refine it to remove the
> gaps. For instance I need to clarify the zoo-keeper gap. But most
> important of all of this is the theoretical notion that volume-of-space
> is intimately connected to DNA. And to be able to say, given a volume
> of space with certain features, then, one can predict what DNA is *in
> harmony* with that volume-of-space.
>
>
What you are saying makes no sense, man, as volume of space is irrelevant. Will
there be a different fungus in a 10 gallon fish tank vs. a 100 gallon fish tank?
Yes, if the prevailing conditions are different, such as temperature gradient,
light penetration, number of fish producing waste products, amount of food added
to feed the fish (and hence amount of excess or wasted food in the system), etc.
Do we tend to see a different fungus in these 2 tanks? Probably, because it is
unlikely that the conditions will be identical in these two vastly different
environments. However, if the conditions were identical, then it would support
an identical community of organisms, irregardless of the volume of water.
DNA and organismal genomes will correlate with the conditions within the
environment - i.e., organisms are best suited for particular environments based
upon their DNA in as much as their DNA determines their overall functional
capabilities (temperature regulation, metabolic capabilities, instinct, etc.).
Volume of space is irrelevant other than given 2 identical processes (such as the
decay of a 10 gram fish) in different volume tanks, these processes may vary if
the volume were significantly different among the 2 tanks. For example,
nutrient, waste, bacterial levels and other parameters will vary if that
degradation occurs in a 10 vs a 100 gallon tank due to some of the factors listed
above as well as simple dilution. The variations in these parameters will affect
the individual environments and dictate which organisms (and hence genomes) are
best suited to take hold and grow in each tank.
Why are there vastly differing communities in a puddle vs. a lake? Not at all
because of volume, but because these are 2 incredibly different environments, and
the organisms that are successful in each environment are the ones that have the
best abilities, as dictated through their genetic makeup, to utilize the
resources in each environment and whoes life-sustaining processes (e.g.
temperature regulation) are operating within required ranges (also determined
genetically) and that these ranges are consistent with the particular
environmet. These interrelationships are very complex, and the only factor
volume plays is that it affects some of these factors. However, is will never be
consistent and will never correlate with genetics in any sort of consistent
manner. What you are saying is consistent with this in many ways, but you must
look into it much deeper and understand the complex processes that are occuring
in these environments.
But remember... you definitely get an A+ for abstract yet logical thinking!
Archimedes Plutonium
Nick Ferrala <nfer...@binax-nel.com> writes:
> What you are saying makes no sense, man, as volume of space is irrelevant.
To the contrary, it makes alot of sense. Each DNA is coded for a size
of that individual organism. Thus the DNA of a human cannot be born in
a fish bowl nor a cell, but the DNA of a fungus is coded to be born in
a fish bowl and the DNA of a bacteria is coded to be born inside a
volume of space that is a cell.
So, quite evidently DNA has coding for Volume-of-Space. So, from the
very beginning of an individual DNA life, its birth, it has a coded
relationship of either _in harmony_ with its volume of space or
_disharmony_ with its volume of space.
This is sort of analogous to Mathematical Induction, show true for the
case of 1. But the analogy breaks down.
Anyway. We have this new theory of Volume of Space linked to DNA for
the case of birth. And we can get quantitative data and we can analyze
the Genome of DNA that dictates volume of the species organism
Now comes the difficult part, to analyze the volume of space
necessary and sufficient for various DNA as they grow. Not only the
individual but all the members of a species. So, it is
species-volume-of-space that we need to analyze also.
Consider what the history of humanity had been if there never existed
a New World. Better yet, consider the history of humanity if the Earth
were one continent only and the rest was ocean. Say Africa only or
Australia only. With such a Thought-Experiment we can easily see that
Volume of Space and the characteristics of that space are very
important and correlates to the Progression of Life. I say with ease,
that if the geologic history of Earth had been one continent only and
the rest ocean, that humanity would not be here and that humanity would
have to wait for some future time before our species was manufactured.
The important science I want to get out of this is to correlate
Physical Space to DNA genome. This new theory is a reversal of the
ideas of Darwin Evolution in that Physics, the environment makes and
shapes biological entities. In this new theory I claim that
Physics/environment and biological entities are in a Harmonic Motion or
Oscillation with each other. That a specific DNA is in Harmony with a
specific Volume-of-Space and if it cannot live in the volume of space
where it is in physical harmony, then that DNA will have a shortened
lifespan.
Correlate Volume-of-Space with DNA genomes.
Graham Shepherd
Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message
<7h3bp9$5rg$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>...
>In article <3734964D...@binax-nel.com>
>Nick Ferrala <nfer...@binax-nel.com> writes:
>
>> What you are saying makes no sense, man, as volume of space is
irrelevant.
>
> To the contrary, it makes alot of sense. Each DNA is coded for a size
>of that individual organism. Thus the DNA of a human cannot be born in
>a fish bowl nor a cell, but the DNA of a fungus is coded to be born in
>a fish bowl and the DNA of a bacteria is coded to be born inside a
>volume of space that is a cell.
>
> So, quite evidently DNA has coding for Volume-of-Space. So, from the
>very beginning of an individual DNA life, its birth, it has a coded
>relationship of either _in harmony_ with its volume of space or
>_disharmony_ with its volume of space.
<snipped rest>
This unfortunately breaks down completely when you realise that no matter
what organism you look at it's composed of cells; the cells are all pretty
much the same size; and some of the biggest multicellular organisms are
microrganisms (soil fungi in forests which can extend throughout hundreds of
cubic yards of soil). The DNA codes the cells and the cells then
differentiate in the more complex organisms. What you're really seeing is a
dispersal phenomenon. Bigger niches are more compex because they receive a
wider range of organisms arriving in them. If you compartmentalised a big
niche into lots of small ones, each would be much less complex.
GS
Archimedes Plutonium
"Graham Shepherd" <muh...@globalnet.co.uk> writes:
> This unfortunately breaks down completely when you realise that no matter
> what organism you look at it's composed of cells; the cells are all pretty
> much the same size; and some of the biggest multicellular organisms are
Good, it does not break down, but rather, I can bring Cell theory
into this
theory of Volume-of-Space related to DNA. Not only volume for volume is
a physical attribute, but also numbers, for a multicellular organism is
composed of a average large number of cells. So I can link Volume with
Number.
> microrganisms (soil fungi in forests which can extend throughout hundreds of
> cubic yards of soil). The DNA codes the cells and the cells then
> differentiate in the more complex organisms. What you're really seeing is a
> dispersal phenomenon. Bigger niches are more compex because they receive a
Good again for dispersal is really the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
> wider range of organisms arriving in them. If you compartmentalised a big
> niche into lots of small ones, each would be much less complex.
Now, the above makes me think about the physical size or volume of a
virus, on average, as compared to the physical size of a cell, on
average. And the physical size of the only known intelligent life in
the universe-- an average human body.
And, whether there is some mathematical coincidence with the
comparison of these three sizes 1) virus 2) cell 3) human
Can I find some size comparison of these three that matches say the
size comparison of subatomic particles? Is the size of the hydrogen
nucleus comparable to the entire rest of the hydrogen atom and is that
comparison coincidental to the comparison of the size of a virus and a
cell? And is the size of the 1) hydrogen nucleus 2) hydrogen atom 3)
plutonium atom comparable to the three sizes of 1) virus 2) cell 3)
human ??
This new theory started from my pondering of a fish tank that it is a
tomb for fish whilst the fungus are just biding their time to take it
over.
But let me switch to another practical case, that of cattle and a
field of grass. By Volume of Space let us take one hectare of New
England farmland pasture. Let us say it can support one cow for that
one cows entire lifespan. Here the Volume of Space is this hectare of
land with its soil, its grass, and its air.
I am looking at DNA as a harmonic oscillator to a physics volume of
space.
More later
Rick M.
says...
> This new theory started from my pondering of a fish tank that it is a
> tomb for fish whilst the fungus are just biding their time to take it
> over.
>
> But let me switch to another practical case, that of cattle and a
> field of grass. By Volume of Space let us take one hectare of New
> England farmland pasture. Let us say it can support one cow for that
> one cows entire lifespan. Here the Volume of Space is this hectare of
> land with its soil, its grass, and its air.
This idea may have some merit when discussing artificial environments
(I.e. fishtank, cow pasture) but I see no relevance outside human imposed
ecosystems. To go one step further, I see no relevance outside an
artificial self sustaining ecosystem.
Your ideas are not diametric to Darwin's as you suggest, but Darwin's
applied to artificial environments.
--
====
Rick
Ryan Doherty
> In article <7h3l5t$jvk$1...@gxsn.com>
> "Graham Shepherd" <muh...@globalnet.co.uk> writes:
>
> > This unfortunately breaks down completely when you realise that no matter
> > what organism you look at it's composed of cells; the cells are all pretty
> > much the same size; and some of the biggest multicellular organisms are
>
> Good, it does not break down, but rather, I can bring Cell theory
> into this
> theory of Volume-of-Space related to DNA. Not only volume for volume is
> a physical attribute, but also numbers, for a multicellular organism is
> composed of a average large number of cells. So I can link Volume with
> Number.
...
>
Interesting theories.. As for volume/size of an individual and the surrounding
environment.. I recommend that you check out the following article (I couldn't
find a link to it online); "The great fungus" [Nature. 1992 May 21;357(6375):179.
PMID: 1589003; UI: 92269914]. It refers to fungus (Armillaria) the size of a Blue
whale (100 metric tons, and aged to be 1500 years old living in a space of 30 ha x
600 ha).
As for your fishbowl example, the most important factor relating to their
death is that the frequency of interactions increase as the volume of the
environment decreases. So due to the size of the tank, there was a greater
interaction between the fish and the fungus, resulting in their death.
Ryan Doherty
Archimedes Plutonium
Ryan Doherty <rdoh...@chat.carleton.ca> writes:
> Interesting theories.. As for volume/size of an individual and the surrounding
> environment.. I recommend that you check out the following article (I couldn't
> find a link to it online); "The great fungus" [Nature. 1992 May 21;357(6375):179.
> PMID: 1589003; UI: 92269914]. It refers to fungus (Armillaria) the size of a Blue
> whale (100 metric tons, and aged to be 1500 years old living in a space of 30 ha x
> 600 ha).
> As for your fishbowl example, the most important factor relating to their
> death is that the frequency of interactions increase as the volume of the
> environment decreases. So due to the size of the tank, there was a greater
> interaction between the fish and the fungus, resulting in their death.
Yes, thanks, it is important to get mathematics established into any
new theory. A theory of science as to whether it is true or fake, is
easily judged as its ability to draw in mathematics.
Yes, one can easily envision the harmonics, the harmonic oscillations
as to a most favorable size of fish tank for both the fungus and fish
simultaneously, where if the tank were bigger the fish are favored and
smaller the fungus are favored. There exists a harmonic point where
both fish and fungus simultaneously are maximally favored. This is just
one harmonic oscillator point for biological systems. The more
difficult oscillator points are those in nature, but nature has them as
much as an artifical boundary such as a fish tank. Just that the Nature
ones are more complex and more difficult to reckon