PARASITES INSIDE OF VIRUSES?
Ludwig Plutonium
constellation of disease symptoms. Some facts: (a) some people with the
AIDS virus do not have the AIDS disease. (b) some people have the
disease constellation of AIDS symptoms but do not have the AIDS virus.
I am posing a math logic answer for getting out of such a puzzlement
of facts. Putting those facts together and not having any more facts to
draw a different conclusion, implies the following. That the AIDS virus
is only a carrier for another real parasite. A parasite within the AIDS
virus itself. Perhaps a smaller virus (or prion) harbors itself inside
the AIDS virus. This means that not all AIDS viruses are dangerous.
Only the AIDS virus which harbors the diseasing smaller parasite within
the AIDS virus.
Ludwig Plutonium
Ludwig.P...@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
Completing the above lines of reasoning. It suggests that the AIDS
disease is caused by a different agent than the AIDS virus itself. Such
an agent may be inside the AIDS virus or in free space. But usually
inside the AIDS virus. Or it may be that the AIDS disease is caused by
the AIDS virus in concert with another virus or bacterium. The AIDS
disease constellation would under "concert" occur only when both agents
are present.
If these ideas turn out to be true in whole or part, then the world,
especially the drug companies are wasting alot of time and research
money on trying to destroy the AIDS virus when it is a completely
different agent, or it is the AIDS virus in concert with a different
agent.
Paul S. Winalski
In article <317b4o$4...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Ludwig.P...@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) suggests that since some
people harbor HIV but do not have the AIDS disease, and that some people have
the disease constellation of AIDS symptoms but do not harbor HIV:
|>implies the following. That the AIDS virus
|>is only a carrier for another real parasite. A parasite within the AIDS
|>virus itself. Perhaps a smaller virus (or prion) harbors itself inside
|>the AIDS virus. This means that not all AIDS viruses are dangerous.
|>Only the AIDS virus which harbors the diseasing smaller parasite within
|>the AIDS virus.
Certainly that is a hypothesis that fits all the facts except one: no such
smaller virus/prion has been found. Which might be because nobody's looked
for it, of course.
But there are other explanations. The current hypothesis concerning how HIV
causes AIDS is that HIV destroys eventually destroys enough helper T cells to
disable the immune system, leaving the body open to the myriad infections and
malignancies that characterize AIDS. Due to the way that helper T cells
operate, it may take many years for this to occur, during which time the body
may harbor HIV asymptomatically. Many diseases exhibit incubation periods;
HIV simply has a very long one. On the second point, AIDS is a syndrome
(collection of correlated symptoms). Any syndrome, including acqiured immune
deficiency, may have several causes.
The observed evidence is therefore not inconsistent with the hypothesis that
HIV is the AIDS causative agent.
--PSW
Paul S. Winalski
In article <318kpe$c...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Ludwig.P...@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
|> (6) The conundrum of prion research is to discover the method of
|>prion replication? How do prions replicate? The answer to which, I
|>feel, must come after the facts are reported as to whether prionic
|>disease flourishes only where electrical currents in lifeforms is
|>concentrated. If prions occur where electrical currents predominant,
|>then I speculate that prions can spontaneously come into existance in
|>brain tissue. And if this is the true scenario, then prion replication
|>is electrical replication. Then prions have an electrical switch, for
|>which diseased prions by currents in the brain turn the electrical
|>switch of nondiseased prions on. A polarization of prion material makes
|>nondiseased prion material into diseased prion material.
The coupled phosphorylation process by which energy from respiration and
photosynthesis is stored in ATP chemical bonds occurs in nearly all eukaryotic
and prokaryotic cells. This process involves the same formation and discharge
of membrane electrical potentials as occurs in nerve impulse transmission.
If such electrical events are the basis for prion formation, one would therefore
expect prion formation and "switching on" to occur in nearly all cells, and to
be especially prevelant in chloroplasts and mitochondria, and in cells whose
respiratory or photosynthetic activity is very high. This does not fit the
known facts about prions.
|> (7) Has prion disease been observed only in humans, cattle, and
|>sheep? And most importantly, in brain tissue only? What about electric
|>eels?
I think there are plant diseases linked to prions, as well.
--PSW
Ludwig Plutonium
Ludwig.P...@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
> If these ideas turn out to be true in whole or part, then the world,
> especially the drug companies are wasting alot of time and research
> money on trying to destroy the AIDS virus when it is a completely
> different agent, or it is the AIDS virus in concert with a different
> agent.
To those intimate and very close to physics know that there is only a
conventional boundary between what is taken to be the subject of math
and physics. With the Atom Totality theory gaining recognition and
eventual acceptance as the true physics then it is seen that the
"theoretical physicist" as compared to the "experimental physicist" is
just a distinction in degree, not kind. In the future, the theoretical
physicist will no longer exist. In the future the math person is the
theoretical physicist. The experimental physicist will close the
distinction between engineers also. Biology will increasingly be a
subject best worked by those strong in math logic.
Readers, be guided by science history and the fact that the physicist
pre1990 was ruled by Conservation Laws, which were all fakeries. But,
the math community saw the light first in the Banach-Tarski Theorem.
And not to beat-up too much on the physics community, it is their
credit that they saw the light first on what the math definition of
dimension should be and that there exists only the 3rd dimension-- any
dimension higher or lower yields Classical Newtonian Mechanics, not the
true Quantum Mechanics. Thus, it was from physics that math will be
properly straightened-out. As we go into the future the physicist and
mather will colloborate ever more closely.
A math theorem is simply a physics experiment without the usual
physics hardware. A correct physics theory is just math deductions from
a list of axioms which are statements of QM principles. Math is physics
and physics is math, and it is only us Humans who make convenient and
conventional distinctions.
But back to what I want to say about viruses within viruses and
prions. Science has now reached a point where math logic and physics
can jump from one subject to another and make progress. I am not privy
to many facts concerning viruses and prions and research into viruses
and prions is picking up pace. However, from the facts reported, a
strong math mind can sort out some lucrative channels of research.
Some facts about prions, . . I will post reference articles later, .
.
(1) Prionic disease is associated with brain tissue
(2) Brain tissue is the part of the body which is the major place of
electrical currents
(3) Prions seem to appear spontaneously
(4) It is highly likely that prions were the first lifeforms and they
materialize from out of nowhere, spontaneous materialization.
(5) It is likely that prions are the biological analog of cold
fusion.
(6) The conundrum of prion research is to discover the method of
prion replication? How do prions replicate? The answer to which, I
feel, must come after the facts are reported as to whether prionic
disease flourishes only where electrical currents in lifeforms is
concentrated. If prions occur where electrical currents predominant,
then I speculate that prions can spontaneously come into existance in
brain tissue. And if this is the true scenario, then prion replication
is electrical replication. Then prions have an electrical switch, for
which diseased prions by currents in the brain turn the electrical
switch of nondiseased prions on. A polarization of prion material makes
nondiseased prion material into diseased prion material.
(7) Has prion disease been observed only in humans, cattle, and
sheep? And most importantly, in brain tissue only? What about electric
eels?
I will post more on these math logic journeys into solving these
biological riddles.
94th ELECTRON OF 231PU
Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON
::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
LP
One of those dots is the Sun with 9 smaller dots around it.
Look in a chemistry textbook or quantum physics textbook of the
electron cloud dot picture.
Paul S. Winalski
In article <317jrc$a...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Ludwig.P...@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
|>
|> Completing the above lines of reasoning. It suggests that the AIDS
|>disease is caused by a different agent than the AIDS virus itself. Such
|>an agent may be inside the AIDS virus or in free space. But usually
|>inside the AIDS virus. Or it may be that the AIDS disease is caused by
|>the AIDS virus in concert with another virus or bacterium. The AIDS
|>disease constellation would under "concert" occur only when both agents
|>are present.
There's precedent for that sort of thing. The bacterium that causes
diphtheria only produces the diphtheria toxin if it's infected by a particular
bacteriophage (the phage codes the toxin protein).
|> If these ideas turn out to be true in whole or part, then the world,
|>especially the drug companies are wasting alot of time and research
|>money on trying to destroy the AIDS virus when it is a completely
|>different agent, or it is the AIDS virus in concert with a different
|>agent.
If it's HIV in concert with a different agent, eliminating HIV also eliminates
the disease.
--PSW
Ludwig Plutonium
wina...@gemcil.enet.dec.com (Paul S. Winalski) writes:
> I think there are plant diseases linked to prions, as well.
>
> --PSW
Thanks for all the information Paul, most of it is new. One working
with just popular newspaper information is at a severe handicap against
those who have the "best available data".
> The observed evidence is therefore not inconsistent with the hypothesis that
> HIV is the AIDS causative agent.
I think you are correct about this and I buy it also. When newspapers
report something like --- there are cases where people have the AIDS
disease but not the AIDS virus --- has a good chance of being an
erroneous report. Perhaps the testers only looked at blood samples, yet
the virus hides in the lymph system, or a number of other things which
makes that reported fact erroneous.
I agree that the observed evidence is consistent with the picture
that HIV is the AIDS causative agent. I just find fun in running
biology riddles-- especially microbes and diseases-- through a math
logic sieve. I remember a long time ago science TV shows NOVA on
syphilis and other diseases and they are much more fun, intriguing than
any murder-mystery or who-done-it type of fiction.
Ludwig Plutonium
wina...@gemcil.enet.dec.com (Paul S. Winalski) writes:
> |>implies the following. That the AIDS virus
> |>is only a carrier for another real parasite. A parasite within the AIDS
> |>virus itself. Perhaps a smaller virus (or prion) harbors itself inside
> |>the AIDS virus. This means that not all AIDS viruses are dangerous.
> |>Only the AIDS virus which harbors the diseasing smaller parasite within
> |>the AIDS virus.
>
> Certainly that is a hypothesis that fits all the facts except one: no such
> smaller virus/prion has been found. Which might be because nobody's looked
> for it, of course.
Could someone please state the most current factual knowledge as to
whether any creature has ever been "inside" a virus. What is the
current knowledge of the insides of viruses. Journal references would
be of help. Thanks in advance.
Ludwig Plutonium
wina...@gemcil.enet.dec.com (Paul S. Winalski) writes:
> |> Completing the above lines of reasoning. It suggests that the AIDS
> |>disease is caused by a different agent than the AIDS virus itself. Such
> |>an agent may be inside the AIDS virus or in free space. But usually
> |>inside the AIDS virus. Or it may be that the AIDS disease is caused by
> |>the AIDS virus in concert with another virus or bacterium. The AIDS
> |>disease constellation would under "concert" occur only when both agents
> |>are present.
>
> There's precedent for that sort of thing. The bacterium that causes
> diphtheria only produces the diphtheria toxin if it's infected by a particular
> bacteriophage (the phage codes the toxin protein).
My first remarks could be summed up as this math-logicwise. From
reports (how reliable those reports are is another question) saying
that some people have HIV but not AIDS disease and some people have
AIDS disease without HIV virus, by math logic suggests that HIV virus
is not sufficient. There is another factor which heretofore missing.
But now I have received information that those reports are not
reliable. There is a big difference in science between what is "fact"
and what is "evidence/reports".
Paul's statement above has set to think that there is perhaps a
link/interconnection with chemistry and biology. It is a Voltaire
Panglossian type of thought -- "the best possible of all possible
worlds". Redoing that thought --- "every possible chemical arrangement
exists or will exist, because life/bio is the factory warehouse which
will make that organic chemical". Such a idea suggests that yes indeed,
viruses have viruses inside of them.
When we find viruses inside of viruses, that feat will propell
virology and biotechnology to newer heights. Once we find a virus
inside a virus then we will start to control viruses and turn them to
our advantage. It may be prions inside of viruses. Either one will
excell the science of biology and biotechnology.
Ludwig Plutonium
wina...@gemcil.enet.dec.com (Paul S. Winalski) writes:
> I think there are plant diseases linked to prions, as well.
Paul, or anyone else, can you please point me to any recent journal
published evidence for plant prions. Thanks in advance.
Ludwig Plutonium
Ludwig.P...@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
> I agree that the observed evidence is consistent with the picture
> that HIV is the AIDS causative agent. I just find fun in running
> biology riddles-- especially microbes and diseases-- through a math
> logic sieve. I remember a long time ago science TV shows NOVA on
> syphilis and other diseases and they are much more fun, intriguing than
> any murder-mystery or who-done-it type of fiction.
My recall comes back clearer now. It was a TV show a long time ago.
It was on arthritis, and why it seemed to be new disease re:old world
and new world, and it had Lyme disease connected with it. I do not
remember if it was NOVA or not. Anyway through the program I could
anticipate the logic as they told the story, however it turned out that
the end the conclusions were not to be anticipated.
anth...@scripps.edu
In article <318kpe$c...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
<Ludwig.P...@dartmouth.edu> writes:
You know, Lud, you ask some reasonable questions, like you might actually
be interested in learning something, then you go off and bullshit
ridiculously... It's hard to know whether responding to you is worth it.
The idea of a co-infective agent is being studied. There are a few labs
that suspect a mycoplasm that is normally mostly harmless as a
co-conspirator. I point this out because I think you should know that we
biology types do occasionally know a few things about biology. Sometimes,
empirical data are useful.
the possibility of a viroid, or parasite of a virus, as far as I know, has
not been examined. But, if you are proposing the idea that not all virus
sub-types are equally virulent, one does not need to invoke viroids or
prions. Simple genetic variation would explain that adequately. I think
it is the Tomato-smut virus that has a viroid that affects the infection.
The idea you sugest is perfectly main-stream. I don't think there are
any data that support it, however, and, genetic variation seems a better
bet.
Good questions, though.
As for the bullshit, alot of your "facts" about prions are ludicrous.
Maybe you should read one of Pruisner's many reviews on the topic?
> Some facts about prions, . . I will post reference articles later, .
> ..
> (1) Prionic disease is associated with brain tissue
OK
> (2) Brain tissue is the part of the body which is the major place of
> electrical currents
What about muscle? still, I'll give you a qualified OK.
> (3) Prions seem to appear spontaneously
No, they definitely do not.
> (4) It is highly likely that prions were the first lifeforms and they
> materialize from out of nowhere, spontaneous materialization.
Oh, I'd love to see you find a reference article for this and post it
later. This is absolute horse-pucky. As a logician, surely you can see
that no parasite could ever be the first life-form. And if prions, as you
suggest, are created de-novo by electric currents, then they do not
replicate at all and would fail most definitions of "life."
> (5) It is likely that prions are the biological analog of cold
> fusion.
Strangely, there is one sense in which I might agree with you here,
insofar as they both involved alot of Hype and fizzled out to a large
extent.
> (6) The conundrum of prion research is to discover the method of
> prion replication? How do prions replicate?
A better question is "do they replicate?"
I may be behind the most current, but has anyone ever shown that they
replicate at all? That is, as opposed to mis-forming or corrupting
endogenous proteins.
> I will post more on these math logic journeys into solving these
> biological riddles.
>
This is probably a silly question, but are you at all interested in
emperical data?
-tony
Paul S. Winalski
In article <319t7o$7...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Ludwig.P...@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
|>In article <318qvu$f...@jac.zko.dec.com>
|>wina...@gemcil.enet.dec.com (Paul S. Winalski) writes:
|>
|>> I think there are plant diseases linked to prions, as well.
|>>
|>> --PSW
|>
|> Thanks for all the information Paul, most of it is new. One working
|>with just popular newspaper information is at a severe handicap against
|>those who have the "best available data".
I went back to my biochem text last night and read up on prions. I was wrong
when I said there are plant diseases linked to prions--what I was thinking of
when I said that was virions, not prions.
Prions are coded for in the DNA of normal cells of many mammals, invertebrates,
and possibly even yeasts. Infectious prions have an identical amino acid
sequence to the normal, non-infections ones, but they have different biochemical
characteristics which suggests that some of the amino acids may be modified
after synthesis of the protein or that the infectious prions have different
sugar groups attached.
Why this different modification occurs is the big question. As I said in my
reply, electrochemical cell membrane activity is fairly widespread, so if
prions are rendered infectious by the electrical fields generated by such
activity, the question is why infectious prion disease isn't more widespread
amongst different types of cells/organelles. I think it's more likely that
some physiological or biochemical mechanism specific to nerve cells is involved
in infectious prion activation, since the only known or suspected prion-caused
diseases are all nervous system disorders.
--PSW
anth...@scripps.edu
In article <31bcmq$n...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
<Ludwig.P...@dartmouth.edu> writes:
>
> Could someone please state the most current factual knowledge as to
> whether any creature has ever been "inside" a virus. What is the
> current knowledge of the insides of viruses. Journal references would
> be of help. Thanks in advance.
OK, But only if you promise to read them.
"creature" might be a stretch. Viroids, as I mention in another post,
are "parasites" of viruses. They are are small , circular pieces of RNA
that are associated with a number of plant viruses and often are
pathogenic. A review for them:
Robertson (1992) replication and evolution of viroids. urrent topics in
microbiology and immunology. 176:213-219
Another:
Diener, TO (1993) Trends in microbiology 1 289-294
I don't know of any viroids associated with animal viruses. I did find a
reference to hepatitis D, which cannot replicate on its own and
needs co-infection with hepatitis B. the author inferred that this made
it viroid-like.
The reference for that is Hess, G. "gut" 34:S1-S5
-tony
anth...@scripps.edu
In article <31bdjr$p...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, <Ludwig.P...@dartmouth.edu>
writes:
When we find viruses inside of viruses, that feat will propell
> virology and biotechnology to newer heights.
It's been done, Ludi--quite some time ago. There are some hazzardds, you
see, with making such bold statements when you don't know the facts.
-tony
anth...@scripps.edu
> My first remarks could be summed up as this math-logicwise. From
> reports (how reliable those reports are is another question) saying
> that some people have HIV but not AIDS disease and some people have
> AIDS disease without HIV virus, by math logic suggests that HIV virus
> is not sufficient.
In fact, by logic, the two points you mention would indicate that the virus is
neither Necessary nor Sufficient. (I don't know why you call it "math logic."
Have you ever studied logic?)
I think most everyone in the field would agree that lots of infected,
assymtomatic people are out there. I don't know what the longest ongoing
latent period is. I do know that many of the healthy infected eventually
develop the disease. In any event, clearly, being infected is not sufficient
for the symptoms.
AS paul pointed out, AIDS is a "syndrome." There may be other ways to get the
same syndrome. Anything that destroys the immune system may have similar
symptomology. So, HIV is not necessary for the syndrome.
So we agree that the virus is neither necessary nor sufficient. The question
that remains is, is i am important etiological agent. That is, if you could
immunize against or eliminate the virus, would you reduce the occurance of the
syndrome. Smart money is on "yes."
Is it important to look at other factors: of course. And scientists are doing
it.
-tony
Paul S. Winalski
In article <31e7oe$4...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Ludwig.P...@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes a long discussion of
how evolution is wrong, ending with:
|> Evolution is pitifully deaf and dumb when it comes to viruses,
|>prions, viroids.
|> Superdeterminism comes from the pinnacle of all science-- Quantum
|>Mechanics. It is predictive. Very highly predictive.
In the article to which you were replying, anth...@scripps.edu provided the
literature citations you requested concerning viroids, prions, etc. He also
mentioned that there are no known viroids associated with animal viruses.
This thread started with your speculation that perhaps HIV is not by itself
the causative agent for AIDS, but that there is a second agent, perhaps a
parasite of HIV, that is the true infectious agent. As I said in an earlier
reply, the idea of a microparasite only causing disease when it itself is
infected is not unreasonable--diphtheria works this way. But this conjecture
doesn't happen to fit the observed facts of HIV and AIDS: researchers have
conducted exhaustive searches for such agents and have not discovered any:
there are no virions or prions associated with HIV infection or AIDS, despite
researchers having specifically looked for them.
I don't see where either evolution or superdeterminsm enter the picture.
It's simply a matter of there being no prion or viroid agents observed to be
associated with HIV or AIDS. Or are you saying the superdeterminism predicts
that such an agent must be associated with HIV?
--PSW
Ludwig Plutonium
anth...@scripps.edu writes:
> OK, But only if you promise to read them.
>
> "creature" might be a stretch. Viroids, as I mention in another post,
>
> are "parasites" of viruses. They are are small , circular pieces of RNA
>
> that are associated with a number of plant viruses and often are
>
> pathogenic. A review for them:
>
> Robertson (1992) replication and evolution of viroids. urrent topics in
>
> microbiology and immunology. 176:213-219
>
> Another:
> Diener, TO (1993) Trends in microbiology 1 289-294
>
> I don't know of any viroids associated with animal viruses. I did find a
>
> reference to hepatitis D, which cannot replicate on its own and
>
> needs co-infection with hepatitis B. the author inferred that this made
>
> it viroid-like.
> The reference for that is Hess, G. "gut" 34:S1-S5
>
> -tony
Thanks for the references. It was difficult for the mass majority of
Humanity to switch from flat Earth to round Earth and falling off. It
was difficult to switch from planets in orbit by angels pushing inwards
to gravity. Now it is difficult for Humanity to realize that planets in
orbit are Meissner bodies, Sun is a radioactive pile not a gravity
cruncher, and that astronomy is the study of the insides of the 94th
electron of PU. Enough said about difficulty.
Biologists will all agree that biology is the stuff of atoms. No
biologist, no matter how limelighting would have the pretentiousness of
calling a physics experiment wrong because it violates biological
evolution. The Bell inequality with the Aspect experimental results
proves biological evolution is a fakery. QM now replaces evolution with
superdeterminism. The majority of Humanity, especially biologists since
they have fallen in love with evolution will have a terrible time of
overcoming this.
Evolution is deaf and dumb when it comes to predicting. How
biologists use it is this--- facts are reported, then they arrange
those facts so as to accord with evolution.
Ludwig Plutonium
anth...@scripps.edu writes:
First things first. Colin Douthwaite, our resident artist did a
wonderful illustration to my logical complaints against the reports of
George Smoot and company. Pictures speak a thousand words and the
artistry sort of brought that logic to life. I think that even George
Smoot himself, after reading those logic complaints illustrated with
pictures can "begin to perceive the errors of his ways".
PU, PLuto, blesses the soul of Colin Douthwaite to The Fields of
Elysium. ATOM
I am asking for someone in alt.ascii-art to please do a logarithmic
spiral as best they can. And there is something very mathwise pleasing
in this "work of a logarithmic spiral". In a given area, there is one
maximum-best art work. This might be the first math proof which has a
profound word to say about art. Within a given area of the computer
screen there is one and only one best artwork of the logarithmic
spiral. One maximally-best and the other attempts will be inferior
artwork. I think some friends over in sci.math can help me out in
stating this math theorem precisely. And, if someone posts a logarthmic
spiral, I would please like their permission to use it without
reference for my work on superdeterminism. So please post that the
spiral can be used-without-permission. Thanks in advance.
Back to sci.bio. I need that logarithmic spiral to push the idea of
superdeterminism. And I aim to link chemistry with biology, in order to
show how highly predictive biology is. Once biology uses the correct
science of superdeterminism, and not the fake-baloney of evolution.
Felix Lee
> I am asking for someone in alt.ascii-art to please do a logarithmic
>spiral as best they can. And there is something very mathwise pleasing
>in this "work of a logarithmic spiral". In a given area, there is one
>maximum-best art work. This might be the first math proof which has a
>profound word to say about art. Within a given area of the computer
>screen there is one and only one best artwork of the logarithmic
>spiral. One maximally-best and the other attempts will be inferior
>artwork.
Sorry, no. I can trivially prove this false by considering attempts
at representing a logarithmic spiral in a 2x2 area. They're all
equally bad. :)
ascii art is as much illusion as other art forms are, and as such, it
depends upon accidents of perception, which are partly innate, partly
learned, partly individual. There isn't even such a thing as a "best"
straight line between two points. You have to consider, best for what
purpose?
/ _/ ./ ,/ /' .' ,'
/ _/ ./ ,/ /' .' ,'
/ _/ ./ ,/ /' .' ,'
Each of these conveys a different style, a different mood. And
besides, they look different on different terminals.
(sorry for rambling about ascii art in all these sci groups, but
Ludwig brought it up.. Followups narrowed to alt.ascii-art.)
(The best 1x1 logarithmic spiral: @.)
--
Ludwig Plutonium
anth...@scripps.edu writes:
> In fact, by logic, the two points you mention would indicate that the virus is
>
> neither Necessary nor Sufficient. (I don't know why you call it "math logic."
>
> Have you ever studied logic?)
> I think most everyone in the field would agree that lots of infected,
>
> assymtomatic people are out there. I don't know what the longest ongoing
>
> latent period is. I do know that many of the healthy infected eventually
>
> develop the disease. In any event, clearly, being infected is not sufficient
>
> for the symptoms.
>
> AS paul pointed out, AIDS is a "syndrome." There may be other ways to get the
>
> same syndrome. Anything that destroys the immune system may have similar
>
> symptomology. So, HIV is not necessary for the syndrome.
>
> So we agree that the virus is neither necessary nor sufficient. The question
>
> that remains is, is i am important etiological agent. That is, if you could
>
> immunize against or eliminate the virus, would you reduce the occurance of the
>
> syndrome. Smart money is on "yes."
> Is it important to look at other factors: of course. And scientists are doing
>
> it.
>
> -tony
I am glad you brought up the issue of math logic Tony, because when
I was Archimedes in my past life, I pushed math 2000 years ahead of its
time by devising the calculus. The geometrical calculus was invented
not by Leibniz, not by the "falsely credited" Newton (in fact the
Bernoulli's deserve more credit than Newton). It was me, Archimedes,
who first discovered the calculus but I was hampered by notation, also
number system notation. Such is a "minor problem" when you are 2000
years advanced of your time.
I am going to throw biology, even with the loud nauseating squawks
of nitwits in the background such as evolutionists, 2000 years into the
future.
Biology, 2000 years from now will be very much reliant on the
computer to store the data. And it will be chemistry.
The biological law I am working up to is vaguely like this----
chemical compounds have a superdetermined time when they come into
existence. And, chemical compounds have a superdetermined relative
abundance which is as exact as the logarithmic spiral is a perfect
exact spiral.
Ludwig Plutonium
Once we start using true biological science law such as
superdeterminism, not the fakery of evolution. Then we can start making
meaningful biological predictions. Use the science to make the
predictions, and then go out into the field or laboratory and confirm
the predictions.
Superdeterminism predicts that there is a last fundamental unit of
replication. Superdeterminism predicts that it is spontaneous
materialization. Prions are the candidates.
Physics idiots, astronomy idiots when asked how the Milky Way is
formed they will eventually say dust. Physics and astronomy idiots when
asked how the Sun and stars were formed, they will eventually be
cornered into saying dust. Intergalactic dust, interstellar dust, and
the dust in their living rooms. But such are idiots and their cobwebs
of a science mind will not be cleansed.
No, the true answer as to how things come into existence is "atom
growth" via radioactivity of spontaneous neutron materialization. A
10^14 cosmic proton was discovered (I say spontaneously). That is
enough energy to spontaneously materialize a complete bacteria, say
nothing about virus, viroid, or prion. That particle, I conjecture was
a dramatic spontaneous materialization of energy inside of an ATOM
TOTALITY. People reading this for the first time can either line-up
with the dustball thinkers of growth, or line-up with me and QM
radioactivities. Ask the dustball collectors how come the abundance of
the chemical elements is so highly uniform throughout the observed
universe? Is their answer that the Big Bang has a good Electrox or
Hoover Vacuum Cleaner?
I intend to push biology 2000 years into the future. It will be
predictive and a few of its predictions are that we will be able to
predict whether there are lifeforms on other planets just from theory.
We will be able to predict the major forms of prions, viroids, and
viruses, all from theory, just as we are able to predict in physics
what particles may or may not exist, e.g. positron, neutrinos.
Paul S. Winalski
If I interpret what you have said correctly, you are saying that prions are
the fundamental replicative biological unit, and that a spontaneously
materialized prion was the first life form. Is that correct?
--PSW
Ludwig Plutonium
fl...@cse.psu.edu (Felix Lee) writes:
> Sorry, no. I can trivially prove this false by considering attempts
> at representing a logarithmic spiral in a 2x2 area. They're all
> equally bad. :)
>
> ascii art is as much illusion as other art forms are, and as such, it
> depends upon accidents of perception, which are partly innate, partly
> learned, partly individual. There isn't even such a thing as a "best"
> straight line between two points. You have to consider, best for what
> purpose?
>
> / _/ ./ ,/ /' .' ,'
> / _/ ./ ,/ /' .' ,'
> / _/ ./ ,/ /' .' ,'
>
> Each of these conveys a different style, a different mood. And
> besides, they look different on different terminals.
>
> (sorry for rambling about ascii art in all these sci groups, but
> Ludwig brought it up.. Followups narrowed to alt.ascii-art.)
>
> (The best 1x1 logarithmic spiral: @.)
Your last statement about 1x1 is correct. Your other statements are
wrong. When you have a perfect artpiece as the logarithmic spiral or
sine curve then there are no artists who can draw either one to the
perfection of math, even using instruments. Some will draw a better Ln
spiral than others and each can be compared as to one another and one
or a class of them can be claimed the best, but none will be as perfect
as the math objects. This is perhaps the first doors of comparing
artwork. Art, and masterpiece paintings will not stay so to speak
"immune from math analysis".
And this door will also be of economic value. Already masterpiece
paintings are translated into bits on computer. Photographic pictures
are many bits per area.
I say there is a math theorem which begins to speak of art. I
conjecture such will be proved along the lines of--- given a specific
number of bits. Then each work of art can be compared math artistically
against one another.
Some math theorem which states that given a math object, given a
finite number of bits, then there is a maximal art rendering of that
object and all others are inferior.
Such a theorem and further theorems along the lines of art will come
into economic importance in the future because the computer art will
merge with photography and movie frames. In the long term future, there
will no longer be any need for actors or stage props to make movies.
Movies will be made from bits on the computer. We have some now, known
as cartoons. The more sophisticated ones are special effects in science
fiction movies. But, as the future rolls on, the computer manipulation
will make people which are so difficult to tell apart from real live
actors. The clue will be that the real live acting movies have
blemishes, awkwardness, and have a roughness. In future movies, the
people and background all originate from a computer. And the highest
art work will be to maximize each frame so that it looks so lifelike.
Call them computerized movies. In the future, the movie artists will be
able to make a movie on Archimedes so authenthic looking that it will
appear you were transported back in time and seeing the action as an
eyewitness newsreporter.
Felix Lee
> Some math theorem which states that given a math object, given a
>finite number of bits, then there is a maximal art rendering of that
>object and all others are inferior.
This is *rendering*, which is perhaps the least interesting aspect of
art. You may be able to develop some maximization function that
describes how faithful a particular rendering is to a particular
abstract conception, but so what?
Consider a straight line. Since a mathematical line has no thickness,
a perfect rendering would use no ink, no bits. This is useless for
most purposes.
Let's restate the problem as: find the best rendering of a particular
thin, rectangular area. (Note that this choice is arbitrary. Why not
a thin, sinusoidal area?)
If you want to render it in grayscale pixels, then the anti-aliasing
algorithm is arguably the best method. (Though this is hardly
a trivial argument.)
But in ascii, the choice of an optimization function is far from
straightforward. Let's simplify even further: ignore the problem of
the different shapes and proportions of different fonts. Limit the
problem to just one particular font ("courr12" from X11) that's
represented by 1-bit pixmaps.
An obvious optimization function is to count the number of "on" bits
within the thin rectangle and subtract the number of "on" bits outside
the thin rectangle.
For one particular thin rectangle, it turns out the "optimal"
rendering looks like this:
,,,,,,,,,,,
but I would argue that this:
___________
is a better rendering for most purposes, despite the fact that all of
its "on" bits are outside the thin rectangle being rendered.
At every step in this quest for a mathematical definition of maximal
art rendering, I had to make gross simplifications and "aesthetic
judgments", and the result is still lacking.
If you really want to develop a rigorous, mathematical definition of
perfect art, I wish you luck, but I doubt such a thing is particularly
useful.
(On a different point, art != realism. But this is another long,
boring argument that I don't want to get into.)
(Followups narrowed to alt.ascii-art again.)
--
Rudrik Greyshadow
> The golden ratio (tau) is (1 + sqrt(5))/2, which is approximately
> 1.618. This number has the property that
> tau / 1 = (tau + 1) / tau
> And it's the only real number with that property.
Note this relationship can also be expressed as:
tau-1 = 1/tau and 1/(tau-1)=tau and tau^2 = tau+1
[snip snip]
>
> A golden rectangle is a rectangle where the ratio between the lengths
> of the two sides is tau. Like so:
> ___________________________________________
> | tau : 1 |
> | : |
> | : |
> | : |
> | : |
> | : |
> | tau : |
> | : |
> | : |
> | : |
> | : |
> | : |
> |________________________:________________|
>
> The top has a length of (tau + 1), and the side has a length of tau,
> giving a ratio of (tau + 1) / tau = tau.
[deleted] as you can see by looking at the ratio of its sides. The
smaller
> rectangle has the same shape as the whole rectangle.
You can't fool me: all rectangles have the same "shape" ;-)
The important thing is the ratio of the sides (Ie. Length/Width = tau)
remains constant for each new rect. created when you "remove" perfect :)
squares from the figure.
___________________________________________
| 1 : (tau - 1) | L/W = tau/1 = tau
| : |
| : | Next iterations:
| : |
| : (tau - 1) | L/W = 1/(tau-1) = tau
| : |
| 1 : | L/W = (tau-1)/(2-tau)=tau
| : |
| :................| L/W = (2-tau)/(2tau-3)=tau
| : |
| : (2 - tau) | etc....
| : |
|________________________:________________|
> Classical art and ancient Greek architecture uses the golden ratio
> pretty often. The golden rectangle is supposed to be the most
> aesthetically pleasing rectangle.......
OK put in the Disney Classic "Donald Duck in Mathemagic Land" and
voila...
I new I had heard this stuff before. :)
-- Greyshadow
*
<greys...@uchicago.edu> wrote:
> > A golden rectangle is a rectangle where the ratio between the lengths
> > of the two sides is tau.
That's all real nice but then what is a golden shower?
N0TMP
(Paul S. Winalski) writes:
Prions are coded for in the DNA of normal cells of many mammals,
invertebrates,
and possibly even yeasts. Infectious prions have an identical amino acid
sequence to the normal, non-infections ones, but they have different
biochemical
characteristics which suggests that some of the amino acids may be
modified
after synthesis of the protein or that the infectious prions have
different
sugar groups attached.
FYI there was a good article in the popular science weekly Science News
last month on prions. Reported some research results that imply that the
difference between "normal" cell prions and the nasty ones is an
conformational change. I'll try to find the original reference and post
later.
Brian Karger
N0TMP
Ludwig.P...@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
The Bell inequality with the Aspect experimental results
proves biological evolution is a fakery. QM now replaces evolution with
superdeterminism. The majority of Humanity, especially biologists since
they have fallen in love with evolution will have a terrible time of
overcoming this.
Evolution is deaf and dumb when it comes to predicting. How
biologists use it is this--- facts are reported, then they arrange
those facts so as to accord with evolution.
Evolution is pitifully deaf and dumb when it comes to viruses,
prions, viroids.
HUH?
Could you please explain this a bit to those of us who don't see
biological evolution as fakery?
Brian Karger
Joey Maier
>>In article <31e7oe$4...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
>>Ludwig.P...@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>
>>The Bell inequality with the Aspect experimental results
>>proves biological evolution is a fakery.
>HUH?
>
>Could you please explain this a bit to those of us who don't see
>biological evolution as fakery?
Don't worry. I was going to flame, until I saw who wrote the message.
Ludwig Plutonium is a legend in usenet. You should have seen the post
in sci.physics.* where he said that the Michaelson-Morely(sp?)
experiment failed because the ether waves come from the core of the
earth! :)
One of his buddies wants to blow up the moon to fix the earth's climate.
Check them out in the alt.usenet.folklore FAQ. :)