No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

[Mad Lab]

Dr. F,

I read ur posts and watch your videos, but they don't have much substance. Your posts are ignorant on the issues your bring up and your videos are filled with a similar opinion but nothing that would be considered evidence against the subject at hand.

You say your not here to change anyone's mind or preach... but all u do is preach buddy. If u don't call it preaching, what do u call it.

I doubt anyone wants to here ur uneducated opinions and propositions claiming to be fact without doubt, so why hang out and 'not preach'? Lol.

You seem to be the same in every thread, religion apparently doesn't bring the dipshit out of U, as u claim, but every topic. U seem to know everything doc, because u drill oil, lol.

 

[mr.brunch]

 

[DrFever]

Mad obviously you need fucking glasses dude

 

[Jericho Mile]

Holy shit.........................it's sunny outside. observation that time has slipped by...this time..by a couple weeks. the color of paste being a pale one. sunlight be good

 

[Weird]

You're not a psychoanalyst, but you play one on the internet. Your post is so full of holes and assumptions, that I am compelled to respond. Note that this is NOT personal for me. However, since I have a degree in psychology, and I am well read, and have read all of Hunter's books, I feel I am qualified to comment.

I added paragraphs for you, How successful were you at plying that degree into a career? People can learn about anything, but can they demonstrate competence?

Mental illness is an illness. It runs in families, just as other diseases are inherited. Cynicism is not a mental illness. Depression is a mental illness, which usually precedes suicide. If you had three family members who committed suicide, chances are overwhelming that they suffered from a mental illness, namely depression in all likelihood. This is a hereditary disease, and is not caused by exposure to nuns.

There is psychology, psychiatry and physiology.

First if you read my post, I mentioned psychological phenotypes which is the expression of genetic mental illness due to environmental stimulus. So your making a point I had already established. Their illness was accentuated by the culture of corrupt Catholicism.

Depression is not depression. A woman with postpartum and no history of mental health illness will respond to hormone only treatments. This type of depression as well as low vitamin d or lack of folic acid are caused by biological events or poor diet. This does not include dopamine and serotonin disorders.

Then there is depression, manifested by behavioral patterns that is caused in a person without biological imbalances that cause depression. This type of depression responds best to therapies.

And because our behaviors effects our neurology, how we think matters because it can bias our behaviors and our behaviors and engrained into our neurology.

Brain Plasticity and Behavior

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/cd/12_1/Kolb.cfm

Re: Hunter S. Thompson: Unless you knew the man personally, and had the credentials to psychoanalyze him, you do not know the cause of his suicide, but I'm willing to bet he was in a depressed state, and that moment got the best of him, much as it did to Robin Williams, who was not a cynic.

Well I am entitled to the same vocal opinion as you, and am as qualified in that regard and having known a very successful cynic who also committed suicide at about the same age it gives me some personal experience as well.

HST cynicism and drug use were signs of mental illness. They also helped ingrain it and seal his fate.

A study[14] published in Neurology journal in 2014 found a link between "cynical distrust" (defined as the belief that others are mainly motivated by selfish concerns) and dementia. The survey included 622 people who were tested for dementia for a period of 8 years. In that period, 46 people were diagnosed with dementia. "Once researchers adjusted for other factors that could affect dementia risk, such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol and smoking, people with high levels of cynical distrust were three times more likely to develop dementia than people with low levels of cynicism. Of the 164 people with high levels of cynicism, 14 people developed dementia, compared to nine of the 212 people with low levels of cynicism."[15]

Again, cynicism is not a mental illness. Depression is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynicism_(contemporary)

Critical evaluation

As distinct from depression, cynicism can appear more active; in his bestselling Critique of Cynical Reason (1983), Peter Sloterdijk defined modern cynics as "borderline melancholics, who can keep their symptoms of depression under control and yet retain the ability to work, whatever might happen ... indeed, this is the essential point in modern cynicism: the ability of its bearers to work—in spite of anything that might happen."[11]

Harsh Thoughts: Cynicism Linked to Stroke Risk

http://www.livescience.com/46756-cynicism-depression-hostility-stroke-risk.html

Brain structure varies depending on how trusting people are of others, study shows

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150306181728.htm

Is Cynicism Ruining Your Life?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/compassion-matters/201212/is-cynicism-ruining-your-life

The risks of indulging in cynical attitudes and the rewards of being positive
Post published by Lisa Firestone Ph.D. on Dec 03, 2012 in Compassion Matters

Being a glass-is-half-full kind of person, not only makes us happier but healthier. Research published in the Journal of Personality (link is external) poses that "positive emotions contribute to psychological and physical well-being via more effective coping." In other words, our positive feelings actually make us more resilient when facing negative circumstances. So the question becomes, "why not look for the best in people?" Why make ourselves suffer over the flaws in others? How can we shake off cynical, destructive points of view and the critical attitudes that lead us in a downward spiral?

Re: Billionaires: My point was pretty obvious. People with that much money, have the power to change things dramatically. They could erect shelters/homes for all the homeless, but they choose to ignore the problem. They turn their backs on, and indeed exploit their fellow men. A good example of this is Steve Jobs. He felt the vast majority of people were beneath him, and indeed to such an extent, that if you were not among the six most intelligent people in the world according to his standards, he would not even speak to you. To him, it was O.K. to exploit millions of slave laborers, and cut their wages to the bone, in order to make more profit for himself. He was completely devoid of humanity. Many people who worked in the factories of his suppliers committed suicide, because their situation was so bleak.

he was atheist your aware of that right?

Only people with money make a difference? Think most billionaires are religious?

Do you understand how apathy works? Putting of your social responsibility off because you can find someone to point a finger at and say "look they aren't pulling their weight so why should I?"

The only thing you proved in that statement is you love to blame other people for the state of the world.

Re: religion making the world a better place. I would argue the opposite. Religion is the root cause of many of the world's greatest problems.The greatest problem we face is overpopulation. It is the direct cause of the degradation of the environment, extinction of species, the breakdown of all systems, economic, social, environmental, etc., etc. etc. The year I was born, there were 3 billion people in the world. It took countless millennium to reach that number, but only an additional 50 years to double, and it is now over 7 billion, going on nine. This is why our oceans have become sewers, our rain forests grazing land for more cattle so we can crank out more burgers, our air toxic. Who has promoted this overpopulation? The two biggest religions in the world. The people who can least afford children are having the most, and these people are religious. The average female in Africa is having 7.2 babies, yet they have no means to feed, clothe, shelter, or educate them, but their religion tells them to keep breeding. This creates a world of refugees, who are now flooding our borders, degrading our standard of living, and at the same time, they are flooding Europe, gradually but steadily overwhelming their great cultures in favor of primitive barbarism, with the goal of takeover and the rise of sharia law. It's mass insanity, which is to be expected by people who believe in ghosts, not science. Look around the world, watch the news any day of the week, and see the acts of barbarism committed in the name of god. It's unimaginable. When people are suggestible, they are willing to strap on suicide vests to get to their imaginary god.
Since you believe in ghosts/fairy tales, perhaps you have been duped by an evil ghost. Let's call him Satan, and we can blame the world's evils on him.

http://www.shalomlife.com/health/21...g-in-the-most-peaceful-time-in-human-history/

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...istory-Steven-Pinker/articleshow/11583435.cms

More than one source has evaluated the data and come to the same conclusion

but you, but your the type of guy who avoids my direct question to go on blaming the world for its own faults, all the while claiming relative impotence.

Cynicism suits you well.

 

[Weird]

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-dark-side-cosmology.html

The dark side of cosmology

It's a beautiful theory: the standard model of cosmology describes the universe using just six parameters. But it is also strange. The model predicts that dark matter and dark energy – two mysterious entities that have never been detected—make up 95% of the universe, leaving only 5% composed of the ordinary matter so essential to our existence.

In an article in this week's Science, Princeton astrophysicist David Spergel reviews how cosmologists came to be certain that we are surrounded by matter and energy that we cannot see. Observations of galaxies, supernovae, and the universe's temperature, among other things, have led researchers to conclude that the universe is mostly uniform and flat, but is expanding due to a puzzling phenomenon called dark energy. The rate of expansion is increasing over time, counteracting the attractive force of gravity. This last observation, says Spergel, implies that if you throw a ball upward you will see it start to accelerate away from you.

A number of experiments to detect dark matter and dark energy are underway, and some researchers have already claimed to have found particles of dark matter, although the results are controversial. New findings expected in the coming years from the Large Hadron Collider, the world's most powerful particle accelerator, could provide evidence for a proposed theory, supersymmetry, that could explain the dark particles.

But explaining dark energy, and why the universe is accelerating, is a tougher problem. Over the next decade, powerful telescopes will come online to map the structure of the universe and trace the distribution of matter over the past 10 billion years, providing new insights into the source of cosmic acceleration.

Yet observations alone are probably not enough, according to Spergel. A full understanding will require new ideas in physics, perhaps even a new theory of gravity, possibly including extra dimensions, Spergel writes. "We will likely need a new idea as profound as general relativity to explain these mysteries."

When that happens, our understanding of the dark side of cosmology will no longer accelerate away from us.

 

[Midwest sticky]

95% damn. Going to have to check that link out later.

 

[Midwest sticky]

Mystery of the universe solved.

 

[RetroGrow]

Immortality Through Science, Not Superstition

Immortality Through Science, Not Superstition

We were born a bit too early, but small children have a real shot at immortality through scientific advances:

"Bill Maris has $425 million to invest this year, and the freedom to invest it however he wants. He's looking for companies that will slow aging, reverse disease, and extend life.

“If you ask me today, is it possible to live to be 500? The answer is yes,” Bill Maris says one January afternoon in Mountain View, California. The president and managing partner of Google Ventures just turned 40, but he looks more like a 19-year-old college kid at midterm. He’s wearing sneakers and a gray denim shirt over a T-shirt; it looks like he hasn’t shaved in a few days.

Behind him, sun is streaming through a large wall of windows. Beyond is the leafy expanse of the main Google campus. Inside his office, there’s not much that gives any indication of the work Maris does here, Bloomberg Markets will report in its April 2015 issue. The room is sparse—clean white walls, a few chairs, a table. On this day, his desk has no papers, no notepads or Post-its, not even a computer.

Here’s where you really figure out who Bill Maris is: on his bookshelf. There’s a fat text called Molecular Biotechnology: Principles and Applications of Recombinant DNA. There’s a well-read copy of Biotechnology: Applying the Genetic Revolution. And a collection of illustrations by Fritz Kahn, a German physician who was among the first to depict the human body as a machine. Wedged among these is a book that particularly stands out to anyone interested in living to 500. The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology, published in 2005, is the seminal work by futurist Ray Kurzweil. He famously predicted that in 2045, humankind will have its Terminator moment: The rise of computers will outpace our ability to control them. To keep up, we will radically transform our biology via nanobots and other machines that will enhance our anatomy and our DNA, changing everything about how we live and die.

“It will liberate us from our own limitations,” says Maris, who studied neuroscience at Middlebury College and once worked in a biomedical lab at Duke University. Kurzweil is a friend. Google hired him to help Maris and other Googlers understand a world in which machines surpass human biology. This might be a terrifying, dystopian future to some. To Maris, it’s business. This is where he hopes to find, and fund, the next generation of companies that will change the world, or possibly save it. “We actually have the tools in the life sciences to achieve anything that you have the audacity to envision,” he says. “I just hope to live long enough not to die.”

Maris is an unusual guy with an unusual job. Seven years ago, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, the founders of Google, tapped him to start a venture capital fund, putting him smack between those tech titans and the sea of ambitious entrepreneurs trying to be just like them. At the time, he was a young entrepreneur himself, with limited investing experience and no clout in Silicon Valley. He’d sold his Vermont-based Web-hosting company and was working at a nonprofit, developing technology for cataract blindness in India. This made him exactly the kind of outsider Google was looking for. “Bill was ready to come at this from an entirely new perspective,” says David Drummond, who, as Google’s chief legal officer and senior vice president of corporate development, oversees Google Ventures as well as the company’s other investment vehicles.

Google Ventures has close to $2 billion in assets under management, with stakes in more than 280 startups. Each year, Google gives Maris $300 million in new capital, and this year he’ll have an extra $125 million to invest in a new European fund. That puts Google Ventures on a financial par with Silicon Valley’s biggest venture firms, which typically put to work $300 million to $500 million a year. According to data compiled by CB Insights, a research firm that tracks venture capital activity, Google Ventures was the fourth-most-active venture firm in the U.S. last year, participating in 87 deals.

A company with $66 billion in annual revenue isn’t doing this for the money. What Google needs is entrepreneurs. “It needs to know where the puck is heading,” says Robert Peck, an analyst at the investment bank SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, who published a report in February examining Google’s outside investment units, including Google Ventures. “Look at what happened to BlackBerry when it missed the advent of smartphones. And Yahoo! missed Facebook.”

Google puts huge resources into looking for what’s coming next. It spends millions on projects like Google X, the internal lab that developed Google Glass and is working on driverless cars. In January, the company made a $900 million investment in Elon Musk’s SpaceX. In 2014, it started Google Capital to invest in later-stage technology companies. Maris’s views on the intersection of technology and medicine fit in well here: Google has spent hundreds of millions of dollars backing a research center, called Calico, to study how to reverse aging, and Google X is working on a pill that would insert nanoparticles into our bloodstream to detect disease and cancer mutations.

Maris has a peculiar position in the Googlesphere. He’s a part of it, but also free from it. Google Ventures is set up differently than most other in-house corporate venture funds—Intel Capital, Verizon Ventures, and the like. The firm makes its investments independent of its parent’s corporate strategy. It can back any company it wants, whether or not it fits with Google’s plans. The fund also can sell its stakes to whomever it wants, including Google competitors. Facebook and Yahoo have bought startups funded by Google Ventures.

With Google’s money and clout behind him, Maris has a huge amount of freedom. He can, and does, go after Silicon Valley’s most-sought-after startups. Uber, Nest, and Cloudera are among the firm’s big wins. Maris doesn’t intend to stop pursuing these kinds of deals. But he has other ambitions, too. “There are plenty of people, including us, that want to invest in consumer Internet, but we can do more than that,” he says. He now has 36 percent of the fund’s assets invested in life sciences, up from 6 percent in 2013.

“There are a lot of billionaires in Silicon Valley, but in the end, we are all heading to the same place,” Maris says. “If given the choice between making a lot of money or finding a way to make people live longer, what do you choose?”

Maris is standing at the front of Joshua Tree, Google Ventures’ large conference room. Each room at headquarters is named after a national park. “OK, we have a lot to get through today,” he tells his staff. The group meets here biweekly to talk about prospects and strategy.

Maris has a team of 70, most of whom are in the room this day or patched in by phone or video. The group includes the fund’s 17 investing partners, who are in charge of finding startups. Among the investing partners are Joe Kraus, co-founder of Excite; Rich Miner, co-founder of Android; and David Krane, employee No. 84 at Google.

The mood in the room is casual. Some staffers sit cross-legged on the floor; others curl up on soft felt couches. There are a lot of jokes. One partner starts his presentation with a slide entitled “Secret Project”—which most people in the room already know about—and concludes it with a doctored-up photo of Maris’s head superimposed on the body of someone playing tambourine. It’s a jab at the boss, who married the singer-songwriter Tristan Prettyman last August and recently went on tour with her. Everyone laughs. Maris smiles, but immediately he’s back to business. “Time is the one thing I can’t get back and can’t give back to you,” he says, turning to an agenda on the screen behind him.

“I know you’re all aware of the conference happening this week,” Maris says. An hour away in San Francisco, JPMorgan Chase is hosting its annual health-care confab, nicknamed the Super Bowl of Health Care. Thousands of pharmaceutical executives and investors have gathered for what has become a huge part of the industry’s dealmaking. Most of Google Ventures’ life sciences startups are attending. One, Foundation Medicine, which uses genetic data to create diagnostic oncology tools, is generating huge buzz this year. In January, Roche Holding announced plans to take a majority stake in the company, in a transaction valued at $1 billion. The stock more than doubled the next day. Google Ventures has a 4 percent stake in the company.

For Maris, Foundation Medicine represents the beginning of a revolution. “The analogy I use is this,” he says, holding up his iPhone 6. “Even five years ago, this would have been unimaginable. Twenty years ago, you wouldn’t have been able to talk to anyone on this.”

When Google Ventures invested in Foundation in 2011, the company’s promise was mostly theoretical. The world was still waiting for the breakthroughs that have seemed inevitable ever since scientists first mapped the human genome in 2003. Foundation’s team included eminent geneticists, including Eric Lander, one of the leaders of the Human Genome Project. Still, the company had no viable commercial product.

Technology has made huge strides since then, allowing Foundation to create products like its Interactive Cancer Explorer, which is a kind of Google for oncologists, allowing them to do research and devise treatments for their patients. “We had a lot to learn from the experts in Silicon Valley,” says Foundation’s CEO, Dr. Michael Pellini, who sought out Google Ventures as an investor for help with designing his company’s technology. “Think about Google search. We never think about all the algorithms that go behind what we see on the screen. They were able to do the same for us with genetic information.”

“Twenty years ago, without genomics, you could only treat cancer with a poison,” Maris says. “That’s really different from, ‘We can cure your cancer by reverse-engineering a stem cell.’ You can now legitimately invest in a company that could cure cancer.”

Identifying promising life sciences companies isn’t like hunting around Silicon Valley for coders with a cool app. Biotech companies are built around complicated science. They require millions of dollars in investments, partnerships with big pharma companies, and lengthy clinical trials. To help with his hunt, Maris has brought in scientists as partners. One, Dr. Krishna Yeshwant, a Harvard- and Stanford-trained doctor, still works in a clinic twice a week in Boston, where he is based. Last year, he led the firm’s biggest bet in life sciences, an investment in Flatiron Health, which is building a cloud platform to analyze cancer data.

This is just the beginning. “In 20 years,” Maris says, “chemo will seem so primitive it will be like using a telegraph.”

At the age of 22, just out of college, Maris met the friend who would lead him to Google. It was 1997: Yahoo was search, AOL was e-mail, Google was called BackRub. Maris was in New York, working at Investor AB, a Swedish investing firm. He didn’t care for Wall Street, but he did like the smart Yale grad sitting next to him. She told him about a company that was going to change the world. “I remember telling him about this new search engine my sister was working on, and he said, ‘Oh, Yahoo is good enough,’” recalls Anne Wojcicki, who would become the wife of Sergey Brin. Her sister Susan, one of Google’s earliest employees, is now CEO of YouTube. Anne Wojcicki went on to co-found 23andMe, a genetics testing company that is part of Google Ventures’ portfolio.

Maris quit Investor AB after six months and went to Burlington, Vermont, to start a Web-hosting company. He was so green that he read Netscape and the World Wide Web for Dummies. He funded his company, Burlee, with his credit cards and by convincing the operators of the Lake Champlain ferry to invest. Maris sold Burlee to a company that became Web.com for an undisclosed sum in 2002. It wasn’t Google-level money, but it was enough for him to live on in Vermont with no job.

He would have stayed there except that his old friend, Wojcicki, kept calling him West. Maris started visiting her and Brin, staying at their home in California. He increasingly became drawn into their sphere. “He and Larry and Sergey would be at dinner and start talking about, I don’t know, flying cars,” recalls Wojcicki.

In 2008, Google’s chiefs tapped Maris to start a venture fund, an idea they’d been kicking around for a while. They gave him a desk at Google and instructions to figure out how he would invest Google’s money. In an only-at-Google twist, his neighbor was Kevin Systrom, who was working on a photo app called Burbn, later Instagram. (“Everyone I sit next to ends up becoming a billionaire,’’ Maris jokes.)

Maris spent six months researching venture capital around Silicon Valley. He traveled up and down Sand Hill Road, home to many of the Valley’s most prestigious VC firms, asking top investors for advice. At first, he had a hard time getting anyone to take him seriously. During one meeting, a VC started laughing at his idea for Google Ventures.

Maris was told his fund would never work: VCs wouldn’t want Google looking over their shoulders. “There were some in the venture world who weren’t particularly welcoming to Bill or Google Ventures,” recalls John Doerr, a legendary partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, one of the most important first-generation California VC firms. Doerr, who sits on Google’s corporate board, advised Maris on setting up the venture fund.

Around Silicon Valley, corporate venture funds have a bad reputation. “There is an inherent paradox to the notion of corporate venture,” says Bill Gurley, a general partner at the VC firm Benchmark Capital. The conflict is, do the fund’s loyalties lie with the startup or with the parent? Just about every independent venture capitalist in tech has stories of being burned by corporate funds. Either the company uses its venture investments to gather intelligence and ends up competing with the companies it funds or company management loses interest at some point and pulls out.

Entrepreneurs were skeptical, too. “I told him, this is never going to work,” says Joe Kraus, who, in addition to co-founding Excite, co-founded a wiki software company called JotSpot, which was sold to Google. Maris asked him early on to join as a partner in Google Ventures. “From the entrepreneur’s perspective, the idea of tying myself to Google would have been scary.” Kraus says. “The fear would be, if you raised money from Google, would Apple hate you?”

To win over other VCs and entrepreneurs, Maris and his bosses at Google established the terms under which the fund still operates. Google has no access to details about the startups’ strategy or technology. That way, entrepreneurs can pitch without worrying about their ideas being stolen. “We had to convince entrepreneurs they could work with us,” says David Drummond.

Those who can get comfortable with Google Ventures gain access to resources no amount of money can buy. The firm can, and does, introduce its startup founders to anyone at Google—experts on rankings on Google search, for example, or user experience designers or Android mobile-app builders. One startup was offered 1 million hours of core processing time on the Google cloud for free.

A big edge for Google Ventures is its design team. Maris drew top tech talent out of Google and made them partners in the fund. One worked on Gmail; another helped redesign YouTube. They form a sort of SWAT team for startups. In what’s known as a design sprint, they can troubleshoot whatever is ailing a startup—a flailing app, slow Web traffic, an uninspiring home page. (See “On the Clock,” above.)

“We didn’t need the money,” says Ryan Caldbeck, co-founder of the crowdfunding startup CircleUp. He picked Google Ventures as one of his backers in part to gain access to its design talent. Twitter co-founder Ev Williams used the design team for his new publishing platform, Medium. Stewart Butterfield, co-founder of Flickr, used the team for his new startup, Slack.

Still, navigating the line between startups and Google can get complicated. Last year, Google wanted to buy Nest, whose signature product is a WiFi-connected, learning home thermostat. Google Ventures recused itself from the negotiations, allowing the other VC firms invested in Nest to broker a price of $3.2 billion. (It was the fourth-largest venture exit of 2014.) In February, Bloomberg reported that Google was planning a ride-sharing app that would be a direct competitor to Uber. Google Ventures has had a stake in Uber since 2013. If Google and Uber go to war, Maris will be right in the middle of it.

“Google Ventures has a direct financial incentive to ensure the companies we invest in succeed,” Maris said in an e-mail responding to questions about potential conflicts. “Our investment decisions are made independent of Google’s product road map.” He and the other partners are paid carried interest based on the performance of portfolio companies. In theory, if Google’s car app kills Uber, Google Ventures loses money.

One evening in San Francisco, a group of young scientists and doctors are sitting down to dinner. “I remember when Max was living with me and I opened up my fridge and saw this stuff he put in there. I was thinking, Is this safe?” muses Blake Byers, a 30-year-old with a Ph.D. in bioengineering from Stanford and a partner at Google Ventures. He casts a sideways glance at Max Hodak, a 25-year-old Duke biomedical engineering grad sitting next to him. Three years ago, Hodak started working in Byers’s garage to build a robot-enabled laboratory. Once he stored chemicals in Byers’s freezer. (“Blake gets a little carried away with that story,’’ says Hodak. “There was never any danger.”)

Hodak now runs Transcriptic, a company that builds and operates robot-run labs in shipping container–sized boxes. It packs them with enough computing power to run multiple experiments from anywhere in the world. Theoretically, a scientist in Monrovia, Liberia, with access to a laptop or a mobile phone could use a Transcriptic lab to test strains of Ebola. Byers, who is the son of Brook Byers of Kleiner Perkins, has helped Hodak raise $12.5 million from Google Ventures and others.

“We are just on the verge of what science and technology can do,’’ says David Shaywitz, chief medical officer of DNAnexus, who’s seated across from Byers and Hodak. His company, also backed by Google Ventures, is building a global bank of genomic information using cloud computing.

Listening to the scientists gathered around the table, it’s hard not to get caught up in the world they see coming. In this vision of our future, science will be able to fix the damage that the sun or smoking or too much wine inflicts on our DNA. Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and other scourges of aging will be repaired at the molecular level and eradicated. In the minds of this next generation of entrepreneurs, the possibilities are bizarre and hopeful and endless. We probably won’t live forever, but we could live much longer, and better.

These are the bets Google Ventures is hoping will ultimately be its biggest wins. “We aren’t trying to gain a few yards,” Maris says. “We are trying to win the game. And part of it is that it is better to live than to die.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...bill-maris-investing-in-idea-of-living-to-500

 

[armedoldhippy]

I can tell you how to FEEL like you are immortal - just marry the wrong person, and take the wrong job. time passes so slowly that eventually death starts to look good.

 

[Weird]

I like how you make your own titles Retro

If science discovers a creation mechanism behind our universe than google is simply manifesting that energy within the abstract of time

It does not offer a conclusion and it is also congruent with dogmatic prophecy

 

[trichrider]

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-dark-side-cosmology.html

The dark side of cosmology

It's a beautiful theory: the standard model of cosmology describes the universe using just six parameters. But it is also strange. The model predicts that dark matter and dark energy – two mysterious entities that have never been detected—make up 95% of the universe, leaving only 5% composed of the ordinary matter so essential to our existence.

In an article in this week's Science, Princeton astrophysicist David Spergel reviews how cosmologists came to be certain that we are surrounded by matter and energy that we cannot see. Observations of galaxies, supernovae, and the universe's temperature, among other things, have led researchers to conclude that the universe is mostly uniform and flat, but is expanding due to a puzzling phenomenon called dark energy. The rate of expansion is increasing over time, counteracting the attractive force of gravity. This last observation, says Spergel, implies that if you throw a ball upward you will see it start to accelerate away from you.

A number of experiments to detect dark matter and dark energy are underway, and some researchers have already claimed to have found particles of dark matter, although the results are controversial. New findings expected in the coming years from the Large Hadron Collider, the world's most powerful particle accelerator, could provide evidence for a proposed theory, supersymmetry, that could explain the dark particles.

But explaining dark energy, and why the universe is accelerating, is a tougher problem. Over the next decade, powerful telescopes will come online to map the structure of the universe and trace the distribution of matter over the past 10 billion years, providing new insights into the source of cosmic acceleration.

Yet observations alone are probably not enough, according to Spergel. A full understanding will require new ideas in physics, perhaps even a new theory of gravity, possibly including extra dimensions, Spergel writes. "We will likely need a new idea as profound as general relativity to explain these mysteries."

When that happens, our understanding of the dark side of cosmology will no longer accelerate away from us.

The $6 billion LHC Circus

Posted on September 10, 2008 by Wal Thornhill
Science has become an international circus. And opening day for “The Greatest Show on Earth” has arrived. In the 27 km main circus ring we have the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) project, starting up after $6 billion dollars and thirty years of development. Before the show the clowns have warmed up the audience with fantastic stories of what we might see. But why should we take clowns seriously?
Professor Higgs, seen here at the LHC, is one of the eminent scientists responsible for perhaps the most expensive circus in science today.

The BBC Horizon program, “The $6 billion Dollar Experiment,” documents the LHC experiment. The LHC accelerates beams of protons in opposite directions around a circular 27 km underground racetrack and then smashes them together head-on. The expense comes from the need to reach particle energies seven times that of earlier particle colliders and to construct a massive particle detector ‘cathedral’ underground. The energy density reached in the experiment is thought to mimic the earliest moments of the big bang – the origin of the universe.
Most of the experimenters involved are looking for the ‘God particle’. The Times Online reported on April 8:

“The mysterious boson postulated by Professor Higgs, of the University of Edinburgh, has become so fundamental to physics that it is often nicknamed the ‘God particle’. After more than 40 years of research, and billions of pounds, scientists have yet to prove that it is real. But Professor Higgs, 78, now believes the search is nearly over.”
​

The “God Particle” or Higgs boson was invented by Peter Higgs to explain why other particles exhibit mass. He starts with assuming the existence of a particle that has only mass and no other characteristics, such as charge. So the Higgs particle is like no other in our experience, since all normal matter is composed of electric charges that respond to electromagnetic influences. (Dark matter falls into the same category.) However, we observe that the mass of a charged subatomic particle is altered by the application of electromagnetic forces. At its simplest (and Nature is economical in our experience) it indicates that mass is related to the storage of energy within a system of electric charges inside the particle. That’s what E = mc2 is telling us. So how can a massive particle be constructed without electric charge? It shows the problem inherent in leaving physics to mathematicians — there is a disconnect between mathematical concepts and reality.
The notion that subatomic particles exhibit mass as a result of their interaction with imaginary Higgs particles occupying all of empty space like some form of treacle should have caused a sceptical uproar, if it weren’t for the appalling apathy of the public toward such nonsense. The ‘annihilation’ and ‘creation’ of matter is invoked when particles at particular points arise from ‘fields’ spread over space and time. Higgs found that parameters in the equations for the field associated with his hypothetical particle can be chosen in such a way that the lowest energy state of that field (empty space) is not zero. With the field energy non-zero in empty space, all particles that can interact with the Higgs particle gain mass from the interaction.
This explanation for the phenomenon of mass should have been stillborn if common sense was used. To begin, the annihilation and creation of matter is forbidden by a principle of physics. It is tantamount to magic. Second, field theory is a purely imaginary construct, which may or may not have physical significance. And third, it is not explained how the Higgs particle can have intrinsic mass but no charge and yet interact with normal matter, which has charge but is said to have no intrinsic mass. Rather than explain the phenomenon of mass, the theory serves to complicate and confuse the issue. The most amazing feature of this $6 billion experiment is the confused and illogical thinking behind it.
At the heart of the thinking behind the Higgs boson is quantum mechanics, which has a fundamental flaw — it allows effects without a cause. For example, radioactive decay is unpredictable. We do not know what causes an atom to ‘spontaneously’ decay. Nobel Prize winning physicist Richard Feynman wrote, “…I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.” [The Character of Physical Law, 1965] Quantum mechanics is not physics, whose aim is understanding.
Particle physicists would be well advised to study chemistry and the ‘London force’ between electrically neutral systems of atoms. It is a weak force, sufficient to form solids and liquids, and is always attractive. In other words, it is like gravity. The extreme feebleness of gravity can be understood as the result of tiny distortions of orbiting systems of charge within the proton, neutron, electron and neutrino.
Of course, particle physicists operate by smashing atoms in violent collisions. But if normal matter is composed of subunits of charge in some resonant state of equilibrium (the simplest picture), then smashing particles together will merely generate new unstable (short lived) resonant systems of charge, which will be interpreted as members of a weird zoo of new particles. The LHC can do no more than that. No matter can be created or annihilated. And since the big bang and black holes are the result of the illogical or incorrect application of mathematics to a gravity driven model of the universe, nothing will be learned about either.
The irony of the experiment is that the LHC uses 120 megawatts of electrical power to recreate in a tiny space the presumed conditions that existed shortly after the big bang. But astrophysicists do not recognize the obvious signs of electrical power in space today. It signals a profound disconnect between the ‘specialism’ of theoretical physics and straightforward electrical engineering principles. The eminent historian of ideas, Jacques Barzun, wrote:

“The rampant specialism, an arbitrary and purely social evil, is not recognized for the crabbed guild spirit that it is, and few are bold enough to say that carving out a small domain and exhausting its soil affords as much chance for protected irresponsibility as for scientific thoroughness.”
—Science: the glorious entertainment.
​

Meanwhile, other circus ‘Big Tops’ have been erected over Gravity Wave Telescopes, built to see waves that don’t exist, and over research establishments of astrophysics and particle physics where it is supposed that 95% of the universe is made of invisible “dark matter” and is powered by undetectable “dark energy.”

”To Hannes Alfvén, the Big Bang was a fable – a fable devised to explain creation. “I was there when Abbé Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory,” he recalled. Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas’ theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing.”
— Anthony L. Peratt, ‘Dean of the Plasma Dissidents’, The World & I, May 1988, pp. 190-197.
​

sciencecartoonsplus.com

There is no physics to explain a creation event. Creation is a metaphysical concept. The big bang is a theory created out of nothing. And there is plenty of evidence contrary to the big bang — that shows the universe is not expanding. It is irrational to ignore the evidence or to explain it away, as is being done with dark matter, dark energy, and black holes. Earlier scary performances by circus clowns about black holes gobbling stars frightened the public. Now the public is being assured there’s nothing to worry about if a ‘mini black hole’ happens to be created by the LHC. What seems to be forgotten is that cosmic rays routinely exceed the energy expected from the LHC.
From the Sunday Telegraph.

But it is the search for the “God Particle” to explain gravity that reveals the irrationality of the enterprise. The equation of gravity with “God” comes from the belief that gravity controls the universe. It is no more than that — a belief. Plasma cosmology shows the belief is mistaken. It is an Electric Universe, not a gravitational universe. Clearly, the scientists involved in the LHC experiment have no real idea of what they are doing. We are told by one of the participants with a fatuous grin, “science is what you do when you don’t know what you are doing.” The LHC is a mammoth engineering and technological undertaking that I predict will serve in future as a monument to human lunacy.
In 1852, Charles Mackay wrote in the preface to his classic work, Extraordinary Delusions and the Madness of Crowds:

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”
​

Without a doubt, the modern era of physics will soon be deemed a “dark age of science.” The very language of ‘black hole,’ ‘dark matter,’ and ‘dark energy,’ portends the end of this mad and dismal era.
Scientists today are herded into large institutions. The ones to watch are those leaving or excluded from the herd. A few of them have recovered their senses and are raising a clamor to acknowledge a crisis in cosmology and to return to real physics.
Each group of specialists urges the other to ever more preposterous performances based on their cherished beliefs, while the public pays dearly. But the audience is becoming bored and restless. There is growing doubt that the circus clowns know what they are doing when they talk about “creation” and the “God particle.” When the LHC finds nothing, it will be time to sweep the fertilizer from the main ring and close the circus.


http://www.holoscience.com/wp/the-6-billion-lhc-circus/

 

[waveguide]

harlan ellison did one about a computer keeping people alive..

suuuure, imagine *science* keeping people alive forever.... "based on our latest findings.." then years later oops!

because science is sure you want to stay alive forever, because charles in charge reruns just get better every time you watch them!

and because, if you live forever, maybe one day "science" will actually get shit right!

face up to it... you've already let science into your life.. fuck.. it's managed all your shit since day 1 most likely... so, stick with the fuckup you already trust..


a good way to try and live forever, is to make sure that every time science tells you how you're dieing in so many different ways, to fuck it off so you don't listen to it. that can help you not die.

at least, it might help you live more.

 

[waveguide]

i really need to go have that morning bowl i allow myself to have on the miniscule supply that "science" allows me to have so i don't accidentally exist in a society where i can smoke illegally......

things i love about science.. peer review... get your eyes off my peer! it's for peeing. you want a quality review, gwet someone who isn't your fucking bedfellow. someone who can actually provide critical review instead of social ballast.

suuuuuuuuuure... all those one scientists in that one fierld, they're all together.... they're corrupt,... but in this other field, all the science is good and pure and rofl rofl

believe in outer space observations! we have new ones on the way!

a total denial of epistemology and logic. sorry, knowledge does not exist, in any way, shape, form.

but fuck logic! fuck actual epistemology! weed is bad for you, so you go to hell! science is glorified! maybe you can try a lifetime of jail or at least persecution because science is so right.

that's what science is, gangsterism. it aint shit more, just gangsterism.

maybe we can get a good spinal tap on you for science to be right.

until you can fucking wise up and deal with that like a grown up, like all of humanity did before "science" (propaganda) you are owned by whoever is telling you shit you can't observe yourself.

course, that's not my problem.

 

[DrFever]

or better yet got off your fat ass and make something healthy to eat rather then fast food super sized fries and reality TV shows sweeping USA mind you that does look good

 

[trichrider]

http://time.com/3723667/human-head-transplant/

The world's first attempt to transplant a human head will be launched this year at a surgical conference in the US. The move is a call to arms to get interested parties together to work towards the surgery.
The idea was first proposed in 2013 by Sergio Canavero of the Turin Advanced Neuromodulation Group in Italy. He wants to use the surgery to extend the lives of people whose muscles and nerves have degenerated or whose organs are riddled with cancer. Now he claims the major hurdles, such as fusing the spinal cord and preventing the body's immune system from rejecting the head, are surmountable, and the surgery could be ready as early as 2017....

 

[SPG.]

^Haha! ..Frankensteins.LOL but NUTS an' YET More of whats Unethical ,but HEY thats the Fashion in the Modern World of Mans Understanding....

Hmm .. "wonder if a Pigs head could be Transplanted!" ..Or a Boar on a duck!

 

[genedigger]

before we learn how to live longer as a species we need to learn to love one another and not kill each other which we all contribute to.every american buys products everyday that will destroy someone or many peoples lives in another country.when we can learn to love and not kill,that is when we will figure out death.our culture is obsessed with death.its on every tv show.people are all about the zombie shit and much more.we celebrate death as a culture were disturbed humans

 

[SPG.]

Yep spot on.

Just saying.IF there was reason too fear!.. Ive gotta say Mans "Scientific?" Curiosity will be his Undoing. But NO WORRIES! OPINIONS are Abundant and " POWERFUL"...

Just saying ..Look up once in a while at Creation and not down at Books with some Influencing Name Tag
[^ there is a quality there too be absorbed thats beyond are Niche.= words..]

 

[genedigger]

i dig it spg.look around you not down thats how you trip and fall which is all we keep doing as a human race