A non-chemical theory of aging.

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by drg, Oct 19, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. chroot Crackpot killer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,350
    Like I said, I think he thinks that genetically engineered veggies turn magically into right-handed fructose factories (they don't), and that, rather than just being indigestible, right-handed fructose gets into our cellular nuclei, modifies our DNA, and turns us into mutants that smell funny and are predisposed to cancer.

    In a word: Nutball.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    - Warren
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,221
    Hmm...still, I would be interested to hear what he has to say on the subject. I find the effects of different enantiomers very interesting.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Frencheneesz Amazing Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    739
    Chroot:
    "He's right on this one, though, French. The body certainly does have a memory of past invaders -- this is the mechanism exploited by vaccines."

    Yes sure. It is not exactly what I would call "memory", but whatever. I don't suppose you consider alergies "invaders'? Alergies can't be aquired, can they?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. drg Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    46
    It is a matter where they come from.

    <i><b>chroot wrote:</b> So the question is in your opinion what is the difference between "natural" and artificial fructose???</i>

    <b>The question was:</b>
    why naturally derived chemicals (as food or treatment) are OK (for the body), but the same artificially created copies are not? (I am talking about side effects).

    Chroot, <u>I repeated this question four times</u> (you mind is really "genious"). If you would have any knowledge about it - you would say it a long time ago. It only means that you is far below that you are claimed. You even do not know that all artificial copies always have more side effects than the original natural chemicals. If the chemical formulas are the same, than what the difference between natural chemicals and the same artificial chemicals? <u>How the body can see the difference between natural and artificial fructose if they are the same?</u> (It is a matter where they come from.)

    <b>P.S.</b> I suggest you should go not further than grammar forums. I think, grammar skills are the only skills you have (although, you have some problems with understanding ... but it really does not matter).
     
  8. Frencheneesz Amazing Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    739
    "How the body can see the difference between natural and artificial fructose if they are the same?"

    THEY CAN'T DILLWEED!!!! Artificial anything just means it was made by human intelligence rather than through biological or "natural" activity. It in no way changes the chemical formula or shape of whatever is created unless of course we WANT it changed. Most of the time, if we create something artificially, we want to change it; if we can get it from a natural source it is muuuuuuuchhhhhh cheaper.

    "You even do not know that all artificial copies always have more side effects than the original natural chemicals."

    Artificial copies of what? For some retarded reason you think that just because it isn't "natrual" means that its bad? Nature isn't a pretty place bimbo. Nature tries to kill us all the time, it just fails miserably for the first 60 or 70 years. Every single animal lives off of the destruction of something else. Nature isn't trying to help you, but humans are. Natural tobbacco kills you, right? If we made artificial tobbacco that was the same as normal tobbacco, it would also kill you. But if we removed all the chemicals that, when oxidized, cause cancer (which is pretty much the whole thing), it wouldn't kill you!!! Good and bad things can happen.

    by the way, ARE YOU RELIGIOUS? I've asked that a couple times and you never responded, so don't bitch about someone else doing the same thing you are.

    "I think, grammar skills are the only skills you have (although, you have some problems with understanding "

    AHHH, that sentence is stupid. "blah is the only skill you have (yet you have problems.....)
    STUPID!

    So the only good thing about you is that you can talk (YET there are many bad things about you, how amazing when you only have one good thing about you). By the way, when I say talk, i mean it in the broadest of terms.
     
  9. drg Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    46
    So, guys - you know nothing about the subject, but you are still arguing. You have to be educated from the beginning (at the end I will tell you the difference between natural and artificial fructose if you would be able to analyze preliminary data). Of course, you are free to talk about grammar as much as you wish (it may help you very much).

    The NTP's review of the artificial sweetener saccharin.
    http://www.cspinet.org/reports/saccomnt.htm
    http://www.cspinet.org/reports/sacanada.htm

    Scientists claim that some people may have an adverse reaction to additives. Some additives have been linked to hyperactivity in children by scientists and may provoke allergic reactions. The long-term effects of food additives on the body are often unknown and difficult to research. Increasingly, natural alternatives are being discovered to replace the artificial compounds. For further information,
    http://www.organicconsumers.org/school/news/adhd.cfm

    DO ARTIFICIAL FLAVORINGS LEAD TO HYPERACTIVITY?
    There is a concern that artificial flavorings have a direct effect on the behaviour, health, and ability to learn for people and children. Numerous studies show that synthetic food additives can cause serious learning, behaviour and health problems. Scientists claim that artificial flavorings may lead to hyperactivity, which refers to nervousness, aggressiveness, increased movement, impulsiveness, and decreased attention span in children. Hyperactivity generally begins by the age of seven and it is 10 times more common in boys than girls. Since the cause and the cure for this condition continue to be elusive, it remains a frustration to parents, physicians and educators as well as its young victims. According to Dr. Benjamin Feingold, who is a pediatric allergist in San Francisco, food colorings, artificial flavorings and preservatives can cause hyperactivity in children. In addition, many parents and teachers believe that their children are "sugar responders", exhibiting uncontrollable behavior after eating foods containing sugar. Dr. Benjamin Feingold claims that there is a link between diet and several physical and allergic conditions. Feingold found out that 30-50% of his hyperactive patients had benefited from diets free of artificial colorings, flavorings, and certain natural chemicals like salicylates. (Salicylate is a kind of chemical that is said to prevent heart attacks.) The Feingold Program is a test to determine if certain foods or food additives are triggering particular symptoms. It is a diet for allergies, hyperactivity, asthma, and chronic ear infections that can be caused by synthetic food additives in sensitive people. This Feingold diet eliminates artificial flavorings as numerous studies have demonstrated that some children are sensitive to food additives. Moreover, in 1982, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) convened a "consensus development" on diets and hyperactivity to review the early scientific research and advise health professionals and public. The panel had
    recommended that the parents should use dietary therapy because the additives in food cause health problems.

    DIFFERENCES IN NUTRITIONAL SYSTEMS BETWEEN 1940s AND 2000s

    The typical child growing up in the United States of America is exposed to these powerful chemicals every day. The following chart describing the rapid change in nutritional system is taken from Dr. Benjamin Feingold's website: http://www.feingold.org/grocery.html

    Sample school lunch in 1940s: Meat loaf, freshly-made mashed potatoes, vegetables. Milk, cupcake made from scratch.

    Sample school lunch in 2000s: Highly processed foods loaded with synthetic additives. Chocolate milk with artificial flavors.

    Sample school beverage in 1940s: Water from the drinking fountain. Candy in the classroom a few times a year at class parties.

    Sample school beverage in 2000s: Soft drink with artificial color, flavor, caffeine. Candy (with synthetic additives) given frequently.

    When we look at the chart above, we see that the usage of additives has increased dramatically from 1940s to 2000s. As the food industry evolves, the products contain more and more additives than before. This chart shows us the situation in the United States of America.

    ALLERGIES

    Another interesting discovery is that; artificial flavorings can cause various allergies. Allergies do not only occur from pollens, dusts and mites, but they may also occur from foods, additives and chemicals. Some people may have allergies to specific dyes and flavorings, which can be found in tomatoes, chocolate, egg, nuts, shellfish, berries, wheat, milk, and other foods. The allergic reactions of food vary. They can be mild or serious. They can be confined to a small area of the body or may affect the entire body. Most occur within the seconds or minutes after exposure to the allergen, but some occur after days or weeks.

    http://www.allergyconnection.com
    http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000817.htm

    Artificial flavorings used in daily products may affect human health seriously such as; eczema, asthma, hay fever, sinus, colds, catarrh, headaches or migraine, constipation, lethargy, hyperactivity, excess mucus, phlegm, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, bedwetting. These are highly documented symptoms of people who are suffering from allergies to daily products. Like the hyperactivity problem, there is no specific and
    definite report on food allergies. If you want to learn more: http://www.alfafoods.co.nz

    In conclusion, in the United States of America, thanks to Food Additive Amendment of 1958, some harmful chemicals are banned as they destroy human health. While we were researching artificial flavorings, we could not find any specific and definite harmful effects of them on human health. Although there are many claims and discoveries, none of them are proved. In other words, we do not know the long-term effects of artificial flavorings. However, many scientists claim that they can cause hyperactivity and allergic reactions. In the modern world, we consume these additives everyday in our foods such as potato chips, cookies, candies, and pastries. These additives are even in toothpaste, mouthwashes, and medicines. Therefore, we just want to draw your attention and warn you about the possible negative aspects of artificial flavorings. We all have to be informed in order to avoid the harmful effects of artificial flavorings. Although the claims are unproven, we have to be cautious either way because human health is one of the most important concepts of human existence.

    If you are interested in this subject, check the following links for further information:
    http://crucial.ied.edu.hk/foodchem/coomonfl/html
    http://www.rawfoodlife.com/whole_food_crisis.htm
    http://cfast.vt.edu.publications/foodad/html
     
  10. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,221
    There are only two types of fructose: d-fructose and l-fructose, and your body doesn’t care where they come from; it doesn't matter if they're 'artificial' or 'natural'. Your body can't tell the difference. I'm interested in synthetic chemistry, so I'd like to hear what you have to say (if anything), but this is getting a little annoying. Just post whatever you have to say about it.

    I hope you're not thinking that saccharin is the same thing as artificial fructose...
     
  11. chroot Crackpot killer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,350
    Okay, drg, you must understand something:

    A "flavoring" is not a precise chemical. It's a substance that causes the human body to experience a type of flavor.

    A "natural flavoring" is some chemical (or, more likely, it's a cocktail of several) that is derived from some plant, say.

    An "artificial flavoring" is some different chemical (or cocktail) that just happens to produce the same sort of taste.

    The two are NOT the same, in any respect whatsoever. A "natural flavoring" and an "artificial flavoring" do not have the same chemical formula at all. An "artificial flavoring" is NOT a copy of a "natural flavoring."

    So are natural and artificial flavorings different to the body? OF COURSE. They're different in every respect! They aren't even the same chemicals!

    This entire time, however, you've been trying to tell us educated folk that two chemicals, with IDENTICAL CHEMICAL FORMULAE AND STRUCTURE, act differently when produced naturally or artificially. This statement is of course, FALSE.

    - Warren
     
  12. drg Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    46
    First, you need to collect enough data (a pretty long list). Then we will analyze it. If it is too long for you - I can accelerate it.

    <b>Organic vs. Commercial Food (think about genetically engineered food)</b>

    "The organic pears, apples, potatoes and wheat had, on an average, over 90% more of the nutritional elements than similar commercial food. The average difference is over 2.5 times."

    <b>ABSTRACT</b>

    Organic food has been noted in various studies as having similar nutritional value as commercial foods. These studies usually look at the dry ashed concentration and are designed for the food producer. In this study the average elemental concentration in organic foods on a fresh weight basis was found to be about twice that of commercial foods.

    The difference in nutritional value of organic foods compared with commercial foods has been studied many times. These studies are intended and needed for the growers, but for the consumers interested in nutrition, what is needed? They go to a store and must choose between two potatoes or two pears. One is organic, one commercial. Each is about the same size and looks like the same variety. They need a simple, practical answer. Do the foods labeled organic have greater nutritive concentration?

    Over a period of two years, foods were purchased at several stores in the western suburbs of Chicago. Apples, pears, potatoes, and corn were selected, choosing specimens of similar variety and size. Organic whole-wheat flour and wheat berries were obtained from catalogs and markets in the Chicago area. Baby foods and "Junior' foods were also included in the study.

    Specimens were taken to Doctor's Data Laboratories, Inc. in West Chicago,IL for analysis of elemental concentrations. The method for sample preparation for the analysis of 38 elements is an open-vessel hot-plate acid digestion. A 0.4 gram specimen of food was weighed to ± .005 gr. A 1O ml mixture of ultra-pure nitric acid and perchloric acid in 3 to 2 ratio is heated with the sample until a clear liquid is obtained. Digested samples are diluted to a standard volume and analyzed on state-of-the-art instruments. Comparable specimens were always analyzed sequentially and often rerun to determine reproducibility of certain elements.

    Results are expressed as a comparison of the percentage of organic foods having more or less of each element as compared with the commercial foods. This is done to eliminate the influence of the matrix effect on the results. The matrix effect (caused by different viscosity, acidity and residue in the ashed specimen), of each food type must be studied to produce accurate numerical results. In this study, the matrices were not studied, so numerical results are not reported. Why so much difference when only minor differences have been noted before?

    First, many prior studies compare dry weight values. Nitrogen(2), jibberelic acid and other substances can increase moisture content of a food.

    Second, commercial and organic farming may have changed in the past few years since many studies have been done.

    Thirdly, post harvest handling may make a difference not addressed in most studies.

    Are the levels of elements in food important? The 1988 Surgeon General's report on nutrition states that nutrition can play a role in the prevention of such diseases as coronary heart disease, stroke, cancer and diabetes. Nutritional Influences on Illness(3) cites studies that have found low levels of elements correlate with many health conditions, citing many studies which show that supplementation of these elements can reduce symptoms.

    Examples include: alcoholism, allergy, cancer, candidiasis, cardiomyopathy, chronic fatigue syndrome, diabetes mellitus, fatigue, headache, hypertension, obesity, premenstrual syndrome, and rheumatoid arthritis to name a few. These studies do not directly prove causation but do document correlation. The elements found to reduce symptoms are the same elements found in this study at greater concentrations in organic food.

    The study has many limitations, but specimens taken over a two year period provided quite similar results. Despite the study's limitation, this suggests there are significant differences between organic and commercial food. The organic pears, apples, potatoes and wheat had, on an average, over 90% more of the nutritional elements than similar commercial food. The average difference is over 2.5 times.

    References:

    1.Hornick. Sharon B. Factors affecting the nutritional quality of crops. Am. J. Alternative Ag., Vol. 7. Nos. I & 2, 1992.
    2.Kumar, Vinod, W.S. Ahlawat, and R.S. Antil. 1985. Interactions nitrogen and zinc in pearl millet: Effect of nitrogen and zinc levels on dry matter yield and concentration and uptake of nitrogen and zinc in pearl millet. Soil Science 139:351-356.
    3.Werbach, Melvyn R. Nutritional Influences on Illness, 2nd Ed. 1993,Third Line Press, Tarzana, CA.

    <b>Now about genetically engineered bacteria and artificial low-calory sweeteners.</b>

    The FDA approved Aspartame is made by combining: 50% Phenylalanine produced by produced by <b>genetically engineered bacteria</b>, with 40% Aspartic Acid, and 10% Methyl alcohol.

    Aspartame can be found in: Foods, Beverages, Medications, and Food Supplements
    Medications include: Children's Tylenol, Coumadin, Dilantin, Inderal, Aldomet, Antidepressants, Insulin, and Lidocaine.

    Recent scientific research showed evidence of the following:

    Aspartame breaks down into methanol (wood alcohol).

    Methanol quickly converts into formaldehyde in the body.

    Formaldehyde gradually leads to severe damage to the neurological system, immune system and causes permanent genetic damage at extremely low doses.

    Methanol from alcoholic beverages and fruit and juices does not convert to formaldehyde and cause damage because there are protective chemicals in these beverages.

    Recent independent research in Europe demonstrated that ingestion of small amounts of aspartame leads to the accumulation of significant levels of formaldehyde (bound protein) in organs (liver, kidneys, brain) and tissues.

    Excitotoxic amino acids such as the one immediately released from aspartame likely increases the damage caused by the formaldehyde.

    The result: " Aspartame breaks down into methanol that quickly converts into formaldehyde which leads to severe damage to the neurological system, immune system and <b>causes permanent genetic damage</b> at extremely low doses. "

    References:

    National Health Institute
    http://www.nlm.nih.gov/
    MEDLINE
    http://www.medline.com/
    The Center for Behavioral Medicine, Northeastern Ohio University, College of Medicine.
    http://www.neoucom.edu/
    Donna F. Smith, CCN, ND

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    "Avoid all refined white sugar and artificial sweeteners.")
     
  13. Frencheneesz Amazing Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    739
    DRuGed:

    If you are going to give us links, give the links directly to where there is information that supports you. Do not just give random health web sites...

    "The organic pears, apples, potatoes and wheat had, on an average, over 90% more of the nutritional elements than similar commercial food. The average difference is over 2.5 times."

    That is bullshit, period. Organic shit sucks. Its small, usually much more rotten, and 3 times more expensive. Not all commercial foods that aren't organic are genetically engineered. There IS such thing as normal foods that happen to use pesticides. They are all over dipshit.

    Give us actuall citations bitch. The problem I have with you is that you are spreading completely false data around to people that might actually listen to you. IN OTHER WORDS YOU ARE STUPIFYING PEOPLE. Your rambling is not proof. Citations CAN be considered evidence to us. GIVE US THOSE.

    ARE YOU RELIGIOUS?
    ARE YOU RELIGIOUS?
    ARE YOU RELIGIOUS?
    ARE YOU RELIGIOUS?
    ARE YOU RELIGIOUS?
    ARE YOU RELIGIOUS?
    ARE YOU RELIGIOUS?
    ARE YOU RELIGIOUS?
    ARE YOU RELIGIOUS?
    ARE YOU RELIGIOUS?
    ARE YOU RELIGIOUS?
    ARE YOU RELIGIOUS?
    ARE YOU RELIGIOUS?
    ARE YOU RELIGIOUS?

    God damnit, you've ignored that one at least 5 times.
     
  14. chroot Crackpot killer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,350
    drg,

    Okay... I think we can all agree that Aspartame is bad news. I don't eat any of that stuff. It probably does cause odd biochemical problems.

    Aspartame, however, is not "artificial sugar." It's a totally different chemical. You understand this, correct?

    You made the claim that artificially-produced chemicals are different than naturally-produced chemicals. You've provided pages upon pages of interesting reading, but nothing that actually supports your claim.

    - Warren
     
  15. drg Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    46
    <i><b>chroot wrote:</i> You've provided pages upon pages of interesting reading, but nothing that actually supports your claim.</i>

    Please, just wait. I am waiting for other comments then I will continue.
     
  16. chroot Crackpot killer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,350
    I have no idea why you'd want me to wait.

    - Warren
     
  17. On Radioactive Waves lost in the continuum Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    985
    drg:

    your posts in this thread are becoming increasingly lengthy, probably the cut and past type.

    you still havnt answered chroot on his first post, in which he was simply asking you for the evidence. cant provide the evidence?

    and why all the b.s. about sachrin? that $hit was never intended for our bodies, is not sugar, and has no relavence to you question posed about sugar.

    if you have some relavent information, spit it out. i think you are just riding your own b.s. as long as you can, probably trying to look smarter on the way. you cant just learn all this stuff overnight. i didnt even bother reading your last two "cut and pasts"(posts) because i scaned them for relavent information to the subject, and you are just beating around the bush.
     
  18. drg Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    46
    Do not worry, please. Everything that you will read below is related to the subject (artificial/natural chemicals and aging, etc.).

    Fact is - photons have memory. Therefore, there are methods to change photons' behavior using … just special so called "information".
    In this way, a message encoded in photons of light can be transmitted from one place to another without sending the photons across the space in between. The University of Aarhus' Institute of Physics and Astronomy research involved "quantum entanglement", a mysterious method of entwining a number of particles without any physical contact.

    http://www.ifa.au.dk/
    1. Charles H. Bennett, Gilles Brassard, Claude Crepeau, Richard Jozsa, Ashes Peres, and William K. Wootters "Teleporting an Unknown Quantum State via Dual Classical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Channels. Published in Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1895 (March 29,1993
    2. Tony Sudbury, "Instant Teleportation", Nature vol.362, pp 586-587 (1993)
    3. Ivars Peterson, Science News, April 10, 1993, p. 229.
    4. If you have an access to closed info - you can read more at:
    http://vesta.physics.ucla.edu/~smolin/
    http://vesta.physics.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/uncompress_ps_cgi?papers/teleportation.ps

    There is such meaning as 'atomic memory' (Quantum Memory). For start you can read:

    "We have demonstrated experimentally that coherent optical information can be stored in an atomic medium and subsequently read out by using the effect of EIT in a magnetically trapped, cooled atom cloud. We have experimentally verified that the storage and read-out processes are controlled by stimulated photon transfers between two laser fields. Multiple read-outs can be achieved using a series of short coupling laser pulses. In Fig. 4a and b we show measurements of double and triple read-outs spaced by up to hundreds of microseconds. Each of the regenerated probe pulses contains part of the contents of the 'atomic memory', and for the parameters chosen, the memory is depleted after the second pulse and after the third pulse." …" By injection of multiple probe pulses into a Bose-Einstein condensate - where we expect that most atomic collisions are coherence-preserving-and with use of controlled atom-atom interactions, quantum information processing may be possible during the storage time."

    Nature 409, 490 - 493 (2001) © Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
    (read more references at the bottom).

    What do chemicals consist of? If even atoms and photons have memory, what doubts you have about the cell memory and memory of molecules? Or do cells and molecules have no atoms? Can you apply quantum mechanics principles, quantum information and metrology to allergy, cancer, aging etc.? May I say - no way? Can you explain why native chemicals do not interact with each other within the body (blood stream etc), but in vitro - they do it very fast? Why do native chemicals react in only certain places if they could do it everywhere? What are the force that keep them under control inside the body? According to the law of Quantum Physic special information the form of special field can be attached to any chemicals and this info can direct chemicals to the pointed target.
    The difference between artificial and natural chemicals is this marking code ('atomic memory'). Natural substances have specific 'atomic memory' that allows the body to recognize chemicals and direct them to the proper places.
    Artificial copies do not have specific 'atomic memory' about where they should go, therefore, they go everywhere including places where they are unwanted (this is the reason for side effects). Genetically altered food always has problems with specific 'atomic memory' (defects) and, therefore, it causes unpredictable damage to the chemical and I would say 'electrical' structure of the body. You have no idea how much!

    For example, can you explain why the suicide rate in the US for youngsters tripled since 1980? (A 2001 newsletter to Doctors for Disaster Preparedness). With allergy you still stocked up on the histamines (it means no cure), with your approach to aging - the maximum that you can do is create walking (on two legs) cancer and you badly want to accelerate destruction of humanity with artificial chemicals
    (everywhere) and genetically engineered food (everywhere).

    You even do not want to hear that all aforementioned problems can be resolved today with no side effects or adverse reactions with all the linked organic matter. The reason - you think if you never heard about it -
    thus, this is the proof that the solution is does not exist (because of you). Guys, you are very "smart".

    Read an example how can people talk about complicated issues:

    Matrioshka Brains:

    "What is life on Earth but a set of interactivity laws applied to a set of chosen molecules."
    http://www.arkania.org/~benzer/?p=32

    He is in one but big step from the level where he can get the answers to his questions.

    As you may understand, I knew from the beginning "the quantum multiplication table" in medicine (proven by many independent methods criteria). Therefore, I have no need to prove that my point of view ("quantum medicine") is the truth to anybody. I need something different for personal use.
    Anyway, I would like to tell you many thanks for your fighting with me. You helped me very much. So far this is the first public place where show this point (reach my goal).

    References:

    1. Harris, S. E. Electromagnetically induced transparency. Phys. Today 50, 36-42 (1997). | ISI |
    2. Scully, M. O. & Zubairy, M. S. Quantum Optics (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1997).
    3. Arimondo, E. in Progress in Optics (ed. Wolf, E.) 257-354 (Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 1996).
    4. Hau, L. V., Harris, S. E., Dutton, Z. & Behroozi, C. H. Light speed reduction to 17 metres per second in an ultracold atomic gas. Nature 397, 594-598 (1999). | Article | ISI |
    5. Kash, M. M. et al. Ultraslow group velocity and enhanced nonlinear optical effects in a coherently driven hot atomic gas. Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 5229-5232 (1999). | Article | ISI |
    6. Budker, D., Kimball, D. F., Rochester, S. M. & Yashchuk, V. V. Nonlinear magneto-optics and reduced group velocity of light in atomic vapor with slow ground state relaxation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1767-1770 (1999). | Article | ISI |
    7. Harris, S. E., Field, J. E. & Kasapi, A. Dispersive properties of electromagnetically induced transparency. Phys. Rev. A 46, R29-R32 (1992). | Article | PubMed | ISI |
    8. Grobe, R., Hioe, F. T. & Eberly, J. H. Formation of shape-preserving pulses in a nonlinear adiabatically integrable system. Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 3183-3186 (1994). | Article | PubMed | ISI |
    9. Xiao, M., Li, Y.-Q., Jin, S.-Z. & Gea-Banacloche, J. Measurement of dispersive properties of electromagnetically induced transparency in rubidium atoms. Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 666-669 (1995). | Article | PubMed | ISI |
    10. Kasapi, A., Jain, M., Yin, G. Y. & Harris, S. E. Electromagnetically induced transparency: propagation dynamics. Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 2447-2450 (1995). | Article | PubMed | ISI |
    11. Hau, L. V. et al. Near-resonant spatial images of confined Bose-Einstein condensates in a 4-Dee magnetic bottle. Phys. Rev. A 58, R54-R57 (1998). | Article | ISI |
    12. Fleischhauer, M. & Lukin, M. D. Dark-state polaritons in electromagnetically induced transparency. Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5094-5097 (2000). | Article | PubMed | ISI |
    13. Harris, S. E. Normal modes for electromagnetically induced transparency. Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 52-55 (1994). | Article | PubMed | ISI |
    14. Fleischhauer, M. & Manak, A. S. Propagation of laser pulses and coherent population transfer in dissipative three-level systems: An adiabatic dressed-state picture. Phys. Rev. A 54, 794-803 (1996). | Article | PubMed | ISI |
    15. DiVincenzo, D. P. The physical implementation of quantum computation. Preprint quant-ph/0002077 at http://xxx.lanl.gov; (2000).
    16. Orszag, M., Saavedra C. Phase fluctuations in a laser with atomic memory effects. Phys. Rev. A., 43, 554 (1991).
    17. H.-K Lo, S. Popescu, and T. Spiller, editors, Introduction to Quantum Computation and Information. World Scientific, Singapore, 1997
    18. Eugene Polzik Atomic Entanglement Created by Light: Towards Quantum Memory. Institute of Physics and Astronomy, Aarhus University, 8000, Denmark
    19. Ivan Deutsch Entangling Dipole-Dipole Interactions for Quantum Logic in Optical Lattices. Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, University of New Mexico
     
  19. chroot Crackpot killer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,350
    drg,

    You really disappoint me. You had me all prepared to learn something new, but instead all you offered was half-truth and opinion.

    Let's see now...

    Perhaps you just don't realize it, but this is an absolutely enormous leap of logic. You're trying to convince me that quantum entanglement imbues molecules with a memory. Mmm... sorry, but this is just your lack of education speaking.

    Photons do not have "memory." They have states. A photon can be in a cetrtain state -- say, left-polarized or right-polarized. The photon's state can then be altered by an interaction with some bit of matter. There is no memory of the previous state.

    Quantum entanglement is an extremely delicate phenomenon. Every interaction, every collision of atoms, will destroy any information about the last collision. The mathematics of quantum mechanics mandates this. Entanglement lasts only so long as no interactions occur, and are destroyed immediately when they do. Surely you understand the interaction timescales involved in liquids at room temperature?

    You've lept from A to Z, drg, and there's no evidence of B through Y. Sorry.
    This is a vague anecdote, not a step in a logical process. You'll have to be much more specific with us.
    Surely you believe that society has something to do with suicide rates? I'm sure the psychologists in the group can provide more detail, but an explanation of the suicide rate needs no appeal to a molecular memory of the chemicals produced in genetically altered foods. The suicide rate goes up and down over time -- always has, always will.
    This is a delusional and derisive attack, not a step in a logical process.
    Yes. We, the members of sciforums.com, are personally responsible for the downfall of all humanity.
    I read the first page or so, and saw at least nine or ten of my 'Steps to Become a Crackpot.' If these kind of people are your champions, you're in for a long life of idiocy and paranoia.

    drg, this is the bottom line: If you wish to prove to us that nutrients created by genetically altered foods are different than those produced by non-genetically altered foods, you will have to design an experiment that can accurately discern which is which. The truth is that no such experiment can be designed.

    - Warren
     
  20. drg Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    46
    Guys, I am not a social teacher to teach you things you do not know. This was an experiment. If you really want to know the truth - you have info where to start. But if you are just curious - forget about.

    Want to prove me wrong? I can talk with you if you know the basics of the issue (the only sense to talk). For example, if you know at least old outdated info about the topic - you can answer what does the below formula mean:

    v.o. = are identified
    v.b. = are not identified
    g.o. = are not identified
    g.b. = are not identified

    Clue: first letters means "virtual" and "gluon", however, those words could be replaced (that depends on a scientist, it is the same as 'atomic memory' can be replaced with 'quantum memory' but the meaning is the same)

    P.S. If the truth is opposite of what a person believes (like a religious man) - there are no facts to help him until he will try to understand it sincerely.
     
  21. chroot Crackpot killer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,350
    Vlad, baby, you'll have to stop talking in code if you want to talk at all.

    Maybe you should stick to nutraceuticals and Nostradamus doomsday predictions, "Dr. G."

    - Warren
     
  22. Frencheneesz Amazing Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    739
    "Fact is - photons have memory."

    That is in no way a fact. Only thinking things can use memory, therefore, even if photons did posses some kind of "memory", life at the DNA level has no intelligence.

    "If even atoms and photons have memory, what doubts you have about the cell memory and memory of molecules? "

    None. Yet I do have doubts about that conditional statment that the rest of that claim relys on.

    "For example, can you explain why the suicide rate in the US for youngsters tripled since 1980?"

    Society obviously sucks more than in 1980...

    You STILL have not answered my question, its starting to piss me off.

    ARE YOU RELIGIOUS?!!!!

    ANSWER IT!

    Are you saying that there is no genetic manipulation that could benifit humans? Are you saying that nature is already "perfect" for us? AND you are saying that, somehow, normal food CAN NOT affect DNA while genetically altered food CAN? Thats absurd.
     
  23. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,221
    drg you seem to believe that synthetic sweeteners like aspartame are 'artificial fructose.' This is incorrect; 'artificial fructose' is fructose that has been created synthetically from raw chemicals in a lab, rather than naturally by plants. It's important to keep in mind that artificial sweeteners like aspartame are not the same thing as artificial fructose. Natural and artificial fructose are indistinguishable from each other and effect the body in exactly the same way. Aspartame and fructose (whether natural or artificial) are obviously very different.
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2002
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page