Technology.

I decided that since I updated my other blog, I might as well update this one as well right? (Not like many read this, but to those who do I have one thing to say: hi!)

Have you ever pondered about normal tasks, such as talking with friends, and realize how much we depend on technology to allow our lives to function?  A simple click away, and we have the ability to speak with friends that are many miles away as if they were within close proximity.  We have the capacity to draw upon information made readily available on the internet, and even keep in contact with friends through social media sites.  But all benefits have a consequence; in this case, we diminish the values held by our predecessors who cherished face-to-face interactions, ultimately resulting in a the loss of intimacy found through communities. Unlike other posts, this will be opinionated and be my thoughts on the matter (which have been stewing in my brain for quite some time, so I believe I can adequately address the issue now). 

Face-to-face interactions were required for individuals to contact each other.  Much like it is viewed in nature, animals are viewed as social creatures.  Interactions that they have with other members of their species is not only beneficial for their populations (they have the capacity of moving in groups), it also nurtures the individual. How?  If you think about it, if a human baby is left in the middle of the forest without other humans to interact with it, what will happen?  For me, I immediately think of Mowgli from the Jungle Book.  But getting back to my main point, how is it that we understand what a human is? Is it the beings that share experiences similar to our own?  Perhaps it is the logic that another being has the capacity for? Maybe it can be simplified further: the physical nature of the being's similarity to us.  In any case, to find a being that is similar uncovers a nature that is more than likely found in most animals in existence.

The sense of belonging to a group has been inherent within most animals.   To associate themselves to another increases the capacity to think from a single mind to two.  Similarly the sharing of experiences will decreases the possibility of emotional stress since manifesting the problem is most always the first step.  But as we progress through the technological age, we are slowly losing the interactions which were beneficial in the older times.  Granted, convenience has replaced these interactions because it is much easier to video call a friend 30 miles away than driving to their house whenever you would like to speak with them.  But by relying heavily on technology for the interactions which are valued highly, we slowly lose our ability to speak with individuals and lose our sense of belonging.  Doing this increases the stress that we take upon ourselves which greatly afflict those without a family, or smaller families.  Granted the individuals may be strong-willed and have a great support network, but for those who do not have it, technology may be an infection to their lives. Technology replaces their interactions with others and also takes other forms asides from social media and chat rooms.   Video games are notorious for changing the actions of students and persons alike.  Sometimes individuals find themselves lost in games and use it as a form to replace the interactions they may have with others by interacting with characters in the games.  But this only helps the person so far, for they have a second life that they must tend to within society.  In the end, a society that relies solely on technology will be bound towards failure.  Replacing the interactions that have been the foundation for our species and next of kin alike will have a dramatic effect which we can only hope to be positive but I  believe otherwise.  By straying from face-to-face interactions we will not only put a greater stress upon ourselves, but we will also diminish one of the greater attributes to humans and animals: the capacity for emotions and empathy.

Cancer.

This has been an issue for quite some time now.  To summerize what cancer is, it is basically, to my understanding, cells that are growing out of control (prone to more mutations).  There are different categories of cancer, and typically cancer was generalized with death for there was nothing that could be used to treat it once it affected a person.  But due to modern medicine, treatments have been developed, but may prove not to be the best alternatives.  The current treatment of cancerous cells is to remove tumors from the body before they become a later-stage cancer (which are typically malignant).  Simple enough: if you cut the fuse before it touches the stick of dynamite, you have less of a chance of the explosive going off.  However, these plans are not fool-proof, and there could be multiple areas where there is a fantastic opportunity for cancer to grow, to which it may.  This is where route two is taken: chemotherapy.  This is the purposeful injection of a chemical into the body to target cells that are growing to rapidly, which is a pretty bad, but effective, way to "cure" cancer.  In doing so, not only are you killing off the rapidly dividing cells that comprise tumors/cancerous cells, you are also killing off the cells within your body that rely on rapid division (i.e. epithelial cells, bone cells, etc.).

Wow, I must break here since this is quite an old post that I hadn't published, nor finished for that matter.  Let me continue then.

Chemotherapy is dangerous since the same cells you want to kill may not be killed, instead you may kill off your Adult stem cells (i.e. bone marrow cells) which are needed to produce more cells.  This is one of the reason why it is so dangerous, since the very treatment used to help a person may in fact put them in a worse state than they had started with.  There are various methods to indicate the stage of the cancer, and where it is spread to (for example, thyroid cancer is very specific since iodine is needed to regulate thyroid hormone, so an iodine isotope will specifically target and treat the thyroid).   To address this, more research must be done on the mechanism for cell division, how is cell division different in stem cells opposed to somatic cells, how are stem cell divisions different from the method at which cancerous cells divide, are there specific mechanisms that can be deduced amongst the different forms of cancer, etc.  There must be something that we, as people, can do to solve this problem.  Granted, cancer is one of nature's mechanisms to prevent the possibility of overpopulation for the human species, however. humans are emotional beings.  If there is a possibility for us to save our loved ones, even if it is a slight chance, we have the capacity to rationally choose the correct pathway for both the family and the afflicted: but some do not.  Truthfully, not much is known about cancer, nor is a treatment viable for all forms.  However, in the coming days, there may be a person who will discover such a treatment, leading us a step closer towards advancing our future in the medical field.

-JuzoInspired

Virus.

It occurred to me, just the other day, that I hadn't written any text on viruses; despite the idea that I had a while ago.  But today I shall go into it, and hopefully this will help you ponder on some new ideas for the future. =]

Creepy smiley.  Alright, let's get started.  As many people know, viruses primarily consist of protein (in the form of a capsule containing genetic information), and the genetic information that it carries (whether it be single- or double-stranded DNA or RNA).  This is the absolute basic structure of a virus, neglecting all of the other components that comprise it, such as the tail, and so forth (I'm not writing the anatomy for a virus).  This being said, viruses are know to be strictly parasitic and relying solely on bacteriophages for replication of their genetic information (process: infect bacteriophage with genetic information, replicated in bacteriophage ---> creates more virus, and can either burst [known as virulent] or remain in host for replication and ejection without lyse [known as temperate]). What happens when a virus cannot infect and replicate its genetic materials?  Well, it cannot further "reproduce" to form more viruses.  Remember, viruses are not considered living organisms, but they rely on living organisms for replication.  Now, you may be wondering, to what end am I spewing all of this information for?  Well, viral genetic information is different from genetic information that a specific organism is comprised of.  Imagine comparing a human's DNA with a virus'.  Since both were not of the same origin, you can assume (most of the time) that there will be a significant difference between the two.  In fact, some genetic material transferred by viruses is in the form of short-lived RNA which is reverse transcribed into DNA (AIDS does this), further adding to the point I am trying to make; In most cases, viral DNA is not the same as the DNA you were born with.  There is a way to fix this, although it may seem impossible now, given the technologies we currently have and this type of procedure may lead to the extinction of our species if used improperly, which is through a type of therapy that targets the removal of this foreign DNA.  As you know, DNA undergoes mitosis which is supervised by many proteins that which eventually leads to the formation of identical daughter cells.  What we want to focus on, is the activities in the S-phase of Interphase (notably the period that deals with the replication of DNA).  DNA replication is practically due to DNA polymerase, which matches nucleotides based on the original strand that acts as a template for the new strand DNA polymerase is trying to replicate.  That being said, we now have two strands which are practically identical in genetic sequencing; there are rarely ever any mistakes when replicating DNA aside from mutations, which are rare without external stimuli.  Now what if we were to create, or modify, a protein that "proofreads" DNA, more than it does now, such that DNA that does not sync with genes/exons from the original DNA that we are comprised of are destroyed, it would be a step closer towards getting rid of viruses.  To do so, here is one of my theories: a protein is formed via translation of mRNA, so if we understand how DNA polymerase functions then we can form an "artificial DNA polymerase" to experiment with to see if we can selectively change its behavior.  This newly formed polymerase will proofread the entire strand to see if it is complimentary to one of the 23 chromosomes found in a person's genome, removing nucloeotides that do not match the template and replacing them with what is suppose to be there.  In my mind, I see it as a knotted rope.  You glide your hand (the new DNA polymerase) along the rope until you reach a knot, then you un-knot the rope and continue.  Similarly, this will decrease (if even possible) the rate of mutations, possibly reducing the risk of serious conditions such as mutations of exons which are used to code for proteins.  If not possible to create the new protein, then maybe a therapy that has the 23 chromosome pairs on file and targets cells with mutations, and signals them for apoptosis to reduce mitosis of these particular chromosomes.  But then we would reach the problem where if viral DNA like HIV were to enter the nucleus, but not be a part of the original genome would pose a problem since the therapy would also target these cells.  However, if we were to differentiate between polyploidy (or extra chromosomes that are not suppose to be there), then the therapy could possibly "delete" these strands of DNA such that it reflects the original genome of 23 pairs of chromosomes.

But a decrease in mutations also means that persons will be genetically stagnant.  There will be less of a chance for natural selection to take hold through mutations, so if a certain disease affects one, it may affect all of use which may wipe us out.  That would be a downside to this plan, but another is if the polymerase attacks mitochonrial DNA.  Mitochondrial DNA is inherited maternally, and replicated via binary fission; but it still has its own separate DNA.  If the therapy/polymerase attack these, then it would affect cells by decreasing the amount of energy produced through cellular respiration, and eventually lead to the death of the cell.  So theoretically, this therapy will know the "basic genome of normal cells within a person."  With that, it will be able to isolate the genetic information by viruses and hopefully help people live normal lives.  Sorry, I am really tired right now and don't feel like writing anymore even though I was suppose to further explain my thoughts, and link it to how it would affect cancer but I believe that will have to wait until another time.  But until next time, have fun thinking!

-JuzoInspired

Magnetic Force.

New Blog \(^.^)/
Well based on my reaction above, I highly doubt anyone will take this blog seriously; granted they take the time to read it, let alone find it. I chose to write in here for two reasons: one, I need a vice from all the studying I have been doing; and two, I haven't written in here for a while so I will jot down some of the things I have thought about since my last posting.  For starters, let us look into the idea of a better methods on getting into space.  I am no "rocket scientist," nor do I believe I will ever be able to achieve the mathematical skills that individuals in the fields of Astronomy and Physics because I will spend my time studying medicine, and frankly, I hate math.  Aside from that, the current method used to get into space is by using "rocket fuel" to propel the rocket along the rotation of Earth in an upward trajectory to escape the gravitational forces exerted on the rocket (uses less fuel, rather than purposely fighting against air resistance and blah blah).  I know I simplified it a ton, and I may be wrong, but this is just a general overview to propose what I am thinking/what is being developed currently.

Among the forces of nature that exist, gravitational force is one of the weakest.  One of the stronger forces is actually electromagnetic forces, which account for many of the interactions that we perceive to be everyday occurrences; One of the better examples being friction.  When you slide a box across the floor, the friction can be thought of the interaction between the electromagnetic forces between the two objects (floor and box), which inhibits the movement of the object.  This got me into thinking about a different method of transportation via magnetic or electrical forces, both of which are capable of inducing a push-pull mechanism based on their polarity.  [Right now I will apologize if a lot of what I write doesn't make sense, I am currently writing this half-asleep]  Assuming that we can make a magnetic body capable of orbiting Earth without being attracted towards it (If it were attracted, it would result in a huge object plummeting towards Earth's surface due to the attraction), We may be able to utilize the magnetic pull created between the interaction from the rocket to the magnetic. Of course this would require a higher elevation for the rocket such that the magnetic pull from the rocket is greater than the pull that is exerted by Earth, and there needs to be a method to overcome the gravitational acceleration exerted on the rocket.  There may be a way to do this. Assuming that this situation takes into account that the pull of the rocket due to the magnet does not entirely result with the displacement of the magnet from its original position, which would affect the magnetic force between the magnet and Earth (strengthening it since force increases as distance between the two objects decreases), an increase in the polarity of the magnet as a function of distance may work.  Beginning as an object not polarized, the rocket remains at rest since no outside forces are working on the system aside from gravitational force.  Now, when the rocket is polarized and the magnetic force creates a pull on the rocket in an upward direction, the net forces working on the system (Newton's 2nd law) now are gravitational force as weight, and the magnetic force upward due to the attraction to the magnet.  When the gravitational force is overcome (assuming all other forces are negligible), the rocket will begin to accelerate upward since the gravitational force on an object decreases with altitude due to the decrease in gravitational acceleration.  This alone will not lead to the propulsion of the rocket into space, since the rocket will be moving rather slowly.  That is why I suggested the magnetic polarity of the rocket increases as a function of altitude. As gravitational acceleration towards Earth decreases with altitude, the increase in the polarity of the magnet on the rocket increases the attraction between the magnet in space and the rocket, thus moving the rocket upward faster. Approaching the magnet, the magnet on the rocket increases in magnitude creating a stronger force between the two objects which creates a velocity larger in magnitude.  Just as the rocket is about to collide into the magnet, we can shut off the magnet which will decrease the attraction between the rocket and the magnet, as well as providing the rocket with a a velocity which is large in magnitude. Try and experiment it with a large, strong magnet and a smaller magnet, and see what happens between the two as the distance decreases.  You will find that the magnet speeds up exponentially due to the increase in the magnetic pull as the distance becomes smaller and smaller (this is as a function of the inverse fraction of the original radius squared). Now we also need to assume that the rocket does not become magnetized since it is made of metal, and magnets tend to polarize metallic objects.  If it is possible, then this would be an alternative to using chemical fuels to propel rockets from the surface of Earth (which is where the bulk of rocket fuel is used).  Since the rocket is now in space, it needs constant force applied in order to move forward due to the rocket's collision with particles in space  or it will stop.  But I'm too tired to write down the ideas I had for that since I am tired and want to write about something else.

Last thing I'll write for tonight is the formulation of a renewable energy source.  Right now, there are solar panels that convert electromagnetic radiation from the sun, which is converted by solar cells into a form of energy which can be used as electricity. We also have hydroelectric systems, which include the wheel which converts the push of water molecules in a river into energy, and the energy from waves into a form of energy we can use.  Then there is also wind turbines that use the energy from wind to spin the turbines, which act similarly to the wheel in the river, to convert wind energy into mechanical energy that we can use.  Lastly is nuclear energy, but I don't want to write about since it would take too long and I am tired.  My idea is that we can use a form of renewable energy the mirrors the Kreb's cycle/Electron transport chain, in that energy is input to yield more energy output.  Think of it like a ball starting at the top of the machine, and as it rolls down, its force is transferred from the ball to collide with a button that compresses a spring (there is a "trap door" near the button, with a spring that compresses when the force due to gravity overcomes the upward force of the spring, which allows the ball to go down so that it can begin the cycle again).  The potential energy within the spring can be converted into mechanical energy, and part of it can used to begin the cycle again by moving the ball to the top of the machine again via a conveyor belt. For one that mirrors the electron transport, it is much like the same mechanism, but there is more than one, and the ball rotates the wheel. Just one of my thoughts.  Too tired to write, logging off.

-JI

The Universe.

Sorry for such a late update!  So today, I looked into the sky and began thinking more about the Universe and all that it may hold.  Now, I had recently read-up more on Stephen Hawking (interest grasped me when I was reading up on Lou Gehrig's disease and other neurological-degenerative disorders.  I'm a medical nerd).  He's a figure that I associate with Einstein, in that he is one who only focuses on the sciences.  Well I was right, but only partially.  Bottom-line: his theories and work in revealing the constructs of the Universe and astronomical physics has got me to pondering about what the Universe actually is.  Hawking noted skepticism with contacting aliens, and I hold a similar mindset in that if one were to get into contact with aliens (i.e. they come to our planet), then it would mirror what happened when Columbus came to America.  That is not to say that we will be always able to avoid contact with aliens, but given the probability of different factors that take into account the chances of an alien coming in contact with Earth (or planets that harbor, what we consider to be, Homo sapiens), it will be much like the proverbial rattlesnake: don't poke the snake with a stick, and most likely, the snake will not bother you.  One must think that with the development of different technologies that aliens may also seek other life forms to come in contact with, to which I would say you may be right.  Right in the case that we cannot dismiss aliens as being an inferior race due to their lack of rational thinking, for it would then require our knowledge of what an alien is.  Basing evidence of what we define aliens to be, without having come in contact with one we believe to be an extraterrestrial, we base our impulses off of creatures that do not have the capacity for rational thought: much like comparing aliens to animals.  But this may not be the case for aliens, since it can also be assumed that it is within a certain probability that aliens themselves are also capable for rational thinking.  Saying so, aliens may also have come across the situations that other life forms may exist on other planets within the said Universe, to which they may also have the same predisposition that those life forms are inferior for they lack a rational capacity for thought.  But, as Homo sapiens, we clearly see ourselves, for the most part, to be rational beings.  Saying as much, if aliens were to come to Earth, a mere language barrier may be what serves as this main discrimination towards the lack of rational thought.  Does this mean we can assume that aliens are inferior to ourselves? No.  My first assumption would be to say that aliens are equal to humans, but that may be incorrect in itself.  Basing on different aspects within species, there exists portions where one species may have an edge over another, based on Darwinian thought of natural selection.  To which, the difference between Homo sapiens and what we consider to be aliens, may in fact be differences determined by natural selection based on environments that may be entirely different.

Now, Hawking noted that the main difference that may have arisen between animals that exist on Earth, and humans, was the capacity for imagination, which may have lead to the foundations of rational thought.  Looking at the size of the Universe (to which if you are actually able to come up with a quantitative answer to that question, I would require you to prove it.  For even I believe that the size of the Universe is without measure, based on the limitations of what we perceive as the visible universe, constrained by the fact that the speed of light is, for the most part, fixed at a particular speed, given the medium it travels through.  Ergo, proof of parts of the Universe is limited by the rate at which we are able to perceive it; geometry would tell us that the optimal shape of this is a sphere for the rate of expansion of the shape is equal on all points of the surface [again, that is assuming that light travels through a fixed medium, which we can approximate the overall shape being that of a sphere]), I can understand how the visible parts expand as a function of a spherical shape based on parts of my intelligence pertaining to visual-spatial intelligence, but among an innumerable amount of planets and galaxies, it is more than likely that a form of life exists on one of them.  This does not take into account the fact as to whether there are rational beings on any one of those other planets or galaxies, but if we assume that the laws of natural selection apply as one of the laws of the Universe, and that development of life follows the laws of natural selection, then it is probable to assume that other rational forms exist as well.  As such, it is my assumption that aliens are in fact rational beings, despite the possibility of their inability to communicate with Homo sapiens, in the event that contact is ever established.  Now, what is the probability of aliens ever coming in contact with us?  If it is ever through telecommunication, we would first need to factor in the different types of communication, the type they will use to establish communication, probability that they will attempt communication, probability of being in the same galaxy, let alone solar system, to use the form of communication, and so forth.  This leads to, what would seem to be, a relatively small chance of this contact ever happening.  To say that physical contact is to occur between aliens and Homo sapiens, the chances of this drop more, for it takes into account all the above, also the time-frame at which the aliens attempt to contact us (the sun is theorized to have a semi-fixed lifespan, not going to write about it on here), chances of having enough fuel to reach Earth, etcetera. That being said, I doubt we'll ever have extraterrestrial contact, unless we go out of our way to seek it.

But back to one of the first problems addressed, if aliens were to come to Earth, there is a chance that Homo sapiens may be completely, and utterly annihilated.  Much like introducing a new disease into a population (I'll use the example of the Irish and their potato famine), if the population holds no resistance to the disease, then most of the population will be susceptible to the disease and may be destroyed.  However, upon this experience, there may be individuals who are able to develop some form of resistance to the disease, but damage will have been done already.  We will not know the extent of the disease, whether it is only localized to humans; it may also affect animals, plants, microorganisms, etcetera.  So even if humans do survive with disease-resistance, that does not mean they will survive since the disease may also exhibit natural selection as a form of bacteria, capable of multiple generations within a short period of time, ultimately leading to no substantial cure to the disease.  Now, you must be thinking, why not develop antibiotics?  Similar to bacterial diseases now, it is not completely effective towards the eradication of bacteria for bacteria will develop resistance as well, and new versions of the antibiotic must be developed, only to repeat the never-ending cycle.  So, this may paint what demise may look like if this event does occur with physical alien contact.  There are many other factors that pose risk in this situation, but I won't address them for now.  But there is also no way of telling that the opposite situation may occur as well, where aliens are the ones who get sick, or if nothing happens at all.


**I will differentiate between universe and Universe.  Keep this in mind.


A lot of these must take into account that the outcomes that will result are based on, what many refer to, a notion that there exists multiple outcomes at a specific time/scenario, and that the resulting outcome that occurs is selected and expressed in the form of a timeline.  But one must realize that for every action taken, outcomes are not limited by a quantitative amount, for there is divergence within each action that produces multiple pathways towards the multiple results (i.e. drink water = choking, satisfaction, continuing to drink while thinking of drinking, drinking and thinking about food, and so forth).  In a nutshell, this is much like the Many-worlds interpretation, where it is believed there exists multiple realities based on the different pathways (as described above).  One can think of this as being much like parallel universes, but we take an internal view towards it (we only think about ourselves, and do not think about the possibility of other factors that may diverge results in parallel universes).  The amount of possibilities, again, are innumerable for there is no way to possibly account for every action and occurrence that can happen at a particular moment.  In short, at the time of less than what can be imaginable as the smallest amount time (imagine much of a snapshot, for time has completely ceased at the moment a picture is taken), there are an infinite [that term is used loosely for infinity itself is viewed as a number beyond measure, but I am skeptical to constitute it as a number for it is a symbol for a shape that has has no end when you start at a point on the shape] amount of factors that can change which may or may not change the outcome of the next moment, which if we were to apply a numerical value here, would differ by the smallest amount of time imaginable by 1 (i.e. if it were to be 1 ns, then the next moment would be 2 ns; although, it is already known that there are smaller measures than nano, for example pico-).  To which a new set of innumerable possibilities will result, based on the outcomes of the previous moment, resulting in an infinite amount of outcomes. The amount is quite unimaginable, for the magnitude of outcomes is almost equal to the amount of possibilities; given the assumption that each change in a possibility in combination with other possibilities either kept constant or changed, will always yield a different result.  With that, we can see how, if there were parallel universes that existed, it would in fact be bound by the above construct where life can be similar to how it is on Earth, only varying as a function of multiple different actions taken at a particular moment, leading to different results.

In this case, if it were true, I would think that it does not exist as a separate dimension or universe (although those are possible and valid assumptions, based on the idea that organization of the different outcomes and possibilities that can occur based on small changes [the scale of one possibility within a moment] would be easier).  However, I would like to take a different pathway and assume that the observable Universe is a small portion of what the Universe actually is.  The assumption that the center of the visible portion of the Universe is our solar system, to which comparing the size of Earth with Betelgeuse shows the clearly evident difference in sizes, let us assume that our solar system is merely a point within the spherical Universe (the edges of the Universe to produce the optimal spherical shape is actually non-existent for I use the sphere to merely show that the Universe has bounds for easier visualization [I do not believe there exist bounds to the Universe, for it is something without measure]).  Within the sphere of the Universe, lies our solar system which has a sphere around it which we know to be the visible Universe (picture sucks, but this is sort of how I imagine it, although the circle can be at any point within the Universe's circle).

Now, the sphere of the Universe is vastly larger than the sphere inside the larger circle meant to represent the sphere of the visible Universe, as well as the small circle expanding at a slower rate than the larger circle due to the limited rate of visibility based on the speed of light.  The sphere of the Universe is not limited by the constraints of light, and as such, expands at a much quicker rate than does the sphere of our visible Universe.  As such, this is why I say the bounds of the Universe do not exist to form an optimal spherical shape, for the spherical shape applies mainly to the optimization of equal distribution of expansion for visibility of current methods of viewing the horizons of the Universe (also it is not constrained by other factors, such as gravity's effects on photons, speed of light differentiation through different mediums, reflection and refraction of wavelengths of light, etcetera).  If "parallel universes" do exist, in which our different actions yield different outcomes in different dimensions/universes, I would propose that it does not do it in the scope that it occurs within separate universes, but in fact occurs on different astronomical bodies.  In this context, parallel universe does not refer to the scifi that everyone wants to believe.  I use the definition universe in parallel universe in the terms of thermodynamics: a universe consists of a system and its surroundings, where the system is observed, and the surroundings are everything else.  In those terms, the solar system is what we observe in terms of what we designate as the surroundings to the solar system; i.e. everything else observable around the solar system as the horizons of the visible Universe that we know.  However, this itself leads to a new definition of what a universe is for the observable system is now the visible Universe that we know, while the parts we cannot see beyond the visible Universe serves as the surroundings, to lead to the larger definition of what the Universe is.  But let us take a step back from that, and focus on the solar system definition of universe.  Taking that a step further and applying it to, what I believe to be, parallel universes in the form of celestial bodies [different planets in other galaxies or systems], we can now assume that those inhabited by our "parallel universe" selves are similar to us in visualization of the Universe.  As such, now there are different points within the sphere of the Universe that expand at the rate of a sphere constrained by the speed of light, such that now there may exist different visible Universes within the Universe that are not overlapping, hence multiple visible Universes based on the definition provided by thermodynamics.  Now parallel, in my definition of parallel universe, notes the linear-nature of the function of time.  All these universes as described above look much like this.

Except, there are no bounds for these inner spheres known as the visible Universes of the different universes present in terms of the different systems by which is observing the Universe. Also, the large circle is not constraining the small spheres for it is the bounds of the Universe, and is ever-expanding at a faster rate than the visible Universes (as above).  Now, applying that each one of these systems which are seen as a sphere is occupying different points within the space of the Universe, this notes that all of them are occurring at the same notion of time (Our notion of time is as a fixed construct as a function of the apparent speed of rotation around the sun, to which the definition of time for these other systems may be different if in comparison with our own.  However, basing this idea off of the assumption that time is fixed for all portions of the Universe, then all parts of the Universe are subject to the same rate of elapsing, although this rate will most likely never be known).  This is what may lead to the theory of a parallel universe, in that there may exist different points in the Universe that are most completely similar to how life is set-up on Earth, however they simply differ as a function of the rates of changes between moments.  That is sort of how I visualize what a parallel universe is: simply different points within the Universe that may be subject to different laws of physics based on environment, or the above described situation.  In short, a parallel universe may not in fact be the same space that is occupied within a particular universe, but in fact different spaces that are occupied within the same period of time.

But all of the above is in the case that parallel universes do exist, to which they may or may not.  Since there is no conclusive evidence to show that the above is true or not true, I assume that within the varying possibilities of the Universe, there may exist at least one parallel universe that follows the constructs that I have outlined above, similar to the assumption that rational life forms exist beyond Earth.  But again, these are simply theories and until they can be proven, will remain that way.

Sorry for the long post, but hopefully this will suffice for the amount of time I was gone.  I will most likely talk about the Universe in some later posts, as I develop a better understanding of it, and I will attempt to touch black holes and dark matter in later posts, to voice what my opinions are of it.



***There may be points in this post that are not accurate, and I am sorry if I mixed up some parts of it, or had gotten them incorrect.  Please, correct me if I am wrong.

Semantics.

What makes "Communism" such a bad idea?  Well you may begin by referring to the use of communism in different countries as a means for government, associating it with the red communistic USSR and its propaganda, and unfortunately there were some bad cases that arose.  Primarily due to the fact, I believe, of greed amongst those in power.  Any one person will say that once given power, they will not in turn become like the dictator of another country for they are considered to be the "bad example" of what a ruler should be like.  However, there are many problems with this assertion.  For one, it is within human nature to focus on the negative outcomes of events as opposed to the positive for it refers to our awareness of Murphy's law: what can go wrong, shall go wrong at the most inconvenient time.  As such, focusing on what can be categorized as things going wrong is beneficial to the individual attempting to partake in such an endeavor for they will at least be aware of what can go wrong, and how to avoid that possible outcome.  Using the "bad example" dictator as the model of what not to be for a communistic leader, this alters the standard from being absolutely "communist" in its inception, to  simply not being as bad as the previous leader. Now I know what you are thinking (not really, but that statement was rhetorical). If you follow this process, at the end, you will yield a leader who is good in them of themselves, and completely altruistic towards their neighbors and fellow communists.  This never happens. One of the reason why is that it is within human nature to have a preference towards greed.  Even the most altruistic person is greedy.  Not in the sense you may be thinking of, but for some, altruism itself is greedy due to motives: the motive/duty to give back to a community based on obligations towards others, or, as in Elements of Moral Philosophy (Rachels) touched upon, the act of altruism is motivated by pity for another or to satisfy one's self.  What if someone donated money, just to donate money for charity?  From hindsight, it seems as if the act is, in it of itself, beneficent for the act of philanthropy is to give to others solely based on care for others.  But is this the central motivation that drives a person to "give back" to one's community?  There are other underlying factors that may not be made completely obvious.  Think about it, until telepathy is established in humans, we will never know what drives a person to act in a way that they do.  This includes that the person may have wanted to donate for the purpose of boosting their image so that they are seen as being superior to others who are less caring towards those who need help.  It can also be the case that one pities others in third-world countries for they are seen as less-fortunate than us, and in turn it is our responsibility to help them out for we have the ability to do so.  Or it could simply be the case that a community is on the brink of death by starvation and the only way to save them is to send money so they can buy food for their community, by which it will easy the philanthropists conscious if they in fact donate money instead of letting the community die when they in fact had a chance to do something about it. 

To keep it short, although ethics is almost never short, there are various motivations for why people partake in philanthropy and know that there are instances where what may seem as pure intentions, may have an underlying reason.  Not to diminish the fact that the act may be, in it of itself, a selfless act with no other intentions whatsoever.  This sort of outlines and sets up reasons why communism does not work all that well.  It's a rather simple idea, really.  Everyone does something, gives back to the community, and the community flourishes.  But what weighs tasks in terms of equality for all those within the community?  That is to say, in a communistic community, the work of a doctor is equal to that of one who is a janitor.  Hindsight tells us that there is clearly a difference, for growing up in a Capitalistic society we view doctors as being more important for they are the ones who have the ability to treat and save lives, while janitors only clean up trash.  But if you really think about it, a doctor is only as great as the conditions he is given to work in.  Each contributes towards the work of the other.  The doctor creates mess, the janitor cleans up the messy area.  With this simple outlook, both seem equally important.  But then the idea of workload enters the equation and asks that if a janitor works harder than a doctor who is private practice, meaning the janitor not only has to work more hours, but is also verbally abused if they do not finish cleaning on a timeline, or has to scrub for hours to get stains off the walls, does the workload equal for the two professions?  Similarly, comparing a janitor with a lifeguard, are the two professions equal?  One of the main reasons communism doesn't work is this notion of equality, for some people view their tasks as being more important or more work-intensive than others, which leads to this sense of unfairness.  Another is greed, as I mentioned earlier.  Greed is a horrible trait that humans have, for we are, by nature, drawn towards having ownership of things.  If you own anything, then you fall under this category.  Once we are comfortable, then we begin to give excess supplies away for we are able to do so, meaning that until the community reaches a state of equilibrium, there will be a competition of resources and a lack of generosity amongst those who live in that community.  Which brings up the position of power, where those who are in power have priority to resources if there is no abundance.  As such, greed takes over so that those in power can reach a state where they are comfortable.  But this most never happens, since innovations will never cease to exist.  As such, there will always be items that will be created and discovered that the ones in power do not have, and if they want it, they are given the power to get it, despite disregarding those who are suffering in the environment where resources lack. 

This is an abnormally long post, and I will not really draw it out much longer but I lightly touched on the ideas as to why communism does not work. There will be those who are greedy, and those who wish only for power and will not give up the position of power they hold that has the ability to fuel their greed.  I realized that there is a fine line that exists and outlines the differences between communism and a dictatorship: communism relies on the power of a LEADER, while a dictatorship has a DICTATOR.  Going off of general definitions, if you have an individual unwilling to give up their power and use it solely for their benefits and those whom they deem to receive the benefits, that is a dictatorship.  But like Jesus (you can choose to believe him or not, I have no preference and am open to both opinions since I am not that in touch with religion), there is a difference between what a King is, and what a Leader is; hence why Jesus abhorred the name "King of Kings" and "Messiah," for I believe that it was his thought that he did not see himself as a king, but he saw himself as a leader.  In that respect, really quick overview, Jesus was primarily in dirty clothes much like commoners, held no money for that associated with empire and he wanted to be equal with his fellow commoners, and he walked by foot. Sorry this is so long, but this is my final point: a Leader is one who guides and allows for people to decided on their own whether they wish to follow a certain system or not, whereas a King is one who forces upon followers his ideals and makes everyone his "bitch" basically for he is seen to have the right to all lives in the empire/kingdom by birth (and him being the closest entity to a deity is a factor).  Communism will only work as long as it has leaders to guide those under the system but once a king/ruler comes into the once-communistic system, it changes to a dictatorship.

-JuzoInspired

(PS Since this is primarily on politics, I will post another entry later today about a scientific revelation I have had LOL)

Lost.

Well, like I had said on my other blog, there are issues here that need be discussed in the realm of the universe.  But that time is not now.  For one cannot imagine the vast universe in terms of what he may see, or what he may think to see; ultimately, leading to the reality that begs the question, will we truly see the universe as an object with bounds?  Or is it, in its self, outside of the bounds that we choose to turn to in order to constrain it such that our Homo sapien brains can comprehend such a limitless object?  Much like black holes (Not confirmed to exist, nor can its existence be refuted), can our minds understand the composition and mechanism of such a thing?  Most likely.  Much like Einstein and his stumble into the realm of Relativity, humans are always bound for flourishing.  That is not to say that it may happen in any of our lifetimes, or even in a language we can understand.  All I can say is that one day, it will happen.  A simple mistake can actually turn into the answer to such questions (i.e. Newton and the apple, discovery of penicillin). Again, I am merely a student interested in medicine but one must wonder, especially in a broader sense, what are the answers to problems that we currently have and to the ones that we have not yet found? A lot is dependent on the effort you put forth towards what you are interested in.  As for me, I am interested in physics and astronomy, but even all the time I have within my hourglass is still not enough to even begin to scratch the surface that encompasses these two subjects.  Not that I am going to give up from the get-go, but just realize that many discoveries in science were made with the help of others in collaboration; I may not have others interested in what I would like to look into, much like how many people read this blog.  Collaboration not only allows different/challenging perspectives, but it also allows people to open their mind to different possibilities and for that, you enter a new realm that few people ever venture into: the realm of divergency.