|Sacred Cows||Alignments||Summer School||Lovelock+AGW||"AGW"+NASA||New Science|
|AGW+BigMoney||Moon and Venus||GM Ignorance||Summer School||Sea-grass?||EARLIER|
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 12:36:00 +0100
Subject: Magnetic field weakening (Pole-shift) / Cosmic radiation / Planetary warming
Seems nobody's joining-up the dots. We _know_ that all the planets are warming up, including Earth. We _should_ be looking to the Sun for the cause of the warming - either directly or by the effects of its magnetic field weakening and therefore cosmic radiation increasing into the Solar System.
Some _real_ evidence here:
C.E.R.N GAGGING ORDER - 2011: Svensmark's Cosmic Ray Correlations
"1100 years correlation of Temps + Cosmic Rays"
"The CLOUD experiment builds on earlier experiments by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark, who demonstrated that cosmic rays provide a seed for clouds. Tiny changes in the earth's cloud cover could account for variations in temperature of several degrees. The amount of Ultra Fine Condensation Nuclei (UFCN) material depends on the quantity of the background drizzle of rays, which varies depending on the strength of the sun's magnetic field and the strength of the Earth's magnetic field."
Are the scientists making the obvious conclusions? No - for the most part they're obeying the politicans' party-line - and the politicos want/need a rip-off based on the false claim that it's all down to CO2 generated by humans.
[i.e. - AGW = anthropogenic global warming].
Here's latest news items which, just by themselves should make the situation clear: i) magnetic field weakening; ii) cosmic radiation increasing; ii) general warming in the Solar System:
ESA EURONEWS: MEASURING EARTH'S VITAL MAGNETIC FIELD [w/short video - 12 mins]
Earth-observation satellites collect crucial data
"Our climate is in transition - for the worse."
BTW - more real evidence - RD
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 17:09:16 +0100
dissident scientists list
The associated engineers of Jean de Climont associates Ltd have just completed the updating of their dissident scientists list.
It incudes nearly 7000 names. It is now presented in the form of a directory. It includes for each scientist the home page, the category, some key words related to his position. There are also categories intended for easy searching of main topics.
You may consult the list (HTML format) within our home page.
The directory is also available within Google Books reference :
Our list has not the same objective as NPA-World SCI (gigantic database including papers), Ekkehard Friebe (database including papers), and Dr. Gertrude Walton (lists of critics). We don't intend to challenge these databases. We are not publisher of papers either. There are some with a fully opened mind such as Galilean Electrodynamics , General Science Journal (formerly Walter Babin) and Physics Essays.
Our objective is to give a general overview of the dissidence allowing for obtaining a statistical approach which is the basis of our book `The failure of pure science'.
The first part of this book is devoted to the main critics of the mainstream paradigm; the second part presents some explanation of the main alternative paradigms available in the Internet. We found 738 detailed presentations of systems of the world. There are nor two identical neither even similar!
A list of the main experiments involved is also included with some explanations.
Yours very truly
Jean de Climont
for the associated engineers
Jean probably sent that here after reading some of the UEF Papers.
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 07:26:26 +0100
Subject: The Reg (and NASA) reports F-T-L work ongoing
the NASA update below goes into the `time-travel paradox' which some people say forbids F-T-L travel, but that's only if `Relativity' is all true (personally don't think it is). I.e. Relativity says that time is only local so FTL travel would also mean time-travel - and so is impossible.
However, Quantum-theory says that time is absolute and ticks along everywhere in the Universe, so no matter how fast you travel you can't get somewhere before you left somewhere else.
NASA working on faster-than-light drive capable of WARP TEN
Warp Drive, When? - Status of Warp Drive
BTW - we've seen this controversy argued before - last year at
www.ufoupdateslist.com/2011/sep/m28-003.shtmll and even earlier at
in-site argument - RD
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 08:48:06 +0100
Subject: Why does Big Government push & promote (probable) Fake Science
The final paragraph raises questions which have troubled some folk for a while (concerning science-secrecy and the apparent dead-end in Physics over the last few decades). - Ray
Modern Cosmology: Science or Folk Tale?
Tue Oct 23 08:02:50 2007 Pacific Time
British Professor Elegantly Questions Validity of Cold Dark Matter Hypothesis
LOS ALTOS HILLS, Calif., Oct. 23
The September-October 2007 issue, Volume 95, of the American Scientist magazine, published a remarkable article by Michael J. Disney, an emeritus professor in the School of Physics and Astronomy at Cardiff University in the UK. The article fully lives up to its title, "Modern Cosmology: Science or Folk Tale?"
Professor Disney uses Big Bang cosmology as the basis for his thesis and shows that the accepted mainstream Big Bang cosmology relies on too few astronomical observations and too many hypotheses to be considered "science".
In the article he sometimes uses the term "free parameters" as a synonym for the word "hypotheses."
Professor Disney's negative opinion of the Cold Dark Matter (CDM) hypothesis in Big Bang cosmology is described in the following two paragraphs quoted from his article.
The Significance of Cosmology
"The currently fashionable concordance model of cosmology (also known to the cognoscenti as 'Lambda-Cold Dark Matter,' or 'LambdaCDM') has 18 parameters, 17 of which are independent. Thirteen of these parameters are well fitted to the observational data; the other four remain floating. This situation is very far from healthy. Any theory with more free parameters [hypotheses] than relevant [astronomical] observations has little to recommend it.
Cosmology has always had such a negative significance, in the sense that it has always had fewer [astronomical] observations than free parameters [hypotheses] (as is illustrated on page TK), though cosmologists are strangely reluctant to admit it. While it is true that we presently have no alternative to the Big Bang in sight, that is no reason to accept it. Thus it was that witchcraft took hold."
"The three successful predictions of the concordance model (the apparent flatness of space, the abundances of the light elements and the maximum ages of the oldest star clusters) are overwhelmed by at least half a dozen unpredicted surprises, including dark matter and dark energy. Worse still, there is no sign of a systematic improvement in the net significance of cosmological theories over time."
Only the British seemed to be interested in his 2003 book until Drexler authored the 295-page,"Comprehending and Decoding the Cosmos", published May 22, 2006.
During the past 15 months, more and more authors of cosmology related papers and articles have directly or indirectly questioned the validity of the Cold Dark Matter hypothesis. Has the 23-year-old Cold Dark Matter hypothesis evolved into the equivalent of a scientific mistake?
Recently, Science magazine published three papers or articles questioning the Cold Dark Matter hypothesis, namely on May 25,"Missing Mass in Collisional Debris from Galaxies", on August 3, "Seeing Through Dark Matter" and on September 14, "Lighting the Universe with Filaments".
Hopefully, Science magazine will be considered for a Pulitzer Prize in journalism for exposing the apparent mainstream Cold Dark Matter hypothesis that has evolved into a scientific mistake. Unfortunately this scientific mistake continues to retard progress in cosmology, demoralize cosmology researchers, and ill-prepares future cosmology researchers and yet, it continues to receive substantial financial support from U.S. government agencies and support from most U.S. universities.
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 11:32:13 +0100
Subject: Re: "more likely shared ancestry than [Neandertal] interbreeding"
checked the evidence a long time ago, and, although am not usually a `human-species chauvinist', had to write conclusions down and post them on a page:
A - That mammals with least recent evolution retain cycle timings of ancient Moon orbital period of about 21 days, reflecting their last reactions to the environment of perhaps a million or more years past.
Most mammals - elephants, dogs, cows, pigs etc - have estrus cycles (or equivalent) of approximately 21 days, the Moon's period in the _very_ ancient past. Those few mammals with much longer cycles were probably contrained, by physiological or seasonal conditions to give birth at only certain times in the year and so their estrous cycles were probably triggered at alternate `moons' (or even longer periods).
B - That, because humans continue to evolve, we kept in touch with the changing orbital period of the Moon.
It's still on the Web, with news updates in last few years
PS - that's one of the reasons am beginning to give more credence to `biorhythms' - they seem to be in line with that and other forecasts from physics theoretical analysis (non-mainstream at the moment)
jim ***** wrote:
> moon cycles are related to female cycles from when?? not before earth acquired our present hollow, manufactued, mechanical moon.
>> Hi Sherry,
>> Agree that looked at simplistically one would probably think that - but that's putting us modern humans in their place, which is probably very incorrect.
>> Looking far back there was a time when:
a) males could only procreate (have sex) in particular seasons (called `rut' for other animals)
b) same for females (called estrus)
c) to complicate things a bit more - even when in season the male would have to receive - and recognize - a signal from the female that she was in estrus
>> We gradually changed to a more unsynchronized species (and nobody's sure how and when things gradually changed ["sex" doesn't show in the fossil record] - I tend to think that women evolve faster than men but that might be a modern perception also)
>> BUT we don't and didn't all evolve in step, some are ahead of others, and that difference must've been even greater across the (near) species divide - possibly ruling out sexual contacts across that gap.
>> That all makes me think the `inter-mating' probabilities were a whole lot lower than we modern humans think. Things - and people - were very different then.
Sherry ***** wrote:
>>> Some of both is the most likely scenario in my mind ray. Aloha
>>>> Ha! "Last common ancestor" is what I'd thought - and, BTW, I don't believe there _are_ `methods that are able to differentiate between genetic similarity caused by gene flow via hybridisation vs shared ancestry' - the genes are there or they aren't - you can't tell how they got there (unless you can time travel _and_ spy on every human and Neandertal that ever existed - all their lives). - Ray
>>>>> 13 August 2012 Last updated at 20:43
>>>>> Neanderthal breeding idea doubted
>>>>> By Jonathan Ball, BBC News
>>>>> Similarities between the DNA of modern people and Neanderthals are more likely to have arisen from shared ancestry than interbreeding, a study reports.
>>>>> That is according to research carried out at the University of Cambridge and published this week in PNAS journal.
>>>>> Previously, it had been suggested that shared parts of the genomes of these two populations were the result of interbreeding.
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 17:04:02 +0100
Subject: `Kicking The Sacred Cow'
Just starting to re-read `Kicking The Sacred Cow' [site ref], by James P. Hogan for the second or third time - as you might see it has aroused as much fervor pro and anti as some of the subjects it covers (and critiques), like Velikovsky etc.
Choong, and maybe a couple of others might be interested in this review of the contents, at www.amazon.com/Kicking-Sacred-Cow-James-Hogan/dp/0743488288
"Enter `Kicking the Sacred Cow', Hogan's latest work of non-fiction. When at last it became available in paperback, I was quick to order it from Amazon, and am very glad I did.
The book contains excellent sections on the following broad range of topics:-
- Cosmology: Alternative views on the Big Bang and the Hubble Law, plus an introduction to the "Plasma Universe" theory. Could electromagnetism play a more important role in shaping the universe than mainstream cosmologists think?
- Relativity: Alternatives to Einstein's theories of relativity, plus some background information on how the theories came to be. This was very thick material for a layman like me. I'll probably have to reread it a few times to let it all sink in.
- Catastrophism: Immanual Velikovsky's iconoclastic theory on the origins of the planet Venus, various upheavals recorded in Earth's geological record, and so on.
- Environmentalism: the global warming controversy, the Ozone Hole, DDT, asbestos and radiation. These all affect us in important ways.
- AIDS: It's a modern scourge which has taken millions of lives.But what, exactly, causes it?
- Darwinism: A perennial source of friction between scientists and creationists, but perhaps the argument is not as clear-cut as some on both sides would have you believe.
It would be pointless for me to go into a deep discussion of the material covered in each of those sections. If true, some of these alternative theories would have profound implications on the nature of our existence and that of the universe we inhabit, plus even how we and our children live our daily lives.
Note that Hogan thoughtfully provided a keyword index and an extensive set of references at the end of the book. For those of you interested in exploring these topics more in depth, you can consult books and articles running the gamut from Darwin's mainstream classic, "The Origin of Species", to Velikovsky's radical classic "Worlds in Collision".
What I judge to be the most important message contained in`Kicking the Sacred Cow' can be summarized in the book's dedication: "To Halton Arp, Peter Duesburg -- and all other scientists of integrity who followed where the evidence pointed, and stood by their convictions."
[and] here's some comments
"An excellent book! Very impressive. It should be used in all high school science classes, but of course it won't be."
- C.J. Ransom, Plasma Physicist, Director of Research, Vemasat Research Institute, Texas.
"Everyone can surely learn something from this book ... These issues should be the focus of continuing discussion in the scientific community and among those who deal with applications and implcations of science; they should be made familiar through formal education, and the media should be thoroughly informed about them. That is far from the case; and that fact amounts to a resounding failure in our culture on the part of both the media and of education."
- Professor Henry Bauer, Prof. Emeritus of Chemistry & Science Studies, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University. Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Scientific Exploration
"Ideology increasingly drives science, so that dogmas become entrenched and dissent, even informed dissent, gets quashed. Many areas of science in which the public is told there exist scientific consensus are in fact riven with controversy and poorly supported by evidence. In `Kicking The Sacred Cow', James Hogan unmasks such pretensions. Hogan is a master iconoclast."
- William A. Dembski, Professor of Research into the Conceptual Foundations of Science, Baylor University.
"With your reputation, there is a chance that your book will influence people to think more clearly and independently about issues, .. based on documentation and facts rather than undeserved trust and intimidation."
- Serge Lang, Professor of Mathematics, Yale University.
"Your book is important and well written. Bravo!"
- Halton Arp, Astronomer, Max Planck Institut fur Astrophysik, Germany.
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 17:43:06 +0100
Subject: Moon (eclipse) + Venus + Transit / + Mars-Saturn
Full Moon (partial eclipse) at 11:11 UTC Monday 4 June, then the Moon swings to align with Venus as the planet comes toward its transit of the Sun - which then happens over Tues/Wed from 22:09 UTC to 04:49 UTC.
Alone, each of those three alignments would usually be enough to provoke quake triggers, so this close sequence might lead to a longish series of quakes during the following days (and maybe weeks - see the quakes following the '99 eclipse and Venus align: lasting for weeks and killing many thousands from Greece / Turkey thru Eur-Asia to Taiwan, following the track of the eclipse).
However, at about the same time as the transit of Venus (Earth-Venus-Sun alignment), Mars and Saturn also line up with the Sun (at about a 40 degree angle to us - to our "left". The four-planet alignment with the Sun brings the possibility of Solar flares or even a mild "solar storm".
Given that the joint `influence' is on the portion of the Sun which will rotate to face Earth in the following days (i.e. - from Thursday onwards for the rest of the week), we can maybe expect some effects on electronic communications.
[Quake check - current week; current month
Current Sun's state]
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 20:38:36 -0500
Subject: Celebrating 10 years of A New Kind of Science
Dear Wolfram Science enthusiast,
On May 14, Stephen Wolfram's A New Kind of Science will celebrate 10 years since its publication. In commemoration of the event, Stephen has written the first in a series of blogs posts about NKS titled "It's Been 10 Years; What's Happened with A New Kind of Science?":
As part of the celebration, Stephen will also be hosting an Ask Me Anything (AMA) on Reddit, where he will be taking questions exclusively about NKS on Monday, May 14 at 3pm EST.
We will be updating you with further details throughout the next week.
The Wolfram Science Team
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:16:12 +0100
Subject: 'I made a mistake': James Lovelock admits he was 'alarmist'
Well, `climate change' _is_ happening, and has always been happening - but `AGW' or man-made global warming is _not_ happening. If it were the world temperature would be at a ten thousand year peak, and the temp-graph would've been sloping ever more steeply upwards for the last [few] thousand years (during humans' farming and then industrial development). But that is not the case.
Maybe check "17,000 years GISP2 Ice Core Temps - Alley, RB 2000 - ncdc.noaa.gov"
and "10,000 years GISP2 Ice Core Temps"
where we can see it's actually colder now than for most of last ten thousand years. - Ray
(Background to graphs at www.perceptions.couk.com/glacials.html
Gaia scientist Lovelock: 'I was WRONG and alarmist on climate'
'I swore Earth should be frying by now'
By Andrew Orlowski, Posted in Energy, 24th April 2012 12:25 GMT
Environmental luminary Dr James Lovelock says he now regrets being "alarmist" about climate predictions. Speaking to MSNBC, Lovelock admitted spicing up his books with headline-catching doomsday predictions.
In 2006 Dr Lovelock predicted the Earth "would catch a morbid fever" that would destroy six billion people - "the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable," he predicted. In 2009, he was telling the Guardian that "we may face planet-wide devastation worse even than unrestricted nuclear war between superpowers".
"I made a mistake," the 92-year-old scientist now says. "We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," Dr Lovelock reflects. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time. It [the temperature] has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising - carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that.
"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books - mine included - because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened."
This puts Lovelock in the same territory as scientists such as MIT's Professor Richard Lindzen. "A doubling of CO2, by itself, contributes only about 1°C to greenhouse warming," Prof Lindzen explained [PDF].
Positive feedback from water vapour and clouds are posited (and programmed into climate models) to provide the "runaway" warming. But these are poorly understood, and observational evidence suggests this feedback has been wildly exaggerated. Lindzen finds around 0.8°C of warming is consistent with a doubling of CO2.
"We will have global warming, but it's been deferred a bit," the British scientist now thinks.
Dr Lovelock is famous for creating the Gaia metaphor - viewing life on Earth as a single self-healing system. His books include Gaia: The Practical Science of Planetary Medicine, The Ages of Gaia, Healing Gaia, The Vanishing Face of Gaia and The Revenge of Gaia.
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 17:44:17 +0100
Subject: 49 NASA scientists + astronauts protest "NASA's AGW claims"
Hansen and Schmidt of NASA GISS under fire for climate stance: Engineers, scientists, astronauts ask NASA administration to look at empirical evidence rather than climate models
49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it's role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.
(more at page ...)
[PS - Yup, some of that empirical evidence here]
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 19:43:48 -0500
Subject: The 10th anniversary of A New Kind of Science
It's hard to believe, but Stephen Wolfram's groundbreaking book `A New Kind of Science' was published almost 10 years ago on May 14, 2002.
As a part of the 10th anniversary celebration, we're inventorying advances in NKS from the past decade: published and unpublished work motivated by NKS, including papers, artwork, programs, and products.
Do you have a project motivated by NKS, or do you know about a project by someone else (completed or in progress)? If so, we would love to hear from you. Please send information about the project to firstname.lastname@example.org.
The Wolfram Science Team
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 17:09:15 +0100
Subject: Re: GM ends donations to climate-change-denying Heartland Institute
Choong K*** Y*** wrote:
> So there you got it., those fools, they don't use their eyes to see and ears to hear.
Yup, Choong - think the two groups with `interests' in the debate, the `scientists' who want to make money from AGW scares, and the Oil groups who wanted to `deny' climate change, are both shifting their positions because it's becoming clear that climate change is happening but not in the way the AGW scarers said: we've got warming _and_ cooling coming in waves.
Looked at logically we can see that any warming _can't_ be wholly man-made (AGW). If it was it would've been increasing over the last five thousand years, and steeply over the last two hundred years. But that's not happening. Instead it's cooler now than the average temperature of the last ten thousand years (which was maybe ten degrees hotter than now - they were growing grape vines in Yorkshire (N. England) around a thousand years ago and that can't be done just now - too cold).
SO maybe the climate upsets we're experiencing are part of larger cycles, determined by the Sun and alignments of the planets - all the planets.
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 23:12:38 +0100
Subject: June Full Moon / Transit of Venus
June Full Moon / Transit of Venus
Full Moon at 11:11 UTC 4th June, is followed shortly by a transit of Venus
(Venus lining-up between Sun and Earth (June 5/6) - a quite rare occurence, next is 2117, then 2125)
Last time a Venus line-up was so close to Moon-Earth line-up was the eclipse of 1999, which caused a long series of large quakes that killed many thousands of people from Greece to Turkey (Bam) and extending later to Taiwan / Japan
[ Before and after major Venus alignment (transit +/or passing between Earth + Sun) the Moon can line-up with approaching or departing Venus, to give possible quake triggers.
[Note: this may be reason for astronomical `fear of Venus' by Sumerians/Babylonians _and_ Olmecs/Mayans. ]
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:23:09 +0100
Subject: "We didn't understand much about the rules," - 50 years of ignorance
Ha! While GM `science' was telling us that their genetic engineering was "safe" and claimed to know what was happning, these research `scientists' admit the last 50 years' work was actually in ignorance of the actual mechanisms - which they're not sure of even now.
New Layer of Genetic Information Helps Determine How Fast Proteins Are Produced
ScienceDaily (Mar. 28, 2012) -
A hidden and never before recognized layer of information in the genetic code has been uncovered by a team of scientists at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) thanks to a technique developed at UCSF called ribosome profiling, which enables the measurement of gene activity inside living cells -- including the speed with which proteins are made.
By measuring the rate of protein production in bacteria, the team discovered that slight genetic alterations could have a dramatic effect. This was true even for seemingly insignificant genetic changes known as "silent mutations," which swap out a single DNA letter without changing the ultimate gene product. To their surprise, the scientists found these changes can slow the protein production process to one-tenth of its normal speed or less.
As described March 28 in the journal Nature, the speed change is caused by information contained in what are known as redundant codons -- small pieces of DNA that form part of the genetic code. They were called "redundant" because they were previously thought to contain duplicative rather than unique instructions.
This new discovery challenges half a century of fundamental assumptions in biology. It may also help speed up the industrial production of proteins, which is crucial for making biofuels and biological drugs used to treat many common diseases, ranging from diabetes to cancer.
"The genetic code has been thought to be redundant, but redundant codons are clearly not identical," said Jonathan Weissman, PhD, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator in the UCSF School of Medicine Department of Cellular and Molecular Pharmacology.
"We didn't understand much about the rules," he added, but the new work suggests nature selects among redundant codons based on genetic speed as well as genetic meaning.
Similarly, a person texting a message to a friend might opt to type, "NP" instead of "No problem." They both mean the same thing, but one is faster to thumb than the other.
How Ribosome Profiling Works
The work addresses an observation scientists have long made that the process protein synthesis, so essential to all living organisms on Earth, is not smooth and uniform, but rather proceeds in fits and starts. Some unknown mechanism seemed to control the speed with which proteins are made, but nobody knew what it was.
To find out, Weissman and UCSF postdoctoral researcher Gene-Wei Li, PhD, drew upon a broader past effort by Weissman and his colleagues to develop a novel laboratory technique called "ribosome profiling," which allows scientists to examine universally which genes are active in a cell and how fast they are being translated into proteins.
Ribosome profiling takes account of gene activity by pilfering from a cell all the molecular machines known as ribosomes. Typical bacterial cells are filled with hundreds of thousands of these ribosomes, and human cells have even more. They play a key role in life by translating genetic messages into proteins. Isolating them and pulling out all their genetic material allows scientists to see what proteins a cell is making and where they are in the process.
Weissman and Li were able to use this technique to measure the rate of protein synthesis by looking statistically at all the genes being expressed in a bacterial cell.
They found that proteins made from genes containing particular sequences (referred to technically as Shine-Dalgarno sequences) were produced more slowly than identical proteins made from genes with different but redundant codons. They showed that they could introduce pauses into protein production by introducing such sequences into genes.
What the scientists hypothesize is that the pausing exists as part of a regulatory mechanism that ensures proper checks -- so that cells don't produce proteins at the wrong time or in the wrong abundance.
A Primer on DNA Codons
All life on earth relies on the storage of genetic information in DNA (or in the case of some viruses, RNA) and the expression of that DNA into proteins to build the components of cells and carry out all life's genetic instructions.
Every living cell in every tissue inside every organism on Earth is constantly expressing genes and translating them into proteins -- from our earliest to our dying days. A significant amount of the energy we burn fuels nothing more than this fundamental process.
The genetic code is basically a universal set of instructions for translating DNA into proteins. DNA genes are composed of four types of molecules, known as bases or nucleotides (often represented by the four letters A, G, T and C). But proteins are strings of 20 different types of amino acids.
To code for all 20 amino acids, the genetic code calls for genes to be expressed by reading groups of three letters of DNA at a time for every one amino acid in a protein. These triplets of DNA letters are called codons. But because there are 64 possible ways to arrange three bases of DNA together -- and only 20 amino acids used by life -- the number of codons exceeds the demand. So several of these 64 codons code for the same amino acid.
Scientists have known about this redundancy for 50 years, but in recent years, as more and more genomes from creatures as diverse as domestic dogs to wild rice have been decoded, scientists have come to appreciate that not all redundant codons are equal.
Many organisms have a clear preference for one type of codon over another, even though the end result is the same. This begged the question the new research answered: if redundant codons do the same thing, why would nature prefer one to the other?
The article, "The anti-Shine-Dalgarno sequence drives translational pausing and codon choice in bacteria," by Gene-Wei Li, Eugene Oh, and Jonathan S. Weissman, was published by the journal Nature on March 28.
This work was supported by the Helen Hay Whitney Foundation and by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
Gene-Wei Li, Eugene Oh, Jonathan S. Weissman. The anti-Shine-Dalgarno sequence drives translational pausing and codon choice in bacteria. Nature, 2012; DOI: 10.1038/nature10965
University of California - San Francisco (2012, March 28). New layer of genetic information helps determine how fast proteins are produced.
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:12:21 -0600
Subject: Wolfram Science Summer School 2012
The 10th annual Wolfram Science Summer School (formerly the NKS Summer School) is in a few months, and we would like to invite you to apply. The three-week, tuition-free program is being held from June 25 through July 13 in Boston, Massachusetts. The Wolfram Science Summer School is hosted by Wolfram Research, makers of Mathematica and the computational knowledge engine Wolfram|Alpha, and Stephen Wolfram, world-renowned author of A New Kind of Science (NKS) and other publications on complex systems and computer science:
We are looking for highly motivated individuals who want to get involved with original research at the frontiers of science. Our participants come from many diverse backgrounds but share a common passion to discover and explore cutting-edge ideas. Over the past 10 years, they have included graduate students, undergraduates, professors, industry professionals, artists, and even a few exceptional high school students.
If accepted to the Summer School, you will work directly with others in the Wolfram Science community--including Stephen Wolfram and a staff of instructors who have made significant contributions to Wolfram Science projects like NKS and Wolfram|Alpha--on your own original project that could develop into published papers or the foundation of your thesis.
Take a look at the lecture notes from previous years to get a sense of what topics will be covered:
If you're serious about getting involved with similarly innovative ideas at the core of Wolfram Science and NKS, you should consider applying as soon as possible.
Apply online at:
Todd Rowland, PhD
Wolfram Science Summer School Academic Director
Catherine Boucher, PhD
Wolfram Science Summer School Program Director
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 16:53:47 -0000
Subject: Contradictory "science re: climate hype"
A while ago saw an item on corals (dire warnings of damage from "warming + CO2 levels"), and realized corals were thriving in the Jurassic,
see graph Geological_Timescale-temps.jpg
when temps were much higher _and_ CO2 was much higher than now, so commented here: ansci8.html#coral
(seems they _don't_ know much about corals anyway - see coral-news4.txt)
SO, when we see a similar item about sea-grass, which has successfully lived for "tens of thousands of years" http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/16811538
or "up to 200,000 years"
and look back to see that for most of last 12,000 yrs it was much hotter than now:
warm-period graph 1 (at glacials page)
warm-period graph 2
and before that it was much colder than now
we can see how baseless is this repeated hype about "warming" - the real problems are probably industrial-fishing and sea-bed mining, and of course industrial pollution (by oil-spills, dumping into rivers + coastal waters) and by human sewage.
But the corporates and politicos control the scientists these days.