The simple sentences describes this:
If the checksum is right, it's OK, it's a healthy cell. If the checksum isn't right, then annihilate.
The checksum is the controlled amount of electricity that ripples through your nerve lines and that goes between two or more nerve ends. It has been proved that any cell can conduct electricity. A study that was followed through because of the likelihood that it would benefit the research of therapeutic genetic engineering.
Based on the nerve sensations the body takes out everything that has been defined and verified as a not OK checksum. As known, cancer arises from uncontrolled cell development making it a not OK checksum.
The conclusion: Be conscious of your feelings. They're what is used for a readily available body assessment. The thesis is this: If you hold a good consciousness and sensitivity with a nice disciplinary touch to your body, cancer will never be a problem, because your mind will hold your cells in check.
It's my view that the feelings/nerve signals/neurology are helping/controlling the body and more or less telling the body where to attack and where to hold off. This is part of the theory that feelings are just an addition to the largely rational system of being a body, that is rational according to function!
I think one has devoted very little research on the issue of how the nerve signals work in the body and that I think there may be a "gold mine" there to be discovered in how nerve signals relate to the body, to the genes, to the immune system, to the whole...
This, first and foremost, preventive recommendation of mentality can also contribute to the explanation of benign cancers, that there's a mechanism in the body that sets the brakes on or limits the nature of the actual benign cancer in one way or another.
One should remember that the mode of one's relationship with one's own feelings/nerve signals/neurology are a quite big issue/factor in the actual person's and as such, I think this factor (feelings/nerve signals/neurology) may be decisive above rather minor factors such as diet.
This is not part of what can be described as "the tyranny of positive thinking". My theory doesn't necessarily contain such an element. I'd rather say that your mood should reflect realities!
The Cancer Registry shows a difference of about 60 points in the scope of 344,3 versus 283,8 in favour of women across cancer diagnoses. I take this to support my theory as women are known to care more about their feelings and despite they also make up the greater part of the older population. Older people are generally more susceptible to cancer than the younger counterparts. Is this due to decline of the neurological system or the efforts of maintaining the body in the face of aging? It may also be that when you grow old, the brain makes more mistakes and send these mistakes into the body as nerve signals. It can also be that the brain fails, because of this old age, deterioration of brain, to detect the wrong signals from the body and sending corrective signals back.
These are the latest numbers, 2003-2007 from the Cancer Registry of Norway, link for men and women. The link has been accessed 20. November, 2009.
This work has been concluded as a spinoff from my examinations of a moral consciousness versus moral feelings. This spinoff was inspired by my grandfather's death due to cancer and my younger brother's 14-days hospital stay at a later point in time.
As a remark. There's something more also: There are the perspectives of idealism into biological manifest as a form of evolution or forming a frame for evolution.
22.02.2003, 20.11.2009, 04.02.2010, 05.02.2010 and 07.02.2010
Terje Lea©2003, ©2009, ©2010
Physical and biological possibilities in conjunction with environmental parameters are what makes evolution. That is:
if you start out with its
most miniscule set of biological bases and it exist where it can exist (ie: all over the scale of functioning and
sustainable environment), its
set will evolve in every direction possible from that base.
What turn the odds is of course genetics and human control over evolution. One might think that most species
would only be allowed to
exist in its genetic blueprint. That one could farm entirely new species into existing biological totality according
to taste or agreed scientific
tests or that certain species were created within controlled areas like in Jurassic Park (a movie by Steven
Spielberg).
14.12.2003
Terje Lea©2003
Schrödinger's cat. The probability expresses the statistical chance for the cat. There's nothing more to say about it. There's something wrong with
Schrödinger's theory if this is a necessary implication.
I'd also like to point out that the "mystery" of Schrödinger's cat comes down to the Copenhagen Interpretation, that I follow strictly on the
observation point only, of having to be observed for something to exist. Schrodinger's cat goes clearly against this, even as an indirect observation.
I therefore think that the whole of this line of thinking (Schrödinger's cat etc.) is flawed. It's almost embarrassing how mistaken it seems in
regard to the huge interest.
Assertion: Photons are the smallest constituents of all matter. I assume the other particles of the Standard Model are made up of
photons. Why is this? The sun burns mass and to my knowledge it only/mostly by far emits electromagnetic radiation, consequently in
the form of photons. When a nuclear bomb explodes, it converts matter into electromagnetic radiation, energy of various forms.
Compared to this, I think one can throw the string theory out the window along with dimensions beyond the usual 4 (I'm not certain
about this concerning Einstein's theories that I'd like to keep as it is). Also, let's assume higher intensity radiation emits more
dense amounts of photons and that it declines further down the electromagnetic spectrum.
New on photons: I think I can also hold that photons are "semi-fluid" on a hyper-level (of course). I don't know what this adds
to our view of reality, but it's a possible way of reconciling the wave-particle duality.
Assertion: The space and possibly everywhere is held in a background uniform space that extends to the edges of the Universe, its gravitational system I'd like to call the Neo-aether that is consistent with Michelson-Morley experiment and functions in a more sublime way that we are yet to discover the full extension of. Einstein's theory effectively describes some of the nature of the Neo-aether.
Concerning the Large Hadron Collider, LHC, it's my belief there will be absolutely no possibility of baby-black holes! If the smallest building blocks really are the photons then in LHC we'll see greater emission of photons from the collisions.
I guess it's a common view to consider the Big Bang "a generative mechanism for the pattern of natural laws of the Universe". I still find the mind and the phenomena elusive, though, like if it's relevant here! It may be necessary to look to the moments after Big Bang to solve the riddle of the reason for matter to exist in particles, atoms, as they do, ie. solving the question of the Higgs boson particle. It's also worth mentioning that unless there's formation of new matter from the absorption of photons, something I think there isn't, the matter in atoms is lost forever once it's dissolved. This is seldomly pointed out by physicists. Also, the absorption of photons into existing atomic structures brings increased excitation and perhaps weight and this fact, I think, adds to the Photon theory, ie. photons are the smallest building blocks in nature, universe.
I also like to mention that particle physics is far more complex than being just the Standard Model. Sir Roger Penrose writes in his book, The Road to Reality - A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, p. 628, about the pions, kaons, lambda, sigma, omega-minus, anti-protons, anti-neutrons, "vast hordes of particles whose existence is so fleeting that they are never directly observed, tending to be referred to merely as 'resonances'", 'virtual' particles and 'ghosts'. There are also mentioned numerous other "theoretical" particles by other theories.
It's just a quirk of mine, but I'd like to have the Charm and Strange quarks renamed as this, Charm gets the name Control and Strange gets the name Random. Does this make sense? Is it possible to prove the characteristics of control and randomness in the two quarks?
Question: how are radio signals from space or through space explained? This is a terrible riddle to me. Radio waves,
conventionally, are fluctuations through atoms like air, water and other substances. Do you have a good explanation of it?
I have an update on this and it turns out radio waves are just another part of the electromagnetic spectrum with an even
weaker intensity than infra-red. Thus, just another form of emission of photons. Done! (I'm sorry to bother you with such a
puny question, but I've been wondering about it and I therefore want to make this clear to all, including the school kids!)
The link to a good spectrum including sound waves and electromagnetic waves, here.
By Terje Lea, 21.10.2009, 29.10.2009, 05.11.2009, 19.11.2009, 21.11.2009 and 03.04.2010. (Small comment: 13.08.2010.)
Explanation: optimal temperature happens a little outside the surface of the corona because the atoms/particles have greater space for temperature vibrations there according to this optimal temperature of these circumstances, the atoms/particles being held to the Sun, a little outside the corona in this fashion. Temperature should indicate something about the space between atoms/particles because temperature corresponds to the (propositional) excitation/vibration of the atoms/particles.
If one would have the same temperature farther in toward the Sun's core then it has necessarily the same, relatively thin composition there as well, you know, this being a smaller Sun, even if the mass in this case either has to differently organised relatively to the substances of the Sun's composition or that it's just lighter.
The conclusion is that the heat (or superheat) is optimal a little farther out for these atoms'/particles' vibrations to produce this heat than where atoms'/particles' become more dense as one moves in toward the core of the Sun. I'm uncertain to what degree this may hold, describing the variations of the temperature of the star at all levels, but this explanation/theory is, of course, meant to hold for conditions of hot surfaces on all instances of the kind our Sun is displaying. So it's first and foremost an explanation/theory of description that applies to this surface and its more transparent, gaseous outer layer, but it may also extend to, in a variable manner, a host of conditions of (astro-)physics.
A hypothetical analogy: if you consider gaseous water that covers the surface of boiling liquid water, up against the vacuum represented by (outer) Space. It's also fact that steam of water rises from the hottest place of the boiling water, at the bottom of the pot, from the most heated part.
It may be that this layer represents new insights to emittance of photons and the production of this kind of layer as a result of reduction-physics/chemistry of the substances on the Sun.
This layer is created between the physics of more heavy substances drawn more closely to the center of the Sun and the possibility for escaping the gravity of the Sun like the photons (, through the form of photons, being a matter of particles nature) and possibly other particles blown out from the Sun by fusion reactions.
This has been first published at the Dagbladet web-site (a Norwegian news-publisher) in Norwegian and then here in English in a more elaborate fashion. Enjoy (or not)!
By Terje Lea, author of this, novel or not, in both Norwegian, writing on the Dagbladet site and this translation, 13.03.2010, 23.03.2010 and 19.04.2010. (Claim of original authorship: 13.08.2010. For those who need it in their eyes!)
Just in case, every "soul" carries energy, this energy is detectable by infra-red imaging or something thereof when this is set in a very cold chamber/laboratory and finally the being that's loses its body and becomes a bare "soul" is a rat or an animal of lower denomination (I like elephants) then it may be possible to prove the "soul" as an alternative to Dr. Sam Parnia and Dr. Pim van Lommel!
What do you think? There's a clear logical structure to this procedure and it's no problem to set it up! Now, this probably shouldn't go into the science webpage on my site, but I'm such a daring person! Cheers!
By Terje Lea, 04.07.2010
Let's assume Africa (or one of the other continents) gets "humped" on in an indecent way (fx. by decadent European and US American interests) then there shouldn't be a problem with it being self-sufficient/self-sustained, or if not, just in case Africa's deficiencies are compensated for by exports.
I'm thinking of deficiencies of technology, special resources (classically uranium, but now it's about other stuff, refined?) and finally knowledge! This writing is in fact the theory that every continent is more or less self-sufficient/self-sustained. Theoretically, there are no deficiencies on any continent by the assumption that resources are found equally everywhere on earth (by the same statistics)!
As one can expect resources to occur more or less statistically uniformally, being found in equal amounts everywhere, resources shouldn't be a problem either! So who supposes that there are deficiencies? It's however important not to be a "dreamer"/"have the head in the clouds" so that you go correctly by the steps! When you want something, you just find a way to offer something! One can start with natural resources, like agriculture, aquaculture, timber-industry, tourism, fishing industry, search for/mapping of resources for mining, offer "cheap"/cheap labour or labour whatsoever (with the commends of the people from this region to those who buy the labour-force, decently/worker-union-wise) and as one goes, funds accumulate, you probably use them to generate expertise by education to compensate for lack of technology intensive industry and the knowledge and culture industry (film, music, books (like fx. JK Rowling), theater). The knowledge industry is, of course, research and consulting and the making of proprietary hardware/software or whatever technology of proprietary kind! (End!)
This is a recipé and I know it! I hope you like it!
By Terje Lea, 07.07.2010
This is a telepathic experiment (for all to try), just using the web or email.
I've got an idea for a telepathic experiment and it goes like this:
Poster A posts a few lines of some interest...
Poster B posts some thoughts that Poster A may be planning to write next...
Poster A edits his first post as the answer... and decides on the truth value of B's post by making so in a new post...
Then this is reversed and Poster A speculates over Poster B's next move...
Anyone interested... (At least this is a generative method one can apply over the internet everywhere...)
There is no problem with the confirmation either since Poster A and Poster B will know one another's answers
and the definite truth value to the telepathy and the experiment!
(This is really an angle into the phenomenon of telepathy as much as a scientific method as a kind of research
design, all in all, asserting 3 entities.)
By Terje Lea, 16.08.2010