Einstein Wrong?

[[email protected]]

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/22mar_telomeres.htm?list169648

[Adam H]

On 30 Mar 2006 19:11:54 -0800, wrote:

>http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/22mar_telomeres.htm?list169648

Damn, what a misleading headline that is. What they're talking about
has nothing to do with Einstein's work, and the traveler will still be
chronologically younger than the stay-at-home.

---
I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in
one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you reject all other gods,
you will understand why I reject yours as well.
- Stephen F. Roberts

[Llanzlan Klazmon]

wrote in news:1143774714.010419.15460
@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/22mar_telomeres.htm?list169648
>

Nothing to do with Einstein. The article is about radiation damage to
chromosomes.

Klazmon.

[N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)]

Dear Xabriol:

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/22mar_telomeres.htm?list169648

Einstein never said space travel would be safe, or that
interstellar gasses impinging on your ship wouldn't make it and
you radioactive.

NASA needs their heads cleaned out. According to that "article",
the people living in river deltas (high in background radiation)
or granite buildings (also similarly high in background
radiation) are aging faster too.

It isn't aging, since Dolly the sheep's clone died at about the
same "age" as Dolly, calendar-wise, even though it was just a few
years since its birth. Without involving excessive background
radiation levels.

It is simply cellular damage due to high radiation. And since it
will be chronic, whatever arrives at the stars won't be human, if
it is even still alive.

David A. Smith

[Mike Painter]

Adam H wrote:
> On 30 Mar 2006 19:11:54 -0800, wrote:
>
>> http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/22mar_telomeres.htm?list169648
>
> Damn, what a misleading headline that is. What they're talking about
> has nothing to do with Einstein's work, and the traveler will still be
> chronologically younger than the stay-at-home.
>
One of the differences between religion and science.
While unlikely, the idea that Einstein may have been wrong is really
exciting and would lead to new worlds of knowledge.

Imagine what would happen if the fundies treated their religion this way.
Talk about a boot strap.

[Michael Gray]

On 31 Mar 2006 16:08:43 +1200, Llanzlan Klazmon
> wrote:
- Refer: >
wrote in news:1143774714.010419.15460
:
>
>> http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/22mar_telomeres.htm?list169648
>>
>
>Nothing to do with Einstein. The article is about radiation damage to
>chromosomes.
>
>Klazmon.

Please do not feed jabbers.
--

[Hexenmeister]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
| http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/22mar_telomeres.htm?list169648
|

So NASA is trying to wean morons back to physics instead of breaking
their little hearts by saying no Santa Claus, not time dilation.
Big deal. I bust their balls.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Baez/people_v_Baez.htm
Androcles

[Hexenmeister]

"Adam H" > wrote in message
...
| On 30 Mar 2006 19:11:54 -0800, wrote:
|
| >http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/22mar_telomeres.htm?list169648
|
| Damn, what a misleading headline that is. What they're talking about
| has nothing to do with Einstein's work, and the traveler will still be
| chronologically younger than the stay-at-home.

IDIOT!

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
Androcles



|
| ---
| I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in
| one fewer god than you do.
| When you understand why you reject all other gods,
| you will understand why I reject yours as well.
| - Stephen F. Roberts

[Hexenmeister]

"Mike Painter" > wrote in message
. net...
| Adam H wrote:
| > On 30 Mar 2006 19:11:54 -0800, wrote:
| >
| >> http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/22mar_telomeres.htm?list169648
| >
| > Damn, what a misleading headline that is. What they're talking about
| > has nothing to do with Einstein's work, and the traveler will still be
| > chronologically younger than the stay-at-home.
| >
| One of the differences between religion and science.
| While unlikely, the idea that Einstein may have been wrong is really
| exciting and would lead to new worlds of knowledge.

The idiot was wrong, "unlikely" is irrelevant, "certainly" is the correct
term.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
Androcles




|
| Imagine what would happen if the fundies treated their religion this way.
| Talk about a boot strap.
|
|

[Michael Gray]

On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 08:00:53 GMT, "Hexenmeister"
> wrote:
- Refer: >
>
> wrote in message
ups.com...
>| http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/22mar_telomeres.htm?list169648
>|
>
>So NASA is trying to wean morons back to physics instead of breaking
>their little hearts by saying no Santa Claus, not time dilation.
>Big deal. I bust their balls.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Baez/people_v_Baez.htm
>Androcles

Changed your nym again, eh?
Back in the killfile with you.
--

[Hexenmeister]

"Michael Gray" > wrote in message
...
| On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 08:00:53 GMT, "Hexenmeister"
| > wrote:
| - Refer: >
| >
| > wrote in message
| ups.com...
| >| http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/22mar_telomeres.htm?list169648
| >|
| >
| >So NASA is trying to wean morons back to physics instead of breaking
| >their little hearts by saying no Santa Claus, not time dilation.
| >Big deal. I bust their balls.
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Baez/people_v_Baez.htm
| >Androcles
|
| Changed your nym again, eh?
| Back in the killfile with you.
| --
Looked around again, eh?
Head back in the sand for you.
Androcles

[Patrick I. McCurry]

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox >
wrote in news:Ea2Xf.1644$kT4.128@fed1read02:

> Dear Xabriol:
>
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/22mar_telomeres.htm?
list169648
>
> Einstein never said space travel would be safe, or that
> interstellar gasses impinging on your ship wouldn't make it and
> you radioactive.
>
> NASA needs their heads cleaned out. According to that "article",
> the people living in river deltas (high in background radiation)
> or granite buildings (also similarly high in background
> radiation) are aging faster too.
>
> It isn't aging, since Dolly the sheep's clone died at about the
> same "age" as Dolly, calendar-wise, even though it was just a few
> years since its birth. Without involving excessive background
> radiation levels.
>
> It is simply cellular damage due to high radiation. And since it
> will be chronic, whatever arrives at the stars won't be human, if
> it is even still alive.
>
> David A. Smith
>
>
>

Dolly did not die from age related causes. She died from a lung
infection that any shee could contract.
The only detectable defect had to do with her decreased telomere
length which later cloning techniques have corrected for.

There's nothing magical about cloning. It happens every damn day in
nature.

Radiation damage doesn't "age" anyone. That's silly. It merely
increases the likelyhood of cancers over a lifetime. Equating life
expectancy with rate of aging is overly simplistic.

[Mister Gardener]

On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 18:22:50 +1030, Michael Gray
> wrote:

>On 31 Mar 2006 16:08:43 +1200, Llanzlan Klazmon
> wrote:
> - Refer: >
wrote in news:1143774714.010419.15460
:
>>
>>> http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/22mar_telomeres.htm?list169648
>>>
>>
>>Nothing to do with Einstein. The article is about radiation damage to
>>chromosomes.
>>
>>Klazmon.
>
>Please do not feed jabbers.

Yeah. Speaking of invasive species.

[Mark K. Bilbo]

Previously, on alt.atheism, Xabriol in episode
om>...

> Einstein Wrong?

No. And the article misses the point. I see the destruction of NASA is on
schedule.

By the way...

<replonk>

--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------

"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection."

http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC

I just love this one...

"For those of us who grew up in Louisiana,
'The Wizard of Oz' was like a documentary.
Dorothy left Kansas and simply went to Mardi Gras."

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W2EA439BC

"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com

[Douglas Berry]

What's so funny about peace, love and posting the
following on 30 Mar 2006 19:11:54 -0800 iin alt.atheism?

>http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/22mar_telomeres.htm?list169648

Nothing in this article addresses the Twin Paradox. It just points
out that if you do fly about the galaxy at .999c, you're going to
absorb a lot of radiation.

All the Twin Paradox does is illustrate a facet of relativity. It was
never meant as an exhaustive investigation of space travel.

For some fun, here's a realtivity calculator.

http://www.1728.com/reltivty.htm

Travelling at .999c produces a realtavistic change factor of 22.366,
more or less. Which means for every year that passes on my spaceship,
22.366 pass on Earth.

Engineering studies have shown that with current technology (and by
building ships inside asteroids) we could get up to .4c and handle the
increase in hard radiation. The change factor at that speed is a mere
1.09 hard worth noticing.
--

Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.

[Hexenmeister]

"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
| What's so funny about peace, love and posting the
| following on 30 Mar 2006 19:11:54 -0800 iin alt.atheism?
|
| >http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/22mar_telomeres.htm?list169648
|
| Nothing in this article addresses the Twin Paradox.

Oh dear... I'll address it then.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Baez/people_v_Baez.htm
Androcles



It just points
| out that if you do fly about the galaxy at .999c, you're going to
| absorb a lot of radiation.
|
| All the Twin Paradox does is illustrate a facet of relativity. It was
| never meant as an exhaustive investigation of space travel.
|
| For some fun, here's a realtivity calculator.
|
| http://www.1728.com/reltivty.htm
|
| Travelling at .999c produces a realtavistic change factor of 22.366,
| more or less. Which means for every year that passes on my spaceship,
| 22.366 pass on Earth.
|
| Engineering studies have shown that with current technology (and by
| building ships inside asteroids) we could get up to .4c and handle the
| increase in hard radiation. The change factor at that speed is a mere
| 1.09 hard worth noticing.
| --
|
| Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
| Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
|
| "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
| when they do it from religious conviction."
| Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.

[Cary Kittrell]

In article > Douglas Berry > writes:
> What's so funny about peace, love and posting the
> following on 30 Mar 2006 19:11:54 -0800 iin alt.atheism?
>
> >http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/22mar_telomeres.htm?list169648
>
> Nothing in this article addresses the Twin Paradox. It just points
> out that if you do fly about the galaxy at .999c, you're going to
> absorb a lot of radiation.
>
> All the Twin Paradox does is illustrate a facet of relativity. It was
> never meant as an exhaustive investigation of space travel.
>
> For some fun, here's a realtivity calculator.
>
> http://www.1728.com/reltivty.htm
>
> Travelling at .999c produces a realtavistic change factor of 22.366,
> more or less. Which means for every year that passes on my spaceship,
> 22.366 pass on Earth.
>
> Engineering studies have shown that with current technology (and by
> building ships inside asteroids) we could get up to .4c and handle the
> increase in hard radiation. The change factor at that speed is a mere
> 1.09 hard worth noticing.


Hmmm...I had never thought of this, but: wouldn't all sorts of
"benign" radiation --relatively low-frquency stuff --
get blue-shifted up into X-rays, gamma rays, and beyond?


--cary

[Douglas Berry]

What's so funny about peace, love and "Hexenmeister"
> posting the following on Fri, 31 Mar 2006
16:10:30 GMT iin alt.atheism?
>| What's so funny about peace, love and posting the
>| following on 30 Mar 2006 19:11:54 -0800 iin alt.atheism?
>|
>| >http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/22mar_telomeres.htm?list169648
>|
>| Nothing in this article addresses the Twin Paradox.
>
>Oh dear... I'll address it then.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Baez/people_v_Baez.htm

Cool! A new page for my collection of nutcases!
--

Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.

[Douglas Berry]

What's so funny about peace, love and (Cary
Kittrell) posting the following on Fri, 31 Mar 2006 18:05:55 +0000
(UTC) iin alt.atheism?
>In article > Douglas Berry > writes:
>> What's so funny about peace, love and posting the
>> following on 30 Mar 2006 19:11:54 -0800 iin alt.atheism?
>>
>> >http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/22mar_telomeres.htm?list169648
>>
>> Nothing in this article addresses the Twin Paradox. It just points
>> out that if you do fly about the galaxy at .999c, you're going to
>> absorb a lot of radiation.
>>
>> All the Twin Paradox does is illustrate a facet of relativity. It was
>> never meant as an exhaustive investigation of space travel.
>>
>> For some fun, here's a realtivity calculator.
>>
>> http://www.1728.com/reltivty.htm
>>
>> Travelling at .999c produces a realtavistic change factor of 22.366,
>> more or less. Which means for every year that passes on my spaceship,
>> 22.366 pass on Earth.
>>
>> Engineering studies have shown that with current technology (and by
>> building ships inside asteroids) we could get up to .4c and handle the
>> increase in hard radiation. The change factor at that speed is a mere
>> 1.09 hard worth noticing.
>
>
>Hmmm...I had never thought of this, but: wouldn't all sorts of
>"benign" radiation --relatively low-frquency stuff --
>get blue-shifted up into X-rays, gamma rays, and beyond?

Yup!

Also consider the energy potential in a collisoon between a starship
moving at relativistic speeds and a small rock floating in space.
--

Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.

[N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)]

Dear Patrick I. McCurry:

"Patrick I. McCurry" > wrote in message
...
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox >
> wrote in news:Ea2Xf.1644$kT4.128@fed1read02:
>
>> Dear Xabriol:
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>> http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/22mar_telomeres.htm?
> list169648
>>
>> Einstein never said space travel would be safe, or that
>> interstellar gasses impinging on your ship wouldn't
>> make it and you radioactive.
>>
>> NASA needs their heads cleaned out. According to
>> that "article", the people living in river deltas (high in
>> background radiation) or granite buildings (also
>> similarly high in background radiation) are aging
>> faster too.
>>
>> It isn't aging, since Dolly the sheep's clone died at
>> about the same "age" as Dolly, calendar-wise, even
>> though it was just a few years since its birth. Without
>> involving excessive background radiation levels.
>>
>> It is simply cellular damage due to high radiation.
>> And since it will be chronic, whatever arrives at the
>> stars won't be human, if it is even still alive.
>
> Dolly did not die from age related causes. She died
> from a lung infection that any shee could contract.

And aged sheep are particularly prone to, and her cells *were*
aged according to the literature.

> The only detectable defect had to do with her
> decreased telomere length which later cloning
> techniques have corrected for.

Telomere length isn't the entire story:
http://gslc.genetics.utah.edu/units/cloning/cloningrisks/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11164474&dopt=Abstract

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/sci_tech/highlights/cows.shtml

> There's nothing magical about cloning. It happens every
> damn day in nature.

Parthenogenesis, for one. Well, damn thank you.

> Radiation damage doesn't "age" anyone. That's silly.

The article seems to equate radiation damage with increased rate
of aging.

> It merely
> increases the likelyhood of cancers over a lifetime.
> Equating life expectancy with rate of aging is overly
> simplistic.

Yep. Good thing I didn't say that.

David A. Smith

[N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)]

Dear Patrick I. McCurry:

"Patrick I. McCurry" > wrote in message
...
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox >
> wrote in news:Ea2Xf.1644$kT4.128@fed1read02:
>
>> Dear Xabriol:
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>> http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/22mar_telomeres.htm?
> list169648
>>
>> Einstein never said space travel would be safe, or that
>> interstellar gasses impinging on your ship wouldn't
>> make it and you radioactive.
>>
>> NASA needs their heads cleaned out. According to
>> that "article", the people living in river deltas (high in
>> background radiation) or granite buildings (also
>> similarly high in background radiation) are aging
>> faster too.
>>
>> It isn't aging, since Dolly the sheep's clone died at
>> about the same "age" as Dolly, calendar-wise, even
>> though it was just a few years since its birth. Without
>> involving excessive background radiation levels.
>>
>> It is simply cellular damage due to high radiation.
>> And since it will be chronic, whatever arrives at the
>> stars won't be human, if it is even still alive.
>
> Dolly did not die from age related causes. She died
> from a lung infection that any [sheep] could contract.

And aged sheep are particularly prone to, and her cells *were*
aged according to the literature.

> The only detectable defect had to do with her
> decreased telomere length which later cloning
> techniques have corrected for.

Telomere length isn't the entire story:
http://gslc.genetics.utah.edu/units/cloning/cloningrisks/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11164474&dopt=Abstract

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/sci_tech/highlights/cows.shtml

> There's nothing magical about cloning. It happens every
> damn day in nature.

Parthenogenesis, for one. Well, damn thank you.

> Radiation damage doesn't "age" anyone. That's silly.

The article seems to equate radiation damage with increased rate
of aging.

> It merely
> increases the likelyhood of cancers over a lifetime.
> Equating life expectancy with rate of aging is overly
> simplistic.

Yep. Good thing I didn't say that.

David A. Smith

[Patrick I. McCurry]

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox >
wrote in
news:4hmXf.1671$kT4.311@fed1read02:

> Dear Patrick I. McCurry:
>
> "Patrick I. McCurry" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox >
>> wrote in news:Ea2Xf.1644$kT4.128@fed1read02:
>>
>>> Dear Xabriol:
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ups.com...
>>>> http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/22mar_telomeres.htm?
>> list169648
>>>
>>> Einstein never said space travel would be safe, or that
>>> interstellar gasses impinging on your ship wouldn't
>>> make it and you radioactive.
>>>
>>> NASA needs their heads cleaned out. According to
>>> that "article", the people living in river deltas (high in
>>> background radiation) or granite buildings (also
>>> similarly high in background radiation) are aging
>>> faster too.
>>>
>>> It isn't aging, since Dolly the sheep's clone died at
>>> about the same "age" as Dolly, calendar-wise, even
>>> though it was just a few years since its birth. Without
>>> involving excessive background radiation levels.
>>>
>>> It is simply cellular damage due to high radiation.
>>> And since it will be chronic, whatever arrives at the
>>> stars won't be human, if it is even still alive.
>>
>> Dolly did not die from age related causes. She died
>> from a lung infection that any [sheep] could contract.
>
> And aged sheep are particularly prone to, and her cells *were*
> aged according to the literature.
>


A sample size of one really is useless as proof goes. As such I
won't dismiss claims of cloning not helping her a long life.

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/antenna/dolly/134.asp



>> The only detectable defect had to do with her
>> decreased telomere length which later cloning
>> techniques have corrected for.
>
> Telomere length isn't the entire story:
> http://gslc.genetics.utah.edu/units/cloning/cloningrisks/
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?
cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&li
> st_uids=11164474&dopt=Abstract
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/sci_tech/highlights/cows.shtml
>
>> There's nothing magical about cloning. It happens every
>> damn day in nature.
>
> Parthenogenesis, for one. Well, damn thank you.
>

Also, I believe that armadillos produce identical quadruplets as a
matter of course.




>> Radiation damage doesn't "age" anyone. That's silly.
>
> The article seems to equate radiation damage with increased rate
> of aging.
>
>> It merely
>> increases the likelyhood of cancers over a lifetime.
>> Equating life expectancy with rate of aging is overly
>> simplistic.
>
> Yep. Good thing I didn't say that.
>
> David A. Smith
>
>
>

I admit that my post wandered a little from your initial post. It's
a bad habit of mine to jam multiple trains of thought into one post.

The only thing that radiation has been PROVEN to do over a lifetime
is cause cancer. Everything else is just guesswork at this point.

>
>

The article initially protrayed an unproven hypothesis as fact
coupled with an entirely false headline.

Also, one of your links backed up my claim that not all cloning cuts
telomeres short.
Another one came from utah and sounded behind the times full of
unproven assertions.
The third simply listed a potential anti-oxident that helps certain
types of cells below a certain age when in culture. Interesting,
but not much to write home about so far.

[N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)]

Dear Patrick I. McCurry:

"Patrick I. McCurry" > wrote in message
...
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox >
> wrote in
> news:4hmXf.1671$kT4.311@fed1read02:
....
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ups.com...
>>>>> http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/22mar_telomeres.htm?
....
> The article initially protrayed an unproven hypothesis
> as fact coupled with an entirely false headline.

Yes. I agree. I was not the one that posted it. I left the OPs
current handle above.

> Also, one of your links backed up my claim that not
> all cloning cuts telomeres short.

I said nothing about telomeres. I talked about "age of the cell"
(which you may feel is synomymous). My intent was to get to
"duration of chemical processes", rather than "rate of decay of
DNA" due to bombardment by radiation.

> Another one came from utah and sounded behind the
> times full of unproven assertions.

The internet is full of such "near emptiness".

> The third simply listed a potential anti-oxident that
> helps certain types of cells below a certain age
> when in culture. Interesting, but not much to write
> home about so far.

Agreed.

David A. Smith

[Paul B. Andersen]

Hexenmeister wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> | http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/22mar_telomeres.htm?list169648
> |
>
> So NASA is trying to wean morons back to physics instead of breaking
> their little hearts by saying no Santa Claus, not time dilation.
> Big deal. I bust their balls.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Baez/people_v_Baez.htm
> Androcles
>

Androcles, have you read this?
http://www.blueyonder.co.uk/blueyonder/getContent.jspx?page=h_services_aup

Paul

[Hexenmeister]

"Paul B. Andersen" > wrote in message
...
| Hexenmeister wrote:
| > > wrote in message
| > ups.com...
| > | http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/22mar_telomeres.htm?list169648
| > |
| >
| > So NASA is trying to wean morons back to physics instead of breaking
| > their little hearts by saying no Santa Claus, not time dilation.
| > Big deal. I bust their balls.
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Baez/people_v_Baez.htm
| > Androcles
| >
|
| Androcles, have you read this?
| http://www.blueyonder.co.uk/blueyonder/getContent.jspx?page=h_services_aup
|
| Paul

Yeah, what about it?
If Baez wants to sue me he can try, I'll welcome it.
Is there something about Santa Claus, glass balls on Norwegian Xmas trees
or non-existence of time dilation you find blasphemous, moron?

Have you read this?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/LIAR/LIAR.htm

Hilarious, yes?

Androcles.

[sal]

On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 10:15:04 -0700, N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

> Dear Patrick I. McCurry:
>
> "Patrick I. McCurry" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox > wrote in
>> news:4hmXf.1671$kT4.311@fed1read02:
> ...
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> ups.com...
>>>>>> http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/22mar_telomeres.htm?
> ...

>> The article initially protrayed an unproven hypothesis as fact
>> coupled with an entirely false headline.
>
> Yes. I agree. I was not the one that posted it. I left the OPs
> current handle above.
>
>> Also, one of your links backed up my claim that not all cloning
>> cuts telomeres short.
>
> I said nothing about telomeres. I talked about "age of the cell"
> (which you may feel is synomymous).

Well, what is "age" to a cell? They all look pretty young until they
get close to the Hayflick limit at which point a lot of stuff starts
going wrong, particularly including failure to keep dividing at the
same rate.

Telomere length is nice in that it explains the Hayflick limit, which
was a total mystery until telomeres (and their loss) were discovered.
I recall doing a literature search on this back in the 70's and there
was nothing but empty speculation and some hopeful nonesense about
free radicals. There was not a shred of a clue why there should be a
hard limit, nor why it should be consistent across many different cell
lines, nor why it should be almost unaffected by external influences.

Unfortunately for the theory of aging, 80 generations (which is
roughly where the Hayflick limit lives) is an awfully long time when
you're doubling the cell count with each generation. Furthermore, mice
which can't express telomerase didn't show quite the effects which
would have been expected if telomere loss were the whole story with
regard to aging. So, like everything in nature, it seems like there's
more going on than our simple models can fully account for.


> My intent was to get to "duration of chemical processes", rather
> than "rate of decay of DNA" due to bombardment by radiation.
>
>> Another one came from utah and sounded behind the times full of
>> unproven assertions.
>
> The internet is full of such "near emptiness".
>
>> The third simply listed a potential anti-oxident that helps certain
>> types of cells below a certain age when in culture. Interesting,
>> but not much to write home about so far.
>
> Agreed.
>
> David A. Smith

--
Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email
I can be also contacted through http://www.physicsinsights.org

[Hexenmeister]

"Koi-Lo" > wrote in message
...
|
| "sal" > wrote in message
| ...
| > On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 10:15:04 -0700, N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
| >
| =================
|
| Do you keep fish and a ponds If so, we would love to hear about them. If
| not, then please remove the
| "rec.ponds" NG from your replies to this cross-posted thread. :-)

Nah, he keeps good old English food ... rabbits. We like fish 'n chips, too.
I'm sending this to rec.ponds because you would love to hear about it,
otherwise I would not crosspost.
Androcles.




|
| Meanwhile here are the FAQ's for your perusal.
| rec.pond's FAQ are at:
| http://www.geocities.com/justinm090/faq.html
| ~~~ }<((((o> ~~~ }<{{{{o> ~~~ }<(((((o>
|