New Psychiatry for 2021 and Beyond

Psychiatry has a long and difficult story, confining the most difficult cases in prisonlike conditions, though the medical specialty is dated to the middle of the nineteenth century.¹ The patients often have short lives due to these conditions, trying to commit suicide and injure themselves in various ways.

Now, 2021, a new line of efforts begin to break through due to my recent writing and I'm going to describe them here.

The Two Categories System of Depression and Schizophrenia

It starts with my finding of the 2 Categories System of depression and schizophrenia. Reading the ICD-10 through and through many times, I've come to the conclusion that depression and schizophrenia have to be basic, much in how the patients handle the questions of ethics and morality. Schizophrenics do not like these questions and patients with depression say ethics and morality are important to them, but that life proves too hard to be able to live, typically. Brain chemistry in these two groups of patients is thus two opposites and require different medication, mutually exclusive to each other. The varying degrees of depression and analysis of bipolar disorder in light of corruption to be placed at the beginning of the depression category, starting conventionally to fill the 2 categories. Schizophrenia has such a wide modus operandi among its patients that I've seen it best to name it a category, also placing psychopathy inside of it. The group has a tendency to be attracted to the wicked and therefore ignores the ethics and morality. Nowadays, we rate them by immune system count.

Plot Chart by Analysis of Cancer As Expression of Schizophrenia

So I've come to find the obsession with warts as growing cancer in these patients with schizophrenia. How it grows on them and becomes their gold that they can brag about to other patients with schizophrenia, milder types, and become their idols and people they work for, doing various services and taking part in sex with them. These warts of wickedness (or should we say plain evil in the most severe cases) create then circles of social behaviour, with the most wicked holding the most «expensive» warts in the innermost circles and the outermost circles being the milder cases, often seen as the new recruits, evil stays as objective for the entire play. Well, this is how cancer of all types are seen in them. More research can be made here.

But it develops and I've added other diseases and syndromes under the schziophrenia category, this category holding the most promise in being revolutionary in terms of treatment and other discoveries, like the incredible histories of these patients. So in addition to cancer, we find homosexuality, bulimia next to anorexia, asexuality, psychopathy, sociopathy, ALS, tetraplegia, multiple sclerosis . All these states and others are then various stages of deterioration of the nervous system. Clearly, my plot chart isn't complete, but one can OR gate data generate a complete plot chart possibly, again by immune system count (or alternatively, the electrometer value from the skin) as values for the chart, from the earliest onset of schizophrenia to the very deepest. Make no mistake about it. When I place them in the schizophrenia category, I'm saying at the same time patients should be treated as if patients with schizophrenia in addition to other medication pertaining to the specific illness/disease. This is part of the revolution.

Best Practice Psychiatry

Through history, I have found that patients with schizophrenia are best treated by scientific ECT, Olanzepine (for example Zyprexa®) or similar or better and medical sleep assistance, Diazepam (for example Vival®/Valium®) or similar or better. This has been found independently in search for treatment of an important group of patients who have been treated insufficiently in the past. See hsitory of psychiatry for this. Scientific ECT (undeveloped) has been found in 1 instance in New York City with a person practicing ECT on himself albeit not in pure form and combined with what we know as a type of electrical brain massage or stimulation, a cousin of the ECT, just lower voltage. This has been in the 80s. Olanzepine has also been developed and produced at this time for this patient group, those with schizophrenia thanks to analysis of this one case in New York. Diazepam has been identified at the same time and has a long history of being medicine for a variety of illnesses. Formerly, patients with schizophrenia have been treated with only one or two components of the 3-step best practice treatment.

Patients with depression are best treated with Escitalopram (for example Cipralex®) or similar or better. They often have problems outside psychiatry to deal with as they stay on medication. Compared to schizophrenia, depression is the less complicated, also because the patients want the medication and see its use directly, taking it voluntarily, nothing else needed for the psychiatry side problems.

There have been blatant holes in psychiatry such as non-existence of watermarked logging files and lack of logging procedures. There's a general lack of possibility for having one's therapy sessions properly documented by video, possibly making this a quality criterium. This should be amended by requirements of state/nation. The whole psychiatric practices should be certified by some kind of ISO-standard what concerns document flows and quality criteria of these, possibly also quality-certifying other aspects of the psychiatry. There should be a possibility of having common spaces monitored by video in cases of rumbles and ensuring security for both staff and patients, possibly making any police work far easier. It's assumed psychiatry complies with best practices, that it's strictly legal and that this is reflected in the psychiatric hospital departments and institutions. This should include qualified transparency and the possibility to retrace history of treatment.

Modified Somatism

I regard the somatist psychiatry in combination with telepathy and telepathic effects, the only possible psychiatric position one can have for real. Modified Somatism is for healthy people who can then gain greater stability in their lives and seek help if problems should arise. I include it here as an entry point for the medical professional and healthy people alike. That said, we continue. I'd say a way to telepathy is hypersensitivity and the way to enhance those feelings is to be conscious about them. Not only that, but to make the necessary connection that if it's done correctly, puts the person into the telepathic domain, is to analyse the feelings the person has by lying on a bench, not being occupied with anything. Some of those feelings are clearly due to the person lying on a bench, a comfortable place, preferably, but others are sensations coming from somewhere else, most likely people who are inclined, as the Moon's inclination to the Earth is a natural relationship, to engage with the person emotionally or intellectually. There are, beside the telepathy of feelings, also visual, auditory and the combination of all three telepathy. The impressions vary from what the person makes in one's own mind to more reasonable results of various. Telepathy can be very inexact and it can be troubling to discern it all. With telepathy, one may want to investigate "quantum entanglement", "contextualism" and "chaos theory". All of this is just assertions based on personal experience, but I've written it so now anyone can find out themselves. Thus for the future, experiments concerning telepathy must include priming, hypersensitivity and open mind being central, of the participants. Some lie detection may also be included to rule out sabotage of the experiment, perhaps voice stress analyzers.

For the sake of orderliness:

somatist — ˈsōməd.ə̇st noun ( s) Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary somat + ist 1. : an advocate of medical organicism 2. : one who seeks the causes of mental disorders in brain lesions and other physical conditions! [Typically such as violence and abuse.]²

somatist — somatism, n. /soh meuh tist/, n. Psychiatry. a psychiatrist who considers all mental illnesses to have physical origins. [Typically such as violence and abuse.] [1670 80, in sense materialist ; SOMAT + IST]³

References:
1) Shorter, E (1997), A History of Psychiatry: From the Era of the Asylum to the Age of Prozac, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., p. 1.
2) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/somatist

3) http://medicine.academic.ru/44344/somatist

(Finally a rewording, more coherent and less erratic. It has been hard to work under these conditions in Norway.)

Final Verdict on "HIV/AIDS" Virus - The lowering of the immune system, triggering Leukemia

Though a "HIV/AIDS" virus lowers the immune system like any other virus and so to trigger, sometimes, Leukemia in people.

Still, killing Leukemia dangers by the blue pills may protect you from Leukemia, but the trend of the body, in general, is dangerous and so is likely to contract other forms of cancer and thus die after all!

The key to good health is therefore good mental health supported by Best practice psychiatry as always!

#HIV #AIDS #Cancer #Leukemia #MentalHealth #Virus #ImmuneSystem #Death

Connection: Entering the Discussion of HIV/AIDS Cautiously - https://whatiswritten777.blogspot.com/2013/04/entering-discussion-of-hivaids.html.

Formerly on Twitter:

@lfolsneslea
The true plague of #homosexuality: #Cancer, genitalia and all other types! Not HIV/AIDS! Besides, HIV/AIDS causes cancer, leukemia, and is actually this cancer too!
HIV/AIDS has been overstudied, I think it's fair to say, I'll make the case for it too based on evidence,of course!
8:09 AM · Mar 23, 2019

Mar 23
Replying to @lfolsneslea, myself
See Black Plague of medieval Europe! Hypocrite Christians? #Inquisition has to continue! Schizophrenics must be forced into medical treatment, even psychiatrists! Police? Community watch? Other GPs, physicians...?

Being religious or being "wart"-religious - The choice is simple

Lately and with greater insight over a long period of time, the choice seems simple - being religious or being or becoming "wart"-religious. By "wart"-religious, I mean what happens when one (consistently) becomes immoral as a human being, one shoots off the humanity in one's self.

I agree that it is difficult to be religious at times as one is still exposed to bad people or even unscrupulous people.

As we Christians should know, the choice is between God and Heaven and Satan and Hell. However, it is unclear what qualifies to this in exact terms. Is it "so much sins" or "so much sins"? But what you can notice is that these bad people like to develop warts/papilloma both on the skin and inside the body, also in the brain. (See description of cancer like warts/papillomas.) They shed their humanity through and through by bad/vicious actions against others, preferably against good people (mostly religious). I think, therefore, that these people are "labeled" with warts/papillomas because the nervous system that also includes the brain is in its best state when the human is good and moral, also most intelligent. I.e., that I think the future will show that immoral people are those who have a bad nervous system full of warts/papilloma and that these warts/papillomas become a religion for them. They are doomed to cultivate their warts/papilloma as religion and that this is a spiral stair to Hell and a final state without humanity. They become monsters and enemies of humanity/the good people.

Again, I encourage you, the choice is easy! There is a choice between religion (eg. our/common Christianity or other "whitelist"-religion) or "wart"-religion and monsters in humanity.

You may want to search online for "wart(s)", "papilloma", "devil's mark" or "devil's taint." I have also written something about "wart(s)".

(Originally published in Norwegian at "www.verdidebatt.no" titled "Valget er enkelt - Å være religiøs eller å være "vorte"-religiøs", Oct 6, 2017.)

I'm saying that bad people are more likely to develop physical, literal warts (black/brown/red/white) in connection with their nervous system. You should know there are several types of warts, some of which are harmless.

It seems to me that all of the nervous system is affected by morality with a starting point where full health/full morality is the body without these "taints", triggers to the nervous system. So it can represent a new turn for religious people to stay away from a warty life and that these morally depraved people become these people with a wart/warts in the center of their lives. Only a claim for now, though.

Given all other strange efforts in 2017 and that no person is persecuted on grounds of warts, I don't see why people shouldn't have the information to be able to pursue investigation to what mentality these warts entail.

If it turns out to be true that cancer/warts are caused by (very) immoral thoughts/actions shouldn't the public know about it? Isn't it unscientific to shove such things under the rug on grounds of "politeness"?

I feel it's unfair to compare this effort to some (idiot/superstitious) instance of 1727 CE.

It's even more unfair if it turns out that people's mentality actually turns out to revolve around these things, the "warts", something we can use fMRI/MRI/plain sight to investigate in 2017.

To be clear then, this is not the suggestion for some kind of 21st century inquisition!

It has been my words, before the science, that have allowed us to smell the atmosphere of Mars without a person even setting foot there involving the sending of neurologically "compatible" signals straight from the planet's surface and then use a device to apply these signals to for example the skin of your nose-bone, no neural implants necessary.

You seem to demand that "I run before I can walk" and want to deny me the discussion of (possibly important) ideas. You make the unscientific claim that warts, the ones I discuss, the cancerous ones, arise from mere infection. This is not true. They are connected to the nervous system for reasons I'd like to investigate.

I see that Wikipedia is describing cancer apart from warts so if I just like to say that when I write "warts" I mean the "stuff" that has connections to the nervous system and that trigger (immoral) thoughts or dark feelings in the brain when they are touched, also by the mere contact of blood.
For now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_papillomavirus_infection.

Not in plain science yet, immoral people can be revealed by bio-electrical-value-readers straight from the skin although the results can be manipulated by use of cocaine (other as well?).

I find it important to make religious people more stalwart and faithful in their beliefs and in making the young people and Agnostics find religion attractive, also in intellectual respects.

There is an important difference in making mere science reports and submitting interesting ideas that may have positive impact in the World. Political correctness isn't a virtue and it's not a virtue either to write allegedly popular science that do not draw criticism.

I believe in my ideas until they may/might be disproven and to discuss them above the corruption in the World.

I write this (and the above) in full sincerity and that I am my brother's keeper!

Let's see who gets proven right!

Note: Ideas do come before the scientific evidence and it's part of science to make a scientific "program" (Imre Lakatos) in competition with other ideas to see who finally provides scientific description of worth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos

Cancer and I-relation - A new angle to Dualism - Relaunching

I've been having these "wild" thoughts as philosophical speculation. Whether cancer in a person and the corresponding view on oneself as "I" can relate to Dualism.

Now this may seem out of the ordinary and I'm trying to tie it together in this fashion: if one has cancer, does this cancer relate to one's own view of the "I"?

Let's say a confirming investigation could give something like this: one has cancer (always the case, only the ones who get questions) and then maybe answers such that "I" is of lesser importance or neglible.

So, "hopefully", one can find a correlation in cases of cancer (physical expression) and rather negative self-views on one's own "I" (the immaterial expression)! At least, this is what the investigation "aims" for, in that cancer can be seen as expression of a kind of negative impact on the (central) nervous system and therefore a negative impact on the self, the "I" correspondingly. Thus yielding insights to a dualistic view.

Sure thing, mind doesn't get cancer, thankfully, but it could be exciting to find a parallel expression in the mind if one exists. Maybe we are getting close to it above. No?

Far out? Long shot? What say you?

Cancer-Preventive Measures - Cancer as Psychiatric Idea - Reiteration

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.

My theory of women actually having a different relationship to their bodies in terms of feelings, making women avoid cancer in greater degrees than men, when indeed I think that most other factors are more or less the same. One should note that risky behaviour can indicate, also, such an inferior relationship to one's own feelings already in young age, ie. heavy drinking among young men.

Besides, modern women and men have almost the same patterns when it comes to "smoke, drink and work". Haven't you heard about "double-working" women? Also, the smoking has come down heavily before 2001 as this set (to which the link points) is from 2001 to 2007. You should also note that cancer strikes, predominantly, the older scope of the population so the fact of heavy drinking young men doesn't have any (particular) impact. I agree to "avoiding carcinogenic substances is the (best/[a significant advise]) you can achieve in the avoidance of cancer" [by chaz wyman]. This is not about the mental concept of "emotions", it's about neurologic signals, "feelings", in your body before cancer occurs! Thus, this writing is not about some kind of "magic" cure. No, it's about "Cancer-Prevention Measures"! So, what I try to point out, is the relation a person has to one's own feelings (in the body) and not some mental size of sensing sadness and so on. The claim is, simply, that when people care for a "natural" relationship to their feelings, they can in great parts avoid cancer. To internalise a "mechanistic body image"/"reject natural body feelings" can therefore lead to cancer/increased probability for cancer in my opinion! This should come in addition to other good advice such as a healthy diet, physical exercise and the avoidance of carcinogenic substances!

I agree to some extent with your [bytesplicer] emphasis on stress, even including possibly that hazardous environment also puts stress on your body ie. being subject to carcinogenics puts a load on the body to get rid of it, lowering the "energies"/electricity to sustain the feelings that support your immune system and against abnormalities by cell life (cell division, cell breathing, cell workings).

So, I'm looking for the best range of feelings, not being below a certain value and not, possibly, being too high either.

(I've been thinking that my writing is on a stage where the next step is to actually enter the field and develop techniques like making a measuring device that measures the electricity between the fingers with a person who is typically resting and calm (for steady signals) and so on (making a data bank on these data gathered from "high and low" in society.)

Concerning protests to my theory on the basis of the cases of cancer in kids, i.e., below 18 yo., I write this:
in the case of cancer in kids I think one should move the search to epigenetics from the parents and combine this with the conditions (incl. epigenetics) of the children.

The children are also mostly struck with leukemia of what I understand.

Children are also (only) one percent or less of the total of cancer-struck patients whether malignant or benign...

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.

For faster diagnostication of cancer in the body here and there, one may use radiology by photon emitter and -detector set at special frequency and by "signature", of course, as usual (also in for example quality control of food in food industry or restaurants).

To live life according to principles of life (ref: Hinduism, Veda?), the health and the Objective Ethics that I may add my own neuro-value (from between the fingertips or more technically, with the needle and meter attached). This level is presupposed to stay on top of the own awareness of neurology/feelings and that this too represents at the very end as theory for countering the cancers of all types.

The idea from the original writing is of course to create a debate that may kill various stupid ideas in society, such as the blatant suppression of others and further push for better medical practices and better health campaigns much like fitness campaigns for avoiding artery-diseases. In addition, of course, that people are made able to record privately or by doctor, their neuro-values with a very simple device.

As such, by summary, we have then these three levels:
1. The life according to life principles, to health and more.
2. The Healthy Neuro-Values, the awareness of own neurology, of own feelings.
3. The dangerous values and, possibly, a person's growing ignorance to life and cancer alike.

I suspect it's even common now to measure these cancer-relevant values in USA! So, go ahead and try to be stupid about it, you other people...!

Also, the neuro-values are NOT supposed to reflect stress, they are supposed to reflect a person in "neutral state", relaxed and "ordinary".

Perhaps we are looking for a kind of "core"-spectrum value. I think so as I lack the finishing opportunities for getting the data-set together, clinically, science-worth speaking...

There can't be a cure for cancer because a cure necessarily relies on the neural/electrical signals of the body and they are in the cases of cancer WRONG in the first place. The thing to hope for, though, is for cancer to turn benign... But the wrong signals, the wrong signals...

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/cells/badcom/ writes "Cell growth and division is such an important process that it is under tight control with many checks and balances. But even so, cell communication can break down. The result is uncontrolled cell growth, often leading to cancer. Cancer can occur in many ways, but it always requires multiple signaling breakdowns. Often, cancer begins when a cell gains the ability to grow and divide even in the absence of a signal. Ordinarily this unregulated growth triggers a signal for self-destruction. But when the cell also loses the ability to respond to death signals, it divides out of control, forming a tumor. Later cell communication events cause blood vessels to grow into the tumor, enabling it to grow larger. Additional signals allow the cancer to spread to other parts of the body."

So the case with an imagined cancer in the arm (maybe not the usual, but let's imagine), I happen to think that one has, in one's mind, severely abused the arm of a person to such an extent that in one's own mind this arm has become "neurologically marked" by symptoms of cancer (warts) in the arm and a repugnance in the mind where the arm is no longer considered as a good part of the body, but still used! Thus, there is actually a kind of correspondence in both the mind and the physical part that's the arm. This is a hypothesis for investigation.

The case is clear! The body-electric value/bio-value of people with cancer is lower than in people of a sound mind/very reliable people! Yet society fails to publish such studies that may enable people to take a course of intelligence/wisdom, living the good life! Thus, feelings are moral after all?

Given the special mindset of people with cancer, there should be rich possibilities with getting confirmations by "swimhat"-fMRI!

Thus we have: moral people in the best sense will never become affected by cancer! On the other side: the immoral will generally become affected, it becomes their "religion"! To psychology and psychiatry!

The study for the initial 1000 people, laying down an examination schema, can be reliably completed in 1-2 years! Given the troubles of the World, the case should be completed and crystal clear in 10-20 years time. Which is to say that the investigation is well-defined and certainly not pseudo-scientific.

Let's imagine a different case of cancer/warts: what if one case of cancer arises on the penis of a man because he has used it to suffocate women and children numerous times, perhaps reviving them multiple times. Let's also say he has in some way taken part in torture by using his penis pervertly. Let's say further his penis falls off by the consequences of the cancer/warts.

Now, shouldn't the public know how this cancer arises, these warts arise by this case? I mean, if there is a clear causal relationship between disgusting acts of immorality and cancer/warts then my opinion is that the public/the World has a definite right TO KNOW THIS!

"Concerning protests to my theory on the basis of the cases of cancer in kids, i.e., below 18 yo., I write this:
in the case of cancer in kids I think one should move the search to epigenetics from the parents and combine this with the conditions (incl. epigenetics) of the children."

So, we have the (emotional) moral leadership from parents to children and the feelings-exchange from a parent to the child may mean A LOT to the child. Again, there's not much said in this regard (research/science).

So I conclude with that children with cancer are in one way or another "emotionally abused" toward having their feelings the wrong way. They may learn to behave "mechanically", disregard their own feelings and so on. Some (few?) may even have been abused/tortured by "specialists" and become affected by cancer/warts (even "warts" in the blood) "over night" as one way to survival/ending the abuse/torture against them, but I have no estimate for this. Cancer in children is already rare.

Either way, children with cancer can or should be examined with "swimhat"-fMRI and given input-response checks by a given set of pictures, but this is "limited"/given by the intelligence of the examiner. For instance, one picture may hold various instances of cancer directly as one suggestion, to check what "signals" or "firings" take place in the child. No matter what, whether signals for pains or other, the child's brain is _modular_! And this can prove very useful for the examination of the child.

One step further? Toward the end of the schematics (for my Nobel Prize, thiii-hiii-hii)? In every respect, I hope the research community takes this to heart, whether in Chile, South Africa, Pakistan or India (or "the Western World") as ordinary cancer research has had at least 50 years already! ("Shame on you!")

To this investigation, under Personality Psychology:
To identify factors of common traits of psychology that generates cancer in the body.
It is my theory that a lack of moral psychology has such bearing on the nervous system that the body looses control and that cancer results, also depending on the corresponding signature in the mentality of the given person.

Means:
"swimhat"-fMRI
device for identifying bio-electrical value, a "stick", generates mA outcome from the nerves, I think, almost like a USB-stick in size
qualitative interviews, revolving around morality, feelings, harmony of mentality to the body

Cancer: By my perspective on cancer, the World has a chance to become cancerfree in some 200 yrs because of the heavy work with culture, thereof, given that 200 years may be seen as a long time (to wait).

To this investigation, under Personality Psychology:
To identify factors of common traits of psychology that generates cancer in the body.
It is my theory that a lack of moral psychology has such bearing on the nervous system that the body loses control and that cancer results, also depending on the corresponding signature in the mentality of the given person. Loses in the sense that body control is lost due to the lack of moral psychology,  Kantianistic type, no insincerity or play with moral ideas such as Utilitarianism allowed.

Means:
"swimhat"-fMRI
device for identifying bio-electrical value, a "stick", generates mA outcome from the nerves, I think, almost like a USB-stick in size.

Some key words: qualitative interviews, revolving around morality, feelings, harmony of mentality to the body.

As a consequence from the above, there's a good chance that cancer can be fought with schizophrenia medicine (and ECT, I suppose) in helping cancer patients to live longer.

The short story is thus:
Immoral mentality implies schizophrenia and cancer where cancer is symptom of schizophrenia.

On Cancer and Sexology:
What is the sexology of cancer patients above 25 years of age?
One guess (loosely): homosexual tendencies high, plus exotic tendencies as well, BDSM, sodomy and the rest... Thus, "category"-schizophrenia, especially the "deep"-schizophrenia patients, and cancer patients align by this aspect too!

Optimal treatment for all cancers may be this "despite doing nothing more than halting cancer and not preventing cancer":
"Full treatment" of cancer:
* Injected opiates/subutex/"clean" heroin, at suitable locations/hospitals/clinics/special homes for sleep?
* Electro-convulsion therapy (ECT, that is generally enjoyed by these patients)
* One special type of cancer drug removing (some) "warty/papilloma"-stuff (from Australia?). Nivolumab (Opdivo)? The cancer drug in question destroys cancer cells chemically, though I can't remember the mechanisms.
* The usual schizophrenics drugs, 3 strengths according to ECT effects wearing off, starting with the weakest of course.

In addition to the anti-cancer treatment, surgery etc., prescribed by the physicians/oncologists.

Actually, the treatment of cancer and schizophrenia may have much in common, unknown if this is exactly 100% given that schizophrenia may not have developed that much cancer/cancerous stuff that requires surgery of various kinds, radiological surgery, scalpel surgery, the rest...

Please note!
By "The Full Treatment" of Schizophrenia program you can halt the ailments of a lot, diseases, degeneration of immune system, stopping (early) symptoms of ALS, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Cancer (all types), HIV/AIDS, etc. In general, you halt or nullify some or all proneness to all negative effects by schizophrenia.

You may also halt or nullify some or all increasing need for more drugs. So the treatment of schizophrenia may be the key to successful treatment of drug addicts, ALL of them!

* The connection to ALS may be questioned. Research yet to confirm.
* Some of this, the above, may require more research for (final) confirmation.

By this note, I say that schizophrenia is a key illness in making patients prone to all ailments in the broadest sense, be they cancer, weakened immune system, all sorts of bacteria and viruses, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, ALS and the rest. The ailments, all of them! Science in hand, the best!

See also The Good People List and, if you will, The Bad People List! "The future is still looking very bright!"

One note on (all) cancer research.
It may well amount to disinformation of the public if one continues to ignore "the possible fact" of "category"-schizophrenia connected to all types of cancer. If the public is not given the information that there may well be a connection between ("category"-)schizophrenia and all types of cancer then this may be a type of disinformation to the public. There are the metabolism readings and there are the treatments by schizophrenia medication and ECT for these cancer patients to quickly determine the connection! The duties...

-------------------

22.02.2003, 20.11.2009, 04.02.2010, 05.02.2010, 07.02.2010, 28.10.2010 and 20.02.2011

Terje Lea©2003, ©2009, ©2010, ©2011
Note: a comment concerning cancer in children has been added today, 20.02.2011, but written to the Philosophy Now forum 18.02.2011.

Entering the Discussion of HIV/AIDS Cautiously

Tentatively, over HIV/AIDS, remembering Jacob Zuma and the anti-bacterial (discussion) by house-hold detergents, I give you my opinion for now:

There's a lingering recall of a med. doctor who, by suspicion, is the first documented case in USA and that many people have been brought in to answer the situation at hand.

--------------------------------------

Update: I withdraw the case against HIV-AIDS. There is a virus there and HIV-AIDS is for real and very dangerous, no doubt about it!

--------------------------------------

That a psychiatrist has also given one opinion. My suspicion is, rightfully so, that all of these people's work has entered the data-set.

Therefore, as conclusion (for now): This med. doctor is suspected to have been deeply corrupt triggering a rare condition in the blood that can look like coagulation but is rather hoops or mud of something that may seem to be cancer, of one particular kind. You may say blood clots of warts. So therefore, my recommendation is now that HIV/AIDS is not transferrable by sex like they say, but rather the symptom of this corrupt, widely out on the schizophrenic category by two-category system of classification, person and in line with Alzheimer's and those, that this person has died from a type of blood clot/blood cancer! End of story (for now).

I writing this to you now, I also pay great respects to both oncology and hematology alike.

This solves the serious need for description from other (med.) doctors and sheds light on a new angle to which other serious researchers may add opinion, something that should be plain! That being all the way to the schizophrenic side of life entails  the result: HIV/AIDS.

Corrupt means schizophrenic or worse in this text, i.e., toward the immorally blind psychopathic behaviour much like the personality described in "American Psycho" by Bret Easton Ellis.

Blood cancer:
Leukemia C90 - C95 (ICD-10, WHO) - http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en#/C90.1 - through to C95.

Neither do I give any guarantee that I'm right nor do I insist to defeat other/former insights into HIV/AIDS research. I just see I locked situation for the HIV/AIDS disease and that the new insights into the "very dignified" med. doctors in revealing many of them more of the kind of Dr. Mengele, whether Dr. Schwein A. or other, that many med. doctors may be perverse! Therefore, I have no qualms in giving my free opinion by the above. You understand, please?

That the "Dachau-concentration-camp" research as much as Tuskagee syphilis research is very much alive, and that, correctly, they have NO regards for the Helsinki-declaration or the dignity of human kind, that they just do whatever they feel they can get away with!!!

This is hinted to by "anti-bacterial detergents" discussion above, where I've found that they fail to apply the use of alcoholic substances correctly in trying to keep the best standards for sterile surgery rooms or sterile instruments, at times, or often...
Development further: I'm not into voodoo just yet - the HIV/AIDS:

When I write "tentatively", I mean it!
I'm still with the consensus science, the best practice science (also laboratory/"petri-dish") and the best results science. That I obviously understand the requirements to /win/ a scientific discussion based on facts, not shamanism, hence my "Efficiency Argument" and more.

This may also only enter as solution to /one aspect ("one strand")/ of the HIV/AIDS discussion, not all of them (there are several types).

Plainly, the above is meant for research only and I strongly encourage people to follow the usual advice for sexual behaviour, that exposure to disease (STDs) can prove fatal.

So don't mess up and try to give me the blame for any stupidity.

Also, my data-set isn't yet any to speak of. That I need to get some confirmation routine to square this up, like a combined psychiatric examination, with some bio-indicators (metabolism fx.) and the very blood samples themselves, how they look and "suspected stage" in the disease, any prediction, and of course the accumulated numbers, the cases, person by person.

(I hold the advanced psychiatric procedures, not the "loose"/unstructured, "I look into your personality and see so much"-type of interview style. No, more like a computerised routine of entering various data-sources and compiling the whole to see what one gets, i.e., a close to/or 100% routine for psychiatric diagnostication.)

(I'm sorry if I've upset you!)

Remember, please, also that there has been a period of the discussion of when one discussed some type of (comprehensive, but expensive) "self-test" kits and that the result has been summed to be that even these fairly big kits have proved insufficient for providing a 100% secure results. So here we have it: practically no secure testing-array for HIV/AIDS that I'm aware of, only the recording of symptoms by that longitudinal contact.
I'll just notify you right away that there are more people than me who are onto the HIV/AIDS as something else than "the popular story". And they have studies to go (they claim). Given the level of fraud in society and the status of the legal systems, I just back these two:
HIV tests are the biggest scam!!!
Piney Davis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yopRSViC_M
and
AIDS is a hoax! Biologist Christl Meyer explodes the HIV/AIDS conspiracy
Christl Meyer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaA6zLUPfvk .

That my opinion by "Entering the Discussion of HIV/AIDS Cautiously" is only about ONE (1) case and its scope/consequences. This is not a "normative" opinion to the public, but an opinion on the research and parts of the hematology and oncology studies around the World. Oncology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oncology and Hematology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hematology .

Sorry for leaving out the hematology, that's of course most interesting... "That the blood contains..." Any good "blood magic" there? ;-)

"Blood magic...", humorously recalling the "magic devices" described by Kuhn in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed.

The med. doctors' scientific principles go by this:
Remember that by Diabetes Type 2, it follows, as example too
No symptoms -> no disease
Not fatty -> not Diabetes Type 2.

One should also remember the old divide as subtypes under bacteria with all types included, that bacteria spawn two subtypes:
other/move bacteria (also those that have evolved) and viruses (which evolve too)!

Remarks for literature may be to look for change "in scientific wording" from 1985 to 1995 as they have stopped using it.

Extra notice of earlier science history too: That as this (new) HIV/AIDS theory has entered the World, there has been some contextual science discussion on the science criteria for objective science, also in philosophy of science, of course. As such, this text of mine stands with a magnitude of at least x2 or in square power!

By suspicion, that HIV/AIDS has branched out, being an investigation on several levels, also one to which one wants to determine what science really is!

Killer of HIV/AIDS Theory and Description?

Diagnostication part of HIV/AIDS is missing compared to other classical bacteria/virus infections such as "when sample has been cultured in laboratory for some standard time" then result [something] which is definitely bacteria/virus [x] and has this [x] correlation to symptoms. This is generally expressed. Clearly, as the pattern has been completed with the real data then the HIV/AIDS problem or "inconsistency" beomces more evident.

However, some of these bacteria/viruses have become "operationalised" over indicators in the blood and that diagnostication by machine [x] or detector chemical [x] is obtained after [x] minutes, but perhaps no more than 20.

This makes us able to suggest that HIV/AIDS is killed because is fails to support a simple test-set by blood analysis. Is therefore HIV/AIDS killed as theory and description? That is, is it unscientific to write HIV/AIDS? (If not, I want to have the virus component definitely classified and made possible to analyse, according to virus classification system, compatible with all other viruses.)

Additionally, the Separator: according to my Preventive Cancer Measures some of these people may have particular values from neuro-signals that indicate "a tendency toward blood cancer" rather than any virus at all.

(Main "killer": the lack of small laboratory diagnostication standard, a so called "self-help" kit.)

Virus is traditionally classified in the petridishes and not by the "negative" side anti-bodies. Again, indicating a presence of (blood-)cancer and not virus. Also, the first paper went to a Cancer Research Journal, by the French team, and not to a journal of virology. This may imply several things, also the definite scientific.

Definite virus-detection is no problem by traditional (outside the HIV/AIDS "craze") virus-detection/identification, i.e., one type of petri-dish method or other.

For other results, to quench the idiot protests further, where there is no virus (present), "but still this insistence", one supplies three angles for HIV/AIDS theorists:
- First: Papilloma nature of "the other" in the petri-dish may be identified.
- Second: The relevant patient's nature neuro-value in terms of cancer-indication, compared to the best/healthy person's neuro-value. Just choose any healthy person.
- Third: That a further metabolism test will tell what kind of patient we're dealing with here, probably with a run down the cancer slope, either way.

This comes on top of traditional investigation angles into viruses and blood cancer alike and should have long traditions for either (50 years +).

Testing.
Virus: Result positive/negative. No possible objection either way for these HIV/AIDS theorists.Blood cancer: Blood cancer symptoms correlation.
Other: Virus free and healthy too!
Else: Cancer may develop or has developed with the patient, given these two indicators of neuro-value of the patient and metabolism test (or equivalent).

Simply: CASE IS CLOSED! It's now for the acting authorities to move against HIV/AIDS theory and make sure the proper medicines are available in the future! Alright?

"Classifications of HIV infection"

"Two main clinical staging systems are used to classify HIV and HIV-related disease for surveillance purposes: the WHO disease staging system for HIV infection and disease,[11] and the CDC classification system for HIV infection.[79] The CDC's classification system is more frequently adopted in developed countries. Since the WHO's staging system does not require laboratory tests, it is suited to the resource-restricted conditions encountered in developing countries, where it can also be used to help guide clinical management. Despite their differences, the two systems allow comparison for statistical purposes.[9][11][79]

The World Health Organization first proposed a definition for AIDS in 1986.[11] Since then, the WHO classification has been updated and expanded several times, with the most recent version being published in 2007.[11] The WHO system uses the following categories:

Primary HIV infection: May be either asymptomatic or associated with acute retroviral syndrome.[11]

Stage I: HIV infection is asymptomatic with a CD4+ T cell count (also known as CD4 count) greater than 500 per microlitre (µl or cubic mm) of blood.[11] May include generalized lymph node enlargement.[11]
Stage II: Mild symptoms which may include minor mucocutaneous manifestations and recurrent upper respiratory tract infections. A CD4 count of less than 500/µl.[11]
Stage III: Advanced symptoms which may include unexplained chronic diarrhea for longer than a month, severe bacterial infections including tuberculosis of the lung, and a CD4 count of less than 350/µl.[11]
Stage IV or AIDS: severe symptoms which include toxoplasmosis of the brain, candidiasis of the esophagus, trachea, bronchi or lungs and Kaposi's sarcoma. A CD4 count of less than 200/µl.[11]

The United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention also created a classification system for HIV, and updated it in 2008.[79] This system classifies HIV infections based on CD4 count and clinical symptoms,[79] and describes the infection in three stages:

Stage 1: CD4 count ≥ 500 cells/µl and no AIDS defining conditions
Stage 2: CD4 count 200 to 500 cells/µl and no AIDS defining conditions
Stage 3: CD4 count ≤ 200 cells/µl or AIDS defining conditions

Unknown: if insufficient information is available to make any of the above classifications

For surveillance purposes, the AIDS diagnosis still stands even if, after treatment, the CD4+ T cell count rises to above 200 per µL of blood or other AIDS-defining illnesses are cured.[9]"

Source: Wikipedia. Url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS#Classifications_of_HIV_infection .

Possible theoretical causes to lower CD4 counts:
Radiation
Cancer
General virus infection, any
Illness, any, severe enough
Famine, severe enough

It seems to me weak! Almost so to say that if you are under somatic pressure, it's likely to be HIV/AIDS, in theory. I also note that the WHO classification is entirely without any virus or virus description... When I write that it's entirely without a virus, I intend to make this a statement of fact that they have held this as official view all the way up from "eagle's nest" in terms of authority in science of medicine. Exactly right, entirely without a virus!

Also, there are various epidemiological problems connected to the virus, such that only one person, as late as 1980s in New York, is affected by it, but no other people throughout the World despite the infection-vectors, like blood and sperma. And as the World largely remains condom-less up to this point of a single individual.

For the many thousands of years, one would think the humanity has become resilient to it, the HIV-virus itself (or being wiped out as effect that we are not, of course).

So, can it rate as a mere little flu-virus and not this deadly thing?

Enjoy.

(If they, the med. doctors, don't take the hint, then I note strictly the culture of lying and dishonesty, one that they need to accept straight down and without particular reservation.)

PS: I'm sorry that this last text has only entered now, rather than at first with the rest of earlier.

Opinions on Science in Expression of Evolution and Other

Main Title: Opinions on Science in Expression of Evolution and Other

This whole (web-)page of my writings belongs to my person, i.e., © Terje Lea / Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea 2003 - 2011. Make no mistake about it!

Update: 24.03.2011.
By Terje Lea, 2003-2011. I've also been publishing these views, opinions and ideas as Aetixintro and in my own name several places, like in forums.philosophyforums.com, forum.philosophynow.org, Twitter and Facebook. They are also published rather erratically, that is, the publishing of mine has not a fixed routine and the places of publishing are also not fixed, but rather made as I see fit.

Links to the various arguments. Please click the first letter.
Cancer-Preventive Measures
Form of Evolution or Forming a Frame for Evolution
Theory of the Cause of Schizophrenia
Opinions on Physics / This argument is last updated!
Opinions on Astrophysics, Possible Explanation of the Paradox of the Corona of the Sun and its Temperature Differences
Physics, A Possible Angle to Para-Normal Phenomenon of "Soul"
Economy, Over the Dependence Theory of Economy!
Psychology, Telepathy Experiment and Method
Physics, The Possibility to Set Up an Atom "Brain"
Physics/Biology, Abiogenesis - Would It Be Meteors That Impacted Onto Earth or Simply the Volcanos - Erupting Magma/Lava That Leads to Life in Its Most Basic Form?
Note: The most newly created argument is always placed lowest on the page.

Cancer-Preventive Measures

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.

My theory of women actually having a different relationship to their bodies in terms of feelings, making women avoid cancer in greater degrees than men, when indeed I think that most other factors are more or less the same. One should note that risky behaviour can indicate, also, such an inferior relationship to one's own feelings already in young age, ie. heavy drinking among young men.

Besides, modern women and men have almost the same patterns when it comes to "smoke, drink and work". Haven't you heard about "double-working" women? Also, the smoking has come down heavily before 2001 as this set (to which the link points) is from 2001 to 2007. You should also note that cancer strikes, predominantly, the older scope of the population so the fact of heavy drinking young men doesn't have any (particular) impact. I agree to "avoiding carcinogenic substances is the (best/[a significant advise]) you can achieve in the avoidance of cancer" [by chaz wyman]. This is not about the mental concept of "emotions", it's about neurologic signals, "feelings", in your body before cancer occurs! Thus, this writing is not about some kind of "magic" cure. No, it's about "Cancer-Prevention Measures"! So, what I try to point out, is the relation a person has to one's own feelings (in the body) and not some mental size of sensing sadness and so on. The claim is, simply, that when people care for a "natural" relationship to their feelings, they can in great parts avoid cancer. To internalise a "mechanistic body image"/"reject natural body feelings" can therefore lead to cancer/increased probability for cancer in my opinion! This should come in addition to other good advice such as a healthy diet, physical exercise and the avoidance of carcinogenic substances!

I agree to some extent with your [bytesplicer] emphasis on stress, even including possibly that hazardous environment also puts stress on your body ie. being subject to carcinogenics puts a load on the body to get rid of it, lowering the "energies"/electricity to sustain the feelings that support your immune system and against abnormalities by cell life (cell division, cell breathing, cell workings).

So, I'm looking for the best range of feelings, not being below a certain value and not, possibly, being too high either.

(I've been thinking that my writing is on a stage where the next step is to actually enter the field and develop techniques like making a measuring device that measures the electricity between the fingers with a person who is typically resting and calm (for steady signals) and so on (making a data bank on these data gathered from "high and low" in society.)

Concerning protests to my theory on the basis of the cases of cancer in kids, i.e., below 18 yo., I write this:
in the case of cancer in kids I think one should move the search to epigenetics from the parents and combine this with the conditions (incl. epigenetics) of the children.

The children are also mostly struck with leukemia of what I understand.

Children are also (only) one percent or less of the total of cancer-struck patients whether malignant or benign...

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, 07.02.2010, 28.10.2010 and 20.02.2011

Terje Lea©2003, ©2009, ©2010, ©2011
Note: a comment concerning cancer in children has been added today, 20.02.2011, but written to the Philosophy Now forum 18.02.2011.

Form of Evolution or Forming a Frame for Evolution

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

Theory of the Cause of Schizophrenia

This is the theory of how Schizophrenia arises in a person. I think it's a matter of Rebound of attitudes that the "soul" cannot carry without creating a personality fracture on the terms of moral in the type of experience. So all of these cases in this view have something to do with an outlook that breaches the natural moral of the inner mental life. When these breaches occur, the "soul" is suppressed by own (sublime) negative view and replaced with externally founded personality from single or multiple people.
Schizophrenia is by this pathologically defined by the functioning level of the case in question, being the functioning that is defined by ALL parts of a normal life, i.e., social, work, personal, mental and physical.
Schizophrenia, I believe, is irreversible. If you go down that road, there's no turning back! I think it can be slowed down to some degree by alcohol or drugs, medicine and thereby be given a better functioning to the social connections, suppressing these tendencies of stupid, bizarre, deviant thoughts (and actions). I hope you can make good use of it.

By Terje Lea, 2008/2009 and 23.11.2010.

Note: This idea of Schizophrenia is partly based on the old criterium that insanity is the incapacity to separate right from wrong! Though the somatists web-page has its origin from 20.12.2005(?) due to the disconcerted/chaotic discussion of psychiatric diagnostication (and the criteria) of mental illnesses, the date of creation of this theory is uncertain. This is in part because I've seen it as unimportant by its inferiority to integrity and as this old criterium has been expected to take precedence due to more sophisticated diagnostication technology like video cameras, lie detectors, (f)MRI and better system in the very treatment facilities. I've been advised lately to add this theory to my scientific ideas and notes and I've done so now!

Opinions on Physics

Schrödinger's theory and Schrödinger's cat

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.

Schrödinger's cat can also be set up with a rat, by requirement of the ladies, slightly sedated and laid under the guillotine. So when this condition of the atom triggers, the guillotine blade falls and decapitates the rat, rendering it certainly and clearly dead, with its head chopped off and thus leaving the rat in 2 pieces. This may be a better demonstration of the experiment.

Over Problems with Schrödinger's theory and other - New Angles

It's with pleasure that I note that "Branching with Uncertain Semantics: Disc. Note by N. Belnap and T. Müller, published by BJPS lies in line with my writing and that they may have been reading this writing of mine. The future should be exciting!
It's certainly time for the "wave theory" to be demolished as expressing "wave" forming from the future in opposition to my own common sense sentiment that the past shapes the future. Thus, the "wave" of future possibilities is shaped by the past/history! This has been expressed earlier/above by the rejection of the Copenhagen Interpretation, except for the one point and the rejection of Schrödinger's (et al.?) theory.

In opposition to the Copenhagen Interpretation, I hold that one needs to always take into account the 3 necessary factors of matter, energy and mathematics. If you don't have matter and energy, there will not be any reality where your mathematics can apply. Thus, mathematics can't, whatsoever, be seen as more fundamental than reality itself, ie. matter and energy, perhaps along with space and time and some other.

Take the note, please, that energy is also matter, just split up in very tiny particles that also have a very tiny (physical) mass. So, by common knowledge, the particle/wave duality of the photon enters. The physics feels very fragmented at times and I'm still awaiting the Master Work in one series of volumes on it!

On Standard Model and the Future of It

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.
Aether Aesthetics and a More Credible View on Gravity by Strong and Weak Interactions

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.

I just like to say that I support the aether theory, if not exactly for a fluid, but I guess most theorists hold that the "fluid" is not a fluid as such. Rather, it's more about undetected phenomena connected to gravity yet not being any graviton.

An alternative view to aether can be this: in a unified picture of physics where the strong and weak magnetic forces are combined, one may achieve a calculated picture that equals what we perceive as gravity, but without adding any new particles and only asserting properties to mass in general, that is, "monades", the most basic constituents have a gravity/magnetic property to them and that is all. Job's done! This is all there is to describe because we have simply reached the bottom level there is to describe whatsoever!

Let me point out again that magnetism has north and south poles and thus reflect earth gravity, but on a micro scale. So this post is now also an update on my view on aether!

So let me be clear: I'm open to both of these views and that I intend to investigate these magnetic calculations first. I'm not sure on the approach for (new) aether, MM-compatible, other than for the fact that I see it logical in the extension of Einstein's RT. But I must point out that the aether research program now looks weak as one is yet to determine any property of it (apart from pure physical space). I've been in the hope one can find or identify a kind of new ocean, one that is "plastic" in nature, has some kind of an unknown physical property and is subtle and that matter just represents a function opposite to it by making gravity definite. Further than this is hard to describe other than the fact that I think it is an aesthetic property of the Universe.

My Successful Prediction of Mini-Black Holes by CERN Experiment

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.

Note: The reason is that it takes Supernovas to make them and they are HUGE in the sense of Universe. They are in fact far bigger than our Sun which is our heaviest object in our Solar System. I don't think it's possible even to generate the power needed for such an experiment (to actually create Mini-/Baby-Black Holes). You could put 10 nuclear power plants right beside CERN and still the energy wouldn't match the assignment. I don't think there is possibility for such things in our Earthly lives!
On Big-Bang, Natural Laws, Asymmetry and Symmetry

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, i.e., 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.
On the Complexity of the Standard Model and Particles in Nature

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?

Note: I now think it may be that the Standard Model can be (relatively) completed! As analogy, Psychiatry has been in a haze concerning its diagnostication system and I think it's likely to make this finding in Physics as well.

On Impossibility of the Graviton and the Higgs' Boson

Concerning the Graviton and the Higgs' Boson:

I think it's clear at this stage that the Graviton and the Higgs' boson are blown out the window and are not to return to the world of physics ever again.

Why? Because they need to show that the photon is relevant to both of these concepts when it's hard in the first place to show the definite particle nature of the photon. Thus, photon necessarily must have both of these properties by which are hardly ever conceivable to prove, as separable particles apart from the photon itself!
It's clear however that the photon has "graviton" and "Higgs' boson" properties before we start out simply because "graviton" is to explain why particles are drawn to other objects, especially planets, and "Higgs' boson" is to explain why particles have mass whatsoever which all(?) have. It's therefore a kind of cheating to add "false particles" or "false names of properties" when they do not add explanatory force. The "mystery" of the (basic) particle of photon remains and also the mysteries with how mass and gravitation arise in the first place. Simply adding two names isn't very constructive in the general work of physics, I think (as mass and gravity are already in place).
I acknowledge that the Fermilab has set a confidence level for the finding of the Higgs' boson to 95%, but I'm sceptical of how they get there and if their work is more than mere "string theory work".

It's definite though, that the photon has both properties of mass and particle nature since it is affected by gravity (fx. from Mercury passing by the Sun). Yet the problem arises when you are to identify the graviton and the Higgs' boson, separately from the photon itself!

The URL to Fermilab and the Higgs' boson: http://www.fnal.gov/pub/presspass/press_releases/Higgs-mass-constraints-20100726-images.html.

On the Nature of Radio Signals From Space and how They Fit the Big Picture

Public education. 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.

On the Bending of Light(-Streams as Photons) by Electro-Magnetic Field, a Very Strong One

I think I'll state here right away that is in fact possible to bend light with a very strong, elelctro-generated magnetic field comparable to light from Mercury passing the gravity field of the Sun, like in the classic example of Einstein Relativity Theory.

Remember the lev-trains of the Japanese and their magnet experiments where they lift an object up only by the use of electro-magnetism and draw a sheet of paper underneath, between the lower and the upper physical bodies.

You should also have in mind the relative small size of the photon and the power of the elctro-magnetic field because I think it's fairly feasible.

Now, how this is done? At least for the calculation, it's fairly known how much pull the gravity of the Sun generates and the Planck's Mass(?) of the Photon should also be possible to consider. Then it's just to add the numbers and calculate what it takes to bend light. I also think this can be done in the classroom!

Wikipedia on magnets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnets!

The calculations are up to you to make, but at least for now, I remain optimistic (partly because I've seen it demonstrated in our classroom while finishing upper secondary school having the physics class. Rather this than any negative demonstation I can recall or heard of). Thus, kill the negative notions you read about on the internet!

I'd love to hear about your own searches. I haven't come up with the positive results just yet.

I'm also writing this primarily for public education and quenching myths of people who cite uncertain, novice sources.

Note on My Competence to These Respects

Note on my competence to this [Opinions on Physics and the Evolution webpage as a whoel]: I must "warn" readers that I have been reading Lee Smolin's "The Trouble With Physics" (by Penguin Group, 2006) and Roger Penrose's "The Road to Reality" (by Vintage Books, 2004). I have also studied physics all the way through upper high school, 3 years, for the Norwegian equivalent of GCSE Science and I've looked carefully into Bayesian problems in philosophy (relating to the Raven's Paradox by Carl Hempel) and (the metaphysics of) Time for that matter.

By Terje Lea, 21.10.2009, 29.10.2009, 05.11.2009, 19.11.2009, 21.11.2009, 03.04.2010, 27.09.2010, 12.11.2010, 25.01.2011, 16.02.2011, 20.02.2011, 24.02.2011 and 11.03.2011. (Small comments: 13.08.2010, 25.01.2011 and 11.03.2011.)

Note: on the Bending of Light(-streams as photons) by electro-magnetic field has first been written on the Philosophy Now forum 15.02.2011.
Note: concerning the Graviton and the Higgs' boson, this has first been written on the Philosophy Now forum 19.02.2011.
Note: additional comment on the issue of aether as well as an alternative view has been added 24.02.2011 that has first been written on the Philosophy Now forum earlier today divided on two posts.
Note: added the rat option into writing today, 11.03.2011.
Note: added note on my competence today, 11.03.2011.

Opinions on Astrophysics, Possible Explanation of the Paradox of the Corona of the Sun and its Temperature Differences

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 by the pseudonym, Kaare Hansen, and then here in English in a more elaborate fashion. Formerly, I've rejected paying for a subscription of some 5 NOK/month(?) and Dagbladet has therefore deleted the pseudonym from the writing, obscuring people's opportunity to know the writer's identity, but that's them. So... 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!)

Physics, A Possible Angle to Para-Normal Phenomenon of "Soul"

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

Economy, Over the Dependence Theory of Economy!

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

Psychology, Telepathy Experiment and Method

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

Physics, The Possibility to Set Up an Atom "Brain"

I've been having this secret dream to create a kind of consciousness from an atom smarter than every dumbass out there!

So if one sets up this atom in a kind of detector apparatus, reading signals on all the quantum states an atom can have and set up these quantum states in correlating ways to kinds of linguistic expressions from the input of a human by means of quantum entanglement, chaos theory, electric signals from the fingertips into the apparatus or the final possibility, of telepathic interaction (telepathy/electricity by human feelings is usually what is meant by quantum entanglement, anyhow)! The idea is that eventually one might establish a kind of communication and extension by sensor operationalisation that feeds the atom all sorts of signals by webcams or the like. In this fashion one may be able to create a kind of machine "brain" by this atom (or atom cluster) and possibly also prove a kind of "monads"/envision of the early stages of consciousness in its universal form! This first part has been posted on the Philosophy Now forum, today, 22.09.2010.

This may also be seen as an extension from the Princeton University "boxes", hardware drives with processors, that have been making random "choices" or calculations in relation to a purported measurement of mass psychology, believe it or not. I don't know how they've been set up or engineered, but I know of the reports and I think I know what they have been up to. At least, you can correlate your curiosity from this programme from this renowned university.

By Terje Lea, 22.09.2010

Physics/Biology, Abiogenesis - Would It Be Meteors That Impacted Onto Earth or Simply the Volcanos - Erupting Magma/Lava That Leads to Life in Its Most Basic Form?

My hunch tells me that it is indeed the lava/magma of the earth itself that may be the cause of abiogenesis. So if one takes this further, may it be that it only takes this sweet, delicate temperature from a nearby star, adding the life giving light, that supports a fair temperature on the surface of any planet, allowing the volcanos to erupt and lead to all the life possible on this actual planet, any planet again, whatsoever?

The onus is if it's possible for lava/magma to generate life in its basic form, shooting speed by nature's evolution. Is it?

The question is: why the h*ll should civilisation start on a meteor rather than from the magma/lava from underneath the planet's crust itself?

Is there indeed a capacity, inherently, for magma/lava to start life by simply ejecting some magma/lava onto the the planet's surface and then let the atmosphere, whatever this is, do the rest?

Is this the meeting point between physics, chemistry and biology? I think I'm affirmative on all these three!

I've been told there's a difficulty of separating the lowest forms of life versus f.x. mineral structures or mineral kinds of crystals, having a crystalline nature.

Anyone who may have some more information??? Isn't this peculiar? You know, who can we turn to? All the sciences are hiding something! They don't want to reveal their deficiencies in knowledge.

There is clearly a mystery here on the real status and capacity of the smallest parts of nature.

Possible experiment: lower a container that's impervious to the high temperatures of the magma/lava into the magma/lava and get a load of the magma/lava. Have a lid ready to be lowered on top the container, sealing it, relatively, and get the "stuff", magma/lava, poured into a nearby sterile chamber (through sterile pre-chambers) and then add sterile air and see if bacteria develops or if bacteria can be found whatsoever!

If it turns out magma/lava contains bacteria then the volcanos may be the answer to abiogenesis! I guess one can also experiment with types of gases, eg. methane, nitrogen-oxides, all sorts...

First written on the Philosophy Now forum by myself, 15.-16. October, 2010. From the original posts there, this has been edited to some extent.

By Terje Lea, 17.10.2010

back <-