IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Snowflakes and Medical X-rays [was Re: Snowflakes [was Re: Physics - Inertia & Work]]

k p Collins kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Fri Jan 23 22:32:19 EST 2004

I came across an short Article in the January, 2004
issue of =Discover= magazine, "61 Safety of Med-
ical X-Rays Reassessed", by M. W. Robbins, p47.
[The issue contains brief accounts of the "100 Top
Science Stories of 2003", and I'm reading through
it [sporadically] when I 'take a break' from my own

The Article discusses observations by K. Rothkamm
and M. Lobirch of the relative 'time' courses of 'healing'
with respect to molecular damage in "low-dose" [med-
ical x-rays] and 'large'-dose radiation. [Of course,
actually-=large= dose radiation is Fatal - the body
cannot heal itself. So the "large-dose" to which the
observers refer is actually a relatively-small-dose
of radiation, but 'large' relative to the doses of medi-
cal x-rays.]

The observers have proposed an explanation of this
difference. They say that it might be the case that, in
the low-dose instance, damaged cells are "replaced",
but, in 'large'-dose cases, there are too many damaged
cells to replace them all, so an intra-cell 'healing' pro-
cess occurs, instead of "replacement".

When I read the article, it was apparent to me that the
observations discussed constitute an instance of broken-

That is, the main difference between the medical x-ray
instance and the 'large'-dose instance is that, in the form-
er, the radiation is locally-focussed within the body, but
in the latter, it tends to be the same throughout the body.

The relatively-local focus in the medical x-ray case
necessarily induces a locally-graded energy-gradient
within the body.

This "breaks the symmetry" of the UES-flow that the
body 'normally'  experiences, while the 'large'-dose
case does not - because the body tends to be 'emersed'
within it relatively-uniformly.

And the differential-response of the body derives in this
WDB2T-symmetry-breaking, exclusively(?), not in a
"replacement vs. healing" 'decision' that's correlated to

That is, the asymmetric energy-flow that's imposed by
medical x-rays 'disrupts' the 'normal' WDB2T symmetry
of the body's experiencing of the UES, and =this= imposed
UES-asymmetry is what mucks-up the body's ability to
guickly heal itself.

This is Testable. Just render the radiation imposed in an
experimental 'medical x-ray' setup whole-body-symmetrical.
Leave the recording medium out of the experimental setup.
It's 'irrelevant'. What's relevant is relative-whole-body sym-
metry of the radiation, and 'healing-rate'. Of course 'dose'
quantity must be limited to 'normal' medical-x-ray doses.
[It must be Standardized, even though its distribution,
with respect to the whole body is being rendered sym-

Depending on the results of this =easy= experiment, then
folks can develop medical x-ray techniques that maintain
whole-body symmetry while incorporating recording med-
ia. [Get it? The symmetry of the x-ray energy's relation-
ship with the whole body is what's important. If this isn't
clear, msg, and I'll discuss it more.]

Anyway. the energydynamics involved are just like those
that I've discussed with respect to snowflakes. I was not
aware of this x-ray study when I posted the "snowflake"
discussion, but I was aware that the stuff I discussed in the
"snowflake" discussion is of =universal= Importance.

In the "snowflake" discussion, I was =beginning= what
will be a long-term larger discussion of universal WDB2T
and our relationship to it. [I've been 'discussing' it all along,
but couldn't do so explicitly until the necessary foundation
for understanding was provided. Which is why the "snow-
flake" discussion was important. It was, for me, a "Finally!
I can move-on" 'mile-stone' in the discussion of WDB2T.]

I Hope the =easy= experiment outlined above will be
carried-out. It's important because doing it will probably
lead to safer medical x-ray technology.

K. P. Collins

"k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5W8Kb.9454$6B.59 at newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> As promised...
> "k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:66YHb.5195$d4.1619 at newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > "k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:fwiHb.11520$IM3.8820 at newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > > What "inertia" and "work" are, physically, and
> > > why each exists:
> > >
> > > "k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > news:vSPGb.9920$IM3.9100 at newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > > [...]
> >
> > > It doesn't matter so much from the traditional perspective
> > > of 'physics' - 'physics' just postulates the correlated
> > > stuff into 'inconsequence'. But it matters =greatly= with
> > > respect to the doing of Neuroscience - because, as I
> > > discussed in the post that's linked-to above, nervous
> > > systems' 3-D energydynamics are =distributed= and
> > > occur in a way that [via "supersystem configuration",
> > > AoK, Ap5] is always undergoing 3-D-distributed
> > > interconnectedness variation, yet, in 'normal' nervous
> > > systems, is always as a unified whole. So, to resolve
> > > the 3-D energydynamics that occur within nervous
> > > systems, one has to dispense with imaginary 'particles'
> > > and =See= the continuous flow of energy that's
> > > distributed throughout a nervous system in always-
> > > varying ways, in order to see the wellspring of unified-
> > > wholeness.
> > > [...]
> >
> > In Last week's [Tuesday, 2003-12-23] "Science Times"
> > section of The =New York Times= there was an
> > interesting article, "Falling Physics, When the Weather
> > Outside Is Frightful", by D. Overbye, pD3.
> >
> > The article discusses the formation of "snowflakes", and
> > should be on the =NYT= web site [I don't have the
> > link].
> >
> > Because I saw that discussing the  symmetry that arises
> > during the formation of snowflakes would be interesting to
> > explore from the perspective of the stuff that I discussed
> > in my previous post [linked-to above], I tried to find a copy
> > of the Book, =The Snowflake, Winter's Secret Beauty", by
> > K. Libbrecht, to which the article referred, but it was sold-
> > out where ever I looked for it. So I ordered a copy [$20.00],
> > and will pick this discussion up again shortly after my copy
> > arises.
> >
> > 'Interpolating' from the =NYT= article, this book will probably
> > be a welcome addition to anyone's Library, so I thought I'd
> > give this 'preview' in order to allow folks opportunity to
> > obtain their own copies of the Book, if they care to do so.
> >
> > What I'll be discussing [again] will be the UES-flow vs.
> > 'particle' views with respect to the formation of the
> > snowflakes' symmetries, and with respect to physical
> > reality in general.
> The book is one of the most-Beautiful that I've ever set eyes
> on - a real Delight - deep in its 'Treasure'-value, and a lot of
> Fun, all at once. The snowflake photographs are so Beautiful,
> and so detailed, that they literally take one's breath away. I
> encourage folks to purchase this Book. It's well-worth its
> $20.00 cost.
> The long-building "traditional" view of "snowflake" formation,
> which is masterfully described in the text, is that the ice crys-
> tals form via the accumulation of water [vapor] molecules via a
> balanced diffusion-delimited 'competition between "facets" and
> "dendrites", always reflecting the Geometry of the water molecule,
> and the environmental conditions [temperature, humidity, pressure,
> etc.] in which the snowflakes develop.
> But, while being enthralled with my study of this book's contents
> [I'm not yet finished with this study], I found the 'toe-hold' I was
> looking for with respect to the UES-flow vs.'particle' views of
> the formation of the snowflakes' symmetries. It is that, for each
> ice crystal ["snowflake"] that has formed with a central
> asymmetry, there is always(?) a corresponding peripheral
> asymmetry. [One has to look closely, with a magnifying
> glass, and do a lot of geometrical-cross-correlation [the photos
> show snowflakes in =huge= detail], but the preceding statement
> holds, strongly.]
> Why does this matter?
> Because such asymmetry cross-correlations cannot occur, in an
> always-occurring way, via simple molecular lattice-building,
> because, further, if there's asymmetry-cross-correlation, then
> there must be a mechanism through which geometrical information
> is communicated from one locus to another.
> For those who have the book, I'll give an example from the its
> photographs [there are many, always-analogous, examples
> amongst the book's photos].
> In the snowflake on the left page at the beginning of Chapter 4,
> [un-numbered page 43], there is a 'bulbous' central asymmetry
> within the central hexagon. There are matching asymmetries in
> the six-'petalled' 'flower' pattern within both of these geometrical
> features. The 'flower' is pushed off-center, and its two 'petals'
> opposite the largest portion of the 'bulbous' distribution are
> shorter than the rest of its 'petals', and the shorter one of these
> is distorted in a way that 'reflects' the 'bulbous' distribution. Among
> other features that vary in a way that's correlated to the 'bulbous'
> asymmetry, are the 'spear-points' just peripheral to the central
> hexagon. Note how their proximity to the central hexagon varies
> in a way that also correlates to the 'bulbous' asymmetry.
> It goes on and on like this, throughout the entire extent of this
> snowflake. My favorite bits of Geometry [in this snowflake]
> being the little 'dog's heads' inward and left and right of the
> bottom dendrite. Now, look up at the corresponding
> 'symmetries' inward and left and right of the top dendrite,
> and you can immediately see how different these are from
> their bottom 'counterparts.
> Cross-correlate all of this to the central 'bulbous' asymmetry,
> and you'll see what I'm getting at.
> There is an overall 'order' within, but relatively-'independent'
> of,  the water-molecule-Geometry-correlated 'hexagonal' order
> of the snowflake.
> This '2nd order' =requires= 'communication'-at-distances
> within the snowflake.
> It's, presently, my view that this 2nd-order's 'communication'
> occurs via, and reflects, the snowflake's internal "ephemerance"
> the "freedom of energy to move" within it, a 'picture' of which
> was 'frozen' into the Geometry of the snowflake as the snow-
> flake developed.
> The idea is that the water molecules =share= their local UES
> which 'sustains' the SSW<->UES compression<->expansion
> harmonics that comprise the snowflakes, and this UES-sharing
> cause the water molecules to orient themselves so that this
> UWS-sharing will be optimized throughout the snowflake
> =and= the environment through which the developing snowflake
> moves.
> It's this UES-sharing that 'communicates' acriss the snowflake
> and results in the observable asymmetry 'reflections'.
> There's nothing "too-crazy" to accept in this position. =Of course=
> molecular 'forces' extend beyond the material extents of mol-
> ecules. =Of course=.
> Where it gets a bit 'difficult' is that, in this UES-'sustinence'-
> sharing view, the molecular 'forces' are 'just' the UES-flow
> as I've been discussing it all along, which is =continuous=, and
> 'adds' in algebraic-accord with this continuity [algebraic-
> infinitessimals].
> That is, in the view I'm discussing there are no discrete
> values for 'binding forces' - no 'electron exchange', etc.
> All there is is the continuity of the UES-flow - which is
> why the snowflake's supposed "symmetries" are seen to
> be completely asymmetrical when they are carefully cross-
> correlated.
> [In this interplay between symmetry and asymmetry, snow-
> flakes literally do a form of "Information Calculus", and
> their celebrated uniqeness derives in the fact that they do :-]
> This last stuff happens be-cause, fundamentally, the UES
> flows with respect to =universal= WDB2T, not only in
> accord with the local SSW<->UES harmonics composition
> of the snowflake.
> Energy flows in a way that maximizes its "ephemerance"
> [its "freedom to move"], and, in so doing, renders snow-
> flakes' supposed "symmetry" everywhere asymmetrical,
> to the degree of the snowflake's local ephemerance [which
> approaches 'zero' as 'perfect symmetry' is approached [to
> get Perfect-Symmetry energy's freedom to move - it's
> "ephemerance" - =must= be Completely-restricted [which
> Necessitates "Freezing" the entire Universe]]].
> The advantage of this approach is that it explains geometrical
> features of snowflakes [and everything else within physical
> reality, BTW] that are not explainable in terms of 'fixed-
> force' molecular Geometry.
> The 'Hard' thing about it is that it rewrites all of Physics.
> I took copious notes while reading the book, and will continue
> this discussion if anyone's interested, but I want to clarify one
> more thing before breaking-off tonight.
> The "snow crystal morphology" diagram on page 45 of the
> book [originally done by U. Nakaya] is 'just' a Temperature +
> Humidity + Pressure version of the black body power spectrum,
> and the morphology variations conform to my prior discussion
> [which I re-posted [most of it] in the "Neural 4-space" thread
> the other night].
> No "mystery".
> K. P. Collins

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net