cholesterol

No, it's entirely pointless. But you really should know that by now! I wonder when and why it all went t*ts-up for poor old Bill? Could some undisclosed trauma have precipitated his decline?

-- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

Well, it hasn't been recent. Kinda hard to sympathise tbh.

NT

NT claiming to be honest would have some significance if he ever knew what he was talking about.

He's so far out of touch with reality that his "honest" opinions have exactly the same weight as his wildest fantasies.

Cursitor Doom and NT do seem to have contemplated their own situations and recognised that they've lost it. They do like to project their own problems on other people.

There are so many pots talking about so many kettles in this group.

I resent the implication that I am as far down the slippery slope as Cursitor Doom and NT, but if I put more effort into denying this, I'd end up looking more like them.

Black is black. (I want my baby back)

But really, Black people do seem to have more problems with it. I am not su re how much is diet and how much is heredity, but whatever it it, it is,

Bottom line is cholesterol in your blood belongs combined with other things that you lack. The cartilage in your arms and legs n shit are cholesterol. That cholesterol build you, but now lacks the proper other components.

I can't tell you what to eat, but if you tell me your lineage, health histo ry of your Parents and Grandparents, an write down everything to eat an dri nk for a couple of weeks I can probably find the problem. Probably. When yo u deal with people nothing is absolute.

But it would take time to even get it going. Write a short bio of how your Parents died and when, and if opssible what they ate, and then what you ate when young, and after that recent daily.

Know how many people are going to do that ?

Many are dead.

Mathematics is not subject to experiment. You choose your axioms and work from there by logical methods. It is arguably more correct than any scientific experiment (although still subject to human error). Science experiments are always subject to measurement error. Mathematics is not.

The algebra package that turned the output of the REDUCE symbolic algebra package into FORTRAN had a subtle bug which meant that when the number of continuation cards exceeded 9 things went wrong. This wasn't spotted for a long time since the error term was very small.

However, when the double pulsar was found and it by chance happened to be close to Jupiter a systematic unexpected timing deviation from relativity was observed. This had the experimenters scratching their heads for a while. Sadly it wasn't new physics it was an obscure bug in some very old code that had worked flawlessly for decades.

Science is ultimately self correcting since the way that nature behaves in reality trumps any claim by authority. Astronomy is an observational science. We can never realistically do experiments on a star but we can measure a hell of a lot about it by studying it at various wavelengths and resolutions and infer a great deal from spectroscopy.

Observational sciences are still *sciences* even if we cannot control the experiments and merely look at what is actually there using ever more powerful observational techniques. Gravity waves being the latest.

Martin Brown wrote in news:qposer$62c$ snipped-for-privacy@gioia.aioe.org:

Yes and simple observations of our own local space and solar system allows us to prove the newtonian stuff. I liked the Hubble capture and the shuttle experiments with rotating cylinders.

But the Cosmic level stuff... yeah, we can only observe, and bash atoms together and observe, and about the time we start figuring things out and get quantum computers going, and think we are getting a grasp on things, the aliens will return and render all of our top minds' 'knowledge' moot with a mind meld.

And we will *then* step into the next evolution of man.

It's more likely the that human race will split. We are a social mammal, and the society that we have at the moment can do a lot more than any other living organism that we know of can manage.

Once an organism has mastered a new trick, it diversifies to exploit the new trick in different ways in different environments.

If this creates reproductive isolation you tend to get new species.

Science fiction has us moving into space, which would do it, but this isn't the only way it could happen, and granting how bad science fiction is at prophecy it's unlikely to happen that way at all.

Bill Sloman wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

I was talking about our knowledge evolving, not "moving into space".

We are more likely to destroy ourselves. It seems humans are gravitating back to brutality, when we had just come so far.

UFOs have been sited over The Dome Of The Rock.

The Old Testament says that North Korea is gonna get dumped on.

Nostradamus probably had something to say about coming events as well.

Or we should study crop circles a bit more. :-)

We can do relativistic experiments in storage rings and using the Sun or Jupiter as handy test masses too.

Sometimes we get lucky and find something unexpected when a new instrument comes onstream. Serendipitous discoveries include Nobel prize winning stuff like pulsars, double pulsar and the microwave background.

It is quite likely that the next big shift will be as humans are augmented by cyborg like interfaces to something like Google or even to powered exoskeletons. Both are now possible but with limitations.

Although it seems that h*mo sapiens and erectus and Denisovans were inter breeding for quite a while when they occupied the same areas. We have hybrid vigor from having a mixture of their genes. Species boundaries are not as cleanly defined as biologists used to think.

Society seems to be stratifying again based on wealth and education.

I disagree, mostly. Humans are increasingly mobile, so formerly isolated regions and races are interacting and inter-marrying. Some day we may not have distinctive races. I think about a third of Native Americans are "pure-blood" now. Inter-racial dating and marriage used to be scandalous, but isn't any more, at least around here.

I had an uncle who married a Filipino woman ca 1950, and it was a major family scandal. Nobody would get upset nowadays.

All sorts of kids go to bars and colleges and yoga classes and Mexican resorts together now, so class exposure is way up. Stratification is mostly by choice now, like marrying like. I suspect we'll keep a normal distribution of most everything, but maybe with a small, long tail to the right, as improbable extremes manage to connect with other improbable extremes.

Unfortunately, this ability to discover mathematical truth still says nothing about the physical world. You can produce the best mathematical theory, and have no idea whether it applies to or explains anything.

You still need measurements to establish the correlation between theory and actuality, and confidence in that correlation is thus still limited by measurement error.

Clifford Heath.

But, there's a pretty good indication when you get parts-per-billion correspondence with a measurement and a bit of math, like the "g" calculation

Mostly, with electronic parts, we are satisfied with one percent accuracies.

True, but we can measure predictions of both quantum mechanics and general relativity extremely accurately. QED in particular is the most accurately verified scientific theory ever - verified to 14 significant figures.

Nevertheless, they cannot both be right.

Clifford Heath.

Speak for yourself.

The proposition that parts-per-billion correspondence between observation and a mathematical means that the physics is likely to be correct is a bit dubious.

The mathematical model is clearly good for the situation we can observe, but there can be other situations where the model might be less satisfactory.

Part's per billion is good, but the universe covers a rather larger range of magnitudes.

The US seems to making education expensive enough to be stratifying on weal th and education.

Universities are great places for assortive mating. If you have a genome th at lets you do well in formal education, you will get to meet lots of peopl e who have also done well at a time when you are all thinking about finding somebody to mate with and create a few new genomes.

Robert Plomin's results suggest that there lots of different ways the genom e can prime you to do well in formal education, so assortive mating isn't l ikely to churn out any particular single way of being clever.

It is an interesting quirk that mathematics is quite often inspired by physicists trying to solve particularly awkward problems. Sometimes the mathematics precedes its application to physics and other times it follows. Newtons fluxions (aka calculus) being among the latter and the non-Euclidean geometries being among the former. I can't imagine any pure mathematician ever coming up with renormalisation theory to make otherwise divergent integrals give sensible answers (but subtracting infinity didn't bother physicists so long as it gave the right answer).

It still remains to be seen whether any present day cutting edge advanced mathematics like for example string theory truly describes reality any better than what we already have. The jury is still out.

But the mathematics still has internal self consistency within the domain of things that can be proved from the chosen starting axioms. It might or might not have any useful applications in the real world.