Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Solving Medical Problems

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Alan on July 16, 2005 08:03:42 UTC

In the fundamental science (that underpins the other sciences) of physics, things have been getting simpler.

Understanding just how simple physics can be, has effects on analyzing issues in other sciences.

I have information-maps of several neurological conditions that may be of interest.

Here is a graphic example of the method:

The method:

simplify each concept; find common ground; maintain the logical integrity of the combination (differentiate the concepts where their simplification overlaps them); giving maximum room to move.


Combination of concepts here is "agressive brain tumour".
To simplify "agressive": I often look to everyday English usage to find the simplest common factor: agressive has connotations of "over the top"; "at full tilt"; "heavily engaged" (think of an agressive skier versus a non-agressive skier).

"brain": simplifies to "a place for sorting things out" so similar to "multiplication" as in "2 x 3" you can write "2 groups of 3" or "3 groups of 2".
Note: that this also gives the pattern "fully engaged*"

The asterisk is because you cannot (in math-free analysis)(that is: in giving each concept its own space but maximum room to interact with other concepts) double-define; so "agressive" and "brain" cannot BOTH occupy the minimum definition space: "fully engaged".

To minimally separate these concepts I must now make one step between them (so one of them is "almost fully engaged"). But which one?

This gives the potential for alternating (taking turns). Sounds like gears...

Now the concept "tumour": simplify this say to "growth";

The potential for "taking turns" re: the role of "fully engaged" to be taken by the concept "agressive" then "brain" or vice versa; is now activated by adding another concept "tumour".

If "tumour" categorises "alternating" then we have a divergence (pluses and minuses)(pros and cons).

But for "growth" to have meaning still the pros and cons must still be going somewhere.

This suggests an agreement between the pros and cons: that is a "STATIC EQUILIBRIUM".

Further analysis showed ice-skating contains this pattern

Someone once said persons with agressive brain tumours "were a lost cause".

I disagree in that I think something as simple as ice-skating may provide a space to resolve the problem voluntarily; but ironically "a lost cause" as in "losing track of how something started" means keeping everything in the picture; that is "going somewhere yet going nowhere" i.e. a balancing act!

ANY BALANCING ACT may possibly provide a voluntary release from "agressive brain tumour".

feedback welcome on these ideas.

I am a former physics student.


Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins