Saturday, August 29, 2015

fisetin and Octacosanol in parkinson's

They seem good, but there is very limited work on them. 

Here's a single-case study involving Fisetin (found in strawberries, apples, and onions) that improved symptoms:

"The basic diet alone failed to prevent decline due to PD. In 2009, the basic diet was enhanced with a good dietary source of both fisetin and hexacosanol. Six months after the patient started the enhanced diet rich in fisetin and hexacosanol, a clinically significant improvement in symptoms was noted; the patient's attending neurologist reported that the clinical presentation of cogwheel rigidity, micrographia, bradykinesia, dystonia, constricted arm swing with gait, hypomimia, and retropulsion appeared to be resolved. "

Someone posted details not in the abstract:

" The patient’s medication dosage in December 2008, before
beginning the complete diet rich in fisetin and hexacosanol,
included 7½ carbidopa/levodopa 25/100 and 1mg
of rasagiline daily. By June 2009, 6 months after starting the
complete diet rich in fisetin and hexacosanol, the patient was
able to reduce the medication dose to 4½ carbidopa/levodopa
25/100 and ½ mg of rasagiline daily, while benefiting
from amelioration of motor symptoms. In October 2011
medication doses were 6 carbidopa/levodopa 25/100 CR and
¼mg of rasagiline, while maintaining the significant improvement
in allCUSS motor movements obtained in 2009.

Then I found where the patient herself posted an update this year:

" I'm the retired dietitian in the article. (My neighbors wanted me to share how my walking, etc, improved so dramatically, thus the published article.) Here's an update. I was doing well until late 2013 when I developed an allergy (characterized by flushing and breathlessness) to strawberries and several other foods. By February 2014 I had to stop consuming strawberries. Many of my symptoms began to worsen. In June 2014 I started taking the Swanson brand of fisetin. To approximate the amount in strawberries I divide the each capsule into six portions, taking one at breakfast and one a dinner. Over several months my symptoms again improved.

" In January 2015 I became intolerant of rasagiline and synthroid, stopping both in February 2015. Without the rasagiline, I have more tremor, etc, but am able to function well. I'm currently taking 6 carbidopa/levodopa 25/100, and one 25/100 CR at 10 PM.

It's really strange that web site says hexacosanol might be bad for PD and interact with L-DOPA. There was absolutely nothing the medical literature about this. It appears to me that they are using an automated program for searching the medical literature which then writes the text of their articles. This "study" I've linked to and two positive studies (mice and then rats on the 2 most popular PD-force models in them, each study by the same group) are the only things. So I think their program found these articles and somehow drew the opposite conclusion. It's a waxy acid in stuff like wheat germ and some olive oil and is supposed to help utilize oxygen better. There was only 1 study in people back in 1984 (other than this anecdote). The amount to take to simulate the work in mice and rats would be about 15 pills per day, but the tests were short term, so 5 per day is more reasonable.

I could not find the dose for fisetin, but the amount in the pills seem to be more than enough, and this nutrionist that's taking it is dividing the doses. It's not expensive, so I'll take 1 a day.

Keep in mind this "study" is about a single case.

I already ordered some fisetin from amazon, and will review the amazon comments later to see what people generally believe it is good for. I am interested in it because strawberries and apples (which it is found in) are the two fruits that had the strongest protective effect in men. It would be interesting to found out how this nutritionist came to the conclusion it might help her.

Beckey, maybe your body has sensed you need these and they have already been providing some protection.

Friday, August 7, 2015

relativity viewed as changing c in order to revive the ether

Taking Carl Sagan's example from "Cosmos", if you accelerate at 1 g for 10 years and then slow down for 10 years you'll find yourself 30,000 light years away from Earth in the center of the galaxy.  Dividing the distance you measure back to Earth by your clock you will find you travelled 1500 times faster than the speed of light.  Any photons that left at the same time as you will be 20 light years ahead of you, making you perceive they travelled faster than light, and people on Earth will think you took 30,020 years to travel that distance.  Earth will be 30,020 older while you're only 20 years older.

Physicists do not use this simple division that truck drivers use because it gives a speed faster than light. But what's wrong with it?  They will divide the distance  light travels by the time it takes, but they will not let you use the same math for yourself.  They say if you race a photon of light you must allow it to change its energy, which means it is a different photon. Isn't that cheating?  They also say light goes at 3E8 meters/second for ALL observers moving at ANY speed relative to each other, but this means everything with mass is moving at ZERO meters/seconds relative to light.  You can't go faster than light by their methods because your speed relative to light is forced by their definition to be ZERO.  If an object is accelerated it is not distinguishable if the object or Universe were the one accelerated to a new velocity. The universe can say the object was accelerated and had a mass increase that looks like kinetic energy, but equally true from the object's view is that the Universe was accelerated and had the same percent mass and energy increase in the external Universe.

The "contradictions" are because "speed" is not a physical quantity. Any reference to "speed" immediately generates needed complexity in violation of Occam's razor in order to hide the use of a non-physical quantity.

"Speed" is not like time, distance, and mass that you can measure. It is a division of one unit by another that are physically the exact same units with a mathematical difference.  Speed is unitless because in relativity c is a conversion factor from seconds to meters or vice versa, specifically:

meters = i*c*seconds

(see Einstein's "Relativity" appendix 2).  "i" is the math concept "sqrt(-1)".

This equation means the "speed" of light is
c meters/second = i*c*seconds/seconds = i*c

where c is the number 3E8 without any units.  We talk about 4D space-time because length and time are not fundamentally different except for the math factor "i".  It is mathematical difference, not a physical one. The "i" being carried around in the units is used in physics only in quantum gravity theories and a few other places, but I think it should be used everywhere.

There is a simple resolution to the problem. Relativity is derived from two simple statements:

1) the speed of light is the same for all observers
2) gravity and acceleration are the same force

But a different pair of statements can give the same results:

1) the ratio of meters/seconds changes for all observers
2) mass is like 3 photons "reflecting" in a small volume, perpendicular to each other, 1 for each 3D of space. Mass might be a 4D Euclidean

The 2nd postulates above are needed only for general relativity, not discussions about speed.  The added benefit of this second method (besides removing the double-talk) is that if all observer's recognize the effect their frame of reference is having on the ratio, then there is no change in time, length, mass, or the energy of photons. The only thing that changes is the ratio. Instead of using (v/c)^2 in the Lorentz equation sqrt(1- (v/c)^2 ) you call it a change in c based on the v of the observer or gravity. So it's the same math.

Light's speed from its own point of view is infinity (if the limit exits) because it is inifinite time from dilation divided by zero length from contraction.  No time passes and distance is infinitely contracted in the direction of travel, so the Universe appears as a flat plane of infinite energy perpendicular to the direction of travel.

The more reasonable and understandable view of relativity is that gravity and acceleration increase the seconds/meters ratio rather than saying the speed of light is a constant for all observers. Mathematically it is the same thing, but it resolves the problem of every observer's speed being zero and photons changing energy in mid-flight.  Not allowing them to change energy requires their "speed" (the ratio) to be the thing changing. This can be used to derive the changes the observer sees in length, time, and mass.  Mass in relativity not only contorts local space-time by changing the seconds/meter ratio, but can be viewed as sourced from a contortion of the space-time 4D volume, very much like a weightless fork of some kind (charge+spin+nuclear forces) stuck in a net and twisted, adding "mass" from the net to the fork area and tension to the local area of the net that decreases with distance.  Letting the net unravel releases energy. The parallel of 4D space-time as the new "ether" is more applicable if you view gravity as changing the seconds/meters ratio instead of saying "speed of light is always constant" which directly violates the concept of a 3D spatial ether. The change in c I am talking about is from the "stretching" of each of the 3 strands of time/space. Instead of saying c is absolutely constant and causes mass, length, and time to change. I am saying only c is changing which allows mass, energy, space-time, and entropy to all be conserved as viewed from all frames of references.

It is c^2 in E=mc^2 because the change in the time/length ratio causes 1D of time and 1D space to offset each other when you calculate the "volume of 4D space-time" that the mass is "made up of", but the ratio still affects the other 2D of space, so the meters/second conversion factor "c" is squared. Again this is not mathematically different, but a different view. To explain better and to take a more traditional view: imagine mass to be photons running around in a tight sphere or better yet 3 of them reflecting back and forth inside, 1 for each space dimension. You expand time relative to length and it affects the perceived energy of the photons in all 3 directions.  Their length shortens relative to the time, so 1 time is long and 3 distances are short. But when calculating the 4D volume time only counts once, and it is offset by one of the space dimensions. The other two dimensions are the source of the c^2 factor. Traditionally you use the Lorentz square root function to adjust the mass, but what I'm saying is that you should use the square of a linear change in c which is a lot simpler, and it maintains a negative sign from the "i^2" that cosmology uses for E = -1*mc^2.  Obviously there is a difference between energy and mass just as there is between time and length, even as it's claimed "they are the same". The difference between mass and energy is  -1 from keeping the i^2 in the units. 

Instead of F=ma combined with F12=-F21 as newton's 2nd and 3rd laws to enforce conservation of force and therefore energy and momentum, you get F+ma=0 by not losing the "i" in the units. Again, Occam's razor insists on this method of letting "c" change.  When you sit in a rolling chair and push against the wall, the force you perceive is the direction of what you feel from the wall.  The reaction is the acceleration of the universe in the opposite direction because by relativity, you have no mass increase from your perspective and therefore no kinetic energy increase, but you do see the mass increase in the rest of the Universe.

This change in unitless c is not observable in other physical constants that have units, so don't believe people who include c (or kb) as one of the constants that can only change if other constants change. 

The expansion of the Universe is more simply viewed as an increase in the length/time ratio as the universe gets older.  The length expansion of the Universe is the opposite of  the time expansion of gravity.  As far as can be measured, they are equal and opposite such that it can't be determined if the Universe will collapse or continue to expand forever.  This methodology seems to predicts this.

Mass in my view is then proportional to the "enravelled" volume of 4D space-time and does not change from any frame of reference that adjusts for changes in c.  If an observer accelerates he should take into account the c of the rest of the universe decreased.   In effect, there is no E and mass in this view, but just enravelled space-time and the changes in c it causes. 

The distribution of c variations is something that changes if the particle distributions change. This changes entropy while E and m will not change for any observers undergoing any reference frame change.  Entropy will also not be a function of the reference frame.  Allowing a changing c makes everything else in the Universe much more stable.

A change in the energy distribution but not total E in a standard volume (as well as a comoving volume) changes the spatial variation in the c ratio which changes the entropy of the volume by changing the surface area calculated by Einstein's excess radius. A black hole collapse is a Universe-wide entropy-neutral event by taking a volume away from the rest of the universe (A/4 entropy decrease) and giving it to the volume occupied by the star before it collapsed (A/4 entropy increase). If this idea is correct, the change in area determined by Einstein's excess radius for the  INITIAL  star volume before and after collapse should give A/4 minus the initial star's entropy (i.e. that dS/dA=constant for a given E inside a given volume where dA is determined by gravity's excess radius that is determined before and after the change in the distribution of E).

Converting mass to E unravels space-time, throwing a radial volume increase (proportional to the excess radius's area calculation decrease for the mass volume) to the Universe outside the initial volume occupied by the mass. The volume increase increases the entropy of the external universe, decreasing it in the volume previously occupied by the mass.  The space-time volume (proportional to an area for the reason above) calculated by excess radius (based on a changing c) and entropy are conserved and have a constant ratio for all volumes determined by the observered surface area instead of by the excess radius. Mass is a concentration of entropy and 4D space-time in a volume.

Wednesday, August 5, 2015

thoughts on light post to quora

In Einstein's "Relativity" Appendix 2 he mentions meters=i*c*seconds where "c" is simply the number 3E8 without any units.  Plugging this into the "speed" of light, it gives c to have the "unit"  "i".  By not using this "unit", or rather, by not making it explicit that c is unitless like the fine structure constant, many other physics equations are made to contain a -1 or "i" error.  For example, F=ma would become F = - ma which directly shows force is equal and opposite without having to specify Newton's 3rd law.  Also instead of E=mc^2 we would have E = - mc^2 which is what cosmologists say.  I prefer the statements to be written as F+ma=0 and E+mc^2 = 0.

To see how this can generate ideas, here a cosmological possibility. Black hole entropy would have to be S+A/4=0 instead of S=A/4 in order to get the relativistic units correct. This implies black holes do not "have" entropy (there's an on-going debate about what their entropy means) but that it is offset by a decrease in the area caused by the presence of mass:
Using Feynman's excess radius idea of the effect gravity has on space, the change in the surface area of the space due to the presence of mass is:
dA= - 4*pi*(GM/3/c^2)^2
I view gravity as decreasing the space/time ratio, i.e. that c^2 is reduced due to G*M. This is possible because c is unitless and thereby does not need to affect any other constants. This is simply is a different way of expressing relativistic effects. Using the equation above, I get
dS+d(1/c^4) = 0
i.e. as mass increases, S2<S1 is offset by (1/c2)^4 > (1/c1)^4. There are some missing constants of proportionality, but they should remain relativistically unitless (maintaining the "i" system). So as  entropy is emitted, it reduces the contraction of space-time caused by gravity.  If comoving volume expansion follows black hole expansion, then the red shift of both are from decreasing c and the increasing Hubble constant would be from:
dH/dt*T+d(c)/dt = 0
Where T is age of universe.  c can change without affecting other physical constants or anything else we might notice because it is unitless. We only notice that it changes in the presence of mass, acceleration, and in the red shift of the expansion.  Again, there are missing constants of proportionality but the relativistic units would cancel as these do. 

Entropy would thereby be a constant in a comoving space-time volume even as galaxies emit entropy to make up for the reduction in the comoving surface area caused by gravity, and thereby not increase  entropy on a large-scale comoving basis.
You mean using the units like I suggest would result sinh(x) instead of i*sin?   Well,  i*sin(x) is not correct, it's supposed to be -i*sin(i*x).   The derivatives of the inverse hyberbolics do not give indeterminate +/- solutions.   e^x seems easier to work with than forcing e^(i*x) by throwing away the required i from the units. Even worse than that it's supposed to be -i*e^(i*x) not e^(i*x) if you do throw away the relativistic i.  "Accurate units are harder to work with because we are used to sin instead of sinh" does not seem like a good reason for the graduate level.  Experimenters should be smart enough to talk in i/meters instead of seconds or i*seconds to replace meters.  Keeping them separate has been a disaster. The mass of physicists not using the correct units blocks good ideas. It forces units where they do not exist. c is more fundamental than h, like alpha. Relativity can be expressed and viewed more simply if you let acceleration and gravity change the ratio c compared to other frames of reference. All else follows from this and it prevents double-talk like "the speed of the same photon is constant for all reference frames as long as you don't complain its energy is different".  Not using the correct units adds complexity to relativity. It violates Occam's razor which makes new theories less falsifiable. It prevents people from realizing c changing based on reference frame is a simpler view of relativity.

Tuesday, August 4, 2015

physics equations and ideas on my mind

loge(i) =(pi*i)*(N+1/2)
logi(e) = 1/[(pi*i)*(N+1/2)]
loga(b)=c s same as logb(a)=1/c
i^i = e^(-pi*(N+1/2))
1 = i^i*e^(pi*(N+1/2))
pi/4 = 1-1/3+1/5-1/7... = (-1)^n / (1-2n)
pi/4 recursive form: an+1 = an + (-1)^n / (1-2n)
1/z = z*/|z|2
S+A/4*(mass+energy) = 0?  (entropy, mass, and energy per comoving volume are all constant per volume and sum to nothing)
S=dH/dt*t/h? (unitless) for comoving volumes?  (acceleration of Hubble due to age universe divided by planck
1/h is variance of quantum randon distribution, the number of many worlds created.
S emitted due to 1/h from galaxies, planets, and black holes is to make up for trying to keep S per comoving volume constant
Black hole and empty space comoving volume should be relatable.
Black hole:
S=A/4~ to mass enclosed in planck units. Negative with i included

Charge is negative of meters? Meters plugged into Maxwell equations instead of charge the "cause" of the same equations seen in mechanics and electromagnetism.

Momentum with it's i is the result of charges acting like meters that give energy and mass? What is 1/q^2 = 1/(-meters)^2 instead of mass's 1/meters^2.  What is 1/(-meters/i)^2 instead of energy's 1/(meters/i)^2  ? 

Sunday, August 2, 2015

deriving e and pi from complex numbers

There are some algebraic problems that can't be solved without sqrt(-1). The existence of a+b*i numbers creates a plane. The magnitude of such numbers is often useful.  But this is a reduction in the specificity of a+b*i which included a direction, so you know the distance from a centerpoint, but not the direction.  pi is the statistical measure of the amount of information you lost in reducing 2 dimensions a and b to a single magnitude.  So there should be a binary-like statistical derivation starting from the amount of information lost that uses only numbers of the form 1+i that can derive both e and pi to show that log base i of e^n = 2/(i*pi), the entropy of e^n possible states.

i=e^(i*pi*(2N+1/2))  N=0,1,2...

I've got
pi/4 = 1-1/3+1/5-1/7...
-pi/4 = sum[ (-1)^n / (2n-1) ]
pi/4 =sum[ i^(2+2n) / (2n-1) = i^2n / (1-2n) ]
1=e^(i*pi*(2N+1/2)) for N=0, 1, 2....
logi(e^(i*(2N+1/2))=1/pi = 1/4*(1-2n)/(i^(2n)) = 1/4 * 1 / (1-1/3+1/5-1/7...)
move i over right and pi over left, and i^ both sides:
e^(pi*(2N+1/2)) = i^(1/i) = i^(-i)
There must be an error above because:
i^i = e^(-pi*(N+1/2)) = 0.20788
i^-i = e^(pi*(N+1/2)) = 1/0.20788
This gives

pi = -2*i*ln(i) for N=0

2N instead of N is used next to "i*pi" as the number of "pi's" needed to get back around 360 degrees.

-i/N = pi/2*logi(e)  where -i/N is "entropy" per bit location, e is number of states per "i" bit location, and pi was used in finding entropy of black hole surface. So a large number of locations carry less entropy per location because there is really "0" net information in any physical system.
The two i's might be polar coordinates like a photon coming from an origin affected by mass (meters in Maxwell's equations) and charges (some type of i*meters, or meters=i*charge?). 

Saturday, August 1, 2015

speed of light, boltzmann's constant, wikipedia talk edit on natural units

No, there is a fundamental difference between this constants. kb is not like the others because its units are energy per temperature and temperature is a statistical distribution of a specific quantity of kinetic energy, i.e. it is unitless, i.e. dimensionless. Also, c is unitless because meters and seconds have a strict relativistic relationship, i.e. meters=i*c*seconds (see Einstein's "Relativity" appendix 2) so the "unit" of c is 1/i which is not a unit or normal physical dimension, but a mathematical dimension. We can measure other units like G, h, charge, etc, but we define the value of c by either defining seconds or meters in terms of the other. kb is not arbitrarily defined, but it doesn't have units either. I mean, this should be readily apparent from S=kb*ln(states). By replacing all instances of seconds in units with meters/(i*c) the units are more valid. We can't even measure meters, seconds, or mass unless we also specify the frame of reference. We can make units valid for all frames of reference by making meters=i*c*seconds which results in E= -1*mc^2 so we should replace all instances of energy or mass with the negative of the other. This will show F=-1*ma i.e. F+ma=0 which shows this methodology enforces conservation principles (E+mc^2=0 is the cosmological observation that gravitational energy plus mass energy of the Universe is zero). It also directly shows the relationship between energy and momentum: E-i*p=0. You could say "wiki is not a place for original research" but it's all obvious enough that this is not original and should have been published long ago.