Cytoskeleton; the cells communication network

B

Bishadi

Banned
Banned
To observe the cytoskeleton of a cell as the neural network of individual cells will offer a form to comprehend how energy exchanges between cells.

Biophotons, microtubules and CNS, is our brain a
“Holographic computer”?


F. Grassa,*, H. Klimab, S. Kaspera
a Departement of General Psychiatry, University of Vienna, 1090 Waehringer G€urtel 18-20, Austriab Atomic Institute of the University of Vienna, A-1020 Schuettelstrasse 121, Austria

Received 20 August 2003; accepted 19 October 2003

http://www.medizin-medien.info/mm/BiophotonsGrass.pdf
Click to expand...

Observe the 'tubules' and how light affects the interrelation (communication) of the structures

http://med.muni.cz/biomedjournal/pdf/2001/03/195-208.pdf

http://www.jcb.org/cgi/content/abstract/106/4/1151

Also perhaps look up the Arc gene

the purpose of the thread is to share that the interractions of cells whether from close proximity or of the neural network of organized life; the cells are communicating via potential 'other than' electrical charge.

here is a link for any who like to really dig

http://www.iovs.org/cgi/content/full/46/11/3988

and a list of the protiens

http://www.genome.jp/dbget-bin/get_htext?ko04812.keg+-f+F+E


what is being shared goes against the current idea of how life associates, so you may need to play with it awhile.... be patient as when the 'light' pops; then you will know what you can do to contribute for the next generation of knowledge


ie.... since the whole mess of biology and physics is about to change; there is plenty for everyone; so dig and perhaps find folk with the same interests and communicate.
 
interesting

Fluorescent Resonance Energy Transfer:

This method allows the detailed study of protein-protein interaction in living cells at real time to obtain temporal and spatial information. In this method, two interacting proteins are each labeled with different fluorophores. The emission wavelength of one (donor) fluorophore is the excitation wavelength of the other (acceptor). If the two proteins are close enough (50A), the excitation of the first fluorophore will result in the emission of the second fluorophore. This process, FRET, is highly sensitive to the distance (reciprocal to the R6, R = distance between two fluorophores) and orientation of two proteins (that carry the fluorophores). Therefore, FRET reflects the interaction of the two proteins.
Click to expand...

http://www.uic.edu/dent/oralbio/jxlilab.html

enjoy
 
SO there is material to read and experimental evidence to share the case in point (life associates based on energy (light) and not electrical)

but you are too stubborn to read
 
The reasoning behind examining the skull of a male or female animal is to understand the justification for there being any skeleton to begin with. What bishidi you are presenting is called crackpottery in which case your skeleton has nothing more than a sense of examining the crusteriar motivation behind human endeavours, which is psychology and not Chemistry. Atamony and chemistry are different things and do not belong in this subforum.
 
Tnerb said:
The reasoning behind examining the skull of a male or female animal is to understand the justification for there being any skeleton to begin with. What bishidi you are presenting is called crackpottery in which case your skeleton has nothing more than a sense of examining the crusteriar motivation behind human endeavours, which is psychology and not Chemistry. Atamony and chemistry are different things and do not belong in this subforum.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Tnerb said:
The reasoning behind examining the skull of a male or female animal is to understand the justification for there being any skeleton to begin with.
Click to expand...

What?!? :confused: He’s not talking about skulls and anatomy. He’s talking about the cytoskeleton, not the skeleton. :rolleyes: The bit about it all being a bunch of crackpottery is quite correct, however.
 
Oh, ...................my public!


please, stay over here as it is where you belong!



this thread should be cleaned of your guys garbage and returned so others can learn a bit more than you comprehend.

if you all were smart you would contact the people who wrote it and send them a link to this site and let some real folk have conversation.

as you all are lousy brainpower to be representation
 
Hercules Rockefeller said:
The bit about it all being a bunch of crackpottery is quite correct, however.
Click to expand...

Bishadi said:
if you all were smart you would contact the people who wrote it and send them a link to this site and let some real folk have conversation.
Click to expand...


I should clarify.

The links and abstracts you post aren’t crackpot pseudoscience. You often provide links to peer-reviewed published science performed by genuine scientists.

What is crackpot pseudoscience is your selective and amateur interpretation of this material as justifications for your belief that you have some incredible textbook-changing paradigm-shifting insight into areas of science that the world’s scientists are incapable of comprehending due to their rigid dogmatic adherence to (in your opinion) outdated models and their inability to think “outside the box” like you. (And all generated from home without any actual laboratory experimentation. Amazing! :D)

To be fair, so far you have stuck to facts and haven’t actually started up with your pseudoscience in this thread (yet), so I think the relegation of this thread to Pseudoscience was a bit premature. But history has shown us that it’s probably only a matter of time before you do so and we start seeing phrases like “energy upon the mass” and so forth.
 
Hercules Rockefeller said:
...So I think the relegation of this thread to Pseudoscience was a bit premature. But history has shown us that it’s probably only a matter of time before you do so and we start seeing phrases like “energy upon the mass” and so forth.
Click to expand...

Oops.
:shrug:
:*)
 
Trippy said:
Oops.
:shrug:
:*)
Click to expand...

i will always be glad to see you took your shot (like a man/women)

now please, offer me only ONE request; show me when i am wrong and at a level i can work on.

don't try and say 'math' or laws or even the "laws of physics"

cuz if you had the depth, you would already know most everything i write is spot on. I know both ends and within about every discipline you can imagine; research and study is about all i do; i learned something a few decades ago and have bridged just about every discipline across the spectrum of knowledge since

that is why i like to ground 'evidence' at the tangible stange as there is enough to really make a huge difference in biological and the medical fields

as any one of you math guys, can offer your skills in a heart beat, if you walk down the hall and assist them in chemistry, or simply ask applicable questions here and now

remember, the 'energy is the specimen' (that is what i have been trying to point out in most every areana you can debate on)

there is enough to change the world and all you all have to do, is get the questions out and the phone calls ringing.

'we the people' are about to evolve!

;)

ps... don't ask what 'truth' can do for you, ask what can do for the 'truth'

what can you do, with information that can actually change the world?


this ain't no practice run, folks!



:shrug:
 
Well, to add a point regarding the effects of a external light source or energy signiture.

It take 14 to 28 seconds for energy/ radiation to pass through a atom.


in other words it takes 14 to 28 seconds for the same energy that arrives at the outward boundary to be emitted from the atom.
Wherein the immediate response of the atom to that incoming energy is not the same enery that is absorbed.

It takes a longtime for new energy to pass through a cell,(Approximatly 1.6 to 3.2 days to pass through a cell). It would take new energy 1,127.6 to 2255.2 years to pass through the main torso of a human being(through the body).

Of course that means from atom to atom in a direct line.

So then it becomes clear that biochemistry is based of conduction of electron across atomic surface rather than through atoms.


DwayneD.L.Rabon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top