Scientists from the Weizmann Institute of Science, the Technion and the Rambam Medical Center discovered why leukemia returns
Often, the fight against cancer is not decided in a single battle. Even after prolonged treatments and recovery, in many patients the cancer returns a second time. The reason for this is unknown, and it is probably related to the characteristics of the cancerous tumor and its development mechanisms, which are also not fully understood. A new study by Weizmann Institute of Science scientists shows that, at least in a certain type of blood cancer, the origin of the recurrent cancer is in special cells, different from the normal tumor cells, which are able to survive the chemotherapy attack. These findings - which are published today in the scientific journal Blood - have important practical implications for designing an effective treatment to fight the disease.
The origin of cancer is the disruption of the mechanism that controls the rate of cell division. As a result, certain cells begin to divide rapidly, creating tumors that "take over the body". The common treatment for cancer is through chemotherapy drugs, which aim to damage rapidly dividing cells, and are often successful in destroying the cancer cells and curing the patient. However, in many blood cancer patients who have undergone chemotherapy, the cancer returns after a while. Why is this happening? One possible explanation is that the chemotherapy failed, failing to kill all the cells of the original tumor. These surviving cells continue to divide uncontrollably, and the disease develops a second time. Another explanation is that the chemotherapy does manage to kill all the cells of the original tumor, but in addition to them, another type of tumor cells are hidden in the body. Unlike the "normal" cancer cells, these cells do not divide rapidly, and are therefore immune to chemotherapy, but they have the ability to produce cancer cells - and thus the disease returns. For this reason these cells are called "cancer stem cells".
Which explanation is correct? A research team led by Prof. Ehud Shapira from the Department of Biological Chemistry and the Department of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science at the Weizmann Institute of Science, in collaboration with scientists and doctors from the Rambam Medical Center and the Technion, including Dr. Liran Shelus from the Rappaport Faculty of Medicine at the Technion and Rambam, and Noa Cha Pal-Ilani and Dr. Rebecca Ader from the Weizmann Institute of Science, tried to decide the question. The answer to this is very important, as it affects the methods of treatment: while in the first case it may be enough to find a more effective chemotherapy treatment, in the second case a completely new treatment approach must be developed, which will damage cancer cells that do not divide quickly.
To find out the origin of the recurring cancer, the scientists used a method for determining "family trees" of cells, which was developed during the last years in Prof. Shapira's laboratory. The method is based on the fact that the genetic material in all cells undergoes mutations, and these mutations are transferred to the daughter cells during cell division. it is possible
To use these mutations to check if there is a "family" relationship between cells, and even to determine the degree of relationship between them (that is, to identify how many generations separate them from the parent cell they share). At the end of the process, a "tree" is obtained that describes the development of the cells, starting from the parent cells at the root of the tree, to the youngest cells at the ends of the branches.
The scientists used samples of blood cells taken from leukemia cancer patients, immediately after the diagnosis of the disease. Another sample was taken after the chemotherapy treatments, from the patients who developed the disease a second time. Using these samples, the researchers were able to reconstruct the human cell lineage tree, which includes the cancer cells at the time of the initial diagnosis, and the cancer cells at the time of disease recurrence, and check the "family relationships" between the two types of cells. The cell lineage tree clearly showed that, at least in some of the patients examined, the origin of the recurrent cancer is not in the cells of the original tumor, but in cells close to the root of the tree - that is, cells that have divided a few times. The meaning of this finding is that these cells have a very slow rate of division, and therefore, by nature, are immune to chemotherapy treatment.
Prof. Shapira: "It seems that in many cases chemotherapy alone cannot cure blood cancer. In order to cure it completely, and prevent its return, a drug must be sought that can eliminate not only the rapidly dividing cells, but also those 'cancer stem cells', whose slow rate of division makes them resistant to chemotherapy."
Dr. Liran Shelus from the Rappaport Faculty of Medicine at the Technion and the Rambam Medical College, Noa Chapal-Ilani and Dr. Rivka Ader from the Weizmann Institute of Science, Prof. Karl Skortsky, Prof. Jacob Rowe and Dr. Tsila Zuckerman from the Technion participated in the study and the Rambam Medical Center, scientists from Ohio University in Columbus, and other scientists.
75 תגובות
Israel Shapira,
I responded to the argument in free comments.
Yes. I agree that there is a two-way problem (it takes two to tango): my phrasing and my readers' understanding.
So instead of adding iods, maybe add MM? I will start adding shinim because my middle name is Shlomo
Telomere shortening as far as I know is the cause of aging, which is obviously a function of time.
I believe there is a problem with the definition of time you brought up in your previous statements.
There is a problem with the emails that I don't have the appropriate software and I'm tired of adding iodines at the end.
Is telomere shortening a function of time?
I am not kidding.
There is a connection, even a very direct one (solo, as well as dancing), between the phenomenon of time and the occurrence of changes and transformations, and this is not only because the latter are measured in relation to the former. If you remember, I once tried to show (without much cooperation and success) that clocks do not measure time but only show the external effects that the environment exerts on them, and that it is necessary to give the concept of time a definition that does not depend on the known physical reality.
Don't feel obligated to answer me here if you prefer the free comments section. But with the same degree of publicity we can already correspond by email.
No, because of the shortening of the telomeres.
True, it has nothing to do with the article. I'm trying to move to the land of free comments, but the GMA are not cooperating.
Does the chemotherapy fail because of the lengthening of the times???
Thanks Zvi.
I have been trying to make the following argument here on the site and in other places for over a year. You can find its summary at:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/demonstrating-relativity-1403111/#comment-288212
After it there are also comments related to it from Adi.
I would appreciate it if you could go through it.
So far everything is fine, I didn't find a problem with the argument.
Thanks Zvi. Both for reading and for the investment in giving the answer.
In the link you read, there are two spaceships, Jill sits in one and Jack sits in the other. Both spacecraft are inertial systems. When Jill passes a third clock (C1) that is synchronized with Jack's clock, she will see a joint shot of the clock and C1 time 0 in both, regardless of where the camera is installed. Agreed so far? (Know me if not).
When Jill passes by Jack's watch on the other hand, a photo of the time and Jack's watch will show time 10 for Jack and time 8 for Jill. agreed upon?
If we continue with the example, then with additional clocks down the road synchronized with Jack's, the 2-second gap between Jill's time and Jack's system clocks will grow: 2 years, 4, 6, 100 years. that Jill's season will accumulate a growing lag compared to the synchronized clocks in Jack's system (which we can actually refer to as a very long train of synchronized clocks). agreed upon?
We will now reverse the formation.
We'll do this so that instead of Jill's single spaceship, she now comes with a train of synchronized clocks when she drives the locomotive.
The situation is now perfectly symmetrical: Jill and her train pass Jack's train, and Jack and his train pass Jill's train.
Because of the symmetry, after the meeting between Jack and Jill in which his watch showed 10 and the season 8, on the next watch on Jill's train that he meets Jack will see a photograph that shares the same time on both watches, and then his watch will start to lag behind the watches on J's train Yell. We have reached a point where Jill's clock is falling further and further behind the clocks on Jack's train, and Jack's clock is falling further and further behind the clocks on Jill's train.
If you find any flaw in the argument let me know. If not we can continue to the main point.
The meaning of course was less than 1 and equal to 0.8
In the link you gave is written the solution to the problem, if which part of the solution do you not agree with?
The shots at each of the stations will be the same for the camera at rest and the camera in the car. Despite this, each of the spectators will be able to claim that their clock will tick faster.
The solution to the apparent contradiction is that while the clocks for the observer on the road are synchronized they are not synchronized for the observer in the car.
I'll try to show it with the example you found:
When the car passes by station 2, the clock at the station will read 5/6 (the car passes through 0.5C at a speed of 0.6C). The clock in the car will show 2/3=5/6*0.8. From the point of view of an observer on the road, clock 1 is synchronized with clock 2, which means it also shows 5/6, so he will claim that time passed faster with him. That means that the ratio between the clock in the car and the clock at station 1 is greater than 1, and is equal to 0.8.
From the point of view of the observer in the car, the clocks are not synchronized, because while 2/3 seconds passed for him on clock 1, only 8/15=2/3*0.8 passed because the self-time is always shorter. This means that the viewer of the car will claim that time passed faster with him. Indeed, the ratio between the clock at station 1 and the clock in the car is greater than 1 and equal to 0.8.
The point here is that the ratio is measured not between the clock at stations 2 and 3 and the clock in the car but between the clock in the car and the clock at station number 1, because these are the clocks that were reset at the same time.
In the link you gave, they expand and show that even if the car and the station have a telescope that sees what time it is at station 1, they still do not reach a contradiction.
deer
I have never been able to understand the physical meaning of the sentence: "It can be said that from the point of view of twin A, twin B is younger, and vice versa. And also that from the point of view of an observer at rest the two twins are the same age."
Let's try to flesh it out a bit more. With your permission, I will present you the following problem:
Suppose that on a very long road stations with large clocks are installed 150,000 km apart. The clocks are synchronized with each other. A high-resolution camera is installed above each watch. A car travels along the road at a speed of 0.6 the speed of light relative to the road (corresponding to an elongation factor of about 0.8, meaning that if a second has passed on the road, only 0.8 second has passed in the car). On the roof of the car is a large clock. Every time the car passes under the camera, the camera takes pictures of both clocks together: on the roof of the car and on the road.
A high-resolution camera is also installed in the car that takes pictures of both watches, on the road and in the car at the same moment.
If at the moment the car passed clock number 1 on the road the photograph from the road shows time 0 both on the road and in the car, and the photograph from the car shows the same, what will the photographs at stations 2 and 3 show?
You can find a similar question at
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/time_dil.html
(R.H. Bish Hasel knows this example well).
If you are not interested in the subject (experience proves that it is tiring), let me know. If you are interested, we can discuss it here, or better maybe in free comments.
Israel Shapira,
The elongation does exist, but it depends on the gaze, and this is what the theory shows.
where we assume that two twins are moving away from each other at a constant speed. The question of which of them is older has no meaning. The first is not older than the second, the second is not older than the first and both are not the same age, this is simply a meaningless question. On the other hand, it can be said that from the point of view of twin A, twin B is younger, and vice versa. and that from the point of view of an observer at rest the two twins are the same age.
The problem lies in the fact that our intuition says that the question of who is really older does have meaning, when from a physical point of view it does not.
How do we then know that such a time extension does exist if it cannot be observed even theoretically? What does it mean that "each side sees the other's clocks as moving slower" if A does not see B at all, let alone see that his clocks are moving slower?
Psychological time dilation? Is A convinced and believes with all his heart that B's clocks are moving slower? What about the physical aspect?
Israel Shapira,
I cannot describe such an experiment. In inertial systems the question of which side has passed more time depends on which system the questioner is in. In order for there to be no doubt as to which side has passed more time, the systems should converge twice, but this is not possible since they are moving at a constant speed.
deer.
The twins' paradox is a thought experiment in which the lengthening of time can be examined: at the time of the reunion, the two twins are together, but A's watch shows a late time and his beard is long and white, while B's watch shows an early time and he is still playing marbles. They both agree on the time difference, and that with A more time has passed.
The airplane experiment is a real experiment in which, during the reunion, the two clocks can be photographed together at the same point, so that there is no doubt that the airborne clock shows an earlier time.
However, the two experiments above deal with accelerated systems.
Can you describe an experiment, imaginary or real (preferably real), that demonstrates time dilation in inertial systems and where there would be no doubt as to which side has passed more time? Moderators are accelerated systems.
Thanks.
Israel Shapira,
I did not understand the question. By point of view I meant the points of view of each of the twins or a third observer.
deer
And if the point of view is that there is no time extension in inertial systems that are not accelerated?
B,
As Israel said, acceleration is not relative. If you are in a closed spaceship you have no way of determining whether you are moving at a constant speed or standing still. On the other hand, you can determine whether you accelerate or not.
Israel Shapira,
If Twin B simply continues to move away from Earth at a constant speed then the lengthening of time will depend on the point of view.
My free response is also valid here. It seems that freedom can be skipped at this point, unless the chemotherapists complain.
And regarding your response to Zvi: if, as you said, you reversed the creation and now the twin is in DDA, then he is not experiencing acceleration. So where is the symmetry? Acceleration is not relative, it is absolute.
Israel Shapira:
Self-time does not change. Only the measurement from a system other than the self-system changes. To know the time in the self-system, a translation (transformation) must be performed.
Zvi Z:
Let's say the father is in the mothership. The two twins, each in their own spaceship, exit the mother spaceship.
As long as there is symmetry in the speed (and acceleration) of the twin spaceships relative to the mother spaceship, then there is no possible difference between the clocks of twin A and twin B.
the next step:
Suppose that the "spacecraft" of one of the twins is his home on Earth. A state of symmetry in speed (and acceleration) with respect to the father's spaceship is still possible. Therefore all the previous discussion is valid and therefore there is no difference between the watches.
deer
And what about the lengthening of times in systems that are not accelerated but only in relative motion to each other? How does that happen?
ב
Everything you write is true as long as there is symmetry between two systems. If the father accelerates in random directions then his watch will show a different time than the watches of the twins who did not accelerate. The point of the twin paradox is that supposedly each of the twins can say that the other is moving at a high speed relative to him, the solution is that they cannot say this because one of the twins has to accelerate to change the direction of his movement, in this case the twin will not be able to say that the other twin has accelerated relative to him because he will feel the acceleration The symmetry is broken.
B. What about the airplane experiment? What about moderators? What about the constancy of the speed of light in any frame of reference? Can you explain how it happens that if you turn on a flashlight at point A, then the light beam will reach at the exact same moment both point B and point C, which is far from point B, without any time delay?
See lecture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZEYa7SRRsU&list=PL5F9D6DB4231291BE&index=1&feature=plpp_video
If we came to the conclusion that the acceleration does not change anything then there should be no difference in the ages of the twins.
Suppose the father is on a system that accelerates in any random direction and magnitude.
Does it change anything?
The symmetry between the twins will still be preserved (they accelerate at the same speed and in opposite directions relative to the father's system).
ב
I agree about this case, because both twins accelerate. But in the case where one accelerates and the other does not, as in the example where one of the twins goes on a journey in space and then returns to Earth, there will be a difference between the ages of the twins.
Zvi Z.
Note:
The father remains on earth.
Each of the twins accelerates in the opposite direction from the other twin.
Their accelerations are symmetric about the father.
Does the acceleration change anything in this picture?
Still the father measures the same in both twins.
It is not possible for one twin to be a different age than the other twin.
ב
You can time travel to the future. Your example does not describe the twin paradox as I know it, where one twin stays on Earth and the other twin goes on a journey into space and then returns. In such a case there will not be a point for which the systems are symmetrical, and therefore there will be a difference between the ages of the twins.
The difference lies in the fact that one of the twins accelerates when he changes direction to return to Earth, and for that matter also when he sets out on a journey from Earth, at these moments the symmetry is broken because the twin who set out on the journey feels a force acting on him while the twin who remains on Earth does not feel such a force.
B.
To date, no molecule has been found that can replicate itself. Both DNA and RNA require complete systems of proteins in order to replicate. What you describe, the evolution of inanimate matter until the creation of the first replicator is a theoretical matter today and no evidence has yet been found for it. You claim "if this has not been observed yet then an experiment can be planned and tested". So please, suggest such an experiment. Many great minds are trying to find such a process, if you have an idea it would be very interesting to hear.
Beyond that, the dictionary definition of "evolution" is a process of growth or culture. Stones in the mountain that are gradually disintegrating are not defined as undergoing an evolutionary process.
One last point about the twin paradox, you can continue to argue that there will be no difference between the clocks, but this was experimentally proven as early as 1971 so you're wasting your effort.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment
Once (a few posts ago) a wise man said: "The truth is the truth neither for me nor for anyone else. She is simply true.” 🙂
Zvi Z:
Suppose:
A father and two twins are doing an experiment.
The father remains on earth.
Each of the twins flies in the spaceship in the opposite direction from the other twin so that they are symmetrical about the father.
After the flight the twins return to the father.
Regarding the father, their situation is symmetrical and therefore both will be the same age. That is, the same period of time passed for them from the moment of parting to the moment of meeting.
Let's say that at the moment of meeting, twin A will claim that, according to his measurements, twin B is younger than him.
So equally twin B can claim that twin A is younger than him.
But the father cannot prefer any of them because the situation is symmetrical.
After the reunion all the systems are the same as the father's system. Therefore the father's system is the system that determines.
Suppose the two twins do not return to father. They are just sending a message to dad. They send the message exactly the second they are born.
Each twin measures the age of the other twin from their spaceship and discovers that the other twin is younger than them.
Twin A sends information to the father and tells him that according to his measurements Twin B is younger than him and has not yet celebrated his birthday.
Twin B sends the father a message and tells him that according to his measurements, Twin A is younger than him and has not yet celebrated his birthday.
Even if the two twins do not come back to the father, the father still cannot accept these messages as they are.
The situation is symmetrical and therefore the father knows that the two twins celebrate the birthday together.
conclusion:
Regarding any arbitrarily chosen point C for which point A and point B are symmetrical in relation to it, there is no difference between the measurements in the system of point A compared to the measurements in the system of point B.
The measurement difference occurs only when from system A one measures what happens in system B (or vice versa). And this only happens when these systems are in mutual motion.
None of this exists when the twins meet.
When the twins meet their systems are identical to the father's system and therefore identical to each other. Therefore the results of the measurement are the same. Even before the meeting, there can be no difference in terms of what the father is measuring.
conclusion:
After the meeting it is not possible for one twin to be of a different age than the other twin.
conclusion:
Even before the meeting, it is not possible for twin A to measure a different age of twin B.
That is, anyone who measures what is happening in the other person has to translate the measurement and understand from the translation the real age of the other person.
In mathematical formulation:
A person's age is his age in his self-measuring system. In order to know the age in one's own system, one needs to perform a translation (transformation) from the measuring system to the own system.
conclusion:
If this is true of a person's age then it is true of anything that depends on time.
And the important conclusion:
There is no possibility of time travel. The time in the self-system does not change as a result of its measurement in a system other than the self-system.
In the example I gave:
The father's measurement system is the overall self-system in which both the father and the two twins are measured.
Even if at some point each twin decides to measure things from a different system, all measurements should be translated into the father's system.
ב
So I didn't understand your explanation of the twin paradox. How does this relate to the third twin?
R.H.
1) I don't know the definitions you are talking about.
2) a) are duplicated b) are created from each other.
These are two different options.
The possibility of a molecule to be created through replication is a property acquired through the evolution of the inanimate substance. It is not fundamentally different from other traits acquired through evolution.
3) I don't know what will be watched and what won't. If it is not observed yet then you can plan an experiment and test it.
B.
OK you make up your own concepts, fine. In any case, the formal definition of evolution refers to systems that reproduce or arise from each other.
By the way "over time the inanimate matter develops more and more and becomes more and more similar to living matter. until finally it is defined as living matter." It has never been seen before and it's just wishful thinking on your part. If it was like that there would simply be no argument with the creationists.
R. H.
Organic materials can also be produced without reproduction.
Even without a replication system evolution of organic materials is possible.
Molecules are constantly being created and destroyed all the time.
The number of molecules is constantly in chemical equilibrium.
Those molecules that chemically have a survival advantage will survive better than other molecules and their equilibrium point will change so that their share in the population of molecules will be greater. This is evolution at a level that precedes a living cell and even a life that is not a cell. It is an evolution of inanimate matter. Over time the inanimate matter develops more and more and becomes more and more similar to living matter. until finally it is defined as living matter.
Regarding proteins:
Maybe in a test tube they would know. But in their natural environment they are created all the time. Some have better survivability than others.
deer:
Between every two points there is a third point.
ב
You wrote: "Between twin A and twin B there is point C."
I may not have understood you correctly but as far as I understand there is no C point between the twins and that is why their watches will show different things.
B.
"Protein undergoes evolution.
A protein that has survival properties will survive better than other proteins. It's the exact same principle!"
What do you think will happen if you mix proteins in a test tube?
At first the sensitive will be destroyed, then the less sensitive and finally the least sensitive. However, if you do not have a replication system that will result in the creation of new proteins from the existing ones, you will not get evolution but a decay curve.
ב
Free comments were created for people like me, so that they don't confuse the minds of respectable and settled people who are ready to give their lives for the sanctification of conformism. A question is waiting for you there. See
https://www.hayadan.org.il/free-speach-20100800/#comment-342688
1) I don't know what free comments are. Is it a specific site related to this site?
2) The truth is the truth neither for me nor for anyone else. She is simply true.
My claim is (I am ready to hear other claims):
Between point A and point B you can always choose point C. It does not depend on time or movement.
If these points are in mutual motion (the time factor comes into play) then at any given time point C will be exactly between point A and point B so that symmetry will be created between the points regarding point C.
The symmetry will be preserved whether the points converge or not.
Symmetry will be maintained at all times.
Symmetry does not depend on speed or acceleration.
Therefore, in terms of the measurements of a reference system located at point C, there will not be different results for point A and point B.
When point A converges with point B, both converge with point C, that is, with the reference system of point C, and therefore all reference systems converge. The measurements must be the same!
R.H.
Disagree why? That the relationship met with a lot of resistance? Check it out, it's history. It has nothing to do with whether relativity is true or not.
And the reason I find my way from the mountains without a map is that I live in the mountains. Open the door and everything around mountains mountains.
B.
We agreed that the truth is important. The question is, of course, what is the truth. That of Einstein who claims that there are hidden variables or of Bohr who maintains that there are not? Does either of them not strive for the truth? Does anyone have a monopoly on the truth?
There was once a party in Israel that believed it was born to power, and indeed its sign in the elections was "truth". But what to do, and the "truth" lost to the "right way"? B. By the way, (not Begin!) Emet's traditional partner, hastened to transfer her loyalty to the right path.
And the truth for you, as I understood from your words, is that "there is no possibility that point A will separate from point B and then come back and merge with it when at the renewed meeting there will be reading differences between the clock of point A and the clock of point B."
So either I didn't understand correctly (it happens according to you, if possible give an explanation in free comments), or you disagree a bit with Einstein I believe.
http://www.burzynskimovie.com/
Protein evolves.
A protein that has survival properties will survive better than other proteins. It's the exact same principle!
Israel,
My mother does not agree with this statement. The theory of relativity is the accepted theory today which has very successfully replaced Newton's. The fact that there is clearly a theory that will explain things even better does not detract from its value because as of today and for the last 100 years it is the best theory we have and thanks to it Neil Armstrong took a small step and you find your way back from your mountains without a map, only with a small box stuck to the car window .
B.
I don't agree with you either.
1) A simple and even complex organic molecule, let's say a protein does not undergo evolution. What can evolve is only a replicating molecule.
2) Abiogenesis is not a part of evolution or a stage of it. The principles of evolution are true and valid even if the first replicating molecule was created by an intelligent creator, was created spontaneously, came to earth in a meteor or in any other way. The essence of abiogenesis is not relevant to evolution which describes the way life develops.
3) The principles of evolution are universal and not limited to animals and as such they have been mathematically proven and demonstrated in computer models and simulations. So there is no matter of winning the lottery here. Winning the lottery is what created a man and an elephant in Africa and a kangaroo in Australia, but the very creation and constant change of species is not won by the lottery itself.
Other than that get a friendly itza for free, don't start Israel Shapiro with clocks, especially not ones that work on temperature.
I brought it here as a response to what was said earlier:
"In terms of relativity it's probably a bit weaker."
So it's not! There is no weak or strong. There is no crowd support or single person support. or mass resistance and the like.
There is only one thing:
Search for the truth.
The twins paradox is an example of a lack of understanding. it happens sometimes. But this can be fixed if there is a will to investigate and find the truth.
the truth is:
Between twin A and twin B there is point C (twin C). See explanation above.
ב
You write: "Therefore there is no possibility that point A will separate from point B and then come back and merge with it when at the renewed meeting there will be reading differences between the clock of point A and the clock of point B."
And what about the twin paradox? Isn't that exactly what is happening there?
And what about chemotherapy? If you want, meet in free comments after I finish putting the child to sleep.
1) The same assumptions work starting from the first moment when the simplest organic molecule was created.
There is no need to divide evolution into different degrees. (biogenesis).
2) Mathematical proof belongs exclusively to the field of mathematics. Attempts to mathematically prove the possibility of the existence of what we know to exist are unnecessary. After the die has landed on a certain number there is no need to mathematically prove that the die did land on that number. After someone has won the lottery there is no need to prove mathematically that they won.
3) The mathematics of the theory of relativity is not weak at all. It's the same math all the time.
The common misconception of the possibility of time travel:
It can be shown (proved):
Between point A (spacecraft A) and point B (spacecraft B) moving in relation to each other at speed m there is a third point c with respect to which point A and point B move at equal speeds and in opposite directions. (This also includes movement in acceleration).
If point A (in space) and point B (in space) converge at some time (let's say the first time at the beginning of the measurement and the second time at the end of the measurement) then point C (in space) will also converge with them.
Because of the symmetry, there can be no difference between point A and point B, and therefore it is not possible for a clock located at point A to show a different time than a clock located at point B.
parable.
Conclusion: The difference between the clocks can only be obtained when the time at point B is measured from a reference system located at point A. (Because of the symmetry, it doesn't matter who is point A and who is point B and you can flip between them).
Therefore, there is no possibility that point A will separate from point B and then come back and unite with it when at the renewed meeting there will be reading differences between the clock of point A and the clock of point B.
The same claim (and the same proof) also exists regarding space. (three-dimensional).
R.H. his brother.
Why don't you burst into an open door? Aren't you mistaking me for the narrow-eyed Chinese?
I thought we closed the matter on the subject of evolution, which although it seems as if it may have intelligent design it is completely non-committal. (as if it seems as if the earth is flat and the center of the universe even though it is not).
All I said was that relativity met with a lot of opposition, even from the mainstream, and that's one of the reasons Einstein didn't get a Nobel for it. Do you disagree with this statement?
Israel,
Let's talk about controversial.
For your information, despite the show and the surrounding hula hoopa, the principles of evolution, i.e.:
——— 0 ————————
1) Given a system whose details are duplicated
2) Given that replication is not perfect
3) Given that there is competition for resources
Then the fit ones will survive and evolution will take place
——— 0 ————-
They have been proven mathematically and their validity does not fall short of that of the round earth. Regarding relativity it is probably a little weaker.
FYI 2: Evolution does not speak at all about the creation or arrival of the first cell or replicator. This is what abiogenesis talks about, which is subject to debate and does not have a leading theory.
In contrast to these, the theory of intelligent creation is based, as of today, on only one book that was probably written during the time of Josiah (Yuvel will also tell you why) and on feelings and gut feelings like this "seems" to me of yours. This.
Abi lol you will be surprised but not really
They found that broccoli sprouts have at least 20 times more active substance than mature broccoli
And it really doesn't take much for a response
I will quote one of the researchers from the Linus Pauling Institute
"In human subjects, just eating some broccoli sprouts on top of a bagel with cream cheese resulted in HDAC inhibition. "
And the substance continues to work inside the body for 72 hours
With appetite
R.H.
As usual, I read every word. Eddington was not mentioned in the response I quoted. there is. Don't believe in anything yet, just trying to find out the very holy truth of B.
The controversial flat earth theory is much smaller than the theory of evolution, and also the theory of relativity.
Israel,
As usual you skim and don't read. What I wrote was that it should be assumed (but of course we will never know) that if Eddington's delegation had come back with an unequivocal claim that Einstein was wrong he probably would not have received a Nobel Prize two years later, not even for the photoelectric effect.
The opposition to relativity even if by thousands of scientists and even by Y.S. who believes in the existence of the ether and changing speed of light are, with all due respect, still negligible compared to the confirmations of relativity. It is the same nonsense that evolution is a controversial theory that is terribly debated. Yes, it is controversial on a popular site like Hidan, it is not controversial on professional sites like PubMed, for example.
And for the active ingredient to be relevant, you must eat 80 kg of sprouts a day...
And here is an interview with Prof. Paul Talley from Johns Hopkins University about broccoli and cancer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&v=aCmlvPzQWpM
For those who are looking - most health food stores in Israel sell organic broccoli sprouts.
The active ingredient in broccoli sulforaphane kills cancer stem cells
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100503135432.htm
B.
Thanks for the clarifications. Removing heavy concerns that I had in regards to the purpose of science.
!!
R.H.
From the only link currently relevant
"It can be assumed that if his theory of relativity had been disproved or accepted with opposition he would not have received the award."
https://www.hayadan.org.il/why-chemotherpy-faild-300512/#comment-342542
To Israel:
Objection or agreement is neither an increase nor a decrease.
Science is busy researching the truth.
In science the only thing that matters is the truth. It is not important what the status of the person who discovered it is.
In order to reach the research of the truth, one must study seriously and deeply. to understand. refer to the evidence.
Science is not philosophy.
This is not an expression of opinion.
"Expressing an opinion" in science is a hypothesis that must be disproved or proven. One person is enough to prove the truth even if billions say things that are not true. In fact: the truth exists even if even the first person who discovered it has not yet risen!
"Chemotherapy fails for the same reason that paracetamol fails to cure a headache."
"A cancer tumor is also a symptom. Usually of a certain problem in the lifestyle, which a person drags with him for years until the tumor is formed. (Unbalanced emotional state, pollution, radiation, etc.)"
Zur, please leave the matter of medicine to the doctors.. For that matter, I once had cancer, so it's annoying to read the 'opinions' of doctors in their own eyes.. Still: you need some responsibility for what you write no matter what forum)
Israel,
Let me know if you're interested in a link to the consensus on relativity over the last 100 years from thousands of scientists.
R.H. Small correction.
Relativity encountered the greatest resistance, among others from Lorenz and Morelli who did not accept it until the day they died. This is also the main reason Einstein did not receive the Nobel Prize for relativity.
Let me know if you are interested in a link to objections to relativity over the last 100 years by thousands of scientists.
B.
What you are proposing is a cancer vaccine. This is something that has been tried in the past and is still being tested today in many laboratories.
See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_vaccine
Create - a small correction to what I wrote in the previous comment (blocked for now). Einstein received his Nobel for the photoelectric effect and not for relativity, but it can be assumed that if his theory of relativity had been disproved or received with opposition he would not have received the prize.
flint,
Again, I don't know what you are basing your statement on. What discoveries are blocked? What does not reach the public?
Do you have any idea how long it takes between developing a new cancer drug and starting to use it? Did you check that?
And in pharmaceuticals, it should be noted, it is relatively slow because FDA approval is needed, which takes time because they do not want to approve harmful substances, but do you have any idea how long it takes between registering a patent on a new technology and breaking it into the market? You are throwing out completely unfounded assertions here.
Regarding Einstein, I don't know what is considered fast and what is slow for you, but Einstein published his famous works in 1905. In 1906, he received a doctorate based on this. In 1909 he was already appointed professor and in 1914 director of the Institute of Physics in Berlin. In 1915 he published the theory of general relativity and already in 1919 a delegation was sent to Africa to test his predictions. Based on the confirmation of the expedition in 1921 he received a Nobel Prize.
resistance? blockages? Are you sure?
I propose the following experiment {not on humans at this time} (those who can propose it to scientists are welcome to do so):
1) Take a group of cancer cells. and cause its weakening (by heating, acid, grinding, etc.).
2) The weakened cancer cells are injected at several points in the body of the organism from which they were taken.
The hypothesis of the experiment:
The organism's immune system will recognize the injected substance as the substance that causes the disease and will attack it.
Inside the injected material will be parts that are characteristic of the cancer cell. The system will recognize these parts and attack them.
It is essentially the same as any regular vaccine.
In a normal vaccination, the immune system attacks the weakened factor and from that it learns to protect itself against the non-weakened factor. This is what will happen to a cancer cell as well.
If such a vaccine gives a result in a simple organism (for example a worm or a frog) then it will be possible to try it in more complex things as well (for example on laboratory mice) and finally also in humans.
R. H. Shalom,
This statement is based on the content of the aforementioned article, and especially on its title.
Wondering why chemotherapy fails and the cancer returns is obvious above to anyone with a straight mind.
Chemotherapy eliminates the cancerous tumor, but not what caused the tumor. And if what caused the tumor is not treated, there is probably a high chance that it will return.
Now, according to the article, those researchers have finally begun to look for the source of the cancer, but much to their frustration, they have begun to look for another type of cell that produces the cancer cells, and still do not ask themselves, why these cells became cancerous in the first place. Why does a healthy body become sick?
This is the more interesting question. The development of medical science until today has focused a lot on how to cure a disease, but not on understanding what causes it and how to cure this cause.
Regarding the second part of your statement,
I will admit that I have no idea how many studies have been done on the connection between body and mind. You may have an idea about the quantity. And I will add that I am very sure that a lot of research has been done on this connection, and I am sure that many of them have shown the direct connection between the two (I know about some of them), but according to the results in the field it seems that these studies have not yet become mainstream in the world of medicine.
By the way, one of the amazing things I discovered over time, that many of the discoveries made by scientists do not reach the mainstream of accepted science at all. When I studied physics and chemistry I was sure that everything that scientists in the world discovered was available to me and to everyone. My observation was to discover that many of the discoveries made by scientists do not reach the general public at all. In some cases economic or security interests do not want this knowledge to reach the general public, but in most cases these simply do not come due to an inability to "market the discovery", and mainly because it is not accepted by other scientists, who do not want to accept an idea despite proof.
Just like Einstein's theory of relativity, it was immediately met with judgment and opposition, although opposition and judgment without in-depth investigation are clearly unscientific qualities.
flint,
Following on from what Chen asked you, on what statistics is your so self-confident assertion based "What surprises me is that medical scientists (not all of them) have not yet turned their attention to such a basic question, why does a person suddenly get sick?" ?
In addition, do you know how many studies have been done on the question of what differentiates the biotome (flora of bacteria) of one person or animal in relation to another? Do you know how many studies have been done on the relationship between infectious and other diseases and mental state?
Or are your determinations based on your gut feelings about what was researched?
hi chen,
Many times I came to verify that an illness or a difficult physical condition that attacked me or a person close to me was originally due to a mental condition.
I can share with you that at a certain time in my life I was attacked by severe stomach pains for several months until finally I was bedridden for a month and a half. The doctors didn't know what I had. The blood tests were normal, tests done on my stomach found nothing.
At the same time I had difficulties in the relationship with my partner. At some point we decided to go to a relationship counselor, and after one session, in a way that amazed me, my stomach pain immediately decreased by 50%. After that, I continued to go to another treatment that worked on the emotional situation I was in, and within a few treatments, my stomach pain was gone.
I cannot argue behind the sentence "unbalanced emotional states are at the root of most diseases" with a scientific statistical study, because I have not done one. At the same time I have seen it many times in my life, about myself and others.
I happened to read studies that claim that 80% of illnesses are psychological in origin, but I don't remember where, so I can't direct you there.
Regarding understanding the causes of cancer, I would invite you to read the book "Medicine and the Seventh Sense, by Dr. Nader Bhutto". He describes there a theory on the border of the supernatural, so it is difficult to verify it experimentally, but the clinical experiences he describes are very impressive.
flint
Reporter:
"Unbalanced emotional states are at the root of most diseases"
Have you ever verified these things in a controlled manner?
Can you show me an in-depth study on the matter?
Why are the studies hiding from the public that show a direct link between the fluoride added to the water and cancer?
Avi,
It may sound that way, but that's not what I mean.
I have great appreciation for all the medical achievements of the last hundred years (and even more).
Vaccines, surgeries, medicines and the like are valuable, they save lives!
Medicine has done a lot in this direction, which is a blessing. There is no need to cancel this, and I really do not claim that we were wiser and more balanced in ancient times.
What surprises me is that medical scientists (not all of them) have not yet turned their attention to such a basic question, why does a person suddenly get sick?
In fact they do ask this question all the time, but from the perspective of external factors and not from the perspective of the person's condition. (which is the most interesting thing)
For example, they try to eliminate bacteria (and succeed), but it would be more interesting to ask why in a certain person the bacteria develop into a disease, and they do not affect the other?
What is there in the lifestyle of the other person, that makes his immune system a resistant varnish?
For example, one of the main factors of a person's health condition is an emotional state. Unbalanced emotional states are at the root of most diseases. Our society is not a happy society at all, people walk around all day with feelings of anger, frustration, depression and the like. The connection between this and the proliferation of cancer, heart problems and more is very clear, but we still don't understand it.
Zur, you are trying to cancel all the medical achievements of the last century that brought us to a life expectancy of over 80 years and return us to the balanced period in which we lived 35 years.
Chemotherapy fails for the same reason that paracetamol fails to cure a headache.
A headache is a symptom of some problem that usually results from the patient's incorrect lifestyle (lack of sleep, mental stress, improper diet, etc.). The paracetamol weakens the pain, but does not correct the patient's lifestyle, and the headache returns again and again in intensity.
Cancer is also a symptom. Usually of a certain problem in the lifestyle, which a person drags with him for years until the tumor is formed. (Unbalanced emotional state, infection, radiation, etc.)
If we eliminate all the cancer cells but the patient continues with the wrong length of his life, the cancer will develop again.
The unasked question is, why did cancer develop in the first place? And this is the most important question.
It is amazing that in 2012 medical science is still trying to cure symptoms instead of understanding the root of the problems.
Yair, your comment was written sarcastically, right?
It is very possible and likely that what will turn out, that these cancer stem cells, are not defined as cancer cells at all today, and according to many information they are healthy cells with a tendency to create cancer cells.
This may be the beginning of a real solution to the disease
The correct explanation is that God decided that man should suffer more, and gave an instruction to Dana to screw up again, and narrow-minded atheists will repent... There is a fixed God!!!!!