Proof that "Perfection" does not exist and that we need to rethink our ideas about God. Plus, I may have stumbled upon a law of the Universe by accident.

Now, let us suppose I made a perfect clone of myself. In order to be a perfect clone, I must be chemically identical to my clone. Not only that, but in order to retain "perfect clone" status, the clone must also breathe chemically identical air and be in a chemically identical environment that is perfectly symmetrical. Now, let's place me and my clone in a 10x10 room...

Me and my clone are against the walls in the corners of a perfect room. We are a perfect distance from each other, and the distance between us perfectly proportional. Neither of us has to turn our heads' in a different direction to see each other, we can both look forward and we see each other at the same distance. If we are chemically identical at this point, we remain chemically identical so long as we ingest chemically identical food, air, and water with equally proportional quantities. In this scenario, since there is no differentiation between either of us, my clone is still perfect.

Now, what happens when an external stimulus is introduced in a dis-proportional way?

The circle represents an event, object, or what have you. It is closer to me than my clone. At this point, my clone ceases to be a "perfect clone" and branches out as an individual. Why? Well, if we are chemically perfect and everything about our environment is perfect... Until the stimulus arrives. The object is closer to me and it is to my clone. Since I am closer, my brain will perceive the object as closer, where my clone will see the object as further away. Our brains' will have different interpretations of the object, and since the information will be different, we no longer share a perfect reference to each other. My brain will record the object as being, say, 2 feet away, and my clone will see the object as 7 feet (or so) away. That immediately differentiates me from my clone, as from that point forward, he will be operating with a different chemistry (although slight) from my own.

That alone proves that perfection is impossible unless conditions themselves are perfect, which is essentially impossible. The moment something imperfect is introduced into this perfect environment, the perfection ceases. All proportions of perfection are immediately destroyed. The clone will have slightly more air on his side of the room than I will, and I will have slightly less due to our relative distances from the object and its' mass. The perfect frame of reference is shattered since the object gives a reference point that differentiates corners of the room (i.e. the ball is in the top left corner, or if no direction available, the ball is on that side and there are 3 sides it is NOT at).

However, I will take this a step further and apply this theory to the Universe.

This graph represents the Universe and the Big Bang. It is a standard Cartesian Plane...

Now, since I have established that perfection is not possible for any extended period of time, I would like to establish that if perfection is not possible, complete imperfection is also not possible. The following graph demonstrates this, although the graph is not perfectly proportional. Had I shaded in all areas, you would not be able to see the numbers on the x and y planes at the origin.

(Black areas indicate Universe possibilities, while non-shaded areas represent Universal impossibilities)

Perfection implies that all quantities involved would be in perfect proportions, i.e. (+inf,+inf). If perfection is not possible, then the inverse must not be possible as well, i.e. (-inf,-inf). However, that leaves two remaining possibilities... (-inf,+inf) and (+inf, -inf). How does this relate to the Universe? Well, by way of the composition of atoms.

As everyone knows from elementary science, there are Protons, Neutrons, and Electrons included in EVERY atom with no exception. I.E. Hydrogen has 1 proton, 1 neutron, and 1 electron. Protons represent (+), neutrons represent neither positive or negative (origin or possible z axis), and electrons represent (-). Our atoms, at least in the Universe we can study, indicate that there are even proportions of + and - charges in equal degrees, with the exception being isotopes, which have extra neutrons. As this is a simple (x,y) graph, I have not included the z axis, which could, potentially, indicate neutrons.

Going back to the original graph, I can input atoms as x=number or protons and y=number of electrons. I will graph a few basic elements.

Assuming protons come first in line with electrons second, this is the direction the graph would take for ideal samples. Isotopes do cause variances in this graph, but they could be charted as well, though I will ignore them for the sake of simplicity.

Since this graph works since atoms DO have positive and negative charges, and inverse of this graph would also be true, which I will combine with the above graph...

I shaded in the impossible regions of the Universe in the above example and included the inverse atomic proportions of the previous graph. This shows that, while not reaching 0, the possibilities of atoms work on these levels. Beneath 1, however, you no longer have stability, though in theory you could have atomic particles that make up the 1 to near 0 ranges.

This would indicate that the possibility exists of two universes, at least, universes that exist within the (+,-) and (-,+) quadrants.

As for the title of this post, allow me to explain. If perfection is impossible, God becomes impossible. At least in the way we perceive God. God would have to be 0, and in order for there to be a 0, 0 must exist with no external stimuli because 0 has perfect proportions with the absence of positive or negative stimuli. However, had God been perfect, there would never have been a need for stimuli at all. That being said, that would mean that if God were perfect, the Universe would not exist in its' current form, assuming that God was the source of the Universe.

This grid-model is eerily similar to a pulsar, as shown below... (remember, shaded in areas above are universal impossibilities)

In this photograph, which is very similar to my graph, forces that are not extending outward from the center of the poles of the star form a magnetic "link" with each other. I believe that the Pulsar may help us explain the Universe as a whole and that they jets being forced out would contain vast quantities of inversely proportionate matter.

Since perfection is impossible, and individuality/inverse-individuality and inverse-infinity are the only possibilities that exist, each element has an uneven total composition. Atomic Masses, while very similar, will never be the same due to differentiation of composition, however slight.

Joshs' Theory of Matter Composition:

The total masses of any two of the same element are not perfectly proportional nor shall they ever be.

Anyway, this is the work I have done so far. I truly believe I am onto something, and will update this as time permits.

Newbie mistake of the century...

I forgot about Phylum Cnidaria. I got it mixed up with Coelenceterata.

I confused jellyfish with hydras.

A Cybernetic Eye

Okay, so I have been staring at this diagram of the human eye all day. I am completely convinced that I can, with current technology, remove that eye and replace it with a cybernetic eye... A PROGRAMMABLE eye...

It starts like this... There are 3 layers of a human eye.

The first, the sclera, is basically a membraneous sack that the eye floats around in. That sack gives the eye its' shape, and enables it to perform its' functions.

Second, you have the choriod membrane, which is located below the sclera and between the retina which contains muscle tissue for movement of the ciliary muscle which in turn rotates the lense of the eye. That lense is protected by the iris, the black parts of our eyes. The iris is also controlled by the ciliary muscle which enables a sphincter-like function. The more open the iris, the more light gets into the lense.

Finally, the retina is composed of cells that enable light that enters the iris and through the lense to be transferred to the brain via photoreceptors called cone and rod cells. These cone and rod cells are at their most dense in the back of the eye in a small grove in the retina called the fovea centralis. Light is the most focused in the fovea centralis. The nerve impulses generated by the retinal cells travel through the optic nerve into the brain which results in vision.

The eye itself is basically a device that we could recreate ourselves. Since the retina is the location where information is transferred to the brain, it would be highly possible to remove all but the retinal layer of the eye and replace those parts with a device that could control eye function. With the customized device, you could come up with some very creative uses of a manufactured eye that might be easily maintained and replaced if needed.

You could start by removing the sclera, then the iris, then the choroid, and finally the lense. The retinal layer does not completely envelop the front of the eye, so it could be removed without causing severe damage. However, the tools for this kind of an operation would need to be extremely intricate, as damage to the retina may be irreversible.

The retinal tissue would still need to be supplied with the vitreous humor that floats throughout the posterior compartment of a fully intact eye. Certain retinal cells produce this humor, which could be regenerated should the humor be difficult to extract during the operation.

All in all, we are moving forward very fast. The only thing we need is what I want to major in... The Cybernetic Brain. It is going to be a great future, if my smoking habits don't kill me first!

Josh, Notochords, and You

In the Animal Kingdom, there are may different kinds of living things. My interest is in the Chordates, or the creatures with vertibrae. My focus is on the superclass Vertebrata and the species Homo Sapien. My organs of interest are the brain, the eyes, and the spinal chord. Why? I want to attach computers to these organs. I think it is possible to bypass or improve some of the normal biological functions of the organs with computer processors and current transfer devices.

But, there is something that just popped up today that I hadn't thought about. Acorn Worms. They are in a phylum all their own, Hemichordata. They have all of the components of phyla Chordata, except they do not have a notochord. There are only 2 classes of Hemichordata, 2 classes (third proposed), and very few species that fit within the phylum. Hemichordata are considered the sister phylum of Echinodermata, or starfish. (Wow, I didn't realize they were related to starfish, that was new. I just automatically assumed they were related to the Earthworms in phylum Annelida)

Every Chordate has or has had a notochord at some point in its' development. The notochord is pretty important as far as research on the central nervous system is concerned. There is just too much data for me to sift through on the notochord itself, but I do know a local doctor who did some work on the brain and spinal cord, I think I might go drop in and say hi tomorrow or maybe even this afternoon and ask him a few questions about the notochord significance in brain development and transfer of neural "data" throughout the nervous system.

Sorry for no updates

I have been REALLY busy for awhile studying up on the human brain. My focus is to work on the biology and computer programming and combine the two to see if an electronic device could be grafted inside or outside of the eye that would enable a computer interface to be applied directly to light entering the eye.

There is a gentleman who has developed a microchip for implantation into the rear of the eye for the sake of allowing some people with degenerative eye conditions to see again. The chip basically functions as a damaged optic disk. Light entering the eye is reflected onto the chip, and the chip redirects the light into the optic nerve correctly, allowing vision. I want to do something similar, however I want to install an entire computer in half of the brain.

It has already been shown that a human brain can be cut in half, and the neurons regrow to reattach to nerves to re-enable bodily functions stopped by the severing of half of the brain. I want to replace that half of the brain or possibly more with a computer system that enables automatic and normal nerve function and also enables other functions to be included. Will be great if we figure it out.