S-4 Questions:

Pharma
41

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

And if there were no life on Earth, but only substances produced by ordinary chemical reactions, there would be no difference at all. While it would still be the case that say a left-handed molecule of one sort might react better with say a right-handed molecule of another sort than the left-handed version, there would always be equal amounts of left and right handed versions of the each molecule, so everything would always balance out and there would be no net difference.

A molecule would be equally likely to react with the mixture available to it regardless of whether it was left or right handed.[/quote]

Evidence of self preservation, maybe.[quote]

Life however is very chiral – for example our DNA codes for only L-form amino acids, and all life (I believe) uses only D-glucose, not L-glucose.[/quote]
This is beautiful. It is almost poetic:
This is where form meets function.[quote]

If however not all four are different, then it is not chiral. ’

So, how would you describe chiralty differing from mirror image ? ( Example; The hands - if I had five identical fingers I could line my hands whichever way I wanted and have a mirror image, having thumbs I have to turn them on a 90 degree angle to get that mirror image )

Well, because the fronts and backs of the hands are different, the left hand cannot be turned in any way to become the same as its mirror image, the right hand (I’m not sure if you were saying it could, so just in case I added to the be clear.)[/quote] I was just confusing chiralty with mirror image; I thought chiralty was another term used to describe mirror image.[quote]

I don’t think the term chirality gets applied to hands, but I could be wrong.

But whenever the arrangement of atoms around an atom, usually carbon, yields a mirror image that cannot, regardless of rotations, be overlaid on the original, that is a chiral center.[/quote] Yes, I understand completely. Thanks.[quote]

So, is a true mirror image identical elements regardless of alignment or is it different things oriented in the same alignment?

Same elements with same connectivity but for the spatial alignment.
[/quote]
I think this is the essence of elliptic space on microcosmic space, hence my fascination with it.[quote]

Elliptic spatial awareness I really don’t know what it is;[/quote]
I highly, highly recommend this book:
Longitude: The True Story of a Lone Genius who Solved the Greatest Scientific Problem of His Time. By Dava Sobel.
This book introduced me to elliptic equations and I fell in love with complex mathematics.
Unfortunately, academia won’t let me do complex if I keep refusing to prove them I can do simple - and I refuse to think in 2D,
: D
Also, that book will provide you with a glimpse into the utmost bitchiness, jealousy and envy of English Male Academic society. I was shocked to learn that men could be so passive aggressively destructive - so subtle as to be sinister: That is when high intellect manifests itself as demonic intelligence ( as opposed to divine/constructive intelligence = wisdom )[quote]

I did have a book once on developing the ability to perceive in 4-dimensions (off of a representation in fewer dimensions), using for example hypercube drawings to get the idea. I was actually able to do it back then. As you say, interesting but I had less talent at it and definitely no aversion to 2D :)[/quote]

Yes, I understand. But if you look into hyperbolic space and the elliptic plane your very mind will expand in four dimensions: Height, depth, width and length. Why stick to depth and breadth when you can have all variants simultaneously?

I am cheering you on for selfish reasons.

You have the know how and the tools, and I am counting on you to come up with a supplement called:

Alpha Female

: D

42

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

Incidentally, on that subject, testosterone’s 17-alpha hydroxy stereoisomer is epitestosterone. This is one example where nature is a little sloppy – the body produces a minority of this when producing testosterone.[/quote]
I was going to disagree with you here on the above statement but before I do, why do you say in the case of epitestosterone “nature is a little sloppy” ?[quote]

Also as a btw, this isn’t a mirror image because in the case of a mirror image, every chiral center would be reversed, but here only this single one is.[/quote]

I need to see this in 4D - I bet it looks fascinating.
There must be an image out there. Will do a search.

43

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:

And if there were no life on Earth, but only substances produced by ordinary chemical reactions, there would be no difference at all. While it would still be the case that say a left-handed molecule of one sort might react better with say a right-handed molecule of another sort than the left-handed version, there would always be equal amounts of left and right handed versions of the each molecule, so everything would always balance out and there would be no net difference.

Life however is very chiral – for example our DNA codes for only L-form amino acids, and all life (I believe) uses only D-glucose, not L-glucose.

This is beautiful. It is almost poetic:
This is where form meets function.[/quote]

Handedness is I think actually a very interesting question.

Really – getting down to the molecular level and the mechanisms by which it is done – how does the body produce a right side of the body that is a mirror image of the left? And with utterly perfect reliability? (For example, not a single person winds up with a right hand that has the thumb on the right side, as is the case with the left hand.)

[quote]I highly, highly recommend this book:
Longitude: The True Story of a Lone Genius who Solved the Greatest Scientific Problem of His Time. By Dava Sobel.
This book introduced me to elliptic equations and I fell in love with complex mathematics.
Unfortunately, academia won’t let me do complex if I keep refusing to prove them I can do simple - and I refuse to think in 2D,
: D
Also, that book will provide you with a glimpse into the utmost bitchiness, jealousy and envy of English Male Academic society. I was shocked to learn that men could be so passive aggressively destructive - so subtle as to be sinister: That is when high intellect manifests itself as demonic intelligence ( as opposed to divine/constructive intelligence = wisdom )[/quote]

Thanks! I will try to read it.

[quote]I am cheering you on for selfish reasons.

You have the know how and the tools, and I am counting on you to come up with a supplement called:

Alpha Female

: D

[/quote]

Actually, that would be really cool! :slight_smile:

44

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:

Incidentally, on that subject, testosterone’s 17-alpha hydroxy stereoisomer is epitestosterone. This is one example where nature is a little sloppy – the body produces a minority of this when producing testosterone.

I was going to disagree with you here on the above statement but before I do, why do you say in the case of epitestosterone “nature is a little sloppy” ?[/quote]

Because it seems to be an accidental and unnecessary byproduct, a result of an enzyme that doesn’t manage to achieve 100% selectivity (selectivity meaning, getting the isomer you want.)

There is no epitestosterone receptor. It does have a slight pharmacological effect – it blocks testosterone to a slight degree – but it seems that that same biological effect could be achieved by producing just a little less testosterone and no epitestosterone. But the enzyme is unable to make only testosterone.

Basically what I think is happening is that while androstenedione fits better into the binding site of the enzyme when it is “right side up,” so therefore testosterone is the principal product, it can also fit when flipped upside down. And when that happens, the hydroxy winds up in the opposite position, yielding epitestosterone.

I don’t know if it has been demonstrated that that is the mechanism, though.

45

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Alpha F wrote:

This is beautiful. It is almost poetic:
This is where form meets function.

Handedness is I think actually a very interesting question.

Really – getting down to the molecular level and the mechanisms by which it is done – how does the body produce a right side of the body that is a mirror image of the left?[/quote]
This is activity of elliptic space. In Elliptic equations, numbers exist outside the Y and X axis. This creates the possibility of completion, unity: Complete unity as opposed to bilateral uniformity. On a spiritual plane it could be said that at the molecular level this mechanism is doing a ‘communion’, becoming one with it’s complementary form to create excellence through function.[quote]
And with utterly perfect reliability? [/quote] EXACTLY! As just mentioned; Form is function yielding excellence through union.[quote]
(For example, not a single person winds up with a right hand that has the thumb on the right side, as is the case with the left hand.)[/quote] It is a turning of the wheel. In a parallel universe, where duality is the only perceived reality, we are aware only of separation. In the hyperbolic universe, reality is non-dual. There is a turning of the axis and compounds/people meet face to face ( see the picture of the hyperbolic saddle I posted: if you flatten that geometric shape looks like a circle on 2D, or two half circumferences. On hyperbolic space it looks like a saddle ). In mathematics, hyperbolic is the maximally symmetric, simply connected. Think about that for a moment. Connectivity is life.
Union is completion: At molecular and spiritual ( energetic field created ) level we witness the creation and preservation of Integrity.
The Integrity of Life.
Any separation is only momentary - as you mentioned in one of your posts:

“A molecule would be equally likely to react with the mixture available to it regardless of whether it was left or right handed.”
Self preservation to ensure the integrity of life.

The Euclidian model is 2D ( The parallel postulate ). Life is hardly linear. As you aptly and beautifully put: “Life however is very chiral”. This is very profound and has many implications.
I find it awe inspiring.

4D is where it’s at, Roberts!

: D

Thank you for the insight, Bill

46

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Alpha F wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:

Incidentally, on that subject, testosterone’s 17-alpha hydroxy stereoisomer is epitestosterone. This is one example where nature is a little sloppy – the body produces a minority of this when producing testosterone.

I was going to disagree with you here on the above statement but before I do, why do you say in the case of epitestosterone “nature is a little sloppy” ?

Because it seems to be an accidental and unnecessary byproduct, a result of an enzyme that doesn’t manage to achieve 100% selectivity (selectivity meaning, getting the isomer you want.)

There is no epitestosterone receptor. It does have a slight pharmacological effect – it blocks testosterone to a slight degree – but it seems that that same biological effect could be achieved by producing just a little less testosterone and no epitestosterone. But the enzyme is unable to make only testosterone.

Basically what I think is happening is that while androstenedione fits better into the binding site of the enzyme when it is “right side up,” so therefore testosterone is the principal product, it can also fit when flipped upside down. And when that happens, the hydroxy winds up in the opposite position, yielding epitestosterone.

I don’t know if it has been demonstrated that that is the mechanism, though.[/quote]

I was going to disagree because in boys, epitestosterone is abundant and serves to overwhelm ( and hold back, perhaps? ) testosterone. To me it does seem to serve a very useful purpose when I think of a male child not being psychologically mature enough to handle the impact of testosterone in their system. Epitestosterone seems to delay the onset of powerful changes until the child has reached a certain maturity at puberty, where testosterone begins to unleash it’s power. Hence the ration of T/E changes and remains as such through adult life.
But I could be completely wrong on this and A has nothing to do with B.
Also epitestosterone is useful at least for doping testosterone.
Not that I care, but I don’t quite see the ‘unnecessary byproduct’ from nature as you mentioned.
It must have a different function, or an isolated function that operates on it’s own accord to slow down or measure testosterone.
If it is an anti androgen, could it be it is there instead of higher levels of estrogen which would really mess up male psychology and physiology?

I am just speculating.

47

I just don’t see the reason why, if a given level of testosterone would be too much, an equally good answer isn’t to just produce less testosterone, an amount which itself would be correct.

So I don’t see a necessity for the epi-T.

Nor is it impossible for something to exist in an organism and be unnecessary: e.g., the appendix.

Now, it might be that it has an interesting and (so far as I know) unknown-to-science property, such as being an anti-androgen yet a calcium anabolic in bone – just to make something up. But I have to make something up to come up with it, and it doesn’t have to be the case that there is any such usefulness.

48

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Elliptic spatial awareness I really don’t know what it is;
I highly, highly recommend this book:
Longitude: The True Story of a Lone Genius who Solved the Greatest Scientific Problem of His Time. By Dava Sobel.
This book introduced me to elliptic equations and I fell in love with complex mathematics.
Unfortunately, academia won’t let me do complex if I keep refusing to prove them I can do simple - and I refuse to think in 2D,
: D
[/quote]

That’s because it would be like building a house without foundations. If you use terms like simply connected, and symmetric, you must know what these things mean precisely or they have no value.