On Mar 17, 2008, at 5:33 AM, Neville Jones wrote:
Our cells are constantly being replaced, such that it has been estimated that in 7 years time you will not contain a single cell that you do now. I.e., your physical body has been rebuilt.
This statement is patently false, casting additional grave doubt on everything else being asserted. The inside of the crystalline lens of the human eye contains the original embryonic cells from the womb; additional laminae are built over them, analogous to tree rings. Cataracts occur when the regularity of this lamination process is disrupted, or particulate scattering domains are introduced into the lens to cause Mie scattering. In any event, the statement that "in 7 years time you will not contain a single cell that you do now" is completely wrong. The oldest cells in your body are as old you as you are -- and you're looking through them as you're reading this email.
Are these "cells," in the same way as other cells of the human body are cells? Do they need an oxygen supply? Are are they similar, in a manner of speaking, to fingernail and toenail "cells"? In fact, you refer to this as a lamination process. If you decide never to cut your hair, then does your hair contain "cells" that are from birth and are being fed through a blood supply?Your statement about "casting grave doubt on everything else being asserted" is patently wrong. For example, in another post you claim that you were, "very surprised that [Regner] hadn't encountered the general
relativity exposition of the centrifugal force undertaken with the
earth at rest. Still, on first principles, one would have thought the
error avoidable simply by taking general covariance seriously. Even if
one was unaware of why the Schwarzchild solution applied to the local
spacetime wouldn't apply, mere cognizance of general covariance should
have given Regner pause. This was an uncharacteristic oversight on his
part -- he's usually so very careful in applying physics to the
question at hand." There is ample cause to suspect that both SR and GR are based upon at least one false premise each, in which case, and by your own reasoning, "grave doubt [would be cast] on everything else [you have] asserted."Regards,Neville.
Martin
