[QUOTE=cheesehead;324978]Nope.

Perhaps you and others mistake the meaning of my phrases "whose light we now see" and "can be". Of course, I could have worded it more clearly...

Something [U]whose light we now see[/U] may have emitted that light quite a while ago, but never more than 13.7 billion years ago, according to current estimates of the time since Big Bang.

Calculating the supposed "current distance" (including cosmological space-time expansion) to that object as of "now" is irrelevant to my statement, if that's what anyone is thinking about.

[I]It is a standard assumption in astronomy that, unless otherwise specified, when a distance to an object is mentioned, that means what its distance is according to how far the light we now see has traveled.[/I] So when I wrote "can be", I meant this light-travel distance, not the cosmological distance adjusted for space-time expansion since the light was emitted.

In a 13.7-billion-year-old universe, no light we now see can have been traveling for more than 13.7 billion years.

I suspect that your "solution" may depend on a different interpretation of my words than what I intended.

- - -

Furthermore, [I]the meaning I intended (distance according to light travel time) is consistent with what I perceive as the intent of davar55's and science man 88's posts, [U]which are the ones to which my statements were directed[/U].[/I][/QUOTE]

see I can take your wording in a different sense, mainly being that:


[QUOTE]nothing whose light we now see can be more than 13.7 billion light-years away in a 13.7-billion-year-old universe.[/QUOTE]

can be taken to mean that the objects at the edge of the universe don't move towards expansion. It's not that it can't be more than that away simply that that was it's state 13.7 billion years ago. the object itself has likely moved, therefore it can be more than 13.7 billion light years away to emit the light at the start of the universe and receive it. to look that far away it had to be that far away when the light was emitted or the light from it had to be slowed down until it got that far away. by the time the light reached us the object could be as far as 27.4 light years away.

[QUOTE=science_man_88;324988]by the time the light reached us the object could be as far as 27.4 light years away.[/QUOTE]

Well... Duhhh.... :smile:

[QUOTE=chalsall;324989]Well... Duhhh.... :smile:[/QUOTE]
it may be logical to you but it runs contrary to his statement that the time light took to get to us is the distance at which the object currently is. also clearly if the universe is 13.7 billion years old and the light wasn't slowed on it's way here to show something as 13.7 billion years distant it had to be there in that position 13.7 billion years ago instantly after the big bang. of course if anything is more than that away without space expansion it would say the age of the universe is older than 13.7 billion years.

lmao sorry (27.4 billion light years)

[QUOTE=science_man_88;324991]it may be logical to you but it runs contrary to his statement that the time light took to get to us is the distance at which the object currently is.[/QUOTE]"currently is" -- Again, let me point out that the astronomical [U]convention[/U] (implied mutual agreement) is to speak of distance in the present tense and of light-travel time even though from a cosmological POV the object's distance is "currently" larger than that, and the light started on its journey in the past.

To do otherwise would subject all astronomical discussions of distance to the intrusion of calculations of space-time expansion, when that is hardly ever relevant to the point of discussion.

Those who object to this convention and try to impose irrelevant pedanticism on a real-life astronomical conversation that does not actually involve space-time expansion will probably find themselves rapidly wearing out their welcome. [U]Modern astronomers all know about space-time expansion, and it is not necessary to explicitly reference it in every astronomical discussion.

[/U][QUOTE=science_man_88;324988]
can be taken to mean that the objects at the edge of the universe don't move towards expansion.[/QUOTE]

You're welcome to misconstrue any statement you wish to misconstrue and play word games, but don't expect others to play along.

[URL="http://hsrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=AjD3T39GUPSqsxC6QITAJ86bvZx4;_ylu=X3oDMTU5a21najVwBGEDc2VjIDEzMDExOCBzY2kgdm9sY2FubyBkYXRhYmFzZSB0BGNjb2RlA3B6YnVhbGxjYWg1BGNwb3MDNARnA2lkLTI5OTgwODEEaW50bAN1cwRtY29kZQNwemJ1YWxsY2FoNQRtcG9zAzQEcGtndAMyBHBrZ3YDMgRwb3MDMQRzZWMDdGQtc2NpBHNsawN0aXRsZQR0ZXN0AzcwMQR3b2UDMjM3MTgxMTU-/SIG=13b1igi2c/EXP=1358689260/**http%3A//news.yahoo.com/deadliest-volcano-eruptions-listed-online-database-203952595.html"]Deadliest volcanic eruptions listed in online database[/URL]

[QUOTE]Live on the East Coast? Thinking of escaping to a warm Caribbean island right now? You might want to check a new, open access database of the world's deadliest volcanoes first.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]The open access database, called [URL="http://www.bgs.ac.uk/vogripa/view/controller.cfc?method=lameve"]Large Magnitude Explosive Eruptions (LaMEVE)[/URL], will provide crucial information to researchers, civil authorities and the general public, the statement said.[/QUOTE]

Leprosy may turn out useful after all
 

Lepsrosy bacteria have been shown to be capable of [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21056644"]turning nerve cells into stem cells[/URL].

The possible medical applications should be obvious.

[QUOTE=xilman;325302]Lepsrosy bacteria have been shown to be capable of [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21056644"]turning nerve cells into stem cells[/URL].

The possible medical applications should be obvious.[/QUOTE]

if we could train it on cancerous cells could we make them back into stem cells ? the main problem I see is what's stopping the old cancer cells from reforming into cancer in the new location where those stem cells are used. if we could solve that it'd be a interesting way to combat it I think.

[QUOTE=science_man_88;325312]if we could train it on cancerous cells could we make them back into stem cells ? the main problem I see is what's stopping the old cancer cells from reforming into cancer in the new location where those stem cells are used. if we could solve that it'd be a interesting way to combat it I think.[/QUOTE]
The genome of cancerous cells is FUBAR; they have multiple copies of some chromosomes, there have none of other chromosomes, they have fused chimeric chromosomes. They are [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helacyton_gartleri#Helacyton_gartleri"]not H.sapiens[/URL] cells anymore. You can use them for research - they are immortal, but you cannot turn them into anything useful to inject back in humans.

Viral and bacterial [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_vaccine"]cancer vaccinations[/URL] are attempted to reprogram or selectively infect cancerous cell populations. This is a valid direction.

Reprogramming cells (like Paul cited) is also a new, cool direction. There are some chemical compounds that help to change fate (or make more effective) of cell population expansions or specializations. You can make much more bone marrow cells from some rethawed samples than ever before. Many more patients who need a BM transplantation can now hope to find a match, e.g. in [URL="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121212204828.htm"]cord blood banks[/URL]; this was previously useless because the amount was far from effective, but now you can find a match, expand the population and there will be enough for a transplant.

[url]http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=gamma-ray-burst-fingered-for-774-ad-13-01-21[/url]

[URL="http://hsrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=Ah5JAfZccV0_5TswHTTN9_ibvZx4;_ylu=X3oDMTVuZ3M1dW5zBGEDVGhlIFNocmlua2luZyBQcm90b246IFBhcnRpY2xlIElzIFNtYWxsZXIgVGhhbiBUaG91Z2h0BGNjb2RlA3B6YnVhbGxjYWg1BGNwb3MDMwRnA2lkLTMwMTExMzAEaW50bAN1cwRtY29kZQNwemJ1YWxsY2FoNQRtcG9zAzQEcGtndAMyBHBvcwMxBHNlYwN0ZC1zY2kEc2xrA3RpdGxlBHRlc3QDNzAxBHdvZQMyMzcxODExNQ--/SIG=132mjt73f/EXP=1359202434/**http%3A//news.yahoo.com/shrinking-proton-particle-smaller-thought-200218033.html"]The Shrinking Proton: Particle Is Smaller Than Thought[/URL]

[QUOTE]Reporting this week in the journal Science, the researchers found that the particle's radius is 0.84087 femtometers. A femtometer is a billionth of a billionth of a meter, or so small that the wavelength of gamma radiation is 100 times longer. The new measurement is about 4 percentsmaller than the currently accepted radius of 0.8768 femtometers, and that small difference presents a puzzle.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Last, the method used in the latest set of experiments, involves muonic hydrogen, which is a proton with a muon, rather than an electron, orbiting around it. Like electrons, [URL="http://www.livescience.com/14771-muon-electron-neutrino-particle-transformation.html"]muons are negatively charged[/URL], but they are 207 times heavier. That means they fly closer to the proton, and it takes more energy to move them to higher-energy orbitals. The greater energy differences make measuring them easier. Firing a laser at the muonic hydrogen excites the muon, moving it to a different orbital. The muon then falls back to its lower-energy state, emitting an X-ray photon.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;326555]Is there an epidemic around here? CVA, Shingles, Lymphoma, .......????[/QUOTE]

[URL="http://ca.yahoo.com/_ylt=Asxrx8bJuftdkePm9qZU4Xgt17V_;_ylu=X3oDMTU5dG51ZzY0BGEDY2EgeCBuZXdzIGNhbmNlciB0ZXN0IGphbjI5IG9jYSB0BGNjb2RlA3B6YnVhbGxjYWg1BGNwb3MDMQRnA2lkLTExNTM3ODQEaW50bANjYQRtY29kZQNwemJ1YWxsY2FoNQRtcG9zAzIEcGtndAM0BHBrZ3YDMgRwb3MDMgRzZWMDdGQtbndzBHNsawN0aXRsZQR0ZXN0AzcxNQR3b2UDMjM3MTgxMTU-/SIG=13luvoc7n/EXP=1359587948/**http%3A//ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/good-news/15-old-develops-revolutionary-test-cancer-173615725.html"]Boy develops revolutionary test for cancer[/URL]

even if it is we can soon all be tested for things like cancer

[QUOTE]"Jack Andraka created a simple dip-stick sensor to test for levels of mesothelin, which is a biomarker for early-stage pancreatic cancer that’s found in blood and urine. The method is similar to diabetic testing strips, utilizing just a pinprick of blood and costing all of three cents to make,"[I] Take Part [/I][URL="http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/01/27/jack-andraka?cmpid=tp-ptnr-upworthy"]reports[/URL].[/QUOTE][QUOTE="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesothelin"]Mesothelin is a 40 [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_mass_unit"]kDa[/URL] protein present on normal [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesothelium"]mesothelial[/URL] cells and overexpressed in several human tumors, including [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesothelioma"]mesothelioma[/URL] and ovarian and pancreatic [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenocarcinoma"]adenocarcinoma[/URL].[/QUOTE] so it could help with all these.