A higher infinity

The concept of hidden or unknown dependency is central to understanding. Life seems to have grown from an issue of encompassing the knowledge to understanding how to extend that knowledge to areas that are unknown to many others. When I was younger I could always say that I need to learn what is already established and now it is a new perspective that allows me to see that there are easier ways through the maze of science.

It is easy enough for a parent to observe a child's simple attempts to master a subject and understand where they are failing to comprehend. From inside that situation it is obviously impossible to apply what is not yet known , and yet it is possible to understand that there is something more to be understood by observing the results that others achieve in the same situation. It is my perspective that though many scientists consider that technology fits in tight bounded packages around a known base, the reality is that there is a new way of understanding the universe that allows the perception of things that defy description in existing terminology. How can a concept be related when the dependency is not met?

Every person has their perspective and it is easy to see when others have missed key factors if that is your experience. I wonder how much I miss and is there a way to measure that dependency so that it can be applied?

So it is my understanding that the electromagnetic spectrum extends in another dimension and as such, the perception of the universe is one infinite element in another infinity, and that is a fairly small slice by any measure. It reminds me of research in the 1930's on sound and the original "Daisy Do". The implications are that SETI is looking in such a limited scope that no truly advanced culture would confine themselves to a sliver of infinity. It is common knowledge now that envelope and many other factors contribute to the perception of speech, however then it was assumed that was a simple frequency generation.

Just an odd thought about the word "new" as it applies to internet search. Many people say "Look at this new thing" and it is only true for an instant and perhaps the term itself it at fault. I think I will say this is (new((2-4-2010)(21:00-UTC)). Relative adjectives that relate to time or any other changing factor are very fragile. At least that is my new opinion at this time :) It is also true that in the spirit of the concept that is related here, new is a subjective concept and what is new to someone else is not necessarily new to me.

Amyloid proteins , very interesting. amyloid-forming ribonuclease segments

I do consulting for extraterrestrials and it is customary for me to get paid up front. I recently had a client that was having problems with a doomsday bomb, and I suggested that they needed to test it and since there has been no further communication, it must have worked. I hope I don't end up narfling the garthok for this when I get back to my planet.