http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21874-western-cancers-spreading-to-developing-world.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

western cancers spreading to other nations..

http://www.hi-mag.com/health-insurance/product-area/life-critical-illness/article399812.ece
about the same, with other info..

its also noted that cancer is more prevalent then any other death in the USA..

Cancer is not one disease, it is a category of many diseases of a similar nature. Plus it is now been discovered in I think it was breast cancer, that each case needs to be treated in an individual way based on the DNA of the tumor(s).
Saw a all news channel ticker tape item today on Cable Pulse 24, that a new trial "smart bomb" method of treating breast cancer has had a preliminary attempted successful trial.
http://www2.journalnow.com/news/2012/jun/03/wsnat01-study-smart-bomb-drug-attacks-breast-cance-ar-2328081/

One in Six Cancers Worldwide Are Caused by Infection – (BBC News – May 8, 2012)
One in six cancers - two million a year globally - are caused by largely treatable or preventable infections, new estimates suggest. The Lancet Oncology review, which looked at incidence rates for 27 cancers in 184 countries, found four main infections are responsible. These four - human papillomaviruses, Helicobacter pylori and hepatitis B and C viruses - account for 1.9m cases of cervical, gut and liver cancers. Nearly a third of cases occur in people younger than 50 years old.

http://www.arlingtoninstitute.org/tai/fearchive-featured

its also noted that cancer is more prevalent then any other death in the USA..

Minor correction, heart disease still edges out cancer as the number one cause of death in the U.S.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm

Obtuser will likely point out that as with cancer, heart disease is really a class of diseases. But, now I've preempted him from doing so. Sorry.

While the comment is true of both cancer and heart disease, it is also true that the CDC page I found at the top of the search results for causes of death in the united states lists cancer and heart disease as single line items. So, apparently it is fine to ... ahem ... lump ... classes of diseases like cancer and heart disease for statistical purposes.

given how often "fighting the disease" is mentioned, I'd think "giving up" is the leading cause of death?

given how often "fighting the disease" is mentioned, I'd think "giving up" is the leading cause of death?

Years ago, when the only test was for a beating heart, it was often said that all deaths were from heart attack. That said, I'm convinced that 100% of all human deaths are caused by birth. For those who believe life begins at conception, all deaths are caused by conception.

<aside>
Q: How many anti-choicers does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Only 1 to change the bulb but about a half dozen to stand around arguing about whether light begins the instant you screw it in.
</aside>

<aside>  Thats too easy.  Few things if any are "instant."  You just need to cogitate until the lag time is figured out.  In this case, the tungsten element needs to heat up before light is emitted.  With led's the gas has to get energized and so forth.

Mind the lag.

There is also the brief interval between when the photons enter our eyes and we become conscious of the light. In fact we are all only conscious of the immediate past, rather than the present, due to the millisecond lag between sensory acquisition and perception.

There is also the brief interval between when the photons enter our eyes and we become conscious of the light. In fact we are all only conscious of the immediate past, rather than the present, due to the millisecond lag between sensory acquisition and perception.

Plus the even smaller speed of light lag from bulb to eyeball. Good point. So, light doesn't begin at the instant you screw it in. And, by extension of the same logic, life doesn't begin at the instant you screw it in either. It takes time to become conscious of the life and even longer for the life to become conscious of itself.

Speaking of Time Lag, remember that Time is thought of as the Fourth Dimension. Which then requires that measurement of time is required to quantify/qualify that an occurrence has happened!

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=265455

I disagree with the author, because he fails to account for the time measurement involved with DWELL!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_time_dimensions

What I also question is: Is Time the same in other localities of our Universe, or is it faster or slower depending on the proximity of greater or lesser mass/gravity?

Instantaneous is a relative term, since time has to be a continuum of instants on some scale whether arithmetic or logarithmic! Which brings up the thought, when did Time start, or is it like a circle which is a closed loop?
[I don't expect instantaneous replies/answers! ha ha ha]

Speaking of Time Lag, remember that Time is thought of as the Fourth Dimension. Which then requires that measurement of time is required to quantify/qualify that an occurrence has happened!

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=265455

I disagree with the author, because he fails to account for the time measurement involved with DWELL!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_time_dimensions

What I also question is: Is Time the same in other localities of our Universe, or is it faster or slower depending on the proximity of greater or lesser mass/gravity?

Instantaneous is a relative term, since time has to be a continuum of instants on some scale whether arithmetic or logarithmic! Which brings up the thought, when did Time start, or is it like a circle which is a closed loop?
[I don't expect instantaneous replies/answers! ha ha ha]

Time is certainly the fourth dimension. Without duration, an object does not exist. Imagine a cube that has length, width, and depth, but no duration.

Time passage definitely varies with proximity to gravity wells, or due to acceleration such as in orbit, or if I remember correctly, with speed of motion. Though absolute speed is a very hard thing to determine. It may only be relative speed to something else. With no frame of reference, one cannot tell that one is moving. Further, one's watch would tick at the same apparent speed to any observer. It is only when time passage is compared to another reference point, such as what happens in GPS devices, that the speed of time's passage becomes an issue.

As for when time started, I believe the current statement on the subject is that time did not exist before the big bang. The passage of time began with the big bang. It's sort of an odd statement, I admit. But, what part of general relativity is not odd? At least it's more easily understood than quantum mechanics.

Quote:
As for when time started, I believe the current statement on the subject is that time did not exist before the big bang. The passage of time began with the big bang.
end Quote!
I take issue with this statement. I believe there are those who propose that prior to the Big Bang was the Big Crunch or the previous ?era? or ?eternity? And maybe countless cycles there of! But for obvious reasons that is purely hypothetical conjecture!
It does make some sense though, that this current Universe as we know it was preceded by one in which the total mass/energy came together in a Big Crunch only to be "reborn" into our current expanding Cosmos! But no evidence of such would have survived!

Quote:
As for when time started, I believe the current statement on the subject is that time did not exist before the big bang. The passage of time began with the big bang.
end Quote!
I take issue with this statement. I believe there are those who propose that prior to the Big Bang was the Big Crunch or the previous ?era? or ?eternity? And maybe countless cycles there of! But for obvious reasons that is purely hypothetical conjecture!
It does make some sense though, that this current Universe as we know it was preceded by one in which the total mass/energy came together in a Big Crunch only to be "reborn" into our current expanding Cosmos! But no evidence of such would have survived!

Yes. There are those who make that claim. However, it is an untestable hypothesis. So, it is far from mainstream. Further, it seems to me that such an hypothesis would be better supported by life in a closed universe, one that will one day collapse back on itself. In such a universe, it might make some logical sense that the universe is almost like a beating heart, expanding from a point and then contracting back into that point again and again and again.

But, we live in an open universe. If the universe began from the crunch of a prior universe, we must ask where that prior universe came from. If the answer is an ever repeating bang crunch cycle, then we're left with the even more difficult question of why we live in the last period, the universe of the big rip. In this universe, not only do we not have enough mass to contract back to a big crunch, as has been known for a couple of decades, but now we know (a bit) about dark energy. The universe will not die with a slow expansion into ever greater entropy. Instead, it will rip apart ever more rapidly into a very fast expansion and entropy death where even black holes are ripped apart where atoms will be ripped apart into their subatomic particles all spewing in different directions apart from each other.

Why do we live in this one last universe?

Anyway, the real issue was the start of time. Perhaps in your prior big crunch, the time arrow went in the opposite direction. Perhaps time had completely different properties in that prior universe.

Time in this universe began with the big bang. At least that is my understanding of the current state of knowledge and current mainstream scientific viewpoint. Feel free to find some links disputing that. I'm sure there are some.

Time.
Time is a Old movie,
If you take the Film and view it 1 frame at a time..
You can see EACH section aT A TIME.
tHE MORE REFINED, the more FRAMES per second, the MORE detail you may see.

The difficulty comes with finding the Camera to display the Film, so that you can SEE.

It's somewhat of a mistake though to think of a frame in a movie as an instant. There is a shutter speed (1/60th of a second?). There is a number of frames shot per second, currently 30 is the norm for HD video. I believe IMAX is more like 70, implying a faster shutter speed, if I'm right.

I'm not really sure about the numbers. But, light must hit the film or sensor for a certain amount of time to trigger the silver halide crystals or sensor pixels. The higher the ISO, the less light it takes. But, it's more than a photon.

I'm not sure that you were intending to imply that a frame is an instant. Perhaps I inferred that incorrectly.

Either way, time is not an old movie. If anything it is a movie being constantly filmed. One cannot go back to the prior frames. One can view them, as memory. But, one cannot go back in time. Nor can one leap forward into parts not yet filmed. The ability to do so makes for great science fiction. But, the absence of anyone making 100% correct choices in the stock market kind of indicates that no one has traveled back to this time to become vastly wealthy in their own, thus providing some reason to believe no one has done this ... yet.

When I get my flux capacitor, I'm going to 1985 to buy some Microsoft. Then I'll trade some in for some Dell in the early 90s. I'll sell this stuff in 2000 and buy gold. I wonder if I should diversify with some Toyota stock purchased in 1975 or so.