How Nature discovered genetic coding is a largely ignored question, yet the answer is key to explaining the transition from biochemical building blocks to life. Other, related puzzles also fall inside the aegis enclosing the codes themselves. The peptide bond is unstable with respect to hydrolysis. So, it requires some form of chemical free energy to drive it. Amino acid activation and acyl-transfer are also slow and call for catalysis. All living things must thus also convert free energy and synchronize cellular chemistry. Most importantly, functional proteins occupy only small, isolated regions of sequence space. Nature evolved heritable symbolic data processing to seek out and use those sequences. That system has three parts: a memory of how amino acids behave in solution and inside proteins, a set of code-keys to access that memory, and a scoring function. The code-keys themselves are the genes for cognate pairs of tRNA and aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases, AARS. I outline the surprising links between all these questions and the structural duality of the base-pairing that holds genes together and how those links arise from the experiments.

A general procedure is described, to generate material parameter sets to simulate fire propagation in horizontal cable tray installations. Cone Calorimeter test data is processed in an inverse modelling approach. Here, parameter sets are generated procedurally and serve as input for simulations conducted with the Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS). The simulation responses are compared with the experimental data and ranked based on their fitness. The best fitness was found for a test condition of \SI{50}{\kilo\watt\per\meter^2}. Low flux conditions \SI{25}{\kilo\watt\per\meter^2} and less exhibited difficulties to be simulated accurately. As a validation step, the best parameter sets are then utilised to simulate fire propagation within a horizontal cable tray installation and are compared with experimental data. It is important to note, the inverse modelling process is focused on the Cone Calorimeter and not aware of the actual validation step. Despite this handicap, the general features in the fire development can be reproduced, however not exact. The fire in the tray simulation extinguishes earlier and the total energy release is slightly higher as compared to the experiment. The responses of the material parameter sets are briefly compared with a selection of state of the art procedures.

With reference to Planck scale Hubble parameter, super luminal expansion speeds, super luminal rotation speeds, Mach’s principle and Holographic principle, we review the current cosmological observations with eight simple assumptions. By understanding Yuri N. Obukhov and V.A. Korotky proposed cosmic rotational effects of polarization of radiation due to massive bodies, to some extent cosmic rotation can be deep-rooted in an observational approach and the ratio of current angular velocity and Hubble parameter can be estimated. It is possible to show that, at H₀ =70 km/sec/Mpc, current cosmic temperature, age, radius, mass, mass density are 2.721 K, 4.41x10¹⁷ sec, 90 billion light years, 1.14654x10⁵⁴ kg, 0.0482 times the current critical density respectively. Clearly speaking, current universe seems to constitute 267 Hubble spheres. Important point to be noted is that, current rotational kinetic energy is 0.6667 times the current critical energy. Based on the estimated current mass density and current rotational kinetic energy, current cosmic dark matter density can be shown to be 0.2851 times the current critical density. These numerical coincidences cast serious doubt on the on the real existence of currently believed ‘dark energy’. Initial and current expansion speeds are 3x10⁸ m/sec and 3.56x10⁹ m/sec respectively. With increasing cosmic age and increasing cosmic expansion speed, current universe is expanding with a speed of 11.885c. By knowing the time to time future cosmic temperatures, future Hubble parameters and corresponding future cosmic expansion speeds can be estimated and thus future expansion speed can be understood. Starting from ‘speed of light’, our model assumes a continuous increase in expansion speed and attains a current radius of 90 billion light years (without inflationary concepts) and casts a serious doubt on the actuality of currently believed ‘inflation’.

This paper discusses approaches to the numerical integration of the coupled nonlinear Schrödinger equations system in case of few-mode wave propagation. The wave propagation assumes the propagation of up to nine modes of light in an optical fiber. In this case, the light propagation is described by the non-linear coupled Schrödinger equation system, where propagation of each mode is described by own Schrödinger equation with other modes interactions. In this case, the non-linear coupled Schrödinger equation system solving becomes increasingly complex, because each mode affects the propagation of other modes. The suggested solution is based on the direct numerical integration approach, which is based on a finite-difference integration scheme. The well-known explicit finite-difference integration scheme approach fails, due to the non-stability of the computing scheme. Due to this fact, the combined explicit/implicit finite-difference integration scheme, based on the implicit Crank–Nicolson finite-difference scheme, is used. It allows ensuring the stability of the computing scheme. Moreover, this approach allows separating the whole equation system on the independent equation system for each wave mode at each integration step. Additionally, the algorithm of numerical solution refining at each step and the integration method with automatic integration step selection are used. The suggested approach has performance gains (or resolutions) up to three or more orders of magnitude in comparison with the split-step Fourier method due to the fact that there is no need to produce direct and inverse Fourier transforms at each integration step. The main advantage of the proposed method is the ability to calculate the propagation of an arbitrary number of modes in the fiber.

While Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) provides satisfaction to almost 2/3 of Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome-Type 2 (PSPS-T2) patients implanted for refractory chronic back and/or leg pain when not adequately addressed the back pain component, leaves patients in a therapeutic cul-de-sac. Peripheral Nerve field Stimulation (PNfS) has shown interesting results addressing back pain in the same population. Far from placing these two techniques in opposition, we suggest that these approaches could be combined to better treat PSPS-T2 patients. We designed a RCT (CUMPNS), with a 12-month follow-up, to assess the potential added value of PNfS, as a salvage therapy, in PSPS-T2 patients experiencing a “Failed SCS Syndrome” in the back pain component. Fourteen patients were included in this study and randomized into 2 groups (“SCS + PNfS” group/n=6 vs “SCS only” group/n=8). The primary objective of the study was to compare the percentage of back pain surface decrease after 3 months, using a computerized interface to obtain quantitative pain mappings, combined with multi-dimensional SCS outcomes. Back pain surface decreased significantly greater for the ”SCS+PNfS” group (80.2% ± 21.3%) compared to the “SCS only” group (13.2% ± 94.8%) (p=0.012), highlighting the clinical interest of SCS+PNfS, in cases where SCS fails to address back pain.

The study of the emission, propagation, and reflection of balls in Newtonian mechanics, applying the laws of conservation of momentum and energy when the mass of the balls converges to zero, concludes that the kinematics of light are like those of massless balls. The kinematics of light explain why the speed of light is the constant c in each inertial frame in which the light source and reflective mirror are at rest, why the laws of physics have the same form in each inertial frame, and why any light experiment in an inertial frame cannot prove the motion of that inertial frame. The following law of mechanics governs the kinematics of balls and electromagnetic radiation: Each inertial frame drags at its velocity the balls and electromagnetic radiation emitted by bodies at rest in that inertial frame. The theory of special relativity misapplies the symmetry observed in phenomena to two inertial frames; therefore, it duplicates a physical phenomenon from one inertial frame, which is considered stationary, into another. There are multiple issues rooted in Lorentz's and Einstein's transformations. For example, transformations offer the speed of light at the constant c in the moving and opposite directions of the inertial frame. At the same time, it is variable in any other direction, converging to infinity. Time contraction in the moving direction of the inertial frame is different from time dilation in the opposite direction. It requires a ruler and time synchronization in each direction. There are no length contractions in Lorentz's and Einstein's transformations to support the fundamental concept of length contraction in special relativity. With these unacceptable conclusions, the theory of special relativity is self-negating.