1

New Theories / Re: Is this why Ivermectin appeared to be the answer to Covid?

« on: 13/03/2022 13:44:15 »

MOD EDIT: Despite warnings, this poster decided to post yet another long, misleading monologue in another person’s thread.
The post has been removed.

2

New Theories / Re: Irrelevant post that does not answer evolution-deniers?

« on: 11/03/2022 13:36:30 »

First of all I did not start this post, even if I am given credit for some reason. In the same token, most of the criticisms in this new created topic do not answer evolution or the deniers, either. Why the dual standard? They defend the status quo, but do not address extra concerns about water and hydrogen bonding which are everywhere in all aspects of life. 

This reminds me of a a recent situation where I could not get my password to work on another site; debate politics. I tries to rest the password, but for some reason, it reset onto a secondary account, that was against the rules. This was used as an excuse to silence my observations. I must be a threat to someone who can game system: political left. If I disappear from here, is not of my making. Maybe I am paranoid but the pattern was the same.

My long post, that inspired this topic, attributed to me, tried to address the fundamentals of evolution in terms of unique hydrogen bonding and water considerations. The only problem was these ideas are not a major part of the status quo theory of evolution. I was showing how contemporary evolution falls short by ignoring valid considerations connected to water. Rolling dice does not make this shortfall any better. I addressed the shortfall of current evolutionary theory and the deniers who sense this.

One of the main practical reasons the current science version of evolution does not take into account all the nuances of water and hydrogen bonding, is because in situ water and hydrogen bonding experiments, are an order of magnitude harder to run than organic centric experiments. With organic experiments, one can see changes in chemicals that will linger, due to changes in covalent bonds. You can see input and output due to stable products and reactants. We can feed a cell glucose, see the concentration go down and new products appears.

With water and hydrogen bonds, changes that occur often leave no permanent trace, since water does not change in any drastic way. Water will remain water. While the polar and covalent nature of hydrogen bonding is still considered the same secondary bond either way. It is much harder to black box the water and hydrogen bonds for statistical models, since input and output do not typically reflect permanent changes that are as easy to see. This is outside the scope of the existing models. One needs to pretend it does not exist, based on a philosophy of science technicality. One can see the DNA under the microscope, but a single water molecule bridging a base pair, in the dynamic environment of the cell, is not an easy experiment. The hydrogen bonding is not sitting still for a good posed photo.

I am not a pure empiricist and need to see to believe. I believe that life is governed by rational principles. This is not Creationism, although any logical model is a more intelligently design than dice based models. Dice based models have built in fudge factors, to make half baked look better than it actually is. Rational models are all or not. One bad bad dada point can kill the model.With statical model 9 out of 10 bad date off the curve is sometimes good enough. The cheat method is preferred, since it makes it easier to appear smart.

A logical approach to life allows me to extrapolate the hard to measure, from other basic observations so I can infer extrapolated dynamics. This may look like magic to the statistical empiricists, who eyes have to engage before their brains and the fudge needs to be spread thick toto make it look better.  But my logical results are the product of looking under every rock; brain first, until all the ducks appear in a row. I move around for a reason. Biology is more than just life, it also chemistry and physics.

For example, I made the profound observation that the hydrogen proton, which is common to water, reduced organics of life, and most hydrogen bonding, has never, for all practical purposes, reacted via the nuclear forces. It has never lowered its primal potential from the early universe, via the two nuclear forces. Its existence, since it was created, has been connected to only the EM force and gravity. This is different from deuterium, tritium, helium and protons and all higher atoms. This makes the hydrogen proton a unique and singular state of atomic matter, with slightly different internal potential. Just because this is not a part of the current traditions, does not take away from its common sense logic. I saw what nobody else saw. I do this all the time, because I am not limited by the limitations of empirical traditions. There are plenty of beepers to do that.

The half baked evolutionary theory of the status quo, which ignores the many attributes of water and hydrogen bonding, in all cellular dynamics, appears to always be in damage control mode, unable and unwilling to see any advances in thinking. You guys never seen to address the new science other than circle the wagons and fire poison arrows. This site is called naked science, while you prefer to dress the evolutionary pig with lipstick, hoping nobody will notice the chap lips. Wipe off the lipstick and address the chap. 

Another important point I made, which I made before, is how the electron is a single particle that is stilled taught as having two distinct attributes; negative charge and rest mass. How does tradition this resolve the paradox of a single particle electron? I suggested that the solution is that the single particle electron demonstrates the unification of the EM force; negative charge, and gravity; mass. The result is a single unified force behind a singular particle. Particle collider experiments do not show two things; separated mass and separate charge, but a single affect that remains unified under all conditions. 

I do understand that this simple common sense will open a can of worms, which everyone seems  more interested in avoiding. Nobody wishes to retool, even for the better. The ripple affect goes everywhere in physics, chemistry, biology and evolution.

Say for the sake of argument, the negative charge of the electron and its mass were integrated by an aspect of a unified force; gravity and EM force become one. Say we modeled the electron, as we do, as two things that are not connected and unified. The result will be the students being taught to remain stuck in the POV of cards and dice, to explain differences that seems to be everywhere.

3

New Theories / Irrelevant post that does not answer evolution-deniers?

« on: 09/03/2022 13:54:44 »

Therefore you need to throw dice to account for the mystery of naked DNA being active.

No

What you said was correct;

Well, I guess that makes one of us.

Water is unique in that has two hydrogen bonding donors and two hydrogen bonding acceptors.

Not really; ethylene glycol has them too.

Water has two hydrogen bonding donors and two hydrogen bonding acceptors but no extra electron releasing groups; -CH. Ethylene glycol is not a good solvent for life. Hydrogen bonding forms between hydrogen and highly electronegative atoms like oxygen and nitrogen. The electron releasing groups of ethylene glycol modify the affective electronegativity of its oxygen. A difference appears compared to water. 

If you look at water, it has two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom; H2O. Oxygen is unique in that it can form oxide, allowing the oxygen to hold two more electrons than it has nuclear protons. This imbalance in the ratio of positive to negative charge tells us that electrostatic considerations, alone, cannot explain oxygen and oxide, since, on paper, oxide has too many electrons to balance charge, yet oxide is very stable. We need to add something else to tell the whole story of oxygen, and all the other highly electronegative atoms.

The two extra electrons of oxide would be stable if they were attracted to oxygen, not by electrostatic means, but by magnetic mean. An electron in motion creates a magnetic field. This is the second half of the EM force, with oxygen making more use of magnetism. Oxygen is why the hydrogen bonding of water shows both polar; electrostatic and covalent; magnetic attributes.  The affect does not come from the hydrogen, even if the hydrogen bond is named after it; unintentional misdirect. Hydrogen can accommodate the electrons of oxygen as is needed. When hydrogen share between two water molecules the two oxygen are tweaking their ratios of electrostatic and magnetic affects at difference positions, with the hydrogen making this easier.

The binary nature of hydrogen bonding water is led by a donor affect; oxygen. Ethylene glycol can form hydrogen bonds, but it has a different binary switch ratio; polar to covalent, then does water, due to the electron releasing groups ,of ethylene glycol, attached to the oxygen. This makes it unlikely to be as good a solvent for life. The information signals have less bandwidth.

Hydrogen is the primary material of the universe, based on mass. What makes most of the hydrogen of the universe unique is that, conceptually, isolated hydrogen proton has never been used and abused by the nuclear forces; irreversible way. To become deuterium, tritium or part of any higher atom from helium on up, hydrogen protons needs to interact via the nuclear forces. But as an isolated proton, it is still virgin to this, and has only been influenced by gravity and the EM forces, as a first approximation. Any affects; enthalpy and entropy changes, associated with nuclear forces and the formation of higher atoms is still stored within the virgin hydrogen proton.

Where this comes in handy is connected to the donor electrons associated with hydrogen bonding. Electrons have been found to be elementary particles. This means they are singular things that cannot be broken down any further. However, they show both negative change and mass, even though they are one thing.

This paradox means within the electron, its mass and negative charge are unified, and are interchangeable allowing the electron to be one thing at any conditions. We cannot break the electron down into two things; mass and charge particles. These two things have to be part of one thing, at at a very base level. Science is not ready for this important change in the conservation of charge and mass. 

The analogy is the hydrogen bond but has two attributes; polar and covalent, but it is still one bond. The polar and covalent attributes of the hydrogen bond are able to change into each other, with a range of affects. But at the chemical level, this is still a hydrogen bond, either way.

The hydrogen bond, which is driven by the donor, such as oxygen, implies that the electrons, interacts via an aspect of the unified force; charge and mass, with hydrogen protons, that contain the extra free energy compared to the rest of the atomic states of the universe. The electron unifies negative charge with mass and then interacts with virgin protons that have only seen EM force and gravity. Is this important?

The proton is not a unified particle, but rather it can be broken down further. It does not have a direct connection to the unified force of the electron. The net affect is that within hydrogen bonding is sort of a communication breakdown, at some level, which allows the electrons and protons of hydrogen bonds to partially ignore each other; two inter-connected but semi-autonomous affects. Cells have stable materials that are very sturdy, as well as many transient affects that are hard to pin down and measure. For example, if the electron shift its charge to mass ratio, even slightly, the proton remains with a single change having to react to a partial charge. One can get some weird affects that look like statistical magic.

 

4

New Theories / Re: Is Space Flat?

« on: 07/03/2022 15:38:32 »

They tell you only in 2 dimensions. To determine if 3 dimensional space is flat you need to show that 2 x flat 2 dimensional planes that start out parallel, stays parallel forever in 2x2 perpendicular directions i.e. all along the x and y axii.

Cartesian coordinates, which we use to describe space is based on a 3-D grid defined by (x,y,z). In this 3-D grid all (x,y) planes will run parallel by definition. The z-axis simply tells us which parallel planes we comparing, to show that they all will run parallel.

We can draw curves on these parallel planes so the curve moves between two or more planes. But individual planes still remain parallel if we plot them. The plots are pictures we draw on and even between the parallel planes.

An interesting special affect is drawing a 3-D representation on a 2-D plane.  We first choose a 2-D plane that is singular, so z remains constant. However, we can create an illusion of a variable z-axis, using shadows and highlights. I call this 2.5-D or a spatial illusion. It is not exactly 3-D but can fool the eyes. It requires a tactile sense, like touch, to see through it. Touch the screen a prove that the image of the 3-D cone, is not 3-D. However, by convention we call this 3-D.



This 2.5-D spatial illusion affect is very popular in politics. One builds a line of reasoning to get a 2-D drawing of cause and affect on a rational plane. You then add shadows and highlights to make it appear more 3-D to the eyes. The highlights are the valid facts and data that you share, while the shadowing is the denial of the truth in other POV's. Censorship is often a part of the shadow affect. The purposeful gaps in truth, gives deeper shadows that make the image appear more 3-D.

A good example in political science is man made climate change. One is not allowed to talk about natural climate change, without being called a denier. This is very bazaar, since this has occurred many times on earth and it has far more hard geological data than manmade climate change. This denial of truth is needed for the shadowing, to create what will appear to be integrated 3-D truth; only manmade could do this. The consensus of science is a political angle used for the highlights, with a "consensus" implying the whitest light; facts, for your highlights. You use the extra light and the extra dark for a good 3-D illusion.  I am too aware to fall for it.

If we instead of using Cartesian coordinates say we were to use spherical polar coordinates. Instead of (x,y,z) , we now have one distance variable and two angles variables; (r,Φ,θ). Now all the parallel planes become be concentric spheres, curved as a function of two angles (Φ,θ), each with a constant r on the third or distance axis. This is more consistent with Relativity, and stellar and planetary shapes. We can sail around the world using flat maps, using one polar coordinate plane.

5

New Theories / Re: Does this answer evolution-deniers?

« on: 06/03/2022 16:48:05 »

The current version of evolution should...

You have made it clear that you don't understand the theory.

Explain why water is not included in every analysis for evolution

Because evolution is about change and the water is constant.

I understand the current traditions, but I am also aware that these fall short of the full truth. it substitutes dice, for the deeper understanding that water could bring to the table. Textbooks show DNA without its water. In that state it is not bioactive. Therefore you need to throw dice to account for the mystery of naked DNA being active. This is not needed if you include water.

What you said was correct; water is a constant, while evolution is about change. Water is very stable, due to being a terminal product of combustion. The organics, on the other hand, are very pliable and polymerizable; organic chemistry, with their change always having to be in the context of a constant water solvent and bookend. This constant and unchanging selective pressure loads the dice; natural selection at the nanoscale, via a constant set of potentials, which are the same everywhere in the cell from day one to deep into the future.

If we make a change on the DNA, via a mutation, this will get extrapolated into the cell through mRNA, protein, packing the protein, to even the exact position of the protein in any synthesis sequence. To be useful, all these steps need to integrate within a matrix already set up by the water; old ways. The water provides an integrating mechanism; capacitance, to help assess changes on the DNA, since even simple changes, can enhance or disrupt a lot of integrated things. Water, as the fixed bookend, stays interconnected and is able to transmit data and energy to maintain equilibrium balance. Alternately, the potential can be the reverse of this; input food can changes the potentials upstream, with a genetic expresses and even mutation the result of an earlier integration way up stream. 

Water is unique in that has two hydrogen bonding donors and two hydrogen bonding acceptors. This allows water to form 3-D polymerized structures; four bonds like carbon. Carbon can form four covalent bonds and thereby allowing an almost infinite variety of stable 3-D polymers. Water can do something similar, with its four hydrogen bonds. It can form semi-stable 3-D structures, that can come and go, even as the nearby 3-D carbon structures persist. This change in water carries free energy, that can help disrupt carbon bonds through its integration with enzymatic action.

Cooperative hydrogen bonding is when water forms a stable 3-D matrix. These cooperatives have the unique property of the first hydrogen bond being broken anywhere in the cooperative is the strongest bond. This experimental observation suggests something like resonance structures; hydrogen bonding and electron sharing. The first hydrogen bond broken, no matter where it is, is the strongest since the sharing is integrated among the cooperative.

In terms of the binary nature of the hydrogen bond; polar or covalent, the polar side is more compressed; less volume, defines higher entropy and higher enthalpy. The covalent, side of the switch is more expanded; more volume, and has lower entropy and lower enthalpy. Moving between the binary switch settings, water can move information of local organic states, with this information having muscle and energy. Water can expand or contract, exerting pressure or tension while shifting in amounts enthalpy and entropy. The enzymes can use this. 

Nature also figured out a way to tap into the free energy gold mines of water cooperatives, especially near enzymes. ATP serves several purposes. It attaches a phosphate group, which is electron withdrawing. This helps alter the conformation of the enzyme, to help express its activity. The ADP that forms from ATP, needs to  attach a water molecule. This water molecule is taken from the cooperative. The affect is similar to getting a run in a nylon stocking. The ATP is like a bolt cutter, pulling a water molecule from the cooperative, causing a run in the 3-D cooperative; spike of water entropy increase, as the cooperative water become more polar in terms of hydrogen bonding. The local water loses volume and gains entropy and enthalpy; vacuum that becomes endothermic. The enzymes can makes use of this free energy change. The cooperative will then reform to minimize potential. 

If you look at the affect called pH, this all has to due with the binary nature of individual hydrogen bond. Hydrogen bond are part polar and part covalent in nature. They can go either way with only a small energy hill separating them. One water molecule can hydrogen bond to another water molecule. This starts as polar; simple change attraction. This polar hydrogen can transition to the covalent side of hydrogen bonding;  which start to expand to allow better molecular orbital overlap. This can go all the way and covalently bond to the other oxygen of the other water. That change will require another covalently bonded hydrogen on that oxygen of water, to transition all the way to polar, so it can be released as an H+ acid. Water can break strong bonds using weaker bonds; pH.

Pure water tends to favor the polar side of the binary switch. There is some covalent hydrogen bonding but this is at a smaller precedent. These form, but will quickly reverse. When we add organics to water, surface tension is created in water. Tension implies the water expands toward the covalent side. Pure water wants to go more polar but organic shift it the other way. There is also a sweet spot on enzymes and other protein surfaces, where water takes the covalent side to the extreme as cooperatives. The organics help to create this enhancement of the water, due the surface tension potential of the water-oil affect. Life can tap into this, helping the water return to the polar side of pure water.

The is almost like perpetual motion. We make water touch organic surface so tension appears. The surface tension is like a stretched swing. We use this stretch to do work, if we can release the tension; ATP to ADP. Then we reintroduce the organic surface to help reset the spring.

Say we shook water and oil, we would create surface tension; tiny bubbles of water and oil. If we left this to its own devices, the bubbles will combine; like with like, until we get two lawyers. The original surface tension stored an energy capacitance, that was used to do work. The energy in all the little bubbles is not easy for us to reclaim, but within cells the natural tension between organic and water is useful as a source of energy and work.

6

New Theories / Re: Does this answer evolution-deniers?

« on: 05/03/2022 16:21:35 »

If water was treated as it should be, mutation analysis would be required to include a water analysis for its half of the total affect.

Do you realise that's bollocks?

I am not against evolution,

Then why not learn it?

I still think there's should be a thread set up to divert PP's off- topic ramblings and hijacks to.

The current version of evolution should be in alternate theory since it is lacking in terms of the nanoscale role of water.

Explain why water is not included in every analysis for evolution, and why anyone thinks the impact of water can be approximated by rolling dice? Defend what you consider true with logic instead of emotional appeal. I know this cannot be defended with logic.


If we place lipids in water, the water-oil affect causes these organics to get with the water program and form a bi-layered shell that can become the foundation of a cell membrane. Water has a way of removing randomness in favor of a consistent outcome. We can do this hundreds of time and the dice remain loaded. Random does not add the same way with loaded dice.

If we stretch out a protein polymer and place it in water, the water-oil affect; surface tension in water, will fold the protein in a way that is repeatable. A cell came make thousands of units of any given protein, and each will be packed the same way. The packing is based on the best way to  minimize the total surface tension of water. If the packing is flawed it is because of local differences in free energy due to other factors. This is also not random.

Water has a way to remove randomness even with complicated things like large molecules. The casino approach makes less sense when you include water; repeatable protein packing. It does make more sense if you think in terms of organics in air, with water assigned a cameo role. If we had only organics in air, like shown in textbooks, random would dominate. But once you add water, water will reduce randomness in favor of order.

In terms of the catalytic energy for enzymes, enzymes moving between two conformations; active and inactive, go from being optimized in water, to not being optimized in water. The water has a free energy change induced by the change of conformation; energized state. Water can give this energy back by resetting the enzyme.

When water packs protein, the surface become hydrophilic and therefore the surface defines the lowest potential within the water. This design allows cooperative hydrogen bonding to form on the protein surface. Cooperative hydrogen bonding is where hydrogen bonds begin to polymerize on the surface as a way to further lower free energy; form more of the covalent side of hydrogen bonding. This is very stabilizing; lowers enthalpy, and allows cooperative electrons to increase entropy; extended sharing.

However, this also creates order in the water, beyond pure water, via the lowering of the entropy of the water within the cooperative. This goes against the second law, creating an entropic potential; need to reverse the water cooperative. The entropy increase of this reversal will be endothermic, as entropy increases. This pulls the substrate up the activation energy hill to extract energy, from the slide down the energy hill. Life, via water can make use of the free energy connected to entropy.

Enzymes moving along the DNA for various functions, make use of this entropic energy. The enzymes break cooperatives, as they move along the DNA, and make use of the free energy exchange as water increases entropy. The water then resets the entropic potential by reforming  the stabilizing nature; enthalpy, of a new cooperative.

7

New Theories / Re: Does this answer evolution-deniers?

« on: 04/03/2022 16:14:06 »

Yet we are told water is not that important in terms of making things work.

I know of literally no one who has said such a thing.

A better way of phrasing this would be too few people in the biological sciences, fully take into account how water has it finger in every pie within the cell. Water is the solvent of life and is composed of tiny molecules. Being everywhere is what tiny molecular based solvents do. Water, therefore, contributes in terms of all atomic and molecular form and function in cells, via solvent-solute copartner relationships.

If water was treated as it should be, mutation analysis would be required to include a water analysis for its half of the total affect. One would not be allowed to just use organics plus statistics. One can tell a tree by the fruit it bears. The magic of statistics does not make up for the lack of the logic that water can bring. A solvent has a way to integrate things; life.

One thing that appears to hook people on statistics, instead of a more detailed logic based water-organic analysis, is statistics has practical value for making fuzzy predictions. This seems to be good enough for most people in the biological sciences. What appears to solidify this blind connection to statistics, has to do with the observation that the math works, just fine, based on the assumptions used.

The problem is, math is like a faithful horse that can be led anywhere you wish it to go. Computer games, for example, use assumptions such as infinite lives. Math does not decide the assumptions, but rather the math will allow any set of assumptions, even if a premises are not in touch with physical reality. Before the assumptions of dark energy and matter, the old math model could do all the same things, but in a different way.

The math game engine can make infinite lives appear natural enough during game play. If you assume math is leading, than you will believe infinite lives is good enough. However, the bottom line is conceptual considerations are more fundamental than is the math, since, math can be made to pull any cart and if it is done well, it can loop back and tell you way you wish to hear; infinite lives are real and water is not needed in all analysis. 

I am not against evolution, but I am against assuming half baked science, with a random based math game engine, will be the final theory of evolution. Teaching this as the basis for evolution, is doing an injustice to truth and common sense. It is half baked fantasy with the science pot calling the religion kettle black.
 
If we assume water has its finger in all pies and it can be shown to regulate organic form and function, not including water to its full degree will require game engine assumptions that the math horse will have to pull.

8

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 04/03/2022 15:25:35 »

And after the Big Bang, there are scenarios that explain the expanding observable universe, a universe that seems to have no center because the expansion seems to be accelerating in all directions. But then, an infinite and eternal universe would have no center, would it.
17025,117086,

The observation of the universe expanding relative to the galaxies, could be explained as a simple action and reaction. The galaxies are lowering gravitational potential, as stars form and atoms are created. This lowering of gravitational potential is exothermic; energy output. a reflected reaction to this action would mean the opposite should happen; absorbing energy and gravitational potential increasing; expansion, relative to all the big sources of action; galaxies.

I could never figure out why the traditions blindly assumes space-time can expand. lead, and be the source of action, that then lead matter as the reaction. It is far easier to have matter leading space-time through action and reaction in the lab; add to take away mass or increase density. Has anyone ever got space-time to expand first, in the lab, without using any form of matter? Has anyone ever seen dark energy in the lab, to see if this works in the lab? 

If you look at rotations, such as in spiral galaxies, a rotation will create a centrifugal force, the force vector of which is in the opposite the direction of the galactic center of gravity. Rotation of spiral galaxies add up to part of the gravitational action and reaction of spiral galaxies. The galaxies are lowering gravitation potential, with more turns of the spiral; more centrifugal force vector, means faster internal action over time.

9

New Theories / Re: Does this answer evolution-deniers?

« on: 02/03/2022 12:17:55 »

The alchemists were mostly Catholic Priests and Doctors, educated people looking for truth in the physical world, at a time before anyone knew how things worked at the atomic and chemical level. However, they were able to develop a system of mystical logic that became useful for some aspects of applied science. Many of their experimental methods, such as extractions and distillations are still used today. They demonstrated one can still do good practical/applied science even with explanations that may not be correct, such as life is based on dice.

When I was a development engineer, one of my projects was an emergency project to treat water for mercury. There had been a water main break in the subbasement of a major facility that once used mercury as an extraction solvent for separating isotopes. Before the water could be diverted, several million gallons had collected in the sub basement and was contaminated with traces of mercury. My job was to get the water out of the basement by decontaminating the water to parts per trillion, which was way beyond the best available technology of that time. I could not just buy off the shelf and run a state of the art process. I had to develop new technology. I did a science literature search, at a nearby National Laboratory, but there was nothing in international literature at that time that would work, so I needed to invent it.

At that time I was sort of an expert in collective human symbolism, and I knew about the mystical philosophy of the Alchemists. So I decided to use their mystical science logic since they were able to use this to rough in modern chemistry. Mercury or Quick Silver was a dominate symbol in Alchemy, associated with Satan. To the alchemists, like attracted like, so I decided to use the chemical attractants that were most like Satan; sulfur and iron. Sulfur was  connected to the sulfur fires of hell, while iron was a symbol connected to the god of war; war is hell.

To make a long story short I modified a simple anion exchange resin, with sodium sulfide and then modified this improvised cation exchange resin with ferric ions. The ferric reacted with the the mercury and then attached to the sulfide to form mercury sulfide attached to the resin. I was able to get down to less than parts per trillion in the lab in less than two weeks, and within a few more weeks I scaled up and treated 2 million gallons of water. I even published the details of my alchemy logic and the successful results of the remediation for my new BAT. This created mixed reviews, due to the alchemy logic, but nobody could argue with the results and the speed of the turnaround. Mercury man became my new knick name. It was both a joke and complement.

What I learned from this was a good empirical correlation, such as from alchemy, even if not technically real or true, could still be used for applied science. This is similar to the state of the art in biology, since it leaves out a main variable that is attached to all other variables. Water touches everything in all cells.  If you use casino math, to average in the water, one is still able to do applied science, like medicine, even with half baked theory. This can fool the uninformed into thinking this means the correlation is sound and complete science.

The fact of the matter is Darwin never envisioned a casino approach to evolution, even if this approach had practical value and could be used for applied science, like I did with alchemy to treat a modern problem. That detour had nothing to do with Darwin. It had more to do with a new fad in physics; uncertainty principle, which was opposite to the Determinism of Religion and was supported by Atheism. Darwin used a variable of determinism; natural selection, and assume science would find logical and rational explanations, without the need to summon the oracles of chance to fill in gaps of ignorance. It could still produce useful results, but it was less than what science can and should do.

Why didn't Darwin start with a random approach to natural selection? He would have been aware of early biology and the theory of the spontaneous generation of life, which was based on random model. The reason was, that type of model appears to say more than it says. It was half baked and Darwin anticipate rational science would rule the future.

Water is the only variable that touches everything in a cell. If it is replaced by any other solvent nothing works properly. We can take out the DNA, such as in red blood cells, the rest of the cell is still viable for several weeks. If we take out water, after seconds nothing works. Yet we are told water is not that important in terms of making things work. I can be replaced with a casino approach. This is nonsense.

10

New Theories / Re: Is my Model for Particles Correct?

« on: 01/03/2022 15:17:03 »

This may help. Consider radioactive decay and the concept of half-life. This decay of atomic matter is dependent on time, but not necessarily distance. Half life does not have the units of space-time; d-t,, but only time; t, since the affect called radioactive decay is not dependent on any position in space-time. It has time potential; time driven change, not dependent on space.

The problem becomes trying to define time potential, in the context of space-time, for an affect that is not of itself, defined within space-time. Energy has wavelength and frequency; d-t, but half-life would be like a photon with frequency, but no wavelength. It is not exactly a photon of energy. It appears to us in space-time, as a timed change of state, but its nature of time is not properly integrated with space like space-time or defined by just energy. The term time potential allows one to isolate this affect.

An interesting affect is say we took neutral materials like steel, that are not radioactive, and use this to build a nuclear reactor. After some time encasing an active reactor, these steel housing materials will exhibit the time phenomena; radioactive decay.

In the case of fissionable materials, like uranium, critical geometry, which is a function of mass and distance/volume, will be used to alter the rate of radioactive decay of the fuel rods. Time potential is being enhanced; the rate of decay speed up, through changes in distance and mass, which are not time dependent. The rate of decay is dependent on the final mass geometry; mass and distance. Critical geometry with more mass and smaller volume leads to more radioactive decay. m-d ---->t.

Mass and distance potential can be used to alter time potential. While the time potential associated with the enhanced radioactive decay, can be transferred to the encasement matter. This will create hazardous half-life materials, with installed time potential, that can take millions of years to express at any geometry.

When I say acceleration is d//t/t or two parts time and one part distance, there is more units of time than just the time needed for space-time. Radioactive decay, is one such expression of a second type of time, not directed needed for space-time, since radioactive decay is not a function of relative space reference. Same in all references.


   

11

New Theories / Re: Does this answer evolution-deniers?

« on: 01/03/2022 14:07:26 »

There are two aspects of evolution; macro-scale and nanoscale. Darwin did not dwell on natural selection at the nanoscale, since the tools and science of his day was not yet there. Instead, he thought in terms of natural selection, based on objective criteria at the macro-scale. He never spoke of random type events. Mother Nature, to Darwin, was not playing via the whims of the gods. He noticed fitness was the goal of natural selection; determinism. The goal was already in mind before any changes.

The alchemists of the middle ages, on the other hand, were more into random events. You could turn lead into gold in the same way as having life appear from nothing; science of the day. The whims of the gods made it all possible. By the time of Darwin, the age of reason was in full throttle and this random approach was being outgrown.

Modern Biology, via Physics hijacked Darwin's original theory and added a random nanoscale approach that was never suggested by Darwin. That was a throw back to alchemy. The term selection implies without a blindfold. How do you select your favorite anything with a blindfold? Your favorite is already known in advance. My guess is this came from the turn of the 20th century atheist philosophy, that contaminated science. It was based on assuming the opposite of religion. If religion said up it had to be down.

Darwin, like religion, saw a type of determinism in natural selection; religious and science determinism, respectively. Atheism would encourage science to do the opposite of determinism, due to religion, which justified the random addendum that was never suggested by Darwin. Darwin did not assume  a spiritual explanation for his natural selection determinism. Rather he assume a future rational science explanation and not a random explanation like modern alchemy. In alchemy the separation between external and internal reality was not clear cut, so the Alchemists often projected their own internal psychology into nature, like a gambling addict fantasizing about winning the jackpot, if the whims of the gods selected him.

One simple proof, for my claim of nanoscale determinism is the observation of proof reader enzymes, which move along the DNA and correct improper base pairs that may occur. These improper base pairs is what biology needs for replication mutations. What was the selective advantage of correcting random base pairing along the DNA? Randomness will create more problems than solutions. If we correct the randomness in the bud, we will get better units. If random was so important, as claimed, shouldn't natural selection have avoided selecting the proofreader enzymes?

Evolution tries to minimize randomness and make selections at the nanoscale more deterministic. My theory of selection at the nanoscale, is based on rational potentials created by the water environment. These potentials are connected to the unique properties of a 3-D matrix of small hydrogen bonding molecules; water, that has up to four hydrogen bonds each. This internal environment is consistent with Darwin's natural selection approach than the random addendum is to Darwin. My concern has never been evolution, but the atheist mirror philosophy; contrary, being sold as the basis for evolution at any scale.

The activity of proof reader enzymes are essentially an equilibrium based affect. Improper base pairing adds potential to any base pair, since improper base pairing does not minimize hydrogen bonding energy. As these enzymes move along the DNA, the enzymes can feel an energy spike at each improper base pair and will use this to alter it own equilibrium shape. This adds up to energizing itself so it can move through the steps needed to get rid of randomness and lower potential.

These equilibria are not just based on organic-organic, but also on the water that is hydrogen bonded to the bases and the enzymes and then outward beyond them into the bulk water. This water is also part of larger scale integrations.

Water, since it is major part of all cellular equilibrium potential, can be used to trick the proof reader enzymes since they depend on a specific energy spike to initiate equilibrium corrections. As an analogy say you were an editor, proof reading a new book. Some words have the same sound but can have two different meanings; scene and seen. Both could be spelled correctly, but the correct meaning in the sentence, will requires reading the entire sentence. No final mRNA and its final output protein is composed of one base pair. Rather each base pair is part of a larger context; sentence. Not all typos are bad, since some can change the meaning of the sentence for good. These larger protein sentences will be packed by the water and their packed meaning will impact the local equilibria. These have to work within the paragraph of an organelle. There is feedback and feedforward from there.

Why does modern biology use a random approach to evolution at the nanoscale, and call that valid, when Darwin never suggested this? I am more consistent than the modem alchemists of biology. I assume determinism based on the internal water and hydrogen bonding environment of all cells.   

12

New Theories / Re: Does this answer evolution-deniers?

« on: 28/02/2022 12:19:03 »

Natural selection is not a random process.

No.
But the mutation is random (or, at least nearly so, and evolution would work with random mutations.)

I prefer the analogy where the technicians know what they are doing

Neither I, nor reality, cares about your preference.

I made the point that natural selection occurs at both the macroscale; Darwinian, as well as the nanoscale; puppypowerian. The proof of the latter, which has been around since the 1950's, is that you cannot substitute any other solvent, for the water, in water based life, and get anything critical to life to work properly; DNA, RNA and all proteins. This all or nothing observation, as a function of the internal solvent environment, implies a type of natural selection; rational principles, at the nanoscale.

In all cases, the solvent, as the majority phase, becomes the internal environment, for all the molecules of life. It defines the types of molecules, how they are configured and how they can develop potentials. As an analogy, we cannot place equatorial animals and plants, into the Arctic Circle and expect them to thrive; substitute alcohol for water. Macro-scale evolution; Darwin, tells us that the former were selected within much warmer environmental potentials, where everything is tuned to use more heat. The same is true of life evolving its chemical makeup, with water. Water  which has a unique 3-D matrix of hydrogen bonding; four hydrogen bonds per water molecule, a solvent matrix not generated by any alcohol or organic solvent environment.

The problem is lack of understanding of the potentials that water can generate and how this nano environment naturally narrows the range of acceptable molecules down to those needed for life. 

Maybe someone can explain how statistics can account for the observation that no other solvent can be substituted for water, in water based life? Random should allow at least some things to work, since there would no rhyme of reason otherwise in a.random universe. Rational, on the other hand, does not have to allow every dog its day, since the solvent potentials are rationally tuned in like, within macro environments.

I am not against evolution, but I am against forcing everyone to accept the blindman's approach of biology, that does not allow one to think in a rational way. Instead you need to pretend you are in the casinos of science, where the house always wins, using the convenience of odds; poof it is there without explanation other than the oracle has spoken.

If we need a mutation to go from apes to man, poof is will always appear by throwing dice; 20/20 hindsight, so it can be chosen by rational principles of natural selection. The reasonable approach  of natural selection has to clean up the mess created by the random design. One is not allowed to reason why natural selection did not selected a more rational cellular strategy  to carry on a more sane and rational evolution down to the nanoscale? Can't random, once in a while, chose the seeds of future rational choice, so natural selection can up its game? Or does natural selection forever have to mop up after the random model.


 

13

New Theories / Re: Black Holes are Probably Wrong?

« on: 27/02/2022 16:30:22 »

Time is still not a vector.
You need to stop telling that lie.

A scalar defines the magnitude, while a vector defines direction. A velocity vector tells us the direction of the scalar of velocity. Time moves to the future, which is 180 degrees in the opposite  direction from the past. When I say time vector, it is the direction of time. The problem may be that the term vector is traditionally limited to space, with time treated separately. Time is not traditionally differentiated enough to require additional modifiers. That was a mistake.

Acceleration, such as due to gravity, has the units of d/t/t, which is one part distance and two parts time. Space-time only needs one part distance and one part time. There is an extra unit of time, in acceleration, beyond what is needed to express space-time. GR tells us about the Relativity of space-time, but it does not fully explain the behavior of matter within gravitational based pressures. This is done better and easier with Newtonian type considerations like pressure and the phases of matter. This is where the extra time in acceleration due to gravity comes in.

If you compare the time profiles implied by GR, to the expression of time of matter/energy under increasing gravitational pressure, time slows in GR as we move to the core of a star, but matter/energy based time expressions speed up; frequencies increases as we move to the core of a star, even though GR based time is slowing.

The change in time; GR and matter/energy transitional frequencies, goes into two different directions; faster and slower. Vector may not be the correct classic term, but the fact remains there are two time based observable phenomena going in opposite directions, as would be expected from d/t/t being space-time1 for GR plus time2 for material transitions. I showed you two states of time. You guys made it hard. I made it simple.

If you look at distance, in both cases of space-time and material transitions, distance always moves in one direct; both contract as we move toward the core and both expand as we head to the surface. This is expected from d/t/t. There is only one part distance or one space vector toward the core. I made a profound discovery™.

For example, we cannot find the theorized particles, gravitons, but we can measure gravity waves. Waves are based on frequency and wavelength; d-t. While a graviton is a particle state that would be more connected to material transitions or the second time vector of gravity. The current theory does not know what it is looking for, since it lacks sufficient differentiation of time.

We can generate pressure with other means, besides gravity, such as mechanical. This will exert a force/in2 like gravity, but it does not have the first time vector associated with GR. A car jack does not generate any GR affects, as we apply pressure to the car. The jack can make some of the matter of then car hotter; higher IR frequency.

Special Relativity is the opposite in that velocity is d/t, which is one part time and one part distance. It creates relativity style affects in space-time, but not material pressure affects, since it lacks the second time vector; d/t instead of d/t/t. Mass and gravity is unique since it combines the two time expressions or vectors. These can happen simultaneously. I am open to a different term that time vector, but the facts remain whatever you call it.
 

14

New Theories / Re: Black Holes are Probably Wrong?

« on: 26/02/2022 12:16:05 »

The equivalence principle very elegantly explains gravitational lensing. The equivalence principle basically says that, if you were inside of a room with no windows,  you wouldn't be able to tell whether the room was sitting still on the surface of the Earth or whether it was out in space away from a gravity source accelerating upwards at a rate 9.8 m/s/s. No experiment could distinguish between the two scenarios.

Now imagine that you have a flashlight held sideways in this upward accelerating room. When you switch the flashlight on, the light beam moves out of the flashlight in a straight line. However, the floor of the room is accelerating upwards toward the light beam. From your own perspective (if your senses were good enough) it would look like the light beam was falling towards the floor.

Since the equivalence principle states that the behavior of light in this accelerating room is identical to the behavior of light in a room in a gravitational field, that means the equivalence principle predicts not only that light will bend in a gravitational field, but also how much it will bend.

The force of gravity is mass times acceleration with acceleration d/t/t. Acceleration is one part distance and two parts time. The bending of light is actually connected to the second time vector; rotational frequency; 1/t. Bending and rotating are essentially the same affect. If we model gravity as a spinning ball, as we go to the center of the ball the bending or curvature increases; smaller radius, and as we go out the larger diameter and radium will curve less.

In a gravitational field, local space-time will change and matter/energy will display certain phase characteristics as a function of the strength of gravity. For example, the center of a star has the most space-time contraction; GR, as well as the fastest frequencies in terms of matter/energy transitions. These two things are connected to the first and second time vectors, respectively. The frequency of physical light beams change with the second time vector. The distance or space variable is passive and follows suit to maintain space-time. Time is the dynamic variable and no action can occur, even in space, if time is stopped.

The problem physics has created for itself is in not recognizing how gravity and the pressures it generates impacts the phase characteristics of the matter contained. Space-time change is only half the story connected to gravity. For example, based on the extreme pressure and temperature phase diagram of water, the layers of the earth; oceans/crust, mantle, inner core and core seem to  coordinate with different phases of water. This has little to do with space-time but more to do with the second time vector that is more Newtonian in character.

In Special Relativity, space-time can also contract, but the impact on matter/energy is different since SR lacks the second time vector. A space ship will not contract to a lump and undergo further phases changes. The reason is SR is based on velocity and only the first time vector. GR is based on acceleration and has two time vectors. .

The topic is about black holes and gravity. The full story will not be just space-time contracting as though all we have is SR, but also about exotic phases of matter due to there extra time vector of gravity.   

15

New Theories / Re: Does this answer evolution-deniers?

« on: 25/02/2022 16:00:36 »

If we had a purely random driven mutation model there would do more wrong choices than good.

It does.
They die.
The few lucky ones go onto dominate the next generation.

So you are trying to wedge entropy- which you do not understand- into a discussion about natural selection - which you also do not understand.

Why do you do this?

Natural selection is not a random process. Rather it is closer to a type of determinism, based on optimization of life within a given range of natural potentials. Natural selection props up the random model connected to mutation theory, allowing it to take more credit that it deserves.

The current model of evolution makes use of Darwins theory of natural selection to compensate for its random model of mutations. By itself, the random model of mutations will do more harm than good. Random can and will cause more things to go wrong than right. Natural selection is used to prop up this random theory of mutations, by ignoring all the mistakes. It fixate on the good few who are selected, so it does not appear as bad as it is. This reminds me of the person who reads about the few who win the lottery and play and wastes their money playing a game they never win. it creates a mind game that make it seem right.

Another analogy for current evolutionary theory is having a large number of teams building cars with random parts which may or may not fit together in part or whole. These technicians have no plan or clue like typically random things. Natural selection is like a foreman who has an eye for what works and picks only those. The rest are ignored and not counted. This keeps everyone employed, since the factory has an output. I prefer the analogy where the technicians know what they are doing, so we get a better output for our foreman to select; macro scale.

Since we use the determinism of natural selection, at the macro-level, why not also natural selection at the nano-scale? Water, in this case will be the natural environment that does the natural selection thing, at the nanoscale. Water has its own unique range of potentials that all the organics need to deal with. DNA needs the water to give it the correct shape. Random can be nipped earlier in the bud. Natural selection at the macro scale does not randomly pick the defects so why should selection at the nanoscale?

The nanoscale selection process is connected to entropic states; constant entropy. and the need to maintain fixed entropy. The random has to behave like the dice are loaded or else the entropic state will be violated. In this model, evolution is not picking the best of the worse, but the best of the best. The extra, can migrate and be selected elsewhere since they are not a defect, but a valid representation that is only a step behind the local leader.

16

New Theories / Re: What Property Cancels What Property?

« on: 25/02/2022 15:25:00 »

sub-particle alloys like kryptonite.

I'm sorry, what?

time vectors

Why do you keep using this term? What does it even mean?

Time moves to the future, therefore the flow of time has a direction; vector to the future. One day or one second are scalars of time. The misunderstanding about the nature of time stems from measuring time with clocks. Clocks repeat; 12 midnight occurs each day. This practical tool sort of models time like they behave as waves and energy.

Time has more in common with entropy. The second law states that the entropy of the universe has to increase; entropy moves in one direction; more and more entropy, and does not cycle like energy; conservation of energy. The same is true of the flow of time; future direction. I cannot cycle my time on earth and become a baby again like a clock at midnight. This is prevented by the second law and the vector of time to the future. Clocks are a human construct that do not reflect the true nature of time. It is more designed to optimize the flow of scalar time, as the vector of time  moves to the future, since time is money.

If you look at the force of gravity; F=ma, where a = acceleration= d/t/t. Force due to gravity is one part mass, one part distance and two parts time. The force of gravity can contract space-time, with the greatest contraction in the core or the center of gravity. 

If we now we look at impact of the force of gravity on matter and energy, the core of a star, for example, will be the zone where we see the fastest time expressions or the highest frequencies; fusion and gamma rays. These two measured expressions of time, go in the opposite directions; slower and faster. This is where the concept of a time vector is useful.  Within the larger flow of time to the future, we also have two smaller time vectors that can tweak that flow. GR can slow the flow of time to the future, but it cannot reverse the larger vector.

Special relativity, on the other hand, is based on velocity which is d/t. Here we only have one time vector, with space-time contraction a function of velocity. There is no second time vector like we see with the force of gravity and acceleration. The net affect is there is no direct impact on material and energy phases and frequencies. Space-ship materials do not form new phases of matter, like we see in the core of any large mass body. It has no second time vector so the flow of time is only based on relativity and changes in space-time.

With SR we do get relativistic mass. However this is not the same as rest mass, since it does not create pressure. It is a single time vector version of mass. If it was the same as rest mass; two time vectors, it would cause gravity to appear and space-ships would collapse and their material will phase change.

As far as the science fiction of kryptonite, gravitational pressures; 2nd time vector, can cause new phases of matter to appear. With enough gravitational pressure, sub particle alloys can form, which  can be frozen in place, like we do with metals and ceramics. For example, a neutron star cannot support the quark phases we call protons, electrons and neutrons in the same proportions we see at low earth pressures. The sub-particles tend to align primarily as neutrons in neutron stars. To get kryptonite, we need even more pressure, followed by a quick cold pressure quench, to lock it into place.

In particle accelerators, which is the source of most data connected to the substructures of matter, we cannot control pressure, as easy as temperature.

Pressure is a measure of the number of particles in a given volume.
It is perfectly well defined and controllable in an accelerator.

As usual, PuppyPower is talking hogwash.
I can't understand why he hasn't been kicked out for trolling.

I was talking about gravitational pressures, which require mass. Pressure generated by alternate means; explosion/collision/mechanical, all lack the first time vector connected to gravity and  modeled via GR. Applied pressure will contain the second time vector, where frequencies of the contained materials will increase. However, without the two time vectors, of gravity, the process will have different amounts of time potential. The phases will be different.

An impulse of extreme pressure, such as generated by particle accelerators, will not allow sufficient time for things to align where they need to be, to create in a new stable phase. We will not get complete phase changes, but rather we will get transitional phases, with energy built into them, due to lack of time to optimize the phase. If we hammer steel, we can alter the crystal structure, locally, but not in a way that is optimized. Instead we will add stored energy to the steel. Hammers spots will rust first, unless we heat treat the metal.

With gravity, its first time vector, by slowing core time, while materials are speeding up frequency, allows more time to adjust relative to surface references. I used to be a materials specialists, way back when. Time dependency was very important to materials and their properties. 

For example, silly putty is like a moldable claylike substance. However, if a tension force is imposed too fast, the clay will not stretch but will behave like a solid, that will shear along a single plane perpendicular to the force vector.  If we go slow, the molecules have time to slide and move past each other to get a clay like behavior. But if we go too fast the tension propagates faster than the molecules can slide past each other; shear plane.

Silly putty, although feeling like soft putty in your fingers, will bounce like a Superball; extreme bounce. In this case, the pressure impulse is faster than the molecules can slide past each other to behave like a putty phase. Instead the molecules remain in place, causing the action and reaction of the applied force, to reflect the force almost perfectly; extreme bounce. Not all pressure is created equal. The star applies pressure over time to get putty phases, while particle accelerators get the shear and bounce; Super ball phases.

Don't get me wrong, I am not criticizing the lack of a full phase diagram for sub particle matter. This is easy to do in theory, but it is very difficult to do in practice, since it needs extreme gravity for the extra time vector found in nature.

17

New Theories / Re: Does this answer evolution-deniers?

« on: 24/02/2022 15:18:45 »

The entropy of a pure crystalline substance at absolute zero temperature is zero and there is no disorder at all. But it is true that there is the ground state of the atom: At absolute zero the system must be in a state with the minimum possible energy. Entropy is related to the number of accessible microstates, and there is typically one unique state (called the ground state) with minimum energy.

But we can learn that: The third law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches zero. The entropy of a system at absolute zero is typically zero, and in all cases is determined only by the number of different ground states it has. Specifically, the entropy of a pure crystalline substance at absolute zero temperature is zero. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/introchem/chapter/the-third-law-of-thermodynamics-and-absolute-energy/

There is an explanation for this. At absolute zero, the -TS term is zero for any value of entropy. This means there is zero free energy within any value of entropy S. There is nothing for us to measure, since we depend on free energy changes, to know something is there. Since there is no free energy, in any amount of entropy, we cannot see ΔS via any type of energy change.This is called zero based on experimental limitations.

The second law states that the entropy of the universe has to increase. This means the universe is losing free energy via the constant entropy increase; -TS.  For entropy to always increase, in a net way, -TS lowers, the free energy stockpile of the universe has to decrease; universe bleeds free energy. If we could get all the free energy loss back, that is generated by the second law, the second law would be proven wrong. There has to be ever increasing loss universal energy to be consistent with the second law; -TS over billions of years. Entropy only increasing in irreversible systems meaning the universe is not reversible or the second law is invalid.

Here is where that technical problem lies. We can still reverse entropy, on the local scale, such as freezing liquid water to make ice cubes. The refrigeration needed will use energy to lower local entropy, allowing us to retrieve some of the lost energy of the 2nd law. But this phase change occurs above absolute zero, where all states of matter still contain some free energy within their entropy; G=+TS. We can see that change via the heat given off in heat of fusion at 273 K.

But at absolute zero the amount of reversible free energy within entropy is zero. This is why we call it absolute zero. There will be no energy change even if entropy changed or not. The second law still requires universe entropy be a large increasing positive value, but without any free energy value or expression at absolute zero to measure. The tools are not infallible if they are the wrong tools for the job.

There is a difference between universal entropy and local entropy. Local entropy can be reversed. However, universal entropy, as defined by the second law, always has to increase. At absolute zero, we may reverse entropy of local systems down to zero based on states. At absolute zero we will no longer see any free energy change. However, the universal entropy has to be larger today than yesterday or the second law is made void. Experiments at absolute zero are about a local decrease in entropy, until we reach the state at T=0. This state stops showing free energy change via entropy change, so more entropy appears not be be there. But second law laws says universal entropy still have to increase but in this case without free energy; reorganize data.

The current models for cosmology and the creation of the universe are not early enough to make this make full sense. If we started the universe at the speed of light reference, where space and time are dissociated, this analysis makes all the sense in the world. With dissociated space and time, a state of infinite entropy occurs, which is the drive for the second law in our universe. The universe is heading back to where it began, where space and time are not connected, the same way as inertial space-time.

As far as evolution, I can accept evolution in the sense of change in all aspects of nature. These are created by the second law. With ever increasing entropy comes more and more complexity in life. While an increase in entropy implies irreversible systems, which makes sure evolution move forward and not backwards. I can also accept that states of matter show constant entropy. This is experimentally proven.

This constant entropy is like a container of entropic information about the state and free energy that requires the apparent randomness of wave functions to become ordered or else the entropy and/or free energy of the state could not remain constant; TS.  This means that in states called cells, mutations do not occur in isolation, but are part of an integrated state, the sum of which has to add up to constant entropy and constant free energy.  If the dice roll there one way the mutation will see dice roll the complimentary way, so TS is constant.

This its more consistent with the observation of nature. If we had a purely random driven mutation model there would do more wrong choices than good. Under random laws, the earth would be full of sick mutants, instead of strong and healthy lifeforms all integrated in 3-D eco-systems; larger entropic states of constant free energy and entropy.

Natural selection is a type of container and not a random process; state variable. The current model uses a closed container; natural selection, to get rid of the bad mutant choices. My model says that even natural selection is based on states of constant entropy, that will have an impact on other states of constant entropy, This allows better coordination and integration of mutant choices based on external and internal potentials.

18

New Theories / Re: Does this answer evolution-deniers?

« on: 23/02/2022 22:34:21 »

Entropy still exists at absolute zero

How then to define the entropy when it is at zero? The entropy of a system at absolute zero is typically zero.

The equation for free energy is G=H-TS, where G is the free energy, H is enthalpy or internal energy, S is entropy and T is temperature in degrees Kelvin. When T=0 K, or absolute zero, the free energy associated with entropy or S times temperature, has to be zero. However, this does not mean entropy has to be zero, since any amount of entropy times zero; S times 0, is still zero. Any amount of entropy at absolute zero will not show any free energy. The entropy is there but is not something we can extract energy from. It has zero free energy at absolute zero.

The entropy part of the equation is written -TS. This is implicit of the second law that states that entropy has to increase. Increasing entropy causes the free energy of the universe to decrease due to the minus sign. The increasing entropy of the second law permanently absorbs free energy as a function of temperature, causing universal free energy to decrease; the universe is bleeding energy into increasing entropy at finite temperatures. This bleeding will stop at absolute zero, since T=0 times entropy is zero free energy loss.
 

19

New Theories / Re: Does this answer evolution-deniers?

« on: 23/02/2022 16:03:41 »

Entropy still exists at absolute zero. The free energy term for entropy is  TS, where T is temperature in degrees K, and S is entropy. The free energy will be zero at absolute zero; 0 K, since T=0. But S can be any value, since any value of S, multiplied by T=O will still have zero free energy connected to its entropy.

Matter does not disappear at absolute zero since entropic states are able to linger even at zero free energy. This energy* in entropy is connected to the universe bleeding free energy due to the second law. We cannot retrieve this lost energy* in a net way. When the universe cools to 0K, entropic information will still exist. This lingering entropy value is connected to the pool of energy that bleeds from the universe due to the second law.

When we have a state of matter, such as water at 25C, the free energy is TS. There is constant entropy S that defines the state, and a constant free energy G, since the constant state is defined at constant temperature T=25C; TS=constant. 

In practical and experimental engineering terms, entropy does not increase if we have a reversible reaction or phenomena, since any change in state will return to the same original state defined by a constant amount of entropy. For an atomic state to maintain constant entropy, the electrons, for example, will need to move in reversible ways instead of irreversible ways. We will get fixed electron orbitals, which are not draw as changing due random changes over time.

The constant entropy of the orbital state requires the shapes of the orbitals need to be reversible but also remain fixed over time. The TS of water at 25C, is also constant. and therefore also has a fixed amount of free energy that has to shared by the entire state; like a closed system based in fixed informational entropy and fixed free energy. Random is contained within the order required by constant entropy and constant free energy.

Again if we chilled water to absolute zero, some entropy will remain, even though we lose all the free energy. This left over entropy, even at absolute zero, implies a type of information that is not dependent on heat or free energy. It is less about matter; enthalpy or internal energy, and more about information and command lines. The universe bleeds energy that it cannot reuse, since entropy will increase and will remain, even when there is zero free energy left in the universe; cools to absolute zero, so there is no practical energy left.

If we assumed a cyclic universe, this implies zero entropy change. How do we get the 2nd law active if a reversible universe implies fixed entropy or no entropic change? Ooops!. The universe cannot be cyclic. The second law implies the need for an irreversible universe that can increase entropy over time, such as one that will expand and then continue to expand.

20

New Theories / Re: Does this answer evolution-deniers?

« on: 22/02/2022 12:13:19 »

It would being like saying we have 6.022 X1023 dice and will throw all these dice at the same time, a thousand cycle. What we finds is each time we do this, they will add to the same total amount of constant entropy. This defies all known properties of statistics, but this is observed. The deniers need to wake up.

If I throw a mole of dice the total score is going to be very close to N_A times the average score for a single die which, I think, is 21/6 or 3.5.
How far from that value would you expect the score to be?

The property of stats that answers that is this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
and the answer is that it's so nearly a constant that we can't hope to measure the difference.

When someone says

Why do you keep posting your ignorance of entropy?

it isn't a rhetorical question.
Why do you keep posting stuff that shows that you do not know what you are talking about?

The problem with your analysis of dice, is you are assuming an average over time but not the observed constant value of entropy over any smaller interval of time. I cannot go to the casino and roll two dice, to get the roll I need, all the time. The casino knows that although averages may work, less time or fewer roles, will not allow the averages to appear. The entropy remains constant for every roll of the dice,; average or not. The laws of statistics may extrapolate properly over longer internals of time. However, if there is not enough time to get to the average, random will not work. If a casino gave me all afternoon to roll the lucky seven I needed, I would have enough time to win, based on averages. But I get one roll of the dice, which they know is not enough time for averages to appear, allowing the house to win in the gap between averages.

As far as my understanding of entropy, I hear some members  say I do not understand entropy, but nobody seems to follow through and explain it better. It comes down to the politics of denial, which is subjective and uninformative.

The term entropy was originally coined by engineers to describe the lost energy that was observed during the development of steam engines. If one did an energy balance, the energy did not add up properly. There was always missing energy, that was called entropy. This was/is a measurable value and not just a theoretical value derived from math. This is still measured today and was found to be a constant value for any given state of matter. You can see the values in the CRC handbook. 

Water at 25C and 1 atm have a constant amount of entropy. This has to do with a constant amount of lost energy that is being made use of, that constrains the state in a certain way. It appears to be connected to the energy balance that defines the integration of the state. The randomness of the state is contained by a fixed amount of lost energy. The lost energy of entropy is type of information; instructions.

The 2nd law states that the entropy of the universe has to increase, with this entropy increase absorbing energy as a function of temperature; TS=Free energy. For the second law to be valid over time, this means the universe is bleeding free energy that cannot be easily reused. This increasing pool of lost energy is conserved and appears to play a role in defining states of matter as a type of information that constrains the random of states. This is a way to load the dice of the universe, so we have persistence of states, even though they may be defined with random events.

If we could extract the entropic energy within a mole of water molecules, the order would break down and it would look more random to the naked eye. But with the entropic energy/information in place, we get the persistent foundation needed to build upward and onward. The second law adds to the pool of lost energy, allowing states to gain entropy, thereby creating more state complexity, in terms of how randomness can be constrained. Mutation are part of this ordering principle so life can evolve.