Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: thebrain13 on 24/03/2022 19:15:40
-
I understand evolution is a hot button issue for many, a source of ridicule and hostility often times. I'll answer whatever question you like, but if you are rude, ask condescendingly, proclaim yourself the winner before letting me answer or suggest I give up my dreams. I'm going to write Schadenfreude and get on with my life. If you ask the same exact question without the shade after that, I'll answer it. Sucks that I have to write that, but it is what it is.
Imagine a quilt built for a young science enthusiast. The quilt is made with patches that are proportionate to the size of each star and planets surface area. The sun would have the biggest patch, Jupiter would be much smaller but the second biggest, and the earth, less than that. All in all, the earth would take up about 1 11,000th the size of the entire quilt.
The reason to point this out is to attempt to calculate the chances a photon would leave the surface of earth and reach another planet in another solar system as opposed to anything else. Basically the photon is either going to get lost in space forever, or hit something. I'm not sure at all how to calculate the odds the photon gets lost forever. I'd like some insights on that if somebody wants to help.
But let's assume for argument sake that there is a high chance a photon gets lost in space, due to the acceleration of the universe or something, since a high chance ultimately works against my conclusion.
Let's say there is a 1% chance it hits something. Then lets say there is a 99% chance it hits dust or a comet/asteroid or anything besides a star or planet. That means only 1 in 10,000 photons that leaves a star or planet reaches another star or planet.
Since there is a 1 in 11,000 chance it reaches the surface of the earth, that means the chances a photon leaves earth and reaches another earth size planet is about 1 in 110,000,000. (11,000x10,000) (conservatively)
It seems like a big number until you realize how small photons are.
1 food label calorie could create 5.27 x 10^21 photons with a wavelength of 250nm which is a relatively higher energy photon in the U.V. range.
This means that if a lifeform eats simply 1 calorie it could theoretically send 4.79 x10^13 photons to other planets like earth.
Just 1 calorie can do that!
Now imagine if it were possible to encode genetic information on these photons and all life was doing that. This could completely change the nature of evolution.
Instead of mutations being truly random, they can simply be what rode in on a rogue photon somewhere.
I know this concept is over peoples physics level and I can no doubt expect a lot of flack for it but the way I think it ultimately works is that chromosomes in it's coiled form creates certain conditions that only a very specific photon can unlock. If a photon is perfect enough, it can occupy a chromosome and cause usually a useful mutation.
It's not a coincidence that DNA coils and supercoils all helices as 1 of the three polarizations of light (circular) is also a helix.
Since DNA is built off of captured photons, this gives life an incredible level of complexity it really has no business achieving accidentally in the history of earth.
I can get into the specifics of the physics and genetics if you'd like and are respectful. (although I'll annoy my girlfriend for not just continuing to write my paper)
The overall priority of life switches to maximizing photon creation over even it's own lifespan and offspring. This is why male and female dominates complex life. Males create more photons, females create life. Without females we go extinct on earth and without males we go extinct in the universe. Females still create photons with excess calories but males specialize in it. Specification of tasks is more efficient.
Cancer hijacks the chromosome by intentionally infiltrating fields and ultimately forcing mutations that build tumors that create photons etc. etc. This is why males struggle more than females with cancer because they are easier to hijack due to their goals. This is also why heart cancer is rare because tumors wouldn't be very good at infecting if they kill the host too quickly.
I would argue with good thought ANYWHERE you look supports this theory over modern evolution. I have to get you "over the hump" in thinking about genetics but it would come in time.
Take the fossil record for instance. The fossil record does not support slow change, but it alters. For instance, during the Cambrian explosion, nearly all animal phyla evolve, that includes dinosaurs and mammals is estimated to happen in a narrow 12-25 million years. Which is super short compared to the 3.5 billion history of life on earth.
Anomalously this happens with the biggest most complex forms of animals as well like dinosaurs and mammals when the modern rhetoric of "random" mutations suggest bigger should be slower.
Same thing happens with the history of plants, flowering deciduous plants exploded onto the scene half way through the cretaceous period. Darwin dubbed this an "abominable mystery" and suggested that maybe there was some "lost continent" plants evolved on that sped up the complexity of plants when the continent collided.
I think he was right, it's just that the lost continent wasn't on earth!
Universal Evolution can handle this just fine. Life on earth or anywhere can catch up very quickly particularly amongst the most advanced because they have the most need and resources for this type of communication process. However the rate of change will slow way down once they catch up to whatever is out there, which is exactly what the fossil record shows.
(one last note, because this idea messes people up) Mutations occur not because of the number of photons that hit, but how perfect they are when they do. If you sleep naked cuddling with piles of buffalos your entire life I am not suggesting you will turn into a buffalo because of the photons they create. However, if you "accidently" mixed your DNA around mimicking another buffalo, one of those photons could absolutely jump from the buffalo chromosome and occupy that new chromosome and then the cell would act more like a buffalo than a human. However considering a chromosome is billions of base pairs, the chances of "accidentally" mutating into a buffalo is realistically 0, even one time in the history of the universe.
The thing is though the net effect over time, drives evolution because mutations are stacked statically to be useful because prolific life creates more signal and because the chances a chromosome can be occupied even by something that creates a huge amount of photons like the sun can become irrelevant compared to life that creates precise photons. Basically, one person who knows the password to the CIA is more likely to type the correct password in than a supercomputer guessing 10^1000 times if the encrypters have talent.
-
Since DNA is built off of captured photons
Citation needed.
Males create more photons
Citation needed.
What evidence do you have that photons carry genetic information or can cause beneficial mutations at a rate higher than average?
-
This is a new theory. People don't think about it that way so obviously there is not citation.
-
This is a new theory.
I'm aware of that, but you need some evidence of some kind in order for it to be considered probable.
-
This is a new theory.
I'm aware of that, but you need some evidence of some kind in order for it to be considered probable.
The fossil record,.
Better question, and seriously think about it. What would you consider acceptable evidence to the concept?
-
The fossil record,.
Please elaborate.
Better question, and seriously think about it. What would you consider acceptable evidence to the concept?
I can actually think of some experiments:
(1) Analyzing the spectra of photons coming off of living things to see if they actually contain information and are not just random black-body radiation.
(2) Comparing the photon emissions of males and females of the same species to see if males do indeed produce more photons (when corrected for body mass differences, of course).
(3) Putting two different populations of living things (bacteria or insects would probably work best for practicality reasons) in containers right beside each other to see if they can spread beneficial mutations between each other despite not having physical contact. (Make sure to have a control group away from those two to compare mutations with).
-
I understand evolution is a hot button issue for many, a source of ridicule and hostility often times.
The only people this applies to are the very fundamental religious types who reject science.
]1 food label calorie could create 5.27 x 10^21 photons with a wavelength of 250nm which is a relatively higher energy photon in the U.V. range. This means that if a lifeform eats simply 1 calorie it could theoretically send 4.79 x10^13 photons to other planets like earth.
No that is not what it means. You are making the assumption that 1 calorie will be completely converted to energy which is absurd. 1/4 gram of sugar is 1 calorie, if 1/4 gram were completely converted to energy you would produce 5.27 x 10^21 photons as you said, which would be18,000,000 joules or approximately the energy from exploding 18 sticks of dynamite. People do not explode when they eat sugar so I think you need to go back to the drawing board and rethink your idea.
-
The fossil record,.
Please elaborate.
Better question, and seriously think about it. What would you consider acceptable evidence to the concept?
I can actually think of some experiments:
(1) Analyzing the spectra of photons coming off of living things to see if they actually contain information and are not just random black-body radiation.
(2) Comparing the photon emissions of males and females of the same species to see if males do indeed produce more photons (when corrected for body mass differences, of course).
(3) Putting two different populations of living things (bacteria or insects would probably work best for practicality reasons) in containers right beside each other to see if they can spread beneficial mutations between each other despite not having physical contact. (Make sure to have a control group away from those two to compare mutations with).
The problem with 1. is that the only way to read the information and contain the photon without degradation is with the chromosome. But if you used the chromosome, people would just say, the chromosome did it. Life is able to pull off quantum feats with engineering that would be tough to match.
With 2. We can definitely imply photon creation by males by simply looking at energy usage as a whole. Who gets fatter eating the same meal every day, you or your wife? There are many many many more ways using this theory and in particular it's genetic theory. (which I have not talked about yet much). Like one tip is that there is an inverse relationship between energy usage and chromosome size. We can dig into more concepts like this if you'd like but a good primer would be to read my telomere post. For instance, eat more food your chromosome go on a diet and it shrinks because of telomeres. Males have smaller chromosomes which suggests they are typically hardwired for greater energy usage which is consistent with dozens of examples from telomeres.
All mammals use the xx xy chromosome set up. Yes I know there are individual outliers. People with XXY chromosomes exist and women that are xy exist, things of that nature. But those are outliers, as a whole mammals use xx female xy male setup. The XY is physically smaller which is consistent with my telomere conclusion that says you can predict ALL changes in telomeres (and thus chromosome size changes) by thinking about energy alone.
But alas just ideologically. I believe quite strongly, there is no logical theory for why male and female dominates. All answers I've ever seen have obvious flaws in my opinion and only make sense if you don't think very hard.
For instance, think about this question and really think about it. Why on god's green earth do half of complex creatures not produce offspring? Fighting disease because of mixing genes is NOT a viable answer, because half of the creatures on earth do NOT need to not have offspring to do that. There are snails that mate with each other and then both lay eggs. Every benefit of sex happens. Twice the mates, twice the offspring. Life needs to be accomplishing something really important to justify this weakness and I really really can not fathom what it would be long before I ever thought of this theory.
Universal Evolution on the other hand, not so fast. It totally makes sense that creatures not having offspring is optimal because they can just use the extra energy to make more photons directly which is the ultimate goal. Furthermore it answers another question I used to ask, which is why do males need to have the same form as a female if their only goal is to spread their DNA. Why doesn't a male giraffe fly, finding way more mates? Why isn't a male sloth fast? Why don't female blue whales birth a thousand smaller swimming fishes of the same tonnage to scoure every direction of the ocean impregnating whales?
I don't think there are good answers to questions like this, but with universal evolution there is. In U.E. the primary goal of a male blue whale is to collect energy and parlay it into photons. Thus whatever is the best way to gather energy for a female in its environment is probably going to be the same for a male blue whale in it's environment leading to similar physiology's.
Lastly, one more thing and this is in regards to cancer. There is a relationship between energy usage and cancer. If you eat more food your cancer risk goes up for instance. Males get nearly every form of cancer more than women.
Modern researchers say it's because woman have copies of chromosomes because of the XX and males don't. Okay then, why don't males have a copy then? If it was useful for females why not males? This is a mistake cancer researchers make constantly in my opinion, they blame cancer on "mistakes" of the body without understanding why the body makes these "mistakes". Males struggle with cancer because it's easier to infiltrate energy rich targets like males than less so ones like females, or life that just plain doesn't eat as much.
One more last thing. In regards to plants, one of the interesting things I've seen mapped out was that when angiosperms (deciduous flowering plants) exploding onto the scene replacing gymnosprerms (conifers) and ferns. They slash their chromosome size significantly. This suggests a link between evolutionary pace, and energy usage furthering the link even more. According to modern theories, this should not exist. Evolution should be steady with smaller creatures evolving faster with shorter lives and greater numbers.
But the exact opposite is true. The biggest creatures (like dinosaurs, mammals and deciduous plants) evolved the fasted. This is certainly the prediction of U.E. Big creatures with the greatest energy usage should "evolve" faster because they have the greatest ability to not only create more photons but to receive them as well with their bigger bodies and higher energy chromosomes which make for easier targets for mutations. A pine can not evolve as quick as a maple because it has bigger chromosomes and likewise lower energy, the genetic and fossil record supports both claims.
3. Bugs mutating bugs nearby sounds good, but it has a number of practical problems. It is really another example of the buffalo fallacy I talked about towards the end. It's less important if the insect is nearby than it is that the two chromosomes are extremely similar. It's not a zero chance but it's very minimal. It would be a mess to figure out. If the two bugs were two brothers for instance, they could cause individual "mutations" to each other in situations where damage was done to a bug, or its energy was too high in an ion pump or something.
But remember how many photons get created by tiny amounts of energy? How could you know the photon didn't come from a bug somewhere else? Or an even bigger issue is this. DNA from cell to cell is not the same even in one bug. So not only would you have to keep track of what bug it came from, you'd have to map the genome of both bugs in EVERY CELL. Which for practical purposes would be impossible.
-
I understand evolution is a hot button issue for many, a source of ridicule and hostility often times.
The only people this applies to are the very fundamental religious types who reject science.
]1 food label calorie could create 5.27 x 10^21 photons with a wavelength of 250nm which is a relatively higher energy photon in the U.V. range. This means that if a lifeform eats simply 1 calorie it could theoretically send 4.79 x10^13 photons to other planets like earth.
No that is not what it means. You are making the assumption that 1 calorie will be completely converted to energy which is absurd. 1/4 gram of sugar is 1 calorie, if 1/4 gram were completely converted to energy you would produce 5.27 x 10^21 photons as you said, which would be18,000,000 joules or approximately the energy from exploding 18 sticks of dynamite. People do not explode when they eat sugar so I think you need to go back to the drawing board and rethink your idea.
I actually considered writing that, but didn't. It makes no difference though. Say you can convert 1 1000th the calories into photons, erase three zeros from 13 to 10 and not a single argument in the entire writeup needs to change. It is orders of magnitude big enough.
Also Origin, I'm not going to let my thread by hijacked by insults again. If you say I need to "get back to the drawing board" or anything like that again without even letting me respond first. I'm going to write Schadenfreude. You're lucky I didn't do it the first time.
-
I have this sad thought that thebrain13 is serious and this thread is not some sort of early April fools joke...
-
I have this sad thought that thebrain13 is serious and this thread is not some sort of early April fools joke...
Shadenfreude
-
You seem to be forgetting about those species where females are larger than males, and thus would be expected to produce more photons because of a higher metabolism. If you're going to claim that males make more photons than females, you're going to need to have that measured somehow.
I see you pointing out problems with my experimental ideas. That being the case, can you give us examples of ways to actually test your idea? If it isn't testable, it isn't science.
Also, can you give us some numbers demonstrating that larger creatures evolve faster?
-
This thread is absurd. It is just a bunch of stuff you made up. It makes no sense and is impossible. If you don't stop this I shall write Snuffleupagus.
-
You seem to be forgetting about those species where females are larger than males, and thus would be expected to produce more photons because of a higher metabolism. If you're going to claim that males make more photons than females, you're going to need to have that measured somehow.
I see you pointing out problems with my experimental ideas. That being the case, can you give us examples of ways to actually test your idea? If it isn't testable, it isn't science.
Also, can you give us some numbers demonstrating that larger creatures evolve faster?
I would not agree with the idea that males should be larger than females. I've never actually thought about it before, but I would not expect that to break ubiquitously either way, I would imagine it would have to be species dependent. For instance in lions, if the male is big that helps a lot because you have to fight other. Being 80 percent as big as the other lion is NOT 80 percent as good. You need to be the biggest one or bust at least some of the time.
If you are a male black widow spider, and the female is going to try to eat yo ass. You better get out of there real quick and be fast, because you can't just bite her back.
My initial inclination if we are talking about non social creatures that don't compete or cooperate is that if anything the females should be a little bigger, because it might help them vs. predators to defend young.
With males it would follow that 20% bigger should scale linearly with photon production, but we must recognize, bigger is not always better. If there was a 25% chance of dying or starving in growing 20% more than we should not expect that. There will always be a point where getting bigger is no longer useful and I would expect both to reach a size near that point. With greater size starvation generally rises and predation generally falls. Since pregnancy or defending eggs may provide predators opportunity, my instinct would say females may in general be slightly bigger. But I would not expect this to apply to all males or females of all species, it really depends on how they live.
This theory is almost 10 years old at this point and I've certainly thought about testability. The theory is absolutely 100 percent testable, and in my opinion its predictions are way more precise. There are 100's of details that would kill my theory if they didn't exist but they do, especially from the perspective of the genetic component I'm usually working on.
Regular evolution not so much. What I realized over time is evolution is a one trick pony, really just like the concept of god even though many would not ever admit it. Hear me out. Like what can a random mutation not explain? If something is insanely efficient like replicating billions of base pairs in a matter of hours, people will say, well that make sense because evolution happened slowly over time so it is super advanced. If I say how come life forgets the endcaps of their chromosome they'd say, "well life messes up" that's evolution.
Between life is ultra advanced and life messes up they have a convenient answer for everything they do and do not want just like a religion. Also like a religion it's an existential theory and correlates strongly in different social circles.
To me evolution arguments are barely different than god arguments. I remember a guy telling me, he believes in god because he rolled his car driving a 100 miles an hour and left without a scratch. I didn't ask him why his bladder doesn't work right after because I'm too polite but I'd imagine he'd tell me "god wants us to have free will". Really its the same thing to me. Between free will and "god is good" you also have an argument for anything you do or do not want. It's the same as evolution, there is no limit to what "randomness" or god are capable of they are both concepts that are never quantified and thus seem like they can explain anything.
I can come up with ultra specific experiments all day to "prove" my theory, but what I can't do is think of an experiment my theory would support somebody can't just use randomness to explain.
My theory is totally testable and even more importantly falsifiable. For instance, if DNA was not shaped and coiled into a helix the same shape as an E.M. wave what could I say? With modern evolution DNA could be anything, information could be anys shape. Modern Evolution plays both sides of the optimal coin. If it's optimal, that's evidence of evolution, if it's suboptimal, that's also evolution. Universal Evolution explains where mutations come from so it has to defend anything based on optimality. Regular evolution can "explain" either.
How do I win then? You just have to be a 100 times better than the person you are debating. Online and in writing I'm at a serious disadvantage because I can't react fast and people want to dismiss you as an evolution-denier the same way they would an anti-vaxxer or global warming denier. Face to face though, it goes way different because other people can tell much easier and faster how far I've really thought this out, because I will adapt immediately to whatever somebody says.
If somebody points out 10 problems about my theory and for all ten, within seconds I'm explaining without trivializing in detail exactly how something works with simple interesting analogies and plenty of examples exactly why that concept is not correct with something they understand but never thought of before, and do it over and over. Well it will only take so long before the "random" hypothesis starts to feel stupid in comparison. It takes a lot of practice and understanding of people to be able to pull that off but I can definitely do it, I've done it sooo many times with all kinds of people stem, ivy leaguers and not.
Right now I live in silicon valley, San Francisco. I moved here because people are more open to big ideas and I could just get funding and build something instead of trying to "convince" a scientific community something the community would outcast them for supporting. The only "proof" I can imagine that people would except is if I use my methods to alter fields really well, and ultimately genomes and cancer. I can already show many many examples of how altering fields and photons alters genetic outcomes. Things like using thyroid the metabolic throttle to induce metamorphosis, altering ion pumps can be the difference between building a head or tail in flatworms, things I didn't "learn" but predicted and found. However any intermediary like that would not be accepted regardless of if it was my idea or not, people will just say that's evolution for ya.
To me it's no different.
-
My theory is totally testable and even more importantly falsifiable.
Okay, give an example of an experiment that would have the potential to falsify it.
-
This is a new theory.
No it isn't.
It may be new, but it's not a theory.
"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]"
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
-
Shadenfreude
I recognise that you have the misfortune to be poorly informed, but I don't think we are laughing at it.
(OK, I'm laughing at the irony of you not spelling Schadenfreude correctly, but that's different)
-
This is a new theory.
No it isn't.
It may be new, but it's not a theory.
"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]"
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
I already told I don't write hypothesis next to every non mainstream idea. I also don't like the hypocrisy of calling anything you don't think a hypothesis and anything you do think a "proven" theory.
Also, I'm not going to let you and origin try to drag this discussion into the mud like last time. Thanks for the autocorrect tip about Schadenfruede. I'm sure Ill be using it on you shortly since you can't talk about new ideas fairly.
-
My theory is totally testable and even more importantly falsifiable.
Okay, give an example of an experiment that would have the potential to falsify it.
I could think of many many examples of this.
If telomeres grew in response to caloric intake, that would kill my theory. It would drive a stake through everything I'm talking about. It would kill all my arguments on so many levels, but it doesn't work that way, the chromosome shrinks with calories.
Evolution on the other hand would slip out of it easily. If telomeres grew in response to caloric intake people who support modern evolution would say, "Well that makes perfect sense, with more food the body has more resources to replicate its chromosome effectively. With less food the body has less resources and is more stressed so more copying errors would occur" And nobody would bat an eyelash over that.
You see, most of my ideas have offshoots and their fingers in many different ideas so if something doesn't exist it would cause big problems. For instance, I identified Ion pumps as a source of energy for life and fields, powered through their caloric intake.
If I say that is an energy energy source, there are so many ways to falsify and verify that concept. I have to illustrate the physics behind it, I have to show how the bodies own physiology optimizes and manipulates it, I have to make sure it logically makes sense from the perspective of the goal of life, and the way that I answer that question has to check out with EVERY other form of energy that makes photons not just electrical.
Modern evolution doesn't have to unify everything together anywhere near that level, it will just use whatever sounds the best for that scenario.
For instance, I knew from my physiology class that just the sodium potassium ion pump accounts for 25% of your BMR and that is just one type of pump in your body. This surprised me when I learned it pre theory because it seems so wasteful given its seemingly limited function. Does the body really need to spend half its energy pumping ions in and out of membranes just to communicate? Is that really the best option? There's no better way to do that?
Initially I focused on that. I also knew that the blackbody radiation curves typically drawn with heat also works with electrical gradients. So I knew that greater electrical gradients would create more photons. So when I'm writing about this and I'm putting in illustrations to a paper using black body radiation curves, I realize oh wait a second. I just wrote a whole bunch of things about electrical gradients relationship with the body.
What if somebody says to me, "what about heat?" Greater temperatures create more photons as well, so shouldn't it work for heat as well? I think about it in my mind for a bit. I think about the fact that I already wrote about 15 things that are impacted by electrical gradients. Ya I would have no defense for that and in order for me to be right and let it stand, I need to show that the exact same things happen with temperature as it does for electrical gradient.
So what do I do? I breath in, I breath out and I systematically find an example of temperature affecting every single last thing and show that the exact same phenomena works with heat as well and in exactly the same way.
For instance, if I said, "there is an inverse relationship with caloric intake and lifespan." I must show that there is an inverse relationship with temperature and lifespan as well. And guess what? There is.
There are all kinds of curves for all types of life, plants, nematodes, insects, mammals that proves definitively that life has the same relationship with heat as well. Basically a plant a Nematode or a person will live longer in a cooler environment than a warmer one.
And I got to go down the whole line. If I pointed out scientists can metamorphosis a tadpole into a frog by injecting thyroid, I must show that insects metamorphosis quicker in hotter temperatures as well. which they do.
These things would falsify my theory, but when I read the explanations for why these things exist with modern theories it's generally all over the place. I often times think it doesn't really make sense, or would make more sense if it was the other way around based on their own logic.
My theory has to be much more perfect.
-
My theory has to be much more perfect.
Stop pretending that you have a theory.Thanks for the autocorrect tip about Schadenfruede.
Did you notice that it is the wrong word?
-
For instance, if I said, "there is an inverse relationship with caloric intake and lifespan." I must show that there is an inverse relationship with temperature and lifespan as well. And guess what? There is.
There is not.
Imagine me and my (imaginary, but hypothetical) twin brother.
I don't know how many Calories I have got through in my life, but it must be something like 2400 per day or 880 thousand per year or 51 million over the course of my life.
My twin will be the same.
Imagine that he dies today and that I continue to live to be twice as old as I am.
I will burn thorough about 100 million Calories over the course of about 120 years and he will only get through 50 million or so.
I live longer and get to take in more calories.
That's the opposite of your claim.
Your idea is absurd.
That's because you don't understand the ideas involved.
-
For instance, if I said, "there is an inverse relationship with caloric intake and lifespan." I must show that there is an inverse relationship with temperature and lifespan as well. And guess what? There is.
There is not.
Imagine me and my (imaginary, but hypothetical) twin brother.
I don't know how many Calories I have got through in my life, but it must be something like 2400 per day or 880 thousand per year or 51 million over the course of my life.
My twin will be the same.
Imagine that he dies today and that I continue to live to be twice as old as I am.
I will burn thorough about 100 million Calories over the course of about 120 years and he will only get through 50 million or so.
I live longer and get to take in more calories.
That's the opposite of your claim.
Your idea is absurd.
That's because you don't understand the ideas involved.
Dude this is weird. Read what I actually wrote and actually try to understand it, stop trying to find the next insult, this is beneath both of us. 95% of people who read this, without foam on their mouth would understand very clearly what I'm trying to say. It's very simple what I mean. If I eat 4000 calories a day I probably wont live as long as if I eat 2000 per day. It is that simple. Actually try to understand what I'm saying, or just go away. You are wasting everybody's time.
-
If I eat 4000 calories a day I probably wont live as long as if I eat 2000 per day. It is that simple.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
H. L. Mencken
Imagine 2 people- perhaps me and my imaginary twin.
I sit around surfing the net all day.
He digs in his garden.
He eats more than me to give him the Calories he needs for the digging work.
If he works really hard, it might be 4000 a day.
He gets lots of exercise, I don't.
Which of us will live longer?
-
It's pretty clear that when your opponents have to constantly insult and say things I never said to try to win an argument that they have no point. If they could do it fairly they would.
-
There are all kinds of curves for all types of life, plants, nematodes, insects, mammals that proves definitively that life has the same relationship with heat as well. Basically a plant a Nematode or a person will live longer in a cooler environment than a warmer one.
Not surprising, given that chemical reactions (and hence, the biochemical reactions associated with aging) happen faster at higher temperatures. I'm a little doubtful about the claim that a human lives longer in a cooler environment, though. They'd have to burn more calories in order to maintain a constant body temperature than someone in a warmer environment.
-
There are all kinds of curves for all types of life, plants, nematodes, insects, mammals that proves definitively that life has the same relationship with heat as well. Basically a plant a Nematode or a person will live longer in a cooler environment than a warmer one.
Not surprising, given that chemical reactions (and hence, the biochemical reactions associated with aging) happen faster at higher temperatures. I'm a little doubtful about the claim that a human lives longer in a cooler environment, though. They'd have to burn more calories in order to maintain a constant body temperature than someone in a warmer environment.
It's true that generally speaking most mammals live longer in a cooler environment. (assuming obviously that you don't kill them by freezing them to death)
I would agree that if modern evolution was correct, being colder should put more strain on warm blooded creatures who have to continually fight it, but given my genetic theory, fundamentally it's not the caloric intake that matters but the ability to create photons that matters. Those two typically correlate very strongly but being in a colder environment cuts down the ability to create as many photons as shown by experimentally by things such as black body radiation curves.
According to my theory, it would not be exactly correct to say that eating more calories causes a shorter lifespan directly, but its the fact that eating more calories typically leads to a greater production of electrical gradients which can be targeted by cancer and other age related processes.
All things being equal, caloric intake will shorten lifespan. All things being equal, greater temperature of the environment will shorten lifespan. All things being equal greater sunlight for photosynthetic creatures will shorten lifespans.
These are all forms of energy that are all very well founded in the scientific literature to have a big impact on lifespan.
These energy forms can add or subtract onto each other. For instance, we could build an apparatus that creates photons from the electrical energy directly. We could then pick up the whole experiment and put it into an oven and it would create even more since photons would come from the heat and the electric fields. If we put it into a freezer it would counteract some of the photons created.
That's the nature of thermodynamics. Energy is more likely to turn into heat in the absence of heat.
The mistake you made, which I'll forgive you for since I made this mistake so many times before (even as the creator of this new evolution theory) is that you assumed something exists that doesn't just because it matches the rhetoric of evolution. I don't make this mistake as often as I used to, but yes a quick google search can confirm the link between the lifespan of even warm blooded creatures and the temperature of their environment.
One last thing. You said that it makes sense that objects should live shorter in warmer environments because everything happens faster. I agree to an extent, but not fully.
For instance, I went to the pet store and bought some live blood worms for my fish. They'll tell you to put them in the fridge and not leave them at room temperature because their lifespans are dramatically different at these different. Leaving them in the room they may live for 3-7 days. If you leave them in the fridge they can last a month.
In Kelvin, a typical difference between the fridge temperature and room temperature could be 275 to 295 kelvin. If you say that we can account for this change based on things "happening faster" or due to increased disorder of entropy (which is what these metastudies typically hypothesize). Then shouldn't we expect lifespan to decrease linearly with the change in kelvin? In this instance there is a 7 percent difference in kelvin yet the worms lifespan difference is perhaps 4x with that change. Additionally all of the lifespan to temperature ratio curves I've ever seen, the lifespan changes much more aggressively than the temperature change does. Why?
If you knew the mechanics of how my genetic theory works you'd realize that these things should not scale linearly, but more for the same reason that if you increase the chances a coin flips heads by two percent then the chances you flip the coin ten times in a row is not 2 percent greater but much greater.
This is a very important concept I dubbed, the threshold point energy. This concept explains pretty much everything if you know enough and think about it enough.
Look at a chromosome like a house of mirrors. A photon enters this house of mirrors and bounces around.
The question is, how does a photon bounce around indefinitely?
Well one photon can't do it, but let's say the average number of bounces is 20 before the photon escapes. That photon could maintain itself indefinitely IF on average there was a 5% or greater chance that the photon created another copy per bounce.
The body wants to maintain balance between these two forces. The body wants the number of photons created per bounce multiplied by the number of bounces to be above 1 but very close. That is generally the ideal homeostasis. When it is one, I call that the threshold point. That's the point where all the magic happens.
If the two multiplied together equals 1.2, that would work, the only problem is that would also work for many other things like tumors which is bad. If that number is too high the chances other photons can infiltrate goes way up and if they are allowed to exist too long they will degrade your genetics more and more in favor of conditions that suit their existence.
There are two ways to alter the threshold point. You can change the energy or you can change the geometry of the chromosome. If the chromosome grows and the average number of bounces is 25 then the photon only needs to be able to replicate itself 4 percent of the time per bounce to be over the threshold point. There's geometrically changes, coiling, methylenation, epigenetics etc. We can get into any of that if you'd like.
This is why as I've shown before(on a different post titled "predicting telomeres with one idea" but kind of in this as well) that you can predict with 0 exceptions that's with a capital Z. The size of the chromosome through telomere changes just by thinking about the energy alone carefully. This is why these two variables move inversely with one another.
The genius of this setup, is not only that it offers ways to help construct the body with the forces these photons can exert on the area(helping with construction or whatever) it's that this also allows life to be able to essentially "communicate" genetic information over space because it creates conditions that only photons from other complex life could realistically ever accomplish.
Only perfect photons are going to be able to reach this threshold point if the body is operating correctly.
(*Disclaimer* I'm well aware of peoples opinions of quantum mechanics) But photons are not as simple as people think they are.
But the way I think it works is that photons can replicate their probability waves PERFECTLY (or at least close enough) when they are not being "looked" at.
The chromosome as a whole is built like natural wavefunctions of circularly polarized photons bouncing around.
You see, one photon from all the way across the universe that has a wavefunctions that can reach 1.000001 has an infinitely greater chance of occupying a chromosome then 10^100 photons who can only reach a .99999 on the threshold point scale.
Of course that goes to *hit if the energy is too high or the chromosome is damaged.
There is an endless amount of examples I could point out on how this works. Let's talk about worms or mammals while we are at it.
If something is cold blooded and its temperature changes. In order to main its homeostasis it needs to change something else to maintain close to 1, but what?
We only have two options. Geometry or energy. It could be either. C Elegans which is the darling of research oftentimes because its genome is very small. Scientists have found that they can alter a gene leading to impressive increases in its lifespan and robustness. (don't quote me on the exact number but it's multiples of its lifespan x times increases).
This opens up two big mysteries for evolution. Why should that even be a thing? If scientists can massively increase its lifespan with one gene why didn't mother nature simply have that gene on all the time? Doesn't make sense at all.
Additionally, how based on what this gene does increase the lifespan so much. Scientists don't know why, but they know what changes. The answer is this gene regulates how tightly coiled the histones are packed together.
You see, for a cold blooded creature with an unusually small genome, it can maintain the threshold point simply by unpacking histones. The coiling changes the average bounces and can be used to counteract the temperature changes and maintain. Of course it doesn't do this perfectly. But that is exactly why that gene exists.
If we are talking about mammalian genetics, it's more steady, not exactly steady (which is relevant) but certainly steadier than a worm. We can certainly not adjust lifespan of mammals like we can with worms.
Let's ask this question. There is a study where they alter fat cells of mice that creates heat. They were able to change the temperature of male and female mice this way by approximately 1 degree each.
Male mammals like people struggle with cancer more than their female counterparts. Mice, people and mammals also have the XX XY paradigm where male mice have smaller chromosomes as a whole than female because of the Y.
My question is this. Given a one degree change in temperature for each sex, whose lifespan was reduced by more, the male or the female? One of them is impacted negatively twice as much as the other. Based on threshold theory of genetics, which one is it and why?
-
The mistake you made, which I'll forgive you for since I made this mistake so many times before (even as the creator of this new evolution theory) is that you assumed something exists that doesn't just because it matches the rhetoric of evolution.
And what is that mistake?
Additionally all of the lifespan to temperature ratio curves I've ever seen, the lifespan changes much more aggressively than the temperature change does. Why?
Chemical reaction rates don't scale linearly with temperature. If I recall correctly, an increase of 10 degrees centigrade results in a doubling of metabolic rate.
Then shouldn't we expect lifespan to decrease linearly with the change in kelvin?
No.
If scientists can massively increase its lifespan with one gene why didn't mother nature simply have that gene on all the time?
A lack of selection pressure. If the majority of living things end up dying from predation, starvation, disease, accidents, etc., then there is only value in holding off aging for so long.
-
The mistake you made, which I'll forgive you for since I made this mistake so many times before (even as the creator of this new evolution theory) is that you assumed something exists that doesn't just because it matches the rhetoric of evolution.
And what is that mistake?
Additionally all of the lifespan to temperature ratio curves I've ever seen, the lifespan changes much more aggressively than the temperature change does. Why?
Chemical reaction rates don't scale linearly with temperature. If I recall correctly, an increase of 10 degrees centigrade results in a doubling of metabolic rate.
Then shouldn't we expect lifespan to decrease linearly with the change in kelvin?
No.
If scientists can massively increase its lifespan with one gene why didn't mother nature simply have that gene on all the time?
A lack of selection pressure. If the majority of living things end up dying from predation, starvation, disease, accidents, etc., then there is only value in holding off aging for so long.
The mistake is you assumed lifespan in mammals and people doesn't change with the temperature of the environment because you didn't know why.
You're last point is exactly why it is 100 percent impossible to argue against evolution. With "lack of selection pressure" and evolution optimizes you have a convenient answer for anything don't you?
The real answer is it makes zero sense for a worm to live 5x shorter for no reason.
-
The mistake is you assumed lifespan in mammals and people doesn't change with the temperature of the environment because you didn't know why.
I never said or even implied that.
You're last point is exactly why it is 100 percent impossible to argue against evolution.
Not so. There would be quite a few things that would inconsistent with evolution if they were discovered.
With "lack of selection pressure" and evolution optimizes you have a convenient answer for anything don't you?
Not if something inconsistent with evolution was discovered.
The real answer is it makes zero sense for a worm to live 5x shorter for no reason.
I never disagreed.
-
The mistake is you assumed lifespan in mammals and people doesn't change with the temperature of the environment because you didn't know why.
I never said or even implied that.
You're last point is exactly why it is 100 percent impossible to argue against evolution.
Not so. There would be quite a few things that would inconsistent with evolution if they were discovered.
With "lack of selection pressure" and evolution optimizes you have a convenient answer for anything don't you?
Not if something inconsistent with evolution was discovered.
The real answer is it makes zero sense for a worm to live 5x shorter for no reason.
I never disagreed.
You asked me this question and I answered. What specifically do you think would falsify evolution in the minds of scientists?
-
You asked me this question and I answered. What specifically do you think would falsify evolution in the minds of scientists?
A trove of pre-Cambrian vertebrate fossils would do it.
-
It's pretty clear that when your opponents have to constantly insult and say things I never said to try to win an argument that they have no point. If they could do it fairly they would.
I made the point that you are clearly wrong.
A man eating 4000 calories a day will quite plausibly outlive one who eats 2000 calories a day.
Are you going to accept that fact?
Do you realise that it proves that your claim is wrong?
It's pretty clear that when your opponents have to constantly insult and say things I never said
Are you trying to pretend that you did not say this?
If I eat 4000 calories a day I probably wont live as long as if I eat 2000 per day.
Do you think your denial that you said it will fool anyone?
-
Read what I actually wrote
I did.
That's what your problem is.
What you wrote is not sensible, and you know it.
-
You asked me this question and I answered. What specifically do you think would falsify evolution in the minds of scientists?
A trove of pre-Cambrian vertebrate fossils would do it.
You are suggesting let me not misquote you. That if we a found trove of vertebrate fossils that would falsify evolution.
I disagree, what would happen is obvious. People would just say evolution happened earlier than we thought. That's it, everybody who believes in evolution would still believe in evolution, everyone.
Also the fossil already contradicts evolution in favor of my theory. Regular evolution suggests fast pace change with small things and quick change with big things. Yet the biggest creatures of all time pretty much all exploded through a blink of an eye in the Cambrian explosion.
Here is the first sentence in wikipedia if you google cambrian explosion. "The cambrian explosion, cambrian radiation, cambrian diversification or the biological big bang refers to an interval of time 541 million years ago in the cambrian period when practically ALL ANIMAL PHYLA started appearing in the fossil record. It lasted for about 13-25 million years and resulted in the emergence of most metazoan phyla. The event was accompanied by major diversification in other groups of organisms as well. Before earlier Cambrian diversification most organisms were relatively simple composed of individual cells or small multicellular organisms, occasionally organized into colonies. As the rate of diversification subsequently accelerated, the variety of life became much more complex, and began to resemble that of today. Almost all present day animal phyla appeared during this period."
Let's be clear here. The fossil record does NOT in any way support even remotely stable steady growth over time. Not at all. Even Darwin knew this was a huge problem. We went from largely unrecognizable physiology to T-Rexes mammals, eyeballs, noses, the cardiovascular system and pterodactyls in possible 13 million years. A very tiny fraction of the 3.5 BILLION year history of evolution on earth. Of course my theory handles this perfectly....
If you don't think that scientists would abandon evolution because they found some vertebrates at earlier times, I just think you are not considering the culture you are a part of any more than the religious did in the 1400's. I'm not trying to insult you but there is not a chance in hell Harvard, Cambridge, Bill Nye, everybody talking smack to religious people on the internet are going to change their minds and apoligize? Or are they just going to change their minds about what year vertebrates started? Just being realistic, if you can't recognize the overwhelming impact culture has on our minds today, a culture you are absolutely a part of. I don't see how you can help me.
This doesn't surprise me in any way (sadly) but I feel like I could sum up most comments with "I'm part of science, you need to believe like us, that's what makes us better than you."
Even though I'm a liberal agnostic physics major, and a serious self learner as well. The hypocrisy of the self proclaimed "objective" is just insane.
If it's not some lecture about "real science" it's insults and gross intentional misrepresentations of what I'm saying.
You Kryptid, even though you are completely doubting everything I'm saying are the only person who is even remotely listening.
I would imagine this is exactly what it would of been like with Darwin and the religious. He figured it out though. He entertained with a book that became very popular. People wouldn't say this stuff to me in real life as often, but they certainly would online.
Anyways end rant. Do you have a better way to falsify evolution because that obviously would not work. There is no way Bill Nye is going on fox news and apologizing because we found some vertebrates somewhere, that's not how people work.
-
How do I win then? You just have to be a 100 times better than the person you are debating.
Don't waste time debating. Devise a critical experiment where your hypothesis predicts a different result from the other guy's, the get a third party to do it.
-
What specifically do you think would falsify evolution in the minds of scientists?
No baby looks exactly like both of its parents. I don't think you can deny that observation, and the fact that babies don't look exactly like both parents is called evolution. You can't falsify a definition.
-
I disagree, what would happen is obvious. People would just say evolution happened earlier than we thought. That's it, everybody who believes in evolution would still believe in evolution, everyone.
I don't think so. Pre-Cambrian vertebrates would completely upend everything we thought we knew about the history of life.
Regular evolution suggests fast pace change with small things and quick change with big things.
What's the difference between "fast pace chance" and "quick change"?
Yet the biggest creatures of all time pretty much all exploded through a blink of an eye in the Cambrian explosion.
You seem to be implying that 13-25 million years isn't enough time for that to happen. Why not?
Let's be clear here. The fossil record does NOT in any way support even remotely stable steady growth over time. Not at all. Even Darwin knew this was a huge problem.
And that's why punctuated equilibrium was proposed.
We went from largely unrecognizable physiology to T-Rexes mammals, eyeballs, noses, the cardiovascular system and pterodactyls in possible 13 million years. A very tiny fraction of the 3.5 BILLION year history of evolution on earth.
So 13 million years being a very tiny fraction of 3.5 billion years is somehow a problem? That sounds more like an issue of perspective.
If you don't think that scientists would abandon evolution because they found some vertebrates at earlier times, I just think you are not considering the culture you are a part of any more than the religious did in the 1400's. I'm not trying to insult you but there is not a chance in hell Harvard, Cambridge, Bill Nye, everybody talking smack to religious people on the internet are going to change their minds and apoligize?
One explanation being wrong wouldn't automatically make a different explanation correct. The discovery of pre-Cambrian vertebrates wouldn't make young Earth creationism right.
Or are they just going to change their minds about what year vertebrates started?
They can't reasonably do that.
Just being realistic, if you can't recognize the overwhelming impact culture has on our minds today, a culture you are absolutely a part of.
So are you talking to me, or are you talking to the scientific community? I obviously can only answer for myself.
Do you have a better way to falsify evolution because that obviously would not work. There is no way Bill Nye is going on fox news and apologizing because we found some vertebrates somewhere, that's not how people work.
People don't have to admit they are wrong in order to be wrong, so what Bill Nye did or did not do wouldn't save evolution's truth value.
Another way to falsify evolution would be to discover genetic inconsistencies. There are an awful lot of plants and animals that haven't had their genomes completely sequenced yet. As an example, let's say we tested a ring-tailed lemur in Madagascar and found that a collection of its genes were much more similar to those of the field cricket than they were to other lemurs. Then another collection of its genes were much more similar to those of the polar bear than to other lemurs. Basically, anything that would completely destroy the genetic relationships animals have to each other. Sometimes horizontal gene transfer between species does happen, but it's pretty rare. So ideally, you'd want to see profound genetic inconsistencies that horizontal gene transfer couldn't account for.
-
To expand on what I was saying earlier about fossils, I could go beyond merely Precambrian vertebrates and say that the discovery that there is no actual pattern to the development of new species in the fossil record would falsify a lot of what we know about evolution as well.
We have only sifted through a tiny fraction of the Earth's crust, so let's say we discovered that biodiversity was at a maximum during the Precambrian and has been getting progressively smaller ever since then. Every animal and plant type alive today (humans, elephants, conifers, mushrooms, dinosaurs, etc.) is found in Precambrian strata. Then, as the ages go on, more and more of those organisms go extinct until we are left only with what we see today. That would be powerful evidence against current evolutionary theory, as it would destroy phylogeny and bring into question common descent.
That being said, evolution as a general concept is practically beyond falsification because it has passed so many tests and is readily observable. We know that allele frequencies in populations change over time. We know that mutations happen and that sometimes natural selection favors them. So evolution, to some extent or another, must happen. Trying to falsify that would be about like trying to falsify the round Earth model.
-
You are suggesting let me not misquote you. That if we a found trove of vertebrate fossils that would falsify evolution.
That is indeed a misquote.
It's not what he said.
It misses out the important bit
pre-Cambrian vertebrate fossils
So the idea that
People would just say evolution happened earlier than we thought.
doesn't make sense.
It would be like the number 7 being before the number 3.
You can't just say "well it turned up early".
How do I win then?
Stop relying on ideas that are plainly wrong.
But, if your game is trying to disprove evolution...
-
What specifically do you think would falsify evolution in the minds of scientists?
No baby looks exactly like both of its parents. I don't think you can deny that observation, and the fact that babies don't look exactly like both parents is called evolution. You can't falsify a definition.
Even as a self proclaimed liberal who lives in San Francisco, I have occasionally had heated discussions over the overstepping of boundaries of woke culture with my girlfriend who was a gender studies major. Last time we went out to eat she defined me as a feminist and had me cheers to it since I believe in the equality of men and women. I told her this would be funny if this was the only snippet of my life my friends had from back home lol.
Likewise, if all you mean by evolution is slow (from the perspective of a persons life) change over time. I'll cheers to being a staunch believer in evolution. If you believe in using "random" chance to explain whatever phenomena you want, we are not anywhere on the same page.
In fact I would go as far as saying. My theory is the theory of evolution just redone with a much bigger vision with all kinds of modern science, biology and physics Darwin never had access to. Evolution needs a rebuild.
-
You mentioned a lot of things here Kryptid.
But let's not lose focus on what we are talking about here. The concept that my hypothesis is not real science because it isn't falsifiable is ironic to me because in my opinion my theory is magnitudes more falsifiable and precise than regular neo-evolution or whatever we want to call it.
I picked something that falsified my own theory that was simple and reasonable and had many other implications, but more importantly it was something that DIDN'T falsify normal evolution. It should give us pause when the opposite of what happens could also be justified by a theory.
If the universe evolved slow and steady over the whole 3.5 billion years the whole way that would contradict my theory, but not regular evolution.
If DNA was a hexagonal orb, that wouldn't contradict evolution because DNA could be stored on any shape.
For Universal Evolution, you can easily make the argument that optimal DNA should be exactly a double helix and ONLY a double helix. It can't just be anything. Why? Because there are only 3 natural shapes of E.M. waves and a circularly polarized wave would be the most structurally sound one. That makes the double helix the best and ONLY answer. To me, it's quite obvious that DNA being the same shape as the only relevant force in physics is not a coincidence. But the rhetoric of evolution was set into stone a looooong time ago before the structure of DNA was discovered. We are just continuing that.
But you did ask a VERY good question.
What is the difference between fast pace change and slow paced change? How do you quantify this question mathematically?
Thinking about this really hard is how this whole theory started. When is "random" an acceptable explanation and when is it not?
I realized that I have never seen one time anybody try to define the chances of a "useful mutation" in mainstream science.
Of course, there is no way to calculate the odds perfectly, but if you don't do it at all, if you let anything fly, then you have an explanation for whatever you want AND whatever you don't want and that is the definition of unfalsifiable.
I used to be a poker player and always think in probabilities. It is my strong opinion that any realistic attempt to quantify the probability of useful mutations tells me the math is basically impossible to random chance.
Simplest cliff notes version. If there is a 1 in billion chance to mutate something specifically, say the heart. If you need just six things with these odds to mutate simultaneously to function usefully to create the cardiovascular system. The odds of this happening become 1:10^54 that this would truly accidentally happen, which vastly exceeds the opportunities it had to happen due to the amount of life that existed previously on earth.
I'm well aware that ANY mathematical argument I would try to create would be ridiculed. The detractors would say, "well it happened slowly over time so the math is wrong". But notice that they would never offer their own math and the reason is simple. If you actually create any reasonable estimate it forces you to realize the math of random chance makes no sense. Also if we are being realistic, I think even the simplest useful mutations are super complex and unlikely. Especially if you do not trivialize the difficulty of the quantum logistics of actually engineering basically anything like life does. How many physiological changes realistically need to happen engineering wise to change brown eyes to blue? Even a simple "mutation" like this is a lot if you really think about it.
Let's say the real odds of the C.V. system are actually 1:10^54. The earth may be big and old, but 10^54 is a way bigger number than the amount of bigger life on earth that could of made use of it.
BUT here is the key.
In my opinion this is a death nail to earth based evolution.
But this is not a problem for Universal Evolution only earth centric evolution, because the mutation could of rode in here with a rogue photon. Therefore, its no longer about how much life existed on earth, it's about how much life ever existed in the whole universe so the true amount of opportunities to mutate are dramatically higher. This causes complex physiologies no matter how unlikely, to become commonplace. The only true limit to the complexity is the size and age of the universe, which could be a lot bigger/older than we think, but is at least really really big.
One last thing, Universal Evolution can to some try to calculate the pace of evolution. Modern can not do anything like that.
For example I could propose an equation. Like any equation for evolution, it is overly idealized. But we could say that the general pace of evolution is going to correlate with physiology based upon my genetic theory.
Rate of change=Energy^2 times mass. C=ME^2
For starters, the number of photons created should scale with energy, that explains one of the E's. But it is also about the size of the creature because that increases the number of targets photons can hit. That explains one of the M's. The other E comes from the threshold theory. The higher the energy near each chromosome increases the odds the photon is able to take hold in the new chromosome, which creates the second E.
Yes, this is way over idealized, yes other things could come into play. But it is better than nothing. Evolution can't account for this at all.
We can apply this equation to life in the past, accounting for the Cambrian explosion with the appearance of higher energy and size animals like dinosaurs and mammals in addition to the higher energy plant explosion with deciduous plants.
We can also apply this to the pace of evolution in the present.
So, I'm going to make an analogy here.
Mammals are to lizards what Deciduous plants are to Conifers.
Mammal are idealized for high energy optimal environments compared to lizards whereas Deciduous is optimized for high energy optimal environments compared to Conifers.
Mammals put a lot of energy per offspring with live birth, lizards lay eggs. Deciduous has seeds, conifers have spores.
Mammals outnumber lizards in forests where food is plenty, lizards outnumber mammals in deserts where food is scarce. Deciduous outnumbers conifers near the equator, where the sun is strong, conifers outnumber deciduous up north where the sun is weak.
All of the aforementioned have sex. Yet, if you notice, the degree to which we can mutate these is dramatically higher in both cases in the higher energy group.
We could selectively breed any mammal to a way greater extent than we could any lizard. We could selectively breed any deciduous plant way faster than any conifer.
Look at what we've done with agriculture. What have we ever done with pine trees?
Look how dramatically we have changed the physiology of cows and dogs. What have we ever done with Lizards?
If evolution is truly random, we should not see these dramatic difference.
-
Simplest cliff notes version. If there is a 1 in billion chance to mutate something specifically, say the heart. If you need just six things with these odds to mutate simultaneously to function usefully to create the cardiovascular system. The odds of this happening become 1:10^54 that this would truly accidentally happen, which vastly exceeds the opportunities it had to happen due to the amount of life that existed previously on earth.
What's your source for those numbers?
If evolution is truly random,
It isn't.
-
It is a billion multiplied six times over. (10^9)^6
I'd say you need at least six things to go right simultaneously to go from no cardiovascular system to a cardiovascular system.
A heart, Veins, Blood, Liver, Lungs, Throat.
Each of them must of occurred simultaneously because if you lacked any of them you would die. They could NOT happen slowly over time, and there is no reason to think that one is correlated with the other significantly.
Therefore we must multiply them together.
Before the C.V. and all the necessary creatures just absorb oxygen via osmosis through little pores. That is only useful for smaller creatures, so there must of been a significant jump here.
-
It is a billion multiplied six times over. (10^9)^6
And where did the billion come from?
Each of them must of occurred simultaneously because if you lacked any of them you would die.
That's not how evolution works. A human being might need all of those simultaneously in order to live, but that doesn't mean all ancestral forms had to have them all at the same time. Small, primitive aquatic creatures obviously wouldn't need lungs, and open circulatory systems don't need veins. Minor innovations over time allow for the colonization of new niches, increasing overall complexity and larger size.
-
It is a billion multiplied six times over. (10^9)^6
And where did the billion come from?
Each of them must of occurred simultaneously because if you lacked any of them you would die.
That's not how evolution works. A human being might need all of those simultaneously in order to live, but that doesn't mean all ancestral forms had to have them all at the same time. Small, primitive aquatic creatures obviously wouldn't need lungs, and open circulatory systems don't need veins. Minor innovations over time allow for the colonization of new niches, increasing overall complexity and larger size.
Either propose the math that you would use to suggest the emergence of the cardiovascular system OR admit that the math of evolution doesn't exist, making evolution 100% un-falsifiable.
-
Either propose the math that you would use to suggest the emergence of the cardiovascular system OR admit that the math of evolution doesn't exist,
Math involved in evolution does indeed exist (Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, for example), but I'm not aware of any way to reliably calculate the probability of the emergence of the cardiovascular system.
making evolution 100% un-falsifiable.
The math you ask for isn't needed to falsify evolution. I gave you some examples above of things that would falsify evolution. Other things that could have falsified evolution (but have since been passed) would have been the non-existence of mutations, the inability to pass mutations to the next generation, or the non-existence of beneficial mutations.
-
Either propose the math that you would use to suggest the emergence of the cardiovascular system OR admit that the math of evolution doesn't exist,
Math involved in evolution does indeed exist (Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, for example), but I'm not aware of any way to reliably calculate the probability of the emergence of the cardiovascular system.
making evolution 100% un-falsifiable.
The math you ask for isn't needed to falsify evolution. I gave you some examples above of things that would falsify evolution. Other things that could have falsified evolution (but have since been passed) would have been the non-existence of mutations, the inability to pass mutations to the next generation, or the non-existence of beneficial mutations.
You can not disprove any argument based on randomness anymore than you can "disprove" god if you refuse to define the parameters of your "randomness". If you can't see that, I don't know what to do for you. I don't even want to try to explain again how that actually means nothing, it's impossible.
But let's think about this though. If the math of randomness does not check out, it proves my theory because it is the only other option. Think about it.
Assume that the complexity and pace of evolution is too high seriously for this next post. Just entertain the idea that that COULD be the case. What other option is there than the one I proposed?
No ducking that last question, think about it!!!!
But one more note, even if the math of mutations (that doesn't exist) totally checks out and is completely possible. If it's possible to send genetics over space that would STILL be superior to random chance. The complexity of life that communicates would be way greater than life that doesn't, giving it a huge advantage, so Universal Evolution would win out anyways. Whatever fish sharpened it's teeth over the course of evolving in oceans on 1000's of other planets over billions of years is going to eat the fish that just emerged with its "primitive" cardiovascular system. That's evolution.
-
You can not disprove any argument based on randomness
Who has an argument based on randomness?
If the math of randomness does not check out
Evolution isn't random, so I hope that's not what you're talking about.
it proves my theory because it is the only other option.
What other option is there than the one I proposed?
False dichotomy. There could always be another model (one that doesn't involve living organisms encoding genetic information in photons, for example) that explains the world better than either your model or contemporary evolution.
No ducking that last question, think about it!!!!
No need to yell about it.
that would STILL be superior to random chance.
I wish you'd quit implying that evolution is random chance. That's a straw-man argument.
-
You can not disprove any argument based on randomness
Who has an argument based on randomness?
If the math of randomness does not check out
Evolution isn't random, so I hope that's not what you're talking about.
it proves my theory because it is the only other option.
What other option is there than the one I proposed?
False dichotomy. There could always be another model (one that doesn't involve living organisms encoding genetic information in photons, for example) that explains the world better than either your model or contemporary evolution.
No ducking that last question, think about it!!!!
No need to yell about it.
that would STILL be superior to random chance.
I wish you'd quit implying that evolution is random chance. That's a straw-man argument.
Sounds like you are ducking the question. You said it was a false dichotomy correct?
So what else is there besides my theory and your theory? There must be at least three. What is it? Or is that just an accidental paste from a previous argument against religion? (sorry being cheeky)
-
So what else is there besides my theory. There must be at least three. What is it?
There have probably been a lot of minor such theories (or better, hypotheses) posted in the various forums across the Internet like this one. For that reason, they are unlikely to have appeared in popular scientific publications and thus for me to know about them. Of course, you've always got intelligent design in its many forms (alien-based, simulation-based or God-based, usually). Rupert Sheldrake's "morphic fields" might also count.
-
So what else is there besides my theory. There must be at least three. What is it?
There have probably been a lot of minor such theories (or better, hypotheses) posted in the various forums across the Internet like this one. For that reason, they are unlikely to have appeared in popular scientific publications and thus for me to know about them. Of course, you've always got intelligent design in its many forms (alien-based, simulation-based or God-based, usually). Rupert Sheldrake's "morphic fields" might also count.
Do you have any arguments against my theory besides what YOU consider the proper pace of evolution based on a mathematics you can't define? (not trying to be rude) I'm serious, I don't think anybody on this site has made a SINGLE point, I didn't address perfectly. I'm not exaggerating. Whereas I feel like all my strong ones were ducked, or glossed over with some form of "randomness explains it". Sorry, I don't think that is a strawman, I have no doubt there is a bunch more word salad predicated on not defining the odds of mutations but let's just agree to disagree there.
So, what is your best point, without using anything resembling what is or is not permissible with chance? Seriously, do your worst. Keep it scientific please. But what is your best idea that simultaneously proves me wrong that shows support of your theory? Evidence of huge jumps is totally dependent on YOUR concept of what is or is not a proper jump. But there are a ton of arguments that don't rely on that to differentiate the concepts. What is your point that makes you so confident?
-
Do you have any arguments against my theory besides what YOU consider the proper pace of evolution based on a mathematics you can't define?
I'd have to go back and read your concept more thoroughly in order to get a better understanding of it. At the moment, I don't think I quite get it.
Sorry, I don't think that is a strawman
Calling something random that isn't random is a straw-man. The odds of mutations can and have been roughly estimated, but mutations are only a part of what evolution is about. Natural selection is another important aspect, and it is anything but random.
So, what is your best point, without using anything resembling what is or is not permissible with chance? Seriously, do your worst. Keep it scientific please. But what is your best idea that simultaneously proves me wrong that shows support of your theory? Evidence of huge jumps is totally dependent on YOUR concept of what is or is not a proper jump. But there are a ton of arguments that don't rely on that to differentiate the concepts. What is your point that makes you so confident?
Again, I'd have go back and read your idea more thoroughly. One question that might help me answer your question would be: does your model predict common descent? Does it allow for humans and chimpanzees to have descended from a common ancestor? It's really late here, so I don't have time to get into it tonight. I'll come back to this tomorrow. I do want to give you a fair chance and actually address your model properly, so I may have more questions next time.
-
Yes absolutely I think there is a common ancestor for people and chimpanzees. Whatever is the normal tree of life and lineage, I have no reason to doubt that.
I'm suggesting that there is another pressure that drives mutations though.
For instance, there is something called carcinization where basically a bunch of different crustaceans all turn into crabs. This is called convergent evolution. I'm suggesting phenomena like convergent evolution may be due to more factors than simply natural selection and environment, but by photons from crabs causing crab like mutations slowly over time.
There is still a lineage though. I think without this extra pressure evolution would be way slower than what it is to day.
-
TheBrain seems to me muddling mutation (which is random) with evolution (which is not).
-
Yes absolutely I think there is a common ancestor for people and chimpanzees. Whatever is the normal tree of life and lineage, I have no reason to doubt that.
So... you believe that the common ancestor evolved into humans and chimps, but you don't believe in evolution.
That's "special".
-
For instance, there is something called carcinization where basically a bunch of different crustaceans all turn into crabs. This is called convergent evolution. I'm suggesting phenomena like convergent evolution may be due to more factors than simply natural selection and environment, but by photons from crabs causing crab like mutations slowly over time.
We can certainly dismiss the idea that the cause is photons carrying genetic information.
-
Yes absolutely I think there is a common ancestor for people and chimpanzees. Whatever is the normal tree of life and lineage, I have no reason to doubt that.
So... you believe that the common ancestor evolved into humans and chimps, but you don't believe in evolution.
That's "special".
Actually my theory is exactly evolution, just thought out better with modern physics that goes way over yours and origins heads. That's why I'm in silicon valley trying to secure more funding to build an experiment to cure cancer and you two are talking smack to somebody you don't know on an internet forum.
I'll respond to you two seriously the second you do, but I'm not wasting any more time on either of you until you return the favor respectfully.
-
We can certainly dismiss the idea that the cause is photons carrying genetic information.
Explain to me exactly why that is impossible. Be specific. Because I already provided a smoking gun at pretty much every turn and can go into further and further detail if you'd like.
-
Explain to me exactly why that is impossible.
Because science.
There just isn't a mechanism for it.
We can start with crabs not emitting photons except thermal radiation.
Since crabs are at pretty much the same temperature as their surroundings, they can only emit more or less the same photons as the rocks and seawater.
Do you realise that, by demanding an explanation for something that's obvious, you don't make yourself look "scientific", you make yourself look foolish?
-
Okay, knowing that this is the same as standard evolution but just with extra stuff added helps. Some more questions:
(1) Are the photons you propose generated by the latent heat in living organisms (i.e. are these thermal photons)?
(2) The photons emitted by living things typically have wavelengths on the order of hundreds of nanometers whereas nucleotides are less than one nanometer in length. How can a meaningful transfer of information occur when the size difference is so extreme?
(3) How much information is encoded per photon? Is it a single nucleotide or many? What is the mechanism that translates nucleotide sequences into photons and vice versa?
(4) How does the genetic machinery of the cell know where to insert these new mutations into the DNA without disrupting existing genes? Since there would be a wide array of photons being received with a variety of genetic information encoded on them, how does the cell distinguish between the genetic information that would be beneficial from that which is detrimental? Keep in mind that a gene that benefits one organism might do nothing for (or worse, even harm) another organism.
-
Okay, knowing that this is the same as standard evolution but just with extra stuff added helps. Some more questions:
(1) Are the photons you propose generated by the latent heat in living organisms (i.e. are these thermal photons)?
(2) The photons emitted by living things typically have wavelengths on the order of hundreds of nanometers whereas nucleotides are less than one nanometer in length. How can a meaningful transfer of information occur when the size difference is so extreme?
(3) How much information is encoded per photon? Is it a single nucleotide or many? What is the mechanism that translates nucleotide sequences into photons and vice versa?
(4) How does the genetic machinery of the cell know where to insert these new mutations into the DNA without disrupting existing genes? Since there would be a wide array of photons being received with a variety of genetic information encoded on them, how does the cell distinguish between the genetic information that would be beneficial from that which is detrimental? Keep in mind that a gene that benefits one organism might do nothing for (or worse, even harm) another organism.
Okay, now we are talking. All four of these are great and pointed questions. We'll go one at a time.
1. Anything source of energy that creates photons is fair game. Heat is certainly one. Photosynthesis/sunlight is another. The biggest contributor is ion pumps, which is why I think the body uses 50% of its calories on just that. 25% comes from just the sodium potasium ion pump but there are other pumps. This is also why Eukaryotes attach their nucleus and organelles to the membrane where the electrical gradient is greatest. Prokaryotes who don't have this pump and don't have a true nucleus ( eukaryote actually means "true nuclei") does not bound their organelle or genetic material to the membrane. Another clue to its function.
It is also interesting to note that the brain uses 70% of it's energy for Ion pumps alone. If you also consider each neuron has slightly unique DNA this means the brain could have huge potential to gather information. This process is called somatic mosaicism and it leads to unique variance in DNA in each neuron. I'm not suggesting telepathy here, but I do think the brain can use "directed" mutations to drive learning and novelty as well. The immune system also uses somatic mosaicism to create new antibodies. This is a whole new discussion if you want to go down that road. We can form a whole new concept of the brain and immune system as well.
2. Its true that the nanometer length of DNA is pretty short 2.5 nanometers putting it in the X ray range. But we must also recognize that DNA is not the only helix there is. Because the DNA gets coiled into histones and then histones are coiled into nucleosomes, and then nucleosomes, get coiled into coils, and then coils get coiled into super coils. The biggest Helix structure is the supercoil and that is 250 nanometers in the U.V. That's why in my first post I did the math for how many photons can be created based on the energy level of a 250 nanometer photon. This is the photon that matters.
I would like to note here, that just because my theory says that waves play a role does not mean it is the ONLY thing that can play a role. I'm not saying everything every biologist ever created is stupid, I'm saying we need both of these viewpoints to paint the whole picture. My theory is superior when we are discussing the big picture and the chromosome as a whole.
Could X rays play a role on building one Gene? Possibly but I need to learn more about that. It could be genes are independent of the larger wave, or that there are other little photons being collectively shared by nearby organisms. But I do think that U.V. photons can dominate the functioning of the chromosome at large. It's tough to answer questions definitively when there is more than one viable option. I'm entertaining a few potential setups at the same time right now. It's tough to answer what x or why is if all you know is x+y=8. I think the real answer is some hybridized mechanical version, but generally speaking I'd like to entertain a pure field concept just to keep it simpler and to stress the parts people don't really know how to think about yet.
3. Two more very good, very loaded questions. The first one is, how much information can the photon carry? First off, I'd like to point out that there is a Quantum mechanics technical definition of information and I'd like to stress that we are NOT talking about that. If by information you mean, is it possible that we could transmit the entire genome on one photon, I would say absolutely yes. Does it is less clear. However, there are potential ways around a 250 nanometer length photon creating 2.5 nanometer length structures. The simplest answer could be that wave-functions have structures on them that are smaller than their wavelength. Like you could say an ocean wave has an amplitude of 8 feet, but a surfer could make a smaller wave on that wave from his board. He could then throw a pebble on his on wave on the bigger wave making three waves occupying the same space simultaneously. Can a single photon be the constituent of many waves simultaneously creating the many waves of the entire genome, I'm not sure, but I can't say that doesn't exist. I need more experts from the physics side around me to ask questions like this. And even if that was physically impossible, a bigger structure could be used that was capable of building a smaller structure afterwards. The pure field theory supports the former concept, the hybrid the latter. I would say though, I definitely think waves play a role somewhere or else there is no good reason DNA would be structured like that.
The second part of your question is. How do (chromosomes) create photons and vis a vis? Again there are a couple potential good models here for how photons build chromosomes. For the wave model we could say that photons being replicated over the photons impart momentum on atoms directly based on the average potential of their wavefunctions summing up to impart physical change directly. The other concept is that these wavefunctions simply provide a "guide" for other structures to know where to build them by the presence of the photons. For instance if there are more photons in this quadrant build an A if there are the most in this quadrant build a T etc. Either one works but the former is the more pure field concept. I've watched a lot of animation videos on how the body builds itself, but I often find myself pondering, how much of these animations are "real" and how much is just what people think? How far are scientists over their skies when they claim they know how the body builds itself? I'm not sure.
4. The question of how the body differentiates good photons from bad ones is related to how the chromosome "builds" photons.
The first thing to realize is that the chromosome does not "build" the photons but photons build photons. Like a laser. A laser is an energy source in a mirrored cavity. The photons bounce around in this cavity stimulating the creation of more photons just like them.
This is basically the model of a chromosome and the concept behind the threshold point I wrote a lot about about in an earlier post. The role the chromosome plays is it creates a condition that only a very small amount of photons can achieve, which is to reach the Threshold Product which I define as multiplying the average number of bounces a photon makes when it enters the chromosome before escaping by the average amount of photons created per bounce.
So if the average amount of bounces a photon makes when it hits a chromosome is 20 as long as there is a greater than 5% chance of creating a photon per bounce the photon will replicate faster than it can escape which I call reaching the threshold point. If the threshold point is above 1, the photons will replicate indefinitely. Once this happens there will be many many photons capable of imparting physical change, which could be maintaining the structure of the chromosome or aiding in some sort of physical action in the body, whatever that may be.
Actually when I talk about a tumor photon mutating and attacking another chromosome, we need to think about it in the context of this new outlook of the chromosome. For starters, a photon can only hihack a healthy chromosome if it can outcompete the photons that are already there. If the threshold product for a tumor is higher than a healthy photon your body will lose control of the cell to the tumor and now you have problems.
This only happens if the tumor wavefunction matches the geometry of the chromosome better than the one that actually built the chromosome which is not usually the case unless one of two things happen.
One, the chromosome gets damaged. What I'm suggesting is that damage to the chromosome is not automatically permanent, but becomes permanent when it gets damaged while simultaneously encountering a photon whose wavefunction matches the damaged chromosome better than the original, that's when the damage can become a permanent mutation. Without that rogue photon the original photons still have an opportunity to rebuild. That is the connection between damage and tumors.
So photons can not actually dictate change in other chromosomes, but what they can do is they can make change permanent if something accidentally mutates, tumors specialize in capitalizing on this mistake, but usually mutations come from other lifeforms like yourself.
The other mistake that can lead to tumors is if the energy around the chromosome is to high. This may allow other populations of photons to cohabitate with the chromosome and if their numbers rise to high for too long they may begin to cause physical change in the chromosome to their advantage, causing their numbers to rise even higher until they outcompete the original and the body loses control of the cell to the tumor. Those are the two general ways I'm proposing tumors enter the body. These visuals explain everything I've ever learned about cancer if you think about them.
How does the body know that a photon is good or bad? Well it doesn't per se, but what it does know is that if a photon is able to replicate itself in your 3 billions base pairs better than anything else, probabilistically it's almost assuredly on your side and almost definitely from some form of successful life and if it's not, well you are screwed anyways so you might as well listen.
Interestingly though, when you think about it. Even though we associate tumors with death, tumors are not trying to kill you at all. A tumor is trying to exist and if you die, it dies. This is why tumors target non vital organs more like the breasts and the prostate, not things like the heart and why they spread the load through metastasis maximizing size without shutting down any individual organ. It's your body that wants you to die if it's too aggressive so they can't infect other versions of you somewhere else. This is why there is a 30% chance you make it to 90 and a 2.5 chance out of 10,000! that you make it to 100. Basically you are guaranteed to die within ten years when you are 90. A planned death is actually optimal to Universal Evolution. Just like how the body kills cells to avoid harming the whole body. You're body will plan its death based on its metrics to stop you from infecting others like you.
-
I'll come back to what you've just posted, but I wanted to throw this out there since I just got done with some of the math:
I’m going to see if I can help you with your initial request: trying to figure out the probability of a photon hitting a planet. I also want to request aid from anyone else who sees a problem with my methodology to point out what erroneous assumptions I may have made.
I’m going to start off with something that is better known: the density of stars in the Milky Way (since the density of stars in the Milky Way is significantly higher than the density of stars in the overall visible universe, it seems like a better place to start). I’m going to model the Milky Way as a disk. The diameter of the disk will be 150,000 light-years and the thickness 1,000 light-years. That results in an overall volume of 1.77 x 1013 cubic light-years.
The total number of stars in the Milky Way is between 100 and 400 billion, resulting in stellar density of 5.65 x 10-6 to 2.26 x 10-5 stars per cubic light-year. Most stars are red dwarfs, which are smaller than the Sun. Some stars are much, much larger than the Sun. We are going to go the middle road and assume that the Sun represents the average size of a star in the Milky Way. That would be a radius of about 7 x 105 kilometers and a volume of 1.44 x 1018 cubic kilometers.
That makes the volume per cubic light-year that contains stars about (1.44 x 1018) x (5.65 x 10-6) = (8.136 x 1012) cubic kilometers to (1.44 x 1018) x (2.26 x 10-5) = (3.254 x 1013) cubic kilometers.
A cubic light-year equals 8.468 x 1038 cubic kilometers, so the total volume of a cubic light-year that contains star material would be from (9.6079358 x 10-27) to (3.8427 x 10-26), or (9.6 x 10-25)% to (3.8 x 10-24)%.
Now here comes the iffy part: my assumption here is that a random straight line drawn through a cubic light-year would also have a 9.6 x 10-25% to 3.8 x 10-24% chance of passing through star material. A very, very, very low chance.
But we are talking about planets, not stars. If we are very generous, we can assume a single, Earth-sized habitable planet per star. Since the Earth has a volume about 1.3 million times smaller than the Sun, that would make the probability of a straight line passing through a planet 1.3 million times less than that of passing through a star. That makes the odds 7.38 x 10-31% to 2.92 x 10-30%. So the odds that any one photon will travel from one planet to another is awfully tiny.
In order to offset those odds, you’d have to produce many, many photons. I may get into that next.
-
Thank you for the reply Kryptid. I think you made a couple errors though. One is that the cross sectional area is going to scale with the chances of a photon running into it, volume will not so it shouldn't be used. Volume cubes with radius and cross sectional area squares. Surface area also squares and is easier to look up so I used that to compare the odds.
The volume of the sun may be 1.3 million times bigger than the earth but it's surface area is only about 12,000 times bigger. A photon doesn't care how thick something is.
Anything smaller has a greater surface area to mass or volume ratio, so dust and asteroids would have an even bigger ratio than the earth and must be accounted for as well.
Another thing that we both used is the assumption that the photon actually hits something. That is the tricky one for me.
We could set up a series to factor the odds of the acceleration of the universe since it doubles every 10 billion years. But I don't know how to calculate the dust asteroids, and especially to factor in the time interval it takes to hit anything at all.
-
Thank you for the reply Kryptid. I think you made a couple errors though. One is that the cross sectional area is going to scale with the chances of a photon running into it, volume will not so it shouldn't be used. Volume cubes with radius and cross sectional area squares. Surface area also squares and is easier to look up so I used that to compare the odds.
The volume of the sun may be 1.3 million times bigger than the earth but it's surface area is only about 12,000 times bigger. A photon doesn't care how thick something is.
I get your point, but am not sure how I'd tackle that for calculation purposes at the moment. I can say this much, though: it's definitely possible to make enough photons to travel light-years across space. The fact that we have taken infrared images of planets demonstrates as much. I suppose the question can then be: what percentage of photons can we expect coming from a habitable planet to be generated by living organisms versus non-living matter? Probably not very high, but we're talking about organisms making photons for billions of years of time. I'd say the odds are pretty good that at least some biogenic photons can travel between planets.
However, you're putting particular emphasis on ultraviolet photons with a wavelength of 250 nanometers. The ozone layer, which absorbs ultraviolet light, could be big impediment to those being received from distant planets by living things on Earth's surface.
Its true that the nanometer length of DNA is pretty short 2.5 nanometers putting it in the X ray range. But we must also recognize that DNA is not the only helix there is. Because the DNA gets coiled into histones and then histones are coiled into nucleosomes, and then nucleosomes, get coiled into coils, and then coils get coiled into super coils. The biggest Helix structure is the supercoil and that is 250 nanometers in the U.V. That's why in my first post I did the math for how many photons can be created based on the energy level of a 250 nanometer photon. This is the photon that matters.
What about the plasmids of bacteria, which are smaller? Do you predict a higher frequency photon associated with those?
The first thing to realize is that the chromosome does not "build" the photons but photons build photons. Like a laser. A laser is an energy source in a mirrored cavity. The photons bounce around in this cavity stimulating the creation of more photons just like them.
Sounds like you've got something testable there. Have an ultraviolet laser with the right frequency trained on a cellular culture and measure whether you get photomultiplication or not.
Interestingly though, when you think about it. Even though we associate tumors with death, tumors are not trying to kill you at all. A tumor is trying to exist and if you die, it dies. This is why tumors target non vital organs more like the breasts and the prostate, not things like the heart and why they spread the load through metastasis maximizing size without shutting down any individual organ.
I think that's giving tumors a bit too much credit, as if they can somehow strategize on the best way to grow without killing you. Even cancers of non-essential organs can kill you pretty quick.
Another question: what evolutionary benefit do males get from making photons? Generally, a trait isn't kept if it does not enhance an organism's ability to survive and reproduce. The fact that you say that males are optimally designed for making photons suggests that there has been a strong survival and reproductive benefit to doing that. That being said, are tiny males like those of black widow spiders or anglerfish also optimized for photon production? It seems like the larger females would be better for that, in which it makes you wonder why they aren't just parthenogenetic and produce only more females instead of males.
There's another thing that I'm not clear on: are you suggesting that photons from alien ecosystems on other planets were responsible for spreading mutations during the Cambrian explosion here on Earth? Or are you only saying that the photons generated by organisms already here just helped beneficial mutations spread faster?
Since you suggest that an entire genome can be encoded on a single photon, I've got to ask what the difference is between a pair of photons of the same wavelength (250 nanometers) when the information encoded by one is 4 billion base pairs and the other is of the exact same 4 billion base pairs, save for a single nucleotide substitution mutation? That's an extremely subtle difference, so there's got to be something also very subtly different about the photons, despite them having the same wavelength, frequency, and velocity.
We could set up a series to factor the odds of the acceleration of the universe since it doubles every 10 billion years.
I don't think that matters much. Universal expansion doesn't make the Milky Way galaxy bigger, and any habitable planets here are likely going to be far more important than those in other galaxies (due to the inverse-square law of how electromagnetic radiation weakens with distance).
But I don't know how to calculate the dust asteroids, and especially to factor in the time interval it takes to hit anything at all.
It's so incredibly sparse that you can probably ignore it.
-
Okay, knowing that this is the same as standard evolution but just with extra stuff added helps. Some more questions:
(1) Are the photons you propose generated by the latent heat in living organisms (i.e. are these thermal photons)?
(2) The photons emitted by living things typically have wavelengths on the order of hundreds of nanometers whereas nucleotides are less than one nanometer in length. How can a meaningful transfer of information occur when the size difference is so extreme?
(3) How much information is encoded per photon? Is it a single nucleotide or many? What is the mechanism that translates nucleotide sequences into photons and vice versa?
(4) How does the genetic machinery of the cell know where to insert these new mutations into the DNA without disrupting existing genes? Since there would be a wide array of photons being received with a variety of genetic information encoded on them, how does the cell distinguish between the genetic information that would be beneficial from that which is detrimental? Keep in mind that a gene that benefits one organism might do nothing for (or worse, even harm) another organism.
Okay, now we are talking. All four of these are great and pointed questions. We'll go one at a time.
1. Anything source of energy that creates photons is fair game. Heat is certainly one. Photosynthesis/sunlight is another. The biggest contributor is ion pumps, which is why I think the body uses 50% of its calories on just that. 25% comes from just the sodium potasium ion pump but there are other pumps. This is also why Eukaryotes attach their nucleus and organelles to the membrane where the electrical gradient is greatest. Prokaryotes who don't have this pump and don't have a true nucleus ( eukaryote actually means "true nuclei") does not bound their organelle or genetic material to the membrane. Another clue to its function.
It is also interesting to note that the brain uses 70% of it's energy for Ion pumps alone. If you also consider each neuron has slightly unique DNA this means the brain could have huge potential to gather information. This process is called somatic mosaicism and it leads to unique variance in DNA in each neuron. I'm not suggesting telepathy here, but I do think the brain can use "directed" mutations to drive learning and novelty as well. The immune system also uses somatic mosaicism to create new antibodies. This is a whole new discussion if you want to go down that road. We can form a whole new concept of the brain and immune system as well.
2. Its true that the nanometer length of DNA is pretty short 2.5 nanometers putting it in the X ray range. But we must also recognize that DNA is not the only helix there is. Because the DNA gets coiled into histones and then histones are coiled into nucleosomes, and then nucleosomes, get coiled into coils, and then coils get coiled into super coils. The biggest Helix structure is the supercoil and that is 250 nanometers in the U.V. That's why in my first post I did the math for how many photons can be created based on the energy level of a 250 nanometer photon. This is the photon that matters.
I would like to note here, that just because my theory says that waves play a role does not mean it is the ONLY thing that can play a role. I'm not saying everything every biologist ever created is stupid, I'm saying we need both of these viewpoints to paint the whole picture. My theory is superior when we are discussing the big picture and the chromosome as a whole.
Could X rays play a role on building one Gene? Possibly but I need to learn more about that. It could be genes are independent of the larger wave, or that there are other little photons being collectively shared by nearby organisms. But I do think that U.V. photons can dominate the functioning of the chromosome at large. It's tough to answer questions definitively when there is more than one viable option. I'm entertaining a few potential setups at the same time right now. It's tough to answer what x or why is if all you know is x+y=8. I think the real answer is some hybridized mechanical version, but generally speaking I'd like to entertain a pure field concept just to keep it simpler and to stress the parts people don't really know how to think about yet.
3. Two more very good, very loaded questions. The first one is, how much information can the photon carry? First off, I'd like to point out that there is a Quantum mechanics technical definition of information and I'd like to stress that we are NOT talking about that. If by information you mean, is it possible that we could transmit the entire genome on one photon, I would say absolutely yes. Does it is less clear. However, there are potential ways around a 250 nanometer length photon creating 2.5 nanometer length structures. The simplest answer could be that wave-functions have structures on them that are smaller than their wavelength. Like you could say an ocean wave has an amplitude of 8 feet, but a surfer could make a smaller wave on that wave from his board. He could then throw a pebble on his on wave on the bigger wave making three waves occupying the same space simultaneously. Can a single photon be the constituent of many waves simultaneously creating the many waves of the entire genome, I'm not sure, but I can't say that doesn't exist. I need more experts from the physics side around me to ask questions like this. And even if that was physically impossible, a bigger structure could be used that was capable of building a smaller structure afterwards. The pure field theory supports the former concept, the hybrid the latter. I would say though, I definitely think waves play a role somewhere or else there is no good reason DNA would be structured like that.
The second part of your question is. How do (chromosomes) create photons and vis a vis? Again there are a couple potential good models here for how photons build chromosomes. For the wave model we could say that photons being replicated over the photons impart momentum on atoms directly based on the average potential of their wavefunctions summing up to impart physical change directly. The other concept is that these wavefunctions simply provide a "guide" for other structures to know where to build them by the presence of the photons. For instance if there are more photons in this quadrant build an A if there are the most in this quadrant build a T etc. Either one works but the former is the more pure field concept. I've watched a lot of animation videos on how the body builds itself, but I often find myself pondering, how much of these animations are "real" and how much is just what people think? How far are scientists over their skies when they claim they know how the body builds itself? I'm not sure.
4. The question of how the body differentiates good photons from bad ones is related to how the chromosome "builds" photons.
The first thing to realize is that the chromosome does not "build" the photons but photons build photons. Like a laser. A laser is an energy source in a mirrored cavity. The photons bounce around in this cavity stimulating the creation of more photons just like them.
This is basically the model of a chromosome and the concept behind the threshold point I wrote a lot about about in an earlier post. The role the chromosome plays is it creates a condition that only a very small amount of photons can achieve, which is to reach the Threshold Product which I define as multiplying the average number of bounces a photon makes when it enters the chromosome before escaping by the average amount of photons created per bounce.
So if the average amount of bounces a photon makes when it hits a chromosome is 20 as long as there is a greater than 5% chance of creating a photon per bounce the photon will replicate faster than it can escape which I call reaching the threshold point. If the threshold point is above 1, the photons will replicate indefinitely. Once this happens there will be many many photons capable of imparting physical change, which could be maintaining the structure of the chromosome or aiding in some sort of physical action in the body, whatever that may be.
Actually when I talk about a tumor photon mutating and attacking another chromosome, we need to think about it in the context of this new outlook of the chromosome. For starters, a photon can only hihack a healthy chromosome if it can outcompete the photons that are already there. If the threshold product for a tumor is higher than a healthy photon your body will lose control of the cell to the tumor and now you have problems.
This only happens if the tumor wavefunction matches the geometry of the chromosome better than the one that actually built the chromosome which is not usually the case unless one of two things happen.
One, the chromosome gets damaged. What I'm suggesting is that damage to the chromosome is not automatically permanent, but becomes permanent when it gets damaged while simultaneously encountering a photon whose wavefunction matches the damaged chromosome better than the original, that's when the damage can become a permanent mutation. Without that rogue photon the original photons still have an opportunity to rebuild. That is the connection between damage and tumors.
So photons can not actually dictate change in other chromosomes, but what they can do is they can make change permanent if something accidentally mutates, tumors specialize in capitalizing on this mistake, but usually mutations come from other lifeforms like yourself.
The other mistake that can lead to tumors is if the energy around the chromosome is to high. This may allow other populations of photons to cohabitate with the chromosome and if their numbers rise to high for too long they may begin to cause physical change in the chromosome to their advantage, causing their numbers to rise even higher until they outcompete the original and the body loses control of the cell to the tumor. Those are the two general ways I'm proposing tumors enter the body. These visuals explain everything I've ever learned about cancer if you think about them.
How does the body know that a photon is good or bad? Well it doesn't per se, but what it does know is that if a photon is able to replicate itself in your 3 billions base pairs better than anything else, probabilistically it's almost assuredly on your side and almost definitely from some form of successful life and if it's not, well you are screwed anyways so you might as well listen.
Interestingly though, when you think about it. Even though we associate tumors with death, tumors are not trying to kill you at all. A tumor is trying to exist and if you die, it dies. This is why tumors target non vital organs more like the breasts and the prostate, not things like the heart and why they spread the load through metastasis maximizing size without shutting down any individual organ. It's your body that wants you to die if it's too aggressive so they can't infect other versions of you somewhere else. This is why there is a 30% chance you make it to 90 and a 2.5 chance out of 10,000! that you make it to 100. Basically you are guaranteed to die within ten years when you are 90. A planned death is actually optimal to Universal Evolution. Just like how the body kills cells to avoid harming the whole body. You're body will plan its death based on its metrics to stop you from infecting others like you.
The biggest problem you have is that the only photos emitted by biology - mainly heat and a little light- are indistinguishable from photons emitted by essentially every solid thing in the universe (and also quite a lot on gaseous things).
Silicon valley won't take long to notice that.
-
Sorry for the late response Kryptid, but you know. Life.
First off, ABSOLUTELY I'm suggesting life on alien ecosystems was responsible for the Cambrian Explosion. It's the point of the whole theory and hence the name of the original post, it's evolution theorized on the universe wide scale.
First off, we need to be very careful when we are comparing big numbers. There is a quip that in peoples minds there are only 3 probabilities. 0% 50% and 100%. Obviously a joke but there is some truth there.
But this theory forces a lot of comparison between very big numbers and we need to keep them straight.
If like you suggested, we give light unlimited time to travel somewhere, we don't factor dust and the expansion of the universe. Then the amount of photons that could hit a person would be approximately 1 F***ing s***tload per day. So U.V. filtering of the atmosphere would not matter.
Let's compare other numbers.
1: 10^80. Cute little number, is the odds of closing your eyes and picking the right atom out of the universe accidently. We know how big the universe is and how small atoms are right? Pretty impossible to do that but if the odds are expressed this way "to the power of 80" may seem like a nice little manageable number. I mean 80 is not that big, I could make that number in a few hours! But if we calculate the odds are 1 in 10^80 I am not trying to tell you that you have a chance! The chances are zero, okay!? They are zero.
Meanwhile, 1: 16^1,500,000,000 is the odds that a randomly generated photon could match any individual human genome given that there are 3 billion base pairs with 4 possible letters.
The point here which I've mentioned before "yet is always used as an argument against my theory" is that there is not a snowballs chance in hell, no matter how many photons or what percentage of photons can reach a properly functioning chromosome that it is going to supplant the original photon that built it by chance, there are strategies to invade chromosomes, but bombarding with random photons is NOT one of them.
The chances a random photon could guess 25% of the base pairs could be basically 100% since you will accidentally guess each base pair correctly 25% of the time, but accidentally guessing 26% could be basically impossible since a deviation of 1% with a sample size of 3 billion would be extremely unlikely.
Sex changes the game though and sets up a whole new meta, because it creates probabilistic conditions that would virtually never occur naturally. For instance, you could guess half my genome if you knew my mothers and vis a vis. That is what sex does for communication without life has no good why to realistically guess what is out there.
The body could create a condition where in order to get "hijacked" by a tumor, it would require guessing a certain percentage of base pairs. The body knows that accidentally guessing 49% of BP's correctly is zero for any natural object. But a hybrid creature with near 50% of those base pairs (offspring) could do it perhaps reliably. This is the real purpose of sex.
Sex allows life a way to "guess" other genomes. This is also why life doesn't like to cheat the 50 50 ratio of genes.
Females could overpower the DNA of a male 70:30 99:1 and maximize it's genes (which I would argue it would if the goal was simply passing on genes and regular evolution were correct) but it would be silly in U.E because the 50:50 ratio is optimal for communication. It may take some getting used to to think about this "encryption style meta" of sex but there are many things you can figure out if you take the time think about them.
Kryptid, the point that one sex is getting a lesser "deal" than the other is astute, but I would say it a little differently.
I would argue females get a "raw" deal compared to males because males can create more "signal" yet females make their progeny anyways! So men get the best of both worlds. Males create more signal AND get to create just as many progeny since females do it for them. Since there is more signal coming from males, there should be an asymmetry between the sexes and we could end up with "death by sausage fest". There are many other "problems" just like this and I thought about them for a while before I figured out there is pretty much one way to solve all of them. This can be a bit tricky to think about because a sexual meta ensues here, so bare with me.
This is how I think about it. Females are doing males a "favor" by making their progeny, so in order for females to optimize themselves, they require a "favor" from males.
If males optimize for signal, and females optimize for offspring, they can outproduce creatures that don't due to specialization of tasks, but not if they don't work together fairly.
The favor is males must demonstrate that they are making their progeny as females somewhere else! (WTF?!)
I think the way it works is that females will look for evidence that you are building their offspring or they won't make yours. So what females do is they devise a test males must pass, to "prove" that they are indeed making the females own offspring somewhere else. Most males will pass this test, so we take it for granted, but if males can't show evidence that they are doing what females want, females could make successful pregnancy impossible.
This test can take many forms. An example of one of these tests is that males must demonstrate that they are capable of building a female in utero.
If a male couldn't construct a female version of itself, how could it do it somewhere else?
What is the best way to prove this concept?
Do it. Build a female first, then we'll talk!
Turns out that ALL mammals start out as females in utero.
That is an example of a test.
For this reason, as pointless as it may seem all mammals start out as female instead of just getting straight to the desired sex.
What I'm suggesting is that MOST photons that build any life contain not just the information to make one sex but the information to make two sexes. This is why I suggest sexual characteristics can be expressed in all lifeforms. This is why men have female characteristics and vice versa instead of keeping the two lineages completely separate. Seems strange and unnecessary and most people probably couldn't figure out why this is even a problem in the first place, but if females didn't do this they could get cheated right out of existence. So they do.
One last thing to point out about this as well. The size and gestation period also matters to evolution as well. Since you can not communicate effectively before you mix gametes. The embryo must start gaining size before the chances photons can enter become practical. I don't think the defining characteristics of life start at cell one, but somewhere down the line. This is why I think all mammalian embryos start with that "stock standard" tailed embryo thing. (whatever it is called lul) Before it starts transforming into its ultimate form upon the entry of the novel new photon for life. The body needs to build many new "hybrid" chromosomes before the chances becomes large enough for the "communication" event (entry of photon) to occur.
There are many different things you can figure out and explain with that concept as well.
-
The biggest problem you have is that the only photos emitted by biology - mainly heat and a little light- are indistinguishable from photons emitted by essentially every solid thing in the universe (and also quite a lot on gaseous things).
Silicon valley won't take long to notice that.
-
You may also find this informative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_principle
-
These replies are pretty big and there is a lot to sift through. I think it might be best to focus on one thing at a time.
I just did some more math, using the estimated total biomass of the Earth (545.8 gigatons) at the average temperature of the Earth (288 kelvins, because the overwhelming majority of life isn't warm-blooded) and assuming that life is all packed into a sphere in order to estimate a minimum possible surface area for photons to be emitted from (which would represent a lower limit of photon production, since life is obviously spread out much more thinly than a sphere). I used an equation that calculates the number of photons emitted by a black body at a given temperature to estimate photon production per second per square centimeter. Roughly half of the photons emitted by living things would be going down towards the Earth, so those are absorbed. The other half go upward and potentially into space.
I then calculated how many photons would make it out to different distances, assuming no obstacles got in the way. My results were that you'd get about 8,780 photons per square meter per year at the distance of Alpha Centauri. At 10 light-years out, it's about 1,600 photons per square meter per year. At 100 light-years it's 16. At 1,000 light-years it's 0.16. So I think it's plausible that biogenic photons can make it out to planets around other stars. That being said, I think we can move on to other matters.
What I'd like to focus on now is how the information is encoded in the photons. I don't know that I got a good answer for my question about that. What physical property about photons are different when they encode different nucleotide sequences?
-
I then calculated how many photons would make it out to different distances, assuming no obstacles got in the way. My results were that you'd get about 8,780 photons per square meter per year at the distance of Alpha Centauri. At 10 light-years out, it's about 1,600 photons per square meter per year. At 100 light-years it's 16. At 1,000 light-years it's 0.16. So I think it's plausible that biogenic photons can make it out to planets around other stars. That being said, I think we can move on to other matters.
Seems like since we are bathed in these magical photons at about 10^20 times the amount of these exoplanets, so we must be evolving at 10^20 times the rate of these exoplanet animals.
The whole idea is so silly it doesn't even deserve to be on the forum.
-
So I think it's plausible that biogenic photons can make it out to planets around other stars. That being said, I think we can move on to other matters.
What I'd like to focus on now is how the information is encoded in the photons. I don't know that I got a good answer for my question about that. What physical property about photons are different when they encode different nucleotide sequences?
I never know somebodies notions about Q.M. I think it is a wildly inconsistent mess in peoples minds from person to person but it's actually really simple to understand if you don't believe a bunch of things about Q.M. that aren't really right.
A lot of people hear this story of Einstein getting schooled by Neils Bohr and the Copenhagen Interpretation is the only way to think. F*** that and Bohr for a second and try to imagine probability is deterministic like Einstein suggested. I'm not saying you have to abandon all sense of probability, (I don't) but don't overapply it to things that you shouldn't because you will end up in crazy town real fast. Obviously the body on some level has tamed even individual atoms to some extent or we couldn't exist, but for now just put probability on the back burner for a sec before it is really necessary.
Imagine a photon.
This photon can replicate itself in energy in a process called cloning. Cloning is an actual quantum term, and there is a theorem called the no perfect cloning theorem, but....cloning can be pretty close to perfect. There are scientists continuing to try to perfect this process today.
When we say it's "cloning" we mean it is cloning its entire wavefunction! It automatically does this. Not everything a photon does is binary like spin that people tend to focus on. What can be encoded in the wavefunction can be infinite. It sums to equal the E.M. wave which is a double helix, but the individual photon cloned and not observed can pass down small differences from photon to photon. The average wavefunction of large numbers of photons forms a perfect wave, but an individual can vary slightly from one another. If one photon is isolated, allowed to replicate and not observed it can pass on slight differences from the norm.
Photon cloning acts a lot like life.
When a photon "clones" it passes these little differences to the next generation of photons.
When life clones it passes little differences to the next generation of life.
Each circularly polarized photon is associated with its own unique helix (the wavefunction)
Each lifeform is associated with its own unique helix (DNA)
Photons will "evolve" to fit their environment by matching their wavelengths to their container like oven walls or a chromosome to extract energy and replicate.
Life will "evolve" to fit their environment to extract energy and replicate.
Increase the energy of photons: increase average frequency
Increase the energy of life: increase average frequency of death
The origin of "randomness" in my theory is created by the creation of new "random" wavefunctions.
(theoretically life would be willing to sacrifice half its life as long if it could produce twice as many photons in that time to make up for it. This is a concept of U.E. So we could attempt to predict lifespan based on caloric intake, it would vary for size but we could do it for each specific creature. For Max Planck we could figure there would be a certain relationship between his frequency of death with the energy he consumed. We could call this the Literal Plank relation and define it mathematically as E=hf. This means if Max Planck at twice as much food all the time, two dinners, two lunches and breakfasts as he did every single day, that we could predict that his frequency of death would also double and he would live to 45 instead of 90!) See what I did there?
Conventionally in modern science we keep physics and biology separate. To me, not so much. I don't think my analogy between photons and life is really that surprising when you consider the hypotheses it's just another example of the link between fields and life. We could go on a journey through physics with evolution analogies just like that or we could go on a journey through evolution with physics analogies.
I'd tone it down if I was talking to Harvard, but on forums and in my own mind. Screw it, I do what I want!
-
So Kryptid to not get off track like you suggested. To answer your question, photons replicate, then they carry little differences in their wavefunctions when they replicate. In normal geometries like an oven, they will indeed tend to adapt to the shape of the oven to an extent. For instance, if the oven has 2 meter walls, there will be more photons with wavelengths that are some integer of that wavelength. You could deduce that from the little cloning concept.
If you apply this to something ultra small and specific like a chromosome it can prevent the degradation of the wavefunction over time. The chromosome will not stop the normal drift of photon cloning but if these photons drift to far they will not be able to occupy the energy of the chromosome as well and either peter out or escape. If you alter and damage the chromosome though, the photons can "evolve" to the new shape and then things can become permanent without some physical intervention like the immune system reconstructing the damage.
Nucleotides get built by aggregations of these photons either directly by the combined force of the photons imparting momentum like "optical tweezers" which is what the 2019 Nobel prize was won in. Or the differences in energy levels based on the amplitude of photons in an area acts as a "pilot" for the body to know where and what nucleotide to construct.
The optical tweezers concept is important though, because with that you can see the body could use photons to aid in construction directly. It doesn't always need a little "molecular robot" to build every single thing, sometimes it can alter construction by simply changing the probability of where light goes.
People think that a photon can only carry a "bit" of information. Which is true in a certain context, one photon can only interact with one particle. But take that one photon and replicate it a trillion times over and it can "communicate" with a trillion particles. That's "the catch".
-
What physical property about photons are different when they encode different nucleotide sequences?
None.
That was my point.
A photon from an ant looks identical to a photon from the rock it is standing on,
That's why we know you are wrong.
-
What physical property about photons are different when they encode different nucleotide sequences?
None.
That was my point.
A photon from an ant looks identical to a photon from the rock it is standing on,
That's why we know you are wrong.
Yawn. Just go away Bored Chemist.
I was a little restless tonight, woke up and was going to write a detailed response to post number 67 because by some miracle you managed to not send some lame insult or response, but thanks for reminding me why I don't take anything you say seriously. You are not clever.....at all. I'm done with you. Go back to intellectually bullying somebody who is still doubting themselves on their learning and intellectual journey like I've seen you do in other threads. You are talking to somebody who knows for a fact they are way out of your league. Now please go away so I continue the adult conversation with Kryptid.
-
Imagine a photon.
This photon can replicate itself
Since that would break the energy conservation laws it is impossible.
You are relying on magical thinking.
That's not science.
-
What physical property about photons are different when they encode different nucleotide sequences?
None.
That was my point.
A photon from an ant looks identical to a photon from the rock it is standing on,
That's why we know you are wrong.
Yawn. Just go away Bored Chemist.
I was a little restless tonight, woke up and was going to write a detailed response to post number 67 because by some miracle you managed to not send some lame insult or response, but thanks for reminding me why I don't take anything you say seriously. You are not clever.....at all. I'm done with you. Go back to intellectually bullying somebody who is still doubting themselves on their learning and intellectual journey like I've seen you do in other threads. You are talking to somebody who knows for a fact they are way out of your league. Now please go away so I continue the adult conversation with Kryptid.
Shouting "go away" is not what most people think of as "adult conversation".
It won't even distract people from the fact that you are plainly wrong, and you know it.
That's why you try to attack me- because you know that you can't actually address my point.
A photon is just a photon.
The thing it hits can't "know" if it came from an ant or a rock.
-
What physical property about photons are different when they encode different nucleotide sequences?
None.
That was my point.
A photon from an ant looks identical to a photon from the rock it is standing on,
That's why we know you are wrong.
Yawn. Just go away Bored Chemist.
I was a little restless tonight, woke up and was going to write a detailed response to post number 67 because by some miracle you managed to not send some lame insult or response, but thanks for reminding me why I don't take anything you say seriously. You are not clever.....at all. I'm done with you. Go back to intellectually bullying somebody who is still doubting themselves on their learning and intellectual journey like I've seen you do in other threads. You are talking to somebody who knows for a fact they are way out of your league. Now please go away so I continue the adult conversation with Kryptid.
Shouting "go away" is not what most people think of as "adult conversation".
It won't even distract people from the fact that you are plainly wrong, and you know it.
That's why you try to attack me- because you know that you can't actually address my point.
A photon is just a photon.
The thing it hits can't "know" if it came from an ant or a rock.
Get real dude. In spite of being twice my age you have not talked like an adult this entire time and your responses have been pure trash. You've been posting lame insults or responses that have NOTHING to do with what I'm talking about the whole time because that is all YOU have. Your responses are a joke. Maybe a lot of people on this site can't see that, but I am not one of those people.
-
What physical property about photons are different when they encode different nucleotide sequences?
None.
That was my point.
A photon from an ant looks identical to a photon from the rock it is standing on,
That's why we know you are wrong.
Yawn. Just go away Bored Chemist.
I was a little restless tonight, woke up and was going to write a detailed response to post number 67 because by some miracle you managed to not send some lame insult or response, but thanks for reminding me why I don't take anything you say seriously. You are not clever.....at all. I'm done with you. Go back to intellectually bullying somebody who is still doubting themselves on their learning and intellectual journey like I've seen you do in other threads. You are talking to somebody who knows for a fact they are way out of your league. Now please go away so I continue the adult conversation with Kryptid.
Shouting "go away" is not what most people think of as "adult conversation".
It won't even distract people from the fact that you are plainly wrong, and you know it.
That's why you try to attack me- because you know that you can't actually address my point.
A photon is just a photon.
The thing it hits can't "know" if it came from an ant or a rock.
Get real dude. In spite of being twice my age you have not talked like an adult this entire time and your responses have been pure trash. You've been posting lame insults or responses that have NOTHING to do with what I'm talking about the whole time because that is all YOU have. Your responses are a joke. Maybe a lot of people on this site can't see that, but I am not one of those people.
And, when you have finished ranting ignorantly, it is still true that a photon from an ant is indistinguishable from a photon from a rock.
-
Yes you can. Now go away please. I'm not wasting my time trying to teach you Q.M.
-
To answer your question, photons replicate, then they carry little differences in their wavefunctions when they replicate. In normal geometries like an oven, they will indeed tend to adapt to the shape of the oven to an extent. For instance, if the oven has 2 meter walls, there will be more photons with wavelengths that are some integer of that wavelength. You could deduce that from the little cloning concept.
You Just make this silliness as you go along right? Sort of like a stream of consciousness fantasy.
-
Yes you can.
How?
-
Conventionally in modern science we keep physics and biology separate.
Not if you are a biophysicist, bioengineer, physiologist or medical physicist.
-
All things being equal, caloric intake will shorten lifespan.
Starve to life? Not a phrase we hear very often.
-
This thread is a perfect illustration of Max Plancks timeless quote. "Science advances one funeral at a time."
-
This thread is a perfect illustration of Max Plancks timeless quote. "Science advances one funeral at a time."
Magic photons aren't science.
-
This thread is a perfect illustration of Max Plancks timeless quote. "Science advances one funeral at a time."
Magic photons aren't science.
Isn't it wonderful how science looks like magic to those who don't understand it? That's what makes it so fun and interesting! Never lose that sense of wonder big guy ;)
-
All things being equal, caloric intake will shorten lifespan.
Starve to life? Not a phrase we hear very often.
Is this what you and boredchemist think biologists mean when they talk about the inverse relationship between caloric intake and lifespan of nearly all life on earth? That's so cute! Why don't you and boredchemist tell me some more cute stories about the 1700's. They are so charming!
-
Isn't it wonderful how science looks like magic to those who don't understand it?
And for fellows like you, made up magic looks like science. Your idea is laughable, there is nothing that even remotely supports your WAG.
-
Yes you can.
How?
Still waiting...
-
All things being equal, caloric intake will shorten lifespan.
Starve to life? Not a phrase we hear very often.
Is this what you and boredchemist think biologists mean when they talk about the inverse relationship between caloric intake and lifespan of nearly all life on earth? That's so cute! Why don't you and boredchemist tell me some more cute stories about the 1700's. They are so charming!
Here's what the data says.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(18)30288-2/fulltext#:~:text=Compared%20with%20individuals%20of%20healthy,years%20shorter%20in%20underweight%20women.
-
Isn't it wonderful how science looks like magic to those who don't understand it?
And for fellows like you, made up magic looks like science. Your idea is laughable, there is nothing that even remotely supports your WAG.
you are so cute! Is your birthday coming up?
-
All things being equal, caloric intake will shorten lifespan.
Starve to life? Not a phrase we hear very often.
Is this what you and boredchemist think biologists mean when they talk about the inverse relationship between caloric intake and lifespan of nearly all life on earth? That's so cute! Why don't you and boredchemist tell me some more cute stories about the 1700's. They are so charming!
Here's what the data says.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(18)30288-2/fulltext#:~:text=Compared%20with%20individuals%20of%20healthy,years%20shorter%20in%20underweight%20women.
You are so right bored chemist! Keeping your weight in check, that's not healthy! That's just fake news made up by big diet to sell diet pills! Nice science article to prove it!
-
All things being equal, caloric intake will shorten lifespan.
Starve to life? Not a phrase we hear very often.
Is this what you and boredchemist think biologists mean when they talk about the inverse relationship between caloric intake and lifespan of nearly all life on earth? That's so cute! Why don't you and boredchemist tell me some more cute stories about the 1700's. They are so charming!
Here's what the data says.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(18)30288-2/fulltext#:~:text=Compared%20with%20individuals%20of%20healthy,years%20shorter%20in%20underweight%20women.
You are so right bored chemist! Keeping your weight in check, that's not healthy! That's just fake news made up by big diet to sell diet pills! Nice science article to prove it!
Did you not look at the data, or did you not understand it?
Or did you just not tell the truth about it?
-
Isn't it wonderful how science looks like magic to those who don't understand it?
And for fellows like you, made up magic looks like science. Your idea is laughable, there is nothing that even remotely supports your WAG.
you are so cute! Is your birthday coming up?
Everybody's birthday is coming up.
-
I read it all, just like you read all my posts. You are saying that if you let your pitbull gorge however much people food it wants, it will live to be at least a 100! Neat stuff.
-
You are saying that if you let your pitbull gorge however much people food it wants, it will live to be at least a 100! Neat stuff.
you are hallucinating, neither I, nor anyone else here, said that.
Or was it just a lie?
-
You are saying that if you let your pitbull gorge however much people food it wants, it will live to be at least a 100! Neat stuff.
you are hallucinating, neither I, nor anyone else here, said that.
Or was it just a lie?
Okay you got me. I admit it, I was lying, I don't really think you read my posts.
-
I don't really think you read my posts.
Then you are a fool.
-
It really is a shame that I have to keep bringing this up:
2.Keep it friendly
Do not use insulting, aggressive, or provocative language.
If you feel another forum user is using insulting language, seek to calm things down, or if that fails, report the matter to the moderators. Under no circumstances should you seek to trade insults, or make accusatory remarks to that, or any other, forum user.
Show respect to other forum users. In particular, there are times when forum users might post about delicate personal issues. Please refrain from trivialising or making inappropriate remarks, or remarks that might embarrass the poster.