1

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

« on: 09/03/2022 13:54:44 »

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

No

What you said was correct;

Well, I guess that makes one of us.

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

Not really; ethylene glycol has them too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

2

New Theories / Sculpturing Life before conception

« on: 29/01/2022 20:00:06 »

Here is idea that came to me many years ago and might be an interesting topic. To explain it, consider a fertilized ovum. When the male and female genes merge after fertilization, the genes  are shuffled to create the combined DNA of the offspring. This shuffling can alter genetic priorities to get differences in children, even with all the children having the same parental DNA. Often the children come out with a spectrum of attributes to make the family complete.

The question I posed to myself was does this shuffling of genes have earlier precedent; before fertilization. If you look at a human egg, this has layers and layers of protein which are designed for the needs of growing a fertilized ovum. Could this protein matrix also contain the potential used for specific equilibrium shuffling of genes?

In other words, as an egg cell grows from scratch, the order that protein are synthesized and layered would be a information grid that defines the chemical potential sequence felt by the DNA of the cell. It is strong enough to force the extrusion of half the DNA. This means if we could design specific potentials into this grid, it can be used to separate the female DNA a given way as well as shuffle the combined DNA after fertilization, a given way.

Could the brain, through nervous tissue, help 3-D print the layering sequence of the original egg, to get desired outcomes; Female DNA separation and fertilized egg DNA shuffling priorities? 

The connection between brain and cellular sculpting is easier to see if you include water since all organic shapes are based on equilibrium in water. Cationic signals from the brain to nervous tissue and sensory nerves, could set an external water equilibrium when the egg is growing. Nervous tissue is also part of our cellular differentiation control system; smart tissue. The same DNA can become all types of cells with the nervous tissue maintaining differentiation and equilibrium.   

3

New Theories / Energy and Reference Frames

« on: 16/01/2022 17:10:05 »

Say we added a fixed amount energy to stationary object. It achieves a final known velocity. All  relative frames of references, to that original frame, will not be valid when doing an energy balance. Relative velocity may work for velocity, but energy is not relative, since it is part of a universal energy balance.

For example, we have a train that burned X gallons of fuel, to achieve a final velocity of 50mph. It drives past a train station, where a sitting man assumes all frames are relative. He assumes he is moving and the train is stationary. Will both calculate the known energy balance; actual fueled used, based on their own frame?

The answer is the man at the station will calculate too little energy, since his mass and his assumed relative velocity, inputted into 1/2MV2 will be way too low. He will violated energy conservation. The train will calculate the correct amount. Relative frames have a narrow limit of application. It works better if we avoid any energy balance. An energy illusion can appear from velocity.

Say the man continues to believe he was the preferred frame; easiest for him to use, due to the assumption of relative frames. We tell him the answer to the energy balance was X amount of fuel. His calculation says much less than that. But since all frames are relative he tries to explain the difference as being due to the extra energy having been transformed into something else that is still being conserved. It is out here, but not easy to see; He may call it shadow energy and say it is another dimension. He will never see this in the lab, since this is not real, but it is needed due to misuse of relative frames in the light of energy conservation.

4

New Theories / Momentum and Kinetic Energy

« on: 13/01/2022 14:34:02 »

This is an extension of two other topics on this subject. I would have posted this within those other topics, but for some reason when I log into those topics, I am redirected or hijacked to a parallel abridged version of the web site. In this parallel site less posts are shown. The site does not update.

If I log out and act as a guest, I can see the entire topic on this site. If I log back in, I get the abridged version. I had this problem when I moved a few months ago. I was using free wifi until my internet service was reconnected. I was vulnerable to someone who was redirecting me to their phony web site. But I caught on early and I had to be selective. 

I can shed some light on this topic, but I will need to start fresh, since those two original topics have me side detoured to who knows where and why. 

Momentum is defined MV or is mass times velocity. Say we had a mass of 10 and a velocity of 10, we get a momentum of 10x 10 = 100. If we have a mass of 5 and a velocity of 20 we also get a momentum of 100; 5 X 20=100.

If we plug these same values of mass and velocity into the kinetic energy equation 1/2MV2, the first scenario gives the result of 1/2MV2= 1/2 x10 x 100 = 500. The second gives a result 1/2 MV2 = 1/2 x 5 x 400  =1000.

In this scenario, the although the momenta are equal, the kinetic energy is double for the second scenario. The same momentum does not create the same kinetic energy in all cases. One can cherry pick to make this so. This result although odd, is expected, since the velocity is squared in the kinetic energy equation, thereby giving more weight to velocity change, than to the mass change. I halved the mass, but I then doubled or square the velocity. The result slanted toward the velocity side. 

If we do a more complete energy balance, and we also look at mass using E=MC2.  Mass contains a huge amount of enthalpy or internal energy. Doubling the mass will more that make up, in total energy, for the difference in the square of velocity. However, since mass is very stable and this energy is not easy to extract in motion phenomena, we rarely need to take this into account, when doing a working energy balance. Even  the doubled Kinetic energy in my example does not represent  a complete energy balance, since most of the energy is in the form of doubling the unchanging mass. What is interesting in GR deals with the mass energy while SR deals with the impact of the velocity based energy. They are dealt with separately. 

If you compare the dimensions of momentum to force; MV to MV/t or Md/t to Md/t/t,  force differs from momentum, by an extra unit of time. Force is essentially is momentum divided by time.

Work is defined as force times distance; Fd or a force applied over a distance d. This extra unit of distance, added to force, has the units of energy. Or F=Mv/t times d, has the same units as kinetic energy; 1/2Md2/t2. The dimensional analysis all adds up. To get force and kinetic energy from momentum we need to add an extra unit of time and then an extra unit of distance, which causes other types of phenomena to appear.

Momentum and Kinetic Energy differ by one extra unit of time and one extra unit of distance. To  experimentally retrieve and measure the kinetic energy, imply by any given momentum, we need to create a force situation in time; MV/t; force impulse or collusion, that might be transferred over a distance d, to measure the kinetic energy. An object in motion; momentum, will not change unless acted upon by a force;  extra time unit.

If we look at a red shift or Doppler shift, this phenomena is connected to velocity in general and relative velocity, in particulate. Whereas, kinetic energy is velocity squared. The second velocity that makes kinetic energy different, from momentum, is connected to the time associated with a force and the distance associated with work. This is not exactly, another velocity, even if the units add up.

The latter is connected to a time impulse; time potential, and distance potential, acting sequentially, and not as a formal velocity, even though these have the same dimensions. The energy change of a red shift is not the same a change simple relative velocity since the energy change has other factors; two sequential dimensions on top of that.

A better way to write kinetic energy, is MV₁ times 1/2V₂, with V₁ and V₂ not always equal. The energy change of the red shift may not be the same as the change; difference, in momentum based velocity. In my first example it was twice.

5

New Theories / How are statistics consistent with a quantum universe?

« on: 31/10/2021 18:51:44 »

A quantum universe is composed of distinct quanta with quantum gaps between. In that respect probability is either 1.0 or 0.0. These are two discontinuous places in statistics. This is why I was wondering if anyone can explain how statistical theory is consistent with quantum theory?

As an example, Astral Physics relies of atomic energy emissions to calculate the Doppler shift and rate and age of universe expansion. Atomic emissions are expected to be very exact quanta, based on the conditions. They are not subject to the odds of dice or cards. If these emission were under statistical laws the age and size of the universe would change each day or be expressed as an average. Instead we assume the emission quanta maintain probability of 1.0, with the observed deviations, not due to odds, but due to relative motion; velocity. How is statistical theory consistent with quantum theory when they go different ways?

In my opinion statistics is not consistent with quantum theory but rather lingers in science due its practical value; tool.  An analogies would be Newtonian Physics being less accurate and pure than that of Einstein, yet is it still widely used because it is easier to use in practical reality. It is not pure but it is still very useful.

Another analogy is we know the earth is not flat but is closer to 3-D spherical. However, Google maps almost entirely represents the earth in 2-D, like a flat earth. There is very limited use of 3-D mapping even though the earth is 3-D. The 2-D is easier to apply under common conditions even if the flat earth theory is obsolete. We level a house in 2-D during construction even though the earth is round.

I would guess statistics is in the same boat relative to quantum theory. It is not consistent with what we know about a quantum universe, however it has a loyal following of flat earth people, who still find it to be practical and useful in day to day life. This is why I ask how is statistics consistent with a quantum universe? Nobody has made an attempt to explain how. 

6

New Theories / Puppypower's assertions on brains

« on: 15/09/2021 13:45:22 »

The brain has software, hardware and firmware. Placing a probe in the hardware of the brain will  not give you all the needed information to determine choice and determinism. The analogy is placing a probe inside a computer's hardware, while various software is running. What is going to happen depends on the software.There is more going on in the brain than what the hardware does. Consciousness is closer to software, albeit assisted by hardware via firmware.

For example, pain level is not an easy thing for doctors to determine in terms of their patients. This causes problems in terms of prescribing drugs for pain. Pain can be different in different people under the same circumstances. It can also be faked by some for free drugs.

A probe into hardware of the body, where the pain appears to originate, cannot tell us pain level. The nuance of pain level requires the consciousness of the patient, telling the doctor  what they feel, from the inside. Consciousness is like a probe to the software. There is inside data being generated in the brain that cannot be seen from the outside. This data is real, but the doctor cannot always verify it from the outside. The philosophy of science breaks down when it comes to consciousness, since third person data alone is not complete.

Say you were a scientist, who has volunteered to be brain hardware probed, to see where in the brain and body the pain is centered. The other scientists in this study, will follow the philosophy of science and look at your brain hardware response, in the third person, detached from any pain. You as the test subject will be inflected with various types of pain; drill a tooth. You as the test subject will get to experience pain from the inside your own body. Your job is to relate the software and firmware extrapolations, on your mind and body, in the first person.

You may see lots of data processing occurring from the direction of nerve pulses to memories of the past. If the pain is too severe, you may not be able remain fully objective and do you job. This is why doctors are not allowed to operate on themselves. It is different from the inside. The first person data is not the same as the third person data and can impact the focus of consciousness since consciousness may have to process too much data. 

There is more going besides what the third person science hardware probe will see. However, inside data; first hand software and firmware data, is not exactly reproducible. In the case of pain, different test subjects will see it differently. This data is objective to each person but it is subjective as a group; both objective and subjective. However, this type of data is also needed to make the analysis complete, even though this first hand firmware and software data does not fully obey the philosophy of science. There is no machine or fellow human who can verify you and reproduce your exact results. Hardware science of the brain is half baked at best, and should be understood as only part of the data needed to fully define the phenomena of consciousness. Third hand data approach of science is good for looking at a rock, since a rock does not think.

The two centers of consciousness may not be easily seen with only a hardware approach. These are not localized affects, but are wired throughout the brain to allow the integrated affects that we attribute to consciousness; firmware. However, they do appear to come to a focus at the level of firmware and software. This inference requires inside data from the first person since software is not the same as hardware, and needs a software approach to see it. 

If I was to guess, the inner self would be wired into the center of the brain; thalamus region. The thalamus is the most wired part of the brain. It is the central switching station and it merges input and output from all parts of the brain. Making use of the most wired  part of the brain would make most sense in terms of natural selection; inner self consciousness. This would allow the inner self to have its finger in all pies; firmware on top of hardware.

The ego center appears to be more located in the cerebral matter. The inner self is firmware while the learned knowledge of the ego, implies that the ego is partial firmware but also software based. Both centers can be active and integrated at the same time, via input and output loops from the thalamus. With the thalamus as the central switching station, software command lines from the ego; walk, will go to the thalamus, where long term natural wiring patterns allow the body to integrate the walk, with little ego support needed, besides steering.

7

Just Chat! / Religious split from Free-Will thread

« on: 11/09/2021 13:53:48 »

[Mod edit: Religious assertions split from here: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=83046]

Humans differ from animals in that humans have free will and choice. This contrast between animal and human is the original definition within the bible. Humans were considered higher than animals; extra capacity. It is based on animals having natural instinct; species determinism, and humans losing their natural instinct, in favor of other choices. How many humans do you know who are completely natural like a tiger in the wild?

Humans are not restricted to instinctive determinism. For example, in the wild all animals evolve by natural selection. When animals, like dogs live with humans, dogs evolve by artificial selection. This is not instinctive or predetermined by nature and the instincts of the dog, but often depends on the subjectivity of the breeders; puffy fur. 

The reason for this difference is humans have two centers of consciousness; inner self and ego. Animals have one center of consciousness; inner self. The inner self is much older, with all animals, including humans, having an inner self. The inner self is connected to the brain's operating system. It is species depended, based on species DNA. In humans, the inner self is the center of consciousness that defines natural human propensities, common to all humans; human nature.

The ego is much newer and appeared about 6-10K years ago. The ego center is more about learned knowledge; education. Human nature and the inner self is inherent in all humans. Learned knowledge and the ego is often cultural dependent; more limited. The ego has a connection to rise of civilization about 6-10K years ago. Civilization turned natural living on its head, since it required new learned choices that may not be natural or from the inner self. It also involved changes in population density.

For example, before civilization the pre-humans; humans with only an inner self, were migratory herders and gatherers. Civilization required they stop in one place; farming, while not gathering until the food was ripe. The need for immobility, created a conflict with tens of thousands of years of instinctive traditions within the inner self. This unnatural action required learned knowledge, will power and choice, since it did not follow smoothly from the inner self and any previous instinct based on eons of natural selection.

In the bible, in the story of Cain and Abel, Cain was a farmer and Abel was a herder of animals. When Cain kills Abel, farming supersedes migratory herding. In the story, this event is not treated as a thing to celebrate, since God banishes Cain. Cain's ego-centric choice; farming, messed up instinct and the inner self. But Cain is protected and the ego continues.

When discussing will power and free choice, I get the impression very people few seem to be aware that there are two centers of consciousness. Most appear to assume there is one center; ego. In this common assumption, the ego is connected to the unconscious mind, which processes the data for the ego at an unconscious level; hunch. The ego gets the hunch output, therefore the ego choice is actually determinism.

The addition of a second center changes this equation, since the ego is more like a self contained computer terminal that can process data consciously and unconsciously, apart from the mainframe of the inner self and instinct. However, the mainframe has more processing capacity. One can get ego-centric determinism, but this will not necessarily be inner self determinism. With two centers, there is a level of extra level free will and choice, even with ego-centric determinism; fad following that is unhealthy. 

For example, the new gender fad is purely ego-centric. It has nothing to do with the inner self. It is more about a subroutine; semi-determinism, connected to the ego; choice and willpower. All the new pronouns are based on learned behavior. These help egos fine tune choices.

These dynamics are not new, but appears to be connected to the ego decorating the body, to make it appear different from natural; will and choice. We do this with clothes. Humans are fairly plain in terms of natural outward decoration. We may have different skin color but not much in the way of elaborate decoration.

The ego saw the beautiful decorations of the animals; leopard, so they would choose to copy this apart from the genetic offering by the inner self; plain. Some do this with body piercing and other so it with tattoos and tattoo murals. These decorate the plain human body in ways that our DNA does not. This is for the ego and not the inner self. The inner self is deeper.

The gender fad is a more complex composite of body decorating, beyond natural. It is part body and part software; choice and will, via the personal unconscious. This terminal approach to choice, may be useful to the ego, but it can poses problems for the inner self.

8

New Theories / Political split from: Does admitted atheist Neil deGrasse Tyson, actually believe in God?

« on: 02/08/2021 12:12:03 »

The simulation argument is generally attributed to Nick Bostrom.  It was presented as a Philosophy paper in about 2003.

I can see where this is a fun philosophy question, I fail to see how this is physics.
Maybe the universe is a simulation.    Maybe God created  the universe.  There is no evidence of either of those.

We create our own reality in the sense we perceive reality the way we expect or hope is should be.  For example, humans have viewed the universe in many different ways over the centuries. The BB was not the only simulation over the history of humans. Reality did not change, but our perception of reality changed with time.

Dark matter and dark energy were not always part of this current science simulation. Although this assessory package was offered decades in advance, but rejected early in BB simulation. Back then it was too perfect to be messed with. At each step of the way, the simulation that was in vogue; such as before using the dark matter and energy assessory package, was considered the true reality, until it is replaced by the newest truest reality with assessories. We have never seen dark matter or dark energy in the lab to know if this is real, or imaginary, but that does not matter since this is the newest truest reality.

The question should become, since consciousness is what accepts and rejects the latest truest reality, and the brain generates the neural matrix on which consciousness appears and/or flows, does the brain operate like a computer, or rather do computers try to mimic the brain, helping to add fodder for neural simulations?

Science fiction tends to use machines and average humans with fancy clothes and weapons in its simulations. In essence, it tries to factor out the brain and neural simulations. It appears the idea of neural simulation is scarier than assuming machines, with plugs, are responsible.You may not be able to unplugged the brain without unplugging yourself. Even the science fiction idea of moving consciousness and memory to a robot and/or computer is about the same fear. If the machine goes haywire we can replace it. Religion took the brain head on and explains the subroutines of the matrix; as coming from divine places; neural firmware,  and these control reality as we saw it.

As an example of large scale collective simulation via individual neural matrixes, consider US politics, starting in 2016. The Russian Collusion delusion simulation fooled half the American population into seeing reality in a strange and bizarre way. It was hard to convince them otherwise, until the simulation ran its course and was disrupted by hard reality. Sometimes these simulations are started in the brain's of diabolical people, who then infect others through unconscious transfer. It is good to know how the brain works, so you can stand outside these herd simulations and enjoy the spectacle. However, the crazy mob can do damage along the way.

A good example of how these simulations can even get the better of a common sense in common sense people, is the latest simulation from the American political left, that convinced their herd that defunding police in crime infested Democrat run cities, will make it safer. It sounds like I am making that one up, but look at the news.  Common sense data has not been able to clear the collective head of that simulation. The hard reality data is coming in, and this should work to help unplugged the simulation, but the program is still running for many. There are no machines involved and reality data is not enough to clear the head. Religion would blamed this on the firmware called Satan, which is one of the main matrixes for irrational and dangerous simulations.

These simulations are getting more common and appear to be assisted by machines such as computers, TV's and the internet. All the fake news seems to feed the Satan firmware where lies and illusions are easiest to induce. Science appears in the black about this, since the atheist simulation does not allow one to look, where you need to look, to see reality.

Another good example of this interconnected affect of technology and neuron inductionare guns and violence. Guns are inanimate objects yet many think guns control people from the outside, like smart machines in science fiction; rise of the robots. We need to fight and remove the gun robots to prevent them from firing by themselves. In reality the person who uses guns to get their way is living an internal simulation where might is right and the ends justify the means. This also comes from the Satan firmware, which has a connection to willpower and choice. Alternate simulations, apart from natural reality and instinct offers a matrix to leave instinct in favor of alternate choices even without knowing it. It can still feel real and natural to the unconscious person. They do bot think they have left but this is instinct to them; pathology that is a type of semi-natural choice via free will.

9

New Theories / The redwood trees of California

« on: 25/07/2021 16:47:35 »

The redwood trees of California are unique due to their size and location. They thrive in an area that is not plentiful in terms of ground water. The question was how did they grow so large even with the limited ground water available?

A study was done and what was found is that redwoods get most of their water through their leaves. Their main source of water comes as a continual fog and mist from the Pacific Ocean and not due to rain. Most trees have to pump water upward against gravity, using capillary action. This takes energy maintaining ionic gradients. The redwoods save energy by using gravity to help their input water flow down from their leaves to their roots.

This led to the theory that ancient trees may have used water the same way as redwoods, since this is the easiest way; uses gravity to its advantage instead of disadvantage. This path may have been connected to the global warming common to earlier times in our earth's history, when life was huge.

A hotter earth,  during the age of dinosaurs, would evaporate more surface water causing more water in the atmosphere. Warm air can hold more water at equilibrium. These humid conditions made it easier for leaves to absorb water and water to flow down trees, instead of up trees. The roots would see large hydraulic pressures from above. They would spread out and moisten the ground around itself to solubilize minerals. It is a very simple design.

As the earth cooled, the atmospheric moisture lowered and tree roots had to do more of the work to get the needed water; natural selection. The redwoods have a unique location that simulates the world of an earlier time. Food for thought.

10

New Theories / The similarity of chlorophyl and hemoglobin

« on: 21/04/2021 12:09:17 »

I pondering the similarity between chlorophyl, used for photosynthesis, and the heme aspect of hemoglobin, that is used for the transport of oxygen in the blood. The chemical structures are shown below. As you can see, these are very similar and differ primarily by the central metal ions. This topic is about how these metal ions differ and how this difference can impart very different properties to similar organic structures.



Chlorophyl is much older and came first in terms of evolution. Chlorophyl is photoactive and uses photons from the sun to generate a high energy electron, that will ultimately be used to store solar energy as reduced sugars. The central metal atom, Magnesium; Mg, has the electron configuration of 1S2, 2S2, 2P6,3S2. It typically loses its two 3S2 electrons to become the Mg+2 ion. Mg is very reactive. If you ever burned Mg ribbon it is very hot and bright. The Mg wants to lose its two extra electrons and becomes the stable 1S2, 2S2, 2P6 configuration used by oxide O-2.

When the Mg+2 ion is placed in the center of the chlorophyl molecule, the four nitrogen atoms share electrons with the Mg+2. The four nitrogen atoms are also part of the larger overall resonance structure, where electrons are delocalized throughout the expansive ring structure, switching double bonds back and forth. The electron sharing by the four nitrogen, with Mg+2, is intermittent depending on the coordinated resonance movement of the ring electrons. While the positive charge on the central Mg, helps to stabilize the resonance structure by accepting electrons from nitrogen, so the four nitrogen can also participate in the resonance.

Another important affect of the election sharing of nitrogen, with Mg+2, is to reduce the Mg+2, more to less, back to the metal atom; Mg, but in a way that is intermittent in terms of its empty 3p orbitals. This sharing creates sort of a covalently bonded metal atom.

A photon that impinges anywhere upon the chlorophyl molecule, will energize the ring structure and thereby energize the central Mg. In this case, the central Mg to force it to have too much electron density; up to Mg-1. This is unstable for Mg, and results in the release of an electron that can then be used further down stream.

The situation with the heme molecule is similar. Iron; Fe, has an electron configuration of 1S2, 2S2, 2P6,3S2, 3P6, 3D6, 4S2. Iron can lose it's two 4S2 electrons plus one of its 3D electrons, to form ferrous and ferric ions; Fe+2 and Fe+3, respectively. This losing of electrons by iron is not as exothermic as with Mg. As, such the four attached nitrogen, and energy tweaks to the resonance structure, do not lead to the exothermic expulsion of an electron in Fe. Instead the iron can share O2 electrons, while also sharing with the nitrogen. The latter is with the d-orbital.

One may also notice chlorophyl has some extra carbon at the bottom right. The chlorophyl has some extra electron releasing groups. Since heme does no have these, its resonance electrons are held slightly tighter against accidental excitement by photons.

Analysis has shown that the central Fe of heme is in the ferric state Fe+3. Photons that could excite the resonance ring structure, have an extra place for an excited electron compared to Mg. It can share iron's empty 3D orbital, until the energy dissipates. Since hemoglobin is usually hidden in the dark, this extra electron space becomes reserved for O2. Fe is able to multitask. The heme works with O2 but it does work with CO2, since the central carbon of CO2 is electron releasing and will excite the heme's Fe+3, and this will kick off the CO2.

11

New Theories / Water and Life

« on: 19/03/2021 11:11:04 »

Water is the most studied substance in all of science. There are more published science papers written about water that any other material. Part of the appeal, even today, is that water turns out to be the most anomalous substance in all of nature. It displays over 70 different behaviors, and counting, that buck the trends found in other materials. For example, water expands when it freezes and hot water can freeze faster than cold water.

Water is a small molecule that is a very stable terminal product of combustion. Yet its hydrogen bonding network  is very dynamic and is responsible for water's anomalous nature. Water is very stable at the primary covalent bonding level, due to strong oxygen and hydrogen bond, but it is still very dynamic at the secondary bonding level; hydrogen bonding. Water provides a matrix where the hydrogen protons become dynamic.

If we were to burn life, like in a forest fire, all the fancy organics would break down into gases and charcoal. The water from life would vaporize and lose its secondary bonding dynamics but it would still remain water.  Water was there before life, and has not changed or been altered by life or  nature. It remains forever the same. These properties of water make it the cornerstone of life. Water can impart additional properties to the molecules of life, via its secondary bonding network, to create the state we call life.

If place DNA in water, the DNA becomes bioactive. If we removed the water and/or replaced the water with any other solvent, DNA would remain inert, no longer functioning. The same is true of protein and RNA. Their life dynamics depend on water's secondary bonding network. However,  the dynamics of water is not dependent on any of these organics.

Water was the nano environment for the evolution of life from scratch, with the hydrogen bonding network of water running the molecular selection process. This is inferred by the observation that none of the active biomaterial of life work without water. Water picked the team, that could work with it. Evolution is not about random events, but about milestones with respect to water.

Modern biology is still too dependent on random assumptions and statistical modeling. This gambling and whims of the god approach is needed because the logic of water is not fully understood, in biology, resulting in empirical theory that lacks full understand of that one stable eternal cornerstone variable that was always there, and which makes everything work.
 

12

New Theories / Are positive and negative charge equal and opposite?

« on: 05/03/2021 13:26:00 »

If you look at fundamental particles; quarks, the electron is considered a separate particle. While the proton is composed of several particles. If you look closer, since electrons have mass and negative charge, but are only one particle, does that mean that negative charge can merge with mass to become one indistinguishable thing? If the electron was shown to be two particles, the conclusion would be different, more in line with traditions of charge being equal and opposite.

The implication is the electron is a one particle state of mass-negative charge. The electron cannot go the speed of light. The formation of a single mass-negative charge particle, will forever restrict negative charge to below the speed of light.

The positive charge of the proton is treated as separate from the mass, albeit forming a composite of particles. This means positive and negative are not equal in all respects, but are still opposite in the sense of mass able to form one particle with negative charge much easier.

One may say the positron is similar to the electron. However, the steady state of the universe shows that the negative charge-mass particle is way more stable, which is why it was left standing at almost 100%, even though the universe began as matter and anti-matter. While positive charge was also the main final product, forming a composite with larger mass. This would be easer to do, if they were slightly different from right from scratch.

The statistical approach, often used, bets on the long short. Even the worse horse wins sometimes, But the final data of every race; best overall record, is usually a better choice for betting. But for some reason physics prefers the long shot to perpetuate 1900's tradition, that is not consistent with 20th century experiments. The 20th century data show negative charge can exist with mass as one happy particle, that is so stable, the best accelerators and colliders cannot break it down any  further. A positron can be broken down at room temperature.

Does that stability of the negative charge-mass particle; electron, imply that negative charge is the interface to mass and gravity, since they can behave as one highly stable particle by reinforcing each other through a common interface.

.

13

New Theories / Climate Change

« on: 04/03/2021 20:28:01 »

The new spooky definition of climate change appeared shortly after the data of global warming was sent up the flag pole and not enough people saluted. The reason for the limited salute was global warming was a clear cut concept, and even though it could be proven to have risen by 1 degree globally, this amount seemed too trivial. We see more than this every night to day. It did not seem to be a big deal.

Therefore, a new marketing program began and a new flag was run up the pole called climate change. This is far more nebulous than global warming, and therefore easier for manipulation and sales.The new branding appears to have worked better, since it has plenty of unknowns and this can activate the imagination and pander to the inner fears of doom sayers and the free market needs of high tech clairvoyants

What I would like to do is talk about climate, but in more the traditional, matter of fact way, without any doom and gloom attached, to see if we have climate change, relative to long time conventional standards before doom and gloom.

If you like growing exotic plants around the yard, the types of species you can safely grow is dependent on your climate. I live in a temperate climate. There are also subtropical and tropical climates that are good for growing. This break down of global climate has not changed, in 100 years, since I still cannot grow plants from other climates, while and the plants for my temperate climate still grow fine. I keep waiting for my temperate climate to change to subtropical, so I can grow southern plants, but this has not happened. I get upset, since I was promised climate change. So what are they talking about?

Let me break it down even more, I live in the North East, USA, where my temperate climate has four seasons. Many people who live here, save and retire, choose a change of climate; willful climate change, and move to Florida or Arizona. But if you stay in place and retire here, waiting for  climate change you still have the same temperate climate with four seasons. Climate change is not cooperating with this standard, either. If you want a change of climate, for retirement this requires choice, moving and some savings.

In New England, where I live, we have four seasons. I have never witnessed the same day of the year, on another year, being exactly the same as that day on a different year. Some years on March 4, we have two feet of snow from a "nor easter'. Other years it is cold with a large lingering snow cover. On other years, on the same day, it is 70 degrees and the early flowers are coming up. This year it is clear, with some snow cover, but in the teens at night. Is this constant change for any given day of the year, man made climate change or is this normal? I think change is normal and should not to be feared, but the branding implores that any change is bad and is leading to a global disaster. Maybe the problem is the new climate change uses a new definition that is not classic. Maybe if I knew what they define as climate change, it would make sense.

What tends to happen in weather science is the change, year after year, for this day of the year is lumped into average values for that day, along with the extremes of high and low, by the weather people. This appears to create a misconception, especially for the younger audience, that each day of the year, over the past 100 year is the same; average, and the normal changes old timers are we used to seeing, is now somehow connected climate change b deviating from the average  The old song is performed for a new audience, who thinks this is new, until an old timer points it out as an old song with a different voice.

Maybe we can get some of the weather stations to show the past 100 years of data, for any given day, to show the audience that clones of days, would be climate change, since the data rarely repeats for any given day. We may not even find two days of the year with the same temperature, pressure, humidity, cloud cover, dynamic wind speed/direction, rain, snow, cloud types, solar UV output, and time of day for spikes in any parameter.  If we did this the "new" flag would be lowered to half mask, before it is folded and retired.

14

New Theories / Doppler shift and Entropy

« on: 01/03/2021 12:58:42 »

Let me set up this topic with a practical example. Say we start with a train that is stationary and sounds it horn. Everyone, from any angle, will hear the same pitch. Next, we have a same train moving along a track. It again sounds it's horn. Because of the velocity and direction of motion and the resultant Doppler shift, anyone standing in front of the train, will hear a higher pitch; blue shift. Anyone standing behind the train will hear a lower pitch; red shift. While anyone standing aside the train will hear no change of pitch; original wave.

Although this makes sense and can demonstrated, once the sound waves leave the train, and propagate outward without any further train motion induction, do the spherical sound waves from the horn, forever remain egg shaped, because of the motion?  In other words, if we step backward, forward or away perpendicular, the ratios of pitch change stay the same; egg wave.

Next, how do these egg shaped waves impact wave addition when they encounter spherical waves, that are not egg shaped? Can the egg waves add to the spherical waves to give a false positive for motion, via the composite wave? If not, is the egg wave more of a multi-reference induced illusion? Or is there another explanation?

The title is Doppler Shift and Entropy. I included the concept of entropy, since this can be used as a way to address the final question. When entropy increases. energy is absorbed. This would be analogous to a red shift, since the transformed wave has less energy value than the original wave. Things are spreading out into a more open state of higher entropy; train moves away.

The blue shift would mean gaining energy, due to the lowering of entropy, and the release of energy. This is added to the observed wave. Things are getting closer into a state of lower entropy lie water becoming ice; exothermic. These equal and opposite affects should be a wash since energy cannot be destroyed.

One reference will experience lower entropy and the other reference will experience higher entropy, without any net change of free energy, This zero change of entropy should not allow any net change during wave addition. Change will imply creating or destroying energy using egg wave addition.

The question comes back do the egg shaped waves implicit of Doppler shift adding to circular waves where there is no motion, to form a false positive of motion. Is this observed, or does entropy normalization rule so this is not observed? 

I like thinking outside the box and I thought everyone would like to experience outside the box  starting at the front door. One does not have to leave the box but can open the front door and look out to see it is nice place to be.

15

New Theories / Why do quarks, last less time, outside the composites particles they make?

« on: 26/01/2021 12:11:57 »

If you look at the proton, as an example, this composite particle can last for billions of years. The proton is composed of subunits called quarks. If we release the quarks from a proton, the released quarks do not last as very long; less than a fraction of a second. But if the quarks remain contained in the proton they can last as long as the proton.  Why do quarks drastically lose life expectancy, if they leave the composites they occupy?

If we go the other way, atoms are made up of protons, electrons and neutrons. If we separate atoms into their components, only the neutrons will show a shorter life expectancy outside the atom composite; neutron decay. The proton and electron continue to exist for billions of years; longer than atoms. If we release the quarks from the proton, all their life expectancies become very brief. Why?

 t would be like building a stone wall with field stones. If we knock out any stone from the composite wall, that stone will disappear almost immediately. If we could add it back before it disappears, it can last for centuries in the walls or until the wall falls.

Years ago, I pondered this question, and would like to present two possible explanations. The first  explanation is connected to time dilation. Protons were formed at a time when the universe was denser, and had higher gravity and average GR affects. The quarks existed then and had the same life brief expectancy as they do now. However, at that time they were highly time dilated due to GR, when they formed the proton. This time dilation was retained inside the composite. Once you break the composite, the time dilation is lost, and their clocks speed up.

Another explanation is that the energy that particle colliders add, to split a proton, adds energy to the quarks and alters their phase, such that what we see are not the same quarks states as in a low energy protons. At the very least, we add relativistic mass and EM energy, due to high velocity in magnetic fields, which then adds something to the composite not found in protons at ambient conditions. We end up with unstable sub particles.

16

New Theories / Corona virus and mask wearing.

« on: 13/01/2021 13:40:10 »

I was recently doing some basic reading on immunity and I read that all our various body fluids, from blood to saliva, all contain aspects of our immune system. The question I have; can these various fluids in healthy people, who are resistant to the corona virus, be used to spread immune factors to other people by simple social contact? If I was healthy and the virus did not bother me, can I use pepper to help me sneeze out immune factors for others?

If you got the virus, and you were better the next day, that means your body can grid down the virus to where it cannot root and even create basic symptoms. This means it is dead and spread in your body fluids. Your fluids should be rich in damaged virus parts, and other immune factors, that rendered it moot for you and others.

If you consider immediate families who live together, they do not have to wear masks at home, while together. They get to share and spread immune factors to each other via body fluids and close contact. This appears to be safe, effective and free. Socially, this is not allowed. Is the collective mask wearing  due to medicine not being advanced enough to determine who is vulnerable, and who is the cure, so as to attack the problem from two fronts?  Instead we choose one size fits all, since immunity is all a black box, and there is no money in herd immunity.

17

Just Chat! / Political split from topic about Darwinism

« on: 18/09/2020 12:01:01 »

Just a suggestion, but your thesis would be easier to read if you broke up those huge paragraphs into many smaller paragraphs. This helps you and your audience, by giving smaller mouthfuls to chew and digest. If there is too much at once,  you have to stuff your mouth and cannot swallow never mind digest.

One thing that is more significant than Darwinism is the religious and philosophical concepts of free will and choice. Darwinism will lead to natural selection, while choice and free will allows some room to deviate away from natural selection. This adds a wild card to the blend that is more than just random. It can also influence the selection process of Darwinism away from natural selection.

For example, in nature most animals are fit and trim and for the most part, they are immune to most local diseases This is based on selection over many generations. Humans, via choice, do not select the most fit but, rather devote more resources to the less fit and sick. This choice departs from natural selection and Darwinism. One result is now  there are more people with allergies than ever before. This is not based on Darwinism.

Nature is real and its workings obey natural laws and the laws of science. This makes the environment casual and predictable for life. Humans, by choice, can lie and cheat, For example  the Democrat party in the USA, substitutes fake news for truth, causing poor judgement calls not found in nature or natural selection. There is no other living species that routinely aborts itself by anti darwin criteria. Darwin chooses fitness, but abortion choose death to all. This has an impact on the future of the Darwinism potential, since these willful changes make natural selection deviate from natural.

With power and choice I can bodybuilder and change my physique away from what it should be,  naturally, based on my DNA. The skinny 130 pound man can become 200 pounds of muscle. Left to its own devices my DNA and body would go back over time, However, with sustained will I can add something extra to my body that is not part of my natural genetic makeup. This can cause temporal selection via Darwinism, that may not be engrained in future genetics. It is a product of my willpower and when that is gone, what is driving the feign genetic potential also goes.

Presidential candidate Biden is suffering from dementia, yet the fake news and Hollywood is trying to create a faux image of a man in his prime who can lead the country. This pretend can temporally  influence the expected Darwinian potential ,and lead it down the wrong road. All you need is enough dumb people to be fooled by this.

This is like going to a mating olympics, where the male animals are competing for dominance and breeding rights. We willfully take a diseased male, and inject him with pep pills, so he has enhanced performance for a few hours. This is long enough to fool the system. He gets to mate and pass forward second tier genetics as a substitute for natural selection.

18

New Theories / The Entropic Force; 5th force of nature.

« on: 10/06/2020 12:01:13 »

I would like to start a topic connected to the fifth force of nature . This fifth force of nature is generated by entropy, so I have called it the entropic force. The entropic force is much less common than the other four force and appears to be limited to the liquid state. An example can be seen via the natural biological affect called osmosis. Based on this natural example, the force has also been called the life force since it is naturally connected to water and life.

In osmosis, as shown below, two chambers of water are separated by a semi-permeable membrane. One chamber begins with has a higher concentration of solute, such as ions. The ions are impermeable through the membrane, but the water can freely diffuse through the membrane in both directions. The affect observed will be the water from the lower solute side, moving through the membrane, into the higher solute side, generating a pressure head. Pressure is defined as force/area, with the entropic force/area equal to the pressure head.



In Chemistry there is a small subset of chemical properties called colligative properties. These properties only apply to the liquid state and solutions. They are not common gases and solids. A colligative property behaves like an ideal solution. It is only dependent on the number of solute molecules, but not on the character of these solute molecules. The number of molecules or ions, no matter what they may be, will all generate the same osmotic pressure. it is not dependent on the EM force. It is driven by something else.

There are four colligative properties; boiling point elevation, freezing point depression, vapor pressure lowering and osmosis. These four affects all interface the liquid state, with the liquid state having its own unique physics. In all cases, colligative properties are driven by entropy, since the character of the solute is not critical to the affect. This factors out the EM force, which does give specific character to positive or negative ions or neutral materials like sugar.

The increase in entropy, during osmosis, lowers the free energy of the system thereby stabilizing the solutions. Whether it is melting point depression, boiling point elevation or vapor pressure lowering, it takes more energy to reverse the process thereby elevating these affects. Gibbs Free energy is defined as G=H-TS, with H= enthalpy and entropy=S. The entropy (times Temperature=T) term is connected to a minus free energy affect. As entropy increase this  lowers the free energy, making its system more stable. This makes it hard to melt, boil or vaporize.

In the case of osmosis, the entropic force generated by entropy also lowers the free energy of the two component system, while also resulting in a balancing pressure head, that is defined by the entropic force/area. Life makes use of this natural force, which is an exclusive artifact of liquid state physics. Models for life, often fall short, since they tend to leave out an important variable such as an extra force of nature, that has many uses by cells. 

The problem with its acceptance appears to be, we (Physics) models the universe using mostly solid and gas state analogies. The entropic force does not manifest itself in gases or solids. It only manifest in the liquid phase. If we modeled the universe as a liquid this would allow this affect to be added so we could explain things that seem more anomalous then they are.

For example, dark energy has never been seen in the lab as a thing but we can see the impact. It appears to be an entropic force affect, with space-time playing the role of water. The membrane is not as obvious. However I have hinted of it in many places.
.

19

New Theories / Water, Life and the Corona Virus

« on: 01/03/2020 17:20:01 »

In another topic, "Are Water and Organics Co-partners in life?", I developed the background needed to discussed how water contributes many things to life. In this discussion, I am going analyze the Virus and then, hopefully with the help of those more knowledgable of virus and the Corona Virus, use the Corona Virus as a practical application of a water side analysis.

In my previous discussion, about water and life, the most fundamental analogy for the relationship between water and the organics of life, is the system of water and oil. If we mix water and oil they will form an emulsion. If the emulsion is allowed to rest, it will phase separate back into two layers; water and oil. This system will spontaneously go from disorder to order. This ability to go from from disorder to order is critical to assembly of all organic life systems, including virus.

The reason this separation into order occurs is the emulsion creates surface tension between the water and oil. It creates lots of water-oil surface contact via small bubbles. The combining of bubbles and the separation of phases, is a way to lower the contact surface area, and thereby lower the potential due to the surface tension. This is driven by the water, since the hydrogen bonding of water is much stronger than the van der Waals forces of the oil. Water has the most to lose or gain and runs the show.

The water and oil analogy is in affect for all stages of a virus. The assembly of a virus is very similar to the smaller bubbles of oil combining, to form larger bubbles, to help lower the surface contact with water. Instead of a simple system like bubbles of oil, the virus is like a multicomponent bubble system, where the different bubbles combine, based on a free energy priority relative to the water. You could mess up virus packing by tweaking packing priority with spoilers. 

This packing priority can be seen on a smaller scale by looking at the packing of a single protein. Below is an energy landscape diagram for a simple stretched out protein. The peaks represent the side groups along the protein chain, with strong organic (oil) character. In the water-oil analogy they set the highest potential with the water; most surface tension. These will need to pack first to maximize the lowering of aqueous potential. They will form the core of a protein.

Proteins fold with exact folds, meaning there is no statistical variation when similar composition protein fold. Folding is very exact with a probability of 1.0. This is very repeatable because it is driven based on the energy priority relative to the water. The proteins that make up a virus are also packed in specific order by the water.



A virus demonstrates that packing is not a one was street. Rather a virus will reverse its packed configuration when once it enters the cell. In the water-oil analogy, it is like adding agitation to water-oil layer to form smaller and smaller bubbles. This agitation needs an energy supply.

The reason packing and unpacking can occur., i.e., forward and backwards, has to do with the water potential in a healthy host cell is different from the water potential of the infested cell. The healthy cells greets the packed virus with a water potential suitable for disassembly. While the virus, after infecting the cell, turns the cell into a different water potential environment, more suitable for assembly. After the virus takes over, it floods the infested cell with its own protein. These protein created a potential in the water, with the virus the best place for lowering the potential.

20

New Theories / Are Water and the Organics copartners in life?

« on: 14/11/2019 20:11:15 »

If you started with a packet of baker's yeast, the yeast cells are initially dehydrated and show no signs of life. All the organics and ions needed for life are present, but there is no life. All we have an in inanimate powder. If we add water, suddenly the yeast come alive. Water is the like the straw that stirs the drink.

If we start with twenty packets of yeast, and to each we add a different solvent besides water, such as a variety of alcohols, aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons, aldehydes, ketones, liquid CO2, etc., life will not appear in any of these experiments.  In fact, nothing works properly down to enzymes. Even the DNA remains paralyzed.

The questions become what is so special about water? How can water animate all the organics and ions and then coordinate these so life can return? Since water is so special and a appears to be copartner for life, why doesn't medicine approach sickness and disease, from the water side?