1

New Theories / Re: Does eternal awareness energy exist?

« on: 22/07/2022 11:36:44 »

They are more connected to the upper limits of space-time,

No
They are more connected to fairy stories.

This model was derived by plugging in the speed of light into the three equations for Special Relativity; mass, distance and time. We will get division by zero.

Relativistic mass is conceptually the easiest to see. Mass becomes infinite. This value of infinite mass is the same for any amount of rest mass. This discontinuity has been inferred to mean that mass cannot move at the speed of light in a finite universe. Mass is only an attribute of space-time. Mass does not exist at or beyond the discontinuity at c.

I will also add, that space-time gets its capacitance from mass. General Relativity does not work at zero mass, but as we add mass we can create any space-time reference. These frames of reference can linger in space-time because mass was made to linger in time. This can be explained with my model.

The same discontinuity at c, should also be true for distance and time or both space and time will not exist, as we know it, at and beyond the speed of light. The question was, how would you model distance and time at and beyond the discontinuity at c?

The easiest way, to stay consistent with known observations, was for the concept of space-time to break down, since this concept is how we interpret and measure the concepts of distance and time. If you disconnect them, their behavior is no longer the same, but the concepts can still be used, since they are classics; recycled.

The most logical way to interpret space-time breaking down was for time to become independent of space, and space to become independent of time. This realm, beyond space-time, would not be limited by the speed of light, since speed is distance divided by time; d/t is a space-time concept. It does not apply at and beyond the discontinuity of space-time.

If one could move in space, without the constraint of time, you could be anywhere and everywhere, in an instant of time; omnipresent. The speed of light is not a limiting factor beyond c. The concept of the universe expanding in all directions, at all points, is a type of omnipresent concept. This is easy to model with this model and predicted by it. 

You guys are sort of catching up, but are still afraid to take a deep dive. If you had an open mind, you would ask questions and not just stick your head in the sand and yell go away. That is not scientific.

2

New Theories / Re: Does eternal awareness energy exist?

« on: 20/07/2022 14:20:03 »

Energy is a concept connected to space-time. Photons, for example, have wavelength and frequency that are connected in proportion to the speed of light. Photo energy connects, measures of time and distance, like the concept of space-time.

Religion and the concepts of God and eternal thought, are not connected to space-time. They are more connected to the upper limits of space-time, where space-time breaks down, into separated time and separated space, that are independent of each other.

If we could move in time, without the constraint of space, one would know the simultaneity of the entire universe at any given time. This is classically called omniscience. If one could move in space without the constraint of time, one can be anywhere and everywhere in space, all at the same time. This is classically called omnipresence. All I am doing is extrapolating the current theory of space-time, beyond its mathematical limits. This gives my discussion some simple math support.

In this theoretical realm, where space and time are not connected, instead of energy; wavelength-frequency; one would have wavelength unattached to frequency, and frequency not attached to wavelength. This is not exactly energy, except at random temporary intersections. That realm will appear to be nothingness in space, with maybe zero point energy, in terms of space-time concepts. This other realm is not part of space-time, but it is more fundamental. Space-time is a unique subset of that realm.

As an example of these concepts, already used in science, the inflation period of the early universe would have been an example of some extra distance potential; space independent of time, added to space-time, to allow an affect that appears to move our space-time based universe faster than the speed of light, after it left the mother realm. But space-time took over after a short period of time to slow this down.

The laws of physics being the same in all space-time references; Einstein,  is an example of time, not dependent on space; omniscience affect.  An example, of a pure omnipresent affect, is how the universe is thought to expand in all directions, from all points, at the same time.

In terms of consciousness, I can use my imagination to fly to the sun with wings of wax in one second. I can then burrow though all the inner layers of sun, to the core, where I will lay down my beach blanket to get a nice solar fusion tan. This scenario cannot occur in space-time, since it violates all types of space-time relationships and material limitations in space-time.

However, may imagination can still generate such scenarios beyond space-time, since the movement of data in my frontal lobe is not limited to just space-time relationships. The biochemistry and mechanics of my brain and my frontal lobe are limited by matter and space-time. But data relationships driven by my ego are not. In my example of the fusion tan, one would need some degree of time and space not connected, to be able to escape the limits of space-time; imagination, so that the data can go even where the laws of physics no longer apply.

If I was a development engineer, who needed to build a bridge across a large span, I could come up with a wet noodle bridge design. However, although my imagination can do this, I would need to limit my imagination to just those relationships that are within the sciences of space-time. There could be endless scenarios, but only a limited few will work in space-time, unless I use my imagination, to design new materials and techniques that are not yet in existence; outside of this time within space-time.

The realm of space without time and time without space, would more like universal consciousness and information that can be connected in all ways practical and impractical.  Space-time would be a unique junction, where the two; independent space and independent time, criss-cross their paths and linger at a temporary point of intersection.

Space without time and time without space allows one to create the universe before time. From universal consciousness, appeared physical reality and space-time. This which evolved until physical reality creates life and then consciousness. Consciousness learns to transcended space-time, via the imagination; human mind. Now a bridge is build back to the mother ship. Religion are there, to help one practice.

In the realm where space and time are not connected, anything is possible; universal imagination. What this implies is, this realm would be a place of infinite complexity and therefore maximum entropy. Conceptually it creates the push and pull that is behind the 2nd Law seen by space-time.

There is a natural drive in space-time to unfold into the blueprints of higher complexity. Entropy is a state variable, meaning for any given state of matter there is a specific value of entropy. The entropy of water at 25C is a constant, with this constant the same; timeless, even in the early universe before water existed. It was part of the blueprint within infinite complexity.

The laws of physics, the same in all references, still applies to things that are not there, but may be, someday; liquid water on a molten planet. There is a mixture of omniscience and omnipresence overlapping space-time.

Since an intersection of independent space and independent time, will place a limit on local entropy; less complex junction, the result will be highly exothermic; lowers entropy. Entropy is not energy, but rather entropy is energy divided by temperature. A small amount of informational entropy, from the other realm, times the extreme temperature of the primordial atom, becomes a lot of free energy for the universe. The universe will appear as something from nothing, since it begins without energy, but only a blue print of information. Thereafter, it evolves to go back from where it came.

 

3

New Theories / Re: what is temperature?

« on: 17/07/2022 19:52:31 »

All applied science is based on theoretical science

There is an admonitory adage in physics: "Thermodynamics owes more to the steam engine than the steam engine owes to thermodynamics", and the history of science bears that out.

If you subscribe to the "observe - hypothesise - test" model of scientific method, observation and experiment always precede theory and take precedence over it..

Applied science often begins by testing existing theory and new hypothesis. It is very rare that things work out as expected, with the first test. As problems appear and are overcome, the theory is modified at each iteration of experiments, until a new steady state is reached. Theoretical science may have to be modified to fit the data anomalies that keep coming. The final result is often protected, since the final application may have value in the free market.

I remember a development project I was given that involved developing a biological process, that could work under extreme circumstances. The  experts said it was not possible, based on the then current technology and theory. The final goal was to run an anaerobic experiment in a 2.5 million gallon open and leaky basin, with an initial composition that exceeded all known safe closed bio-reactors variable, by order of magnitude. My boss had faith in my ingenuity.

My first problem was I never took any biology courses in high school or  college. II like life but biology was to memory intensive and empirical for my tastes. I was good at organic chemistry, polymers, and engineering all of which are based on basic theory and ingenuity. So I had to teach myself a cram course in biology and bioreactors, and then follow my hunches in the lab, based on the POV of a biology outsider.

It turned out, I was a natural bacteria whisperer and the little bugs would help me out. I could get them go where they were not expected to go. To make a long story short, without any formal biology training, I was able to push the biology technology of the day, into the future.

My advantage was, I was not biased by the educational traditions that used a black box. My coursework as an engineer assumed something simple and more rational. When I looked at the project with my naive eyes, my bacteria were more robust than expected.

The final test of concept was my largest experiment of my career;  2.5 million gallons. It took 150 ton of powered limestone to neutralize the acid pond, I also gave bacteria steak to eat with a 5000 gallon tanker truck 100% acetic acid. I used about 30 gallons of concentrated phosphoric acid for the phosphate needs of DNA and RNA. It took about two weeks to kick in and ran like a charm and was done a few weeks later It even reduced heavy metal concentrations to discharge limits. This was part of a secondary trick using sulfuric acid that the bacteria would reduce to sulfide to form Heavy metal sulfides. This cause the pond to stick so I used an larger aerator to beat in oxygen until all the food was also gone. Good observation, logic and ingenuity can challenge theory based on consensus in a black box.

The tragic thing was, wha was a good thing, made many people angry. It altered the priority of a parallel engineering project; monument, that became obsolete. I felt political pressure afterwards and would eventually need to quit. I am less sensitive today. Now I fight and do not quit. Although I now try to be more diplomatic.

Temperature as a function of energy divided by entropy tells us how the energy is distributed based on the entropic information in the system. This allows for more complex modeling.

Picture a 1 mile cube in the atmosphere.l This is  gas that has clouds that phase separated from the oxygen and nitrogen and other trace gases like CO2. We are looking for the final temperature in the cube, based on adding X Kilojoules of energy to the cube.

Since entropy is not the same for the water cloud gas predicate, as the rest of the gas solution, the movement to steady temperature will not be straight forward. We will get some cooler spots, that will then need a secondary equilibration. This is not an ideal gas, but a mixture of gases and gas phase that can self segregate. My little equation can address this. The entropy data can be found in the CRC.

Did you realise that your story didn't actually tell us anything apart from the fact that, you needed to learn the theoretical aspect of biology in order to plan your project (which, incidentally sounds like a big heap of ... manure)?

I only studied for about a couple of weeks and decided to wing it. The goal was not to repeat the limitations of my peers, but make the project work, even if the current theory thought it could not work. The needed direction was not yet part of their literature, so I had to wing it. I started more empirical and observational until my 55-gallon drum evolved to my needs. I learned from that.

The only reason I was able to run the big test, was an emergency. The final test basin was reported in the local papers as a pollution hazard, and this news went up the chain, to state and then national EPA. I was the only one who could be ready to go in days, instead of months and years. I could improvise instead of buy off the shelf.

My project had actually been killed several months earlier. It made a come back because of these unique needs. I was invited to the big table meeting since the Plant Manager wanted all his options on the table. Nobody was willing to commit to anything, for the short term, until I spoke up and gave 5 to 1 odds it would work. I was disliked for this, since, after being killed,  I dared stepped on the toes.

The success of start up, helped the plant manager, since he was under a lot of stress. After all was done, he accepted the awards we received from the DOE, since it was a team effort, once it got going, from top to bottom. I was then reassigned to another big project.  They slowed me down with a long term project.

In retrospect, it was a career builder project, that could have lasted me to retirement. I was to develop all the needed science and technology to decommission the Lithium Isolate Separation Facility that was used in the 1950-60's to collect Lithium 6.  I must have been overdose by mercury, while exploring that historic facility. I lost my way with paranoia, so I had to quit, since I could not function properly and became off the wall.

4

New Theories / Re: what is temperature?

« on: 17/07/2022 18:40:31 »

All applied science is based on theoretical science

There is an admonitory adage in physics: "Thermodynamics owes more to the steam engine than the steam engine owes to thermodynamics", and the history of science bears that out.

If you subscribe to the "observe - hypothesise - test" model of scientific method, observation and experiment always precede theory and take precedence over it..

Applied science often begins by testing existing theory and new hypothesis. It is very rare that things work out as expected, with the first test. As problems appear and are overcome, the theory is modified at each iteration of experiments, until a new steady state is reached. Theoretical science may have to be modified to fit the data anomalies that keep coming. The final result is often protected, since the final application may have value in the free market.

I remember a development project I was given that involved developing a biological process, that could work under extreme circumstances. The  experts said it was not possible, based on the then current technology and theory. The final goal was to run an anaerobic experiment in a 2.5 million gallon open and leaky basin, with an initial composition that exceeded all known safe closed bio-reactors variable, by order of magnitude. My boss had faith in my ingenuity.

My first problem was I never took any biology courses in high school or  college. II like life but biology was to memory intensive and empirical for my tastes. I was good at organic chemistry, polymers, and engineering all of which are based on basic theory and ingenuity. So I had to teach myself a cram course in biology and bioreactors, and then follow my hunches in the lab, based on the POV of a biology outsider.

It turned out, I was a natural bacteria whisperer and the little bugs would help me out. I could get them go where they were not expected to go. To make a long story short, without any formal biology training, I was able to push the biology technology of the day, into the future.

My advantage was, I was not biased by the educational traditions that used a black box. My coursework as an engineer assumed something simple and more rational. When I looked at the project with my naive eyes, my bacteria were more robust than expected.

The final test of concept was my largest experiment of my career;  2.5 million gallons. It took 150 ton of powered limestone to neutralize the acid pond; caravan of dump trucks that I leased. I also gave my bacteria steak to eat, with a 5000 gallon tanker truck of 100% acetic acid. I used about 30 gallons of concentrated phosphoric acid for the phosphate needs of my bacteria's DNA and RNA. The little bugs were happy I am could see bioactivity the next day. It took about two weeks to really kick in. The little bugs even reduced heavy metal concentrations to discharge limits. This was part of a secondary need, I used some concentrated sulfuric acid that the bacteria would anaerobically reduce to sulfide to form Heavy metal sulfides. This cause the pond to stick like crap, so I used used a larger aerator/fountain, to beat in oxygen into the pond; shift to aerobic, until all the bacteria steak was also gone. Good observation, logic and ingenuity in the field can challenge theory based on consensus in a black box.

The tragic thing was, what should have been a good thing, made many people angry. It altered the priority of a parallel engineering project; monument, that now became obsolete. I felt political pressure afterwards and would eventually make me feel unwelcome and need to quit. I am less sensitive today. Now I fight and do not quit. Although I now try to be more diplomatic.

Temperature as a function of energy divided by entropy tells us how the energy will be distributed based on the entropic information connected to the state of the system. This allows for more complex modeling.

Picture a 1 mile cube in the atmosphere. This cube is gas that has clouds that phase separated from the oxygen and nitrogen and other trace gases like CO2. We are looking for the final temperature in the cube, based on adding X Kilojoules of solar energy to the cube.

Since entropy is not the same for the water cloud; gas predicate, as the rest of the gas solution, the movement to steady temperature will not be straight forward. We will get some cooler spots, that will then need a type of  secondary equilibration. This is not an ideal gas, but a mixture of gases and gas phase that can self segregate. My little equation can address this. The entropy data can be found in the CRC.

5

New Theories / Re: what is temperature?

« on: 17/07/2022 17:19:02 »

I like the Gibb's free energy equation since it is connected to applied science.

Josiah Willard Gibbs was a theoretical physicist, not an applied one.
All applied science is based on theoretical science (it is the theoretical science which gets "applied" to things".

They are essentially the same thing.
Why do you keep posting nonsense?

Not exactly. Theoretical science will more often than not, get published, for prestige and for all to see and appreciate. Applied science is more likely to have a restricted audience, through copyrights, patents, intellectual property rights, as well as classified information. Such science may even be stored behind security walls.

Much of applied science will not be easy to access, since these special applications of science, create practical advantages in reality, that equate to money and power. If you get a job with a company, you need to promise not to share their trade secrets; for your eyes only. You will not find it in the stacks.

If you had universal security Q-clearance for full access to all applied science, all over the world, you would see the limitations of the theoretical. Practical has more unique data and angles, that may not be shared since they give unique advantages. I am willing to share, not the secrets of others, but my own secret recipes. You may need some new background, to look at the same things.

You can go to university and get a graduate degree in food science based on the known science literature. But this alone will not allow you to infer the secret recipe for making Coke. This will need to be shared from the inside. But you will need to sign secrecy agreements, since this knowledge is unique and others cannot easily infer it with the freely published science.

Theoretical science is like a pretty girt that you can see from a distance or up close. Although you are free to look, she does not allow everyone the same intimacy. There is a deeper side to her, that only some get to see. Many are very protective of these fond memories.

6

New Theories / Re: what is temperature?

« on: 16/07/2022 11:48:45 »

The Gibb's Free energy equation is G=H-TS , where G is the total free energy, H is enthalpy, T is temperature in degrees K, and S is entropy.

If we solve for T, then T=(H-G)/S. Temperature is a measure of system free energy, divided by system entropy. The same amount of energy, inputted into different materials, can give different temperatures. This will be based on the entropy within each material. Temperature is not energy, alone.

The lower the system entropy, the higher the temperature for any energy input. The higher the system entropy the lower the temperature, with the same energy input.

Entropy was originally defined as lost energy. The less loss energy within the complexity of a dynamic system, the higher the temperature that will be measured for any energy input.  Some systems are better at losing energy, so they will appear cooling for the same energy input.

I like the Gibb's free energy equation since it is connected to applied science. Applied science is where you need to apply science, to make things in reality, that have to work in reality, or you will go out of business. Theoretical science is useful, but it does not have the same amount of social pressure.  It can look pretty and sit over there and everyone is happy with just that. Applied science has to deal with angry customers. It may not pretty enough to make up for any type of flaw. You need to make her perfect, instead of just pretty.

7

New Theories / Re: Why Evolution Is Wrong In Biology And What is Right?

« on: 14/07/2022 23:59:50 »

The hydrogen bonding matrix of liquid water, alters water in many different ways such as the pH affect

Rubbish. The pH of pure water is always 7. Sadly, drivel in the first sentence makes one wonder whether it is worth reading any more.

The hydrogen bonding matrix of liquid water, alters water in many different ways such as the pH affect and 3-D water polymers. In fact, H2O molecules to not exist more than a tiny fraction of a second before the atoms are swapped out.

I quoted myself above and I never claimed any value for the pH of water at any conditions. I was characterizing the pH affect of water, in general, as being due to hydrogen bonding. Hydrogen bonding is also responsible for the extended structuring of water, in water. The binary nature of hydrogen bonding; polar and partial covalent, allows the hydrogen bond to act as intermediary; step down or step up, for the covalent bonds of water; O-H, so they can become less covalent and more polar, or reverse.

What we measure as the pH is not the same as the atoms of water exchanging partners, so no water molecules has the same oxygen and hydrogen partners for very long. This can occur with or without ionization, since it only requires the nonbonding orbitals become bonding via a hydrogen bond and the bonding orbitals become nonbonding. Again oxygen is dealing with the octet can accommodate up to four hydrogen.

Quote from: alancalverd on Today at 18:12:37
Rubbish. The pH of pure water is always 7.
No.
It falls from about 7.5 near freezing to about 6 near boiling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ionization_of_water#Equilibrium_constant
It doesn't help to add to puppypower's nonsense.

Water is at maximum density at 4C.  When water is close to boiling, the density is lower. Higher density at 4C means a shift to polar hydrogen bonds, while lower density is heading more toward the covalent side.The slight acid near boiling, by being connected to the lower density covalent aspect, means oxygen is holding electron tighter, so H+ can leave; slight  acid.

At near freezing or at 4C  water is denser and hydrogen bonds are more polar. Now oxygen contributes more electron density to all the hydrogen, to get a slight negative charge or slight alkalinity. This is useful, but not needed where I was going.   

Water expands when it freezes, which means the maximum density at 4C becomes very low density at 0C over just a few degrees. There is an abrupt shift in oxygen from polar toward the covalent side, so the crystal matrix of ice can share in extended 3-D easier.

When water gets to the boiling point, the density also goes down. This is why hot water can freeze faster than cold water; Mpember affect. The expanded hot water, when chilled quickly, can continue its covalent nature directly into freezing and expansion, and skip the polar intermediate step that cold water has to take.  All water anomalies and properties can be explained with the  binary hydrogen bonding switch analysis

The oxygen at the boiling point of water; water vapor, controls the electrons more than in liquid water, since there is no longer be any external hydrogen bonds with other water molecules, so oxygen has to accept extra electron density.

This unique state is useful for forming clouds via a strong polar attraction in an oxygen state that would be more covalent in the liquid state. The binary switch is sort of stuck in a middle option, that give clouds and weather, some extra dynamics. The polar state is more electrostatic, while the covalent state of more magnetic. This middle state of the switch, for water vapor, has both attributes; oxygen is more covalent/magnetic and hydrogen is more polar/electrostatic. It can't become a binary switch, until the liquid state forms so there is external hydrogen bonding.

The Miller Experiments used hot water vapor and other gases thought to be present in the early earth atmosphere. Miller started with the oxygen of water having to hold the octet electrons, stronger, with hydrogen more positive, as seen in the updrafts of thunderclouds. This positive water is not exactly a dipole in this state. Miller was able to form a wide range of amino acids, as well as oils and tars of complex composition from simple gases using the more reactive hydrogen protons of the middle switch.

Lightning and thunder appears when it is raining or water is condensing into liquid, allowing water to change into the binary switch, with the release of energy. This energy can amplify depending on the rate of condensation. Miller picked a sweet spot in terms of a water transition with punch.

8

New Theories / Re: Why Evolution Is Wrong In Biology And What is Right?

« on: 14/07/2022 15:04:31 »

Water does not change in terms of being H2O.

Oh but it does! In the liquid state it forms umpteen different temporary polymers, the individual molecules are electrically polarised, and there are always a few ions and free radicals floating about. It's a highly reactive substance with some absolutely unique physical properties. It just happens that there is a lot of it about, in all three states, on this planet. It  is responsible for pretty much everything that happens in the biosphere (indeed water is the biosphere) and most of what goes in in the atmosphere.

The hydrogen bonding matrix of liquid water, alters water in many different ways such as the pH affect and 3-D water polymers. In fact, H2O molecules to not exist more than a tiny fraction of a second before the atoms are swapped out. H20 molecules are more enduring in the gas and solid state. But in the liquid state, things are different, allowing hydrogen bonding to constantly break the covalent bonds of water; pH. Liquid water takes the second law to new levels; very complex matrix.

The question then become how can a molecule, like water, that is very stable in fire, be able to do things like break strong water bonds, that should require a lot of energy? It has to do with oxygen of water able to hold two more electrons than it has protons; complete the octet.

Electrostatic and polar potential arguments alone cannot explain the stable charge unbalance of oxygen, that oxygen strives for. The analysis also requires magnetic considerations; electrons in orbital motion, and partial covalent character. The oxygen of water can hold the electrons of water tighter, making hydrogen more free to find other electrons. This can reverse the magnetic impact of oxygen, on another water molecule, so the bonds  becomes more polar. The binary switch within the hydrogen bonds of water, via oxygen, allows water molecules to have a potential range at each hydrogen bond.

Organics are often called hydrophobic. However, this is misnomer, since organic are not afraid of water. Water can share via the weaker van Der Waals forces that also bind organic materials. The problem is the water will gain potential, in the presence of organics, through surface tension. The hydrogen of water can shares the electron density of the organics. This causes the oxygen of water, to amplify its magnetic orbital affect; covalent nature. The organics like this, arrangement, but water would prefer lower potential and be more polar, since polar better expresses the 2nd law. Polar  is only a function of distance, but not position. Covalent is based on the proper positioning and distances in space for orbital overlap; lower entropy.

Say we have a protein that is hot off the press, all stretched out. It is surrounded by water molecules; army ants. The various amino acids will each has a different impact on the water, based on the side groups along the protein. Gradients will form in the local water, based on polar and covalent hydrogen bonding settings, with the more covalent having higher surface tension, near the reduced moieties on the protein.

The covalent side of the hydrogen bonding switch lowers water entropy, while the polar side is at higher entropy. Entropy can increase if the water can become more polar within the gradient. This can occur if the oxygen of water shares electrons with its own hydrogen. This disconnects the protein, which then starts to pack The entropy of the water can increase, prioritized by the potential lowering along the gradient toward  higher entropy polar. This packing lowers the entropy of the protein.

The difference between water and the protein is, water molecules are small army ants, and have more degrees of atomic freedom in liquid water; constantly swapping partners and shapes. The proteins are large with less atomic freedom due to being a covalent polymer than cannot self ionize to any great degree. Water become more polar to resolve the total entropic potential of the system even though protein packing lowers some entropy.  The smaller residual entropic potential, within the folded protein; very specific shape instead of random folding, makes the protein subject to entropic change; entropic based aspect of enzymatic potential.

Alcohols and organic solvents add more randomness or entropy to protein folding, resulting on less entropic potential in the final enzymes. But with water lowering surface tension, so water can become more polar with higher entropy, the many polymers of life are forced into order to maximize the entropic potential of the protein. We get a situation expressed by the continuous activities of life; reversible surface expressions reactions, due to water running a high entropy ship; maximizes the second law. 

Evolution is about maximizing the entropy of water by minimizing the entropy of protein and organic surfaces. This order gives the organic dynamics of life a renewable entropic potential. Increasingly complex life is driven by the unusually high entropy background potential set by the water. as the pieces of puzzle fill in better and better, water is better off.

9

New Theories / Re: Why Evolution Is Wrong In Biology And What is Right?

« on: 14/07/2022 14:18:55 »

Life in other solvents, like alcohols, would not start with a stable bookend since alcohols would ultimately be metabolized down to CO2 and H2O

How?
Where would the required oxygen come from?
Oxygen is only present in meaningful quantities on Earth because it is formed by splitting water.

Did you not realise that your idea is wrong?

I often repeat the water and oil experiment, since it is simple key to a deeper understanding that is still not getting through.

It got through to us the first time.
What you are not "explaining" is the other nonsense you talk (see above for an example).
Because it's rubbish, you won't "get it through" to us- because we spot that it's trash.

My guess, based on how water packs protein, packed chromosomes are packed based on water priority; best way to reach the magic ratio.

Your guess is word salad.

Most of the proposed solvents, that are assumed to support life on other planets, have a chemical potential higher than water. This topic is about evolution and the assumptions of biology, that do not add up. Water has a selective advantage by being at the bottom of the solvent energy hill. Grinding down other solvents, all the way to water, will be exothermic and increase entropy.  We add alcohol to gasoline to extract energy and get CO2 and water. Organic based solvents for life will eventually be used for metabolic energy. Water is the last solvent standing.

The black box and probability approach of biology gets them into trouble, with the solvent assumption more about gambling than about common sense. If we used an organic or polar organic solvent, proteins will not pack the same way. The energy landscape diagrams will be different for each solvent. Ammonia is a good degreaser, which means you will not get the correct hydrophobic core nor the correct surfaces on forming proteins.

Protein were not selected by ammonia, but by water. Only water can fold them into useful things. The has been proven in the lab. What replacement for protein polymers would ammonia select, so life in ammonia can get repeatable enzymatic surfaces, even with its higher energy solvent floor? The DNA has similar problems with ammonia and other organic solvents. What would be the new template material that can function in an alcohol; selected by the alcohol to work properly? There is no answer just a lottery ticket, dreams and magical assumptions.

Water can be broken down to O2, such as during photosynthesis. However, this is endothermic and oxygen is a gas. O2 gas can never take over as the solvent, since it can only concentrate in small amounts in liquid water. It is not easy way to alter water all the way to a replacement, since unlike all the organic solvents, there is no good exothermic energy hill for water. We need to add energy to push water up the hill to make even O2. If we burn or retrieve all the energy within the O2 , we end up with water.

10

New Theories / Re: Why Evolution Is Wrong In Biology And What is Right?

« on: 12/07/2022 17:38:30 »

No, it isn't.
Evolution requires change.
Water does not change.
It It may facilitate it (for life on Earth as we know it).
I'm even prepared to accept that life elsewhere in the universe probably uses water.

But it's still just a cheap solvent with some useful properties.

Quote from: puppypower on 10/07/2022 20:52:16
When we mix water and oil, they separate since the potential is minimized for both materials.
Your repeating this statement just makes me wonder if you forgot that you already said it.
It doesn't actually help the discussion, because everyone already knows it.

Water does not change in terms of being H2O. Water is a sturdy bookend that is important to life, since carbon based molecules; like DNA, RNA and protein can and do change, and have nearly infinite variety. The stable water bookend offers a constant steering mechanism, for all life, as new carbon compounds appear for packing and placement.

Life in other solvents, like alcohols, would not start with a stable bookend since alcohols would ultimately be metabolized down to CO2 and H2O. Now we have a stable water bookend and a gas that departs. Ammonia would be metabolized down to NOx and H2O. Now we have a water based bookend that will not change further.

I often repeat the water and oil experiment, since it is simple key to a deeper understanding that is still not getting through. This example shows what happens to a simple class of organics; oil, when placed in water and agitated. The surface tension between the water and oil, add energy and force the water and oil to separate into two phases to lower the surface tension. Surface tension allows water to manhandle organics.

Pure water has both polar and covalent hydrogen bonding character. Oil creates surface tension, which implies a shift more to the covalent side of water. The phase separation is due to pure water preferring to stay more on the polar side at steady state. It will do what it takes, to get back toward the ideal balance such as separate out to lower surface contact.

In the case of a protein, which is a more complex organic molecule; reduced groups, polar groups and hydrogen bonds, the phase separation is also based on the surface tension in water, and the need of water to get back to being more polar and less covalent.

As the complexity of the protein increases, the amount of steps increases before the reaching the final packed protein bubble. It is the same water. It does not change and still it wishes to reach that sweet spot; more polar to covalent bonding ratio. Like army ants, many little things all with the same agenda can move large objects into coordinated compliance.

Different organics; from oil to protein to DNA, will each force the water to behave with different amounts of potential and selectivity, based on the unique circumstance set by the specific organics in question. This is why a water bookend is so useful. Selection by water at the nanoscale, is based on organic molecules and packed surfaces that allow water to minimize its potential. These can peacefully coexist with water. This is true of packing   DNA with packing protein, to form low surface area chromosome bubbles. Unpacking reverses this and adds potential for enzymatic affects.

My guess, based on how water packs protein, packed chromosomes are packed based on water priority; best way to reach the magic ratio. This consistency of packing is useful for organizing the DNA data the same from  mother to daughters.
 
If we look at an entire cell, full of its organic variety, that creates various  pockets and zones of surface tension in water.  We still have one water bookend, with all the water molecules; ants, with the same sweet spot in mind, in terms of their magic polar/covalent hydrogen bonding ratio. However, each has to perform a different range of tasks, based on where it is in the cell. The water helps itself, by organizing the protein grid into gradients, just as it does with a single protein or with chromosome being packed. Shifts in water potential; input food, can send information through the water that can alter the packing by the water down stream. Mutations on the DNA are just another job for the bookend of ants that never stops trying to find its sweet spot.

Life is simpler  to model from the water bookend side, since how the water is behaving, near any the organics, reflects the complexity of the organics, but in one stable variable. Evolution, driven by water would be based on selection that allows the sweet spot of the bookend to be reached even under the most complex senarios.

11

New Theories / Re: Why Evolution Is Wrong In Biology And What is Right?

« on: 10/07/2022 20:52:16 »

Puppypower,
if we just tell you that we already knew that water is weird, will you stop banging on about it?

However, you don't get life without some means to make 2 copies of the same blueprint.
And that's the unique selling point of the nucleic acids.

And that is why people looking at evolution focus on the DNA (and RNA).

Reverse transcription does happen but it's from RNA to DNA.
It doesn't start with protein.
So proteins can't copy themselves.
So they can't evolve.

If you look at any scientific definition of life, life is not defined by replication alone. All the rest of the attributes of life like metabolism, signally, growth, etc, come from the protein. This is why I like the hard drive analogy for the DNA. The DNA contains all the data needed to define, say a human. But this data is only information. It needs to be translated, transcribed, packed and then positioned, before it can do all the work required to be called the living state.

A computer hard drive may have all the code needed for our music collection. We can make copies of this music to give to our friends. But to become music, you can hear and appreciate, you need hardware to access the data and then scale the code, all the way into the action of speakers used for the HD-sound. Evolution is about changes in the hardware, that express the changes in code on the hard drive. The unicorn is different from the horse by a protein horn. Fossil remains are about calcium from the protein grid.

The protein grid, as the CPU, accounts for differences, from the beginning, even with the same DNA. Adding water to the DNA hard drive and protein grid, to make this a trinity, is more subtle, but water is what drives evolution.

Protein, DNA and RNA only work properly in water.  They will not work in any other solvents. This has been tried without success. This is expected, since these categories of molecules all evolved in water. Water set the potential for molecular selection at the nanoscale. All life on earth works in water, because water selected all these chemicals. If an alcohol was in charge, it would have selected differently. DNA would not be chosen as the template by alcohols, since it does not work with alcohols.

When we mix water and oil, they separate since the potential is minimized for both materials.

This molecular selection in water; abiogenesis, follows the same schema as macro-scale evolution. If we look at a desert, the types of life one would expect to see, will all need to accommodate the lacks, needs, and surpluses of the desert. They are tuned to what the desert can offer. DNA, RNA and protein are turned to water and were selected.

In the case of water, the direction of evolution, at the nanoscale, heads in ways that reinforce the potentials offered by a water environment.  When protein are packed in the water environment, the final selected protein needs a hydroponic core and hydrophilic surface. This shape s tuned to the nature of water. Water can even form lingering  cooperative hydrogen bonding in space. If we try a new protein and its falls short of the water test it not selected but recycled.

Environmental stresses on life, from many sources, alter the balance between water and all its many selected and organized chemicals. Rain, in the desert, for example, adds a wild card that throws things off balance. New things may enter for the water. Dormant plants may now grow from their roots, and the former bugs may become overwhelmed with new birds. The selective process begins again.

The nanoscale target of the water's selective nature appears to be the DNA hard drive, since it is pliable and water can alter potential with simple changes. Improper base pairing adds energy point to reflect the stresses.

12

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 10/07/2022 19:23:56 »

The

"Astronomers led by researchers at the University of Arizona spotted the brilliant quasar about 13.03 billion light-years from Earth"
"This quasar, called J0313-1806, can be dated back to just 670 million years after the Big Bang (the universe at this time was a mere 5% of its current age), making it the most distant and earliest quasar ever found. This quasar also hosts a supermassive black hole that has a mass equal to 1.6 billion of our suns. "

One of the conceptual problems that is not addressed is connected to the continued expansion of the universe from the BB. If the signals from that quasar did indeed travel for 13.03 billion years, and the universe was/is still expanding all that time, the original signals should have red shifted out of what we expect from a quasar, after 13 billion years of constant red shift expansion of early energy that cannot regenerate with matter.

The only way you can maintain the original signal of a quasar, is if the universe is not really expanding in terms of space-time. This way only a doppler shift will appear, and then stay constant, forever.

How can light, given off by a quasar, traveling in an expanding universe for 13 billions of years, avoid all the extra 13 billion years of red shift, due to the continuing expanding universe? If space-time is expanding all energy wavelengths stretch out, to lower and lower and lower energy.

What someone should do is use the observed energy signal and back calculate 13 billion years of blue shift; needed to go back into time 13 billion years. This energy calculation would make the starting quasar much hotter and much more massive, like nothing we have anywhere near our galaxy.  it may open up new early universe quasar formation scenarios. 

13

New Theories / Re: Origin of magnetic force

« on: 09/07/2022 16:26:52 »

The electron is an elementary particle, which means it is a single thing that cannot be broken down further. It cannot be composed of mass and charge that are treated as two separate things, since the electron behaves as one thing and has never been broken down into the assumed two things. The easiest way to explain this is that the mass and charge of the electron are connected via an aspect of the unified force, allowing the mass and charge to become interchangeable; one thing.

Mass and gravity have not been integrated into the unified theory of force. This is because the obvious has been overlooked. You guys went down the  wrong rabbit hole and did did not infer the obvious.

Positron and electrons are both elementary particles each with mass and charge. These tend to find each other and annihilate. On the other hand the electron and proton can find each other but do not annihilate.

The reason electrons and protons can also find each other, but do not annihilate, like electrons and positrons, is because only electrons and positrons can interact via an aspect of the unified force. The electron and proton cannot do this, since the proton is not an elementary particle; its mass and charge can break apart, so they cannot both use the unified force under normal conditions.

If I was to model the unified mass and charge of the electron, as connected to the unified force, it would be graphed as a sine wave with charge above the x-axis and mass below the x-axis. The only time mass and charge appear as separated, is at the top and bottom of the sine wave peaks. In the middle, is  mass/charge under the unified force. The positron and electron can interact via the entire sine wave, while electron and proton, only as the peaks. 

14

New Theories / Re: Why Evolution Is Wrong In Biology And What is Right?

« on: 09/07/2022 15:44:00 »

The topic is about evolution, which in contemporary science is connected to changes on the DNA and Darwin's theory of natural selection. The current approach places the DNA at the top of the food chain. This is where I depart from science since DNA at the top, does not make sense if you think it through.

The DNA at the top of the hierarchy does not make conceptual sense, since the DNA, alone, can do nothing. All that occurs at the DNA requires support by a range of protein and enzymes. The DNA is more like a hard drive with all the data, but it has no means of it own, to do much else. It is passive and needs to be acted upon by enzymes; protein, before its data can be accessed and used. The DNA is not the CPU. A CPU gets hot due to expended energy.

Errors on the DNA, often deemed as the basis for evolution and natural selection, cannot get there without enzymes, or some other outside activity; carcinogenic chemicals. The cell body or the protein grid; how the protein of cells organize, has control over the data on the DNA, on the Ribosomes,  and then to its final placement. This energy intensive approach makes the protein grid the CPU, with even mutations mediated by proteins.

Another key observation is that  enzymes, will not work, if they are not packed properly. Experiments were done and it  has been found that no solvent, other than water, is able to pack protein properly, so they can function as designed. There is something about the molecule properties of water that make it unique to the needs of life.

Water will form up to four hydrogen bonds, with other water, to form extended but transient 3-D water structuring. When you add materials to this liquid water matrix, such as newly manufactured protein, hot off the ribosome press, all the side groups along the protein, will create different potentials in the 3D hydrogen bonding matrix of water; energy landscape diagram.

The most reduced moieties, will create the most potential and surface tension in the water. These will bead up like little balls of oil in water and start to pack as the core of the enzyme. This continues in energy priority, from highest  to lowest potential. The final shape of the protein has been prioritized by water, to minimize its potential in water.

Once the enzyme is properly packed by the water; high to low energy is very repeatable and defined by the water, the protein is moved to its proper place in the protein grid. Water will hydrogen bonds onto the surface, forming cooperative hydrogen bonding.

Cooperative hydrogen bonding is where the water on the surface becomes like a large connected 3-D shell; resonance structure of sorts  These 3-D shapes go way beyond what water can do by itself in pure water. This is due to the packed proteins forced to linger in time by the water. These water surfaces contain free energy, that can help enzymatic reactions. The cooperative of water lowers local water entropy; lingering order in time, and sets a free energy potential with the second law. Covalent hydrogen bonding used by cooperative define lower entropy then polar hydrogen bonding.

This water cooperative effect occurs cell wide, including on the DNA. In terms of the entire cell, these water cooperative reflect an integrated water based expression, that includes all things within the cell. This is the top of the food chain, but it only exists because the DNA and protein grid set the stage with materials, that can allow the water to linger in unique states.

If you look at the DNA, the number of coding genes is limited. Most of the DNA is based on noncoding genes. The question that came to my mind was, why use such a large hard drive of DNA material, when all you need is a tiny hard drive, to contain the coding genes?

The reason is the majority of the DNA.; noncoding, is there to help organize the coding genes in space, though configurational potential. Like packing a protein in water, where proteins are packed, based on highest potential first, the noncoding genes are hare and there, so the coding genes can be spread out in 3-D space, based on water potential priories; chromosomes.  These water potential priorities extend into the protein grid and beyond, since the water is continuous to the outside. Information flow in water is the fastest method in any cell.

Conceptually, you could model cells by just the cooperative water shells, since the surface shapes of water reflects specific material surfaces. This way you only need work in one variable.  The organic-centric approach is too cumbersome; enormous catalog of organic details. These can all be replaced by water surfaces, to do fast paced simulations with water as the one variable CPU.

15

New Theories / Re: Why Evolution Is Wrong In Biology And What is Right?

« on: 07/07/2022 11:44:43 »

The hard drive of a computer has all the data including the code for the operating system. However, once the operating system is functional, it now runs the show, with the hard drive more passive

No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_memory

The DNA cannot do anything without enzymes; protein. The DNA is packed into chromosomes via packing protein and is unpacked via unpacking  protein; enzymes. This basic mechanics is how the DNA hard drive is organized by the protein grid for read, write and long term data storage.

When cells interact with the environment, the protein grid is the interactive switching mechanism that mediate needs, to the DNA. Signals, from the environment do not go directly to the DNA. The protein grid can even make protein that are not coded on the DNA. It is one step above.

If you look at the DNA, its code is based on base pairing via hydrogen bonding. There are four bases, the various combinations of which can be used as templates for RNA, which are then used as templates for protein.

The functionality of the DNA is limited to acting as a template. This hard drive is organized with configurational capacitance; junk genes, that helps the organize the data for more efficient read and write. There is far more variety to the protein in terms of form and function. This is needed for the operating system.

The one thing all proteins have in common, is once they are synthesized on  mRNA templates, that were coded from the DNA hard drive, they need to pack and organize in space, based on the potential in the water; energy landscape.

Water is also important to the functionality on the DNA hard drive. It assists the protein for recognition; fingerprinting, as well as for free energy. In your link about virtual memory,  water would be the equivalent to the virtual memory, since it is the reflected and interacting part of the DNA, the protein grid, and the external environment.

Evolution has the problem of doing this backwards since the two top layers of virtual memory; water, and operating system ; protein grid, is what controls the DNA, even for forward seeking change.

When the DNA hard drive is duplicated, proof reader enzymes go up and down the DNA making sure there are no typo's. If you ever download an update the operating system of your device, the download is checked to make sure it is a clean copy. The question is how can mutations on the DNA get by that, for a forward looking affect called evolution?

The answer is DNA is not alone in terms of potential. The full template potential also includes the protein grid and the water. As an analogy the words "way" and "weigh", sound the same, but will give different meanings. Neither is a spelling error, but both create a different instructions, that are the sum of a three pronged approach; forward integration.

16

New Theories / Re: Why Evolution Is Wrong In Biology And What is Right?

« on: 06/07/2022 15:18:44 »

The result is the over dependence on casino math to supply fudge factors for the DNA brain.

Nonsense.

it gives too much credit to the DNA, for being like a brain, and not enough credit to the interactive protein grid that interfaces the DNA

All that protein was produced because it was encoded for in the DNA.
That's why the DNA is typically given priority.

The hard drive of a computer has all the data including the code for the operating system. However, once the operating system is functional, it now runs the show, with the hard drive more passive, with extra data that might be needed.

This priority makes a difference. Protein, such as enzymes, can do work and catalyze reactions such as getting data from the DNA. This why the mother cell undergoes a lot of synthesis first to gather enough protein for two protein based operating systems. She then finishes by  duplicating and packing the DNA, since the daughter cells will first need logic and muscle and then access to more data to build from there.

In multicellular differentiation, all cells have the same DNA, yet the expression is unique for each cell type. This is easier to control at the level of the operating system; protein grid, since the operating system come in contact with the environment, and can it use the DNA hard drive to add to the protein muscle, to deal with any scenario, while also maintaining the needs of cellular differentiation control; base layer of logic.

The random changes on the DNA is different if we compare the DNA is the brain scenario, to the protein grid is the brain. In the latter, the operating system would also be making changes to the DNA that reflect the long term activity that has built up a capacitance over time; read and write instead of just read only.

17

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

« on: 04/07/2022 23:33:58 »

To help explain what may be on the other side of the wall, consider the human imagination. I can imagine flying to the sun with wings of wax, then burrowing through the sun, to its core, to get a a nice sun tan. This is all imaginary and cannot occur in space-time, since the way matter and energy are related in space-time will not support this.

Yet, at the level of consciousness and information, space-time is not the limiting factor in terms of the sun tan scenario. My brain does not automatically prevent me from thinking outside of space-time based limits as specified by physics, with respect to energy and material. Such thinking would be limited by social stigma and taboo, but not any practical space-time limitation within my brain's matter or consciousness.

This type of data processing is actually closer to time without space and  space without time. Things do not have to add up as expected of space-time, at the level of information, even when it come from the matter of the brain, that is based on the limits of space-time; free will beyond space-time. 

On the other hand, if I was a development engineer and I was commissioned to build something, I will need to limit my imagination to only the subset of all imaginary combinations, that are allowed by space-time. Outside that box would not be practical for my job. But outside that box has way more options. Space-time is a subset of separated space and separated time, with more limitations.

In a realm where space and time are not connected, we would be in state of infinite entropy, since the possibilities for complexity and randomness would be unlimited, since space-time constraints are not there. The realm beyond the wall can theoretically spawn a subset called space-time.

That other realm will also become the potential, behind the second law, that governs entropy within our universal space-time. Entropy is harder to describe than energy or matter since it comes from a much more expanded reality; beyond what is, into what can be in the future; increase. 

To make our space-time realm appear from space and time not connected, we would need to intersect an independent time line with a space line. Since this will limit the free style complexity, at the point of intersection, entropy will lower locally. and give off tons of free energy potential. This is not energy, yet, but potential to become energy when space-time appears. Free energy is connected to entropy as -TS or temperature times entropy. The BB was very hot, so even a small amount of entropic potential S will go log way when T=10⁵⁰ kelvin.

Since space-time is a subset of space without time and time without space  I would expect they two will stay connected, so extra time potential and/or extra distance potential will continue to overlap space-time. This will create affects like probability, since space-time is no longer limited to 2-D, but is more like 2+-D.

If you look at the inflation period of the BB, where the universe expanded faster than the speed of light, this would be explained as adding some extra distance potential to early space-time or space(+)-time This allows extra giddy-up in space, beyond the time expected of the speed of light, traveling in pure space-time. It adds a partial omnipresent affect, that allows the universe to expand in all directions at the same time.

GR and gravity are based on acceleration, which has the units of d/t/t or space-time plus extra time potential; time line. Mass is connected to extra time potential, which is why it is so hard to interface gravity with the purer space-time affects of the other three forces.

Mass allows space-time references to persist in time, as a range of references in time. Mass cannot move at the speed of light, so it cannot reverse back to the wall, but has to go in another direction that gives the universe persistence in time.

The current expansion of the universe is due to distance potential from the other realm, that we now called dark matter and energy. However, this is not exactly based on energy. The expansion expands all wavelengths of and energy and distances, thereby forces a lowering frequency; lost time potential and less mass equivalent in universal space-time. This increases entropy which absorbs the free energy, bringing us closer to the infinite entropy realm.

This is just a theory but it does open a door in the wall beyond space-time.

18

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

« on: 04/07/2022 22:58:56 »

If you plug in the speed of light into the three equations of special relativity; mass, distance and time, you will get discontinuities in time, distance and mass. We know mass cannot exist at the speed of light, since the math  becomes infinite, which cannot occur.

I would also expect a type of discontinuity in both space and time to complete the set. The easiest way to model this limit for space and time is that space-time will break down at the speed of light reference, into separated space and separated time that are not connected. By not being connected other options open up.

At the cross over point, mass and space-time would become massless without space-time. We would have only space that is not constrained by time and time that is not constrained by space.

If one could move in space, without the constraint of time, and/or move in time without the constraint of space, matter and energy could not exist, since matter and energy are limited to space-time being connected. Moving in space, without the constraint of time, would make you omnipresent. The laws of physics are omnipresent, or they are the same in all references. This more like an information type realm instead of material based.

Energy could not exist where space and time are not connected,  since energy, such as photons requires time and space connected as  frequency and wavelength. Instead you could have something like frequency without wavelength and wavelength without frequency. These building blocks allows us to go back to before the BB and \ before any theory that has matter and energy already in place. Science stops are the wall, but the wall can be scaled.

19

New Theories / Re: Why Evolution Is Wrong In Biology And What is Right?

« on: 04/07/2022 14:25:29 »

DNA is like the hard drive of a computer. It has all the data needed to make any given life form. The DNA is an extremely stable molecular data base. But like a hard drive, it is a passive device, that needs to be acted upon, to give up its data. Without action the data stays tucked away for long term storage stability.

The cell body, which is composed of all types of proteins, controls the DNA hard drive. These protein come from the DNA hard drive. Protein has muscle, while DNA only has data. This distinction prioritizes action; grid, and reaction; hard drive.

Red blood cells for example, lose their DNA at maturity. They continue to function for weeks, by running off the protein data in the cell body. They have no need for any further data from the DNA.

When cells replicate to form two daughter cells, the protein grid; cell body materials of the mother cell, is duplicated along with her DNA. The duplication of the DNA, requires that the DNA be taken off line and packed away into chromosomes. While the DNA hard drive is off line, the protein grid continues to function and drives the rest of the cell cycle dynamics. After the two daughter cells separate, the DNA is unpacked by the protein grids, sending in the enzymes to fire up the hard drive. 

One of the main conceptual problems with evolution is that, is in its current form, it gives too much credit to the DNA, for being like a brain, and not enough credit to the interactive protein grid that interfaces the DNA to the environment. The result is the over dependence on casino math to supply fudge factors for the DNA brain.

The protein gird approach offers a simple way to explain multicellular differentiation. All the cells in your body have the same DNA, but each cell type has only specific functions. The protein grid of each cell will set a protein capacitance, that uses the hard drive in its own unique way. This also allows for extended cellular differentiation control via the extended protein grids, from the brain and nervous tissue branches.

As an analogy, say have a large hard drive full of data, with many computer terminals that can access this data via a network. Each terminal has it own experiments to do; unique protein gird, with each accessing just the data it needs. Stem cells bodies; stem cell protein grids, have a more flexible grid pattern, that allows for adding new data and shutting off old data. 

20

New Theories / Re: Origin of magnetic force

« on: 03/07/2022 20:25:25 »

Here is an interesting twist nobody may have seen. A magnet has two poles. However, magnetic monopoles has never been seen in the lab or in space. How can two nothings; two monopoles, add to something?

The analogy is like taking two fairies, which do not exist, but if we combine these two nonexistent entities, we can make a real unicorn appear. There is a conceptual problem with this tradition of two nonexistent monopoles per magnet.

In magnetic iron, the magnetism comes from how the outer electrons of iron are arranged in the orbitals. The magnetic phase of iron is not the lowest energy state of iron. The magnetic phase has potential, due to be in a state with more unpaired electrons.

Normally lowest energy would occur from two opposite spin electrons per orbital. With magnet iron, extra electrons remain unpaired. It is not about two imaginary things; monopoles, but one electron replacing two electrons. We get residual potential that appears to extend the range of the orbitals, out toward infinity. 

In another topic, I once did a thought experiment of a wave tank with two wave generators, one on each side of the tank, each 180 degree out of phase. Even with energy being pumped into the tank by each generator, the center of the tank will appear still as waves cancel and hide the energy.

We can get this hidden energy back by placing a partition in the center of the tank, so the two sets of waves cannot cancel.  Or we can also shut off one of the two wave generators, so we have only one wave generator, to help amplify the energy via standing waves. This allows for magnetic iron and iron pieces, to all stick together like polymers in macro-space.

The electron is an elementary particle, meaning it is one thing that cannot broken down any further. According to the traditions, it has two properties; mass and negative charge. But since we cannot break down the electron to isolate these two separate properties, implied by the traditions, these two things do not exist, in the classic way, within the electron. If you could break the electron down to mass and charge, the electron would not be an elementary particle.

To solve this paradox, two properties of the electron need to be part of a single thing, like part of a unified force, that can blend mass and negative charge to where they are interchangeable. This way you always get one thing, as implied by an elementary particle.