Le Repteux

Are you serious? Do you not realise the observations of planetary motion were what led to the notion of Heliocentrism? The calculations that were facilitated were calculations of planetary motion, seeking to predict future observations based upon past observations.

I'm as serious as Wiki can be. It says that nothing could tell that heliocentrism was right before Galileo could see the planets going with his new telescope, which means that all the scientists who proposed that hypothesis before him did not base it on evidence, but on speculation.

There are numerous examples. Simply reread the thread and note where other members have pointed these out to you. I give you an example to start with. You assert that neutrinos have an internal structure. No observation has suggested that this is so.

I said that if neutrinos had mass, and that mass was due to the small steps between bonded particles, then neutrinos should have components. It was thus an hypothesis, not an assertion.

Heliocentrism was not based on observations before we had good telescopes, and Copernicus even said that he only invented it to facilitate calculations, which means that he did not think it could be objectively tested.

Yes, can you remember me which "points in my hypothesis are contrary to observations" please?

That's one opinion, I registered it, but if you don't mind, I'll wait for more than one before making my mind, and I hope that they will be more elaborated than yours, otherwise I wont be able to conclude.

Science begins with ideas that do not seem to be pertinent at first sight, and there is good chances that they wont be at second sight too, because that kind of idea comes from chance, and because chance comes from a random process. We have to be careful with our ideas because of that, and because even if we know that, they always seem to be relevant to us since they come from our own navel.

Everybody cares for his own navel anyway, so are you! But there are different ways to look at others' navel, and yours is particularly blind.

I said this:

"Now, if the frequency of the steps could change, atoms could increase it instead of resisting increasingly to acceleration, which means that if it was an atomic clock that was accelerated, it would run faster, which unfortunately contradicts SR."

I should have said: "which would unfortunately contradict SR". All the phrase is on conditional, which means that I only wanted to make a comparison between the increase in length of the steps and their increase in frequency.

Contrary to your claim, I said that the steps would increase in length when accelerated, not in frequency, what should have no impact on the frequency of accelerated clocks.

Despite this being pointed out to you, you keep coming back.

I'm back because I couldn't live without your judicious and how helpful comments xyzt.

Acceleration has no impact on the clocks, this is a well known FACT.

Final relative speed has! But just in case you forgot about it: it still takes some acceleration to get speed.

The model for heliocentrism was geometrical, and there was no other prediction than geometric ones, but it still had an enormous effect on the following discoveries. For the moment, the small steps are only geometrical too, and the only prediction I can make from them is that, one day or another, the Higgs will be found not to be the right answer for mass. Talking of mass, here is how the small steps would produce mass increase.

The steps follow the information carried by light, and they are made of accelerations from rest followed by decelerations to rest (rest here means no doppler effect to account for), which means that their speed increases to a top and decreases to zero. Their length and their direction can change, but not their frequency, thus for a molecule accelerated in a given direction, only their length can change. For a molecule to gain the same final speed, that length increases constantly if the acceleration is low but constant, and it increases abruptly if the acceleration is high. The longer is a step, the faster its top speed will be if atoms cannot change the time it takes to make their steps. When the molecule would get to a certain speed close enough to the speed of light, the top speed of the steps would thus exceed the speed of light, which is impossible because their speed depend on light's information, and which means that the molecule would resist increasingly to be accelerated, what we interpret as a mass increase for particles in an accelerator.

Now, if the frequency of the steps could change, atoms could increase it instead of resisting increasingly to acceleration, which means that if it was an atomic clock that was accelerated, it would run faster, which unfortunately contradicts SR. Since we can measure mass increase each time we accelerate a particle, I am incline to believe that, if the steps really exist, their frequency would not change, but it also means that we would have to interpret SR experiments differently.

After having revisited Wiki about heliocentrisim, I revive the debate on the small steps.

Without an improved telescope, nothing could prove that heliocentrism was the solution, and nobody could suspect that it would help us understand gravitation. Heliocentrism became evident only when Galileo saw that the moon was irregular, that Venus had phases, that Jupiter had moons, that the size of the planets were changing with time, etc. Because of that lack of technology, it took 100 years before heliocentrism was accepted as a fact. Einstein was luckier, it took only a couple of years before the next eclipse showed the bending of starlight by the sun's mass. How long will the small steps stay unexamined? Bets are opened!

I said that the small steps were unobservable since we had to use light from the atoms to observe them, and that we already know it is impossible to observe the inertial rotation of the earth this way. Trying to detect earth's rotation while observing the small steps that produce it would resume to repeat the Michelson/Morley experiment. But if this rotation is really due to the small steps, then it seems to me that the null result of the M/M experiment could be explained by the steps, thus giving some credit to the hypothesis.

For instance, if we detect a light ray actually traveling in the direction of earth's rotation, the atoms that we use to detect that light would actually be making their steps away from that light, which would retard its detection, and if the light ray that we detect would be going against the rotation, the steps would be going against the light, which would advance its detection. But since light would be emitted by atoms that are actually making the same steps as the ones that detect it, the retard from one atom would be nulled by the advance from the other and vice-versa, making it impossible to observe earth's rotation.

The small steps would have implications on the relativity principle if they were real, because SR has been developed from the null result of the M/M experiment, but what if they were? Even if you are conviced that relativity is true, can you imagine these implications? Would you still conclude that time is slowing for molecules on relative motion one before the other for instance? And if so, can you imagine how the small steps from their atoms would justify that slowing?

Sorry Phy, but I cant discuss with Damocles around. Thread closed for me until that guy gets a full paid vacation away from Speculations forum, duration undetermined.

Sorry, but then it is kind of pointless posting what is in your head, if you have no intention of communicating with others. Communication requires that people agree on certain meanings to convey information. You require people to think like you do and for some reasons agree with you.

What you try is not communication, instead you are shouting into the echo chamber of your mind.

No need to snatch moderators job Charon, they don't need to, but I think that I will help them nevertheless:

THREAD CLOSED (at least for me)

Phi, if you want to discuss, then discuss, if you want to close the thread, then close it, but, PLEASE, don't tell me when, why, what or how to think! You are not in my head and you thus just don't know what I am aiming at. My ideas are about facts, and I stick to them. To me, resisting to change is a fact, and if you think it is not, then say why without menacing me and we shall discuss your ideas about it. Moreover, this thread has been put in the "Speculations" forum, and speculations are about uncertainties, which, unfortunately, are not considered as science on scientific forums. So if you don't want uncertainties on SF, then I think that you should seriously consider closing the Speculations forum, otherwise, please let those who like to speculate do so. Now, if your "please" did not contain any menace, then forget about what I just said, but try to use friendly words when you talk to me. What did you say? Policemen don't have to be friendly? Of course not, but they don't participate to discussions with their police hats either.

I wasn't comparing living and inert bodies. Were you?

Yes I was, cause I think that my idea about change applies to any kind of evolution, even to motion.

Are these random leaps from one topic to another an attempt to prove your point.

For the same reason as above, I suppose so, but I can't show you how because you don't listen to me!

Not necessarily true. Humans currently have a far greater impact on the environment than environment has on our evolution. And the entire modern environment (all that toxic oxygen, for example) is the result of the effects of living organisms.

I knew that you could answer that, but I took a chance that you would know that I knew. Of course we change our environment, we can even change our genes if we want to, nevertheless, our environment is actually telling us who is the boss, as for our genes, I bet that the principle of mutation/selection is not ready to give up, and that of diversity either.

No. Atoms don't evolve.

They don't seem to, but they can change direction and speed, which should depend on some sort of random process if my idea about change is correct.

Not really.

OK, Big-bang is about how the universe was born and has evolved, thus about how atoms were born and have evolved. Correct?

But they won't all change simultaneously.

I said "almost" simultaneously, because I know very well that interactions are not instantaneous.

You seem to be constantly mixing metaphors and reality. There is no such thing as a psychological force. And if there were, there is no real reason it would be resisted. It has already been explained to you, with many examples as evidence, that people are not as resistant to change as you claim.

Our discussion here is a proof for both of us that you are wrong, because we both visibly resist to change. This is a fact, not just an idea. Wars depend on that fact. You could at least admit that I am right on that one, but things being as they are, I bet you will resit to do so. Resisting to a change produces a real feeling: it hurts our ego a bit and forces us to react. Can you feel it?

I have no idea. If reason won't change your mind, maybe some random event will.

Permit that I stick my foot in the door. You are right on this one, I agree that circumstances may change my mind. Can you do so?

Huh?

What are you afraid of?

Losing my mind, my integrity, my reputation, ... but not to take chances!

I was pointing out that there is NO difference. If you push something it moves. Purely deterministic and mechanical. No randomness required.

I gave a second though to that comparison between living and inert bodies while awaking this morning. You raised an important point yesterday, and I should be able to answer it thoroughly if that idea about change applies to both. There is two directions we can look at from our own viewpoint: where we come from and where we are going to, and it is the same for anything we can think of. We know that evolution of species come from mutations being selected by environment, because we know that environment has more effect on species than the inverse, and also because we know that species cannot voluntarily chose a change. But we cannot predict how a particular specie is going to change because it depends on random mutations and on a complex selection process. What is predictable though is the way it will behave if it can change its habits without having to change its genetics. We know that animals can change territories this way, we know that plants can change habitats, and we know that they will chose the ones that fit their needs, so we can predict which ones if we know their needs and we know the potential territories.

Without genetic changes, changing places for living bodies seems similar to changing directions for inert bodies: both have no other choice but to keep on going, both have no other choice to go away, and both chose the direction that suits their needs after a while. But how could we apply the example of a genetic change to an atom? Are atoms affected the same way species are if drastic changes happen in their environment? The Big-bang theory is about how atoms are born and how they have evolved, but it does not tell us how randomness has been part of the process at each drastic changes. Some scientists even say that the constants could have been selected before the big-bang has happened. We avoid to take chances in our everyday choices when it prevents us from doing what we want, but we use it when it can help us so. We have a schizophrenic way to play with chance, and I think that we have the same kind of way about the idea of chance. Chance is about freedom of mind, but mind is not that free to talk about it.

Why?

Simply because they are part of the same homogeneous body. (By the way, how can I interlock citations here?)

No I am not. How can you apply a force to an idea.

Its a psychological force, of course, which opposes the psychological resistance we offer to change.

Based on past evidence, nothing at all. Even concrete evidence that you are wrong doesn't change your mind.

What about chance then? Why chance would not be able to produce our psychological changes?

Nope. Some things really are random.

...

No, I am trying to explain that there is a difference between unpredictable and random.

No need to make such a difference for the mutation/selection process. If such a process is useful to evolution of species, it might be useful to evolution of anything that faces change, and all the universe is changing all the time, so why not try to apply it to different changes and see what happens? As you can see, if you don't care to try, we won't get anywhere. What are you afraid of: losing your mind, you integrity, your reputation, what...? You said that you didn't like to take chances, is it the only reason?

Then scale is irrelevant. You push a car and it moves in a predictable way. You push a molecule and it moves in a predictable way. This is purely deterministic. Randomness has nothing to do with it.

...

Why does it need chance. Newtons laws of motion do not include a probabilistic term. You push, you get acceleration. Completely mechanical, deterministic and predictable. There is no room for randomness in that. Repeated assertions will not change that.

 

Where does randomness or probability come into F = ma?

Good comment! You are right, there is a big difference between change occurring to a specie and change occurring to a body: the first one is unpredictable while, up to a certain point, the other one is. Let me paint a picture of the different evolutions.The differences in evolutionary processes reside in the duration of the trial and error process compared to the duration of the change in the environment, and on the way the trials are made and selected. For large species, there is numerous trials occurring simultaneously, and their duration is counted in years. For our mind, there is only one essay at a time, and its duration is counted in days.

For a macroscopic body, each of its atoms have to change almost simultaneously, and the duration of these changes is counted in femtoseconds. For only one atom, who knows what has to change, but the duration of this change must be incredibly fast. Quantum data show that this change is unpredictable for one atom, but they also show that it becomes predictable in the long run or if numerous trials are made, which explains macroscopic behavior since numerous atoms are involved. These surprising data have brought scientists ideas to their limit, and created controversies between them. If my theory about motion is a bit right, it might help us to better understand quantum effects.

No you aren't.

You are making baseless assertions. I think they are unlikely to change my opinion.

OK then, let me reverse the example: lets admit that you are presently applying a force on my ideas, but that they will not change just because you want them to, so, since we both know that our ideas change with time, what is going to change mine: only time? Time is a concept, it cannot be only time.

I was thinking about this earlier. When I mentioned the lottery, strictly speaking it is not random. It is just unpredictable and so appears random.

 

The UK premium bond prize, on the other hand, really is random.

If I take your definition of randomness, even the bond prize would not be random, it would only give more complexity to the cause of a phenomenon. If you want to understand what I mean by randomness being a possible cause for change at any scale, you have to stick to the mutation/selection principle, to the effect a random process can have on the continuity of a phenomenon, thus on its existence. If a specie changes without being able to do so by itself, it is because some change happens to its genes, otherwise it would not change, which means that, in some way, it resists to the change that happens in its environment: things change while resisting to that change all the time, why is it so? What I suggest is that it takes time for a random process to produce a change. The essay and error process takes time and its outcome is unpredictable, this is why research is not very common in business, and why pills are so expensive.

I would only categorize those produced by ionizing radiation as random. Others, such as errors in replication or horizontal gene transfer are just unpredictable (but fully deterministic). But it really doesn't matter. Your extrapolation to all change being random is just wrong.

Again, your definition of randomness stands on the precision of a prediction, whereas mine stands on the change a random process could produce. An individual does not measure the chances he had to get a particular mutation, he uses it as long as he can, and reproduces it if he can.

There is absolutely no need to invoke quantum effects (the only source of real randomness) here. You apply a force and the atoms move.

I did not want to show that quantum uncertainty was certainly the cause for change in the direction and speed of a body, but that random processes were a scale effect. To me, there should not be more uncertainty between atoms than between macroscopic bodies, but from us to them, it seems to be the case.

A change from its environment is also a force applied to a specie, but this specie does not change automatically, it needs chance. I am presently applying a force on your ideas, but they will not change just because I want them to, it also takes chance for them to change. What kind of chance? How could a random process happen in our mind? If it did, how could we be unable to notice it?

So it is only wrong if you get caught?

I consider that I am wrong when I feel convinced, not when I feel intimidated, whether it is by participants or by moderators.

That appears to be a non sequitur. Not all changes are brought about by genes. Not all changes require random processes. That is pretty obvious. I can turn the steering wheel of my car to change the direction of my car. There is nothing random about that. Most things are not random - the majority of the world above the quantum level is deterministic.

I think you agree that biologic evolution, thus life, is not deterministic. Now, if life had to develop this way, its because things change constantly, in such a way that life had to count on randomness to keep on existing. This randomness comes from atomic scale, whereas life is at molecular scale, and animals at macroscopic scale. The causes of mutation are not random at their own scale, atoms don't behave randomly one before the other, but they may be when they interfere with a larger scale, as for the quantum uncertainty for instance. The butterfly wing beating does not cause randomness at its own scale, but it may at the planet scale.

When your car changes direction, the randomness that I am talking about and that permits the change would not happen at its scale, but at the microscopic scale. Since macroscopic bodies change direction, we know that atoms can, but we also know that they would not be supposed to, because they resist a change, nevertheless, they do, and this might be because there is a randomness process going on below their scale, a process that takes time, like the mutation/selection one, a time that could be the cause of the resistance. That way, any change could be a scale effect.

Have you ever played billiards or snooker? There is nothing random about the way balls change direction and speed.

Nothing can be absolutely precise. After many bumps, it is impossible to predict the direction of a particular ball, and if it was not so, that game would be useless. Any sport is based on that impossibility, this is what makes them exciting for us. Without randomness in sports, there would not be any sport, and to me, there would not be any society without randomness either, because there would not have been any change in it from its beginning.

This is pretty irrelevant. It doesn't change the argument if we assume that all diversity is caused by mutation and all mutation is random (I'm not sure either of those are true).

What did you mean by "Some mutations are random" ? I thought you meant that all mutations were not random.

Sorry Phy, I should have added "except if it my ideas are discussed by moderators".

I don't really understand the first part (randomness is non-deterministic by definition, but you can also have non-random change) and I don't see why both are needed.

Again, there is no change in a specie without random change in the genes, which means to me that there might be no change anywhere without a random process to permit it. When two bodies changes direction or speed while hitting each other for instance, there might be a random process to permit it. Nevertheless, once the change has been executed, there is also a continuity process to permit that it is conserved since the two bodies keep their momentum. Without the randomness, no change could happen to the momentum, but without the momentum there would be no way to conserve a change: as you can see, both would also be needed to change a motion.

Some mutations are random.

Can you give me an example of a non random mutation?

Elections are not random. If you poll sufficient people you can predict the result. Even if you don't poll people and you can't predict the result, the outcome is determined by how people vote, therefore not random.

 

A random election would be one where the outcome is determined purely by chance and the votes are irrelevant.

Again, you are saying that the process I am talking about is only random, and I explained to you twice that randomness needed continuity and vice versa. Think about evolution of species when I talk about randomness: their genes crate continuity, but their mutations crate simultaneously randomness. Both principles of change and continuity are linked in the same process of life.

"Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.^[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.^[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.^[3][4] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos."

Same comment: determinism is about continuity and indeterminism is about randomness, but both are needed to make a world.

Although tossing dice and roulette wheels are normally considered random, that is only because it is hard to predict the result. People have won money at roulette by analysing the speed and bounces of the ball and predicting where it will land.

Are you about to say that mutations are not random?

Why would that make any difference? The world was just as random or not before humans appeared as it is now.

If it is so, we have a contradiction, because, since species are already an environment for the other species, they cannot evolve randomly while their environment does not.

Change is independent of whether a system is random or deterministic.

Yet, change would not be possible for a specie without a random process.

I see no reason to.

Just for fun, to take a chance, a lottery ticket for free.

I don't think they are random.

Lets use another analogy: what about elections? There is always a certain amount of uncertainty in the predictions preceding an election: surveys are about probabilities. This global uncertainty comes from individual uncertainties, which change with time depending on the circumstances, and which are unpredictable, thus depend of a random process. To me, compare to the way dictatorship is driven, an election is a random process, because it favors change, not to you?

Weather? Entirely deterministic and also unpredictable (in the long term).

How could a phenomenon be unpredictable without containing some kind of random process? Do you mean that tossing a dice is not a random process because we can predict equal chance to obtain any number on the long run?

I agree there are random processes involved in that. One of the many things that make it different from either memory or imagination.

 

One could draw an interesting analogy between evolutionary processes, such as selective breeding, and creative thought. For example, the subconscious might try combining lots of different ideas that the mind has accumulated to produce new ideas and then using some sort of selection process to choose those that "survive". If one did that, it would have to acknowledge that it is a very flawed analogy and not to be taken too seriously.

This is not how I think that imagination is the product of a random process. What I think is that it can kind of toss a dime to change an idea randomly, for instance it could change randomly the direction (or the sense) that an old idea had, or it could change its importance randomly, and then it would have to try it for real to check if it works. If it hurts, it should have time to get back to work and change it another way, try it again for real, and keep it if it doesn't hurt anymore. This way, it could learn or invent a new idea faster and more deeply that animals can do.

No.

If you think that environment does not change randomly for us, could you accept that it did for animals before we were here?

My new job is very definitely not random. It is based upon my existing skills and contacts.

Again, if we do not differentiate properly continuity from change, we won't get anywhere. To me, skills are about memory, thus continuity, and change is about imagination, thus about randomness: can you accept that definition for a while?

Thanks for spitting the thread Swansont, and sorry for the trouble.

Very rarely. I might by a lottery ticket once or twice a year. That's about it.

Nice things never happened to you by chance only? You never take a chance in case it would work?

No. But I can pretty much guarantee it won't be random. It might be related to a new job, what to eat for dinner, etc. Even if I win that lottery, my thoughts will not be random; I will be planning how to invest the money, which car to buy, etc.

 

Unpredictable but not random. A bit like the weather, me.

How could things be unpredictable without a random process to develop them? How could evolution of a specie be unpredictable without the random process of mutations and natural selection?

External environment, learning new things, changing job, moving to a different country, ...

Aren't these things subjected to a random process also? Environment is changing randomly, no? Nothing can predict that we will be able to learn a new thing, no? What makes us change jobs and change places if not external environment that changes constantly? If there was no change to face, would we have to change anything? If our environment would never change, wouldn't a change from an individual be absolutely no use to him?

What does recombining genes have to do with imagination?

Recombination is a random process, whether it is ideas or genes.

Exactly. You decide you are right, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Lately, I learned that scientific evidence was about facts, not about ideas, but the evidence that you are talking about is about an idea. If we want to get somewhere, lets stick to facts. To me, its a fact that randomness is part of my life, not to you? Can you predict what you will be thinking in a few years? Are you thinking the same as you were ten years ago? If not, and considering what you think of my idea actually, what could change our ideas so drastically sometimes if not a random process?

I doubt imagination is really random. It is mainly based on past experiences, perhaps combined in novel ways.

Combining old genes does not permit a specie to survive to important environmental changes, it also takes mutations.

It comes from our limited ability to understand the complexities of human nature. Even people with serious mental disorders do not behave randomly.

Continuity and change are two different viewpoints that we can take on our behaviors, and we cannot take both at a time, but these two properties are nevertheless both present at the same time in our mind. If we focus on randomness, we only see randomness, and if we focus on continuity, we only see continuity, but for life to continue it takes randomness, and for randomness to exist it takes continuity. In other words, we behave part randomly and part continuously. Do you agree?

So you have managed to drag this thread about whether the study of evolution is science or not, back to your favorite topic. Which has been shown to be mistaken in at least two previous threads.

Let me decide what is mistaken or not when people discuss my own ideas.

As has been shown before you are wrong. Ironically, though, you seem unable to learn and change your idee fixe.

You want to discuss or fight?

I understand what you mean. But you are still wrong.

No you did not. I'll tell you when you do.

Except they aren't. But you seem unwilling to change your mind about this either.

Minds don't change by force, they change by chance, so be patient and we might happen to get somewhere together.