Jump to content

lucaspa

Senior Members
  • Posts

    1588
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by lucaspa

  1. Who's to say that WE are not the result of an early alien visit. When you look around at life here on earth, there isn't another life form even close to us in terms of mental capacity (which to me seems improbable).

     

    In addition to the 2 species of chimps, orangutuans have a large mental capacity that is easily demonstrable. E Linden, Can animals think? Time 154: 57-60, Sept 6, 1999. And, of course, we don't know exactly the capacity of dolphins and whales.

     

    Can we really rule out that we human beings were not created or at least "nudged" in a certain direction by an alien visitor?

     

    We can rule out the "created" as in directly manufactured in our present form. The evidence is clear that that did not happen.

     

    However, there are at least 2 ways that evolution could have been nudged in the past and be undetectable by science.

     

    Bascule, your use of Occam's Razor is incorrect. It is the exact opposite of what William of Occam had in mind and the position he argued against. The simplest explanation is not necessarily the correct one.

  2. bascule described it as "a poll of several nations which asked if humans share a common ancestor with all other life on earth".

     

    If this really had been the question' date=' I would have been inclined to say 'not sure' because I don't know whether [b']all[/b] other life on Earth comes from the same abiogenesis event. (It probably does, but I don't think I would say it does without more evidence - there could be some obscure silicon based life living in a volcano for example.)

     

    Good point. There could even still be some microbe that came from among the pool of microbes that lived long ago. Also, since it has been shown that microbes exchange genes via lateral gene transfer, itis not clear even yet whether there was a SINGLE species of single-celled organism that was THE common ancestor. It's possible there were 2 or more and they exchanged genetic material. OTOH, the evidence from the genetic code argues very strongly for a single common ancestor.

  3. By the way, genetic mutations are far more detrimental then beneficial. Thats why human ailments will get worse and worse...

     

    That's not true. 997.4 mutations out of 1,000 are either neutral or beneficial. Only 2.6 out of a 1000 have any direct effect on lifespan or reproduction.

     

    Human health now is much better, due mostly to better nutrition. Most ailments come from the environment, not mutations.

     

    DNA coding humans will no longer be born with DNA abnormalities. so, your theory is true but humans will always evolve and adapt to fix the problem.

     

    It's possible that, someday, we can change DNA sequences such that no one is born with muscular dystrophy, for instance. But if we wipe out ALL "DNA abnormalities", then we are also destroying the genetic variability within the species. When that happens, we will become extinct. As I said in the previous post: we are not nearly as smart as natural selection. The moment we really start tinkering with the genes to produce a "better" human, then we are hanging out a sign: "extinction sale, everything must go"

  4. I would approve of any attempt to prove or disprove it. I also welcome any criticism or comments.

     

    I hope you mean this, because there are several flaws in the theory.

     

    In the history of life, organisms have evolved

     

    Organisms don't evolve. POPULATIONS evolve. Evolution happens to populations, not individuals.

     

    by process of elimination, meaning only the fit survive. If an organism is born with a mutated gene that works to it's disadvantage, it dies before it reproduces. This process makes each species do 2 things. One, become more fit for their environment, and two, STAY fit for their environment.

     

    Read Darwin. Natural selection is a process of PRESERVATION, not elimination. NS preserves good designs and passes them on to the next generation.

     

    Now, let's say an organism manages to do something incredibly stupid. Let's say it reproduces no matter how unfit for the environment it is.

     

    Natural selection is about numbers. It's not that an "unfit" individual will not reproduce AT ALL, but that it will have LESS offspring than those who are fitter for that particular environment.

     

    However, this all depends on competition for scarce resources. No competition, no evolution.

     

    While this will not shrink the population, it WILL cause it's quality of life to drop. For example, mice that are blind and deaf live in a protected environment where they can reproduce, despite their disadvantages.

     

    Then blindness is NOT a disadvantage in that particular environment, is it? You are working with the fallacy that some traits are universally good and some are universally bad. That's simply not true.

     

    Every trait comes with costs as well as benefits. It takes energy during embryonic development to make an eye. An eye is vulnerable to damage. If the environment is such that eyes are not needed, then having eyes are a DISadvantage. That's why we see the loss of eyes in the evolution of species that live underground. There is no benefit to counter the cost.

     

    Example: A child is born with a gene that has a 75% chance of causing deadly stomach cancer. His kids are able to have their stomaches removed and adjust to a specialized diet. They live normal lives and have more kids that also have the defect and also need to have their stomaches removed. Eventually the defect will make its way into every descendant.

     

    No, it won't. That would happen ONLY if this lineage has MORE kids than all other lineages. Why would this be so? What this does is keep the allele(s) in the population, but it doesn't increase the frequency in the population.

     

    Since people are being treated for things that normally should be deadly, they are able to reproduce and pass these defects on to our kids. Our kids will then have to be treated for these defects unless they want to live a low quality or short life.

     

    So? All this means is that our "environment" now includes medical technology. You have also overlooked the possibility of other advantageous traits. Let's say your child with an allele for stomach cancer later in life also has an allele for absolute resistance to Ebola virus. By keeping that individual alive and his having children, we now also have insurance against an outbreak of Ebola -- those people with the resistant allele will survive -- even with the risk of stomach cancer.

     

    A problem with your thesis is that you think you are smarter than natural selection. You aren't. Natural selection can balance ALL the millions of variables in our environment, constantly selecting the best designs available. You, OTOH, look only at a couple of obvious traits, mistakenly pick traits that you think are "good", and would eliminate everything else in that genome as you eliminate the person. Losing that valuable genetic material from the population.

     

    Example: People with good immune systems have more attractive natural body scents to people of the opposite sex. When people use perfume or deodorant, they are making themselves appear more attractive to the other sex, or subconsciously, more healthy than they really are.

     

    So? And if the geek with the bad immune system is a genius? So he uses Tag body spray and fathers several children. Yes, the children MAY have his poor immune system, but they also may have his higher IQ. And some of the children will have their mother's good immune system AND their father's higher IQ.

     

    Remember what I said about competition? You are assuming no competition for the medical treatments. Yet that isn't true, is it? The cosmetic surgery you describe is not covered by insurance and is expensive. So not everyone can afford it. Those that can have demonstrated the ability to compete for money. Thus, they have already shown themselves to be "fit". Even if they buy cosmetic surgery for their children, the children will inherit the alleles the parents had that made them successful competitors in the marketplace. And if the children are successful, then the grandchildren will get the surgery. And there you have it: the more "fit" are having differential reproductive success. :)

  5. Actualy the question was: "Here are the results of a poll of several nations which asked if humans share a common ancestor with all other life on earth:"

     

    I think we have our own poll on reading comprehension. "Who believes in evolution?" is the title of the thread. Not, as you so accurately pointed out, the question of the poll. And we can see that, even in a science forum, that several people did not realize this.

  6. Here are the results of a poll of several nations which asked if humans share a common ancestor with all other life on earth:

     

     

    The title of the thread should have been: Who accepts evolution? You don't "believe" scientific theories. You accept them as (provisionally) true becauuse of the data.

     

    And yes, the US is very low. Shows the effectiveness and strength of Fundamentalism.

  7. If a gene mutates in an offspring' date=' will that mutation be permanent? Suppose you had a sheep that was born with two heads. If that sheep was to have offspring of his own, would those offspring have at least a 1 in 4 chance of inhereting an extra head?

     

    Of course, evolution wouldn't work if mutations weren't permanent from one generation to the next, but I'm wondering if this is only true for some mutations, while others get "restored" back to the original DNA configuration after one generation.[/quote']

     

    There is a difference here between "genetic mutation" and "sheep with 2 heads". The first is the genotype and the second is the phenotype -- how the animal looks.

     

    You can get a phenotype without a genetic mutation. As Dak pointed out, retinoic acid is a potent regulator of development. There are several papers involving chick embryos where retinoic acid was injected into a limb bud during development. The result was two limbs. Two right legs or two left legs, depending on which side got the extra retinoic acid.

     

    So, if there was some developmental anomaly, the sheep with two heads could be a phenotype and not a genotype.

     

    Evolution works on genotypic changes -- changes in the sex cells -- that show up as phenotypes. However, it's much more complicated than usually presented. Most traits are NOT due to a SINGLE gene. They are the sum of the effects of several genes (also most genes have more than one effect). We tend to give the simple examples of one gene = one trait, but those are the exceptions, not the rule.

     

    So, let's say there was a mutation in the sex cells that produced a sheep with 2 heads. Let's even assume that the mutation is in one gene to produce a different allele (form) of the gene. That allele, in combination with all the other particular alleles, produced a sheep with 2 heads.

     

    When you are saying "1 in 4 chance" you are assuming that the allele is recessive, but also that the mate of the 2 headed sheep will also have that recessive allele. But the mate does NOT have that allele, does it? We have a new mutation and only 1 sheep has it.

     

    So, it's possible that none of the offspring of that sheep and a 1-headed sheep would have two heads. If the mutation was dominant and worked only by straight Mendelian genetics, then the odds are that 1/2 the offsring would be 2 headed. But if recessive then none of the offspring would have 2 heads because there is no second recessive allele.

     

    Instead, half the offspring would have the recessive allele to form 2 heads. The next generation might have another sheep with two heads -- when 2 one-headed sheep mated and combined the alleles necessary to give a 2 headed sheep.

     

    But to answer your last comment: No, mutations do not get "restored". However, in the absence of strong positive selection pressure, they remain at very low frequency in the population. They may be eliminated by either negative selection or genetic drift (chance).

  8. We already have a perfectly good model for predicting the pseudoscalar meson masses. QCD does just fine. It may be a little difficult to calculate anything with, but it gives a hell of a lot more understanding than "The pseudo meson scale is: 1/8, 1/6, 1/4."

     

    Severian, is there a website you can post with the math for this? Thanks.

     

    Also, can you answer a question I had for Elas? Elas stated:

    "The pseudo meson scale is:

    1/8, 1/6, 1/4.

    but if this is continued in the same manner as the main sequence we get:

    1/2, 2/4, 3/6."

     

    I asked:

     

    "1. Is it valid to continue the pseudo meson scale in the same manner as the main sequence? If so, why?"

     

    Thanks

  9. Those interested in fractional waves know that the main sequence is:

    1/7' date=' 1/5, 1/3, 2/5, 3/7, 4/9, etc.

    The pseudo meson scale is:

    1/8, 1/6, 1/4.

    but if this is continued in the same manner as the main sequence we get:

    1/2, 2/4, 3/6.

    and it seems we are stuck on 1/2. Interestingly neither sequence will exceed 1/2; this (I suggest) is because the core (or nucleus) and shell are two halves (in fractions of total force). So regardless of which sequence is used the fractional waves found in both particle physics and cosmology cannot exceed 0.5.[/quote']

     

    Then submit your paper to Journal of Theoretical Physics. Why are you touting your theory on an internet forum? Put it to the peers within physics and see what they say.

     

    I have a few questions:

     

    1. Is it valid to continue the pseudo meson scale in the same manner as the main sequence? If so, why?

     

    2. What "waves found in cosmology"?

     

    3. Is the "shell" you refer to the electron shell surrounding the nucleus of the atom?

     

    4. Total force to do what? What's the source of this total force?

  10. Lucaspa complains about the use of a 26 year old quote, but the same statement is made currently by Gross and others. He goes on to claim that string theory provides “a why for these things”, it does not, as Prof. Robert Kane wrote recently “the value of masses cannot be explained by the Standard model” neither does it explain why there are three generations of particles or the connection between gravity and the other forces or why the universe is asymmetric.

     

    1. The same quote may be used by others, but that's not the point, is it? The point is: is the statement still accurate? You argued that Morris' statement should apply to all science. But does it? IOW, is the statement accurate to describe all aspects of science?

     

    Is that 26 year old quote still accurate, by the only standard used in science: the data? I pointed out that String Theory has made lots of progress in the last 26 years. You haven't provided any evidence that the quote is still valid.

     

    I'm somewhat dismayed by your emphasis on quotes by people stating their opinion on the theories in question. You aren't looking at the theories themselves, but rather on the opinions of people who are dissatisfied.

     

    Elas, you can alwaysfind someone who is dissatisfied with a particular theory. Just look at Hoyle and Eric Lerner and their refusal to accept Big Bang and insistence on Steady State. So, what is important is the theory itself, not quoting opinions about the theory. Especially when you are looking just for opinions that match yours.

     

    As Popper pointed out, you can always find evidence in support, if that is all you are looking for. And that appears to be all you are looking for. After all, you never mention any of those working in the field who are satisfied with the Standard Model as a description or String Theory as an underlying explanation.

     

    2. You've confused 2 different theories. The standard model is NOT String Theory. http://www.nuclecu.unam.mx/~alberto/physics/string.html

     

    "Our current knowledge about the subatomic composition of the universe is summarized in what is known as the Standard Model of particle physics. It describes both the fundamental building blocks out of which the world is made, and the forces through which these blocks interact. ... In the last few decades, string theory has emerged as the most promising candidate for a microscopic theory of gravity. And it is infinitely more ambitious than that: it attempts to provide a complete, unified, and consistent description of the fundamental structure of our universe. (For this reason it is sometimes, quite arrogantly, called a 'Theory of Everything').

     

    The essential idea behind string theory is this: all of the different 'fundamental ' particles of the Standard Model are really just different manifestations of one basic object: a string. "

     

    So, the Standard Model is a description of subatomic particles and their interactions. String Theory is the explanation of those descriptions by providing an unifying theme: everything in the Standard Model are different manifestations of strings.

     

    You have to make sure that your new theory does everything at least as well as the old theory; otherwise the old theory remains more attractive. This is very difficult mainly because our current theories are so spectacularly good in their predictions.

     

    I would put it differently by saying that a new theory should do those things that the old theory does not do, the ability to predict already exist but, (as Kane states) the 'explanation' does not, that is why students are told “if you can predict it you understand it”; to my way of thinking that is an unacceptable statement.

     

    This statement is somewhat incoherent. In order to "do those things that the old theory does not do", the new theory must do all the things the old theory did do. Otherwise, all you have now is a new theory that does not do something. You're trying to replace a theory that you say does not do things with another theory that does not do things. What have you gained?

     

    Your way of thinking seems to be an argument from personal incredulity. Being able to predict as understanding somehow doesn't resonate with you. Perhaps it's not the statement that is unacceptable, but your way of thinking.

  11. Anyway, String Theories, while having particles with mass in them, are not predicting[/b'] the masses of the particles. You can't sit down and work out the top quark mass for example, because it will be highly dependent on how you perform the compactification.

     

    The first quote does say mass will be predicted: it depends on the vibrational energy of the string via E=mc^2. An energy E(1) will correspond to a mass(1). So, knowing the energy of the vibration gives you mass of the particle. Now, it may be, as you say, that the energy of vibration is dependent on the compactification. I can't follow the equations well enough to tell. But that would still allow String Theory to predict masses; it would just constrain the compactification. Which, in turn, gives you limits of the compactification and allows you to test String Theory. If yourtest is sensitive enought to detect the compactification necessary to produce the mass, but you can't detect the compactification, then String Theory is refuted. I have read that String Theory is having troubles because there are tests to detect compactification and, so far, none has been detected. String Theory, so far, has been able to be modified to give smaller compactifications below the sensitivity of the tests: Kaku M, Testing string theory. Discover August 2005 http://www.discover.com/issues/aug-05/cover/

     

    Or you can even run that in reverse and use it for prediction: knowing the mass of the particle, you should predict the vibration of the string. If that vibration is impossible, then String Theory is also in trouble.

  12. Extract from “The Elegant Universe”.

    Because string theory has no foundation in fact' date=' it does not meet the criteria that defines science and is only correctly defined as philosophy (not science). [/quote']

     

    This has nothing to do with anything. Since theories are imaginative constructs, all theories start out as having no foundation in "fact" Yet they are science. The author here has made a mistake on how science is done.

     

    Volume 13, #22 The Scientist November 8, 1999

    http://www.the-scientist.com/yr1999/nov/halim1_p1_991108.html

     

    Nobel Laureate Ready To Head Back to Lab

    Author: Nadia S. Halim

    Date: November 8, 1999

    Courtesy of Rockefeller University

     

    Nobel laureate Günter Blobel

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     

    " When Günter Blobel and David Sabatini first proposed the signal hypothesis in 1971, the whole thing was simply ignored. There was not a shred of evidence to support it."

     

    This is confirmed by Richard Morris in "Achilles in the Quantum Universe" from which I quote:

    "They (physicists) feel a complete explanation of the subatomic world will not have been attained until it is known why particles have the charge, masses and other particular properties they are observed to possess".

     

    Richard Morris is a good science writer. However, he is not talking about QM here. As I noted in a previous post, one of the attractions of String Theory is that it does provide a "why" for all of these: the observations are a result of the behavior of strings.

     

    I feel that further progress will not be made until we have answered the question why? that is what my paper starts to do; it connects experimentally observed fractional measurements with theoretical mass and charge via a proposed wave structure.

     

    Let me agree with Severian: WHY is there a wave structure? You haven't explained the wave structure, have you?

     

    It is not a question of being superior or inferior to QT or SM, it is a question of providing a description of the underlying structure.

     

    When you admitted that your theory could not predict the values that QM or SM predicted, you admitted that your theory is inferior. Your underlying structure can't be correct if it can't give the correct observed values. That's how we initially test hypotheses in trying to falsify them: we test them against KNOWN data. Do they predict what we already know?

     

    This is why String Theory has undergone a number of modifications: the earlier versions could not predict what has already been observed.

  13. There seems to be considerable misunderstanding of the current state of our knowledge of physics. I quote the introductory notes of several authors:

     

    Extracts from ELECTRODYNAMICS AND CLASSICAL THEORY OF FIELDS AND PARTICLES by A.O. BARUT' date=' Professor of physics, University of Colorado (1964 revised by author [b']1980[/b])

     

    You didn't give the years of the rest, but look at the DATE! 1980! That's 26 years ago. Thus, this is NOT the "current state of our knowledge". What's more, it is the author's opinion as of 26 years ago.

     

    Do you think there might have been some progress in String Theory?

     

    When you quote people, you have to check to make sure that what was said

    then is still valid now. You haven't done that.

  14. This makes you unique' date=' according to Jim Baggott:

    "the theory is, quite simply, not [i']meant[/i] to be understood."

    Further on he writes:

    "Students are usually advised not to ask how this particular conjuring trick is done".

    If you have an explanation (understanding) please let us have it.

     

    Your attitude shows the difficulty those working on interpretation have to face. Only those at the very top are prepared to state the true position of QT, the rest firmly believe they understand it when in reality they have only a high mathematical skill, but no interpretation.

     

    It's looking more and more like the problem lies in what you see as "explanation". Let me take this to biology, where I am on more familiar, specific, ground. Surgeons had long known that bone would form in muscle at the site of bone surgery sometimes. What's the explanation? In 1965 Marshall Urist demonstrated that if he implanted demineralized bone matrix (bone from which all the mineral had been removed) in the muscle of a rat or rabbit, bone would form at the site. If he destroyed all proteins in the DBM, then bone would not form. Conclusion: there was a protein in DBM that caused extraskeletal bone formation following bone surgery.

     

    Yet is this an "explanation"? Does it satisfy you? The identity of the protein is unknown, the responding cell is unknown, and the mechanism of the protein causing the cell to become a bone cell is unknown. From reading your posts, it appears that these unknowns would cause you to reject "a protein in bone explains non-skeletal bone formation following surgery on the bone." Yet, for that phenomenon, I would say that we do have an explanation.

     

    In the years since, the protein has been identified, the receptor on the cell membrane has been identified, the signalling system inside the cell that transfers the binding of the protein to the cell membrane to turning on some genes in the DNA has been studied. However, we still don't know exactly which genes are activated, nor do we know how the products of these genes cause a cell to become a bone cell. So, would you say we still can't "explain" why surgery on a bone results in non-skeletal bone? Of course, there is the unanswered issue that only sometimes does non-skeletal bone form. So, we still don't know why only sometimes do we see non-skeletal bone. It seems obvious to hypothesize that most times not enough protein is released and that there are not enough responding cells. But that doesn't get us to the nitty gritty of exactly how much protein is necessary per cell.

     

    Of course, we still don't have the nitty-gritty of the exact movement of each atom in the cell-membrane receptor protein such that we can explain exactly why binding of the cell receptor starts the signalling cascade. Nor do we have the exact movement of every atom in either the protein that is the transcription factor and the DNA such that we can "explain" how binding the transcription factor results in activation of the gene.

     

    Do you see where I'm going here? There are layers of explanation. Because you don't have the next layer doesn't mean that you don't have any explanation.

     

    And there is the related issue of whether the explanation makes sense to you. There is a difference between having an explanation and whether any particular individual can understand it. You want explanations, for instance, in non-mathematical language. But that may not be possible. Mathematics is a language, and sometimes, like all languages, complete and exact translation is not possible. You must learn the language in order to understand what is being said.

  15. Severian

     

    However' date=' the Standard Model does tell us what mass is and why it exists, and even gives us a cause for mass - it is an interaction of the fundamental particles with the vacuum.[/b']

     

    I have already quoted Gross; Barut, Veltman and others say the same thing that there is no connection between SM, QT and what we observe. Strictly speaking SM and QT are philosophy not science.

     

    Argument from Authority and selective quoting. If the SM and QT have no connection to what we observe, then they could not have been used, as they have been used, to predict new observations. It's quite obvious that the data make Gross, Barut, and Veltman wrong.

     

    I cannot predict mass but I can show that the difference between particles can be attributed to changes in the fractional wave structure.

     

    Then your theory is inferior to both the SM and String Theory, because both of them predict mass.

     

    Unfortunately it is only possible to predict which fractional wave is involved (and therefore predict mass) in the negative lepton group. There is insufficient data to do the same for other particles.

     

    Which is one reason why you can't get the paper published thru peer-review but try to convince non-physicists it is correct.

     

    The fact of the matter is that some particles have zero charge because they are trivial representations of the symmetry group U(1) - does that count as mathematical? It probably does, but your inability to understand what it means does not make it wrong.

     

    No one understands what this means. Current practice is to tell students that if they can compute it they understand it (Veltman). That is why we need a theory that explains to underwrite the current predictive theories.

     

    I understand it, too. Zero charge is a consequence of that particular symmetry group. What else is there to explain? Why there is a symmetry group?

     

    You (and apparently Veltman) seem to think that a hypothesis/theory should answer ALL question. That's never been the case yet. ALWAYS you get 3 or 4 new questions that pop up out of every answer. Zero charge is a result of the symmetry group. That's an answer. New question: why is there a symmetry group? But the symmetry group is the explanation for zero charge of some particles.

     

    I think the difficulty lies in your misunderstanding of what an "explanation" is.

  16. I would dispute that. String theorists have never been able to predict the masses of the particles. If the masses of the particles were really coming from the vibrations of the string then they would either all be massless, or have masses of the Planck scale. To get around this, string theory asserts that the particles we see are the massless modes, but that there is some additional (unknown) mechanism with causes a slight symmetry breaking, making the masses non-zero. That is certainly not a prediction, and the contribution to the mass is not the energy of vibration.

     

    "String theory, as stated above, postulates the existence of tiny vibrating strings that correspond to the observed elementary particles. Strings can undergo an infinite number of different vibrational patterns, called resonances, whose evenly-spaced peaks and troughs fit exactly along its spatial extent. By analogy, the strings of a guitar can similarly undergo an infinite number of vibrational patterns that meet the same requirement, though we only come in contact with a few of them. These recognizable vibrations are perceived by human ears as different musical notes. Similarly, the vibrations which strings undergo not only correspond to, but actually create, the different masses and charges observed in the various elementary particles. In other words, an elementary particle's precise properties are caused by the vibrations of its string. This connection is best illustrated for the mass of a particle. A vibrational pattern's energy is related to its amplitude, or the maximum height of a wave peak (or depth of a trough) and the wavelength, or the distance between one peak and the next. Greater amplitude and greater wavelength correlate with greater energy - that is, the more frenetic the vibrations of the string, the greater energy it has. Since energy is related to mass by Einstein's famous equation E=mc2, high vibrational energies correspond to high-mass particles."

    http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/stringtheory1.htm

     

    http://superstringtheory.com/basics/basic3a.html and following pages:

     

    "This is classical string. When we add quantum mechanics by making the string momentum and position obey quantum commutation relations, the oscillator mode coefficients have the commutation relations

    [equation in here on page]

    The quantized string oscillator modes wind up giving representations of the Poincaré group, through which quantum states of mass and spin are classified in a relativistic quantum field theory.

    So this is where the elementary particle arise in string theory. Particles in a string theory are like the harmonic notes played on a string with a fixed tension. By looking at the quantum mechanics of the relativistic string normal modes, one can deduce that the quantum modes of the string look just like the particles we see in spacetime, with mass that depends on the spin according to the formula: [equation did not copy]"

  17. Severian

     

    No one theory accurately predicts mass but' date=' several different concepts of mass allow prediction to be made providing the right concept for that particular method is used. As a result ST cannot define mass in non-mathematical terms. It does not tell us [b']what[/b] mass is or why mass exists; or what is the cause of mass.

     

    Acutally, String Theory does all of these. Defining mass in non-mathematical terms is simply convenience and involves translating the language of mathematics to English. ST says mass is the result of vibration of strings. Thus mass exists because strings vibrate and the vibration is the cause of mass. You need to read more on String Theory.

     

    Of course, ST does not tell you the source of strings. But then, it doesn't have to.

     

    I challenge you to explain in non-mathematical terms why some particles have zero charge and what happens during the conversion process.

     

    The implication here is that the Standard Model can explain this in mathematical terms. If you don't understand the math (like I don't), too bad for you. That is our failure, not a failure of the theory.

     

    My theory does not predict charge but it does explain why the allocation of fractional charge to quarks is wrong.

     

    Your theory must "predict", from the statements of the theory, that charge will exist and have the values it does. If the allocation of the fractional charge to quarks is wrong, then that hypothesis would not give the charges we see. Your theory must give the charges we see. Does it?

     

    It explains what charge is. It does not predict mass but is does explain what mass is and why particles have there particular mass.

     

    "why particles have there [sic] paticular mass" is predicting mass. Does your theory really predict what the particular mass of particles is?

     

    It shows that the wave structure that seeks to determine particle structure, is the same wave structure that seeks to determine planetary orbits, or the distance between the rings around a comet; or the spiral structure of galatic arms.

     

    I know that isn't true. The "waves" in QM are often probability waves, not movements.

     

    'Only that which we are ignorant of, is beyond explanation; the rest is explainable'

     

    This is one of the assumptions about the physical universe necessary to do science. It is usually put as the universe is accessible. That is, we CAN understand it (explain it). This isn't a fact as it is stated, but an assumption.

  18. Surely the greatest need is not for a better predictive theory but for a theory of explanation. It should tell us what mass and charge really are, why do some particles have zero charge, how do some zero charge particles convert to two opposite charge particles. At present we can predict but not explain. Surely a new theory should not simply be more attractive, or predictive, or better,[/i'] but, its priority should be, to improve to our underderstanding of current theory.

     

    No. The idea that you need to know what something "really" is is an illusion. Things are what they are. What you are trying to do is impose your ideas on the universe instead of figuring out what the universe is. Charge is defined as a property that does such and so to other particles. Anything beyond that is philosophy and not science.

     

    What people are trying to tell you is that your theory must "predict" knowledge we already have AND predict new knowledge we should find IF it is true. This is the standard method of theory evaluation. Instead, as far as I can see, your "theory" is simply a philosophical interpretation of current theories. That is outside the scope of science. Try a philosophical journal. There are several, including the Journal of the Philosophy of Science Association: http://philsci.org/ Look at the site, get the Instructions for Authors for the journal, and submit your paper.

  19. hello

     

    was wondering if the laws of physics apply across all dimensions. or do certain laws only exist in certain dimensions' date=' and futher if a law does exist only in certain dimersions how would a change brought about by that physical property that would only exist in say the eight dimension be reflected in the 3rd dimension.

     

    strange thought

     

    mr d[/quote']

     

    Are you referring to the rolled up "dimensions" of String Theory? If so, all those dimensions are part of THIS universe. Therefore the laws apply to them.

     

    Also, since the dimensions are part of this universe but "rolled up", matter is not in them.

  20. Hi Guys' date='

     

    In respect to the insertion selection site. Does this recent scientific discovery have any relavence to this subject:

     

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/science/25dna.html?ex=1311480000&en=34d8e6ced8d42f47&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

     

    [/quote']

     

    I can't see any relevance. The news study talks about access to the DNA for signalling when to turn a gene on:

    "Having the sequence of units in DNA determine the placement of nucleosomes would explain a puzzling feature of transcription factors, the proteins that activate genes. The transcription factors recognize short sequences of DNA, about six to eight units in length, which lie just in front of the gene to be transcribed. "

     

    If the transcription sequence is buried, then the factor can't bind to it. However, ERV's are inserted into the DNA. You are thinking that exposed sections of DNA make it easier to have the same insertion sites from species to species. Right?

     

    But that still doesn't explain why there is a heirarchy of shared ERVs. That is, we share more ERVs with chimps than we do with orangutuans. Among ALL the possible insertion sites opened by nucleosomes -- 30 million -- why would we share with chimps more than gorillas or deer? That's a LOT of hotspots and there is no reason to think that one exposed area -- since they are all of the same 6-8 bases -- is going to be different than any other exposed area. No, the insertions would be random among the 30 million sites, not showing the heirarchial pattern we do see.

     

    Also, insertion is not the same as binding. Sequences that encourage enzymes to cleave DNA are not the same sequences that are binding the proteins that are transcription factors.

     

    Now, creationists could do some actual research and test whether ERVs are associated with transcription areas. That is, do ERVs always or most often appear just before transcription areas? Michael Behe still has a lab and the Discovery Institute has money. Perhaps DI could fund Behe to look at this hypothesis. Bet they don't.

  21. This is how we state it in our research papers at school:

     

    Ho(Null Hypothesis): There is no significant difference between the observed....

     

    Ha(Alternate Hypothesis): There is a significant difference between the blah blah blah...

     

    I wonder though if this is the only way? Is this the standard? We've been taught this' date=' and we use this like a tradition.

     

    To test a hypothesis do you always have to experiment on it in comparison to some standard?

     

    What is the difference between a thesis and a hypothesis?

     

    Thanks in advance![/quote']

     

    This is confusing the statistical hypothesis with the research hypothesis. Two different things.

     

    In statistics, you are trying to determine whether 2 sets of samples belong to the same overall population (null hypothesis or H0) or different populations (alternative hypothesis or H1). Population = all the possible examples.

     

    For instance, you have a research hypothesis that a Zickel nail decreases healing time in a fracture of the neck of the femur (thigh bone).

     

    You must test that by comparing people with fractures not treated with a Zickel nail and those people with fractures treated with a Zickel nail. The populations are 1) anyone who ever has had or ever will have a femoral neck fracture and 2) anyone who ever has been or ever will have a femoral neck fracture treated with a Zickel nail. You obviously can't get these populations, so you settle for samples of them. In an ideal world, you take the next 100 femoral neck fractures that come into the emergency room and you randomly treat 50 without the Zickel nail (controls) and 50 with the Zickel nail (experimentals). You then follow them with x-rays and other means and get a healing time for each patient.

     

    If you plot the healing time vs number of people for each of these you will get a bell-shaped curve. The question is: do these bell-shaped curves represent different populations or do they represent one population and you just happened to get the appearance of 2 curves by chance?

     

    THIS is your statistical hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that you got the 2 curves by chance and there is really one population. The alternate hypothesis is that there really was 2 populations.

     

    So, you perform the statistics and we get two possibilities:

     

    1. H0 (null hypothesis) results. This means that your research hypothesis is falsified. There really isn't a decrease in healing time with the Zickel nail.

     

    2. H1 results. This means your research hypothesis is supported. You have failed to falsify the hypothesis -- despite your best efforts -- and now you can accept the hypothesis as (tentatively) true.

  22. The different names for the christian, muslim and jewish God all refer to one deity from the same family tree of faith, the same deity, just different interpretations of "Him / It." Saying they aren't the same deity is just being absurdly picky (and for religios, possibly rather defensive).

     

    Not necessarily "picky". You can make a reasonable argument that the concept of Allah has strayed so far from the concept of Yahweh that the two now are separate, despite the common ancestry. What Allah wants from human beings is very different than what Yahweh wants in either Judaism or Christianity. Also, the very concept that the final revelation is a book instead of 1) intervention in history (Judaism) or 2) a person (Christianity) can be said to make Allah a different deity.

     

    Think of it as "descent with modification" into an entirely new species. :)

  23. You are making the presumption that Darwin or some other person would not have pondered evolution if the idea of God was not around. Well I will make this counterpoint... I think evolution would have been discovered earlier if God was not around. Assumptions assumptions...

     

    And if you think God is not a dangerous idea' date=' I suggest you tally the dead who fought for him in his vast pantheon. If you think God is not a dangerous idea, I suggest you go meet the terrorists who are securing nuclear weapons and other WMDs for use against the enemys of Allah.[/quote']

     

    1. You have a hypothesis in that first paragraph. Let's test it: History shows that modern science was not invented by other societies, including atheistic ones. Modern science does not appear until there is a stable Christian majority culture in the 1600s. Also, in an atheistic culture -- Stalin's Soviet Union -- Darwinian evolution was rejected. So, without God around, Darwinian evolution gets rejected. How then would it be discovered in such an atmosphere?

     

    Without creationism as a hypothesis to be tested and falsified, would the alternative of evolution have been found?

     

    In the 20th century, atheistic societies -- Soviet Union, Red China, Cambodia, etc -- have killed far more people than those killed in religious wars thru all of history. They have killed for their belief in atheism.

     

    So, I would say that it is not theism or atheism that is the dangerous idea, but rather "intolerance" and "insisting that your beliefs are fact" that are the dangerous ideas.

     

    Finally, the terrorists are not killing because of their religion. Instead, they are killing to protect their culture from the secular culture of the West. You have ascribed an incorrect motive.

  24. is this really the worlds' most dangerous idea?

     

    Does everyone realize that the idea that Darwin's theories are a "dangerous idea" is stolen from the title of a book by Daniel Dennett? The book is called Darwin's Dangerous Idea. The title refers to natural selection, not common ancestry. (BTW, Darwin did not advocate a single common ancestor, but rather several -- basically ancestors to the Classes seen in the Cambrian).

     

    Dennett's thesis is that natural selection is a dangerous idea. Because natural selection is an algorithm to get design: follow the steps without the use of intelligence and design is guaranteed. This concept of design not requiring intelligence is, says Dennett, dangerous to EVERY aspect of human endeavor. Philosophy, engineering, politics, science, etc. Not just to religion. Dennett refers to it as a "universal acid" that eats away at our concept of ourselves and the universe.

     

    Now, I don't agree that theism is a dangerous idea in and of itself. If you want to expand this to "beliefs masquerading as facts" and include militant atheism and the belief that religion is the most dangerous idea, then I could agree. "Beliefs masquerading as facts" is indeed a dangerous idea whenever it happens. But since most of theism, including Christianity, doesn't do that, it doesn't qualify. Fundamentalism does qualify.

     

    "Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.

  25. This general subject is "philosophy of science", and it's especially important for understanding science. The distinction between "theory" and "hypothesis" is very important; it's especially telling that the wackos who believe in creationism etc don't understand the differences, or refuse to acknowledge them. (I've tried to explain the differences, and the fascinating thing is, the anti-evolution crowd is very hostile to even listening to any of these ideas.)

     

    There's not that much difference between hypotheses and theories. Both are statements about the physical universe. Theories tend to be more general statements and hypotheses more specific ones.

     

    However, there is the misconception that certainty increases as you go from hypothesis to theory to law. IOW, that a theory is better supported than a hypothesis. This isn't true. There are very well supported hypotheses and some very speculative theories. And, of course, data can show any hypothesis OR theory to be wrong.

     

    The creationist mistake is to use the colloquial usage of "theory" as "wild guess" in order to denigrate well-supported theories that they don't like.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.