studiot

It's a soccer reference about netting the ball.

Nice one Cyril ! +1

Thank you for your answer. This is true, but there is much commonality between Physics and Mathematics. My particular example of bifurcation occurs in both purely mathematical analysis and in observable practical examples in mechanical dynamics, which was part of Physics, last time I looked. I really don't think any of those 3 conditions are always met because examples are not simple. For instance until radioactivity was discovered experimentally, no existing theory either confirmed denied or predicted it. Yet those existing theories were correct within the bounds of their applicability. On the other hand, new theory, beyond any existing, led to the search for and final discovery of the Higgs boson. You cannot simply take external conditions like your 1,2 & 3, and apply them irrespective of the particular conditions of the theory you wish to apply them to. Conditions sometimes interact in a most unpredictable and unruly way.

That question on spin might make sense if you were talking about classical mechanical spin. But quantum spin is quite different and has no components So your highlighted question has no meaning. I see that you have already tried to circumvent the 5 post rule and annoyed the moderators. I hope this is not a portent for things to come as I would prefer a mature discussion about this point.

When was this broadcast please ? I ask because we should perhaps be discussing the mathematical validity of all 3 of these requirements. Set theory violates both (1) and (2) on your list, and yet is said to underlie all of Mathematics. Bifurcation theory contradicted existing theories of dynamics when it was broached in the 1960s, contradicting (3).

I can't see beauty or its opposite having any bearing on the scientific subject we are trying to discuss. I think Phi has made a generous offer that other members may help you recover some of your lost knowledge and perhaps even add something you missed out on in the last 40 years. In order to follow this offer I suggest we step aside for a moment to discuss 'surface tension' , which is not actually a conventional force at all. It is indeed the result of the balance of cohesive and/or dispersive forces which produces that remarkable phenomenon we call surface tension. Discussing the model of how surface tension comes about may help your understanding of what a scientific model is and the grades of model that might be offered (again as Phi noted). But until you understand surface tension, I don't see how you can say it is or is not an appropropriate basis for you proposal.

Sadly I see that the original Futurscope (near Poitiers) has been replaced with a Disney style theme park. Don't know if the original musee is still there, it is mentioned in the credits at the beginning of each episode.

As the first sentence represents a direct refusal to obey the site rules I have reported it as such. The second sentence refers to the introduction of a force into QM. But it is provided with no more support or mathematics than your other claims. QM is energy based, not force based. So where exactly does does force fit into QM and how does this force act and interact with other variables in QM ?

Well I am not going to ignore (1) and I repeat genady's valid question since you are trying to change your claim to avoid it. What does it mean? I didn't see this traditional premise of quantum theory Your reply, in particular in relation to the electron to genady requires an astounding modification to quantum theory and you have offered absolutely zero support for such a claim. I would expect some exceptional mathematical and observational support for the astounding claim that the waveform of a free electron changes over time.

I don't know where you are in the world, but it is available free on the BBC iplayer.

First class +1

So what is the point of the thermal insulation ? Please complete your engine description without missing stuff out.

How is this a reply to my question ?

As I understand your idea, you want to extract thermal energy (heat) from the environment into your engine where that energy is converted and output as work. Yet you also say that the system is insulated. So, first question, how does the heat from the environment enter your engine ?

Actually an off topic aside but Buckingham's book is a great read, including examples of where chirality matters a great deal, eg the Thalidomide story. Also actually my question was about chemical kinetics, not chemical chirality. I am observing that a particular sequence of chemical events brought about Life, but there could be other ones or other occurrences of the same sequence. Chemical kinetics is based on statistics and a proper statistical analysis of these various alternatives would bring greater insight.

Here is a summary from a 2004 view (John Buckingham "Chasing the Molecule") - the original reference also came from this book.

Have you come across Japp's theory in relation to chirality ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Robert_Japp

Yes and it is a respectful one, rather than the condescending one you are adopting with me.

I am sorry but I am no clearer than I was without this answer as it does not directly address my question. More especially since your answer in a previous thread was that DNA always existed or something similar. You have yet to provide a clear answer to Zapatos' question about that. I am finding that this dancing around three or four threads with the same agenda is quite wearing. If, as you have said more than once now, you would like to debate the pros and cons of your idea of 'darwinian evolution' why don't you start a proper thread on the subject ? I must admit that when I read Darwin's book I was suprised at the contents, in particular the consideration he gave to alternatives and also what he actually propsed as opposed to popular misconceptions about his proposals.

What please is your definition of a 'creationist' and in what way do you align with them ?

The simple fact remains that you made the absolute claim in the first place and repeated it twice (rather like someone in the Bible ?) Since you introduced it as a 'scientific fact', and since it would be a very fundamental fact if substantiated, I am asking you to substantiate it properly. Please note I am also responding to your general posting which seems to show a proper scientific nature rather than something different. Is that too much to ask ?

Exactly. That is why I am asking, as clearly as I can, for the required level of support for an absolute claim such as You, sir, have stated this absolutely at least three times now, without consideration for alternatives. Or do you deny that alternatives exist ? The very title and question of this thread would suggest that the OP (and I ) acknowledge that we (and Science) do not know if there is a definite answer, let alone what such an answer might be.

I made no such claim. If you want claims about biology, ask a biologist. I merely pointed out that your statement How do you know ? Rejects all other possibilities. However I would observe that in the geological record at one time there was (almost) no free oxygen on Earth. All early life must therefore have been anaerobic. The presence of Life did indeed change the planet geologically. I would also observe that following each of the 5 great extinctions known, many, if not the mojority, of lifeforms were quite different before and after the horizon in the fossil record. A good study of this is given by Professor Benton of Bristol University in his book "When Life Nearly Died." Another study, unfortunately only stretching back to the Cambrian, is by Professor Beerling of Sheffield University "The Emerald Planet". This one is the only detailed paleohistory of the atmousphere that I know of. Finally, in case you think that I support the clarion call you here to often in these forums, "Science must be Mathematic", here is my favourite passage showing how rational thinking can be at least as strong as an equation.

That's only evidence. You made a much strionger statement. In particular you precluded the possibility that the same or similar sequence of events occured more than once on Earth.