studiot

LLM's are hopelessy bottom of the class in Mathematics. One problem with this is if you ask a mathematical question in words it has no way of discerning what the actual maths is. I think this is because it trawls more respectable sites (such as Wikipedia) for the words, without the mathematical understanding. Here is an example of an utterly incorrect declaration from Google AI The moral of this is do not use a language based construct to do or check your maths homework. ( in this case Wiki also has it wrong)

This morning's bake

Yeah I forgot to mention that. +1

There are many sorts of 'pastry' Some are deliberately crumbly which also means a bit crunchy as in apple or other fuit crumble. Some are 'flaky' as in strudel, creamash, etc Some indeed crumble to fine(ish) powder as in shortcrust od shortbread. Some 'puff up' on baking. and so on. Part of the difference is the amount of liquid, part is the way the shortening (oil or fat) is mixed with the dry ingredients.

I'm sorry I have had enough of Wonderland, Alice. You have started with space 'filled' with 'microparticles', then grudgingly added with perhaps some empty space left over. the 'microparticles' can apparantly vary in size and perhaps other properties. We do not yet have a proper definition of microparticles. How would i recognise one If I met it in the street ? Further these microparticles are being pushed about by forces unnamed created by agents unknown. Since all space is filled with microparticles ( or perhaps nothing) where do the force generating agents reside ? Then, all of a sudden, out of the blue, red rings appear round the 'microparticles' and we are told these are electrons. Suddenly atoms appear. Where do the come from and where do they and the electrons reside ? Added to these suddenly electronmagnetic forces are involved. Again where do the come from and how are they distributed ? What new wonders will appear next in this universe of no spare space and no source of energy or agents of force ? I will leave you to ponder these questions and suggest you wait until you have solved them before proceeding further with your fairy tale.

I explained to you almost a year ago that your story is historically completely wrong Indeed so but it is presented as a work of fiction and like most, if not all fiction, there is good, bad and indifferent within the alternative histories category. For instance I liked the Philip Pulman Dark Materials trilogy. I can't imagine anyone confusing the various 'histories' of Oxford portrayed.

You seem to have answered me twice, so did you miss my reply ? anyway in response to your caveat - if that is correct - How big is the Koh-i-Noor diamond? Because technically is is one single molecule created by natural causes.

So what % would you put it at and why ? Bear in mind what I said about every living thing, past and present having to be the overall base to estimate this %.

You have one post left in the next 23.5 hours. My advice to you is to not engage in personal slanging matches with other members or you might not survive your first encounter with a moderator. As regards content I would be very happy to explain why our modern appreciation of logig has progressed far beyond this aristotelian view.

Quite simply these two sentences, as they stand, imply that that you think purpose applies to every evolutionary change. My point is quite simply that purpose and any other mechanisms at work account for a very small % of such changes.

Your graphic states "and are then converted into nitriles". This could well be the case, but the formation of nitrile and further carbon-nitogen compounds requires a catalyst, normally a copper salt on earth but UV light will also do. Bearing in mind the weakness of the UV light on Titan, I wonder what the convertion rate is ? A few % perhaps. Sorry I have no further information at the moment, you will need to look it up. Perhaps @exchemist or @sethoflagos or @chenbeier might add more.

I am growing tired of only half my posts being replied and especially as the helpful comments are ignored. I think I might just join the other members driven away by exhaustion, in the bar.

But since we are not supposed to judge people, should we not just simply kill all judges ? 😄

So let's recap. Underlying all the wrapping you have an idea that has been extensively worked out in mainstream physical science and technology. I know nothing of your technical background, but you seem to have rolled in some extremely dodgy popsci or science fiction notions into that wrapping which devalues what you are trying to achieve and causes you to introduce ad hoc 'cures' as and when you find out something you haven't come across or thought of. We all do this, some many times over, before an idea is hammered out into something workable. Even then there are often a few unanswered questions left over. That is why I have tried to point you at connections to minstream, especially to try and save you from 'reinventing the wheel'.

But I have never accepted that "Evolutionists" - whatever they may be - are neglecting anything. Perhaps a few are. Perhaps a few more are not working directly in those specific fields. But we should consider the following fact. Every species now or previously on Earth (and presumably elsewhere if there is life elsewhere) has been subject to some form of evolution, albeit some more than others. For instance I understand from geologists that stromatolites have seen very little change since their appearance over 3 billion years ago. In all of that massive spread of evolution many different factors and events have resulted in a diverse range of responses. (Remember evolution is about the interplay between a species and its environment) When we survey that vast array of responses and put it on one side of scale compared to a small quantity of unusual responses ( we should statistically expect some unusual ones) I do not find it at all suprising that the mainstream body of the theory is becoming a bit slow and ponderous. After all most of the evidence continues to pile up on one side of that scale. But it would be quite wrong to suggest that evolutionary has not responded or changed since its inception.

May I add 'or even extend' ?

Which brings me back to my question Microphotons pass through them. But then we have Which strikes me as a circular argument So why are the photons 'passing therough them' ? Because momentum passes through them ? Nothing backdoor about it. @OlegMarchenkov The ideas of momentum flux and particle flux is perfectly reasonable and conventional if handled correctly. Such models appear in the subjects 'continuum mechanics' and 'transport phenomena' which have very wide application in science and technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_phenomena https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_mechanics I suggest you need to get your concepts lined up correctly to make anything of your model. They are useful techniques, but certainly do not amount to a theory of everything.

Thanks guys.

Someone has changed what you wrote after I posted this quote and the timings on the posts are not wotking properly.

Why do you contradict me? I quoted from where you said exactly what I said, not the opposite. If you meant something different, please make the necessary amendments.

I've seen the tickboxing or crossing in coloured squares in one or two other threads now. Can anyone tell me if this is a result of AI output or something available in the new SF format or what please ?

Whilst a couldn't agree more that we need some maths, you can't have maths until there is something to calculate. And until the descriptions stop changing and make some sense there can be nothing to calculate. You said that the black dots are microparticles and that a bunch of these make up a photon. In you picture it seems to take different numbers of microparticles to make up one photon. Further the photons appear to be sevaral times larger than a microparticle. So how can a photon 'pass though' a microparticle ? The whole setup is making ever less sense to me.

If the black disks are particles or microparticles ( which one is still not clear) then what are the red circles and the white space since there is not such thing as vacuum ? Why are these particle moving?

So what is a microparticle ? Please elucidate the following What is the difference between a photon and a microparticle ? Note this is not a critism or rebuttal. I just do not understand what you are trying to say. Perhaps a heirarchy or list of particles might help.

No I didn't find anything offensive. But the onus remains with you to demonstrate that it is possible to tile or tesselate (let us say a plane as it is easier than 3D) a plane with circles. It is not enough to just declare it so you have to actually demonstrate it mathematically. I should warn you that lots of folks have tried but no one have ever achieved it as it is impossible. There are two several ways to approach the problem. One is to try to arrange them geometrically, without overlap. Another is to try to partition the plane into variable circles - this has been done by removal of a finite number of points from the plane. A third way is to consider the areas of the circles used and show that this adds up exactly to the area of the plane. You could try taking a square or other tesselating shape an see if you can make a match with an infinite series of circles, the series being conditioned by weighting factors of the numersof any given size of circle used.