Strange

6 minutes ago, Duda Jarek said:

But the claim "it doesn't work to explain the observations. " needs doing some analysis of this possibility - where is this analysis?

I am assuming it took an expert in the subject about 30 seconds to dismiss the idea, when they thought of it. So the analysis is on a scrap of paper in the trash.

People (including scientists) think of hundreds of possible solutions to problems. They are not going to publish a paper saying "I thought of this, but obviously it doesn't work. Then I thought if this, it took a bit longer but obviously that doesn't work either. ..."

6 minutes ago, Duda Jarek said:

If there is none, means this possibility was neglected - excluded without even trying.

Of course it doesn't. 

There is a saying "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". While it sounds clever, it is not always true.

However, your claim that "absence of evidence proves I am right" is just nonsensical.

If you think proton decay is a plausible mechanism, then it is up to YOU to demonstrate that.

18 minutes ago, Duda Jarek said:

Sounds like "neglected possibility"

Maybe you should stop ignoring what people write. I explained one scenario in which it is NOT neglected.

18 minutes ago, Duda Jarek said:

as I am writing - one question is why?

I am suggesting that the reason may be that it doesn't work to explain the observations.

As you have zero evidence for your claims, they are not worth considering.

18 minutes ago, Duda Jarek said:

Second question is if it really should be neglected without real consideration?

Please provide some evidence that this is the case.

Soapboxing like this is against the rules.

It is very sad that science has not found some magic way of making your desired mechanism come true, but we will just have to live with the disappointment.

"No one has proved it isn't invisible pink unicorns."

1 hour ago, swansont said:

If the latter - basically you are discussing alternatives to GR that are ultimately incorrect. According to the link, GEM was introduced a few decades before GR was finalized. What were the reasons it was not pursued further? I see nothing in the link about it explaining the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. This was a problem known in 1915, and solved by GR. Would an alternative theory have taken hold in a GR vacuum, if it could not explain this effect? Anything that could not would start out with the handicap of knowing it was not complete.

It is a long time since I studied the history of science at this period but I remember mention of other attempts to formulate alternative gravitational moulds to explain Mercury's perihelion but none of them were satisfactory.

14 minutes ago, Duda Jarek said:

Indeed - for papers discussing proton/neutron decay possibility to understand energy sources we cannot explain in standard way.

I couldn't find any (?)

So maybe people have thought: "Oh I wonder if this could be explained by proton decays ..." [spends 2 minutes doing some calculations] "No, that doesn't work"

I find that more plausible than your unsupported guesswork.

3 minutes ago, Duda Jarek said:

To know whether a possibility is useful, it needs first to be considered - the problem is that it seems this didn't happen (?).

Citation needed.

Just now, Duda Jarek said:

There are many astronomical objects they say with orders of magnitudes higher energy production than can be explained, but I didn't see hypothesizing baryon decay (?)

Maybe because, despite your guesses, it isn't actually a useful explanation. You know, when you actually model what is happening.

54 minutes ago, Waliiid said:

Hi guys , how are you doing , wish you are all doing great . I am waleed and  i am new here and i would like to ask a question , what are the most strong and necessary languages to learn in order to be a programmer , and how to think as an information and acquire the method of thinking of an information ? Thank you all !

It is more important to learn the concepts of algorithms, data structures, design patterns, etc.

The languages you use will depend on the sort of work you do. But you need to be able to pick up a new language quickly, because almost no one uses just one language.

You could start with Python. There are lots of tutorials and examples online. It can teach you most of the things you need to know.

4 minutes ago, Duda Jarek said:

Because baryon decay would be nearly complete mc^2 matter -> energy conversion.

What do you base that on?

There are several hypothetical decay modes. None of them correspond to that description.

5 hours ago, Duda Jarek said:

So the question is if astrophysicists should have baryon dacay in "bag of possibilities to consider" - and it seems currently it is completely neglected

Completely neglected?

Quote

Proton decay [has] been the focus of major experimental physics efforts since the early 1980s. To date, all attempts to observe these events have failed; however, these experiments have been able to establish lower bounds on the half-life of the proton. Currently the most precise results come from the Super-Kamiokandewater Cherenkov radiation detector in Japan: a 2015 analysis placed a lower bound on the proton's half-life of 1.67×10³⁴ years via positron decay,^[2] and similarly, a 2012 analysis gave a lower bound to the proton's half-life of 1.08×10³⁴ years via antimuon decay,^[4] close to a supersymmetry (SUSY) prediction of 10³⁴–10³⁶ years.^[5]An upgraded version, Hyper-Kamiokande, probably will have sensitivity 5–10 times better than Super-Kamiokande.^[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay

3 hours ago, Duda Jarek said:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - there is a lot of general talk here, but I am asking about some details: convincing experimental evidence and argumentation.

You have been given details that you have chosen to ignore.

2 hours ago, Duda Jarek said:

So the question is if astrophysicists should have baryon dacay in "bag of possibilities to consider" - and it seems currently it is completely neglected, I would say that due to general belief that it was disproven by unsuccessful search of proton decay in water tanks ... which is misunderstand as the same way it "disprove" nuclear fusion.

Physicists always have everything in the possibilities to consider. One of the explanations explored when the energy gap in beta decay was noticed (eventually explained by neutrinos) was that energy might not always be conserved. You don't get more fundamental than that.

And proton decay has not been "disproved". That would be pretty much impossible.

The bigger question is: when will we be able to send the Terminator back in time?

1 hour ago, Brahms said:

Physics itself does not really develop, as all the math, mass, space and time were always there.  What develops is human understanding of the math

Physics is the human understanding of the mathematical models and how they relate to observations and measurements.

5 minutes ago, joigus said:

Those are quite plausible. I applaud them.

Oh, very good. 👏

1 hour ago, cladking said:

I'm a big fan of science as well.   It is the chief means by which we can arrive at true knowledge; visceral knowledge. 

If by "visceral" you mean "gut feelings" etc. then the whole point of science is to avoid that sort of unreliable "knowledge".

1 hour ago, cladking said:

Only individuals think or come up with new ideas. 

Nonsense. (And also, not what you said. But then communication your ideas clearly was never your forte.)

Most new ideas are created by groups. 

1 hour ago, cladking said:

Of course we do!  If our models were identical we'd come to the same conclusions and make the same predictions. 

So you think that if you use Newton's laws of motion to calculate the path of a projectile, you will come up with a different answer then someone else?

1 hour ago, cladking said:

There are even sexual differences such as women tending to navigate by landmarks and men routes.

That is irrelevant because we are talking about scientific models. You know, math and stuff.

(Somehow I am not surprised that you have no idea what a scientific model is. There seems to be no field in which you cannot demonstrate your profound lack of knowledge.)

1 hour ago, cladking said:

I'm surprised you'd dispute the idea that scientists believe in laws of nature.  

That is not what I said. You seem to be having problems reading now.

1 hour ago, cladking said:

Logic is logic.  It behaves no laws per se but rather just is.  Math is the same thing but is quantized rather than manifested logic.  

Oh, please. You are just embarrassing yourself.

"In logic, the law of excluded middle is ..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

1 hour ago, Maestro99 said:

I asked a Question. So Darwin thought that finches with different mouth shapes are a different species?

This has been answered. He found several different species. Then he observed that they had different shaped beaks. Then he came up with an explanation for why their beaks were different. 

This explanation has been repeatedly confirmed by more evidence.

1 hour ago, Maestro99 said:

Are the many different races of dogs different species according to Darwin?

I don't know if he had an opinion on it.

But it can certainly be argued that, for example, chihuahuas and Great Danes should be different species. It is just convention, that we regard them all as one.

Remember, this is an arbitrary man-made distinction, so where we draw the boundaries between species is flexible and changes with more information. There are populations that were thought to be one species but, after DNA analysis, they have been categorised as two species. And the reverse has happened as well.

1 hour ago, Maestro99 said:

The truth is there is no such Thing as Evolution. It was never witnessed ever in the nature.

Evolution very obviously happens in nature and is witnessed all the time. It has been known about for thousands of years. It is daft to deny that.

What Wallace and Darwin did is propose an explanation for how evolution happens. That explanation has been shown to be correct. 

1 hour ago, Maestro99 said:

they are not different species and you know it very well. they are the same species. called finches. They are only different races. Like dog races which are all the same species called DOG

"Finch" is not a species. The birds known as finches are made up of several genera and hundreds of species.

There is no species called "DOG".

1 hour ago, Maestro99 said:

There is Nothing to understand. What you call as Evolution is just Microevolution and not Makroevolution which is needed to explain Species Transformation into another species.

Both microevolution and macroevolution occur. That is an observable fact. New species arise from evolution. That is an observable fact.

The theory of evolution (and genetics) explain how and why this happens.

You can keep denying it, but the evidence is strongly against you.

56 minutes ago, Maestro99 said:

Nobody ever witnessed the Transformation of a fish into a Walking Amphibic creature.

Actually, we do have evidence in the fossil record (and in living species) of exactly this happening.

56 minutes ago, Maestro99 said:

Charles Darwin was a smart man for his time but for modern science his theories are not plausible anymore.

Why do you keep focussing on Darwin and ignoring the evidence?

27 minutes ago, Maestro99 said:

Whales are way to massive to walk around on land. Theire bones would brake like biscuits.

And who said whales walk on land? If you are resorting to stupid fallacies like this, you don't have much of an argument.

1 hour ago, Maestro99 said:

The truth is there is no such Thing as Evolution. It was never witnessed ever in the nature.

Yes it has. The world is a truly amazing place. You should take your nose out of that Book and learn about it.

Quote

Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

Quote

We often think of speciation as a slow process. All the available evidence supports the idea that different species evolved from common ancestors, and yet, new species don't pop up around us on a daily basis. For many biologists, this implies that speciation happens so slowly that it's hard to observe on human timescales — that we'd need to track a population for millennia or more to actually see it split into two separate species. However, new research suggests that speciation may be easier to observe than we thought. We just need to know where to look.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation

Quote

It is true that present-day "before our eyes" speciation is rare, because speciation typically requires many thousands of years. Nonetheless, biologists can cite examples of present-day species that appear to be in the process of splitting and species that have split very recently in geologic history [Coyne2009, pg. 5-8, 168-189]. Some examples include:

https://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/speciation.php

Quote

We present evidence that European flounders in the Baltic Sea exhibiting different breeding behaviors are a species pair arising from a recent event of ecological speciation. The two lineages diverged within less than 3,000 generations. This is the fastest event of speciation ever reported for any marine vertebrate. Extraordinarily rapid speciation driven by natural selection can therefore happen even in the marine environment.

https://www.pnas.org/content/114/23/6074

Quote

This FAQ discusses several instances where speciation has been observed. It also discusses several issues related to speciation.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

21 minutes ago, joigus said:

I'm starting to think I didn't understand the point that the OP was trying to make.

I doubt the OP understands it either!

1 hour ago, cladking said:

I am  merely saying that science looks at everything from the same perspective which is reductionistic and dependent on definitions and axioms.

Not entirely true. But so what?

1 hour ago, cladking said:

Since all ideas and all progress are individual

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. When science produces a result it is equally valid whatever your personal ideas are. We all benefit from scientific progress (unless you reject it).

1 hour ago, cladking said:

Just because 2 + 2 = 2 x 2 does not make our models correct or like one another. 

Nice straw man. No one said that.

But the fact that equality can be proved, means that we can have a certain level of confidence in the consistency of models. It is then a matter of comparing that model (the map) to observations (the terrain) and refining it as necessary. 

1 hour ago, cladking said:

Each of us has a unique model and each of us sees the interrelatedness  of scientific and mathematical knowledge but this can't make any of us correct about anything either.

When it comes to science, for example gravity or evolution, we do not each have a unique model.

If you are talking about views outside of science, then, well... duh and thank you, Captain Obvious.

1 hour ago, cladking said:

Of course the problem is we have no roots in anything except beliefs, language, and ephemeral definitions and meaning of language.    "Philosophy" becomes irrelevant when our understanding is complete. 

One of the roles of philosophy is to explore what the roots of belief and knowledge are. (As someone who knew anything at all about philosophy would know.) So hardly irrelevant. (And I think most people with some understanding of philosophy or science would say that knowledge can never be complete.)

1 hour ago, cladking said:

I am saying that philosophy could contain a broader perspective if it had a vocabulary with fixed definitions

Many people have attempted, with varying degrees of success, to put philosophy on a formal basis starting from fixed definitions. Some very interesting results have come from such work.

1 hour ago, cladking said:

but mostly I am saying that any philosophy that marginalizes individuals  is evil. 

Christ. Give us some warning when you are about to throw in a non-sequitur like that. I think the sudden change of direction has given me whiplash.

On 8/13/2020 at 2:58 PM, cladking said:

Just as for most people who believe all of reality behaves laws of nature, is mathematical, and reducible to/by induction, I believe none of this.

Please provide some evidence that "most people" believe this. 

On 8/13/2020 at 2:58 PM, cladking said:

I believe that the laws are illusory and a laboratory manifestation of the logic which underlies existence itself. 

So you don't believe in "laws" but you do believe in "logic" underlying reality. Would that be the "laws of logic", by any chance. 

Talking of species, as we were in another thread, the idea that two species cannot inter-breed or hybridise is shown to be false in many examples.

Here is an amazing example of a hybrid of two different species that are also from two different genera, and even different families:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/extra-dna-may-make-unlikely-hybrid-fish-possible-20200805/

Quote

“It’s like if they had a cow and a giraffe make a baby.” Then he quickly corrected himself, because the lineages of those two ruminants split only a few dozen million years ago. The evolutionary paths of paddlefish and sturgeons diverged 184 million years ago. 

I think one subtle point that is often overlooked, and can be important, is that "species" is an arbitrary distinction invented by humans for ease of categorising and cataloguing organisms. It doesn't't really correspond to anything specific in nature. For example, Darwin's finches are biologically isolated (hence regarded as different species) mainly by geographical separation. In many cases, they could interbreed if brought together.

So, even though "inability to breed" is commonly thought of as the definition of species, it is only part of it. A number of different factors are used to help draw the (arbitrary) line between populations. (This obviously relates to the chicken-and-egg discussion in another thread.)

1 hour ago, Maestro99 said:

Darwin´s theories are just a Theory.

This, rather sadly, demonstrates your ignorance of science.

A "theory" in science is the closest we get to "true"; it means a detailed idea or explanation that is supported by evidence. In the case of evolution by natural selection (the Wallace-Darwin theory), this is one of the theories with the most evidence and a well-understood mechanism. There is literally no justification for rejecting it.

1 hour ago, Maestro99 said:

If you want you can still believe in the holy scripture the bible. It says God took soil from every Color and molded it into a human beeing called Adam. Then he breathed the life into him.

28 minutes ago, joigus said:

I tested it and it doesn't work for me. Plus there's a considerable amount of looping. Could account for the remaining 5%.

I need a clicking tutorial. The thing is it kind of make sense to me that philosophy is an attractor.  

It would be quite easy to write a script to test this. (But I’m not going to!)

It reminds me of the Collatz Conjecture, which has been described as the most dangerous idea in mathematics 

I guess you mean “finches”?

They were different species because they were biologically isolated. 

They had different diets and, therefore, different beaks