Leaderboard

As a biologist I know that not to be true. What you state is part of a larger evolutionary narrative where biological structures, such as brains are build up successively from simpler to more complex form. Only, that is not the case, it is more like a broad branch of different structures to fulfil sometimes similar functions. It is like saying that modern microchips incorporate vacuum tubes. Specifically, the "old" structure, responsible for fear and aggression is mostly the amygdala, but is only found in vertebrates. Lobsters, for starters do not even have a brain and we do not share the same structures or responses. I.e. it is not more insightful than e.g. saying that folks should always stand their ground, like trees. Those that uproot themselves will die of nutrient deprivation. Or men should never procreate otherwise the women will behead them and use them as snacks. It only sounds insightful if you do not think about it. Also delicious (actual) brains.

I'm sensing a patern... Why are you so determined to be correct; that every question you can't answer must mean, the questioner is stupid?

I didn't forget; I just don't think it's any part of justice. Taking advantage of the system is how drug traffickers get rich enough to build gambling palaces in Los Vegas; how DJ Trump got away with massive tax fraud and became president.

Just trying to be helpful and thought you might be big enough to accept your error.

This is looking at the same problem from more than a single point of view. The alternative starts with the conclusion that photons exist and they are particle like. The article explains the results but the part I saw didn't explain the method. The conventional explanation involves the creation of virtual electron-positron particle pairs as I explained and these particles are the source the observed scatter. I explained how it works without the assumption that photons are involved. This is from wiki with the assumption that photons are the actors but whether or not photons are involved, the gamma gamma's observed can be traced directly back to a multi-particle origin. Photon to electron and positron. For photons with high photon energy (MeV scale and higher), pair production is the dominant mode of photon interaction with matter. These interactions were first observed in Patrick Blackett's counter-controlled cloud chamber, leading to the 1948 Nobel Prize in Physics.

The results of the experiment are the same with either view. Only the interpretation of the results is different.

I claimed that light emitted from a point and arriving at a point does not necessarily imply that light is a particle at that point because light as a wave can do the same. I answered your question before, Remember my repeated comments about transverse waves not spreading out and light no longer existing at its arrival so its point of arrival doesn’t imply that it ever was a particle? I have also answered similar questions but I don’t recall if they were from you or others and I responded by discussing the Afshar experiments, Poincaré's dot, the W-F absorber, and how light from one atom is only absorbed by a single atom. None of these demonstrate the particle nature of light. Poincaré's dot is worth expanding upon since it speaks directly to your question. Poincaré claimed that a spherical object placed directly in a narrow beam of light should completely block the passage of light, if light is a particle, but if the object is only slightly larger than the beam, light should be able to pass around the obstruction as a wave. Afshar and Flores performed similar experiments with a wire grid. Arago performed Poincaré's experiment using a metal bead on a string and he found that light went around the bead as a wave and landed as a bright dot exactly in the middle of the object’s shadow. So light as a wave can land as a point even if it has to curve around an obstruction. That is an example of light as a wave being emitted from a point and landing at a point. Light responds to its environment beyond what one could expect of light as a particle. Diffraction is one example. If light passes through a single slit it produces a diffraction pattern, If it passes through a double slit it produces an interference pattern, and if it passes through a triple slit, it produces an even more elaborate pattern. How does a photon passing through only one of a triple slit “know” how many slits are to its left or right and act accordingly? If a photon of light reflects from the surface of a frosted glass plate, it reflects a random angles. But if it reflects from a polished surface, it reflects at its angle of incidence. How can a single particle “know” if the area around it is rough or polished? Light responds to the wave like nature of its surroundings, and if those conditions favor arrival at a single point, it will arrive at a single point. That may be particle like behavior but it does not rule out the total wave like nature of light.

Contemplation of the Universe, how it is structured or how it was formed, has to be among the very top of those things on the mind of humankind throughout the whole of history. What is this Earth we stand on? What exactly is the Sun that we see, that gives us light? How far does the Universe go, and what happens after that? Is the Earth Flat or Round? Millions, and possibly billions, of hours have been spent in quiet contemplation of these Questions of the Universe. But can we know if the Earth is flat? Can this relatively straightforward question be resolved? The answers might surprise you. Using definitions and theorems found at my own website, we can answer not only the question “Is the Earth Flat?” but we can actually unify those who believe the Earth is flat with those who believe it is most assuredly round. We can unify them in much the same way we can unify scientists and theologians on how Energy functions. Please allow me to take you through the this journey of theoretical physics, which will confer logically with general philosophy, to answer these questions, and many more. Let us first define “Earth Theory” a set of definitions and postulates purporting what Earth is, or might be, regardless of any specific theory. This set of definitions and postulates will change over time, and will change among different subsets of people wishing to define what Earth is for themselves. Thus, each new generation has the chance to add to, adjust, or change the set of definitions and postulates which make up the Earth Theory for their life. This leads to many possible combinations of theory and definition, and thus can lead to division among the various subsets of people who are choosing from the various combinations. The Earth Theory as provided by a scholar from the middle ages might differ from the Earth Theory of a 20th century scholar of the middle ages. Likewise, the Earth Theory of a medieval peasant might differ from that of a modern-day vagrant; but then again, it might not. The same for political or religious leaders; their opinions of what Earth is or might be will change over time. The history of the changes of Earth Theory over time would be a very fascinating study to be sure, especially with respect to the religious implications which ended, at times, with punishment for those considered heretical. Regardless of the potential atrocities inflicted on people for deciding whether or not the Earth is or isn’t flat, what is clear is that written history records that Earth is Flat by default, unless postulated otherwise, and that consensus as to Earth Theory is impossible. The first known mentioning of the idea of the Earth being a sphere was from the ancient Greek philosophers of the fifth century BC. By the third century BC, Hellenist astronomers concluded the Earth was in fact a sphere, and calculated the first estimated circumference of the Earth. This means the Round Earth theory has been around for 2500 years. Nevertheless, it took “the West” another 1700-1800 more years to achieve the same general conclusion that the Earth was a sphere, and this only thanks to the demonstration of the Round Earth effect by Earth’s first recorded circumnavigation by Magellan. This shows that some people require actual, physical proof provided only and directly to them so that they can see thus finally believe something is true. As a result, we can conclude we will always have our “Flat Earthers,” no matter the answer of “Is the Earth Flat?” There are, however, certain things that may prove too big or too small for any human to actually see, at least in our lifetime, such as the entire galaxy in one photograph, or the dust orbiting a particle which orbits an Electron. This demonstrates the concept of faith, as well as the concept of Scale. Scale When considering the shape of the Earth, Scale is a critical factor. With respect to the question, “Is the Earth Flat?” the concept of Scale both perfectly answers, and permanently muddies, the answer at the same time. Scale, as defined in that website I'm advertising Definition 6. Scale refers to the relative size of any Radiation Source. This particular definition of Scale requires the preceding definition of a Radiation Source: Definition 5. Anything emitting Radiation is a Radiation Source. This definition may seem simple, and obvious, but is very important, and may still require clarification as to the definition of Radiation: Definition 1. Radiation is Energy extended outwardly, intended for absorption. With these definitions, and one theory, we can start to apply this to the understanding of Scale with respect to the Earth: Theorem 2. Radiation is absorbed and stored as Gravitation inside a Mass Structure. Energy Storage Theorem from The Unified Theory of Energy Thanks to the Energy Storage Theorem, we can make the logical jump to how this applies to the Earth, although it may require two jumps; the first jump being a little easier than the second. The Sun The first jump I would like you to make is to the Sun. I want to use the definitions and theories presented above from The Unified Theory of Energy and apply them to the Sun in such a way as to have you jump to the conclusion that the Sun is shining due to an overabundance of Radiation which is expressed to a human on Earth as heat and light. Not a very big jump, to be sure. The Sun, using the Unified Theory of Energy, is thus a Mass Structure which has Radiation stored internally as Gravitation. There is in fact extra Gravitation stored within the Sun, so the excess is shed as Radiation. This Radiation interacts with the surface of the Sun as it extends outwardly. The interaction of the previously stored Radiation with the surface of the Sun’s Mass Structure imparts a specific subset of frequencies of Radiation, including but not limited to visible light, infrared, and various cosmic rays, based on their certain probabilities. The Sun’s Radiation is extended outwardly, intended for absorption by other Mass Structures, such as Earth, or Pluto, or anything within reach of the Radiation. Now we should consider the Sun with respect to Scale. Luckily, we are already so far from the Sun that it would appear to be only a small, flat disc on the horizon. In fact, it should be difficult for us to understand how big the Sun is from what we see of it. That will help us to Scale the Sun until it is very, very small. Imagine the Sun the size of an atom’s nucleus; the Sun is different on that Scale. It seems to have eight particles orbiting it like an oxygen molecule. The Sun would seem, from that particular Scale, Positive, while the Earth would seem a Negatively charged particle. Now please “zoom in” on the Sun until it becomes very large, and you are somehow able to stand on its surface. You will have Scaled yourself down which made the Sun much larger. Zoom in even farther until a single stray oxygen atom within the Sun is expanded to the size of a Solar System, such as ours. Now the Sun appears to be an atomic nucleus again. This is all to demonstrate that the definition of an object, whether planet or a particle, is directly affected by, and dependent upon, the Scale of the object in question. The Sun is a star, and is also the nucleus of another, much larger molecule, depending on Scale. Humans can not currently exist on the surface of the Sun, so it might be considered irrelevant if the Sun is flat, and we can prove conclusively that it doesn’t matter if the Sun is Flat to a human on Earth. The Earth Now that we thoroughly understand Scale, and have applied its definitions and theories to the Sun to understand how Scale affects the definition of “Particle” or “Planet”, we can apply the same understanding of Scale to the Earth. Unlike the Sun, Humans can currently exist on the surface of the Earth, and as such can get the perspective of the Earth from exactly that Scale. That is the same Scale where “One Year” equals one complete orbit of the Earth around the Sun. The good news is, humans can stand on the surface of the Earth, where it would appear to a person who can only trust what they see that the Earth is indeed Flat. As far as that one person on the surface of the Earth can walk, it will continue to appear flat, unless there are mountains, or a ship going over the horizon for them right then. From this two-dimensional viewpoint a “Flat Earther” is absolutely correct. From the perspective of a person standing on its surface, the Earth appears flat. This fact requires quite a bit of proof over a tremendously long time to even reach a general consensus among a large group of people; and even then clearly consensus will never be complete. We will always have people who believe the Earth is Flat. And turns out they are not wrong, from their perspective. From a Scale other than when a human is standing on Earth’s surface, there is no answer since it makes no difference. From yet another plug for my website, the official definition of a Mass Structure, and my official answer to whether, or not, the Earth is flat: Definition 8. A Mass Structure is a specific arrangement of Particles tied together by Gravitation while held apart by Particulate Motion and Radiation. On some Scale, Particles tend to form spheres which rotate about an Axis. Conclusion It is important to think about, and discuss, all the possible ways the Universe might function. This is the heart of Philosophy and Wisdom, and an important skill for every human to employ, in all areas of life. It is critical for us to realize we need General Philosophers contemplating every branch of science; theoretical physics included. It is critical that Philosophers are developed to constantly test the logic behind those ideas brought about by science. It is equally important to realize that much of our dis-unification is due to a lack of General Philosophers overseeing the logic behind ideas born within the various branches of science. When a group of truly General Philosophers, like the ancient Greeks, contemplate how all things work together, and not allow the scientific specialties to branch themselves apart, we will end up with a stronger physical framework before us, and better access to use Energy more correctly, and with less exploitation of the Earth itself. Please consider purchasing my stuff from my website; it is easy to read, and endlessly rewarding. From my website link, again.