jck

swansont, Well I am happy for science to work the way it does but I do not work that way, there is no reason everyone should accept the restricted practice of scientific methodolgy. What is actually required is some means to compare to theory just in case the absence of logic in many theoretical considerations are self inflicted. If that happens to be a logic based solution then that would seem appropriate to me. As much as it is touted that predications are made by theory without the observational assumptions being involved in the first place such predictions are not possible so it questions whether the theory is made to fit the observations rather than observation confirming the theory as we are led to believe. There is a place for theory, in fact it is given the bulk of forum space on here, but it is not the be all end all unless everyone agrees it is correct. At this time the majority have severe problems with much of the theory even among the accademics. I am perfectly happy for you to use theory and scientific method but myself would prefer a logical answer. john jck

Genius is the capability to arrive at the correct answer without doing all the work, genius has not died out as far as I can acertain. Unfortunately humans taking control of their own genetic make-up would have the opposite affect, it would stagnate the species at a certain level. The crux of evolution relies on mutation at random in all genes across the species allowing for the good and bad so that any lucky guesses increase the species and any bad mistakes are quickly elliminated. Humans are hardly likely to take any chances on random mutations to allow this process to continue. john jck

Everything is explained by existing observational assumptions, unless these explanations are certain and will at no time be refuted there is room for debate. I am not saying it is incorrect only that it is not exactly certain either. Am I to assume that removing the heat source will ground all the air in a particular place? There are places on earth with no airspace? john jck

Edtharan, Exactly, you debate from a certain position that you agree with entirely and expect others to accept that position when in fact they do not. I totally respect those views are mainstream and accepted as such. Now when it comes to you accepting others position you are not willing to do so that is why there is conflict. I do not have to accept that looking at the same thing from two different points of view is correct as it will give all sorts of different answers to the single observed view. This is relativity, confusing the issue by introducing all these different viewpoints. From a single viewpoint there is one universal time and no matter what anyone says using different viewpoints to make a case the single universal view absolutely has time as constant in the universe and anything else uses two different times for a single event. As far as space being geometry that again is someone deciding to attribute this geometry to the space and no one has to accept that geometry is more than a figment of the imagination as without imagination humans would not know anything about such geometry and would not have simply attributed this geometry to space. At no point did Einstein or anyone else show that space in isolation is curved or can do anything at all, it is derived from the path of light. The path of light does not in any way shape or form show the actual space as curved. Now if someone can show me some empty space actually curving then I would be more than happy to accept it can but excuse me if it is theoretical only as far as I am concerned so you cannot expect me to simply accept these things cart blanche. regards, john jck

Farsight, A person can experience all sorts of things that do not exist anywhere except in the imagination. If you first have to imagine time then look for the experience what is that except imagination? The brain has an internal clock that gives humans a feeling of time passing, when you go to sleep you do not know time has passed and yet your internal clock gives you the feeling it has. john jck

elas, I have started with nothing at all in my solution Certainty, the single fundamental energy particle is a direct result. The problem with starting with nothing is that you must adhere to nothing and cannot suddenly have anything at all so you cannot have vacuum anything at all. The decisive moment is the realisation that nothing at all means nothing at all and cannot be correct. You have nowhere for your vacuum to exist. Before anything can exist in reality you need empty space for it to exist otherwise you have a prior imagined existance as there is certainly nowhere for it to exist except in the imagination. john jck

A star is burning hydrogen. The air is not drifting into space but whether that is due to the curved space around the earth is not certain. A scuba tank is not opened and then gravity forces the air to be compressed, a force is applied to compress that. Thermal sources must affect all atoms, this must defy the force of gravity to keep them from grounding. There is no question that air does not ground but the reason may not be simply what is observed and attributed. john jck

elas, Take the standard model fundamental particles, all are energy particles but you cannot create all the particles from any single one of these. The energy I am talking about is the single fundamental particle that can create all fundamental particles. All you have to do is ask the theorists exactly what energy each particle is made from and we can work it out from there, sadly they do not know. We are lacking a clear definition of the energy these standard particles are made from exactly. I am not talking about a composite particle and its properties which I consider a result of the particle being created by a single energy particle. The electron is said to have different energy states, it is that energy that the single fundamental particle creates. Electromagnetic forces or fields are after the fact, without the particles or the energy there is no such thing. We can accept the universe was apparently created at a burst of energy, it is this energy I talk about and not some 300,000 years later when quarks and electrons exist. This idea of a plasma, where the electrons and quarks cannot exist for more than a split second at the instant of big bang can only be theoretical as no one would know. This still has a mixture of fundamental particles from t0 with no explanation of how a mixture of energy particles could suddenly appear. A fundamental energy particle cannot be a mixture for each particle requires a seperate explanation for how it came to exist. A single fundamental energy particle has no arguement as with no energy aprticle at all nothing is created. It is the default energy particle. The default energy particle has to be the smallest energy particle that can exist by definition. You ask what energy is, I say it is the energy that the particles are made from not the properties that are a result of the particles existing. If I have not got the energy particle to create the standard model energy particles then there would not be any particles so the energy I speak of is certain by default. If you look at my thread on Certainty you will get a better idea of where I am coming from. I replied here to you as we both seem to agree there can only be one basic single fundamental particle at first cause. Science method cannot provide any first cause solutions so there has to be a logic based solution in order to compare with theory. Science simply ignores the energy question by stating the standard model particles are not composite, logic dictates they must be composite yet science will not explain exactly what the energy is created from. As far as it is possible to evaluate there is empty space and everything else is energy based and nothing else has substance that is not energy based. Given this scenario it is not difficult to be certain an energy particle would be required along with empty space to create all the energy particles. john jck

I stand by what I said that the less well off will produce the evolution of the species to a greater extent than the so called intelligent educated affluent minority. Those who control the masses at some point find the masses rebel overturning their status, those who simply inherit wealth find themselves at some point in difficulties keeping up the ever increasing burdons through generations. There is little incentive for those well off to struggle to find new ways or ideas to change anything. In the past with extreme poverty the masses were kept in poverty and left with no means of improving their lot, this has not been the case for nearly 50 years and the result is across the board advances. Strange that a massive increase in developement of advances in all areas coincide with the freedom given to the masses. The numbers favour the less well off and the majority without a university education which questions exactly who is intelligent in the first place. john jck

All particles are energy particles therefore a single fundamental energy particle capable of creating the energy in all particles would be required by default. It is certainty by default. john jck

This is more complicated than the over view would suggest. An atom in the air is an atom in the air no matter what the vertical distance may be, so gravity would affect each atom the same way. With curved space gravity all the atoms should ground. With differential particle gravity the density factors would be correct. john jck

I am posting mainly on speculation but space is one thing that I am particularly interested in defining. From a clean sheet beginning I cannot for the life of me see that empty space has actually been defined, yet all sorts of guesswork includes empty space as if it was defined. I use the term empty space deliberatley for without it nothing has any space to move. It appears a back to front situation when the space itself is required for somewhere where anything can exist that there would be any need for proof, that the empty space must exist at all times and everywhere by default, that no one seems to show in reality how that empty space could not exist ever. The speculation concerns space not existing and if it does what exists beyond this universe, rather than space existing as it surely does. To me once space exists there is no longer an option that it would not exist at anytime or anywhere. With no one being able to show, except theoretically, how space could not exist or worse how it could be created then why isn`t that a mainstream consideration? As I say my posts on the matter have been on the speculation forum but what has been said on this thread is more speculative than what I consider. best wishes, john jck

The situation is that motion and change can be clearly understood that is because they exist in our view of reality in the universe. Time being dependant rather than independant confirms time as a concept. Time the concept cannot be started and stopped at a whim. Something happens in 3 minutes...exactly what is the 3 minutes isolated from reality nothing more than a figment of the imagination. No wonder there is confusion whenever a person attempts to attribute something existing where time is constructed from imagination. john jck

Chupacabra, According to the mass mutations across the boards for plants and humans there is no difference between the so called intelligent minority and the others. It is more likely due to numbers that the others will spring a far greater improvement through mutation than the select few. This would account for certain individuals without much background or education suddenly producing brilliant inventions and discoveries. john jck

So far so good. The slow build up of energy reaches a critical level where the collisions increase rapidly till it reaches a point where apparently it is detected as a big bang burst of energy. From the initial consideration the burst of energy would not have happened suddenly from nothing at all, particles could have been created during the build up at least to quark and electron status although these may well have lasted only for an instant until the energy started to expand through the force of the energy pressure from outside on such a large blockage. Once the energy and particles were allowed to expand then the nature is that the further away the mass was the greater would be the acceleration while inwardly an established flow from all directions would tend to keep galaxies within boundaries. Once the space was cleared in the universe there would be opportunity for the quarks to collide and force the proton for the hydrogen atom to form. If something is certain it does not have to be proved and it is certain that at a critical mass the proton in the hydrogen atom no longer allows for any further fusion of mass to increase the size of that proton. Here therefore the physics of the universe are established prior to big bang as the only form the energy can take is the quarks, and these can only form a single proton for the hydrogen atom. With the hydrogen atom in place all other atoms in the universe can be created so that is where the consideration needs no further explanation of how anything else was created. Trapping an electron in the hydrogen atom must confirm that opposite particles of energy combinations create electrons and quarks at which point they aquire properties such as positive and negative charge. There does not appear any requirement for other particles or energy in the hydrogen atom as it is now bombarded by the free flowing single energy particles described as differential particle gravity. Any forces or properties of the hydrogen atom would be essentially via the proton and electron and formally the DPG. The energy trapped in the atom no longer has the empty space vacuum as a means to move or accelerate anywhere, there is no free energy so the dynamics of the atom must in this consideration come from the bombardment of energy particles that constitute gravity. This would give first cause of movement as DPG bombardment and any other force as observed force after the fact. That being the case then the calculations would include particle gravity affects while ignoring them in the proofs. This then leads to the theories being wrong in comparison and by default cannot be used to refute the particle gravity scenario. Here lies the problem with research into particle gravity, it fails to take into account that the equations must be wrong in the first place if particle gravity is correct so it is no wonder they cannot work out how particle gravity would work. That is the conclusion so far. john jck

Klaynos, The electric and magnetic fields are energy fields, apart from the energy what is the substance these fields are created from? It is the same for water, made from atoms which are made from particles which are simply energy particles. No energy, no particles then no atoms then no water. No energy no electric field and no magnetic field. The logic is to use empty space in the first instance and then consider the substance in the empty space, I have energy and no other substance to any particle or field. However something Farsight said previously did make me consider the mass problem further, mass is the empty space contained by the energy source. So an electron would be the energy and the empty space it contains, nothing else. Energy and empty space is all I have, no one has specified any other substance for anything else. So far it is energy based properties that have been given as examples. Either you work from nothing at all, which gives nothing at all for all time, or you work from empty space that is nothing with the possibility for something to exist in that empty space. All matter and properties derive from energy, there is nothing else except the empty space. If anyone has anything that is not energy based that is not energy then name that substance as something that exists seperately from energy. Properties of anything that depend on energy are energy based. john jck

Skeptic, I have now solved the numbers problem thanks to your replies. The hidden mutations would be the deliberate way nature would ensure as many opportunities as possible can be tried in a short space of time. Now with a crop of 5000 plants at one time each with a subtle mutation most would make no difference at all, the ones that were fatal would be small so no great loss and unlikely to replicate that mutation by chance again. The chances of even two of the plants making the same chance mutation would be small. The plants are actively mutating at every opportunity which is every plant in every crop. That is where the hidden numbers are. Sharks and crocodiles have had the same hidden mutations but nothing has improved the current model so appear not to have evolved but the numbers have been operating all the time. Natures answer, lets make every plant mutate every time only slightly from the original gene then let the numbers provide a better alternative simply because any improvement by chance will propogate. The number of plants that fail using the method will become extinct but that is no great loss compared to the value gained by the majority of plants. many thanks, john jck

The result of having empty space with a single fundamental energy particle travelling in all directions at c+ gives rise to collisions at certain points although initially these would be extremely small fusions gradually more energy particles would get trapped at the same point in endless space accelerating the fusion. This process appears to require a considerable period of time to get to the proportions dtected at big bang. The logic in this consideration points to the universe being a slow gradual build up of energy in one place leading to a rapid increase as the build up accelerates. The conclusion would be that big bang was not the initial creation of the universe but the result of a slower build up over a substantial period of time. Another conclusion would be that the energy detected at big bang would only constitute an extremely insignificant amount of the energy in the empty space being needed. After big bang conversion of energy to mass leaving a vast amount of space in the universe the flow of energy from outside in all directions would continue. There could only be one explanation for such a flow of such a magnitude particularly as no such energy flow has been detected directly, the force involved in total from collisions would be a great force. The only unknown great force in the universe is gravity. Despite the overwhelming view being against particle gravity from this consideration it is certain to flow as energy particles in all directions. More than that it must flow continually through the universe to the outside not remain constant as a single gravity source inside. This then starting from scratch with empty space and a single fundamental energy particle is what transpires. The big bang can be created so mass can be created exactly as it has and gravity is explained as differential particle gravity. The real logic follows when the hydrogen atom is created and such things as black holes, dark energy and dark matter and the expanding universe are looked at from the foundations that have been established here. Everything becomes a natural progression. This in no way assumes theory to be wrong but considers only the alternative view that empty space did exist before big bang. It is an interesting consideration to say the least. john jck

Skeptic, An inherent mutation sleeper principle that performs at the right time with the correct mutation asks exactly how and when one is employed. Are you implying that something like autisim is a trial and error mutation where some extremely advanced capabilities may eventually evolve into future humans? Perhaps I am thinking the mutations are dormant but still cannot see how the trigger is pulled. I certainly consider the order for a plant or other no more than the simplist most economical answer nature follows. I still feel something is missing from the puzzle. Thanks again for the info which I can agree with as it stands while looking for a more basic fundamental cause. john jck

Hi abciximab, The explanations are fine and I am sure each particular plant evolution can be described along those lines. It is the mechanisim that allows millions of plants to mutate by accident that does not add up. There is no suggestion of dna actively working out which mutation to initiate in the first place rather the number of perfectly adapted mutations that conveniently happen as a matter of course. Imagine you were a blind plant, how many chance mutations do you get before being wiped out? Plus why not have as many mutations on the same plant as possible hoping one worked? The plant with the yellow berries, where are the other mutations that did not work? No sign of any. So a plant makes one mutation and if that fails well its hard luck? It is not that the plants cannot make the mutations exactly as you say, the numbers involved pose all sorts of problems. Say we knew that all plants had to make one mutation over the next 1000years or it would be wiped out and it had to be deadly accurate in the form of the mutation? Every single one need to make a different specific mutation and has only one chance to do it? The numbers do not add up for me. john jck

Ender, I extracted the consideration as far as which quotes led to his downfall. All are thoughtful as that is the style of Shakespeares terminology. Take the quote about Duncan: He is dead, nothing more can harm him for the treason has already murdered him. Throughout history leaders are murdered and the one taking the crown does not suffer as a result of the crime. The first quote concerns the predictions and this does play on his mind throughout. My views are plain and simple and you seem to require more than that but perhaps others may respond soon. john jck

Dr.Dalek, No confusion about anything you say, I agree that plants would be ideal for study of such things and I have no particular knowledge so was happy to accept the standard explanations whatever they happened to be. The problem is more deep rooted, for example where are all the millions of mutations going on non-stop that will eventually prove to fail? I mean all we see are correct mutations after the fact, plants must have the massive majority of such mutations that fail ongoing. Yes, we have all seen the mutations in vegatables that happen along the way but they tend to be a physical abnormailty. john jck

psynapse, I am less happy now after reading your post than I was before. Silver moths dying out is logical. Now as you say a few, not a lot, started breeding again and with the hawks still around the correct mutation had to be found quickly. The vast amount of patterns and colours available but the correct one was chosen. Another problem I am having is why the change was not made earlier as the silver moths could have done with a colour change, almost as if they were left as a food source deliberately until the food source become at risk. Anyway, it is plants that my concern really revolved around. It is the genetics of the plants over the period they evolve that interests me. All the millions of mutations are chance mutations? john jck

Hi, Just looking at the first three quotes this refers to before the murder so the decisions based here would cause what was to come later. Reflections of guilt in the other quotes or what had past would not have bearing on future events. Comfort from the false promise of immortality may have contributed to rash behaviour after the fact. That is a general overview from my position but I am not an expert. john jck

Dr.Dalek, Many thanks for your reply it is what I had orginally thought. The problem in just this one case was the likelihood of anything remotely resembling the egg being a mutation nevermind a perfect replica, another species had egg like markings again exactly resembling the yellow butterfly eggs. If the original mutation was not a very good replication the plant then had to make the correct adaptations. When you consider all possible mutations initially and the time taken to make that the main species of plant for that butterfly etc it leaves open a wider reaching consideration. Like I said evolution was not my interest really but this situation I do find interesting. john jck