foodchain

Enough I think because biodiversity is the result of evolution. So if there is no evolution then no one would survive in coming time(at least I think!)

I agree with you very much on that. In many nations the amount of chemicals introduced to human beings I think is amazing when thought of in chronological sense, to add to this how do you understand what you are doing?

In say forestry trying to sustain a forest and or manage it I think also hints on value in that sense. I mean how do you know fully the genetic reality as it would relate to various possible phenotypes alone over time? Yet nursery operations of course are alive and well in terms of replanting for instance what was cut. The point being is dynamic elements of the ecology in time are being rapidly distorted in a short period of time, and of course this is done for gain. So really I could see the difficulty even in just trying to put a value on a natural process billions of years old really either, yet I guess it has to occur really.

Is there any attempt to describe organisms as patterns of mutualistic evolution among eukaryotic cell lines that developed multicellular behavior? Or would it be possible that multicellular is a possibility of mutualistic behavior of course in a selection sense?

Could you use some sort of super cooled condensate like a BEC to shield against gamma radiation? I mean if a BEC can interact with light as to slow it(how?) could a BEC basically do the same to gamma radiation then?

electronegativity is EVERYTHING to do with it, but it`s not a workable "unit" as such, so Oxidation state or Valency (when I was taught) is used, less so Valency now though.

 

effectively the "magic" number is 8, and you need a Periodic table (or a good memory) to know what each element is in way of electron count.

 

you simply look at what group it`s in and there`s your answer, although it gets a bit more interesting when you get to the Middle groups as they CAN swing either way (esp Group 4).

 

they can be the Oxidiser Or reducer

 

think Calcium Carbide or Carbon dioxide for instance, the Carbon plays 2 different roles here.

 

but lets use an example given in the OP and look at H2SO4.

 

H=1 (but we have 2 so that 1x2=2)

S= 6

O=6 (but we have 4 of them so it`s really 6x4=24)

 

so lets add them add them up as Ions SO4 (the sulphate ion) adds up to 24+ 6 and that`s 30

 

so how many 8`s go into 30? well we know it goes into 32 4 times, so it`s 3 remainder 2, so we can scrap the 3 as that obeys the rules and we don`t need it anymore, we want the Remainder!

 

we also know the SO4 is the Oxidiser (it`s way over on the left on the periodic table) so it`s Overall charge is -2 (remember the remainder?).

 

Happily we have those pair of Hydrogens with a +1 charge each *phew*

they combine with sulphate ion to make Hydrogen sulphate, whose Oxidation number NOW is 32

 

and we know 8 fits in there perfectly.

now this really does take a lot longer to type out here and read than it actually takes to do!

with a little practice it`s VERY easy!

I will also point out that this is only a General Guide, and NOT the letter of the Law!

That’s just the thing, its not that I cant remember the octet rule or what not, or the funny question of asking people what anhydrous means. Its that they would just say satisfy the octet rule for instance in some drawing, Lewis dots and what not... to me I just really wanted to know what was going on. it hit me to the first time i tried to do it just from a math perspective such as using just ratios of masses or what not, and so i got frustrated. then I ran into that whole electronic configuration bit on my own, reading about s,p,d,f and all that stuff and such started to make a lot more sense. I mean sitting in a class and trying to think on an issue when they give you a crumb of the picture just sucks. To be honest my first thought was that the mechanism sort of mimicked a seesaw:D , so for me as a student I really have to know it all or it simply does not make any sense to me, I don’t want to know short cuts, or tricks of the trade, I really just want to know why something or some phenomena is actually occurring.

And further if hydrogen is added to a molecule then it is also reduced and opposite is true for oxidation. Also if the oxidation number for an atom is increased then its oxidised and if decreased then reduced.

I prefer Electronegativity but also I had a hard time with basic chem until I started to read a physics perspective on it really. They just tried to pass concepts on without explaining anything which for me is a real pain educationally speaking as a student. Its the same with this, why do we need to classify such as such? Is it truly fundamental or just usable definition really? I like chem a lot also, so don’t get confused if you don’t see my posts in many chemistry threads as I don’t trust my advice that well on the issue:D

As a general rule, when you break or just completely ignore a law of physics which applies fully to a situation the answer can be anything you want...

Right that’s why its hypothetical or just a question. For instance what would nucleosynthesis yield if a star was based on chlorine. I don’t expect people to view the thread as something more then just a hypothetical question, sorry.

Another question you could add to it would be its impact on say cosmology in regards to gravity or galaxy formations if such an entity existed.

I know its probably accepted that a star based on chlorine is impossible, but for the sake of argument if it were possible how would it be and what would it look like or behave like if real?

However the associations I do, are more in the sense of a pictures development of quantum mechanics, and it's interpretations. But I suspect that to make sense of these at this point fuzzy things, a normal standard appreciation of the basiscs is needed. My strange reflections is not standard QM./Fredrik

I was thinking of trying to model environmental chemical behavior from a theoretical point of view using QM. Such as looking for environment which could favor or support various microbial metabolisms. I was thinking on how to link autotroph behavior to early or primordial stages of evolution in a sort of process produced by a biogeochemical function or stage for instance.

I was thinking maybe that the use of thermodynamics as proposed by einselection really in modeling possible chemical ecologies that could produce early autotroph behavior in possibly the earths crust or other geologic features like underwater volcanic vents or chimneys.

Thank you also for your reply on the math question, that cleared up a lot of things for me.

>>>Some think the protoavis period ( before archeopterix) might be 75 million years. If the initial area where flight originated is gone, what are we supposed to do?

I think you would first have to define the evolution of the bird in various environmental variables. Such as did traits or organisms we would class as birds or close relatives radiate to any great extent or not in relation to what for variables. Such as the extinction that lead to the dinosaurs. Did traits exist that were bird like but of no specific bonus to fitness overall until massive geological change? Were some species simply better at catching fish but still bipedal with no flight capability?

As pointed out the fossil record is pretty important, simply with the case of Maniraptora classification. Its so important to even have such so you can ask such questions. I don’t really know how much we can recreate a species lifestyle currently which I think hurts. If you read up on predatory behavior the ability to catch food is basically life for such organisms overall. So if you have traits that lead to an advantage in a giving situation basic evolutionary thought would have such occurring more in frequency giving a population overall. Though I know that you cant use that alone as you have to make such an abstraction more concrete with a species in real life, which for the sake of discussion requires creating very old environments in the earths past including of course behavior of an organism or multiple ones.

I think this is a good example of a fact, its not easy being green. Such is sort of difficult to obtain because it requires a good deal of manual actions that don’t happen to fall into the norm of typical economic strategies in a giving area at large globally. Many places this in changing on a national level but major nations still lack any consensus drive I think.

It equates on a populous level. Companies which supply energy probably do not use the most sophisticated equipment to supply energy, along with many building strategies that overall reflect lack of simple energy conservation techniques is most likely a major source of waste. An initiative to end that in some time based strategy could probably produce a very noticeable reduction in energy consumption based on millions of people in use in a major nation, much like the overall use of a hybrid automobile. Such technology yet does not exist in major concentration i think to take effect, its still relatively new compare to the history and use of the automobile.

To then equate this simply to the daily apparatus a person might use while at work or at home shows that green versions of technology can exist as options but currently reside in a few active forms sparingly used overall, quite sad really.

In a certain sense I agree completely. This is also I think another important angle of the problem./Fredrik

Do you think quantum mechanics could be applied to geologic processes for study into origins of life questions? Such as trying to equate possible quantum mechanical basis for energy in a system to take the form of early life similar to bacteria(metabolism really for my idea) for instance? I cant help but to view trophic phenomena as simply more geologic process in regards to matter and energy interactions. I want to know how to study such a question in a quantum perspective? I am thinking of taking linear algebra, would it also be good to take differential equations to supplement? I want to apply a consistent histories thinking to it all along with someway to describe the environment as a nature of the quantum world, for this reason I am interested in einselection for instance. I would also of course like to use such as a basis for natural selection and move natural selection out of a definition to only biological phenomena and more or less natural phenomena in general?

Its just a weird idea I have interest in as hobby. I would like to learn the best way to get to a point you can apply quantum theory to say such a question if possible in a format to derive some math. I was wondering if you could describe what math skills are really needed to work with quantum theory?

I would recommend that you use java. I don’t think moving through the C and C++ chain is recommended in programming is to be hobby or light in use. Those other languages I mentioned have far reaching capabilities not typically found in java, like pointers, though at times I thought the indirect member selector was a dynamic pointer casting type event but that was just illusion. Java also for lack of better words in highly portable, so your neat program wont jam up on some projector screen if you have to present programs for class work, such as a C++ .exe file might run fine on your system, yet hit a bug on your friends. Also if you come to like java a lot in time and or programming java is very much like other popular modern programming languages, like C, or cplus.

Java I think is just more user friendly overall for general purpose, it also has a giant user community and tons of features.

The sterile workers didn't evolve at all. It is only the queens/drones that evolved to produce sterile workers.

Natural selection on genes does not have to make sense! It has to be fit in time/environment up to modern form is all! If AIDS became an airborne threat there is already a very small percentage of the worlds populous that are naturally immune via mutation, they would be the only ones to have a real chance of survival from just the AIDS variable.

intrinsic to the observer, and extrinsic as stored in the environment.

/Fredrik

I don’t understand how any particular object can be separated from the environment as is. For instance if for some strange reason plants decided to change and stop giving off air the amount of change that would bring on would surely be noticeable. Yet the entire "web" of it all seems to be just that, the entirety of the environment. That’s one reason I always questioned the use of that word in such a context, to me the line of environment and individual "thing" is not defined to a point that I can digest really. Its easy to see this in many fields of study scientifically speaking I think. Such as with geology, the earth gets treated as a system which is dynamic in relation to its various components, but really its that concert that is deriving the environment so to speak. As far as QM goes I don’t understand fully the scope of environment or why anything is anything to be honest, why history can exist, or why stars seem to be evident in the observable universe. Which I think again leads to the context of an environmental variable at the least.

For instance vision has quantum properties, normal human vision. So am I viewing a constant superposition defined to some particular state at a constant, why, and for the reason that the universe or the earth is far older then the human species what defines an observation or a measurement at a quantum scale? Personally I think its just physical interaction overall, which I think would yield an environment regardless. Yet within the quantum domain that inherent nature of a probability makes me question how to define nature of things quantum truly that do not change, ever, such as the uncertainty principal.

*On edit.

I have read some papers I guess on QM that seem pretty far out to me from where I sit. To actually ponder the many worlds hypothesis is actually something I don’t think any human could really do successfully outside of pure math. For instance a take on that, which is a supplement if not challenge to doctrine or Copenhagen, would that make our observable universe just a quantum blip in an infinite quantum blip that basically rehashes circuits of some sorts(what state of matter would that be)? I fear even uttering(or thinking on) such thoughts simply because they do appeal to me of holding a certain state of madness or at least do not happen to be rational in any sense of modern or standard, yet no one can exclusively deny really what could be an endless array of interpretations I think.

I was wondering if anyone might have any ideas on this particular matter.

If we are in space looking at any given planet..lets say earth, and we feel we are in fact looking at a sphere, could the possibility arise in our minds for a moment that were not at all looking at a sphere but a Hole in Space rather?

If we stop to think that on earth where we are responsive to given pre-existing states of matter or particles acting and or reacting in relation to the given Magnetic / Electromagnetic fields Present, and we observe that on Table top or even the ground itself , a hole it comes to no surprise it takes on a 3 dimensional shape of a tube. regardless of the depth (let's not dwell on that for now).

It goes to show that this is the case due to material boundaries of the table or ground itself.

in space however an independent Object/Mass (that is our point of individualized focus) would have to obey the laws of 3 dimensional manifestation. thusly a hole in space would by nature become a sphere

and only due to our own perceptual repositioning would it appear as such.

I am considering this concept only because when we look at a material mass like a star that implodes and becomes a blackhole it started out a "SPHERE" and then turned inside out you might say and is obviously going to still have to obey the laws of our 3 dimensional universe thusly maintaining its spherical attributes. so A blackhole wouldn't in this respect be a black Hole it would in fact be a black Sphere. and its field would extend respectively in concordance

to this. So if this is at all a possibility then we would maybe wonder if we have systems of PLANETARY Bodies (Solar Systems,GALAXIES) then is it far beyond

possibility that we may have exactly the reverse constructs distant to us beyond our visible reach ..where can can not yet see or travel? Galaxies and solar system equivalences made up entirely of BlackSpheres?

 

I was so hoping that I might get a response to this post.

please if anyone has anything to say please let's hear it, I Don't need a good bashing but I would love to hear any thoughts on this.if you're unsure of the question the think of it as a statement and give a reply to it in that sense.

Thank you so much

I was always confused over the idea of a 3D or 4D hole in space actually. I don’t know if the hole function exists because of the time aspect or space time. Obviously for so much mass to exist as a singularity something very weird has to be going on. Have you read into anything about neutron stars? I don’t know if following history of stuff like mass in spacetime is enough but it does seem that natural phenomena points to it as not being some freak occurrence, then again I don’t know how you would assign values or judge a freak occurrence in regards to issues like a BH.

I view math as ultimate perfection of reductionism in regards to thinking in many ways. I always wondered if earthly concepts like for instance out of order execution or branching in thought could lead to some of these issues just from the use of math as the prime tool of understanding such things. Ultimately though I think to understand something physical such requires such to be physical, to that I think is what leads to the current bounds you could place on such conceptually. This I think is also the current basis of thought on the issue really at large in regards to a BH. We understand such as physically possible right now(meaning people who professionally study such of course).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-order_execution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star

To Martin:

I may be a bit confused but is the current model in cosmology based on general relativity and the standard model? Being the standard explains three of the four known forces in the universe right, and general relativity accounting for the fourth or gravity?

As you said in an above post about the current view or model of cosmology being based on what is currently observable would it be safe to speculate that the universe might in fact be hundreds of times larger then what we currently observe if not simply just larger then what we can observe?

In regards to the question of age would it just be the physical dynamics of the universe as known in itself to be the physical phenomena used in a model to lead to such a form or size in time? I think this relates to my above two questions and the thread in general.

One of the problems that I have experienced on this fourms in science is most log on's seem to want to tear down legimate scientific theories.

 

I want to post a quotation from from DeBorlie nobel-prize-laureate (to whom I am in deep debt).*

 

He (Louis de Broglie) said:

The history of science teaches that the greatest advances in the scientific domain have been achieved by bold thinkers who perceived new and fruitful approaches that others failed to notice.*

 

If one had taken the ideas of these scientific geniuses who have been the promoters of modern science and submitted them to committees of specialists, there is no doubt that the latter would have viewed them as extravagant and would have discarded them for the very reason of their originality and profundity.*

 

More recently, in the domain of theoretical physics, of which I can speak with knowledge, the magnificent novel conceptions of Lorentz and Planck, and particularly Einstein also clashed with the incomprehension of eminent scientists.

 

The new ideas here triumphed; but, in proportion as the organization of research becomes more rigid, the danger increases that new and fruitful ideas will be unable to develop freely.

 

Let us state in a few words the conclusion to be drawn from the foregoing. While, by the very force of circumstances, research and teaching are weighted down by administrative structures and financial concerns and by the heavy armature of strict regulations and planning, it becomes more indispensable than ever to preserve the freedom of scientific research and the freedom of initiative for the original investigators, because these freedoms have always been and will always remain the most fertile sources for the grand progress of science.FRIPRO

Yes but then you have to be able to make science a separate reality from what I like to call the human condition, or totality of its environment. Science ultimately is a human institution, as such its not free from being human. I have very few standards really that I have developed as a personal philosophy, and going from your post it seems a bit of a paradox to argue if such views are truly wrong going from what was represented in the quotes. Basically if humanity cannot sustain fitness in time in regards to a stable and healthy environment I think what you face in the face of pure reduction on the issue is extinction. So with that being said I support fully environmental science becoming something of an integrated model with basically everything, science, commerce, economics be it global or local or even national, with anything. If humanity simply does not care in time to carry itself for what can sustain, then I don’t really know what is the point to anything else.

Science has for what I think a paramount role in this. If undergraduate education regardless of discipline had environmental science as an emphasis not as class but integrated into class from a rational viewpoint that is common I would hope in science then I think that such could only be prosperous. Ultimately though in conjunction with your post that would entail having to think of the environment for instance regardless in terms of research of advance or anything. IN reality this seriously lacks, even while the realities of environmental ruin and ill health can be readily studied in a fully modern sense with heavy implications for the future.

Also this would seem to connect with your idea in that to get such "reform" that is needed past against the powers that be which is a heavy majority with all the cash is nothing but an uphill battle in a non quantum classical world it seems. I also could only see genius in wanting to prolong life itself overall, even if it is just human life at a minimum.

"Quantum Dots for Live Cells, in Vivo Imaging, and Diagnostics

X. Michalet,1* F. F. Pinaud,1* L. A. Bentolila,1 J. M. Tsay,1 S. Doose,1 J. J. Li,1 G. Sundaresan,2 A. M. Wu,2 S. S. Gambhir,2,4 S. Weiss1,3*

Research on fluorescent semiconductor nanocrystals (also known as quantum dots or qdots) has evolved over the past two decades from electronic materials science to biological applications. We review current approaches to the synthesis, solubilization, and functionalization of qdots and their applications to cell and animal biology. Recent examples of their experimental use include the observation of diffusion of individual glycine receptors in living neurons and the identification of lymph nodes in live animals by near-infrared emission during surgery. The new generations of qdots have far-reaching potential for the study of intracellular processes at the single-molecule level, high-resolution cellular imaging, long-term in vivo observation of cell trafficking, tumor targeting, and diagnostics."

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/307/5709/538

Nanotech will be the next age I think, even if its a silent one that pretty much becomes a norm. The closest university to me has a materials science program offered by the physics department. The degree is interdisciplinary though overall, such as you have a big chunk of engineering courses, chem courses and of course physics courses. Personally I am to much of a lazy bastard for the most part though and would probably end up blowing myself up or something I am sure:D

Quantum dots though, or in conjunction with nanotech is I guess making better targeted drug delivery a reality, such as very acute. I think the ability to say engineer at such a small "dimension" of reality is hardly realized for what it could be right now, for instance chemistry is realized and its atomic in scale. Plus to go smaller would basically require you to go through at least some form of nanotech for the ability to build at such a level that is not just chemistry alone.

Also being the field is still "new" in many ways its not so locked down as to be boring really. I mean could you imagine making an intricate machine with gears smaller then a dust mite? Its pretty cool but like to many things environmental impact is not part of the core curriculum so to speak, its simply not profitable even while nanotech could have a vast array of environmental applications.

your question is an interesting one and I forwarded it to my GR prof, however if we aren't looking at an evaporating black hole than we can still use classical GR to predict what happens on the inside of the schwarschild radius for instance the fact that nothing could leave once inside it (the time and radial co-ordinate switch) but there are flaws, I personally don't know exactly where these flaws become critically important (does anyone?).

If you are in the position to have questions answered by a professor the one I always tried to find answered when I could was basically this. During the collapse of say a massive red giant during some super nova, at what point in that does a BH form, I mean does it form at some crucial point of the nova as some reaction to it? When does it actually form? I mean I think it would be kind of weird if the BH formed before the nova, is there any chance of that?

"Abstract View"

"PLANT ASSEMBLAGE COMPOSITION EXPLAINS AND PREDICTS HOW BIODIVERSITY AFFECTS SALT MARSH FUNCTIONING"

"Evidence for strong species selection effects led us to predict that three species would eventually dominate our parallel field experiment that tested the same assemblages. Exactly that happened in nine years, but (we predict) without losing function, because the site retained the three highest-performing species. Biodiversity loss was nonrandom in the field, and because trios with two top performers sustained critical functions in the greenhouse, we predict that many functions will not decline, even if the salt marsh becomes dominated by a single species, e.g., S. virginica. Unmeasured functions (e.g., resilience) might not persist, however. Knowing how assemblages perform made biodiversity–ecosystem function theory both explanatory and predictive."

"Keywords: assemblages; BEF theory; biodiversity; biomass; complementarity; function; nitrogen; root : shoot ratios; Salicornia virginica; salt marsh; selection effects"

http://www.esajournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1890%2F06-1947.1

I find the excerpt very interesting. If I understand this correctly that means part of the greenhouse effect could be a substantial change in the biosphere overall from selective pressures or values changing. I wonder how much of an impact this would have on any possible biologic migration.

It sounds like an incorrect mathematical conclusion.

 

Unless a black hole is really a completely different animal than a star. If you simply had a body of matter that had grown so massive as to disable the giving off of light, I can see how a singularity would be a more significant focal point. Could it be that black holes are not on fire at all, simply supermassive objects attracting more and more matter? That would not explain jets of hot gas coming out the side, though. Which revives the idea that a black hole is on fire, doing much of the same processes as any other star, just unable to give off light.

 

What does a black hole do with all of the matter that it draws in? That is the 60 million dollar question. Does it fuse it into heavier metals? That seems to be the only logical conclusion.

My view of a BH was it was a related phenomena like the rest of earthly phenomena. Simply put if you subtract out interactions any object could have what would that object still look like? Then of course you have to deal with a think a timeline then.

My rash view was put to rest when I started to learn about what a BH was purely from a scientific point of view. When I actually try to think of such in purely such a manner I get confused as to its position and definition. It seems that they live in a quasi state of being hypothetical and then real. As in experimental evidence can support the existence of such it seems from various studies of the cosmos, I think also various models calculate there existence into the model itself. Yet as for some statement about 100% existence and understanding though, that seems to lack or is not really put forward yet in science as far as I know.

we cannot blame the pollution. we should blame ourselves. bcoz of us, we produce pollution. correct right?! but, if we look at the right side, if there is no technologies around us, are people are willing to move on their life more comfortable? i think not, even us right? no car, no factory to produce our food, you guys willling to have crop (which needed a long time to produce fruit and vegetable)? even me i don't think so.

as you know, awareness is good. thanks to iNow. but, you look people around you. how many people are keeping their habit to conserve their un-use thing. even now, many people are seem to burn their rubbish, even it is just a dried leaves. can they just dig a hole and put the leaves in that hole? it can be fertilizers.......i don't know how to make peoples more concern about environment.

government had make advertisement in the tv and also in the radio about the pollution. but, how many people are really-really involve and really-really want to conserve and take care of their earth???????????????

We got plans in the works right now to eventually obtain a geodesic dome home. They are to be the most energy efficient buildings currently. We also have green energy options available from the local power company. That along with some solar energy should be pretty darn green. Then of course you deal with what you purchase, green options are available with that too, such as just buying local goods, to buying organic foods, overall many variables exist for product use in which the reality of such is a case by case basis currently overall. Plus the homes I guess are pretty standard in being able to repel things like hurricanes and tornadoes, which is always a plus.

As for automobiles the next car we get is going to be a Toyota prius. It may not be the most green thing on wheels, but its accessible to us and does use far less hydorcarbons to go then most other options. I also think the support of such technology from a consumption point will be the only thing that allows it to get bigger, better and more widespread in use. There is some newer model car coming about, and not from a major manufacturer either. It uses standard or existing equipment to get 150 miles to the gallon. Its just a prototype currently though. The estimated, and purely estimate currently would have a model costing around 45,000$. A prius which is a viable option currently costs only about half of that.

Plus if you buy land you can at least keep that green such as making sure it stays a part of the natural environment or ecosystem, or working on how human life can make being green a reality, or how to have human cultures which can obtain a green way of living, or more on honest communication hopefully.

Overall many options exist to be green, its just a sad fact that most all of it is non standard behavior in regards to anything current such as consumption. Again I would suggest that more scientific understanding of the environment equated into general populous will help, along with options on how to live a greener life. Then of course the next big hurdle is getting those green options towards living more normal and accessible, which means that if you can land such as the standard reality of economy, competitiveness should in then turn make living green better and better.

The one ugly little thing in all of this is ultimately I don’t think any lifestyle can support and infinitely growing populous, though I could be wrong somehow.

how is the earth not a perpetual motion thingy? what with it moving through space, presumably untill it desintegrates or the sun explodes?

 

or is 'perpetual motion machine' more than just something that perpetually moves untill it breaks (i'm taking 'because it'll one day be destroyed' as a lame answre btw)

Perpetual motion as in infinite energy violates just about everything I think:D I have asked questions like this before on the boards also as in I don’t understand gravity all to well in relation to say a perpetual motion machine either. I would say the functions that lead to say solar systems or galaxies whatever that may be occurs over time of course in respects to say things like energy! Sort of like a thermostat. Of course issues like angular momentum change on say a quantum scale as in classical orbits would have the electrons falling into the nucleus, this however does not occur so then you have that whole deal with classical not being able to describe the quantum and so on which requires more experiments and so on. However I don’t think a vacuum or a BEC somehow destroys the interactions explained by the standard model, if that where true then I think nuclear reactions would be a lot more obtainable. Plus it would seem like planetary orbits are dynamic and can change of course.

swansont

 

Which is precisely my point. Newtonian gravity explains how objects behave (F=GMm/r^2),

 

This is the crux of our disagreement, knowing what gravity does and constructing a mathematical equation to match what is observed is not the same as knowing how it does it or why. We give force several different names because we observe a difference between forces yet we see a need to unify the forces. We have several concepts of mass and choose a concept to match our work. As for 'r' when it comes to particles we say there is no relationship between mass, force on one side and radius on the other. Even the PDG are reluctantly coming around to admitting that, at least in some parts; the process used is mathematical speculation. Its predictive accuracy in other parts is acknowledge but, that does not alter the fact that the Standard model is 'non-causal' and we need a model that is 'fully causal'. Until we have a fully causal theory, we do not have a scientific theory.

 

I believe the reason for this is that for historical reasons we have failed to apply the Law of Economy to the Standard model. Since the days of Newton until about thirty years ago such application was not possible. But now we have the experimental results that makes it possible to go back to the basic data and rebuild obeying the Law of Economy as we do so.

There are many philosophical ways to interpret reality that people actually do. Personally I think science does a bit of both, I think it can model and I also think it can explain. Sure nucleosynthesis might be a model, but it also explains why we get elements from the process, so you can understand that not only from a mathematical view, but a physical one also. I agree with you very much that science should be or is doing both in all of its various fields. Evolution is not modeled as just math in which only math can be used as descriptors of a process, yet via science we can understand it. With QM people would be lost without math, but physically the math is validated currently with physical experiments and it in itself is not a dead end in regards to further inquiry.

Ultimately I think that both will come to work together rather well in environmental fields of study, such as environmental chemistry, or environmental biology, or anything environmental. It will have to be able to describe functions or interactions that make up any environment not only from a basis that can be modeled mathematically as possible, but also physically understood as much as possible simply because the environment itself and all of its various interactions are not perfectly linear for just one reason. OF course statistics and probability has already found a home in such for just one example. Plus if math can model something, and math being ultimately human in design, then of course the equations can come to be explained in non mathematical ways.

I am also a bit confused on something, are you saying really that humans could never really know the truth about something? I would think such a statement to be a bit of a paradox giving how much advancement humans have made in understanding the natural world around them.