pioneer

With the "mad" mind, there is more more unconscious processing doing much of the thinking for them. It is not as easy to willfully learn in a collective way for the predictable response. Much of their learning is being developed more internally in terms of active imagination, fantasy, visions, delusions, impulses, etc., that nobody has to teach them. This will filter through the imagination, which is not confined to cause and affect or even probability, so anything can happen, even funny things. You can ask, which way left or right, they can say, I will have milk in my tea. Or the ax murderer will see the vision of an opportunity appear in his imagination, and begin to follow that vision leading you to your own demise. He can invent as he goes without having to rely on the ax murderer for dummies manual. Sane is a little more herd like, based on learned behavior in a polite society, which would cause you to output the data to be the best of your knowledge to help the stranger. The "dumb hayseed" fantasy thought, that could appear in the mind, would be censored so they don't think you are mad. This censor is also taught, since it is polite not to expose others to your own inner mad. That way you look less mad on the outside. But as you get older, this rule no longer applies and you can let the mad out and complain about anything you want based on your own inner reality. In big cities the rules are often different, with the inner grouchy or fearful mad being a valid part of the helpful aid.

Logic is based on cause and affect which is a 2-D concept, with cause plotted as the x-axis and effect the y-axis. A three legged alien would imply the brain having more 3-D wiring to get a smooth rhythm out of three legs. If you walk with the rhythm one big leg and then two smaller legs in unison, this is still 2-D. This is sort of redundant for balance, and would default back to two legs. If the walking gate is 1,2,3 step the brain wiring would need to be different, which would also affect how the brain is had been wired by evolution leading to the eventual thinking of higher humanoid life. The use of 3-D thinking would be an improvement over logic since it could anticipate extended relationships of cause-affect-cause or affect-cause-affect. This is a more creative way to think, allowing them to advance really fast. Our brains aren't wired this way. I am not sure if your vision of the third leg is only superficial, sort of as a decorative affect, that has little to do with the requirements of brain wiring. Or 3-D wiring so their brain is set up quite differently. When we march it is left, right, left, right, etc, (cause, affect, cause, affect, etc). They will march left, middle, right... left, middle, right, etc). Their mind is thinking cause, affect, cause or affect, cause, affect, etc.), or something odd like that. Maybe less in terms of a rational proof and more in terms of any extra step before or after a logical affect. This would make them extremely advanced and very creative. Chaos theory sort of uses such a approach of the terminal affect from a cause, but with a middle step that this up in the air and doesn't have to be logical but can still lead to an affect. The middle leg is sort of gimp. But with the alien since this would be natural for them, that middle step would be far more coordinated and predictable, so they could predict weather, for example, in their heads without a machine being their middle leg.

I was being grouchy when i wrote that. The formation of early protein on clays sort of makes sense, since the dehydration is a perfect way to concentrate amino acids so the polymerization is possible in a sustained way. In a highly diluted form, with molecular diffusion, the amount of amino acids in a lake or ocean would need to be very high, which may not be supported by evidence. If we evaporate the water the concentration gets high enough even starting with very dilute solutions of amino acids. The formation of the peptide bond and proteins from animo acids gives off water. This could be pushed forward with dehydration since the removal of the product of a reaction prevents reversal and helps move the reaction forward. But it is interesting that water has to form to make proteins. Here is water still showing its face. Even if the clays helped at the very beginning, the clay formed protein plastics were going nowhere without water. They would form an inert solid that needed water to to soften then up. For a cell to eventually form, protein formation needed to develop a way to remove water to form the peptide linkage within water. Water set a constraint right at the beginning of evolution. Clays are no longer used, but removal of water in water is used for modern protein formation in cells. Water removal in water make the constraint of life easier. By adding water to the protein plastics stemming from clay, they softened the intermolecular bonding that kept them solid at room temperature. This also required they assume minimum energy shapes which required the polar groups go to the surface and organics in the center. The shape is now right for these to evolve a way to make proteins in water. By forming protein directly in water, water is now there at the very beginning as the protein grows using hydrophobic and hydrophilic push and pull to perfect the shapes. As the protein grows exposure of the fresh end has water push and pull causing it to stacking differently than if we put a finished dehydrated protein directly in water (assumes side group variety). Once life begins to use ATP energy in this process, it can defy the natural push and pull of water to add tension or energy into the shapes by changing the ordering of amino acids. This may not be able to happen spontaneously or will limit how many animo acids that can be added to proteins in water using dilute solutions. Without that push by water there is no back pressure to sustain these higher energy structural states. But with the back pressure, the induced structured energy can then be used as part of the potential for catalysis. What you also have is surface water, around a protein shape, that is not close to zero surface water energy, allowing the surface water to assist in activation energy states. DNA and water Before replicators were around nature had to decide on what RNA and DNA needed to look like. Water set some of the constraints for the design. I am only going to concentrate on one aspect, the phosphate linkage. The pentose sugars and the aromatic bases of DNA and RNA are heavy in organic content and therefore will increase the surface tension in water. If nature had substituted a carbon link (1-3 carbons) for the phosphate, you might still get base pairing and a helix, however, the surface tension between water and the organic rich genetic material would increase. The DNA or RNA would ball up in water, sort of like a bead of oil. This is a poor design and may have been tried. But since it would require an extra energy step to open the ball before you can do anything, it was put in the circular file. To compensate for the push of water to form a ball, nature needed to lower the surface tension with the highly polar phosphate linkage making it possible for the RNA and DNA to spread open as long extended chains. This is easier to use as a template. The next question is why phosphate? Theoretically, nature could have substituted other polar linkages to compensate for surface tension and still open up the genetic material so the future replicators could form easier. We might have been able to use O or S, or even gotten fancier, using NOx, SOx, C with polar side groups, or maybe SiO4, etc. But nature had to think longer term, in terms of other water requirements. The way the DNA and RNA form today involved tri-phosphates as the energy source. The difference between diphosphate plus phosphate and tri-phosphate is the formation and the destruction of water. The formation of the tri-phosphate involves removing an -OH group, which will not stay free in water but will react with H to form water. The reverse to store energy indirectly destroys water inside water to set a potential in the tri-phosphate. This just so happens to be at the level of a strong hydrogen bond, which water relies exclusively on for its properties. With phosphate, water has again been satisfied, longer term, and life is ripe to practice replicators. If we look at RNA replicators, since RNA typically forms a single helix, this allows nature to skip the separation of the double helix step. We only have to practice one thing instead of two. This makes it more likely to happen. Water defined this first step. The RNA single helix forms because it creates less surface tension in water than a DNA single helix. With DNA we need to bury the bases and sugars more due to the extra -CH3 group on one of the bases of DNA and the loss of the polar -OH group on its sugar. This give more of a bead of oil affect, which water would like to get rid of. The double helix can bury it deeper. But with RNA this is less a problem, although we still get base stacking but slightly more water surface contact. This makes it easier to practice on. Once we got that down, we can try the two step requiring extra energy to expose the DNA single helix to the water. If we go back to the DNA and phosphate, all the O's on the phosphate implies water will interact with the phosphate by facing their H sides toward the phosphate for H-bonds. This creates a sense of order in the water. This is good and bad. It is good for the water in terms of ordering the water matrix for lower energy, but it puts the DNA sort of in a water cage. Mother nature had to figure out a way around this water cage. It has to do with the accumulation of K+ ions in the cell. K+ ions are chaotropic or will form chaos in water, and are useful to bust up extended water structure. The accumulation of K+ helps break the water cage around the DNA. The Na+ is the opposite and is kosmotropic and assists with water structure more than the K+. Nature needed to figure out how to shift this naturl water balance created by how water interacts differently with almost similar cations. Maybe in the early days a K+ rich water blend may have helped to do this naturally to assist replicator 101.

Evolution is slow boat if it took a billion years to make a cell, so this artificial technique is too fast. I once proposed ethylene polymerization using an UV initiator to make the precursors of membranes. I got the slow boat rule read to me. It was too fast and starts to look creationism. I was not given the luxury of the dual standard. Let us go back to a seed. This is what you get when you remove most, but not all, the water. This is the perfect way to preserve life in a state of suspended animation. It can't evolve from there. We can mess with the DNA or proteins and it will continue to evolve, but don't mess with the water. Once you add water and the seed is hydrated the shapes of materials begin to change so everything becomes active in an 3-D or integrated way, not possible in the dehydrated state. Nearly all of the known biochemistry of the seed does not appear too work well without water. The DNA is useless without water mediation. The DNA is just a natural plastic without water. Add water and this plastic becomes active. The difference is so huge but the bias of science is so dogmatic, to where even common common sense is forbidden. I am trying to add something new and not take away anything. Instead of seeing the DNA mutating in a void, I am trying to add its natural environment, water.

Alchemy was observation and empirical science. They developed that approach. They would run valid experiments and generate good data for chemical reactions and phase changes. But their explanations were off with respect to what we now know is the basis of chemistry. For example, they knew if you mix gold and mercury it would form an amalgam. This is good experimental and observation data. However, they would explain this or correlate it, with a mystical analysis. They invented and understood the basics of distillation and could make fairly pure products. But being empirical they would explain this with spirits, from which the terms is coined for distilled alcohol, which they invented. Their mystical approach could be used to predict a range of chemical reactions and chemical changes of state. They demonstrated that empirical models don't have to be real to correlate fairly well. This is why the age of enlightenment stressed logic much more than empirical. The astrologers could also predict eclipses and had a functional model that was not real but empirical. Logic shifted science away from the empirical approach since any premises could be made work. The alchemists did show one can do good procedure, collect good data and extrapolate logic from false assumptions and still get a functional set of empirical principles that could make predictions. They didn't have statistics to fudge results. This would have allowed them to extend their correlations even further. Lead into gold is now within the realm of probability using principles of uncertainty and chaos. They could have used that to pull victory out of the jaws of defeat. Luckily for logic, they didn't have these extra tools, although this was sort of built into their mystical assumptions since spirits are more chaotic and not subject to the laws of cause-affect.

The rotating cylinder and relativity is very interesting conceptually. If the cylinder had a large diameter, it is possible for the outer surface to approach C, while the near center maintains linear velocity close to zero. The result is the outside of the cylinder could get smaller than the inside, due to distance contraction being highest at the surface. The outside could also appear to rotate at a slower angular velocity than just off center, due to time dilation. The result would be two extreme references existing in the same phenomena. With the higher relativistic mass on the surface, as virtual mass/energy, would relativistic mass/energy flow from the surface to the core in an attempt to remove the dual reference? If it did, could the mass on the surface drop below what is expected for the distance contraction and time dilation, to create an odd surface anomaly?

The angle I was trying to address, is what role water plays in life. Simple dehydration experiments, show it is critical to the operation at almost all levels from simple to complete. If we could go back to the science version of the creation of life, and take a sample every year over the billion of so years and dehydrate it , water would also be critical. Based on that, water is part of the blend at every step of the way. Its solvent properties are needed every step of the way. We might be able to argue 5-10 % exceptions. But even the lipid bilayer needs aqueous surface tension to form. Since this seems logical, the next question is, what about water makes this possible? The unique properties of water, that can account for all its unique properties and anomalies, have hydrogen bonding related explanations. Therefore the dehydration, that stops the process, at all levels, also stops the hydrogen bonding interaction of water, any every step of the evolution of the living state. This is logic 101. That being said, the next question is, if aqueous hydrogen bonding is needed for hydration and to jump start dehydrated life, I wonder if the C,N,O,H, backbone molecules of life also use hydrogen bonding as a critical part of its operation? The answer is yes. If we get rid of the hydrogen bonding nothing works right, even though we can still have long chain molecules. We should be trying to understand the why behind this night and day difference between with or without water.

We use (x,y,z,t) by convention. We could also define space-time with polar coordinates plus time, but this is not as convenient to use. Although, the curvature of space-time seems to suggest using polar space-time. What is interesting, a polar coordinate system addresses rotation easier but leads to an interesting question. Does relativity create an angle dilation and does this have a physical meaning?

Maybe a good design for solar panels is high intensity. In other words, instead of a large surface area of solar panels to collect solar energy, we focus the sun with reflectors and beam this concentrated energy onto a small high intensity panel. This sounds easier said than done because it would require a different technology than current panels. It may be cheaper to make reflectors with a compact collector, instead of huge collectors. The question is, what could you use as a high intensity collector. Maybe instead of electron transitions on solid surfaces it could be a reversible chemical reaction. Maybe sort of a transparent liquid battery that we charge with high intensity light.

If the environment is setting the goal of natural selection, does this mean the evolution of the physical earth, is what has defined the path of evolution? In other words, if we could run a simulation and change the parameters of the earth's evolution, would the evolution of life just line up with that? The answer should be yes, using a meandering path to a well defined goal, which is the environment. I see two types of evolution, which is why I might appear confused relative to the accepted definition of evolution. Conservation appears to isolate one path of evolution. This path seeks optimization within a fixed environment but is not prepared if the environment changes too drastically. The rare frog has evolved but can't handle too much environmental change. There is another or second path of evolution that has evolved in a way that can handle wider swings in the environment. This path is what I call being more evolved in a global sense. For example, dinosaurs were well suited to the warm environment and dominated due to selective advantage in the first path of evolution. But they were not designed for the wide temperature swings, especially when the temperature dropped. The mammal were more evolved, in the second sense, since they had a wider range of environmental adaptation. Dinosaurs were better at path one, but mammals were superior with path 2 because they were an upgrade in objective terms. If we plot path 2 life, there is a steady upgrade to life, in the broad sense, with capabilities that can better adapt to the future. Path 2 is more like proactive life, while path 1 reactive life. Path 1 needs to be conserved because reactive life adapts slower, even though it also evolves. Proactive life has the genetic ability before the need. The mammals developed a warm blooded nature when it was still hot outside. This seems sort of counter intuitive to path 1 reactive adaption within a warm environment, but it did line up with an eventual need. It was an upgrade designed for proactive adaptation.

Conservation of endangered species demonstrates how fragile selective advantage can be if the environment does not cooperate with the advantage. We can go into a swamp that has a rare frog which is at the pinnacle of this frog's million year evolution. Through natural selection, survival of the fittest, breeding by the dominant males, we get this creature who as adapted to the swamp. If we set up a boat ramp, and alter the environment; extinct. Conservation tries maintain or tailor the environment to maintain the selective advantage of critters. This is noble but it shows how dependent the selective advantage of critters are, on the environment. What appears to be evolutionary in a controlled environment can turn out to be a liability if we alter the environment. That is why we often to fight even small change. Does this mean that the environment sets the direction of evolution, since this is the context in which selective advantage ultimately will be defined?

Ideas and knowledge evolve in stages sort of like courting and romance. The first is the infatuation stage of discovery. It is always on your mind. Then you start the dating process to learn more and to see if this is compatible with your hopes and expectation. But you can only date an idea for so long before it is more work than fun, unless there is a reward for your effort. It is easier for a male to date a woman and maintain a high level of enthusiasm if sex is part of the package. Or unless she is a nice woman, who is being encouraging for the future. The environment needs to give something back instead of just bitching. The bitching is easier to take if you are also getting some sack time or at least the promise of future sack time. Even if you have a good idea, unless there is a practical response from the environment to keep you going you can run out of steam. This doesn't always mean you didn't do your job, the environment may have been a bitch or is only coin operated. Coin operated is a term to describe spreading the wallet to anyone for value up front. Sort of like a prostitute but legal. Like dating, the good guys often finish last. You need bad boy skills, such as a good line of bull to get the environment to spread open its wallet so you can get some sack time. It should not be that way, but most of the environment has preconceived expectations and the most successful men tell them what they wish to hear. They want to hear their hair is perfect not the back part of the hair is tangled, even if true. Often new ideas work to solve a problem, such as how to untangle the hair in the back, but the implication of this idea, is the hair is not perfect. This is a no-no if you want to score. She will be insulted and start to bitch at you. The odds of scoring go down and you run out of steam. There should be a course on proper brown nosing to teach manipulation skills so you can get the environment to spread its wallet. Then gray gets to turn back into technicolor, again.

What happens is thought can create feelings and feelings can induce thoughts. This can form a nice loop that can resonate a nice feeling. In the beginning of a new study or fresh idea, one can often generate the brain chemicals that give that discovery buzz. The buzz, then opens the door to want to extrapolate the thought to reinforce the buzz. If one is a critical thinker, which you appear to be, you begin to change the type of chemicals the buzz thoughts can create. This will weaken the buzz. In terms of an example, say you just got a promotion. You are full of euphoric buzz due to endorphins. While you are on cloud nine someone tells you, your favorite uncle died. The normal reaction is to be sad. But if you multitask, emotionally, to feel both at the same time, you have buzz plus sadness, which makes the buzz lower and the sadness lower. With learning and creativity you can multitask emotional with the discovery buzz and the calmness of objectivity to get a reduced buzz. The buzz is the same as romance. Sometimes you need to change the routine or try new positions. It sounds funny but the brain tends to recycle natural buzzes, for other purposes, and the base romance analogy tell you how to get the romance back. You may have to dress the idea in a new costume, such as a new angle you never saw before. Or maybe it is time for a divorce so you can date a new idea. She is all shiny and fresh with new possibilities. This may bring the romance back. Or the time away allows you to see old things with fresh eyes, so the romance returns.

I don't know enough about this to comment on this, but does this also imply the base stacking of aromatic bases in the DNA double helix use a similar affect and might act as a quantum computer? Would that make the DNA sort of a PC with some learning skills? Base-Base and Deoxyribose-Base Stacking Interactions in B-DNA and Z-DNA: A Quantum-Chemical Study http://www.biophysj.org/cgi/reprint/73/1/76.pdf To be honest, I didn't read the paper but saw the word quantum. If the microtubual theory turns out to be true, maybe DNA is smart also.

4-D is simply a 3-D or (x,y,z) grid of length with a stop watch or clock for time. It is a movie and not a still picture. It amounts to (x,y,z) in a movie. If you wanted to express a movie with a single photo you stretched out the roll of movie film. We can also cut the stretched out roll, into separate frames, and stack them to see the movement in the original (x,y-z), allowing position to substitute for movie time. Any of these will work mathematically. The (x,y,z) in a movie, is the way the sensory systems will see it. But it is not easy to draw a movie on a piece of paper. We need to stretch it out or stack the frames. The last is often the nebulous image we get of space-time where time and space appear to blend into a single (x,y,z) axis with something extra. To be honest this just popped into my head, but it seems to cover the bases with a simple visual.

Life as we know it requires C, which can form 4 bonds. It also requires a medium, water. Alternate life might need a variation on this theme. Si is often chosen because it is below C on the periodic table and can also form 4 stable covalent bonds. Other atoms can be made to form 4 bonds, such as NH4, but N doesn't form long chains. Boron is trivalent or will form three covalent bonds, which although can still form extended structures has a limitation relative to C or Si. The chemistry gets too complicated. Using current life, as a model, we know silicones are stable and don't break down easily with enzymes based on C. This means the enzymes needed for Si will need to be more aggressive. But the paradox created is Silicone polymers are more stable than C analogs such that Si polymers needed for silicone enzymes begin with less built in energy. We might still be able to compensate for this with higher temperature environments or a more aggressive continuous phase. Now we need an energy source to run the life machine. Life on earth uses CO2 and its continuous phase solvent phase H2O, as the feed stock for photosynthesis. The CO2 is a gas at room temperature. The Si equivalent is SiO2 which will form a solid at room temperature as sand and glass. The question is what solvent do we need that can play the role of continuous phase, also be part of photosynthesis or some other means of food generation and dissolve rocks? This place a limit on solvents since glassware is not affected by most solvents. One simple exception is HF. Maybe that is part of our solvent package so we can make SiO2 based food out of rocks. Again we may be stuck using water as part of an acid medium. But runs into surface tension problems. Maybe we need another energy source and can't use photosynthesis. Maybe we need to begin with silicone hydrides. But this is not likely if there is too much oxygen competing for H and Si. But without O you don't get big polymers. Also if we get rid of the O what becomes the terminal electron acceptor? Maybe F can do it all, but F is not conducive to polymers if we leave out the O.

One way to look at this is evolution, in part, has a goal in mind, since preparations are being made to create the precursors for what will eventually be used for natural selection. Let me give a hypothetical example. We have a herd of deer living in good times with nice weather. Part of the herd suddenly develops this thick coat and part of the herd retains a thin coat. During good times, the thin coat deer have the selective advantage due to body cooling. Next year, the weather changes and it gets very cold, now selective advantage switches, without any change in genetics. The genetics that pre-adapted to the future may be useless for the present but was useful for the future. As a human analogy, if we had two equivalent people, one stores money for retirement and the other lives in the present. During the younger years, the one living in the now will have selective advantage since they can afford the boat. But 40 years later in the future, this switches with the one with the retirement fund now having the selective advantage. We assume all else equal except this singular behavior. Relative to their offspring, the one living in the now might have an advantage relative to their children, being able to provide them more stuff. The one who saved for retirement may skip a generation but may be able to do the same for their grandchildren. This slight change of adaptation is not geared to the present but future. Relative to evolution, life needs a template material like DNA or RNA, that can replicate to work. This might be replaced by other types of templates but the future of life required a template that can replicate, even before it got started. It was the anticipated step for a bunch of random chemicals even before it got started. If this goal was all random than replicators would not be needed for life and we should be able to think up endless ways to do make life without it. Even in the lab we have this goal in mind and expect that life has to follow this milestone.

Here is a theory that makes logical sense, although it is not proven. The visible universe is composed of space-time, which is 4-D. Beyond the visible universe is just space, which has one less dimension or 3-D. You can not contract or expand space without time, since what is contracting is space-time. For example, say we had gravity or GR contracting space and we stop time. Space will stop contracting since the entire process is dependant on time. Say we had SR contracting distance and stopped time, distance or space would stay frozen in the state it had been induced to, when the time element was active. Space won't change until there is time. An easier way to see what this is to consider an expanding 3-D sphere that is using a 2-D piece of paper to cover itself as it expands. Near the sphere we will have a transition region that is becoming 3-D but is not exactly spherical, yet. Using this analogy, at the transition between space-time and space, space-time is not fully developed, because it is just getting time added. Based on this theory, one will expect the transition area between space and space-time to look ancient since time is less advanced or not fully developed into the steady state 4-D that was already wrapped onto the sphere. This is consistent with observation at the ends of the visible universe, where we see the universe like is was at the beginning of time or when time appeared.

What you have pointed out is not taught, but appears through instinct. This was called the tree of life. The tree of knowledge is human contrived and is learned through education and knowledge. Just doing what is right, naturally, is different than doing what is right because you were taught it was right. They both lead to the same result but only one is natural. Nobody has to teach the primate to act, in what appears to be a moral way. It is sort of prewired into instinct. Once you teach it, then it is knowledge of good and evil. The tree of life was never equated to knowledge.

The topic was where do morals come from. There has to be an origin since morality didn't start this century. The tree of knowledge of good and evil was symbolically considered where morals came from. It is a symbol and not meant to be taken literally. It was not an actual tree, even though neurons just so happen to look like little trees. Here is an example of a tree of knowledge of good and evil. We start, thou shall not drink X. Not everyone likes this new moral law, so someone comes up with a loophole such as mixing X with Y, which is not explicitly said under the law. The lawyers needs to close this loophole with logic that is airtight. This results in the simple trunk of the X tree branching. Again, others find other loopholes requiring another logic branch on the tree or a previous branch has to branch, even more, etc. Before long it looks like the tax code tree of good and evil deductions.

We can still use logic, but leaving out the Jupiter variable, will make the rational relationship, that does not include Jupiter, appear to be more random. If we then assume jupiter is not important our rational relationship has a slight problem built into it. Therefore rational is not enough. We need to add a statistical fudge factor. If we institute the avoidance of Jupiter to the analysis, now gravity is no longer fully rational relative to accepted premises. What I am saying Jupiter equals water and hydrogen bonding. If this is ignored we might wrongly conclude rational is not possible, without a fudge factor. I am working under the premise that need for random is due to leaving out variables. This is a practical result of premises. If we go back to the earth gravity example, say we left out the moon. The amount of statistical fudge factor needs to be higher to get the logical relationships to add up properly. Water is the continuous phase, comprising 80-90%. It has to have an impact, with simple dehydration showing it matters. Maybe it is not 50% of the affect. But even of it is 5% of the affect in life, that adds to the logic and reduces the scope of the statistical factors in the original rational relationships.

The original mention of morals is associated with the tree of knowledge of good and evil. What morality does is separate behavior into good and evil. The reason bible tradition puts Satan in the tree of morality is because morality is partially subjective. That is why it is almost impossible to get everyone to agree. It is not based exclusively on rational laws. We can always come up with exceptions to a rule but the apple tries to pitch itself as cause and affect. In bible tradition, the ten commandments was a set a apples from the tree of knowledge of good and evil that was suppose to have no worms inside. But human nature extrapolated on this, adding new branches to the tree of morality, corrupting the apples. Later on Christ superseded this since he recognized there will always be pitfalls using morality. His approach was love your neighbor and turn the other cheek instead of throwing apples at him. Part of the problem with morality is it gives us the knowledge of sin. In other words to know a moral law you also need to know the dark side of the law so you can avoid it. This knowledge of the dark side gives ideas to the dark side of people, which they may not have thought about on their own. The result is the tree grows with bad apples requiring new laws, which teach more bad apples. Eventually, the good apples have to employ bad apples tactics for other moral laws to fight the bad apples in another moral law. For example, in the war against drugs the government can now steal assets of even marginal bad apples. The ancients would call that Satan in the tree, since Satan is both good and evil; ends justifies the means.

Let us start with a proton. We call the rest proton X. We accelerate the proton to near C and give it relativistic mass Y. The entire system going into the collision is X+Y. This composite gives off particles. We then say these particles are what are inside X. The reality is these particles are what are inside X+Y. If we are concerned with gravity only the particles or particles fragments associated with X are of any value. But since we say, what is in X+Y equals what is in X, we have extra synthetic stuff that will have little to do with gravity. We can't equate it because we added extra particles that would not be found in just X. I am not saying the particles or aspects of particles made from Y are not of interest. It shows quantum theory is useful under X and X+Y conditions for the other three forces. Just maybe gravity doesn't work with Y.

What I had in mind was not the final earth attracting iron, with its thick layer of insulating mantle and crust. I was thinking along the lines of the original dust, rocks of iron within a cloud of hydrogen, water and the dust and rocks of other materials. If the iron is magnetic this will separate itself out due to magnetism. We can run an experiment in the space shuttle were we take a mixture of dust and gases, including some magnetic iron dust. The gravity is not high enough to be affective so we can cancel out this variable. We let the dust and gas float in zero gravity and see if the iron dust begins to concentrate itself.

One way around this is the assumption the sun is a second generation star. It had an original beginning, went nova to produce the seed material and reformed the new sun, with our sun more or less centered on the original position of the first generation sun.