Ronald Hyde

Nothing in Nature works by 'paradigms', everything works by mechanisms. That is the reason the paradigm of neodarwinism is irrelevant, it never was relevant to begin with. The best and easiest way to tell if a theory is 'hokey' is if it fails to supply a mechanism or mechanisms.

Consider that for life to exist in advanced forms, as it does today, one of the capabilities it had to have was the ability to evolve. Life may have started may times before but until it had that precious ability to evolve, it could only have had a very primitive form.

It's been known that the moon isn't covered with dust since the first Surveyer landing. The lunar surface has a consistency more like dried bread, but of course it is fused mineral matter. So the very first 'point' that you make is in error.

Crazy but possibly related notion. That the 'barred' portion of a spiral galaxy might be a 'dark companion' spiral that is 'crossed' with the visible spiral.

I'm going to make some really off the wall speculative 'predictions'. That the strong interaction does have a 'dual' representation involving Gravity, and it does not belong on the high energy scale, but the scale of large sizes, which is the natural province of Gravity. Simply put, people are looking in the wrong place and at the wrong things. There are many, many things to be explained on the large scale, from the shapes of the Galaxies, to the types of Nebulae. How about the 'rings' around SN1987a for example, or Solar Activity? Just look through any Astronomy catalog for more examples. Gravity and SU(3) have many more roles to play than people can begin to imagine. How about the so called bi-polar nebulae around many stars? They fit nicely into a symmetry scheme that includes Gravity.

With teleportation you have a problem with the local nature of the conservation laws. Special Relativity requires that if some quantity is conserved it has to be locally conserved, that is it has to go through space to get from one point to another, it can't just jump from one place to another.

And so what is the size of an electron? And how exactly do you build an apparatus with an opening of that size? It's very easy to propose experiments that are impossible to perform in practice.

Elastic collision/scattering just means the exact same particles come out pf the interaction as went into it, but with different momentum and energy. That's ALL that it means. It doesn't infer any particular mechanism of scattering.

When Faraday wrote up the results of his experiments in electromagnetism he used both words and pictures, but the phrases that he used could readily be converted into differential equations, which is of course what Maxwell did with them. And Heaviside came along and simplified Maxwell's notation, which is what we use today. And you do need words to place the mathematical concepts in a proper context, you can't just guess what they apply to. So if you insist upon using words only, make sure that someone can translate them into math.

I'm of the opinion, and have been ever since the ripe old age of 15 years, that the World is entirely a mathematical-logical construct and that all we can ever hope to do is build mathematical models and guess the rules for building them. So if you're uncomfortable with mathematical modeling I suggest you get off the boat now.

This provides a very good overview of Einsteins work. Inventions don't work if they don't obey the laws of Nature, so his patent job was good practice for his mind. He was also good at math, he used concepts like postulates and groups in his Relativity paper, which are advanced mathematically. When people try to justify 'extraterrestrial intelligence' as being required to build the Pyramids, I think that's foolish. People were every bit as smart then as now, maybe even smarter on average. The methods used to build the Pyramids were in the form of trade secrets, kept from their competitors and passed from generation to generation, so we do not know what they are now, but if we did we would probably be amazed at their ingenuity and effectiveness.

The container height may be limiting the footer height. I don't know exactly what you mean by drop down links, otherwise i could maybe help on that. There are many drop down menus available on the web. You might just want to search for one you like and use that.

Just to say that I do remember that the 'Gabon reactor' that occurred about 1.5 billion hears ago could happen because volcanic steam had deposited uranium oxide of enough purity that the reaction could occur. I've only heard of this single event happening.

I can't point to anything peer reviewed but the normal kinds of clocks we use, their indication depends on the paths they take in space-time, this is pretty well established and is a consequence of Special Relativity. But if we use a telescope we can see that the Universe started about 13.7 billion years ago, and that seems to have an absolute significance.

You've never provided us with the context that equation is used in. Why are you wasting people's time with this post? Why are you wasting you own time, if you study and understand Einstein's paper you will have the correct view, and not the erroneous one that you are espousing? Nature simply doesn't choose to work according to your line of reasoning, so your reasoning is just plain wrong.

I think we've pretty much discussed everything, and reached the conclusion that evolution is a process and that it's important to understand it's mechanisms and that names and philosophical approaches are not so important. But your comments are most welcome.

Because all our clocks measure relative time. But we can look outside with a telescope and see when a universal absolute time begins. So both kinds of time exist, but our clocks and self contained experiments only indicate one kind.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ This is a reference to Einsteins first paper, I can't find your little formula in it, maybe you can point it out or quote it. The color of the light and also it's energy depends on its frequency, it's speed is independent of its color. Another replier has already told you this. This is pretty basic stuff, I can't imagine it being left out of a high school science book. The satellite experiment works because they are tracking the satellite and can predict its exact position and speed relative to the transmitting and receiving antennas. Einstein was right and you are wrong, simple as that. And you are the one obligated to prove your assertions in a case like this where you are saying that well established theories are wrong.

I'm not aware of any probes that were orbiting Mars or the Moon in Einsteins time. And Einstein was in the process of proving that the classical notion of time as displayed by moving clocks was not correct.

This is totally false, I just gave you an example of a dual 'one way speed' experiment that is probably performed daily by people who track interplanetary spacecraft. This isn't some highfalutin obscure theory that people don't know about, it's something that some people use every day in their line of work.

Because time is just an ordering of events that have happened, and in fact will happen. And that ordering starts at t = 1, and continues to what we call now. Myself, I suspect that there is absolute time, which is discrete, i.e. a number, about 10^42, and relative time which is finer and what our clocks tell us. Because the 'ordinal numbers' are how one numbers things, and it makes a logical scheme of the world. But that's just my answer.

I'm thinking about a dozen or so rules that you must use to formulate every problem in QM. Now problems vary in their complexity, not doubt about that, but the same dozen or so rules apply no matter how complex the problem. And I can see that people, well educated ones at that, simply fail to apply those rules. For instance in one post someone said 'you must use an unbiased instrument to make a measurement'. I had to tell them that there is no such thing as an unbiased instrument, different instruments would make different measurements. That you must formulate the problem from beginning to end including any measuring instruments. That's one of the dozen or so rules.

For particles no, that's a classical notion, all the particle has is an amplitude and associated probability to have such if you set up an experiment to measure that observable. And the amplitude and probability can depend upon the time. The function that expresses that dependency is the Hamiltonian.

Please explain to me this fixation on the notion that the 'one way speed of light' is immeasurable or different than the two way speed? If you send a radio signal to a spacecraft orbiting Mars and request that it radio back, you don't get a two way signal back, it's only a one way signal because it's transmitted and not reflected back. But the timing is in full agreement with the speed being C in both directions. And if you want you can put a clock on the spacecraft. And if you do all the math, which is only just above high school algebra level, it's in complete agreement with the Special Theory of Relativity. So all your arguments, yes you are being argumentative, just fall on their face.

I would regard this as a 'short list', as many more could be added. It mentions the Solar Corona for example, but the entire subject of Solar Activity could be added, it's a very large subject. I starts with the 'magnetic flux tubes', which go by several names BTW, and includes Sun spots, flares, and even the planetary Aurora's. We could add all the different varieties of Nebulae, some of which are quite inexplicable, the 'rings' around SN1987a ( look them up ) the bipolar nebulae, and on and on. If someone thinks that all of these things can be explained within the 'known laws of Physics' please let us know how? I'm all ears.