Stinky toe

[Ringer]

Perhaps I did not make this clear: The model is the proof itself.

Circular logic works because circular logic words?

May I ask where that definition of theory came from because I have never seen that definition

[insane_alien]

you do know that you need to do more than show you know how to use a thesaurus to have a valid theory.

 

it has been explained clearly why your idea is not valid as a theory and you have yet to do more about this than whine.

 

you want us to tell you that you have a wonderful theory that will revolutionize modern life? well then, give us exactly that and it shall be so.

 

don't expect it if all you're going to do is provide us with bumph that doesn't actually have any meaning behind it.

[timo]

I'll be blunt: This is a pile of crap.

- Few would disagree.

- The thread gets a lot of participation.

think about it.

[John Cuthber]

These two statements

"The electrogyre model is not falsifiable. It is based upon scientific evidence. "

are damn near mutually exclusive.

[swansont]

 

Moreover, the electrogyre model, in one fell swoop, effectively explains - as opposed to describing, which is what the math does quite well - the magnetic moment of electron, wave-particle duality, collapse of the wavefunction, the nature of electromagnetism, the composition of a lepton, and the HUP. The model cares not if the Reader wants math, the model cares whether it is the correct model or not.

 

 

I have already pointed out that it does not, in fact, explain the composition of a lepton nor the HUP. You have not deigned to give the details of how you address the shortcomings.

[TheTheoretician]

Heh - deign - I have no illusions. That written, I will do my best to address the points raised, just need some time.

 

Today I treat how Unity solves the origin and nature of deoxynucleotides and DNA in My Body and in My Universe.

 

Here is an excerpt:

 

A fundamental unanswered question in the annals of biology is this: How did DNA emerge in the Universe? The RNA world hypothesis basically posits that RNA emerged prior to protein and that proteins emerged prior to DNA. The extant biochemical evidence supports this proposal. Making DNA from scratch is known to require three main protein classes: ribonucleotide reductase, phosphoenzymes, and nucleic acid binding proteins. To these I turn.

 

 

More at link: http://thetheoryblog.wordpress.com/2010/08/23/becoming-dna/

 

Peace,

 

Ik

Edited August 23, 2010 by TheTheoretician

[mississippichem]

This from "The Theory" blog:

 

From a theoretical standpoint, these three protein classes emerged in the secondary aminogyre (modeled here) and are responsible for the trimergence of the deoxynucleotide (symbolized by D) – and dNTP construction, destruction, and maintenance. These three are thus quantized as aminons (A, the theoretical symbol and term to identify aminogyre quanta, also known as polypeptides) that clearly toggle between synthesis and decay, activity and inactivity, folding and unfolding, assembly and disassembly, and nuclear and cytoplasmic occupancy. Like all aspects of the Universe, these aminons can be studied in isolation, but this excludes information about their metabolic life cycle.

 

Polypeptides are not quanta. Polypeptides are macro-molecular polymers. This is like elementary school chemistry. What evidence do you have that poly-peptides are "quantized"? The premise is so flawed that it's really hard to even discuss. Unless you can answer these few questions, you have no eveidence to even begin discussing things of this nature.

 

-Do "aminogyres" have half integer or whole integer spin?

 

-Is the calculated deBroglie wavelength of a polypeptide (molecular weights in the 100,000s) greater than that of a planck length?

 

-Where is your kinetic analysis? In chemistry, we prove mechanisms with isotopic labeling, varying concentrations of reactants, real time 2D spectroscopy, varying reactants through congeneric series, etc. You can't really make a claim about the origin of DNA, or any chemical species for that matter unless you have very detailed, quantitative data. This is in fact so difficult that mechanisms can't even really be proven, incorrect mechanisms can be discarded though, and simple process of elimination usually gives the likely mechanism. If the question is the biochemical origin of DNA, then your gonna need hella evidence from the phylogenic tree and taxonomy as well as some very impressive kinetic analysis.

 

-You're trying to answer some of the big questions of physics, biology, and chemistry without a single reaction scheme? Feynam Diagram? Pretty microscopy pictures even? I think I speak for many in the scientific community when I say that you need some serious data and quantitative reasoning to back up these tall assertions. No philosophical argument about the irrelevance of math in theories will work either. Let us see the numbers.

 

-P.S. What does "creatodestructive" mean, or "attractorepulsive" these are oxymorons.

[swansont]

Heh - deign - I have no illusions. That written, I will do my best to address the points raised, just need some time.

 

Today I treat how Unity solves the origin and nature of deoxynucleotides and DNA in My Body and in My Universe.

 

Here is an excerpt:

 

 

 

 

More at link: http://thetheoryblog.wordpress.com/2010/08/23/becoming-dna/

 

Peace,

 

Ik

 

 

!

Moderator Note

Make time.

 

All you appear to be doing is pimping your blog. That's a no-no.

[Cropduster23]

The electrogyre model is not falsifiable. It is based upon scientific evidence. It is reified. It is heuristic. It is parsimonious. It is perspicacious. It is complete and consistent. It is incommensurable. It explains the micro and macro in one model.

 

If this Unity theory is really all these things at once, then it is a religion, or more accurately a spiritual philosophical outlook I suppose.

 

based on the way to write and describe this, you seem to think you're some kind of enlightened new age Buddha-Jesus prophet. At what point exactly was it that you mentally snapped, my friend? Or perhaps a better question is - at what point do you decide to stop being a scientist in favor of the idea that you create your own subjective reality? Don't deny that's what you believe - people who believe this are tell tale in the way the think and write and talk about their own existence and the things they interact with. You're a solipsist I assume. I think that is the wrong way to go about life.

 

With that said, I seems like you are a missionary attempting to spread your religion and "convert some scientists" to your world view, presumably because we must be so unenlightened and spiritually immature if we still "believe in current theories". You're a crank, buddy. A calm and somewhat reasonable one, but you are a crank and you have an aggravating condescension to match.

Edited August 25, 2010 by Cropduster23

[swansont]

At what point exactly was it that you mentally snapped, my friend?

 

!

Moderator Note

We shall not go in that direction. Discuss the material and/or approach, and its merits or lack thereof.