Universal Evolutionary Process

[ajb]

This 'primitive field' straight away reminded me of the inflaton or the curvaton. However, the roles of these fields and their evolution seems distinct from 'evolution' as suggested in the opening post.

[Questing]

Isn't this just off topic?

 

Also, I find it quite amusing when people who know very little about science care to make such comments.

 

I note the 4 down votes. From my perspective its not off topic, because I'm the one with a non standard view point, and considering what obstacles lay in the way of others appreciating my view. But I will not dwell on it, and I would like to discuss aspects of relativity soon. In sharing of my ideas, Im not talking about achieving agreement so much as peoples consideration.

 

I know that what I say about human nature sounds uncomplimentary, but I dont see it that way. I feel its acknowledging a simple truth. The idea of having a rational world view, based on a scientific understanding is brand new to the human species. In all the eons of human existence prior to now, a world view was constructed of mythologies, religions and abstracts such as perceived moralities. If people were overly predisposed to rational thinking, then this couldn't have occurred. And so its not unreasonable I feel, to suggest that we generally have a disposition of human nature to except cultural truths without questioning, as irrational as they might be. And if you think you are cured from this natural disposition then you are not acknowledging your humanity. I'm happy to except this of myself. I am simply suggesting that we as humans need to be aware of this disposition no matter what the suggested world view. Whether it is considered of scientific rationality or not. Their are some important scientific unknowns, like origin of mass, gravity. Its my opinion that uncovering the answers for these phenomena is going to undermine the big bang theory. Because we need to explain fine tuning, and there are problems with energy conservation within standard model of cosmology etc etc.

 

I am able to make a case based around reletivity, SMoC and SMoPP, and that is what I would like to do with this continued discussion. I have said the above so that people might be introspective of themselves, and perhaps be willing to consider a new argument. But I have no intention of going on about this unnecessarily.

 

I am going to be away a couple days. I might be buying a boat, so a little distracted. But I would really like to continue this

 

 

I've tried reading what you have posted. In some areas I'm not even sure what direction to point you in. Other than textbooks. Which is probably the best suggestion I can offer. In all honesty I found numerous misconceptions that are a result of a pop media study style.

 

Not too unusual in that regard it's a common event with new forum members.

 

One suggestion I have is to learn the correct terminology associated with your ideas. Understand what a field for example really is. For example what is the difference between a scalar and a vector field?

 

Correctly describing what field would help us show you the mathematical end.

 

For example all scalar fields can be modelled by the equations at the bottom of this page.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology)

 

That equation can be adapted to any scalar interaction

Thank you for all the information. As for pointing me in the right direction, I think the first step is for me to understand how to calculate flames dependence on oxygen density distribution. needs beyond that, perhaps we can work out later.

 

I'm not sure how much you read of my thread, and whether you choice to read the rest or not, I'm happy to leave to your discretion. I'm not the sort that urgently needs others to adopt my point of view, and seek to change those who are resistant. I post this for people to consider on their own terms. But if further discussion draws you in, then I will be happy for it

 

Thank you once again

 

 

This is off topic and some vain attempt to discredit me.

 

Ill allow you to set the general fairness standard for our conversation. If I feel your playing unfair, I'll respond. But I wont make up baseless claims, and besides the truth can be a pointier stick.

 

I think you and I can have a really interesting conversation. Just dont deliberately take me out of context etc. You do have a tendency.

Edited January 11, 2016 by Questing

[Mordred]

Actually I read the full thread, not sure why you would need a flames dependency on oxygen calculation. If you look through chapters 3 and 4 of the Uwe Jen article I posted earlier it will have the relevant calcs.

 

Unfortunately the flame calculation is more in the realm of chemistry so I can't help you there.

[ajb]

I note the 4 down votes. From my perspective its not off topic...

The topic of this thread is your ideas about mixing biological evolution, field theory and cosmology. We should try to stick on this topic and very closely related topics. You are free to open another thread on the 'needed overhaul of science' if you wish.

 

Because we need to explain fine tuning, and there are problems with energy conservation within standard model of cosmology etc etc.

Fine tuning is an interesting question, but largely due, I think, to us using effective theories.

 

As for the problem with energy conservation, what problem? The concept of the energy of a space-time is not so clear in general relativity and if we have a non-static space-time then we do not expect to have global energy conservation. You will need to be more specific with the actual problem here.

 

I am able to make a case based around reletivity, SMoC and SMoPP, and that is what I would like to do with this continued discussion.

Okay, but if it is just hand waving then your ideas may not 'get off the ground'. But let us see...

 

 

 

Ill allow you to set the general fairness standard for our conversation. If I feel your playing unfair, I'll respond.

If you think I have broken any of the rules or are treating you unduly harshly then please report my posts to a moderator. Please be assured that they will show no favouritism if I have broken the rules.

 

 

But I wont make up baseless claims...

Great, but so far your ideas are very loose. I hope you can be more specific in the future.

 

 

Just dont deliberately take me out of context etc. You do have a tendency.

I am sorry if you feel I have done that. I am really only trying to get some understanding of what you have said. Unfortunately, it seems that you have typed a lot but not really said much.

 

PS. Do not take the reputation points too seriously. However, a fast accumulation of negative points should tell you that something is not right with the posts.

Edited January 11, 2016 by ajb

[swansont]

I would like to discuss aspects of relativity soon. In sharing of my ideas, Im not talking about achieving agreement so much as peoples consideration.

Your ideas have to achieve agreement with nature.

 

Had a chance to look up the definition of work yet?

[Ophiolite]

I know that what I say about human nature sounds uncomplimentary, but I dont see it that way. I feel its acknowledging a simple truth. The idea of having a rational world view, based on a scientific understanding is brand new to the human species. In all the eons of human existence prior to now, a world view was constructed of mythologies, religions and abstracts such as perceived moralities. If people were overly predisposed to rational thinking, then this couldn't have occurred. And so its not unreasonable I feel, to suggest that we generally have a disposition of human nature to except cultural truths without questioning, as irrational as they might be. And if you think you are cured from this natural disposition then you are not acknowledging your humanity. I'm happy to except this of myself. I am simply suggesting that we as humans need to be aware of this disposition no matter what the suggested world view. Whether it is considered of scientific rationality or not. Their are some important scientific unknowns, like origin of mass, gravity. Its my opinion that uncovering the answers for these phenomena is going to undermine the big bang theory. Because we need to explain fine tuning, and there are problems with energy conservation within standard model of cosmology etc etc.

What you seem to be ignoring is the scientific method largely avoids these issues by having processes that impose rational objectivity upon findings. Individual scientists may indulge in self deception, but the method has proven remarkably efficient at neutralising their ill founded views.

[Questing]

Actually I read the full thread, not sure why you would need a flames dependency on oxygen calculation. If you look through chapters 3 and 4 of the Uwe Jen article I posted earlier it will have the relevant calcs.

 

Unfortunately the flame calculation is more in the realm of chemistry so I can't help you there.

I am sorry everybody for the late reply. A lot of distractions for me at the moment, including my 40th.

 

Thank you for reading my full thread, and I hope parts of it resonated, or at least that you found some notions of curiosity. In any respect, your consideration is far more important to me than agreement, so I'm very appreciative you have taken the time.

 

I guess the main point I would like people to take seriously. There is an inordinate level of order displayed by the physical universe on all size scales, and if you really think about it, possibly far more than could reasonably be explained by chance. It is often said that roll the universal dice enough times and every eventuality will sooner or later occur, however unlikely it might be. This sounds logical enough, but is it really true? Putting universal complexity aside for a moment, consider biology for example. There is only one possible path to achieving highly complex biological organisms, that being via step by step evolutionary progression. Never under any circumstances is it possible to take the raw elemental ingredients for a rabbit, throw them randomly about and materialize a complex and functional animal. Even should it be attempted infinite number of times, and this I suggest is an unequivocal truth. If somebody doubts this, then there is a fundamental aspect of biology which has escaped their grasp.

 

However thats biology which we know to be an evolved system, so doesn't necessarily represent a proof for universal complexity. But its very informative what types of complex systems cannot spontaneously arise without an additional element, a self organizing principle such as evolutionary process. So the question is, does universal fine tuning fall within this scope?

 

I've been pondering this question for a while, and I'm now of the resolute opinion that universal physics is such a system which unequivocally requires the organizing principles of evolutionary progression. But that doesn't necessarily prove my version of events and detailed in this thread. However if others come to agree that universal fine tuning requires an organizing principle, and that that principle can only be good old fashioned evolution. Then I will be immeasurably pleased. Not that I am the first to propose the general idea, and I wish to be clear about that. But I believe my explanation is the first which has reasonable prospects. An evolutionary scenario requires fundamental of generational exchange, and this really narrows down the possibilities of how it can be taking place. I've tried to think of ways it could be taking place, other than what I have presented in this thread, but cannot think of any. I'm not an advocate for the black hole fecundity scenario.

 

As for the flame oxygen dependence calculation. Obviously there are some distinct differences between flame oxygen dependence and my universal process and matter field of space dependence. Whereby matter consumes a regenerative field of space to generate electric fields. However insight into the relationship shared between flame and oxygen, is much the same type of relationship I propose between universal matter and the field of space. As I have explained earlier. The mathematical considerations are going to be very much the same.

 

iterating, Einstein's following description doesn't quite capture everything it could regarding the relationship shared between space and matter (mass informs space how to bend, and space informs mass how to move). If mass is a consequence of a reaction in the field of space, (as flame is with oxygen) then there is also a proportionality of mass and field energy density to consider. And accounting for it in my opinion, will solve anomalous galaxy motions.

 

In any case, conceivably its not an overly complex proposition to be calculated. If I cant convince others to collaborate with me, I'll learn to do it in time.

 

Do you generally understand what I am talking about with the flame oxygen dependence please? coz this is really the most important aspect of my thread. Obviously I cover a great deal more ground beyond this topic, but I am quite happy to make a focus of this particular aspect.

 

 

The topic of this thread is your ideas about mixing biological evolution, field theory and cosmology. We should try to stick on this topic and very closely related topics. You are free to open another thread on the 'needed overhaul of science' if you wish.

 

Fine tuning is an interesting question, but largely due, I think, to us using effective theories.

 

As for the problem with energy conservation, what problem? The concept of the energy of a space-time is not so clear in general relativity and if we have a non-static space-time then we do not expect to have global energy conservation. You will need to be more specific with the actual problem here.

 

Okay, but if it is just hand waving then your ideas may not 'get off the ground'. But let us see...

 

If you think I have broken any of the rules or are treating you unduly harshly then please report my posts to a moderator. Please be assured that they will show no favouritism if I have broken the rules.

 

Great, but so far your ideas are very loose. I hope you can be more specific in the future.

 

I am sorry if you feel I have done that. I am really only trying to get some understanding of what you have said. Unfortunately, it seems that you have typed a lot but not really said much.

 

PS. Do not take the reputation points too seriously. However, a fast accumulation of negative points should tell you that something is not right with the posts.

Hi ajb. I know its been a few days, but I'll reply to you very soon.

and thank you for the message

Your ideas have to achieve agreement with nature.

 

Had a chance to look up the definition of work yet?

Yes absolutely. Agreement with nature is the primary prerequisite. Never a truer thing said.

 

My having to check wiki "work" was attempt at a joke.

What you seem to be ignoring is the scientific method largely avoids these issues by having processes that impose rational objectivity upon findings. Individual scientists may indulge in self deception, but the method has proven remarkably efficient at neutralising their ill founded views.

I really like what youve said here, and do agree with you. The scientific process works for the most part, and where mistakes do find their way through the process and persist for a while, they are usually corrected, or will eventually be corrected. We might hope.

 

However if we believe our theories justify it, the typical person is still very capable of believing irrational views. And that is why I was speaking about human nature in respect of the physiology of our evolved brain and internal belief systems. Humans are quite clearly capable of rational thinking, but this hasn't had much to do the our historic belief systems. And nor could it before scientific understanding. But that has only now occurred.

 

I would like to touch on the subject of "relative distance", a component of special relativity. Is this really a rational conclusion? I used to believe it, but then again I recall what it is to have religious beliefs as well, when I was young.

 

Relative distances?

 

I have a reasonable understanding of relativity, curved space time, non euclidean geometry of space, time dilation and motion etc. So rather than gravity being attributed to a physical force, orbits are representative of objects moving along straight lines in curved space time. However special and general relativity can be made mathematical consistent, at large speeds for example, it leads us too some rather extreme and un-intuitive conclusions. For example, from perspective of a photon traveling at light speed, the universe literally has no length. This is not something you are encouraged to subjectively believe if you are an advocate for SR, but you must take this very literally. Or, if you are a human in a spaceship traveling at 87% light speed, then the distance to alpha-centuries is literally half that which another person perceives, from their stand point on Earth. So the Universe is literally a different shape from perspective of every object that exists within the universe, which is traveling at a unique speed and or direction. And each and every perspective is to be considered simultaneously true.

Dr Physics can explain it for us.

 

Ok, if the universe really is so weird, then so be it. Credit too us for having the ability to recognize it and overcome intuition and come to believe it. Thank you Einstein. However is there something obviously wrong with this idea, and our human tendency for irrational belief has won the day? Unflattering as it might be, worth consideration at the very least.

 

Of course each of us has already considered the strangeness of this situation at one time or another, as how could one not. But are we willing to consider this possibility again for arguments sake?

 

Edited January 16, 2016 by Questing

[ajb]

...universal physics is such a system which unequivocally requires the organizing principles of evolutionary progression

Meaning that whatever the initial conditions of the Universe it was bound to evolve towards the state we see today? This sounds like a variant of the anthropic principle.

 

Anyway, one has to to more than just state that 'fields can evolve, adapt etc'.

[Questing]

Meaning that whatever the initial conditions of the Universe it was bound to evolve towards the state we see today? This sounds like a variant of the anthropic principle.

 

Anyway, one has to to more than just state that 'fields can evolve, adapt etc'.

Thats a "no" to your question regarding initial conditions, and I did mention something to that effect earlier. There is something missing in your understanding of the principles of natural selection.

 

I do a good deal more than just state "fields can evolve, adapt". I describe the relationship shared between the field, magnetism and electricity within context of an evolving system, which provides an interpretation for the roll the material universe plays within the overall context, and give reasons for structure we observe of the physical universe on large and small scales.

 

So when you say, quote "Anyway, one has to to more than just state that 'fields can evolve, adapt etc".

Then you are kind of disregarding quite a lot of what I have written.

 

 

[ajb]

There is something missing in your understanding of the principles of natural selection.

I can accept that. The problem is that you have tried to apply some ideas from biology to field theory and cosmology. What are the pressures on a quantum field that drive natural selection? (what ever that means!)

 

I do a good deal more than just state "fields can evolve, adapt".

Not really..

 

I describe the relationship shared between the field, magnetism and electricity within context of an evolving system, which provides an interpretation for the roll the material universe plays within the overall context, and give reasons for structure we observe of the physical universe on large and small scales.

Once again, you just state some loose ideas. You need to describe this properly within a model, Again, I have no idea how quantum or classical fields 'evolve' in the sense you mean.

 

 

So when you say, quote "Anyway, one has to to more than just state that 'fields can evolve, adapt etc".

Then you are kind of disregarding quite a lot of what I have written.

You should read what you have written and compare it with some papers on building models in QFT and/or cosmology. Maybe then you will appreciate what I am saying.

[swansont]

My having to check wiki "work" was attempt at a joke.

Seeing as you appear to not understand what work is, nor have you explained what work is being done, I'd suggest staying focused on the issue at hand rather than joking. It gives the appearance of trying to distract us from the fact that you aren't answering questions.

[ajb]

It gives the appearance of trying to distract us from the fact that you aren't answering questions.

This tactic has been applied throughout this thread.

 

I am still no closer to any understanding of how biological evolution applies to quantum/classical fields and how this relates to modern cosmology.

[Questing]

You should read what you have written and compare it with some papers on building models in QFT and/or cosmology. Maybe then you will appreciate what I am saying.

Within the first few paragraphs of this thread, I explain this write up is a condensed version of another forum conversation held at cosmoquest. It is what it is, and is no more right or wrong because of your arbitrary expectations of what a paper should or shouldn't be.

Seeing as you appear to not understand what work is, nor have you explained what work is being done, I'd suggest staying focused on the issue at hand rather than joking. It gives the appearance of trying to distract us from the fact that you aren't answering questions.

I assure you are reading to much into something. Infact I'm not even quite sure what you're suggesting. Work is not a complex concept, and you suggest a quip is a strategic distraction? Really?

 

I didnt see that coming

[ajb]

It is what it is, and is no more right or wrong because of your arbitrary expectations of what a paper should or shouldn't be.

Not my arbitrary expectations...

 

Anyway, so you are now accepting you do not have anything close to a theory, offer no meaningful contributions to physics/cosmology and have just hashed some biology and physics terms together?

 

Not that I want to change the subject, but it may help the thread to know why you posted here and what you expected from the members of this forum?

 

We have pointed out the obvious flaws in your idea and stated that much more work would be needed to get your ideas 'off the ground'. I really do suggest you have a look at a physic book or a paper to get a better idea of what is really involved in building physical theories. You will notice that mathematics is essential.

 

It has been fun, but I am not sure how fruitful this has been from your perspective.

[Questing]

I am still no closer to any understanding of how biological evolution applies to quantum/classical fields and how this relates to modern cosmology.

Life is but an arrangement of elements/molecules. Some primordial arrangement of chemistry managed to sequentially replicate itself, parent to progeny. Replication in this respect is the only fundamental of evolutionary process, besides having an energy potential to exploit in the first instance.

 

If a field replicates sequentially parent to progeny, then evolutionary progression is the natural result.

 

I suggest it really is that simple. Whats not to get about it?

Not my arbitrary expectations...

 

Anyway, so you are now accepting you do not have anything close to a theory, offer no meaningful contributions to physics/cosmology and have just hashed some biology and physics terms together?

 

Not that I want to change the subject, but it may help the thread to know why you posted here and what you expected from the members of this forum?

 

We have pointed out the obvious flaws in your idea and stated that much more work would be needed to get your ideas 'off the ground'. I really do suggest you have a look at a physic book or a paper to get a better idea of what is really involved in building physical theories. You will notice that mathematics is essential.

 

It has been fun, but I am not sure how fruitful this has been from your perspective.

Opinion noted

[ajb]

If a field replicates sequentially parent to progeny, then evolutionary progression is the natural result.

 

I suggest it really is that simple. Whats not to get about it?

What does it mean for a field to replicate? Two fields do not have sex and reproduce, nor do they reproduce asexually. So what does this mean?

 

I have a field \phi and then...

[Questing]

What does it mean for a field to replicate? Two fields do not have sex and reproduce, nor do they reproduce asexually. So what does this mean?

 

I have a field \phi and then...

Sex isn't the only type of reproduction employed within biology. Bacteria and viruses simply divide and best adapted progeny tend to prosper. I dont have any particular insight into what reproduction strategies a field may or may not have developed.

Edited January 16, 2016 by Questing

[ajb]

Sex isn't the only type of reproduction employed within biology. Bacteria and viruses simply divide and best adapted progeny tend to prosper.

Which is a form of asexual reproduction. (Unless any biology experts object here?)

 

I dont have any particular insight into what reproduction strategies a field may or may not have developed.

You are now starting to understand our general objections to your claims. This is good.

Edited January 16, 2016 by ajb

[swansont]

I assure you are reading to much into something. Infact I'm not even quite sure what you're suggesting. Work is not a complex concept, and you suggest a quip is a strategic distraction? Really?

I didnt see that coming

Still no answer, I see.

[Ophiolite]

Life is but an arrangement of elements/molecules. Some primordial arrangement of chemistry managed to sequentially replicate itself, parent to progeny. Replication in this respect is the only fundamental of evolutionary process, besides having an energy potential to exploit in the first instance.

So you discard the conventional notion in biology that evolution requires replication with defects?

[Questing]

So you discard the conventional notion in biology that evolution requires replication with defects?

When did I say that?

 

Even asexual biological reproduction is a non perfect process, and so changes accumulate from generation to the next. It might be that change is inevitable.

Then advanced life forms developed sexual reproduction, which increased efficiency of genetic experimentation, enhancing genetic diversity.

 

And so too the field of space may undergo inter generational change, and large evolutionary changes accumulating over time. It might be that there is no such thing as a perfect replication system, and that changes will always occur. And even if a replication system could achieve perfect accuracy, it wouldn't be favored by natural selection, because it would fail to lead to adaptations.

 

In any case, for you to ask that question, it must be that you haven't read my thread.

You are now starting to understand our general objections to your claims. This is good.

No. I am simply acknowledging a limit to my understanding. Which is not the same thing as your generally disagreement of every point made. Why dont you expose a true flaw in my thinking, rather than trivial nit picking.

 

Why dont you tell us, why we dont need an explanation for universal fine tuning? Why cant the complexity of the physical universe be an evolved state? Shouldnt be to hard for you to dismiss a silly idea, you would think. Come on, nail this debate closed ajb

 

or maybe show me how my particle structure diagram doesn't correspond to mass, time dilation, motion, gravitational potential, weight etc? that would upset my apple cart. But if the diagram does correlate with observations, then isnt that a little curious that a simple diagram could achieve such an agreement with physical phenomena?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wyni47q4r17lsp7/IMAG2668.jpg?dl=0

 

If I am wrong, then this is my soft underbelly. Stick it to me

 

 

Edited January 17, 2016 by Questing

[ajb]

Why dont you expose a true flaw in my thinking, rather than trivial nit picking.

The true and fundamental flaw is that you do not have any kind of mathematical model in order to start to make any sense of terms like 'fields reproducing' and so on. You have just thrown terms together, which makes it impossible to make sense of your claims.

 

Why dont you tell us, why we dont need an explanation for universal fine tuning? Why cant the complexity of the physical universe be an evolved state? Shouldnt be to hard for you to dismiss a silly idea, you would think. Come on, nail this debate closed ajb

This is a classical strawman argument. I have not claimed that fine tuning is not a problem, nor have I actually said that there cannot be any notion of 'biological evolution of fields'. All I have said is that you have not done nearly enough for the notion of 'biological evolution of fields' as you sort of try to define it, to be taken seriously. You are the one with the wild and loose claims, not I.

 

or maybe show me how my particle structure diagram doesn't correspond to mass, time dilation, motion, gravitational potential, weight etc? that would upset my apple cart. But if the diagram does correlate with observations, then isnt that a little curious that a simple diagram could achieve such an agreement with physical phenomena?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wyni47q4r17lsp7/IMAG2668.jpg?dl=0

If it is a jpg or similar, post it here directly.

 

We would probably be more interested in how you came to the diagram than the actual diagram.

 

If I am wrong, then this is my soft underbelly. Stick it to me

To be perfectly blunt, the quote attributed to Pauli comes to mind "not even wrong".

 

Rather generally, we have seen lots of very wild and loose claims made on this forum all of which lack any theoretical basis and experimental confirmation. Without some mathematical framework to really make calculation in and hopefully predictions that can be tested, it is impossible to point to very specific issues. You have a nice story and some pictures, but we cannot really work from just that.

Edited January 17, 2016 by ajb

[Mordred]

Ok let's take a universe that changes, not in its fundamental laws. Our universe underwent several changes. Radiation dominant, matter dominant, Lambda dominant. Each phase involves one or more phase changes. (All of which follow thermodynamic and particle physics)

 

You wish to introduce biology. Good luck your going to need far greater math skills than shown. Your also going to need a greater knowledge on the correct terminology and attention to detail.

 

Just some friendly advise.

 

!

Moderator Note

I highly recommend answering some key questions in this thread. In particular those by resident experts and moderators

 

That is if you wish the thread to remain open.

(Hint show how thermodynamic correlated particle physics correspond to your definition of an evolutionary universe). Good luck, I suggest taking your time and studying the material provided.

!

Moderator Note

science is all about new ideas. However to accurately introduce those ideas you must show your understanding in current theories and models. For example if I wish to show the universe as spinning I would need to show how the FLRW metric is in error of a homogeneous and isotropic universe.

 

It's a strong argument showing (mathematically how a current theory is incorrect by showing mathematically where it is in error.) With the corrections

Edited January 17, 2016 by Mordred

[Questing]

The true and fundamental flaw is that you do not have any kind of mathematical model in order to start to make any sense of terms like 'fields reproducing' and so on. You have just thrown terms together, which makes it impossible to make sense of your claims.

Yes the math will be important, I iterate once again. Thank you for bringing that point up for its hundredth anniversary.

 

I do have something of a solid foundation in my theory, even if you cant or wont appreciate it. Infact it might even provide the explanation for why I have achieved something others haven't before now. There are those like yourself who look to numbers thinking they might reveal something profound about nature, and there are those arguably more pragmatic who simply look to nature. And in this respect the correlations of gravity, mass, time dilation, motion, gravitational potential, weight, etc all provide clues to the puzzles of nature and can be conceptualized in ways other than pure math despite your insistence, and you are blind too, even when placed before you. The fact my theory provides physical mechanisms that agree with the various correlations of nature, (not achieved before now) but also provides an evolutionary overall reason for how and why the mechanisms and universal structures have come to be as they are (not achieved before now).

 

And your best effort, quote "thrown terms together, which makes it impossible to make sense of your claims".

While you blame comprehensibility of my theory, I blame your comprehensibility. The problem as I see it, you've neither read the thread, nor care about the ideas presented. So your contribution to the thread is about as useful as one might expect under this circumstance.

 

There is no better strength a theory might have, than a match with observed correlations of nature. I have placed a larger number of the correlations of nature within a consistent framework than has been achieved before now. Snub your nose at it if you wish. As I see it, its your loss

 

This is a classical strawman argument. I have not claimed that fine tuning is not a problem, nor have I actually said that there cannot be any notion of 'biological evolution of fields'. All I have said is that you have not done nearly enough for the notion of 'biological evolution of fields' as you sort of try to define it, to be taken seriously. You are the one with the wild and loose claims, not I.

 

We would probably be more interested in how you came to the diagram than the actual diagram.

 

To be perfectly blunt, the quote attributed to Pauli comes to mind "not even wrong".

 

Rather generally, we have seen lots of very wild and loose claims made on this forum all of which lack any theoretical basis and experimental confirmation. Without some mathematical framework to really make calculation in and hopefully predictions that can be tested, it is impossible to point to very specific issues. You have a nice story and some pictures, but we cannot really work from just that.

Nothing of what you say really begs a response. Quotes "I'm more interested in how you came to the diagram" "not even wrong" "lots of wild and loose claims" "classical straw man argument" "You are the one with the wild and loose claims" etc etc etc.

The field doesn't undergo biological evolution. Its not biology silly. Darwinian!

 

You really are going on about nothing. A little tedious

[ajb]

Yes the math will be important, I iterate once again. Thank you for bringing that point up for its hundredth anniversary. [/size][/background]

So will you address this or not?

 

I do have something of a solid foundation in my theory, even if you cant or wont appreciate it.

I have no idea if this claim is true, but for sure you have not presented any theory here nor provided any solid foundations.

 

Infact it might even provide the explanation for why I have achieved something others haven't before now.

So far it is not clear that you have achieved anything!

 

And your best effort, quote "thrown terms together, which makes it impossible to make sense of your claims".

While you blame comprehensibility of my theory, I blame your comprehensibility.

You have not presented a theory.

 

 

The problem as I see it, you've neither read the thread, nor care about the ideas presented.

I have read the thread. I still claim that all you have done is throw words together. You have admitted you have no idea about quite fundamental parts of your loose idea.

 

 

So your contribution to the thread is about as useful as one might expect under this circumstance.

The circumstance is that you do not have a theory and you have just thrown words together and that you lack incite into how to develop your lose ideas. You simply cannot address my points.

 

There is no better strength a theory might have, than a match with observed correlations of nature.

Agree... so what?

 

I have placed a larger number of the correlations of nature within a consistent framework than has been achieved before now. Snub your nose at it if you wish. As I see it, its your loss.

You have not done that here!