What is Proof?

@gungasnake,

Quote:

what you have is a theory which has been repeatedly and overwhelmingly disproved over a period of many decades now via a number of independent lines of reasoning

.
This statement alone shows the inane logic youve employed to try and deny facts and EVIDENCE. There is NO evidence that disproves (or even questions)evolution.

Quote:

the doctrine is in fact unfalsifiable and that Carl popper's criteria for a pseudoscience is in fact met.

Your consistant hobby is to "Quote mine" and its almost felonious. Popper said that evolution IS falsifible by following the predictions that the underlying sciences make.

The latest big one was made late in the first decade of the new millenium. Neil Shubin, a paleontologist and dean of the U of Chicago School of medicine said that, if fossils showing the development of the transition of fish to amphibians do exist, they would be in a small segment of the Devonian sediments (Because there were not a lot of separate species of lobe finned fishes).

So the museum and the Philly Academy of SCience spent several million on some "Popperian expedition that would make or break the application of falsification in the targeting of the rise of amphibians"

These guys spent 3 years looking for what they expected to exist as a series of fossils of a fish that had a neck and the transition of fins to feet.
They went to Ellsmere Island and commited 3 years of summer field seasons, leaving families an vacations and careers behind and went a -digging and surveying. Late the third year they found a new pre tetrapod (they called it a "Fishapod") Tiktaliik Rosaea.

GUESS WHAT, Popper was right, falsifiability works (All you need is a little knowledge of its application and understanding what it says)

Falsification is the process of making a prediction based upon what the theory would predict. If that pprediction is rendered false or is supported are both applications of Carl's statement.
In one,falsification proves the prediction is false and other hypotheses must be chosen.
OR, as in the case of Tiktaliik rosaea, The prediction was RIGHT ON THE MONEY.

As I asked you many times---Tell me of ANY scientific discovery that was EVER made by employing Creationist thinking.
I can answer: NONE EXIST (you can continue denying the old Huttonian chestnut that, paraphrased by me, states, WHAT WORKS IS USUALLY WHATS RIGHT

2 Replies

@farmerman,

s its frequently said about ALL THEORIES in science."The only way to prove em is by NOT disproving em"

0 Replies

@neologist,

Firstly - You cannot prove anything until you have defined it.
Secondly - You know this.
Thirdly - I can prove that you know this.
Finally - You now have the oppurtunity to prove me wrong.

Check out 'Nassim Haramein', neo:)
Great things forthcoming.

Guess why they never whacked Tesla?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

gungasnake said

Quote:

Quote:
what you have is a theory which has been repeatedly and overwhelmingly disproved over a period of many decades now via a number of independent lines of reasoning

Farmer said

Quote:

.
This statement alone shows the inane logic youve employed to try and deny facts and EVIDENCE. There is NO evidence that disproves (or even questions)evolution.

There is no evidence that disproves evolution, because evolution happens. That is the way all things develop whether its something man makes or God makes. The process is always the same, "complexity is added over time either by constant intelligent input, or by an algorithm of artificial intelligence that was initiated by intelligence at abiogenisis.

Quote:

Your consistant hobby is to "Quote mine" and its almost felonious. Popper said that evolution IS falsifible by following the predictions that the underlying sciences make.

Words mean things. People will say things like, "nature chose these characteristics by the natural process of evolution." That statement is true nature chose because nature is an algorithm of artificial intelligence programmed to chose.

Nobody will argue that natural selection is not random, and it is not capable of choosing. The question is, "how did matter arrange itself so perfectly in the quantum mechanics of the DNA of the natural world we observe that it can so perfectly add complexity and diversity, by using sequential processes that develop extreme complexity, without any further outside intelligent input?"

For an algorithm, of artificial intelligence capable of developing highly complex organisms, to come into existence by chance without intelligent origination is a possibility, but what is the possibility, and why can't we replicate it?

I think the statistical analysis of the chances of this algorithm arranging itself by chance fulfills Poppers falsifiability requirement because the chances are 1/a very huge number.
wiki on Popper

Quote:

Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive; it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false. To say that a given statement (e.g., the statement of a law of some scientific theory)—call it "T"—is "falsifiable" does not mean that "T" is false. Rather, it means that, if "T" is false, then (in principle), "T" could be shown to be false, by observation or by experiment. Popper's account of the logical asymmetry between verification and falsifiability lies at the heart of his philosophy of science. It also inspired him to take falsifiability as his criterion of demarcation between what is, and is not, genuinely scientific: a theory should be considered scientific if, and only if, it is falsifiable. This led him to attack the claims of both psychoanalysis and contemporary Marxism to scientific status, on the basis that their theories are not falsifiable.

Solving this low probability problem by introducing an infinite number of universes we cannot see, goes against Poppers requirement that a theory be falsifiable to be scientific, because all science does is keep adding (they can be imaginary or real universes, it doesn't matter because we can't observe them) universes to the theory till that ratio of 1/a realy big number becomes manageable.

On the other hand I have argued that today the pattern holds true that all algorithms (order) are created by intelligence or artificial intellignce that was established by real intelligence. Most people agree with that statement. It is scientific. We have not observed order appearing without intelligent guidance but atheists speculate it happened in the past during the esablishment of the algorithm that established the laws of nature.

You keep providing proof through the fossil record that the algorithm of natural selection works. I think gungasnake would agree it works.

Your evidence that supports your theory makes two unfalsifiable assumptions. One is that the initiation of the algorithm of natural selection (artificial intelligence) breaks the pattern we observe today that, "all algorithms of complexity are created by intelligence." It is unfalsifiable because if there is an author to the information stored in the atoms and algorithms of the universe, logically he has to be outside the universe to initiate the organization of the information stored in the universe as it came into existence. That author would fit the characteristics of a person and would have to be searched for using methods that mainstream science is unwilling to use because, the search for a person that initiated the process, is different than a search for an understanding of the process and how it runs. The real person that did it might not be falsifiable if it is true that he or it exists.

Similarly, it is not falsifiable that I created this response, because it is a true fact that I typed it.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

still on the algorithm bus eh?
Write when you get work.

Quote:

The question is, "how did matter arrange itself so perfectly in the quantum mechanics of the DNA of the natural world we observe that it can so perfectly add complexity and diversity, by using sequential processes that develop extreme complexity, without any further outside intelligent input?"

.
Your biggest mistake is to assume that Matter arranges itself so perfectly when in the physical world, things like "defect lattices" are what allow us to mine gold from gangue. Fore eevery perect dodecahedron of garnet, are tens of thousands of triclinic or monoclinic "duds"(They arent duds they just xist in another plane of organization.

As far as Biology, we see that , in the non - coding mass of DNA there exists a genetic variability that is a mathematical function of the effective number of breeding organisms within a large population times an evolution factor , which is a function of the generational duration. BUT rather than achieving a number which should cluster about 0.04 to 0.06, we see lower numbers that yield to some factor of selection going on based on environmental conditions. For the coing mass of DNA we see that no neutral variability is ever predictable.

Adaptability or non-adaptability seems to be the engine of evolution and genetic variability is the fuel. Ive been watching data being recorded about Polar Bears. While many predict the demise oif thi entire species as it becomes a victim of summer ice-free condition that are becoming more frequent in the arctic.
Instead, what we are seeing is that some adaptability engine, fueled by the large number of regional individual populations of bears (each with what appears to be unique STR (short tandem repeat alleles-).. Several of these populations have begun successfully adapting to the conditions. One population hs learned to increase its swimming among open ice drifts and "sneaking up on seals like Killer whales do).
It appears that this will start with some behavioral modification and , maybe, several generations down the line, e will see more aquatic adaptation in polar bears than already exists (Remember , their generic species name is already Ursis maritimus).

Theres a lot of study being done in the recent fossil record where DNA can be extracted an studied along with the fossil structures and adaptability (and in the case of mammut and cave bear non-adaptability) can be reviewed

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Maybe that was too inside but, as far a DNA goes, the molecule is ahuge mess. Several strands of DNA with extreme structure are often whats needsd to define a function. and the resulting phenotypic structure, since its always a modification of something thats already there, is more often a cluster **** of complex, kinda weird things, like the tongue of a woodpecker.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Your biggest mistake is to assume that Matter arranges itself so perfectly when in the physical world, things like "defect lattices" are what allow us to mine gold from gangue. Fore eevery perect dodecahedron of garnet, are tens of thousands of triclinic or monoclinic "duds"(They arent duds they just xist in another plane of organization.

As far as Biology, we see that , in the non - coding mass of DNA there exists a genetic variability that is a mathematical function of the effective number of breeding organisms within a large population times an evolution factor , which is a function of the generational duration. BUT rather than achieving a number which should cluster about 0.04 to 0.06, we see lower numbers that yield to some factor of selection going on based on environmental conditions. For the coing mass of DNA we see that no neutral variability is ever predictable.

Matter is arranged, (and so is the false vacuum of space we know as The higgs field, dark energy, and dark matter) that is not a mistake, that is a scientific fact. If it wasn't arranged it could not store energy in the form of information. (Which is the information necessary for quantum mechanics and relativity to function and support the chemcal processes necessary for chemistry DNA to operate.) It is your mistake, to assume the information stored as energy in matter and the false vacuum arranged itself, not mine.

So we have defects in the nearly perfect information stored in the matter and biology of the universe. That is to be expected. Even little ol' us are messing up the system every day. (look at climate change)

Quote:

As far as Biology, we see that , in the non - coding mass of DNA there exists a genetic variability that is a mathematical function of the effective number of breeding organisms within a large population times an evolution factor , which is a function of the generational duration. BUT rather than achieving a number which should cluster about 0.04 to 0.06, we see lower numbers that yield to some factor of selection going on based on environmental conditions. For the coing mass of DNA we see that no neutral variability is ever predictable.

You have proven to have an extremely highly developed understanding of the algorithms of DNA and natural selection. You teach me every time you respond. I almost always have to look something up.

Quote:

Adaptability or non-adaptability seems to be the engine of evolution and genetic variability is the fuel. Ive been watching data being recorded about Polar Bears. While many predict the demise oif thi entire species as it becomes a victim of summer ice-free condition that are becoming more frequent in the arctic.

All algorithms solve a problem. Natural selection of mutations or pre-programmed DNA are algorithms that do a very good job of solving the following problems :

1. How are species to survive as the environment changes.
2. How are correct species and environments always going to be there for all the symbiotic relationships necessary for complex ecosystems to survive.

Quote:

Adaptability or non-adaptability seems to be the engine of evolution and genetic variability is the fuel.

Survival is the driver of the algorithm of evolution through natural selection. It is the problem it was designed to solve. Genetic variability can be random or preprogrammed through latent DNA. (Everything has a purpose, even "defect lattices" teach us something.)

Quote:

Theres a lot of study being done in the recent fossil record where DNA can be extracted an studied along with the fossil structures and adaptability (and in the case of mammut and cave bear non-adaptability) can be reviewed

Once again you reveal your understanding of the algorithm evolution through natural selection.

Quote:

still on the algorithm bus eh?
Write when you get work.

Maybe we both should have gone into computer science. We both understand algorithms quite well. Fortunately, I've already have a job that pays six figures though.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

oy, theres really no discussing with you. Im saddened that your mind is so ossified at an apparent young age. Asserting what "is" means that youve not carefully considered the range. Ive only been discussing aspects of your given hypotheses about "algorithms". YOUR paraphrased statement was not that components were "arranged" (of which I hve no argument Thats a Dr Obvious statement with which one can agree) You stated that matter was PERFECTLY arranged (which implies design, which implies designer) .

Ireally dont care about how you wish to arrive at some understanding of the structure of chemical matter , but it sure as hell isnt "Perfectly ARRANGED"

Youre just trying to modify your statemenst after being challenged with evidence from something as mundane as crystal structures. Id like you to define to me what the hell you mn by the term"information". eve gone back and forth and Im almost sur e to where you seem to arrive but Id like to know for sure.

Youre assertions about the "Algorithms" of biology are your statements not mine. I think you are all wet because when we see such variability in "variation indeces" all we can do is discover what an evolution rate nd output for a large population is. The only information is the way that we create it to try to quantify an index. Such "information" has been a pet assertion area of Intelligent Designers by discarding natural selection in favor of some neutral hypotheses to which all life supposedly responds.
Since w see that such IS NOT the case, we also see that variability rates and population structures change at different rates . By your definition, its really not "information" its random number generation, tht seems only to respond to the present environment/
Lifes too damned dynamic for us to try to pat it in place by some artificial (and rather simplistic) index.

No matter, good luck to your studies. Im almost sure that sooner or later you will exchange concepts of purpose and specified information driven life and look at random response driven organisms.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Asserting what "is" means that youve not carefully considered the range. Ive only been discussing aspects of your given hypotheses about "algorithms". YOUR paraphrased statement was not that components were "arranged" (of which I hve no argument Thats a Dr Obvious statement with which one can agree) You stated that matter was PERFECTLY arranged (which implies design, which implies designer) .

Ireally dont care about how you wish to arrive at some understanding of the structure of chemical matter , but it sure as hell isnt "Perfectly ARRANGED"

Youre just trying to modify your statemenst after being challenged with evidence from something as mundane as crystal structures.

Let me clarify my perfectly arranged matter statement. The quarks and electrons of every atom of every isotope when it is at the lowest energy level is, arranged exactly the same inside the universe contained in every atom of that particular isotope. That is where the perfection is. All the scientific data substantiates that by the fact that all individual isotopes always interact in exactly the same way with the higgs field and matter. You are correct that groups of atoms at higher energy levels fall under Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. It is true because, where atoms interact at their outer surface (the electron cloud) with each other and the higgs field there is disorder. The disorder is greatly decreased inside the atom where fermions are all constrained to the same spin (whether a quark or an electron they both have 1/2 spin). This fact requires the space inside the atom (especially the nucleus or the entire atom at low energies) to be highly ordered. If this perfection did not exist inside the atom, chemistry would not be consistent.

Quote:

Id like you to define to me what the hell you mn by the term"information". eve gone back and forth and Im almost sur e to where you seem to arrive but Id like to know for sure.

Since all individual isotopes of every element act exactly the same because, they have the same number of quarks and electrons moving in the same pattern of 1/2 spin of a fermion, I believe every atom is storing information because, information is a recognizable pattern.

I think this information can be considered an alogorithm that answers the following question, "What are the properties of a certain isotope as it interacts with the universe at different energy levels?" We understand that algorithm as Quantum Mechanics and the other theories and laws of physics.

Quote:

Youre assertions about the "Algorithms" of biology are your statements not mine. I think you are all wet because when we see such variability in "variation indeces" all we can do is discover what an evolution rate nd output for a large population is.

We see variation because, the algorithm adjusts accordingly to produce the proper end product that was determined when the algorithm was created. This is similar to an Artificial Intelligence algorithm we program a computer to do today.

Quote:

The only information is the way that we create it to try to quantify an index. Such "information" has been a pet assertion area of Intelligent Designers by discarding natural selection in favor of some neutral hypotheses to which all life supposedly responds.

We don't create the information, we observe it and experience it. The information was arranged and stored first in atoms, and finally in biology and the ecosystem long ago. How can we create information by observing it. Can I take credit for creating your response because I am reading and understanding it? If that is true I guess I can postulate that you do not exist until you appear at my door step at which point I will take credit for creating the information stored in your body. Don't worry I will get out a scale and measuring tape so as to quantify you so I can qualify as creating the information I am observing.

Quote:

oy, theres really no discussing with you. Im saddened that your mind is so ossified at an apparent young age. Asserting what "is" means that youve not carefully considered the range.

I am not going to take credit for creating you or anything else I observe that I did not have a hand in creating. My mind is ossified because, I understand the fact that I did not create things by quantifying and understanding them. I am also quite sure that when I observe information stored in matter somebody thought of the information and stored it there for me to observe.

I have seen a lot of information. I have quantified it, and understood it. The only information I cannot assign to an intelligence is, information that is to old to assign to a specific designer. But, all new information that has been introduced recently can and is assigned to an intelligence. We have not observed new information entering the universe any other way.

The only exception is, when an atheist observes an ancient algorithm creating new information (like the laws of physics or natural selection) and refuses to talk about the possibility that the ancient algorithm was new information at one time and followed the pattern we observe today, which is,"ALL NEW INFORMATION ENTERS THE UNIVERSE FROM INTELLIGENCE."

I am open to the possibility that new information can enter the universe without an intelligent source. We have not ever observed it though. All we have observed is ancient algorithms introducing new information. Some are algorithims of artificial intelligence like evolution through natural selection, and some are algorithms of real intelligence like you and your body.

I will prove I am open to the possibility that information can enter the universe without intelligent origin by looking at all scientific research supporting that position and promoting scientific discussion at all levels in society including public high school and universities.

Are you open to the possibility that all new information in the universe has to be introduced from an intelligent source whether we are considering new information today, or the establishment of information introduced at ancient times by, supporting all scientific research supporting that position and promoting scientific discussion at all levels in society including public high schools and universities?

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

all individual isotopes of every element act exactly the same

considering how isotopes obey the Pauli exclusions and howapplied chemistry utilizes the variable properties of isotopes of same elements (like mass, spin resonance, decay rates and ionic radius) to do unique things, id say that you should revise that statement a lot!!

1 Reply

@farmerman,

brianjakub

Quote:

all individual isotopes of every element act exactly the same

farmerman

Quote:

all individual isotopes of every element act exactly the same
considering how isotopes obey the Pauli exclusions and howapplied chemistry utilizes the variable properties of isotopes of same elements (like mass, spin resonance, decay rates and ionic radius) to do unique things, id say that you should revise that statement a lot!!

The point I am making is that every hydrogen atom of the same energy level and isotope acts like every other hydrogen atom of that type. That pattern is true for all elements. The knowledge of that pattern allows intelligence to be stored in matter as information.

Every hydrogen atom that is in a chemical compound with another hydrogen atom and an Oxygen atom, is understood to be water. That pattern is recording information just like an alphabet is used to spell a word to build a sentence.

The Pauli exclusions apply to fermions because a fermion is in a universe inside the atom that is seperate from the universe of the higgs field which is outside the atom. The fermions in the atom are then combined into other seperate universes that can only contain one to two electrons and one to two protons. That universe is small and has a very small number of particles. We can easily know all the information about the two electrons in the universe of that orbital and we know that they are usually at opposite ends of that universe of the atom and spinning in opposite directions.

Now that may sound like gobbldy gook, but I am describing what the pauli exclusions look like.

2 Replies

@brianjakub,

you didnt say that. However, even that needs mod. Spin res will vary based upon the compound n isotope is bonded within.

I assume you looked up Pauli exclusion because elemental p Chem uses it like we use Avogadros number in mole fractions. Yes?

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

The fermions in the atom are then combined into other seperate universes that can only contain one to two electrons and one to two protons.

Now that does sound gobbly gooky. Pauli assertion is easily undesrtood as an energy state and how valence energy states are arranged by orbitals so that the ions and elements retain intra atomic space and atomic radii (which defines sevral properties of compounds containing these atoms). I dont believe Pauli or later thought had any dealings with "other universes". Thats of your own creation I gather. Pauli excluion doesnt act like an energy, it is merely a construct by which we cn define an measure intra atomic properties of an atom that wont collapse into a heap.

I get kinda creeped out when we start posing science fiction nd proposing things that presently have no bases even for similitude and dimensional equivalence. (Many of the unit youve been using doent equall each other in terms)

We often pose equations by using dimensional equivalence among things that dont have any relationship. Thats how modeling was born. Qe often solve things like Darcy fluid flow in terms of energy trnsmission on a drum head. Both wqter and drumhed are solved in terms of LxL/t

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

you didnt say that. However, even that needs mod. Spin res will vary based upon the compound n isotope is bonded within.

I assume you looked up Pauli exclusion because elemental p Chem uses it like we use Avogadros number in mole fractions. Yes

Let's talk about the details of how energy in order stores and transfer information in matter and how spin res, avagoadros number, and elemental p chem is just evidence that there are layers of embedded order in the atom. The Pauli exclusion is physically impossible without there being a seperate universe of particles that interact inside that universe seperately for each electron proton pair for each orbital, and for each paired neutrons and each single neutron in the nucleus. These universes are built of 8-1/2 particles in a proton electron pair or 3- 1/2 spin particles and a 1 spin boson in a neutron. The particles in these universes inside an atom move in a very specific way to provide a 1/2 spin particle. What that looks like is complex information. Let's talk about what it looks like while an atom is intact, instead of the technical words used to describe where the particles end up after an atom is destroyed in a particle accelerator, or where the needle is pointing after measuring the forces being exerted between the particles.

What it looks like cannot be constructed by a random act, because what it looks like is about as complex as a rubics cube.

The math describes something abstract that can happen any way you want to imagine but, the real picture is much more complex.

Who cares though. In the end it is the information all atoms and biology are storing and processing that is important, because all information originates from intelligence, and any algorithm that is processing information (like natural selection) are even easier to accept as having an intelligent origin.

2 Replies

@brianjakub,

what Ive been trying to get across , is that , hatever you conceive between these multi kinds of states of matter, in order to establish a "BJ grand theory" you really must have dimensional Equivalence. You havent established that at all, youve just seemingly ignored it and substituted scientistic phrases thats sound really complex but when I look at them, I dont see any dimensional equivalence in the areas you clqaim are "ooredered" and then you go on to next steps.

Go back and look at all your "equations" and please explain where the dimensional equivlence exists. If your trying to beat your head against the wall by convincing your audience that everything is ordered and therefore predetermined,some of us just arent buyin.
I see a rather chaotic world where reactions propogated in the earths mantle can go to independent levels that we are still trying to understand. We know that Fe reacts with S, (except when it doesnt). Each time, whether we see So4 of FeS2 or a myriqd of other intermdiate and advanced substances being generated (and going off doing whole bunches of different successive reactions, you seem to be the only on who sees order by virtue of subatomic particles in evolutionary biology. Recent firestorms in California have resulted in the formation of mineral deposits the composition and structure of which weve never seen before , even in the fossil record. Seems localized and random to me.

Where I see your "order and " concept really break down is failing to understand how some external force can control a response that you seem to deny is biochemical ,environmental and structural adaptation . under command of your"Universal Intelligence" it seems to be the force that causes the environmental Causation, the biological response, and the phenotype structural response (even that response has been criticized as being "unmeasurable " by some of our other members herein. Naaah, theres too much hanging on your attempting to hang everything to be a consequence of sub atomic particles and their spin or orbital positions. Every step up the ladder of life are things more wacky and beautifully so, that where weve tossed things out, like "Neo Lamarkianism : (as a function of epigenetic retention through generations), or even panspermia, or that advanced life was a function of excess oxygen, were now bringing some of these back.
Whenever I cant see any dimensional equivalence , I cant support "thinking things out in one discipline in terms of totally different things in another".

Also, merely using a word like "information" seems to excite you and a few others to say "SEE, its information, its therefore a computer code, itsan algorithm, --_QED theres an intelligence behind it.

IMHO I think that Youve got a lot of work to do to get something that sounds like compelling evidence rather than just a collection of bumper stickers like that. .

gnight

2 Replies

@farmerman,

PS, chemical energy is stored entirely differently than atomic, Sub atomic energy isnt even stored, its always being exhausted , and chemical energy is stored differently than biochemical energy.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I don't buy ID either (unless one thinks of some alternative theory like aliens to justify life on Earth) but could you clarify what "random" means at a deep level? Without cause? Emergent? Magic? It may be my own limitation but I never got the meaning of the word random meaning anything other then statistical blur...

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Allow me to interupt, please - Momentarily...
I know nothing, btw.
We have been taught (Farmermans' a geologist - who can't explain the 'Sphinx-compound' erosion being 15,000 yrs old (minimum) (Likely - 125k yrs-old)) that proton, neutrons and electrons - Constitute the composition of ALL elemental particles (atoms).

Question 1 - Do you, blindly, believe this?
Question 2 - Have you finally decided that mainstream-physics is (deadended) bollux?

Nassim Haramem (DO YOUR HOMEWORK).
NASSIM HARAMEIN!

NASSIM HARAMEIN

EVERYTHING IS EVERYTHING

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

go back and look at all your equations and explain your dimensionally equivalance

there are no new equations. We need no new equations to explain reality. We have to draw a picture of what the equations we have are describing. You don't figure out how an automatic transmission works by coming up with more equations. You look at gear ratios torque converters, and hydraulics and figure out how the damn thing works by how it looks.

The Constants of the universe contain some version of 6.6 something because everything in the universe couples at approximately 60° at zero energy. you figure that out by drawing a picture of space and matter and see how it couples when symmetry is broken. Within the nucleus of an atom, the coupling constant is one. And, in empty space where there is no matter the Higgs bozon's have a coupling constant of one.

It is where (matter and space)or (matter and matter) interact the symmetry is broken and the coupling constant is lowered from 1 to 6 point something.

This breaking of symmetry lowers the spatial density where matter comes into contact with the empty space.

The difference in spatial density between the Higgs bozon in empty space and the higgs bozon in contact with matter just happens to be around 66% at zero energy also. This change in spatial density in the higgs field caused by matter gives us the gravitational constant. I know this is true because I drew a picture of how space and matter is constructed from the results and it is obvious how the constants fall out.

You can draw a picture because the equations are explaining reality and reality can always be drawn and imagined as a picture because reality really exists.

Quote:

Where I see your order and concept really break down is failing to understand how some external force can't control her response that you seem to deny his bio chemical environmental and structural adaption.

The reason you can't see the order is because you are living and sensing at the surface of your Atoms at high energies where the symmetry is broken and there is very little order. Inside of Atoms and in empty space (space not desturbed by matter) there is perfect order. This can be observed in Bose Einstein condensants.
That is where the research to prove Entropic gravity needs to be done . That is where the evidence will be found because that is where exists.

0 Replies

@mark noble,

1. All Atoms are made up of protons electrons and neutrons and protons and neutrons are made of quarks and all suarks and electrons have spinMainstream physics is very good at predicting the forces that are acting on these particles, mathematically.

2. Mainstream science is very good at explaining forces mathematically. Very poor at describing the structure of space inside of matter and outside matter to explain how those forces arrives naturally in reality.

0 Replies

What is Proof?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know