Scientific theories and reality:

[paddoboy]

Of course we do. That's why every respectable scientist assumes abiogenesis. But an assumption is not evidence. A hypothesis is elevated to the status of a theory only by being proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. Assumptions have absolutely no place in this process!

Of course. But being "more reasonable" is not the same as being proven true beyond a reasonable doubt, even if both phrases happen to contain the same word: "reasonable."

"Akin?" Well sure. As the Linguistics Moderator I am happy to accept "akin to being (proven) beyond a reasonable doubt." That phrase specifically means that it is not the same as being (proven) beyond a reasonable doubt.

I see where you are coming from, being the Linguistic Moderator, and agree that according to the exact definition of the words "scientific theory" it entails having evidence to show validity beyond a reasonable doubt.
And obviously it also appears you do agree with the process.
Summing up my argument, again I must say, when one has no other choice to Abiogenesis at its most fundamental level, then isn't it logical to conclude it to be correct/factual/real?
Much as we logically assume the Universe on the whole to be homogenous and Isotropic, from a reasonable large sample size of 96 billion L/years diameter.
The homogenity and Isotropy are not true scientific theories either on that score.
Yes, I agree some "faith" [as you describe] is appropriate.....reasonable faith based on long time experiences etc.

Still on what we know today, Abiogenesis appears to be the only reasonable logical conclusion to arrive at.

As someone who is reasonably sloppy with his language, it's rather interesting to cross swords with the Linguistic Moderator, I must say.

 

[paddoboy]

Of course we do. That's why every respectable scientist assumes abiogenesis. But an assumption is not evidence. A hypothesis is elevated to the status of a theory only by being proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. Assumptions have absolutely no place in this process!

Of course. But being "more reasonable" is not the same as being proven true beyond a reasonable doubt, even if both phrases happen to contain the same word: "reasonable."

"Akin?" Well sure. As the Linguistics Moderator I am happy to accept "akin to being (proven) beyond a reasonable doubt." That phrase specifically means that it is not the same as being (proven) beyond a reasonable doubt.

I see where you are coming from, being the Linguistic Moderator, and agree that according to the exact definition of the words "scientific theory" it entails having evidence to show validity beyond a reasonable doubt.
But isn't the fact that we are here, evidence?
And obviously it also appears you do agree with the process.
Summing up my argument, again I must say, when one has no other choice to Abiogenesis at its most fundamental level, then isn't it logical to conclude it to be correct/factual/real?
Much as we logically assume the Universe on the whole to be homogenous and Isotropic, from a reasonable large sample size of 96 billion L/years diameter.
The homogenity and Isotropy are not true scientific theories either on that score.
Yes, I agree some "faith" [as you describe] is appropriate.....reasonable faith based on long time experiences etc.

Still on what we know today, Abiogenesis appears to be the only reasonable logical conclusion to arrive at.

As someone who is rather sloppy with his language, it's rather interesting to cross swords with the Linguistic Moderator, I must say.

 

[river]

The thing is that , abiogenesis does not have to be , " religious " in nature

To me , all matter has the possibility to manifest life. Its a matter of enviroment and the form of the molecule and the path that energy takes within that molecule

 

[Aqueous Id]

you must have a hefty set of balls to accuse a respected source of lying.
you either believe what was printed, or you don't.
i believe it was fair reporting.
so, GO FOR IT ! ! !

That's a false accusation, leopold. I haven't attacked Science and you know it. But as a long time subscriber, I understand that the article you're harping on is not authoritative. It's OK for a high school essay, but it has no weight in arguing the truth of evolution. But this is a distraction from the issue in play here.

I'm only attacking certain things you say which I know to be wrong. You're of course free to rebut me. But don't tell me I accused Science of lying. That's just being a turd.

Instead, let's talk about the facts.

(1) The curricula already cover punctuated equilibrium

Evidence:

(a) The link I gave you before from Berkeley

(b) National Center for Science Education. "How scientists know about punctuated equilibrium".

(2) The argument you are raising is purely creationist, based on mangling Gould's theory, and attempting to discredit the teaching of evolution

Evidence:

(a) National Center for Science Education. "Texas Textbooks and Punctuated Equilibrium"

(b) National Center for Science Education. "Punctuated Equilibrium"

(a critique of the fundamentalist Christian "science textbook" Explore Evolution, as it mangles Gould the way you do.)

Conclusion: the curriculum already incorporates punctuated equilibrium. Therefore your argument is not only moot, but creationist in origin.

 

[leopold]

That's a false accusation, leopold. I haven't attacked Science and you know it.

then by definition you accept what was published.
live with it.

 

[Aqueous Id]

then by definition you accept what was published.
live with it.

Actually the issue here is that you don't accept it, since you're mangling Gould and claiming he overturns the teaching of evolution. You're the one who keeps griping that you can't live with it. The rest of us are doing fine.

As I've said several times already, Gould's theory is incorporated into the curricula. So nothing you are arguing is relevant to what's actually being taught. It's just echoing the creationist attacks on science, in disregard to what Gould actually posited, and ignoring that Gould's theory is already in the lesson plans. Hence, the links I gave you to item (2) above.

This is a special kind of creationist lying that I typically refer to as "propaganda". It appears to be based on a true premise, but actually the premise is a lie. And that's the basis of your whole argument. You're propounding a premise that is just a bald lie. So it really doesn't matter what you conclude, since all logic thereafter is invalidated by the lie.

Again: Gould is already in the curriculum. What more do you want? :shrug:

 

[leopold]

Actually the issue here is that you don't accept it, . . .

yes, i do accept what was published, including the conclusion reached.
what was that conclusion again?
surely you remember.
i have no idea how many people has accused lewin of "lying" and "misrepresentation" in regards to this article.

 

[Trippy]

The thing about abiogenesis as has been said is that genesis still had to have occurred somewhere else, so we're right back to square one, are we not? Whether life arose here or elsewhere, isn't the question really how it arose at all?

No.

Abiogenesis is the theory of life arising spontaneously in a witches brew of chemicals.

You're thinking of panspermia, the hypothesis that life arose somewhere else and subsequently contaminated earth.

 

[leopold]

No.

Abiogenesis is the theory of life arising spontaneously in a witches brew of chemicals.

i don't think "creating life" will solve the riddle.
intelligence for example.
unless there is a fundamental computing breakthrough, i don't see how a program can ever be more than the sum of its parts.
human intuition is light years ahead of computers in this regard.
inspiration, creativity, strokes of genius, "15 minutes of fame", ALL of these are impossible with current computing technology.

there is also the possibility that instead of one "thing", life may be 2 or more different "things".

given the complexities of biomolecules and their interactions, there is also the possibility that science will never solve it.

 

[paddoboy]

I see where you are coming from, being the Linguistic Moderator, and agree that according to the exact definition of the words "scientific theory" it entails having evidence to show validity beyond a reasonable doubt.
But isn't the fact that we are here, evidence?
And obviously it also appears you do agree with the process.
Summing up my argument, again I must say, when one has no other choice to Abiogenesis at its most fundamental level, then isn't it logical to conclude it to be correct/factual/real?
Much as we logically assume the Universe on the whole to be homogenous and Isotropic, from a reasonable large sample size of 96 billion L/years diameter.
The homogenity and Isotropy are not true scientific theories either on that score.
Yes, I agree some "faith" [as you describe] is appropriate.....reasonable faith based on long time experiences etc.

Still on what we know today, Abiogenesis appears to be the only reasonable logical conclusion to arrive at.

As someone who is rather sloppy with his language, it's rather interesting to cross swords with the Linguistic Moderator, I must say.

Adding to my comments Fraggle, isn't Abiogenesis a logical basis of Evolution?
What I'm inferring, is that if Abiogenesis was in doubt, then Evolution may in turn lack the credibility it has.

Just as the CMBR at the predicted 2.7K, and the observed expansion of the Universe/spacetime, infer the BB scenario, even though our theories break down at t+10-43 seconds after that BB.
Cannot the same legitimacy be applied to Abiogenesis, as we apply to the BB?
I see both having similar fundamental assumed aspects....Abiogenesis via chemistry, although the exact type of reaction is unknown at this time, and the BB via quantum fluctuations.

 

[forrest noble]

I'm unable to Imagine that at all. It just appears so concocted. And then of course we have Pauli's exclusion principal, EDP and NDP....And if I continued wouldn't all matter then end up as BH's?

As to Paul's exclusion principle it is very simple to understand in light of aether theory. For instance two elections very close together cannot have the same state spin. One must have spin up and the other spin down. Electron's are fermions, particles that spin. Spinning particles produce waves that are physical in an aether model. The waves on one particle would interfere with the motion of a very close particle unless they had complimentary orientations, for instance spin up vs. spin down. Totally intuitive and simple.

.......wouldn't all matter then end up as BH's?

Gravity accordingly does not work the was we think. Matter does not gravitate toward its central location but instead often forms a vortex often involving a torus that condenses over a great deal of time while orbiting its center of gravity. In time Black holes radiate much of this in-falling material far away from itself incorporating only a part of it. This is what we see as black hole jets. From this perspective there never could be a big crunch including the new creation of matter proposed in this model. Also according to Hawking, and also this model, black holes slowly radiate away their existence, called Black Hole evaporation.

As to EDP and NDP, I can only guess the meanings of these acronyms. Please clarify.

 

[paddoboy]

As to Paul's exclusion principle it is very simple to understand in light of aether theory.
Gravity accordingly does not work the was we think. Matter does not gravitate toward its central location but instead often forms a vortex often involving a torus that condenses over a great deal of time while orbiting its center of gravity.
In time Black holes radiate much of this in-falling material far away from itself incorporating only a part of it. This is what we see as black hole jets. From this perspective there never could be a big crunch including the new creation of matter proposed in this model. Also according to Hawking, and also this model, black holes slowly radiate away their existence, called Black Hole evaporation.

You have no evidence for any of that, and in fact evidence is available to the contrary.
The jets of matter we sometimes see spewing from BH's, do not originate from inside the BH.
It is matter that has been twisted around by the BH's spin and magnetic field lines, to be thrown away at the polar regions.

As to EDP and NDP, I can only guess the meanings of these acronyms. Please clarify.

Electron Degeneracy Pressure and Neutron Degeneracy Pressure...

 

[forrest noble]

You have no evidence for any of that, and in fact evidence is available to the contrary.

I disagree with this statement but agree with your next statement.

The jets of matter we sometimes see spewing from BH's, do not originate from inside the BH. It is matter that has been twisted around by the BH's spin and magnetic field lines, to be thrown away at the polar regions.

I agree. You won't see me saying anything unless I believe there is evidence to support it. I never said material is spewing from inside the black hole, although it could according to my model (AtM). Instead I believe it comes from an area/ volume at, or close to the event horizon. My related theory IMO is not much different from the standard model picture concerning the mechanisms of ejection. The big difference in my model is that there would be maybe ten times more matter being newly-created and ejected surrounding the black hole than there would be pre-existing matter being ejected in the jets.

(EDP and NDP) Electron Degeneracy Pressure and Neutron Degeneracy Pressure...

Fermions with their degenerative and interaction pressures would accordingly be the ejection forces used to power the jets.

 

[paddoboy]

Also according to Hawking, and also this model, black holes slowly radiate away their existence, called Black Hole evaporation.
.

Also I did fail to mention, Hawking was in no way invalidating the concept of a BH or its EH.
What he was doing was giving a quantum description of spacetime and virtual and other particles in the vicinity of the BH EH.

 

[origin]

As to Paul's exclusion principle it is very simple to understand in light of aether theory. For instance two elections very close together cannot have the same state spin. One must have spin up and the other spin down. Electron's are fermions, particles that spin. Spinning particles produce waves that are physical in an aether model. The waves on one particle would interfere with the motion of a very close particle unless they had complimentary orientations, for instance spin up vs. spin down. Totally intuitive and simple.

Intuitve and simple yet incorrect. Electrons do not actually spin and therefore produce no waves in your hypothetical aether.

 

[forrest noble]

Intuitive and simple yet incorrect. Electrons do not actually spin and therefore produce no waves in your hypothetical aether.

In my model electrons and all spinning particles really "spin." It is not just angular momentum. Right now in the standard model it does not explain what particle "spin" really is. In the subject model fermions produce De Broglie waves in the aether by their velocity through the aether and pressure differentials in the aether via their spin, regardless of their motion relative to the center of gravity. Lower aether pressures would surround all matter as aether would continuously cycle through matter while pushing inward producing gravity.

 

[forrest noble]

also i did fail to mention, hawking was in no way invalidating the concept of a bh or its eh.
What he was doing was giving a quantum description of spacetime and virtual and other particles in the vicinity of the bh eh.

ok

 

[brucep]

In my model electrons and all spinning particles really "spin." It is not just angular momentum. Right now in the standard model it does not explain what particle "spin" really is. In the subject model fermions produce De Broglie waves in the aether by their velocity through the aether and pressure differentials in the aether via their spin, regardless of their motion relative to the center of gravity. Lower aether pressures would surround all matter as aether would continuously cycle through matter while pushing inward producing gravity.

Your model is scientific illiterate nonsense. FYI_ If you want some scientific literate folks to read your paper you might consider letting them find out about the nonsense on their own rather than spilling the beans for them. So you've got a steady state cosmology that requires a source of 'new' matter from outside the domain we call the universe and it all happens in the aether. Really profound stuff. Published at viXra. Leading edge stuff.

 

[forrest noble]

Your model is scientific illiterate nonsense. FYI_ If you want some scientific literate folks to read your paper you might consider letting them find out about the nonsense on their own rather than spilling the beans for them. So you've got a steady state cosmology that requires a source of 'new' matter from outside the domain we call the universe and it all happens in the aether.

I have had dozens of scientifically literate persons read my theory over the many years. How much time each spent varied, of course, but some have made good suggestions concerning how certain aspects of the theory or its organization might be improved. On this thread I am responding to questions,specific statements, and comments. If there weren't any I wouldn't be commenting much.

So you've got a steady state cosmology that requires a source of 'new' matter from outside the domain we call the universe and it all happens in the aether.......

I don't think you have been reading my postings very well. Matter, in this model could be considered a type of precipitate of the aether. Matter very slowly would get smaller over time by giving off tiny particulate pieces of itself, about 1/000 part every 8 million years. This accordingly would be enough to explain the observed redshift of galaxies. As it does so these pieces again become part of the background aether field from which they originally came, which is exclusively made up of these string-like particulate pieces probably smaller than Planck lengths. Surrounding black holes new matter is being creating at the same time from this background aether field. So the amount of matter is the observable universe, along with matter and field densities of space, would remain about the same. Something is not being created from nothing. As you said, it is a type of Steady State model with no expansion of the universe, unlike the original Steady State models. But like the original Steady State model and the Big Bang model, the universe horizons would appear to be moving away from us and from everywhere because of the proposed diminution of matter.

Really profound stuff. Published at viXra. Leading edge stuff

I haven't published in viXra but I have nothing against it. My last publication, shown here, was for the Canadian Center of Science and Education in their Journal of Applied Physics Research.

 

[brucep]

I have had dozens of scientists read my theory over the many years. How much time each spent I do not know but some have made good suggestions concerning how certain aspects of the theory or its organization might be improved. On this thread I am responding to questions or specific statements and comments. If there aren't any I won't be commenting much.

I don't think you have been reading my postings very closely. Matter, in this model, could be considered a type of precipitate of the aether. Matter very slowly gets smaller over time by giving off tiny particulate pieces of itself, about 1/000 part every 8 million years. This accordingly is enough to explain the observed redshift of galaxies. As it does so these pieces again become part of the background aether field from which they originally came, which is exclusively made up of these string-like particulate pieces, probably smaller than Planck lengths. Surrounding black holes new matter is being creating at the same time from this background aether field. So the amount of matter is the observable universe, along with matter and field densities of space, would remain the same. Something is not being created from nothing. As you said, it is a type of Steady State model with no expansion of the universe, unlike the original Steady State models.



I haven't published in viXra but I have nothing against it. My last publication, shown here, was for the Canadian Center of Science and Education in their Journal of Applied Physics Research.

Sorry for saying you published in viXra. Regardless where you published your paper is nonsense. 2nd page in this is what you say

"2. Classifying the Alternative Cosmological Model
The alternative model used herein might be categorized under the broad classifications of Scale-Changing
theories, and “variable mass cosmologies” first proposed in the early 1930s. Alternative models at that time were
proposed to explain the observed cosmic redshifts by means other than by the expansion of the universe based upon galaxies moving away from each other. One of the first of these proposals was made by Paul Dirac when
galactic red-shifts were first discovered. He proposed both “the uniform expansion of matter and space”. Another
proposal was made by Fred Hoyle, Jayant Narlikar (Das, 1998) whereby the diameter of matter accordingly
decreases over time by electrons becoming closer to the nucleus of atoms. One of the latter proposals was by
Robert Dicke (Wikipedia, Robert H._Dicke, 2011) directly related to the alternative model proposed herein,
whereby in 1957 he proposed that “the cosmological redshift is described by a shortening of measuring rods
rather than an expansion of space” (Dicke et al., 2008; Unzicker, 2007) which is the same explanation for the
subject cosmological model.
The subject cosmology is also a type of steady-state model but one contrary to an expanding universe, more like
the many steady-state proposals before the 1920’s. Although Dicke’s model is a gravity based model, both
models propose that the size of matter relatively speaking, decreases over time, simply that matter is getting
smaller as time passes. As to the subject model everything else in the universe would also change in size and
magnitude over time but maintain its same relative proportions to matter. This is based on the premise that matter
can be used to define everything else in the universe which accordingly would maintain its relative proportions
to matter in all time frames. Based upon the alternative cosmology if matter is getting smaller dimensionally at
the foundation level of matter such as atomic particles or smaller, then larger matter in the past would have had
exactly the same number of atoms in them and be identical to the same matter today only that it would have been
relatively larger, but not necessarily larger by direct comparison considering that the foundation particles of
matter were accordingly proportionally the same to matter in the past as they are proportional to matter today."

Complete bullshit. I'm not reading your posts because you're full of crap. Just based on a day to day human interaction level it was a stretch for you to actually believe Id was going to find some respect for you based on this publication. It means you don't have a clue about how ridiculous your paper is. Good luck on the next one.