Atoms can be in two places at the same time

January 20, 2015
The Bonn team has developed a measurement scheme that indirectly measures the position of an atom. In essence, one looks where the Caesium atom is not. The image clarifies this procedure. Let us assume that two containers are in front of us and a cat is hidden under one of them (a). However, we do not know under which one. We tentatively lift the right jar (b) and we find it empty. We, thus, conclude that the cat must be in the left jar and yet we have not disturbed it. Had we have lifted the left jar instead, we would have disturbed the cat (c), and the measurement must be discarded. In the macro-realist’s world, this measurement scheme would have absolutely no influence on the cat’s state, which remains undisturbed all the time. In the quantum world, however, a negative measurement that reveals the cat’s position, like in (b), is already sufficient to destroy the quantum superposition and to influence the result of the experiment. Credit: Andrea Alberti / www.warrenphotographic.co.uk

Can a penalty kick simultaneously score a goal and miss? For very small objects, at least, this is possible: according to the predictions of quantum mechanics, microscopic objects can take different paths at the same time.  The world of macroscopic objects follows other rules: the football always moves in a definite direction. But is this always correct? Physicists of the University of Bonn have constructed an experiment designed to possibly falsify this thesis. Their first experiment shows that Caesium atoms can indeed take two paths at the same time.

Almost 100 years ago physicists Werner Heisenberg, Max Born und Erwin Schrödinger created a new field of physics: quantum mechanics. Objects of the quantum world – according to – no longer move along a single well-defined path. Rather, they can simultaneously take different paths and end up at different places at once. Physicists speak of of different paths.

At the level of atoms, it looks as if objects indeed obey quantum mechanical laws. Over the years, many experiments have confirmed quantum mechanical predictions. In our macroscopic daily experience, however, we witness a football flying along exactly one path; it never strikes the goal and misses at the same time. Why is that so?

"There are two different interpretations," says Dr. Andrea Alberti of the Institute of Applied Physics of the University of Bonn. "Quantum mechanics allows superposition states of large, macroscopic objects. But these states are very fragile, even following the football with our eyes is enough to destroy the superposition and makes it follow a definite trajectory."

Do "large" objects play by different rules?

But it could also be that footballs obey completely different rules than those applying for single atoms. "Let us talk about the macro-realistic view of the world," Alberti explains. "According to this interpretation, the ball always moves on a specific trajectory, independent of our observation, and in contrast to the atom."

But which of the two interpretations is correct? Do "large" objects move differently from small ones? In collaboration with Dr. Clive Emary of the University of Hull in the U.K., the Bonn team has come up with an experimental scheme that may help to answer this question. "The challenge was to develop a measurement scheme of the atoms' positions which allows one to falsify macro-realistic theories," adds Alberti.

The physicists describe their research in the journal Physical Review X: With two optical tweezers they grabbed a single Caesium atom and pulled it in two opposing directions. In the macro-realist's world the atom would then be at only one of the two final locations.  Quantum-mechanically, the atom would instead occupy a superposition of the two positions.

"We have now used indirect measurements to determine the final position of the atom in the most gentle way possible," says the PhD student Carsten Robens. Even such an indirect measurement (see figure) significantly modified the result of the experiments. This observation excludes – falsifies, as Karl Popper would say more precisely – the possibility that Caesium atoms follow a macro-realistic theory. Instead, the experimental findings of the Bonn team fit well with an interpretation based on superposition states that get destroyed when the indirect measurement occurs. All that we can do is to accept that the atom has indeed taken different paths at the same time.

"This is not yet a proof that hold for large objects," cautions Alberti. "The next step is to separate the Caesium atom's two positions by several millimetres. Should we still find the superposition in our experiment, the macro-realistic theory would suffer another setback."

Explore further: Micro-macro entangled 'cat states' could one day test quantum gravity

More information: Carsten Robens, Wolfgang Alt, Dieter Meschede, Clive Emary und Andrea Alberti: Ideal negative measurements in quantum walks disprove theories based on classical trajectories; Physical Review X, 20.1.2015. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevX.5.011003

Related Stories

Two or one splashing? It's different

January 15, 2015

If two children splash in the sea high water waves will emerge due to constructive superposition. Different observations are made for the microscopic world in an experiment at the University of Bonn, where physicists used ...

Recommended for you

High-precision magnetic field sensing

December 2, 2016

Scientists have developed a highly sensitive sensor to detect tiny changes in strong magnetic fields. The sensor may find widespread use in medicine and other areas.

158 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 20, 2015
It is not correct to say that the 'atom can be in two places at the same time'. In other words, the square of the wavefunction for position categorically does NOT give the probability of the atom Being at a particular place,... rather, it gives the probability of Observing the atom at a particular place. This distinction is important, as the concept of 'place' with respect to the atom is simply not defined until it is observed, ...until it interacts with the macroscopic apparatus designed to conform the underlying reality (the "atom") to the concept of 'place'.
holoman
5 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2015
quantum particle entanglement

http://www.nanote...cles.htm

mytwocts
5 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2015
As soon as you include in the physical arrangement the possibility to decide where the atom is, the interference effect is lost. Conversely, as long as the atom is in a wave function predicting to position outcomes with equal probability, it is by design impossible to decide between the two.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 20, 2015
It is not correct to say that the 'atom can be in two places at the same time'.
"In collaboration with Dr. Clive Emary of the University of Hull in the U.K., the Bonn team has come up with an experimental scheme that may help to answer this question. "The challenge was to develop a measurement scheme of the atoms' positions which allows one to falsify macro-realistic theories," adds Alberti.
The physicists describe their research in the journal Physical Review X: With two optical tweezers they grabbed a single Caesium atom and pulled it in two opposing directions. In the macro-realist's world the atom would then be at only one of the two final locations. Quantum-mechanically, the atom would instead occupy a superposition of the two positions.
"We have now used indirect measurements to determine the FINAL POSITION of the atom in the most gentle way possible," says the PhD student Carsten Robens."

-I think I prefer the descriptions of genuine scientists over philo word salad.
scottcolon01
4.8 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2015
Is the statement that an atoms can be in two places at the same time better stated something like "probability waves define the various probabilities that an atom may be in one place versus another where the sum of such probabilities equals 100%. Notwithstanding the fact that the atom may exist in multiple possible locations at any particular time probabilisticly speaking, the atom indeed may only occupy one location in space at a time. That location in space is not known until it is measured."? I am not a scientist, but it seems to me like superposition is a mathematical theory of possible physical locations rather than an explanation of actual location as of the time of a particular measurement. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to measure exactly where it landed, we know that if it fell, it landed, and we also know that there are probabilities assignable to the possible location of the tree post-fall, although we don't know the exact location until measured.
Noumenon
4 / 5 (8) Jan 20, 2015
It is not correct to say that the 'atom can be in two places at the same time'.


-I think I prefer the descriptions of genuine scientists over philo word salad


If you were not so ignorant of the subject and not such a clueless troll, you would have noticed that I've stated nothing other than that derived from experimental evidence substantiating qm.
tadchem
4.8 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2015
This has nothing to do with the 'Schroedinger's Cat' illustration, unless it is meant to imply the Erwin had twin half-cats, but was never certain where either one was, and when he looked he would either see ONE cat or see NO cat.
Bill Gaede
1.4 / 5 (8) Jan 20, 2015
After 100 years of Quantum, the mathemagicians can't even explain the simplest phenomenon rationally. Quantum entanglement is a no brainer. We just need to abandon the poppycock known as Quantum Mechanics... watch?v=A7hiR1gjcEs
Skepticus
2.6 / 5 (8) Jan 20, 2015
Big deal! In the macro-cosmic world, there are about 4 millions Palestinians and 8 millions Israelis who are occupying both Israel and Palestine at the same time!
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2015
It is not correct to say that the 'atom can be in two places at the same time'. In other words, the square of the wavefunction for position categorically does NOT give the probability of the atom Being at a particular place,... rather, it gives the probability of Observing the atom at a particular place. This distinction is important, as the concept of 'place' with respect to the atom is simply not defined until it is observed, ...until it interacts with the macroscopic apparatus designed to conform the underlying reality (the "atom") to the concept of 'place'.

I'll go along with the "probability" aspect in your comment.
I would like to add further that, while I don't believe they can physically BE in two places at the same time, they can definitely SPIN in two (in actuality - 3) different directions at the same time, which shows up as the "sum" of the different spin directions.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2015
This has nothing to do with the 'Schroedinger's Cat' illustration, unless it is meant to imply the Erwin had twin half-cats, but was never certain where either one was, and when he looked he would either see ONE cat or see NO cat.

If they were half-cats, at least he could tell which one was which (right-half or left-half), if he DID see one of them...
If he saw ONE cat, it's cuz they were laying next to each other...
buzzsaw107
not rated yet Jan 20, 2015
There is more than one way to skin a cat.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2015
The physicists describe their research in the journal Physical Review X: With two optical tweezers they grabbed a single Caesium atom and pulled it in two opposing directions. In the macro-realist's world the atom would then be at only one of the two final locations. Quantum-mechanically, the atom would instead occupy a superposition of the two positions.
"We have now used indirect measurements to determine the FINAL POSITION of the atom in the most gentle way possible," says the PhD student Carsten Robens."


I've got a feeling they just stretched it, Otto... and the two "lobes" just LOOK separate...
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2015
It is not correct to say that the 'atom can be in two places at the same time'.


-I think I prefer the descriptions of genuine scientists over philo word salad


If you were not so ignorant of the subject and not such a clueless troll, you would have noticed that I've stated nothing other than that derived from experimental evidence substantiating qm.
Words fail me. They obviously fail you too. Good thing nobodys listening.
flatusm
4.3 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2015
Quantum physicists are OCD but Nature is sloppy at all scales.

The initial problem is saying quanta are discrete. That leads to all sorts of nonsense. Do you think every photon in the universe is exactly the same as all the others? How is that not prejudicial? Prejudice is always wrong.

Maybe orbital energies are pretty close, but doncha think there are some electrons lazier than others? Maybe they jump to a higher orbit when they please, not when some precise energy level is absorbed, and maybe they don't jump exactly as 'far'. They don't want to get in trouble, so they get pretty close most of the time. We can't determine if they are cheating anyway! Close enough is close enough already.

Einstein said God does not play dice. Who's to say God doesn't play with horseshoes and hand grenades? If I was God, I would play with hand grenades every day. How could that ever get old? Tossing them at a field of bunnies, and having Jesus resurrect the ones close enough to get fragged.

bluehigh
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2015
Just because you don't find the cat under one hat does Not imply it must be under the other hat.
The cat might not be under either hat. You won't know for sure until you look.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2015
The cat might not be under either hat. You won't know for sure until you look.

He might have just tired of the stupid cat in the hat game and moved to a house where they took proper care of him and didn't treat him like just a stupid cat...
bluehigh
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2015
If the supposition 'Atoms can be in two places at the same time' is possible, then can the cat be under both hats and in a house all at the same time? How many places can a cat be at the same time? Why stop at just two? Beware the Ninja cat is everywhere!
johnvasil
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2015
nonsense
the cat experiment is interpreted wrong
the nature takes its course due to elementary particles going from a higher energy point to a lower one
there is no evidence it is probabilistic
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2015
If the supposition 'Atoms can be in two places at the same time' is possible, then can the cat be under both hats and in a house all at the same time? How many places can a cat be at the same time? Why stop at just two? Beware the Ninja cat is everywhere!

Well, they DO have 9 lives...
donjoseph
not rated yet Jan 21, 2015
Double slit experiment with one photon or one sub-atomic particle says this with far more elegance and clarity and no "tweezers" or other meddling involved!
EPR also does not meddle with gadgets!
theon
not rated yet Jan 21, 2015
they can simultaneously take different paths and end up at different places at once. Physicists speak of quantum superposition of different paths.


Oh boy, is there never an end to these silly misinterpretations? There are two things: QM and Nature, and they are DIFFERENT. The path integral should not be interpreted on itself. The only experimental statement can be: this fractions of the Ce atoms ended up here and that fraction there. There is no experiment showing which path they took, and there can not be ones, since they would even disturb the outcome.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2015
.... the square of the wavefunction for position categorically does NOT give the probability of the atom Being at a particular place,... rather, it gives the probability of Observing the atom at a particular place. ...

I'll go along with the "probability" aspect in your comment.
I would like to add further that, while I don't believe they can physically BE in two places at the same time, they can definitely SPIN in two (in actuality - 3) different directions at the same time, which shows up as the "sum" of the different spin directions.


That's what a wave-function IS, a linear sum of probability amplitudes, for all possible observable values, given the experimental arrangement. My comment wrt probability applies to all qm properties.

An interference experiment demonstrates that a given qm property is not one of an 'independent qm object' prior to measurement, but rather it is created by the measurement. This is not generally disputed in qm.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2015
.....It is not any more rational to say 'it can definitely SPIN in two different directions at the same time' than it does to say it 'can physically BE in two places at the same time', ... as the mathematical structure of qm is the same in both cases.
Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2015
It is not correct to say that the 'atom can be in two places at the same time'.


-I think I prefer the descriptions of genuine scientists over philo word salad


If you were not so ignorant of the subject and not such a clueless troll, you would have noticed that I've stated nothing other than that derived from experimental evidence substantiating qm.
Words fail me. They obviously fail you too. Good thing nobodys listening.


Yes, you've demonstrated that 'words fail you' by never actually saying anything of substance about the subject at hand. Nothing you quoted above refutes anything I stated in this thread, nor have you even pointed out what specifically you object to,.... only intellectually immature ad hominems about "philo words" which is typical of you. Do you even know what "falsify[ing] macro-realistic theories" means? Do you enjoy being the tallest midget in the room with your 5's?
zangetsu_san
4 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2015
it seems there is confusion here, as the article here invokes ideas about Schrödinger's cat and the nature of Quantum superposition.

people here are confusing the collapse of a wave function for something very different.
swordsman
1 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2015
More nonsense from QM "experts". If they only knew how to make accurate measurements. This is similar to the misinterpretations of Heisenberg. Every engineer knows (or should know) that all measurements are inaccurate to some degree. However, these inaccuracies can and are chracterized.
KBK
4 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2015
It's the human macro associated mind that desires absolute singular back and white forms, even when it knows that specific and perfected forms are impossible.

That is where the problem lies.

The idea that something has been 'solved', and can be put away as a black and white solution that remains in perpetuity, when everything we know says that...nothing of that nature exists anywhere.

The issue is that we have many theorems now, provably accurate ones...that seem to indicate that the universe, is consciousness, intelligence, information, and that integration and interaction are the norms, and there is not any form of permanence -in anything.

Which means that this is the solution to the dilemma, at the same time --- it is not.

Exactly so. The only truth is a projected truth which is in permanence... as being malleable and changeable.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2015
More nonsense from QM "experts". If they only knew how to make accurate measurements. This is similar to the misinterpretations of Heisenberg. Every engineer knows (or should know) that all measurements are inaccurate to some degree. However, these inaccuracies can and are chracterized.


What you describe is called the Observer Effect, which has nothing to do with the qm measurement problem, nor the uncertainty relation. Heisenberg initially described it using the 'observer effect',... however was immediately corrected by Bohr. QM is far more profound that just that already understood pre-quantum effect.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2015
It's the human macro associated mind that desires absolute singular back and white forms, even when it knows that specific and perfected forms are impossible.


I would say that the conditions for Observation to be possible, necessitates that the underlying reality be forced to conform to our a-priori intuitions. We evolved these a-priori intuitions to synthesize experience on our macroscopic scale. They are 'forms of thought' and 'operate' autonomously prior to conscious decision,... which is to say they always appear as necessary elements of the [intuitive] understanding.

It is why in QM, the act of Observation seems to create the properties that the quantum system did not have prior to observation. We add an element, and this element is our conceptual structure. QM tells us of our Experience of reality, not about an 'Independent Reality'.

I'll end with a few quotes to substantiate the problem,...
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2015
"Useful as it is under everyday circumstances to say that the world exists "out there" independent of us, that view can no longer be upheld. There is a strange sense in which this is a "participatory universe". - John Wheeler

"There is no way to remove the observer us from our perception of the world, which is created through our sensory processing and through the way we think and reason. Our perception and the observations upon which our theories are based are shaped by a kind of lens, the interpretive structure of our human brains." - Stephen Hawking

"We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2015
"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment" - B. d'Espagnat

"It is not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness." - Eugene Wigner

"It is a striking fact that almost all the interpretations of quantum mechanics…depend to some degree on the presence of consciousness for providing the 'observe' that is required for…the emergence of a classical-like world." - Roger Penrose

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2015
linear sum of probability amplitudes
Sorry, I googled this and got nothing. You have a ref for this little nugget?

BTW the accepted def of wave-function is
http://en.wikiped...in_1d.29

-Youll note the relative absence of undefinable words and the liberal use of math.

-And now let us take the magical mystery tour...
It is why in QM, the act of Observation seems to create the properties that the quantum system did not have prior to observation
-MYSTICISM.
They are 'forms of thought' and 'operate' autonomously prior to conscious decision
QUALIA DO NOT EXIST - dennett

John Wheeler - MYSTIC
http://mysticson....nce.html

B. d'Espagnat - HYPERGOD MYSTIC

Eugene Wigner - MYSTIC
http://www.academ...roversy_

Roger Penrose - MICROTUBULE MYSTIC
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2015
"'Mysticism' in quantum mechanics: the forgotten controversy
Juan Miguel Marin
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

"This paper argues that a European controversy over a 'mystical' hypothesis,one assigning the mind a role to play at the material level of reality, shaped much of the debate over the interpretation of the quantum equations. It traces back the controversy to the past two decades, beginning in the late 1920s—birth of quantum theory—and concluding with Erwin Schrodinger's lectures published as 'Mind and Matter'. Becoming aware of the issues at stake can help us understand the historical, philosophical and cultural background from which today's physics emerged."
http://www.academ...roversy_

-Scientists consider what you are peddling to be mysticism. I suspect you missed this entire discussion. I suggest you read the paper and find out what you missed.
foolspoo
5 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2015
"All that we can do is to accept that the atom has indeed taken different paths at the same time"
-lead author.

this admittance of ignorance perfectly explains why Noumenon is spot on. our incomplete perception should not be grounds for such claims
Noumenon
5 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2015
@ ghostofotto ,... I think I prefer the descriptions of genuine scientists, whom I have quoted and referenced, over trolling ignoramuses like you who call those prominent physicist "Mystics".

That's what a wave-function IS, a linear sum of probability amplitudes, for all possible observable values, given the experimental arrangement.

Sorry, I googled this and got nothing. You have a ref for this little nugget?


Really, I'm surprised you couldn't learn QM using Google #sarcasm.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2015
@Ghostoottotroll,

So, since you clearly don't know that the wave-function is a linear superposition, obviously you don't know about Fourier analysis and its relevance to Hilbert Space, which is at the heart of the mathematical foundation of QM,..... and so it appears you're just ignorant enough not to refrain from questioning me.

[this exposes the flaw in the phys.org comment ratings as well, as it presupposes that the raters are themselves competent]

I would reference a text-book, like Griffiths, but you probably wouldn't read as it contains actual math, and I doubt you have read Kant like I asked you to years ago. In this thread I give DaScnieb, who is still hiding under his desk with CaptainStumpy :), a qualitative description. I also have mathematical notes. I suggest start with Fourier.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2015
What, you mean this stuff?
http://en.wikiped...position

-I skimmed it. I noticed lots of equations. Where are your equations nou? I also noticed a distinct lack of mysticism, as in
the act of Observation seems to create the properties that the quantum system did not have prior to observation
... I wonder why? I wonder why the authors didn't need voodoo to explain quantum superposition?

Any ideas?
I doubt you have read kant
As I continue to remind you, I have read what experts who are intimately familiar with the wizard have said about him and his lack of relevance and coherence. Experts who know far more than you do.

Speaking of experts, have you read dennett yet? Or at least critics of his theories? He is one of the CURRENT experts on consciousness.

You should try to keep up. Dead philos are even more irrelevant now that we have science.
gkam
1 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2015
Would this stuff be even more fascinating to me if I understood it, . . or the mathematics behind it?
Losik
Jan 22, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
1 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2015
Exactly so. The only truth is a projected truth which is in permanence... as being malleable and changeable.

You mean the one thing that doesn't change is - things always change. Right?
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2015
The article is fascinating and the comments are even more fascinating. No attempt is made to link physics via the chemistry of protein folding to conserved molecular mechanisms that enable our ability to ecologically adapt to observe experiments and comment on them as if we had no brain -- Noumenon excepted

(I didn't read through enough pseudoscientific nonsense to determine if anyone else exhibited signs of intelligent life).

As always, all the science idiots are here. They seem to not realize that energy traps must somehow link biophotonics in an atoms to ecosystems approach to our ability to observe interactions at the level of quantum mechanics and speculate about whether or not we are here or there and whether we are dead or alive.

In Schroedinger's thought experiment they would be like two cats that evolved sex differences and then created generations of offspring before one of them mutated into something that could think its way out of the box.
gkam
3 / 5 (6) Jan 23, 2015
"They seem to not realize that energy traps must somehow link biophotonics in an atoms to ecosystems approach to our ability to observe interactions at the level of quantum mechanics, . . . . "
----------------------------------------------

Oh, yeah, and folding proteins!!

How could we be so blind??
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2015
How could we be so blind??


Thanks for asking. I've often asked: How did science idiots become science idiots and what prevents them from learning? Do they think they see a way out of the box or think that someone will show them a way to think outside the box.

Instead, they are trapped by ridiculous theories. Yet they comment here and show they are trapped by ridiculous theories.

No one has claimed to see the light or to understand light-induced amino acid substitutions that link cell type differentiation in species from microbes to man via the biophysically constrained chemistry of protein folding.

It's as if they were born blind or taught to be blind. Most people begin to learn from birth that they did not evolve from microbes, and that their life began on earth.

How can anyone be so foolish as to be taught to be ignorant of everything known about the concept that "Life is physics and chemistry and communication" ? http://dx.doi.org...as.12570
Gimp
5 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2015
Science Idiots. I love that term.

If ONE atom can be in two places at one time, what is the limit? Can it be in three places? An infinite number of places? What is to stop ONE atom from filling the universe?
Noumenon
5 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2015
"Feynman, I know why all electrons have the same charge and the same mass....... because, they are all the same electron" - John Wheeler [this gave Feynman his idea of positrons being electrons traveling backwards in time]
anonymous_9001
4.8 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2015
light-induced amino acid substitutions


Which occur how? What pathway does light activate that ends up making specific DNA changes? What enzymes are involved?
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (7) Jan 23, 2015
Why is JVK hijacking the topic in this thread?
gkam
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 23, 2015
For the sake of the proteins. Somebody has to look after the proteins!
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2015
...what prevents them from learning?
@kohlslaw
maybe they get confused by stupid people who don't know the basics parading around as some sort of authority on the subject while misinterpreting the actual science that is out there, like what you do?
So Kohl is mistaken if he is claiming that my study (or Rich Lenski's work) provide evidence AGAINST the role of mutations in evolution. -Dr. Extavour
Notice that it says Dr, not Mrs or Ms?
notice that she doesn't claim expertise in a subject she is not well versed in like you do?
notice she never claimed anything falsely like ":decades of experience in diagnostic medicine" like you have?

THAT is real science, not your posts, which serve only to obfuscate real science

here is little jimmy K in a nutshell: http://freethough...s-place/
SusejDog
not rated yet Jan 24, 2015
Are we watching the MULTIVERSE at work here?
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2015
@Nou
"Feynman, I know why all electrons have the same charge and the same mass....... because, they are all the same electron" - John Wheeler [this gave Feynman his idea of positrons being electrons traveling backwards in time]

As I remember it, JW was joking. He didn't think this was the case, he was simply "flying a kite" for discussion purposes.
By the way, it is by no means certain that all electrons have the same charge and mass, there is a school of thought that it is simply nearly all the LOCAL electrons that do, and the odd electron that makes it here from a distant galaxy may be different - possibly due to ageing, as matter expands from the time it was created thus giving the effect you call gravity. This effect in photons contributes towards redshift.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2015
For the sake of the proteins. Somebody has to look after the proteins!


A quantum theory for the irreplaceable role of docosahexaenoic acid in neural cell signalling throughout evolution http://www.ncbi.n...23206328
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2015
as matter expands from the time

Which, it doesn't.
it was created thus giving the effect you call gravity.

Which isn't true. Even if matter expanded, it would not be equivalent to gravity. It would not explain orbits, or the increase in gravity fields around hot objects, or tides, or Neptune's precession. It pretty much wouldn't explain anything at all.
This effect in photons contributes towards redshift.

An effect, which is only in your imagination.

By the way, Clever Hans, I see you just kind of gave up in our last exchange, which isn't surprising.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2015
as matter expands from the time

Which, it doesn't.
it was created thus giving the effect you call gravity.

Which isn't true. Even if matter expanded, it would not be equivalent to gravity. It would not explain orbits, or the increase in gravity fields around hot objects, or tides, or Neptune's precession. It pretty much wouldn't explain anything at all.
This effect in photons contributes towards redshift.

An effect, which is only in your imagination.

Orbits are explained in great detail in my book, as you well know, and the logic is irrefutable.
The increase in the gravity fields from heat that you quote is conjecture, not proven, and in any case could be due to a facet of expansion theory.
Tides are fully explained in the expansion of composite objects.
The precession of the planets is exactly derived from the expansion theory replacing gravity.
Try and stick to logic, furry!
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2015
@furbrain

By the way, Clever Hans, I see you just kind of gave up in our last exchange, which isn't surprising.

I thought it was you who had given up.....
Off you go again, whingeing about expansion theory not explaining orbits, when even a little thought illustrates that it does, convincingly, irrefutably and in terms that even a twit like you should understand.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2015
Orbits are explained in great detail in my book
@regTROLL
that is not what Q-Star said about your book... in fact, he said that it didn't explain ANYTHING... and you've never been able to explain them here at all either

Now, considering this was the EASY question given you in so many threads, you "should" be able to produce something compact (at least, by now anyway) enough to explain Orbits here on PO, but you have not

Nor have you addressed any of the other myriad problems with your expansion theory that needs gravity to work

How about tides?
you know, those things that we see and have BECAUSE of gravity?

you haven't explained THOSE either, nor your "mass dependent expansion" problem and how it would show a proportional anomaly between two similar mass objects of different density

Now you are advertising your stupid book here again?

TROLL
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2015
I thought it was you who had given up.....

lol. Clever Hans, our last exchange was here:
http://phys.org/n...rgy.html

Your last post was on Jan 18th in the morning. I subsequently posted a response later that day. Do you enjoy being wrong all the time, or something?

Orbits are explained in great detail in my book, as you well know, and the logic is irrefutable.

I am sure all of that detail involves explanations so hand wavey that Dr. George S. Phalen rose from his grave, screaming in terror.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2015
The increase in the gravity fields from heat that you quote is conjecture, not proven,

First, things aren't proven in physics. They are demonstrated, and mass-energy equivalence has been demonstrated quite handily. Kinetic energy is a form of energy. Hence, it affects gravity--unless you wish to challenge YET ANOTHER major tenet of modern physics. Second, if you want evidence, take a look at these papers.
http://arxiv.org/...14v1.pdf
http://journals.a...t.36.555
So, there exists at least a measurable effect from kinetic energy on gravitational fields.
in any case could be due to a facet of expansion theory.

How? Furious hand gesticulations?
Tides are fully explained in the expansion of composite objects.

Ok, well, in that case, a sphere enclosed within a spherical shell should experience a tug from all sides--oh wait. Gauss' law forbids that.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2015
The precession of the planets is exactly derived from the expansion theory replacing gravity.

Again, through furious hand gesticulations, no doubt. It's amazing how well those can be used to prove whatever you want.
Hey, do you even know what precession is?
Try and stick to logic, furry!

Yes, because it is entirely logical to ask your opponent to derive your own equation to prove your own point, and conduct your own experiments for you. It is also quite logical to conclude that even though 100% of trajectories from gravity satisfying escape velocity we've seen appear to be hyperbolic/parabolic, challenging your pet hypothesis, the mere possibility that one will someday be observed not to behave this way is enough for you to furiously cling to it anyway. Yes, that's how logic works.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Jan 26, 2015
@furbrain
Hell, you post so much, more than three times to my one, that I assumed your single post was because you had given up part way thru'...
As I have explained before re escape, imagine there are two objects in the enttire universe. How far apart must they be to not be affected at all by each otheers gravity? By ALL the accepted lawss of gravity, the answer is an infinite distance. So, there is always a force attracting them to each other. Are there any forces repelling them from each other? None known. Then, after an infinite passage of time, they must start moving towards one another. So, in answer to your question, do they ever meet, the answer is yes, eventually, after an infinite amount of time. As you should well know, in maths the introduction of a term for infinity renders all calculation useless.
So, what is your answer? Do they ever meet? Well, yes and no.....bit like Schrodinger's cat...
I suppose, you being a dedicated mathematician, you only see one answer.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jan 26, 2015
How far apart must they be to not be affected at all by each otheers gravity?

"Affected at all" is the not the same as "Inevitably drawn towards each other."
the answer is an infinite distance

Which, you should understand, doesn't ACTUALLY mean infinite, because that's physically nonsensical, but a distance that can be made arbitrarily large to satisfy some desired property.
So, there is always a force attracting them to each other.

Yep.
Then, after an infinite passage of time, they must start moving towards one another.

Ugh. Stop using infinity like that.

If the distance between them is really large, then after some comparably large amount of time, we must ask what will happen. We can't just say "Infinity is a number, so just plug it in, and equations will work." Infinity is NOT a number. It is shorthand for a more complicated concept.

(to be continued)
swordsman
1 / 5 (2) Jan 26, 2015
More of the gobblety-gook of quantum mechanics. Planck acknowledged that every electromagnetic system has a mechanical analog. However, "superposition" doesn't quite work so well for some of them for a mechanical model.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jan 26, 2015
@Reg Mundy
Using infinity naively like you do is the kind of thing that gets us into trouble.

For example, 2*infinity/infinity, this is meaningless. It could be any number. I say this because there are an infinite number of ways to interpret infinity here. It could be that infinity = 2*infinity, which is valid, or infinitity = 0.5*infinity, which is equally valid. WE MUST SET UP CONTEXT.

If, on the other hand, we write 2*D/D, where D->infinity, then we have a well defined value, which is simply 2. Even if we wrote D^2/D as D->infinity, it would still be well defined. The value would be infinity!

Ok, now that I got that off my chest, where were we? Oh yes! Math fail. Please, continue...
(Ahem. As I was saying furbrain, until you so rudely injected nuance into my simplistic view of things)Then, after an infinite passage of time, they must start moving towards one another.

If you did the calculations, you'd find this not to be necessarily true.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jan 26, 2015
As you should well know, in maths the introduction of a term for infinity renders all calculation useless.

We are not introducing infinity, you twit. We are introducing a limiting term and asking about the behavior as it goes to infinity--and this is well defined, and will not give us a nonsensical answer.
Do you understand what limiting behavior is?
So, what is your answer?

It depends on--say it with me now--the initial velocity! *Gasp*
Do they ever meet? Well, yes and no.....bit like Schrodinger's cat...

You don't understand quantum mechanics either.
I suppose, you being a dedicated mathematician, you only see one answer.

I suppose, you being a lazy crackpot who won't bother to actually do the calculations, and who thinks that infinity can simply be naively inserted into an equation without carefully considering the context, always gets the WRONG ANSWER.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jan 26, 2015
https://www.youtu...youtu.be

I think what most of you don't realize is that this representation appears to link the sun's biological energy to biophysically constrained thermodynamic cycles of protein biosynthesis and degradation, which links the RNA-mediated chemistry of protein folding to the conserved molecular mechanisms of amino acid fixation-dependent biodiversity.

For example cell type differentiation occurs in the context of the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction. Why is anyone continuing to ignore the importance of:

A quantum theory for the irreplaceable role of docosahexaenoic acid in neural cell signalling throughout evolution http://www.ncbi.n...23206328

Could the problem be that most people are biologically uninformed science idiots who also cannot understand anything about physics or chemistry?
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 26, 2015
PZ Myers eliminated me from participation on the same day I posted
let me finish that for you... posted and proved that you were a bigot
so... why don't you ever clearly answer Anon's questions... he is only trying to simplify everything so that you can see your own fallacies and pseudoscience. You also like to ignore certain questions and then obfuscate others with irrelevant posts... why not be clear and concise? what is wrong with that? why do you FEAR being clear and posting concise information using the nomenclature of your field?

you've never had a problem flooding the site with PSEUDOSCIENCE and your mistaken interpretations of studies... why can't you answer honestly now?
get back to answering Anon!
Are chromosomal rearrangements deliberate in your model? Are they induced because they have beneficial effects?
PS - you know SQUAT about physics, so you had better redirect your stupidity back to biology where you know at least a little more...(not much)
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 26, 2015
Why is anyone continuing to ignore the importance of:
the better question for you would be WHY DO YOU IGNORE the mutations in your own model when you denigrate mutations everywhere else?

why do you think your model is more special than Evolution Theory... evolution theory is backed by experimental and empirical evidence proven over and over
Could the problem be that most people are biologically uninformed science idiots who also cannot understand anything about physics or chemistry?
this is definitely true of you, jk

not only did you self-admit to failing out of college, but you've repeatedly demonstrated that you don't comprehend the studies in your own field of self-chosen "expertise"

go back to making your love potions for the gullible
this is a SCIENCE site, not a pseudoscience forum
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (5) Jan 27, 2015
@furbrain
You don't understand quantum mechanics either.
Wow, does that mean that YOU do understand quantum mechanics? I'm totally underwhelmed by your claim to amazing genius, the only brain in the universe who totally comprehends the mysteries of QM, QE, etc.
Perhaps you could throw some light on QE for the benefit of us mere mortals, you know, any explanation of how it works, for example? I've tried in my book in my own modest way, but obviously you will have a better explanation. I look forward to seeing it......but won't hold my breath.
Meanwhile, perhaps you would deign to provide me with ONE actual example in nature (i.e. real life) where something tends to infinity? That would go some way to convincing me that you are not a total dickhead, though I am probably clutching at straws....
mooster75
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 27, 2015
I'll admit I was never a marketing whiz or anything, but I'm puzzled by the theory that holding yourself up to daily public ridicule will increase the sales of snake oil. Does it really work?
Losik
Jan 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Losik
Jan 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2015
I'm puzzled by the theory that holding yourself up to daily public ridicule will increase the sales of snake oil.


The ridicule exemplifies the ignorance I hate. The difference between me and others who might otherwise be willing to try and teach science idiots is that I probably have more experience than most who have been forced to deal with that ignorance.

What we see here is that no one bothers to inform themselves or to cite evidence to support their ridiculous theories. For comparison see my blog posts on RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in addition to my published works.

For example: Quantum entanglement, mass, and biomass
http://perfumingt...biomass/

and 188 others
http://perfumingt...bmit.y=8
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jan 27, 2015
Wow, does that mean that YOU do understand quantum mechanics?

Yes. Not entirely. Much more than you do. I am no expert. But, one does not have to be an expert in something to be competent at it. If I told you that you don't know how to play basketball because you keep kicking the ball,you wouldn't get all indignant and defiantly ask me if I am Michael Jordan...well, if you were a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect, you might. But I am confident that you don't really think that wa--
I'm totally underwhelmed by your claim to amazing genius, the only brain in the universe who totally comprehends the mysteries of QM, QE, etc.

...you mean QED?
Perhaps you could throw some light on QE for the benefit of us mere mortals

Yeah, I think you mean QED. Well, no, but it is telling how out of all the points I made in my three comments to you, you picked the only thing I said that didn't serve as a direct rebuttal to your arguments to focus on.
(to be continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jan 27, 2015
@Clever Hans
It's almost as if you don't really have anything of substance to offer. But let me just return for a second to what you just said,
I'm totally underwhelmed by your claim to amazing genius

Let us take a moment and revel in your complete and utter lack of any self awareness.
.
.
.
The LoOrd be with you. aAnd also with you. LIift uUp your HEAarts. We LIift them up to the LOord. Let us--

Sorry. I got lost in the blissful sublimity of your failure to comprehend the irony of what you just said.
I've tried in my book in my own modest way, but obviously you will have a better explanation.

Telling you that you don't actually understand Schrodinger's cat does not imply even a passing understanding of QED, but, then again, you do suck at hypothesis formation. So, are we actually going to get to any form of rebuttal?
(to be continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jan 27, 2015
@Clever Hans
Meanwhile, perhaps you would deign to provide me with ONE actual example in nature (i.e. real life) where something tends to infinity?

Well...it sort of looks relevant to my rebuttal...if I squint at it.
I am not really sure how this actually applies to my argument. It's almost kind of shocking how little you understand what a limit is. I mean, this is what you got out of my argument? That I somehow claimed things "tend to infinity"? What does that even mean? Is it like something being infinite, but coyly?
It's like I told you that volumes is proportional to dial setting, and you smugly retorted, "Oh really? Give me one example of a radio that has a volume that tends to infinity."
That would go some way to convincing me that you are not a total dickhead, though I am probably clutching at straws....

Or you could actually read up on limits, re-read what I wrote, and then come back a better person.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2015
The difference between me and ...I probably have more experience
@jk
HERE is something intelligent educated people hate:
just because you THINK you are experienced, doesn't give you the right to just alter the nomenclature without approval
nor does it mean that everything you post is valid, accurate or make sense at all...
case in point: your vilification of mutations while you yourself promote mutations in your model
OR
your continual stupidity regarding the FACTS posted by Anon that you ignore while intentionally making up word-salad stupidity obfuscating what you want to say so that it comes out as gibberish and wrong to boot... proven by your comments regarding other studies which the authors then completely DEBUNK you (Extavour/Lenski and MANY MORE come to mind)

does that mean that YOU do understand quantum mechanics?
Regtard
he demonstrates a far better understanding than you do

you can't even get your own philosophy down-pat enough to post here
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jan 27, 2015
just because you THINK you are experienced, doesn't give you the right to just alter the nomenclature without approval

But how can he be a crackpot if he doesn't believe that being incorrect for years is equivalent to being correct for one day?
JVK is very good at what is known as the Gish Gallop. I commend you for taking the time to rebut his word salad pseudoscientific crap. It looks like you, Wydening Gyre, and the rest are doing a good job of taking this guy to task here: http://phys.org/n...ics.html
Regtard
he demonstrates a far better understanding than you do

This kind of thinking also perplexes me. I mean, if I told you that flies spontaneously generate from meat, you wouldn't have to be a biologist to tell me I was wrong, and yet the likes of Clever Han don't think this applies to physics. He possibly doesn't think it applies at all. Does he also accuse his mechanic of using "meaningless equations"?
bluehigh
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 27, 2015
Cat believed dead reappears ...

Bart, a cat in Tampa, was struck by a car and buried before reappearing in a neighbor's yard. 0:40 | 01/27/15. - ABC News

schrodinger's cat's offspring?

Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (5) Jan 27, 2015
@Clever Hans
It's almost as if you don't really have anything of substance to offer. But let me just return for a second to what you just said,
I'm totally underwhelmed by your claim to amazing genius

Let us take a moment and revel in your complete and utter lack of any self awareness.
.
The LoOrd be with you. aAnd also with you. LIift uUp your HEAarts. We LIift them up to the LOord. Let us--
Sorry. I got lost in the blissful sublimity of your failure to comprehend the irony of what you just said.
I've tried in my book in my own modest way, but obviously you will have a better explanation.

Telling you that you don't actually understand Schrodinger's cat does not imply even a passing understanding of QED, but, then again, you do suck at hypothesis formation. So, are we actually going to get to any form of rebuttal?
(to be continued)
Oh Dear, you seem to have drifted off into fairyland again. I suggest a long period of rest would do you good.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (5) Jan 27, 2015
@Clever Hans
Meanwhile, perhaps you would deign to provide me with ONE actual example in nature (i.e. real life) where something tends to infinity?

Well...it sort of looks relevant to my rebuttal...if I squint at it.
I am not really sure how this actually applies to my argument. It's almost kind of shocking how little you understand what a limit is. I mean, this is what you got out of my argument? That I somehow claimed things "tend to infinity"? What does that even mean? Is it like something being infinite, but coyly?
It's like I told you that volumes is proportional to dial setting, and you smugly retorted, "Oh really? Give me one example of a radio that has a volume that tends to infinity."
That would go some way to convincing me that you are not a total dickhead, though I am probably clutching at straws....

Or you could actually read up on limits, re-read what I wrote, and then come back a better person.

Weasleling out again, furry?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Jan 27, 2015
Oh Dear, you seem to have drifted off into fairyland again. I suggest a long period of rest would do you good.

Hey, I'm not the one who said that fairies are likelier than gravity being a force. That was all you, buddy.
Weasleling out again, furry?

So, no rebuttal then? No response to the points I made? Just, "HERP, if I say something enough, maybe it will come true. DERP!"?

Seriously, dude. I didn't imply that anything tends to infinity (whatever that means. What does that mean, anyway?). That was all in your sad little mind.

But if you're not going to actually respond to my point about using limits to find out what happens "at infinity", instead of not bothering to do any calculation at all, then I guess you have nothing to argue.

But I shouldn't be surprised, since most of your strategy seems to be to reiterate your premise, and then act smug when called out on your crap.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2015
your continual stupidity regarding the FACTS posted by Anon that you ignore


Shedding light on photosynthesis https://www.youtu...ure=plcp

Andrew Jones (aka anonymous_9001) knows less than most people, but he is Captain Stumpy's hero. Like PZ Myers, all Captain Stumpy's heroes are science idiots.
Vietvet
4 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2015
I'll admit I was never a marketing whiz or anything, but I'm puzzled by the theory that holding yourself up to daily public ridicule will increase the sales of snake oil. Does it really work?


A ten star comment.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2015
You have it all wrong. I'm here to show others who are not science idiots how much pseudoscientific nonsense is believed by those who are biologically uniformed.

When Andrew Jones commented that light does not induce amino acid substitutions and then told me I needed to take the MIT course, the example of his idiocy was a classic.

See also: http://phys.org/n...hod.html
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (5) Jan 27, 2015
When Andrew Jones commented that light does not induce amino acid substitutions


By what mechanism does that occur? What does the light alter that goes on to cause DNA base substitutions?
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2015
By what mechanism does that occur?


According to you, it doesn't. Do your own homework. Until you do, tell us about your alternative.

Do cosmic rays from deep space cause beneficial mutations? Was life seeded from asteroids carrying amino acids to our planet?
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2015
According to you, it doesn't. Do your own homework.


The link you provide when you bring up the supposedly light-induced substitutions doesn't say they were light-induced. You're the one that makes the claim that light causes them, so it's on you to provide that evidence.
mooster75
4 / 5 (4) Jan 28, 2015
The ridicule exemplifies the ignorance I hate. The difference between me and others who might otherwise be willing to try and teach science idiots is that I probably have more experience than most who have been forced to deal with that ignorance.

It doesn't take that much research to discover what you are. You're a con man who takes advantage of desperate people. You constantly spam science sites , no matter how tenuous a connection to the topic at hand, and then fall back on the most common tactic of the fraudulent and incompetent: I'm so smart, no one understands me. To quote from the movie, "the purpose of science is to serve mankind. You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge... or hustle. Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable. You are a poor scientist."
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jan 28, 2015
The link you provide when you bring up the supposedly light-induced substitutions doesn't say they were light-induced.


Everyone else knows that they are. You provide no link to information that suggests cosmic rays cause mutations that lead to the evolution of biodiversity. What was the basis for your thesis?

no matter how tenuous a connection to the topic at hand


Metabolic theory predicts whole-ecosystem properties http://www.pnas.o...abstract

See also: Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations: from atoms to ecosystems http://figshare.c...s/994281

Ask a serious scientist how much ignorance you just displayed.

Thank you for helping to make my point.

Anyone who hates ignorance can see why they hate it. Just watch the fools here display it.

To quote from the movie
What movie?
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jan 28, 2015
It doesn't take that much research to discover what you are.


Agreed. All my published works are now available for free (open access). I also provide constant updates at:

FB page: https://www.faceb...Research

Blog site: http://perfumingthemind.com/

Most recent published work: Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

Most recent video from my 2013 poster presentation: "Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: (a mammalian model of thermodynamics and organism-level thermoregulation)" http://youtu.be/DbH_Rj9U524

no matter how tenuous a connection to the topic at hand

Did I forget to cite the work by Crawford et al? A quantum theory for the irreplaceable role of docosahexaenoic acid in neural cell signalling throughout evolution http://www.ncbi.n...23206328

Or do you claim it's a "tenuous connection" to this topic?
Noumenon
4 / 5 (4) Jan 28, 2015
"Feynman, I know why all electrons have the same charge and the same mass....... because, they are all the same electron" - John Wheeler [this gave Feynman his idea of positrons being electrons traveling backwards in time]

As I remember it, JW was joking. He didn't think this was the case, he was simply "flying a kite" for discussion purposes.


Yes,.... isn't your 'expansionist theory' for gravity simply 'flying a kite' [in your case without a string or a kite], since did you not describe it in your book as "tongue in cheek"? Did I read that in the Amazon description a while ago?

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 28, 2015
all Captain Stumpy's heroes are science idiots
@jk
Anon is RESPECTED, not you
and most of my hero's ARE scientists... but unlike you they are either EDUCATED or at least well versed in the field that they cconsider their specialty
they took the time to actually LEARN something about the subject, and when presented with FACTS, experiments and things like that, they are willing to adjust their thought process
Whereas a religious idiot, or a pseudoscience acolyte like yourself: you simply have your set of beliefs, and nothing can change them - not even FACTS or demonstrations that refute your conclusions (can you say Lenski or Dr. Extavour)
I'm here to show others
the ONLY thing you are showing anyone is how to look completely stupid (your words) because you fail to accept knowledge
Everyone else knows that they are
no, only YOU seem to know...
please share this with us "science idiots" and give us your wisdom and experience!
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (4) Jan 28, 2015
Yesterday, you said "What we see here is that no one bothers to inform themselves or to cite evidence to support their ridiculous theories."

And then when asked to provide evidence that light-induced substitutions are actually caused by light, you say "Everyone else knows that they are."

For someone so hell-bent on wanting evidence, you sure don't feel the need to provide it yourself.

JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jan 28, 2015
For someone so hell-bent on wanting evidence, you sure don't feel the need to provide it yourself.


You reviewed the article in which I showed that amino acid substitutions differentiate the cell types of species from microbes to man. Remember this: http://www.socioa...ew/24367

"James Kohl presents an unsupported challenge to modern evolutionary theory and misrepresentations of established scientific terms and others' research. It was a mistake to let such a sloppy review through to be published."

Every intelligent serious scientist also knows that mutations do not contribute to increasing organismal complexity. You think that some mutations are beneficial, but want me to provide information on amino acid substitutions that stabilize protein folding and differentiate the cell types of all individuals of all species.

Where is the information that supports your ridiculous theories for comparison to my model?
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (3) Jan 28, 2015
I've provided you with, at this point, hundreds of links, a book section where Nei describes models of mutation, 3 other models of mutation and selection at the molecular level created by biophysicists and biochemists, the mutlitude of studies by Dobzhansky himself investigating mutation and selection, rebuttals by the authors you most frequently cite telling you that your interpretation is laughably wrong, many examples of how you misunderstand results and nomenclature (your most recent and hilarious being you asking if viruses are miRNAs), and much more.

You claimed the substitution was caused by light. If you refuse to provide the evidence, it means you have none. There is nothing that suggests that substitution was caused by light.

Your model is nothing more than a vague scheme composed of misinterpretations and false conclusions drawn from citations that have nothing to do with the thesis.
kochevnik
not rated yet Jan 28, 2015
Atoms can be in the same place in two different times. Why not the same time in two different places? /s
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jan 28, 2015
There is nothing that suggests that substitution was caused by light.


Light- and Carbon-Signaling Pathways. Modeling Circuits of Interactions http://www.plantp...abstract

"Indeed, methylation of the carbon-5 position of cytosine, which results in differences in 5hmCs, may be the most commonly studied type of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled structural and functional eukaryotic modification that results from organizing base pair changes." Kohl (unpublished)

A quantum theory for the irreplaceable role of docosahexaenoic acid in neural cell signalling throughout evolution http://www.ncbi.n...23206328

http://www.ncbi.n...24693353 "...the epigenetic 'tweaking' of the immense gene networks that occurs via exposure to nutrient chemicals and pheromones can now be modeled in the context of the microRNA/messenger RNA balance, receptor-mediated intracellular signaling, and the stochastic gene expression..."
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (3) Jan 28, 2015
Light- and Carbon-Signaling Pathways. Modeling Circuits of Interactions http://www.plantp...abstract


Did you even read that abstract? They study the effect light has on the EXPRESSION of those genes, not changes made to their sequence.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (2) Jan 28, 2015
When are you going to learn that expression changes are not the same thing as sequence changes? How many times do you have to be told that the base sequence of a gene is not the same thing as how often and under what conditions it's transcribed?
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jan 28, 2015
What then can be said about the light induced amino acid substitutions for comparison to mutations and the evolution of biodiversity?
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (3) Jan 28, 2015
My previous comment still stands:

Did you even read that abstract? They study the effect light has on the EXPRESSION of those genes, not changes made to their sequence.

That study did not demonstrate substitutions. It demonstrated expression changes. Apples and oranges, Kohl. Learn the difference.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Jan 29, 2015
@Nou
"Feynman, I know why all electrons have the same charge and the same mass....... because, they are all the same electron" - John Wheeler [this gave Feynman his idea of positrons being electrons traveling backwards in time]

As I remember it, JW was joking. He didn't think this was the case, he was simply "flying a kite" for discussion purposes.


Yes,.... isn't your 'expansionist theory' for gravity simply 'flying a kite' [in your case without a string or a kite], since did you not describe it in your book as "tongue in cheek"? Did I read that in the Amazon description a while ago?

Yes, you did. But ALL non-establishment theories are initially conjectural, only when evidence is found to support them do they become worth consideration by "scientists" as opposed to philosophers. I put forward as evidence that redshift is not caused by the universe expanding away from us, but the expansion of all matter in the universe. The Doppler effect is only (TBC)
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Jan 29, 2015
one part of the cause, matter "decay" over time is another. I put forward as evidence that the theory explains the effect of the force we call gravity in a logical way as an aspect of time itself rather than current theories which propose a mystical force which cannot be created, diverted, shielded against, detected, associated with any known particle (anybody found a graviton, gravitino, gravity wave yet?).
Enough, read the bloody book, it is impossible to cover the ground here. You get nutters like Cap'n Grumpy etc. who become abusive (he is on my ignore list) who cannot even see how expansion can cause orbits. People like Furbrain, who support the current disproved theories despite the mountains of evidence that they fail to describe reality in the end, who quote mathemetical models as if they are the real thing yet, when challenged to provide examples of proof of their claims, e.g. anything in nature that actually tends to infinity - just one example, changes the subject.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2015
That study did not demonstrate substitutions. It demonstrated expression changes. Apples and oranges, Kohl. Learn the difference.


Please tell me what you think you understand about the differences between the role of amino acid substitutions and gene expression. Try to place it into some other context besides "Kohl is wrong." For example: start with what is known about NUTRIGENOMICS http://medicalxpr...lth.html

Alternatively, start with what is known about PHARMACOGENOMICS https://www.youtu...G_9EEeeA

My model links nutrigenomics to pharmacogenomics via epigenetically effected cell type differentiation that occurs during development and alters morphological and behavioral phenotypes via conserved molecular mechanisms that link metabolic networks to genetic networks in species from microbes to man. What's your alternative to my atoms to ecosystems approach to epigenesis and homeostasis?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jan 29, 2015
I put forward as evidence that redshift is not caused by the universe expanding away from us, but the expansion of all matter in the universe.

And that hypothesis has been falsified several times over.
One of the many critiques from http://www.astro....lit.htm:

"The tired light model does not predict the observed time dilation of high redshift supernova light curves. This time dilation is a consequence of the standard interpretation of the redshift: a supernova that takes 20 days to decay will appear to take 40 days to decay when observed at redshift z=1."

From http://news.scien...re-tired :
" For the tired-light theory to be correct, young galaxies would have to be dimmer, rather than brighter, than old ones."

And that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Your whole "theory" is founded on a falsified hypothesis. You are clutching at straws.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jan 29, 2015
I put forward as evidence that the theory explains the effect of the force we call gravity in a logical way as an aspect of time itself

Ok, well, even if we could be convinced that Tired light hasn't been taken out back and shot, and then turned into compost, you actually need a precise way of telling us how this happens dynamically for an arbitrary configuration of matter/space. Otherwise, why should anyone believe you?
anybody found a graviton, gravitino, gravity wave yet?

Gravity is extremely weak at the quantum level. We don't yet have the capacity to detect those things. Even so, gravitons are currently at the status of HYPOTHESIS, unlike, GR, which doesn't rely on gravitons to be formulated.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jan 29, 2015
People like Furbrain, who support the current disproved theories

You don't understand what disproved means. Nothing has disproved GR. In fact, as I have said before, it works so well that dark matter and dark energy kind of have to be the only conclusion in the face of its overwhelming evidence. Now, as with gravitons, these currently have the status of HYPOTHESIS. If FALSIFIED, only then might gravity be falsified too. However, we have very good evidence for their existence, based on more than just galactic rotation curves. Still, they are not yet considered fact, unlike, say gravitational time dilation.

Now, I would like to point out that you are basing your hypothesis, and subsequent conclusions, on things that have been DEMONSTRATED to be incorrect, the Tired Light Hypothesis, and the existence of parabolic/hyperbolic trajectories. You are the pot calling the kettle black.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jan 29, 2015
@Clever Hans
Actually, that first quote I picked was probably not the best since you think expaaansion drives time, so let me pick another, FROM THE MANY reasons why tired light has been falsified:
"There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed."

Do you understand what your problem is? Gravity's current formulation MIGHT provide us some mysteries like dark matter and dark energy, but is otherwise supported by vast amounts of evidence. The jury is still out on what these things are, so we can't just go, "Welp, mysteries exist, so the entire edifice of gravity doesn't work." That's crazy.

But whereas gravity has mysteries, your entire formulation is based on two fantasies that have been falsified into oblivion. So, sorry, you'll have to try harder than that.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2015
Please tell me what you think you understand about the differences between the role of amino acid substitutions and gene expression.


Substitutions change the DNA sequence of a gene and may change the resulting amino acid sequence if it's nonsynonymous. Expression changes alter how often a gene is transcribed. It's not a difficult distinction to comprehend. It's sad that you've yet to grasp this after many months of being repeatedly informed.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Jan 29, 2015
@Furbrain
People like Furbrain, who support the current disproved theories

You don't understand what disproved means. Nothing has disproved GR. In fact, as I have said before, it works so well that dark matter and dark energy kind of have to be the only conclusion in the face of its overwhelming evidence. Now, as with gravitons, these currently have the status of HYPOTHESIS. If FALSIFIED, only then might gravity be falsified too. However, we have very good evidence for their existence, based on more than just galactic rotation curves. Still, they are not yet considered fact, unlike, say gravitational time dilation.

Now, I would like to point out that you are basing your hypothesis, and subsequent conclusions, on things that have been DEMONSTRATED to be incorrect, the Tired Light Hypothesis, and the existence of parabolic/hyperbolic trajectories. You are the pot calling the kettle black.

I said that "tired light" is PART of the (tbc)
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Jan 29, 2015
@furbrain
(contd.) cause of redshiftt, just as the various Doppler effects do. All your obfuscations above cannot disguise the fact that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE to support your gravity, no DM, no DE, no gravity waves, etc., etc. Get real! And I suppose you will continue to fail to give me ONE instance of infinity occurring in nature....
You can use maths to prove just about anything. I sometimes use the example of a bullet being fired at a man who is running away, mathematically the bullet can be shown never to reach him. You can prove that, by doubling the speed limit on roads, you reduce the accident rate - the rate depends on traffic density (no traffic, no accidents - busy traffic, more accidents). Double the speed limit and road users only take half as much time to reach their destination thereby cutting traffic density in half.... Do you think it should be tried?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jan 29, 2015
I said that "tired light" is PART of the...cause of redshiftt

So? It has still been falsified as even a partial cause of redshift, so I don't know why it makes a difference.
just as the various Doppler effects do.

Wait...what? So, let me get this straight.

1) Red-shift is evidence for expaaansion of photons (tired light)
2) Red-shift is actually explained by both tired light and doppler effects (whatever those are)
3) However, tired light has been overwhelmingly falsified as even a partial cause of distance-redshift, so, then it could only be explained by doppler effects, which is still wrong because...
4) Per those links I shared, instead Red-shift aligns much better with metric expansion
5) Yet, red-shift is still evidence for expaaaansion of photons.

I think I got it, but that might just be the cocaine talking.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jan 29, 2015
All your obfuscations above cannot disguise the fact that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE to support your gravity

Wrong. There is nothing you, as a true believer, would consider evidence to support it. There is plenty of evidence. We've been over this. Frankly, I don't know what you want as evidence at this point. Maybe a giant universe thumbs up to materialize, accompanied by "General Relativity is A-Ok!"? I mean really, what would be evidence for you?
no DM

Except, oh for all the evidence http://www.quantu...y-exist/
no DE

I woudln't say that either: http://www.dailyg...rs-.html

Also, one particularly fun fact is that Einstein actually had to add a cosmological constant to keep the universe from expanding in his theory. And then, we found that it expands.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jan 29, 2015
no gravity waves

Gravity waves, if they exist, are very difficult to detect. Give it time. The jury's still out. I don't think we're at the point, yet, where we're concerned that they haven't been directly detected yet. Eventually, we will become concerned if we can't detect them. And then we will have to amend our theories.

I would like to point out, however, that we've had indirect evidence for them, like this: http://www.astro....etaylor.

Sorry, Reg. You don't have a leg to stand on.
And I suppose you will continue to fail to give me ONE instance of infinity occurring in nature....

Well, I don't see why I should need to since I never actually said that infinity occurs in nature.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jan 29, 2015
You can use maths to prove just about anything. I sometimes use the example of a bullet being fired at a man who is running away, mathematically the bullet can be shown never to reach him.

LOL. Um, no, you can't, unless you suck at math. If the man is running at 4 mi/h, and the bullet is moving at 768 mi/hr, and he started out 3ft from the bullet, then after
0.0039 seconds, the man and bullet will be in the same place. Don't be ridiculous.
Double the speed limit and road users only take half as much time to reach their destination thereby cutting traffic density in half

1) that's not math. That's hypothesis forming.
2) What does that have to do with anything?
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2015
@furbrain
So, in answer to my charge that there is no concrete evidence for DM, DE, gravity waves, etc., etc., instead of producing evidence, you give me waffle, waffle, and more waffle.
I love your comment
2) What does that have to do with anything?
That's rich, coming from you, who have in the past proved a master of red herrings, even replying in binary code when you were losing an argument.
Incidentally, with the man and the bullet, it depends on which maths you use. Yours in the example you give is incorrect, for when the bullet reaches the point where the man was, he will have moved on more than you think due to relatavistic effects and time dilation. It will then take a small but finite amount of time for the bullet to cover that distance, when he again will have moved on. This happens an infinite amount of times, each time the distance becoming much smaller and the time for the bullet to cover it, but it goes on infinitely, hence the bullet never reaches the man.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2015
Substitutions change the DNA sequence of a gene and may change the resulting amino acid sequence if it's nonsynonymous. Expression changes alter how often a gene is transcribed. It's not a difficult distinction to comprehend.


Thanks. Is there a model for that?

It's sad that you've yet to grasp this after many months of being repeatedly informed.


I think the problem is that I am biologically informed and you are a biological uninformed science idiot who is trying to tell me how cell type differentiation in all cells of all individuals occurs in the context of mutations and evolution. Did you see the report in science that linked all crustaceans to all insects via the conserved molecular mechanisms of microRNA-driven changes in their hormone-organized and hormone-activated behavior?

Without knowing it, they confirmed all aspects of the model you criticized: http://comments.s...6219.220

JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2015
Substitutions change the DNA sequence of a gene and may change the resulting amino acid sequence if it's nonsynonymous. Expression changes alter how often a gene is transcribed. It's not a difficult distinction to comprehend.


If there is no model for what you claim leads from change in the DNA sequence to biodiversity, could you at least provide an example of diversity in a species that does not arise due to an amino acid substitution, which is obviously what differentiates the cell types of E. coli and E. coli 0157, as well as chimpanzees, gorillas, and humans?
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2015
Thanks. Is there a model for that?


The lac operon is the most widely used model and experimental system for gene expression and biochemical studies.

Do you recognize there's a difference between the sequence of a gene and its expression? Should I start by asking you what gene expression is? You don't seem to even understand that.

could you at least provide an example of diversity in a species that does not arise due to an amino acid substitution


Substitutions do result in diversity, but there are many other mechanisms. In Lenski's E. coli, there wasn't a substitution distinguishing the cit+ population from the wild type population, there was a translocation. One of many examples.

Look through that MIT class yet? Until then, you're the one that's uninformed, since you don't understand the most basic principles of chemistry or physics.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2015
So, in answer to my charge that there is no concrete evidence for DM, DE, gravity waves, etc., etc., instead of producing evidence, you give me waffle, waffle, and more waffle.
I love your comment

Do you know what waffling means? Because that's kind of the opposite of what I did. I was actually very succinct, except for gravity waves, but that merited a more nuanced discussion.
That's rich, coming from you, who have in the past proved a master of red herrings, even replying in binary code when you were losing an argument.

Well, at least you stopped calling it ASCII. I mean, you still aren't correct. It wasn't binary, but at least you've demonstrated some neuroplasticity.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jan 29, 2015
Incidentally, with the man and the bullet, it depends on which maths you use. Yours in the example you give is incorrect, for when the bullet reaches the point where the man was, he will have moved on more than you think due to relatavistic effects and time dilation.

Hahahahah. No, Clever Hans. That is absolutely, positively, incorrect. Don't hurt yourself.

We're talking about viewing the man and the bullet from one specific inertial frame. You can bet your crackpot mouth foam that the bullet will reach the man using the simple arithmetic from above. Incidentally, I did make a numerical error. I should have written that it gets to him in 0.0037 seconds. At any rate, no, just, no. Even if you saw the man traveling at c-(768mi/hr) and the bullet traveling at c-4mi/hr, where c is the speed of light (relativistic speeds), the bullet would STILL get to the man in that amount of time, though according to the man and bullet it would take considerably shorter.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jan 29, 2015
It will then take a small but finite amount of time for the bullet to cover that distance, when he again will have moved on. This happens an infinite amount of times, each time the distance becoming much smaller and the time for the bullet to cover it, but it goes on infinitely, hence the bullet never reaches the man.

Hahahaha. You don't understand limits either. Jesus Christ, Reg! Edumacate yo'self. You aren't doing yourself any favors by saying such pig ignorant things.

Case in point, yes, it happens in an infinite number of "instances" (as far as we know), but you have to actually--you know, do the calculations. In particular, if you want to break it up into an infinite amount of instances, then you are forcing yourself to use infinitesimals, which don't act like real numbers. For one thing, you can't add up a finite number of them and get a real number. You must add up an infinite number of them. Jesus, Reg. This is BASIC calculus. The stupid, it burns.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2015
Look through that MIT class yet? Until then, you're the one that's uninformed, since you don't understand the most basic principles of chemistry or physics.


I understand links from quantum physics to quantum biology and quantum consciousness. I have detailed them in my published and unpublished works. None involve mutations and evolution. All require ecological variation to lead to ecological adaptations via the biophysically constrained chemistry of protein folding, which is facilitated by changes in the microRNA/messenger RNA balance.

The changes link nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled feedback loops to chromatin loops and the ecological adaptations manifested in the morphological and behavioral phenotypes of species from microbes to man.

What you understand is mutation-driven evolution and there is no such thing because mutations perturb protein folding and lead to physiopathology not to increasing organismal complexity.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2015
You can't learn calculus without first learning algebra and considering you had to be informed that cells aren't closed systems, you don't know anything about even the basics of physics. Dunning-Kruger at its finest.

mutations perturb protein folding


Except for all the experiments directly demonstrating otherwise:

http://scholar.go...as_sdtp=
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2015
Anyone who thinks the Laws of Physics apply only in open systems should first try to learn the difference between a fact and a theory.

http://www.npr.or...-science
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2015
This happens an infinite amount of times, each time the distance becoming much smaller and the time for the bullet to cover it, but it goes on infinitely, hence the bullet never reaches the man.

Actually, now that I read this again, it sounds like you are claiming Zeno's paradox.

What you seem to be arguing is something along the lines of that the bullet must cross half the distance between itself and the man an infinite number of times, each time taking a finite amount of time.

Look, since the bullet has to cross half the distance each time, it's going to take half the time it took for the last half it had to cross.

So, if t_0 is the initial time it took, then you get a series,
t_0 + t_0/2 + t_0/4 + t_0/8 +... = t_0*(1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 +...)
Well, the sum of a^n from 0 to n is (a^(n+1)-1)/(a-1), so as n APPROACHES infinity, this sum approaches -1/(-1/2))*t_0 = 2*t_0 (NOT INFINITY), which is what we expect.

This is why I call you Clever Hans.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2015
@furbrain
First its wrong, then its right, then its something else. Make your silly mind up.

Well, the sum of a^n from 0 to n is (a^(n+1)-1)/(a-1), so as n APPROACHES infinity,

How can something approach infinity? That's a meaningless statement, and proves my point.
Now, how about providing that example of anything in nature that needs infinity? Can't fo it, can you, clever clogs. You really are dim, you can't see how foolish your arguments are. Keep on believing in your equations, the real world will always be beyond your comprehension.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2015
First its wrong, then its right, then its something else. Make your silly mind up.

To what are you referring?
How can something approach infinity?

Oh dear God. Why do crackpots focus on turns of phrase instead of their actual meaning. Ok, I will say this as unambiguously as possible.

As you substitute increasingly larger values of n, the sum, t_0*(1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 +..+(1/2)^2) gets increasingly close to t_0*2.

That was the simple english version.

If you want the REALLY PRECISE UNAMBIGUOUS version, it is:

For every real number, e > 0, there exists an integer, n >= 0, such that for every integer, m >= n, the value |t_0*2 - t_0*(1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + ... + (1/2)^2)| < e.

Have fun with that.
Now, how about providing that example of anything in nature that needs infinity?

The extent of your bullshit.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Jan 31, 2015
@Clever Hans
I meant

For every real number, e > 0, there exists an integer, n >= 0, such that for every integer, m >= n, the value |t_0*2 - t_0*(1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + ... + (1/2)^m)| < e.

Not that your defective brain will be able to understand this anyway. This is a variation of the definition of a limit. It is something first year math majors have difficulty with. I suspect you won't be able to understand it all.

JVK
1 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2015
Does everyone else realize why no one pays attention to physics and math in the context of biologically-based cause and effect?

If not, see:
http://resonance....nzicker/

Excerpt:
• "…particle physics, as practiced since the 1930's, is a futile enterprise in its entirety…It has become a high tech sport that has little to do with the laws of Nature."

• "It annoys me too much to see another generation of physicists deterred by the dumb messy patchwork called the standard model of particle physics, that hides the basic problems physics ought to deal with."

• "This book won't appeal to particle physicists there is no way to convince an expert that he or she has done nonsense for thirty years."
JVK
1 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2015

mutations perturb protein folding


Except for all the experiments directly demonstrating otherwise:


Mutagenesis experiments take meaningless results and meaningfully interpret them. Most people are intelligent enough to know that -- even if they are, like you, biologically uninformed.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2015
Mutagenesis experiments take meaningless results


How so? The basic idea of them is introducing random changes to enzymes and observing their effects.

http://web.udl.es...esis.pdf

They bring it up in that paper and I've brought it up before- if mutations can never be beneficial, then the SOS response wouldn't exist.
JVK
1 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2015
Thanks for asking. You linked to a 2001 paper that claims: "...the increased expression of a number of genes whose products not only assist the cell to survive DNA damage but also increase mutation rates (Friedberg et al., 1995; Frank et al., 1996, and see below)."

Our 1996 review links RNA-mediated cell type differentiation from species of microbes to man via the conserved molecular mechanisms of what is now known to be the biophysically constrained chemistry of protein folding by amino acid substitutions, which is what I detailed in my 2013 review with examples of cause and effect across species.

Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

You are more than a decade behind the experimental evidence I used to support my model.

Do your homework and come back at me again when it's done or start paying me the equivalent of what you wasted at Carthage to become a science idiot.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2015
How are the mutations in mutagenesis and directed evolution studies not beneficial? It's a widely used technique to improve enzyme function.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2015
Either you contest that they're random, which they are because they're induced by mutagenic chemicals or replicative enzymes prone to producing mutations by virtue of not having proofreading capabilities and higher error rates, or you contest they're beneficial, which they are because you can measure enzyme activity before and after and compare them and see how they improved in rate/function/etc.
JVK
1 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2015
Either you contest that they're random...or you contest they're beneficial...


No. I'm claiming that you are a science idiot who does not know anything about cell type differentiation, and who also is now trying to put words in my mouth. You've done this before, and it makes you look more like a science idiot each time you do it again -- especially now that others can see that you linked to a 2001 publication.

"If you learnt evolutionary biology and genetics a decade or more ago you need to be aware that those debates have moved on very considerably, as has the experimental and field work on which they are based." (p 1014)

Why do you think I cite or quote current publications? http://jp.physoc....007.full

It's because I want to ensure I have not labeled anyone a science idiot who is still willing to learn. Science idiots, like you, obviously are not.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2015
Mutagenesis studies are a simple:

A library of variants of the targeted construct (e.g., a gene or a cell) is generated through random changes of its genomic DNA. Methods of genetic randomization include error-prone PCR, mutagenic agents like Mutazyme, or random transposon integration.

The variant library goes through a process of screening or selection to reveal the most productive members of the library. Selection and screening techniques are specific to desired function of each experiment (e.g. higher enzyme efficiency, greater cell resistance to ethanol).

The most productive variant is resubmitted to the genetic randomization and selection processes.

Steps 1-3 are repeated until the desired result is received - an evolved mutant more adept at the processes it was selected for than its unevolved parent.


http://gcat.david...er_Stone

What step is faulty?
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2015
Why do you think I cite or quote current publications?


You might want to tell the authors of all these studies that their experiments are faulty due to reasons you seem unable to clearly convey. In vitro evolution and mutagenesis studies from this year:

http://scholar.go...sdt=1,14

http://scholar.go...ylo=2015
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2015
First its wrong, then its right, then its something else. Make your silly mind up.

To what are you referring?
How can something approach infinity?

Oh dear God. Why do crackpots focus on turns of phrase instead of their actual meaning. Ok, I will say this as unambiguously as possible.

As you substitute increasingly larger values of n, the sum, t_0*(1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 +..+(1/2)^2) gets increasingly close to t_0*2.

That was the simple english version.

If you want the REALLY PRECISE UNAMBIGUOUS version, it is:

For every real number, e > 0, there exists an integer, n >= 0, such that for every integer, m >= n, the value |t_0*2 - t_0*(1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + ... + (1/2)^2)| < e.

Have fun with that.
Now, how about providing that example of anything in nature that needs infinity?

The extent of your bullshit.

This is nonsense, and conveys no meaning that I can discern. What are you talking about?
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2015
@Clever Hans
I meant

For every real number, e > 0, there exists an integer, n >= 0, such that for every integer, m >= n, the value |t_0*2 - t_0*(1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + ... + (1/2)^m)| < e.

Not that your defective brain will be able to understand this anyway. This is a variation of the definition of a limit. It is something first year math majors have difficulty with. I suspect you won't be able to understand it all.


I ask you to provide one instance where infinity occurs in the real world. You come back with a load of garbage, then a corrected formula for the definition of limits - completely off topic! If you are suggesting that infinity can be used as a limit, you are even dafter than I thought.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2015
This is nonsense, and conveys no meaning

I told you that your defective brain wouldn't be able to understand it, Reg. It's ok. Not everybody can have an IQ above 70.
that I can discern. What are you talking about?

Well, you see, you said,
How can something approach infinity?

in response to my writing
Well, the sum of a^n from 0 to n is (a^(n+1)-1)/(a-1), so as n APPROACHES infinity,

And so, since you are dense, and don't understand what I mean about something that "approaches infinity" (which is really just syntactic sugar), I decided to inform you of the definition of a limit, which doesn't involve infinity at all.

Of course, your mind reacts to mathematics like cats react to cold showers, so I probably just should have grunted or something. Ok, in a last ditch effort, I am going to show you a graph of this sum "approaching" 1/2 as n "approaches" infinity:

http://oi58.tinyp...erts.jpg
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2015
I ask you to provide one instance where infinity occurs in the real world.

And I keep telling you that I didn't say that infinity occurs in the real world. Any further requests from you to ask me to provide an example of infinity will be summarily ignored.

Now, go look at that picture I shared. See how after just a finite number of steps, the value of the sum looks almost indistinguishable from 2. Yet, it isn't quite 2. And it will never really get there, since no number is infinite.

But, no matter where you are on the number line right of 0, you will always find a larger n, which gives a value even closer to 2.

This is what I mean by as n "approaches infinity", the sum approaches a finite number.

So, you are wrong. An infinite number of finite numbers does not necessarily add up to infinity, as I have just demonstrated in various ways. You are also wrong that "math can be used to prove anything". Finally, your "proof" is bad, and you should feel bad.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2015

Now, go look at that picture I shared. See how after just a finite number of steps, the value of the sum looks almost indistinguishable from 2. Yet, it isn't quite 2. And it will never really get there, since no number is infinite.

But, no matter where you are on the number line right of 0, you will always find a larger n, which gives a value even closer to 2.

That seems to be the same as the maths showing that the bullet never reaches the running man - but in real life it does. Again, show me ONE real world instance of infinity occurring in nature, or admit defeat. No more weaseling!
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2015
That seems to be the same as the maths showing that the bullet never reaches the running man - but in real life it does.

Hahah. Try to think about this stuff harder, Reg.
thefurlong
not rated yet Feb 01, 2015
That seems to be the same as the maths showing that the bullet never reaches the running man - but in real life it does.

Here, I'll help you. Let's say the bullet is fired and 0.0037 seconds pass. I am not explicitly saying that it hits the man, because we are trying to prove whether this happens or not mathematically.
Now, you submitted a "proof" in which you argued,
. It will then take a small but finite amount of time for the bullet to cover that distance, when he again will have moved on. This happens an infinite amount of times, each time the distance becoming much smaller and the time for the bullet to cover it, but it goes on infinitely, hence the bullet never reaches the man.


So, you said that there must be an infinite number of these scenarios where the bullet must cover a portion of the distance it covered in the last instance.

Now, think about this very carefully. (to be continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) Feb 02, 2015
@Clever Hans
I just argued that if you take (1 + ... + (1/2)^n), that this gets closer and closer to 2 as n increases. And, you are correct in pointing out that it will never get to 2 if n is finite.

Now, here is the major detail that went waaaay over your head. YOU just said there were an infinite number of these instances. Thus, we are NOT considering the case where we have a finite number of summands. We are considering the case where ALL summands are added up. Remember, YOU implied there were an infinite number of these instances. So, in short, because the sum asymptotically approaches 2, and because we have an infinite number of terms, we WILL get to 2.

So, assuming that t_0 is the time it takes the bullet to travel half the distance, 2*t_0 is the time it takes it to travel the full distance. And, in 0.0037, it will thus strike the man.

Q.E.D. Also, I know I have told you this before, but it is worth repeating: You are a moron.
Whydening Gyre
1 / 5 (1) Feb 02, 2015
If no one minds...
My 2 cents of seeming philosophy -
Nature itself is infinite - everything else is just trying to be.
Until we find an end to pi, that will never change.
And even then, I'm not so sure...
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2015
Nature itself is infinite - everything else is just trying to be.
Until we find an end to pi, that will never change.
And even then, I'm not so sure...

You seem to be using nature as a more general term than "the physical universe."

PI is the domain of mathematics, and represents a sort of idealized version of the rules geometric objects would follow as they approximate perfect circles more and more closely. What I mean by that is that we don't know of any perfect circles, but we have ones that are pretty damn close. Up to approximation, the circumference of these circles should be PI*diameter.

So, PI, itself isn't necessary in nature.

I would say, in general, we have no reason to believe infinite quantities exist locally. However, we have no idea whether the universe is finite or infinite in extent.

When I say gravitational fields are infinite in extent, I mean that as far as we can tell, they stretch to the extents of the universe, if they exist.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Feb 02, 2015
@furbrain
When I say gravitational fields are infinite in extent, I mean that as far as we can tell, they stretch to the extents of the universe, if they exist.

IF THEY EXIST! What's come over you, furry, the whole point of our exchange is that I believe gravity does not exist and you have always insisted that it does. Are you having second thoughts? Or have you at last come to your senses and realised that I have been right all along?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) Feb 02, 2015
@furbrain
When I say gravitational fields are infinite in extent, I mean that as far as we can tell, they stretch to the extents of the universe, if they exist.

IF THEY EXIST! What's come over you, furry, the whole point of our exchange is that I believe gravity does not exist and you have always insisted that it does. Are you having second thoughts? Or have you at last come to your senses and realised that I have been right all along?


No, you just don't understand plain English when you read it.

Ask yourself what that "they" could refer to. Could it refer to gravitational fields, when the underlying context is my assertion that gravitational fields exist, or could it, instead, refer to the "extents of the universe?"

As I said, Reg, you have to think harder about this stuff.

What REALLY amazes me is how you have spent 2 days saying very little that is of consequence. Was it really worth your time to write the above masterpiece of deductive reasoning?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) Feb 02, 2015
@Clever Hans
I mean, consider the facts. I dedicate two comments to arguing why something you said and my proof that (1+....+(1/2)^n) converges to 2 implies that the bullet DOES reach the man, and hence that your "proof" is not actually a proof, and what do you do?

You skip over all of that, and focus your tenuous attention on the last 3 words of my response to Whydening Gyre--3 words which could only be ambiguous to you if you had the mental acuity of a Dorito. But, I suppose I should have come to expect that from you by now.

You really are bad at hypothesis formation. You know that, right?

So, yeah...do you actually have a response, or are you next going to take another obvious turn of phrase of mine and proceed to misinterpret it poorly?
Whydening Gyre
1 / 5 (1) Feb 02, 2015
You seem to be using nature as a more general term than "the physical universe."

I mean to represent itself AS the physical universe...

PI is the domain of mathematics, and represents a sort of idealized version of the rules geometric objects would follow as they approximate perfect circles more and more closely. What I mean by that is that we don't know of any perfect circles, but we have ones that are pretty damn close. Up to approximation, the circumference of these circles should be PI*diameter.
So, PI, itself isn't necessary in nature.

Pi REPRESENTS nature...

I would say, in general, we have no reason to believe infinite quantities exist locally. However, we have no idea whether the universe is finite or infinite in extent.

Obviously they don't - locally. Locally is a closed set. The "Universe" represents a POTENTIAL open set... Just waiting for discovery...

Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Feb 03, 2015
@furbrain
Oh dear, furry, once again you devote what little sense you have to produce yet more slop on this site rather than thinking about the actual issues. Your preoccupation with semantics is no excuse for continuing to avoid the inevitable conclusion that you are floundering out of your depth, clutching at mathematical formlae like a drowning man grabbing at straws. Stop wittering about limits and asymptotes, and provide one instance of infinity occurring in the real world.
Or admit defeat......
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) Feb 03, 2015
Oh dear, furry, once again you devote what little sense you have to produce yet more slop on this site rather than thinking about the actual issues.

Hahah. Reg, YOU were the one who just ignored two comments actually arguing against something you said, and went straight to devoting a full comment to sadly misconstruing the phrase, "if they exist." Not me.
Stop wittering about limits and asymptotes, and provide one instance of infinity occurring in the real world.

Focus, Reg, focus. Right now, we are arguing about your "mathematical proof." And since it is mathematical (I use the term loosely), then we need to actually use the (gasp) tools of mathematics to verify whether it is correct or not.

Unless, you wish to concede that your proof isn't actually correct. That would be nice. Then, we could go back to me providing you with physical evidence, and you sticking your fingers in your ears and retorting, "nu-uh! You!".
JVK
1 / 5 (1) Feb 03, 2015
You might want to tell the authors of all these studies that their experiments are faulty due to reasons you seem unable to clearly convey. In vitro evolution and mutagenesis studies from this year:


http://aac.asm.or...14.short
"Resistance to ß-lactams is constantly increasing, due to the emergence of totally new enzymes, but also to the evolution of pre-existing ß-lactamases."

There is no point to telling anyone who believes in the emergence of new enzymes or the evolution of pre-exisisting enyzmes that emergence and evolution are not possible. It would be like trying to tell them about the de novo creation of nutrient-dependent enzymes that link quantum physics to the ability of nutrients to enter the cell, which links ecological variation to ecological adaptation via the chemistry of protein folding and quantum biology. No matter what you tell science idiots, in their world, everything automagically evolves.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) Feb 03, 2015
@Clever Hans
This is turning into a very boring conversation. For some reason, or other, you decided that I said infinities exist (which I didn't), and furthermore that this claim is essential to my argument (which it isn't), and then you got stuck in an infinite loop of failure from which you seem unable to extricate yourself.

I will say this one more time, even though I shouldn't have to. I. Didn't. Say. Infinities. Exist.

And even if I did, it would have no bearing on why you are wrong. You are wrong for a large number of reasons. They are: (tbc)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Feb 03, 2015
(continued)
1) Every trajectory we see directly supports the idea that gravity is an inverse squared force, and only few trajectories agree with your hypothesis that matter expands. The only such trajectory is that of objects that have not reached escape velocity.

2) Orbits could not happen under expansion, even if space somehow contracted between two massive bodies

3) You are wrong because you can't explain why space along the center line between two spheres would contract, but why it wouldn't contract in an empty cavity existing between a spherical shell and nested solid sphere.

4) You are wrong because you cannot provide a general description for how an arbitrary configuration of matter would expand. All you can do is enumerate a finite list of ad-hoc examples.

Now, nobody's going to read your book. You'll just have to accept that nobody will take you seriously if all you can do is provide ad-hoc examples.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.