One bang one process.

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

User avatar
BlackBart
Posts: 12608
Joined: Feb 26, 2010 11:29 am
Name: rotten bart

Re: Mathematics a universal language.

Post by BlackBart »

[quote="hackenslash";p="2778589"][quote="Spearthrower";p="2778586"]Secondly, even if you did understand them, colour coding them just makes it look like you're doing some form of synesthesia numerology.[/quote]

In fact, we finally get to what Paul means by 'mathematics'. It's paint-by-numbers cosmology. I wonder what he'd make of a Feynman diagram...[/quote]
A hat or a brooch.
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
Evolving
Posts: 12545
Joined: Sep 08, 2010 4:42 pm
Name: Serafina Pekkala
Country: Luxembourg

Re: Mathematics a universal language.

Post by Evolving »

[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2778592"]
Fact is if you contend the strict understanding of the subject then the Darwinian evolution process is brand new without any roots to the inorganic past.[/quote]

Yes.

Darwinian evolution occurs by means of selection. Stellar evolution doesn't.

Developments occur in the universe, driven by different factors in different circumstances and at different times.

This isn't controversial.
How extremely stupid not to have thought of that - T.H. Huxley
hackenslash
Posts: 22910
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 2:26 pm
Name: The Other Sweary One
Country: Republic of Mancunia
Location: That niggling voice telling you you might be wrong...
Contact:

Re: Mathematics a universal language.

Post by hackenslash »

When a daddy star and a mummy star love each other very much, the mummy star breaches the Chandrasekar Limit and makes lots of little baby stars.
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: Mathematics a universal language.

Post by pfrankinstein »

[quote="Evolving";p="2778601"][quote="pfrankinstein";p="2778592"]
Fact is if you contend the strict understanding of the subject then the Darwinian evolution process is brand new without any roots to the inorganic past.[/quote]

Yes.

Darwinian evolution occurs by means of selection. Stellar evolution doesn't.

Developments occur in the universe, driven by different factors in different circumstances and at different times.



This isn't controversial.[/quote]

Absolutely nothing controversial about stellar evolution by development.

Except....Does your stellar development include a process whereby knowledge of inorganic interaction is stored and passed down through time/generations. What is the mechanism for development, I mean are results selected or totally random?

Paul.
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: Mathematics a universal language.

Post by pfrankinstein »

The snooker player senses physics, and manipulates 'Primal selection' to his advantage.
User avatar
Evolving
Posts: 12545
Joined: Sep 08, 2010 4:42 pm
Name: Serafina Pekkala
Country: Luxembourg

Re: Mathematics a universal language.

Post by Evolving »

[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2778608"]Does [your] stellar development include a process whereby knowledge of inorganic interaction is stored and passed down through time/generations.[/quote]

No.

[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2778608"]What is the mechanism for development, I mean are results selected or totally random?[/quote]

Neither.

Selection occurs (in the Darwinian sense) when entities (organisms, but they could in theory be other kinds of entity) reproduce themselves, replicate themselves, copy their own genetic information into their offspring; and when copies vary as between individual offspring with an effect - beneficial or deleterious - on their chances, in a deadly struggle for survival, of surviving long enough to reproduce themselves, have their own offspring.

That is not the case with stars. There is a mechanism, involving gravitational collapse, conservation of angular momentum, nuclear fusion and quantum tunnelling, so the results are not random; but there is no selection, because stars don't reproduce and they are not in competition with each other or with other celestial bodies.
How extremely stupid not to have thought of that - T.H. Huxley
hackenslash
Posts: 22910
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 2:26 pm
Name: The Other Sweary One
Country: Republic of Mancunia
Location: That niggling voice telling you you might be wrong...
Contact:

Re: Mathematics a universal language.

Post by hackenslash »

Indeed and, when stars go through the end of their main sequence, the details of the process are purely a function of their mass, which also applies to all the products of fusion in the final stages as they go through producing heavier and heavier elements. If there were true evolution of stars with selection, We'd expect the products we observe in stellar nurseries to vary over time, yet they appear not to done so over a very wide range of time since the earliest generations of stars. There's not a single thing in the history of the stars to which any filter could be applied other than as a function of mass.

Somebody really needs to study the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram and point to where selection is occurring and by what mechanism.
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: Mathematics a universal language.

Post by pfrankinstein »

A Star has a life cycle.

Absolutely No biology involved. In real terms the star has a 'life cycle', you understand and accept the concept.

A certain amount of agility of mind is needed to see Primordial EVOLUTION and accept it in real terms.

If you REGRESS Darwin's MECHANISM to the max, you end up with the basic skeleton of three words.

The word 'Descent' reduced to its most basic meaning.

No biological generations storing and passing down hereditary information/knowledge without time.

One is reliant on the other.

If you don't eat your greens you can't have any pudding.

Inorganic material is drawn toward a star. The material descends down through time, as it does it is weighed and measured by nature a reaction takes place, the memory of the encounter is stored in the material itself and passed on to the next scenario and so on. Results selected.

Would my reality be more deluded than yours?

Lisa Tarbucks radio two tonight.







The observation.



a most basic definition
hackenslash
Posts: 22910
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 2:26 pm
Name: The Other Sweary One
Country: Republic of Mancunia
Location: That niggling voice telling you you might be wrong...
Contact:

Re: Mathematics a universal language.

Post by hackenslash »

[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2778613"]A Star has a life cycle.[/quote]

No, a star has a sequence. There's nothing remotely cyclical about it.
Absolutely No biology involved. In real terms the star has a 'life cycle', you understand and accept the concept.
No, I do not. Zero curvature.
A certain amount of agility of mind is needed to see Primordial EVOLUTION and accept it in real terms.
I have no intention of comparing your cognitive agility to mine. It would require that you had one.
If you REGRESS Darwin's MECHANISM to the max, you end up with the basic skeleton of three words.
No, if you regress Darwin's mechanism to the max, you end up with complex organic molecules for which there are no appropriate environmental differentials from which to derive selection.
The word 'Descent' reduced to its most basic meaning.
The closest thing in physics to this is the tendency of gradients downward toward equilibrium. I know nothing about your heritage, but statistics tells me not all your forebears were as highly cognitively entropic as you you.
No biological generations storing and passing down hereditary information/knowledge without time.
Tell us, oh wise one, how stars communicate their knowledge to future generations or, for that matter, the mechanism by which stars know things. Pretty sure I know more about stars than you do - hardly an achievement - but I've yet to encounter any papers concerning stellar cognition. Keeping this information from me would be a considerable achievement given how much the finding that stars can recognise patterns and tell themselves stories about them, let alone actually communicate them to other stars (perhaps this is the 'spooky action at a distance' all the physics textbooks warned me about), impacts all the areas of science I'm most interested in.

Hang on, have you encountered the angular velocity theorem of cognition before? There was a famous physicist who once postulated that, if you swung a rope fast enough, it would attain consciousness.
One is reliant on the other.
In what sense? In a logical sense?
If you don't eat your greens you can't have any pudding.
Stand still, laddie.
Inorganic material is drawn toward a star.
Why only things that don't contain carbon? It's the fourth most common element in the universe and, because of its gregarious nature, is a feature of what's drawn to a star. The inorganic material being attracted is going to be the minority by a consequential margin.
The material descends down through time,
It moves through spacetime. It doesn't 'descend', because the word is dimensionally undefined. There is no 'down' outside a preferred inertial frame.
as it does it is weighed and measured by nature a reaction takes place
This looks like the work of somebody who once read a correct and wibble-free explanation of the observer effect and went ahead and constructed an ontology from the explanation.
the memory of the encounter is stored in the material itself and passed on to the next scenario and so on.
Except that's not even how memory works. Did you know, when you remember something, you're not actually remembering it? What you're actually remembering is the last time you remembered it. Ever play Chinese Whisper as a kid? That's what happens in your brain all the time.

On the rest, I really think we need to see the math, especially how you overcome Shannon entropy with increasing Kolmogorov complexity when applied to either host or constituent in a fusion reaction. I'd be especially interested in learning how a triple-alpha process might impact evolution overall.

The floor is all yours, oh guru.
Results selected.
By what and upon what criteria?
Would my reality be more deluded than yours?
Yes.
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: Mathematics a universal language.

Post by Spearthrower »

[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2778592"]
Suppose I told you that the process of EVOLUTION began with the big bang.
[/quote]

Devoid of reasoning skills.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: Mathematics a universal language.

Post by Spearthrower »

[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2778613"]A Star has a life cycle.[/quote]


This is metaphorical. You can't construct a metaphor, then draw essential truths from the metaphor.

A star is not alive, it does not undergo selection.

Selection, remember, needing to play out generationally (no offspring stars) wherein specific inherent characteristics of the organism offering increased chance of successfully reproducing (stars don't reproduce) that can be passed onto descendents (stars don't have genetic information contains within them).

You've had this explained to you for years, Paul.... years and years... you have no excuse to continue making ignorant claims here.

If you REGRESS Darwin's MECHANISM to the max, you end up with the basic skeleton of three words.
Darwin's mechanism is very specifically about Biology - organisms compete to survive, their survival is differential. Those organisms who survive to reproduce pass on those survival traits to their descendants.

Things that aren't biological do not possess these characteristics. You're misapplying them, and this has been explained to you at least since the Richard Dawkins forum, so we're talking somewhere in the ballpark of 15 years. How is it you're STILL wrong 15 years later?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
newolder
Posts: 7877
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 1:13 pm
Name: Albert Ross
Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Location: Horwich, UK
Contact:

Re: Mathematics a universal language.

Post by newolder »

[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2778599"]...

Stood back a ways I'd probably shrink the sample by moving its start to our fully evolved solar system.[/quote]
Yet again, I'm troubled by your use of language. What am I supposed to make of "fully evolved"? Is it a split infinitive, an oxymoron, meaningless gibberish, simply false or all of those descriptions? :ask:

Sol has not yet reached the white dwarf stage in its sequence (see hackenslash, ibidem) and evolution of life on Earth has a good few billion years before Sol enters its red giant phase.
With a sharp pencil I'd separate out the three relevant types of environment and calculate their areaS.
I look forward to seeing you try. :popcorn:
Is their graduation in area. Any discernable pattern?
:dunno:

Edit: sentence structure
Last edited by newolder on Jan 09, 2022 10:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: Mathematics a universal language.

Post by pfrankinstein »

[quote="Evolving";p="2778601"][quote="pfrankinstein";p="2778592"]
Fact is if you contend the strict understanding of the subject then the Darwinian evolution process is brand new without any roots to the inorganic past.[/quote]

Yes.

Darwinian evolution occurs by means of selection. Stellar evolution doesn't.

Developments occur in the universe, driven by different factors in different circumstances and at different times.

This isn't controversial.[/quote]

Developments occur..... have you heard yourself.

Physicist could not make precise predictions without it.
Last edited by pfrankinstein on Jan 08, 2022 9:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: Mathematics a universal language.

Post by pfrankinstein »

[quote="newolder";p="2778621"][quote="pfrankinstein";p="2778599"]...

Stood back a ways I'd probably shrink the sample by moving its start to our fully evolved solar system.[/quote]
Yet again, I'm troubled by your use of language. What am I supposed to make of "fully evolved" is it a split infinitive, an oxymoron, meaningless gibberish, simply false or all of those descriptions? :ask:

Sol has not yet reached the white dwarf stage in its sequence (see hackenslash, ibidem) and evolution of life on Earth has a good few billion years before Sol enters its red giant phase.
With a sharp pencil I'd separate out the three relevant types of environment and calculate their areaS.
I look forward to seeing you try. :popcorn:
Is their graduation in area. Any discernable pattern?
:dunno:[/quote]

If the variable is the start point.

A step pyramid ?
User avatar
newolder
Posts: 7877
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 1:13 pm
Name: Albert Ross
Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Location: Horwich, UK
Contact:

Re: Mathematics a universal language.

Post by newolder »

If my mother was a hamster.

Blueberries?

:picard:
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: Mathematics a universal language.

Post by pfrankinstein »

[quote="Spearthrower";p="2778619"][quote="pfrankinstein";p="2778613"]A Star has a life cycle.[/quote]


This is metaphorical. You can't construct a metaphor, then draw essential truths from the metaphor.

A star is not alive, it does not undergo selection.

Selection, remember, needing to play out generationally (no offspring stars) wherein specific inherent characteristics of the organism offering increased chance of successfully reproducing (stars don't reproduce) that can be passed onto descendents (stars don't have genetic information contains within them).

You've had this explained to you for years, Paul.... years and years... you have no excuse to continue making ignorant claims here.

If you REGRESS Darwin's MECHANISM to the max, you end up with the basic skeleton of three words.
Darwin's mechanism is very specifically about Biology - organisms compete to survive, their survival is differential. Those organisms who survive to reproduce pass on those survival traits to their descendants.

Things that aren't biological do not possess these characteristics. You're misapplying them, and this has been explained to you at least since the Richard Dawkins forum, so we're talking somewhere in the ballpark of 15 years. How is it you're STILL wrong 15 years later?[/quote]

15 years, wow, I've been testing the theory.

Shall we cut to the chase.

My three of a kind beat your deluded bastard ace.

Paul.
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: Mathematics a universal language.

Post by Spearthrower »

[quote="newolder";p="2778621"]Yet again, I'm troubled by your use of language. What am I supposed to make of "fully evolved" ...[/quote]


I think it's what happens when you win enough battles with your Pokemon.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: Mathematics a universal language.

Post by Spearthrower »

[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2778625"][quote="Spearthrower";p="2778619"][quote="pfrankinstein";p="2778613"]A Star has a life cycle.[/quote]


This is metaphorical. You can't construct a metaphor, then draw essential truths from the metaphor.

A star is not alive, it does not undergo selection.

Selection, remember, needing to play out generationally (no offspring stars) wherein specific inherent characteristics of the organism offering increased chance of successfully reproducing (stars don't reproduce) that can be passed onto descendents (stars don't have genetic information contains within them).

You've had this explained to you for years, Paul.... years and years... you have no excuse to continue making ignorant claims here.

If you REGRESS Darwin's MECHANISM to the max, you end up with the basic skeleton of three words.
Darwin's mechanism is very specifically about Biology - organisms compete to survive, their survival is differential. Those organisms who survive to reproduce pass on those survival traits to their descendants.

Things that aren't biological do not possess these characteristics. You're misapplying them, and this has been explained to you at least since the Richard Dawkins forum, so we're talking somewhere in the ballpark of 15 years. How is it you're STILL wrong 15 years later?[/quote]

15 years, wow, I've been testing the theory.[/quote]

No you haven't, Paul - you can't lie to me.



[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2778625"]Shall we cut to the chase.[/quote]

The chase was over 15 years ago when you failed to amend your poorly conceived idea in light of information you'd been unaware of.


[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2778625"]My three of a kind beat your deluded bastard ace.

Paul.[/quote]

Your foam-flecked rantings do not constitute a 'win' for anyone, Paul.


The post you're supposedly replying to once again educates you, and your reply once again shows any dispassionate observer that you've got no competence at all. It's like you're impervious to facts and think your confident and grammatically dubious declarations trump reality. They don't. They never will.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
hackenslash
Posts: 22910
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 2:26 pm
Name: The Other Sweary One
Country: Republic of Mancunia
Location: That niggling voice telling you you might be wrong...
Contact:

Re: Mathematics a universal language.

Post by hackenslash »

[quote="newolder";p="2778621"]What am I supposed to make of "fully evolved"[/quote]

How did I miss that?

In 'one bang, one process' jargon, the proper nomenclature for 'fully evolved' is 'alive'.
User avatar
Evolving
Posts: 12545
Joined: Sep 08, 2010 4:42 pm
Name: Serafina Pekkala
Country: Luxembourg

Re: Mathematics a universal language.

Post by Evolving »

[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2778622"][quote="Evolving";p="2778601"][quote="pfrankinstein";p="2778592"]
Fact is if you contend the strict understanding of the subject then the Darwinian evolution process is brand new without any roots to the inorganic past.[/quote]

Yes.

Darwinian evolution occurs by means of selection. Stellar evolution doesn't.

Developments occur in the universe, driven by different factors in different circumstances and at different times.

This isn't controversial.[/quote]

Developments occur..... have you heard yourself.

Physicist could not make precise predictions without it.[/quote]


Did anybody else hear a whooshing sound?

Like others, I've been trying hard to discern what point, if any, is being made in this thread. As far as I can tell, and as far as this point, if any, is to do with science, all these words reduce to a remarkably trivial statement:
Developments occur in the universe.

Where biology is not involved, these developments are driven by physical laws.

Where biology is involved, but there is no conscious design, the developments are driven by natural selection.

A third class of developments occurs through the conscious decisions and actions of humans.
To which my response is:
So what?
How extremely stupid not to have thought of that - T.H. Huxley
Locked