Re: The Origin of Life as Interpreted by Model Mechanics

On Jun 20, 5:33 am, "kenseto" <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Kermit" <unrestrained_h...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1182269921.598536.215310@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Jun 18, 6:50 am, "kenseto" <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in

messagenews:GKkdi.16822$y_7.1180@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





"kenseto" <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:4673db20$0$14960$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"kenseto" <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4671d9d6$0$30663$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
A paper entitled "The Origin of Life as Interpreted by Model
Mechanics" is
available in the following website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto

I am disappointed that no meaningful responds on this very important
paper.

Ok, since I am interested in the origin of life, I will respond. I
just
scanned
your paper until I got to the section that was actually about the
origin
of
life. Your paper is mostly about physics - not biology. Criticism of
your paper ought to come from physicists - not biologists. I'm sure
the
physicists have found much to criticize in your 'theory'.

There is no valid critcism of my paper from the indoctrinated runts of
the
physicists. Model Mechanics includes SR/GR as subsets. It is also
compatible
with QM.

But shouldn't there be supporting evidence? Where is the verifiable
data that QM can't explain which your hypothesis can? How would you or
some other ...researcher attempt to disprove it?

QM can't explain gravity and Model Mechanics explains that all the forces of
nature (including gravity) are based on the same mechanism and thus it unite
all the forces naturally. Also all the weirdness of QM such as action at a
distance can be explained by Model mechanics naturally.







Given that your theory is so unconvincing to physics people, and given
that
it really IS a physics theory, I think that it is very premature to
try to
apply it to biology. There isn't a hint of evidence that the problems
of
biology need new laws of physics for their solution. If you know of
such
evidence, you should present it - show that there are biological
phenomena
which we can observe TODAY which seem to escape explanation using
standard
physics, but which can be explained using your new improved physics.

That's what I did with this paper. Current physics doesn't provide an
explanation why a cell should divide and why the RNA molecule is able to
rip
away from the DNA template after replication.

Current physics doesn't explain the trouble in Iraq, either. Nor does
sociology explain gravity.

I am suspicious of anyone who rants about brain-washed mainstream
scientists, but who cannot answer simple questions about his
hypothesis. It's not a theory unless it models a significant number of
data and is verfiable, yes?

I don't understand what you are saying? What simple question that Model
mechanics can't answer? Have you look at my website? I suggest that you read
the paper entitled "Unification of Physics" and the paper entitled "Origin
of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics"http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm







In trying to apply your new physics to biological phenomena (origin of
life)
which we cannot observe today and for which we have only the vaguest
idea
of
WHAT happened (let alone WHY), I think that you are systematically
trying
to
avoid contact between your theory and experimental reality. I am
tempted
to
label you a kook and a crank for this reason alone, even without
looking
in
detail at your physics and at your explanation for the origin of life.

The physics of my explanation for the origin of life is included in the
paper. I don't understand why you claimed that I was trying to avoid
contact
between my theory and experimental reality. My theory was born from
experimental reality. It is not refute by any experiments and it
proposes
doable experiment for its refutation. That's more than the current
physics
of relativity.

Well, I looked at your paper on the origins of life, and it only
refers to 50 year old experiments. There is a vigorous investigation
into abiogenesis, and I haven't heard that sub-atomic phsyics is
expected to play a significant role.

Sub-atomic physics must play a significant role simply because all matter on
earth are made from them.





Ok, now lets look at your origin theory itself. The first fact which
comes
through is that you know almost nothing about biology nor about the
existing
research and speculation regarding the origin.

That's true. But my propose theory on the origin of life is based on my
physical theory. So what is currently being carried out is irrelevant.

Bwahahaha!

No real scientist would dismiss 50 years of research in a field he
proposes to explain better than others.

Hey what I presented is based on My theory. It is an alternate theory on the
origin of life. i am not claiming that it is better than the current
research.





You don't even seem to
realize what the real problems in this field are. Your only
substantial
contribution is the speculation that some new force (unknown to
physics,
but known to you) could force apart the two strands of a DNA molecule.
To be honest, this is laughable.

Why is this laughable? The CRE force is a natural part of my theory.
When
the DNA strand grows to the point that the natural CRE force could
overcome
the attractive EM force that for forms it then it will split apart to
give
two smaller strands. Each of the smaller strands will become the neuleus
of
a new cell.

Then why don't DNA molecules of the same size split apart
continuously? How do they get to be that size?

I have no idea what you are saying. When the DNA molecule grows in size the
CRE force also grows proportionately. When the CRE c force can overcome the
attractive EM force that forms the DNA strand the strand will split in half
in the middle.





Does this force always operate - if so,
how did the strands come together (or become produced together) so
that
they
could later be forced apart? Forced apart when?Just in time for the
cell
to reproduce, apparently.

The DNA strand is formed by the attractive EM force.....such as hydrogen
bonding. When the strand is small the CRE force exerted on the strand is
small and thus it is not able to overcome the EM force that forms the
strand. When the strand grows to a large size the CRE force on the
strand
grows proportionately. When the CRE grows to the point that it can
overcome
the attrractive EM force the strand will split into two strands.

The size of the DNA that splits is different in various organisms. How
do you explain this?

The chemical make up of the DNA strand for the various organisms is
different and thus the attractive EM force between the constituents of the
strands of the various organism is different. That's why they split at
different sizes.





> You suggest that the force is effective only

for large DNA molecules. Well, the general thinking is that DNA
molecules
are much larger today than they were when life originated, and we see
no
sign of this force. There is no problem today separating the
strands - in
fact, in PCR it is done simply by raising the temperature.

The earlier DNA molecules have a weaker EM bond and thus cell division
occur
with smaller strand. That's why life began at a simpler form and evolves
into a more complex form that we are today.

More complex organisms as *you understand them do not necessarily have
bigger DNA strands. Humans have DNA about 6 billion "letters" long.
Some reptiles have DNA 20 times larger.

So what is your point? I didn't claim that human DNA should be more complex.
I merely claim that the DNA of any organism will split when the CRE force is
able to overcome the attractive EM force that forms the strand.



You suggest that DNA molecules just naturally grow until they become
large
enough to split apart. But this simply ignores the REAL problem -
which
is why would they grow?

The attractive EM force grows the strand from the constituent broth.

Chemistry explains this just fine. Which atoms are attracted to each
other acccording to your model, and why?

Chemistry explains the formation of the DNA strand via the attractive EM
force.





I didn't even read your stuff on consciousness. I suppose if Roger
Penrose thinks that physics has something to contribute to the
consciousness
question, I shouldn't jump on you for following suit. But to be
honest,
I think that you (and Penrose) are simply crazy to even attempt this.

You are wrong. My model of the universe provides a natural explanation
for
the consciousness process. It is probably the most significant
contribution
in the study of human consciuosness.

Of course it's natural. But there is no reason to think that it is
explainable by a model of physics, quackpot or otherwise. What
predictions do you make that we could hope to see confirmed in the
near future?

The first thing we need to do is to do the proposed experiments in the paper
entitled "Proposed Experiments to Detect Absolute Motion" in my website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken seto

I do not know physics. I do have a layman's grasp of research on
consciousness and evolution, however. Your understanding of those is
sophomoric, and yet you presume to explain them. You offer no
mechanism for the interaction of sensory input and sub-sub-atomic
phenomena; you dismiss chemistry's explanation for the workings of
DNA; you seem oblivious to the mathematics of evolution; you speculate
on God and other metaphysical musings very briefly because, I assume,
you just want to cover all of the bases.

Despite the popular image of the lone genius fighting the scientific
establishment and eventually being recognized for what he is, the lone
geniuses were rarely completely isolated from the scientific
community, and they were not rejected utterly, even when their ideas
were not mainstream for years.

When *everybody in your field rejects your notions, points out that
you are not supported by the data, and criticizes your math, it's a
clue that you are not accurately judging your own work.

And it's also a reason for moderately intelligent folks who are
generally ignorant of the field to dismiss you as a crank. Why don't
you go to school and learn about the subject, instead?

Kermit

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Origin of Life as Interpreted by Model Mechanics
    ... Current physics doesn't explain the trouble in Iraq, ... The CRE force is a natural part of my theory. ... Then why don't DNA molecules of the same size split apart ... attractive EM force that forms the DNA strand the strand will split in half ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Origin of Life as Interpreted by Model Mechanics
    ... biology need new laws of physics for their solution. ... physics, but which can be explained using your new improved physics. ... but known to you) could force apart the two strands of a DNA molecule. ... The DNA strand is formed by the attractive EM force.....such as hydrogen ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: ID and the Difference Between Spheres and Cubes
    ... of DNA and the ability of cells to repair DNA. ... There's nothing "ideological" about the observation that mutations ... What the hell is the "quantum state" of DNA? ... Richard Feyman said, nobody understands quantum physics). ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Richard Dawkins - amusing quote
    ... specified in the DNA for coiling. ... but also on which side of the double helix is being ... the railing has a pattern. ... and each copy remains with the strand that it was ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Richard Dawkins - amusing quote
    ... specified in the DNA for coiling. ... but also on which side of the double helix is being ... the railing has a pattern. ... and each copy remains with the strand that it was ...
    (talk.origins)