the thread was on how why Darwin is tricky and why (because today’s math is incorrect)
isn’t that fairly specific?
No, it isn't. There is nothing detailed about either of those statements. One can say anything is incorrect. What is valuable is new theory grounded in detailed data.
I said planck’s constant is wrong and why.
Isn’t that fairly specific?
You said it was wrong. You did not explain why.
And if I was to suggest mass, energy and time combined into a pie construct removing ‘c’ with ‘t’ as the scale to ‘f’ would you comprehend what that means?
Perhaps if you offered some equations and some background information. If I didn't grasp it, at least a mathematician would. Furthermore, I can make my field's data and theories sound super complicated or I can describe them in ways conducive to discussing with an educated layperson. Maybe it's just a feat of communication.
each of the items suggested are grounded in pure science; it is that you are interacting with someone who literally comprehends how it works and trying to convey into words people can understand.
OK. I'm waiting for the science. References, data, sources, experiments... something.
The problem that is occurring is that old rules are getting stomped on and unless you personally know the math behind how they are derived then you discount what you are reading because it conflict within knowledge you have learned but don’t understand why.
OK, so you are not going to provide any details or anything, but you expect that people should agree with you simply because you say so.
How is that different from religion?
You could post references. I've read a fair bit on string theory and quantum mechanics, which are new paradigms, yet somehow some physicists managed to write books that were intelligible and had actual equations, diagrams, and detailed data. As well as theory that lasted for more than a few paragraphs, so I could grasp the detail.
And then when common sense items are posted you think it is already understood in the sciences but don’t realize; they are not.
I think science is a process, a method of inquiry. There is no end-point, no "already understood." It is a process of constantly questioning, probing in a particular way, maintaining the openness that new information and theory might arise.
i.e….. in a literal sense ‘evolution’ proves entropy is a joke!
Just because there is a process that builds order, is there no process that builds disorder? I don't know, personally; hasn't been a primary question of mine. But it seems to be a false assumption to think that just because a process of order exists, a process of degradation to disorder does not.
The thread was suggesting Darwin’s described process is true to the extent that the environment affect the ‘progression’ or change to life and to watch how a single celled child develops into a person;
OK. That is still just a lot of fluff and kind of incomprehensible. Are you saying that you believe evolution indicates that entropy is impossible? How are the two mutually exclusive?
that process is simply corrected by how energy is observed and that math is what the foundation of the paradigm shift is grounded in.
Guess I'll have to wait for the published article, since this still doesn't tell me much in the way of detail.
Then that ‘community’ of intellects who do know how to do the math are the last folk on this earth who get anything from me. They are not in the business for you (we the people), they are in the business to make a profit.
Hm. Well, I've known some professional mathematicians and physicists and they weren't in corporate. They were academics and in love with their discipline.
Are you saying you refuse to publish in solid, peer-reviewed sources? Why?
If any are good enough to figure it out from the words placed into print, then go get your nobel, if not then maybe try a little at what the words mean and how the ‘truth’ works since it appears you really do not know and why you are calling for someone else to tell you if it is correct.
I'm having a discussion. No idea what else you're implying here. If you mean that I am pushing for peer-reviewed sources, darn right I am. That is a standard of measure in science that works and shows that a person is credible. Now, there are other sources I draw on for my spirituality (obviously, I am not only a scientist), but if you want to talk math and physics (or evolution, or any other area of
scientific inquiry), then yeah- I'm going to push for peer-reviewed sources.
Otherwise, why should I think that you are credible and others are not?
Science does not work to maintain the status quo- it is an active seeking of new theory, new data. So there is no reason why, if you have a good idea that is solid mathematically, that it would not be published somewhere.
Basically you are debating with nothing but your pride.
Except I have sources, references, and data when I discuss science.
I'm waiting for yours.
When I discuss mysticism, I allow that it is only my experience, my opinion. And that others are valid as well.
I don't see this open-mindedness from you.
