Survival of the fittest/ reproducting and fixing probability .

I am still trying to find a mathematic proof to explain why life desires to survive and to reproduce in a uncaring universe.  The t whole idea behind

Darwin's theory of evolution  is that the urge to survive and to reproduce is some innate sense of nature.  animals with instinct more than consciousness or bacterial size life forms all exhibit adaptations for survival and for successful reproduction. so do plants but plants get strange when they require animal species like bees to pollinate for them.  The phonic code mostly originating from the sun is responsible for life as we know it.  I say code since the discovery that photons don't actually transmit energy though time and space....they merely send code that finds the energy as dark momentum of motion of everything where it is intercepted by mater that can read that part of the photon (code) spectrum.  To find the answer I go back to the multi variable probability thesis for my theory of everything in the cosmos.  Life by trying to survive and reproduce is actually mathematically trying to fix probability and its outcomes.  Finally I am on to the answer to the problem. I actually do mean fixing the odds.  that is exactly what Darwinism is about.  fixing the odds for survival and for reproduction.  But that's all pretty arbitrary.  having the odds favor one life form over another does not explain the need and desire for organisms including plants to survive and do more than thrive if possible.  I already mathematically determined that those who pray to God are also trying to fix probability so it can benefit them and their interests. fixing the odds for being favorable to a species explains some of the how but none of the why.  it maybe we have to think of the biosphere as on a different than human time scale and that we are just part of the slime that is in interactive mode where our thousands of years in existence are merely a few second for outside observers. In that perspective were just part of the geophysical process creating vast sedimentary layers of what we leave behind in millions and billions of years. 

so it has to come down to probability and making probability predictable.

Remodeling The Universe taking into account underlying momentum of everything.

I always wondered if there was some identifying feature of water above a dam or a water fall that made it different than water below the dam or water fall.  Scientists can take samples above and below and find its just water in both places.  Ok there maybe slightly less atmospheric pressure weighing on the water above than below.  Other differences  are slightly less density above the dam than below.  Very slight that is.  Energy potential of falling  above the dam  is the same as below that is if another dam or water fall lies below the first level.  Water above the dam is basically equivalent to water below until that is it finds itself in motion falling over the edge or down into a channel hosting a turbine.  You can then say that momentum potential is X above the dam and unknown at best below the dam from zero to whatever.  Lets then pivot to whole galaxies.  Spiral arms of galaxies apparently collapsing into the center  where black holes are now widely believed to occupy are then momentum potential zones like the water above the dam.  Nigel Calder wrote that book about our violent universe I read so long ago.  Everything is ready to collide and blow up out there in the cosmos. Most of what we can see because of the light spectrum is all about stuff that has violent  stuff happening to it or is collapsing , colliding or just blowing up.  We see the hot spots after momentum has gone over the edge so to speak over the falls or into the turbines running the generators.

Momentum mapping the  universe then we might see it as many bubbles growing and colliding with each other and we map out the interactions from what we can observe thanks to photons recording these incidents.  If you then want to find dark energy it is clearly then the parts of the material cosmos that have not yet collided and remain invisible till they do.  Active zones then are momentum collision areas .  Two fields can intercept each other causing a ripple effect or a wave of momentum collisions that fans out or is generated like  a wave.  So maybe the galaxies  and other features in the cosmos are  actually just the hot zone of interaction and everything else we don't see Is that pure momentum unrealized we know resides in water above the dam or waterfall.  That remodeling was fairly simple . Its dynamism is for the liminal active area to move though dull lifeless areas of the cosmos till the momentum collision happens when it does.  Then to see all the photons observed as code that reveals it take me some more thought to know what that does for the theory.

Unintelligent Darwinism

First of all I am in complete agreement with Darwin's theory of evolution. We even now know how it works thanks to understanding the DNA molecule. Getting that out of the way I can now talk about intelligent design.  Bunk.  Complete bunk but as for unintelligent Darwinism  I can tell you that the theory of evolution does not sufficiently explain questions of why.  I know science is fine and well dealing with how things work and that the why question really might not mater most of the time.  Why thing work the way they do implies that there is underlining intelligence making things happen.  To ask why something happens or works in nature the way it does assumes some underlining intelligence or even a creator.  We as criminals why they committed a crime.  That does not mean we have to accept their explanations.  Most criminals just enjoyed committing crimes and know that admitting that is not in their best interest when the legal system is inquiring.   "The murder was fun I enjoyed it." is what most of them would save if they felt being honest was something criminals do.  In ancient Rome Emperors were ever so happy to admit that they enjoyed committing their crimes in public. No tribunal was going to judge a living god.   The process of evolution obviously leads to more adept species more able to survive in nature than their forbearers.  The process of evolution does indeed lead to more adept survival skills and overall survival of species.  Evolution actually does improve physiology and even mental capacity of species for survival.  Evolution works because species seem to want to survive and reproduce and that reproduction furthers the benefits of evolution.  That's HOW but not WHY! 

If we ask any species why it wants to survive and reproduce or survive to reproduce the best answers would seem to come from humans of course .  Why?   Lots of rationalizations and like the criminal murderer humans best answer is "I want to survive and reproduce prolifically because it is fun." Difficulty surviving like suffering from starvation or disease is not fun.   Unfortunately those of us who are convinced that nature is completely indifferent about what happens in nature including with us humans then have to wonder why should the benefits of evolution even mater?  why does survival of species and /or successful prolific reproduction even mater ?  I suppose it might be all about God being pure probability.  "Anything is possible with God."  Betterment of species though successful reproduction, successful survival and evolution over time is not just some random probability it almost seems as if it should be a conscious process even for single cell micro organisms including plants.  So life is a complex chemicals reaction that once started wants to evolve to be a more complex set of chemical reactions that aims for better survival and more prolific reproduction making super species with super physiology to thrive in the real existing environment and even sometimes to alter the environment for their own benefit via evolutionary process. Well that sounds way too intelligent to be just something that happens with a spark of lightening or static electricity to be unintended , undesired and the product of an uncaring universe?


Am I finding God in the details?  No.  Though I now believe if there is a God he has to be pure probability which is what this chain of articles is all about in this blog.   Research I am doing in the nature of photons and electro magnetic disturbances from which they come from in mater has led me to understand that the universe does have more intelligence than we give it credit for.  We can see that the way crystals grow.  In real natural Chrystal growth more than one kind of crystal can grow in the same place . We find inclusions of one crystal that grew simultaneously in another.  Some how or other with valences of atoms those atoms were able to communicate to other atoms how to fall into place and find lower energy levels with higher energy bonds to keep them together.  If you look at a piece of granite the three major constituent minerals that are crystalized in it know how to separate and from their own interlocking structures in the whole rock mass.  That's because photons don't carry energy but transmit code and the same is true of electromagnetic disturbances from which the photons are derived. There is semantics and communications going on.  We know of dna cell receptors and they also communicate with atoms and molecules around them. Cells organize all sorts of molecules  in just the right ways to further their interests of survival and of reproduction for survival.   The dna itself is a communications device . Just one at a higher level than the subatomic semantics code of photons and electro magnetism of sub atomic particles.   With all thing being guided by probability  some form of basic intelligence via communications of photons and electro magnetism is part of that probability.

In animal species going back to Darwin's discoveries we find that one species can fill in for anther species with the purpose of being a certain kind of predator in the food chain. Where say cat species are lacking some rodent can evolve into a predator that is acts the same way consuming the same diets as cats .  Owls are predatory birds that may have evolved from non predatory plant eating birds over millions of years? Just because their food might over populate without predators around  is not unintelligent.  First there is a food source that is untapped to begin with and then the evolutionary development happens over time  because of species resourcefulness.  Too intelligent for being completely random ?    That is why a greater intelligence in the cosmos would seem to solve the problem of Why evolve at all just to be more successful at surviving to be more successful at reproducing.  The grandly intelligent ecologists believe that nature wants or need to regulate over population of lower food chain species and that there is a great chain of being where no element can be touched or the entire system of ecology unravels.  That's far more intelligence than the blind reality of nature and that's the reason environmentalism is absurd and unscientific. Nature is as happy with imbalance and with balance and that concept is just yin and yang analogy pushed on something entirely indifferent to any probable event. 

So where is the intelligence. It is in the spectrum of photons and in the periodic table and evolved into the double helix structures of dna.  DNA is a relentless self replication machine but it can do just fine with huge masses of single cell organism.  What reason does it have to evolve millions of variant species then?  None that would be intelligent?  but maybe.

So you say show me an empirical experiment that  proves there is intelligence in the cosmos.  A lot of people would say . "I just read what you wrote and this is what I think about it."   That is the transmission of a message with semantics and code that I used to transmit it with.   Then there is a better experiment you already know about.  You can make a hole in a microwave oven door and microwaves will be detected coming out the door from the source of the radiation with in.  But a thin aluminum perforated skin over the open door of the microwave and no microwaves will escape.  Everything is coded. If your instrument that detects microwaves is functioning you either will know microwaves are there or not.  Get rose colored glasses put the glasses on and you see pink.  The glasses are sorting out the photons that are not pink and absorbing more of those than otherwise though maybe not all because you see more colors than just pink.  The old theory said the pink you were seeing was transmitting energy to your eye's retinas.  there your brain can read the incoming code.  having found that no energy is actually being transmitted though space to get to the rose colored glasses and that the apparent energy comes from the materials the glass is made of itself mostly via underlying momentum already possessed by the atoms that make up the glass because they are traveling though the universe relative to some  non moving point somewhere at a tremendous velocity.  Then the photons as mere code are just communicating. sun light then is not feeding the surface of the biosphere with energy but just actually finding a code to release energy already there and waiting .  The coding then influences the probable outcomes and it would seem they are communicating intelligence of being.  The sun then is making much of life on earth flourish survive and multiply. 

Take the basic carbon quiz to find out how to save the world from climate change/ global warming theology.

Take the Atmospheric Carbon Quiz? See How Smart You Are. So You Say You Believe In Global Warming ? OK Lets See What You Really know.

Take the Atmospheric Carbon Quiz? See How Smart You Are You Say You Believe in Global Warming ? OK, Take the Quiz and Find Out What You Really Know About Carbon Dioxide in the Earth's Atmosphere. Get All Questions Right and Win a Noble Peace Prize Lex Loeb Contributor Network . This is exercises is not about global warming or climate change. It is about basic scientific facts about earth's atmosphere. The quiz is really simple and multiple choice. Just pick the best choice per question and then go to the end of the article to see the correct answers. You must get all of the answers right to win a Nobel peace prize otherwise you fail the quiz. If you fail the quiz then you might want to brush up on your science studies. These questions are multiple choice. Pick the answer to each question that is closest to the scientific fact or to estimated and abbreviated numbers: . . . . . . . . . . . . The Atmospheric Carbon Quiz: Question 1: Most of the volume of air is made of what? (A) Carbon Dioxide. (B) Oxygen. (C) Pollution. (D) Empty Space. Question 2: How much gas is in earth's air around sea level compared to an equal volume of liquid water? (A) 5 percent (B) Half (C) 1/800th (D) none Question 3: Approximately how much does a cubic foot of air weigh at sea level on earth? (A) 1/2 pound (B) 0.10 pounds (C) One ATM (D) 0.075 pounds Question 4: Which weighs more? Hot air or Cold air? A. Cold Air B. Hot Air C. Both weigh the same amount. 5. What is the most prevalent gas in the atmosphere? (A) Oxygen. (B) Carbon Monoxide (C) Carbon Dioxide (D) Nitrogen (E) Xenon (F) Methane 6. What percentage of The Earth's atmosphere in parts per million per dry volume is Carbon dioxide? (A) 20.95 % (B) 78.08 % (C) 4.0 % (D) 0.00005 % (E) 0.0387% 7. What percentage of the earth's atmosphere ,in parts per million, is 10,000 parts per million of Carbon Dioxide (enough to start being toxic to people an animals)? (A) 50% (B) 1% (C) 0.05% (D) 10% (E) 37.7% 8. Which Gas constituent atom has the greatest relative atomic mass? (A) Carbon. (B) Nitrogen. (C) Oxygen. 9. Does Carbon Dioxide in earth's atmosphere React in normal earth conditions with other gases or water vapor in the atmosphere or act as a catalyst? (A) yes. (B) no it is generally very stable as a gas molecule. 10. At the present levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and all other carbon gases put together which best describes the concentration in parts per 10,000 per volume? (A) 1 in ten thousand parts (B) more than 279 in ten thousand parts (C) 12 in ten thousand parts (D) less than 4 in ten thousand parts 11. If the amount of Carbon doubles in the atmosphere in the next 50 years because of out of control industrial growth what would be the maximum amount of carbon in the atmosphere in parts per million per volume? (A)10,000 parts per million per volume (B)90,000 parts per million per volume (C)776 parts per million per volume (D)3000 parts per million per volume. 13. Are there renegade scientists who believe that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is getting dangerously low to support the earth's photosynthetic plant life on land because prehistoric times had much much larger amounts of atmospheric and dissolved carbon in the oceans? (A) Yes (B) No 14. Is it possible for gases to escape from frozen ice or to enter frozen ice the way old mildew tasting ice from your home refrigerator freezer tastes when left in the freezer too long? (A) Yes (B) No 15. Is it possible for a gas to suck up heat from the atmosphere and discharge the heat into the cold night air or up at higher elevations into outer space sort of the way an air conditioner cooler works by retaining the heat long enough to transfer it away from hotter areas? Is methane a heat sink gas that can be used in cooling systems? (A) Yes (B) No 16. What happens when a gas is heated? (A) It rises (B) It gains kinetic energy and moves at a more rapid speed in the atmosphere. (C) most gases with possible exception of water vapor clouds that have dust seeds tend to take an amorphous diffusion though the atmosphere. (D) All of the above. 17. How does a gas in the atmosphere make objects on the ground and the surface of the ocean hot? (A) They bump into those objects transferring kinetic energy of motion. (B) They radiate infrared and other types of electromagnetic waves into empty space that get absorbed by material objects that retain that heat energy. (C) It really does not mater how much heat is retained by the relatively rarefied gases in the atmosphere because the sun rays hitting the physical surface of earth is many times more efficient as direct exposure. This direct exposure makes surfaces hotter than secondary re-radiation of solar energy from gases in the atmosphere. (D)There is evidence that the earth's surface warms the atmosphere perhaps more efficiently than a relatively diffuse atmosphere can warm the earth's surface. (E) All or any of the above. 18. If it were true that Mars could be made habitable for life from earth by pumping carbon dioxide and other gases into it's diffuse existing atmosphere would that atmosphere need to have more atmospheric pressure than the earth's to be effective especially if Mars does not have sufficient ocean equivalents of surface liquid water? (A) Yes (B) No 19. Which of the following conditions will make an actual greenhouse with flowers growing in side of it cooler? (A) painting the floor of the greenhouse black. (B) Sealing the greenhouse so out door air can't get in. (C)taking the windows out so the open atmosphere and pumping in carbon dioxide to replace the effects of the window panes. (D) increasing the sun's exposure on the greenhouse by having mirrors around it reflect more light in. 20. Scientists say that if you have a methane gas stove in your kitchen and no way to light the gas so it burns you can still cook with it if you expose it to sun light because methane gas can absorb 22-25 times the energy of carbon dioxide exposed to solar energy and retain it longer. (A) True (B) False 21. Polar bears survived the ice age and as a consequence they also survived the greatest melting of ice in the last 30-40 thousand years. (A) True (B) False 22. If a group of scientists predict that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is going to cause temperatures to rise on earth and data is collected that shows their thesis may be wrong, which of these answers should they not be. (A) A bit skeptical of their hypothesis and their conclusions. (B) somewhat skeptical (C) Angry that the data does not conform to their advanced training and logic. (D) Feeling like they may have made a mistake or entered some wrong assumptions in the way they generated the original thesis. 23. The ancient Maya thought that if they sacrificed human being to gods that control the weather and ate parts of their sacrificial victims that they would get more than enough rain needed to grow luxuriant crops needed to maintain large populations. If the Maya were right about the world ending in 2012 then they must have been good at predicting the weather with the magic of human sacrifice rituals? (A) True (B) False 24. In the prehistoric times sea levels on earth have been as much as 300 to 500 ft higher than they are today and 300 to 500 feet lower than they are today? (A) true (B) false _____________________________________________________________________________ Answers: (warning you are the genius tell me if I have a typo or got any wrong )use these answers to cheat with if necessary: 1=D 2=C 3=D 4=A 5=D 6=E 7=B 8=B 9=B 10=D 11=C 12=unlucky 13=A 14=A 15=A 16=D 17=E 18=A 19=D 20=B 21=A 22=C 23=B 24=A . Close

Physicists have been fudging their numbers for years not accounting for the huge amount of energy that is released if say two planets collide .

The people at Cern are concerned with momentum but not  momentum that underlies existence.  The Cern complex is traveling though the universe at very high speed measured in thousands if not hundreds of thousands of meters per second.  It is traveling as fast as Switzerland is and the Alps. If some Asteroid suddenly appears the size of manhattan with a depth of a couple of miles  and strikes the earth at high velocity . It has the force of both the movement of the earth and the asteroid combined..  That can be lethal to at least most of the surface of the earth.  Out in space on both the asteroid and the earth before they collide its just like here on earth. we hardly feel like the planet is moving. We have no sensation that the earth is moving. Same is true on the asteroid.  They don't start to feel each other's influence till close enough that gravity between the two causes some tidal effects that quikly increase as the two get closer into their collision. Then when they come together part of the earth just vaporizes as does most of the asteroid  that just hit it.  The combined effect of the explosion on impact is greater than 1000s of nuclear bombs all going off at once.  So there you have instant dark energy.  That water above the dam that will eventually fall and cause the generator turbines to spin looks just like water below the dam with that energy left out.  potential energy above the dam is real but there is actually no test with out letting it fall to the turbines to detect it.  The water molecules don't behave any different above or below the dam. surface tension is the same, density of the liquid is the same.  in the cosmos the energy of motion gets to be astronomical everything is moving.  Some percentage of everything will eventually collide. Chances are that virtually everything that can be seen in the distant universe because of light is a product of some collision.  That's light energy because if is after a collision.  before the collisions it is dark energy.

Dark Mater is Just cosmic momentum and photons are the code that can instantly put a stop or near stop to that momentum....leads to a new momentum frames of reference relativity. Remember the young double slit experiment is an illusion.

These physicists really don't get it. Can't get it. I am slowly figuring it all out, my latest is to confirm frequency and wavelength dynamics of photons in space by placing detectors everywhere in the space to confirm the existence and all I get is shadows form them. curvature of space because of frame of reference at a distance makes one wonder exactly where the observer is standing to make the observation. being a frame of reference then from a different view point then... there still is no curvature of space or space time. and the photons make straight lines from their own perspective but then who rides a photon to observe them? The clencher is to suddenly realize that everything in space is moving and thus has to have good old fashioned Newtonian / pre Newtonian momentum. Turns out photons actually stop subatomic particles in their spots or slow them down dramatically . The more the photon slows the subatomic "object" and stops it the more forceful is the reaction to the onward moving mass with the existing momentum. That delivers the frequency going to that of a gamma ray that codes for a nearly complete stop. I have not quite figured our the wavelength that derives from that per each photon on the spectrum...not yet getting closer and closer though and soon I will be the only person in this part of the galaxy / universe to know it. What happens is as an electron is slowed or stopped it seems to be activated and flies out the back window as if in a moving car breaking that car window because it suddenly stops or nearly does when the car keeps moving foreward.. I got that part the wavelength has something to do with how the window breaks and angular momentum. It is like a two ball transmission system I invented to simplify gear shifts some years ago ...well maybe? That quiet unseen momentum everything has moving at the speed of the galaxy and the part of the universe where our galaxy is moving is the dark energy that these people are seeking . I figured that out and a whole new relativity . Angular momentum and gravity being Hot has everything to do with gravity ...so we can now link magnetism with the electromagnetic disturbances that give us the waves and frequencies observed in the old science. Its starting to make too much sense. This makes no sense unless you realize that the reason they read that photons become 30 percent heavier than electrons is just because of the momentum as dark energy and photons as code that instantly puts a stop to momentum where it interacts. I figured it out . they probably will never will.
See More

Einstein's Impossible Point of View Frame of Reference.

Ok . I am standing on the shoreline watching a ship go by and I see a rock falling from a mast to the floor of the ship.  I am pretty much standing still verses the ship being on shore.  I  see the rock falling in what is an arc as the ship moves forward. On board the ship my video cam shows the rock falling straight down. Both points of view are true and real.   OK.   But then there is Einstein's thought experiment with the rocket or the elevator and laser light going from one wall to the other perpendicular to the acceleration of the elevator or the rocket ship.  Where am I able to stand still and observe that?  Ok so skipping ahead I guess I go out and look for black holes?  Even so my stationary point of view is impossible except as that mental experiment. I have undone this problem in the past with the simple observation that space has no built in metrics  . Einstein ultimately makes the speed of light as a constant in a vacuum the metric of space and time.    That is especially an impossible metric point of view certainly because light can only be assumed to be  in existence between two objects where as it actually might not be.  That's the box with the cat that is both dead and living at the same time.  I am not saying the speed of light has not bee measured accurately or observed but I am saying that the observation with light gets tricky where you are at a distance observing a flash of light on one wall of a space ship coming from the other.   We can test the theory by repeating an experiment with light multiple times and we know the probability of sending light where we direct it so long as there is a detector a reflector for our distance observation.