Georgina
I have put forward a challenge to the conventional view. It is unsatisfactory to simply recite the conventional view, and expect that answers to my challenge. It is unsatisfactory to answer toward my challenge in slightly unrelated circumstances, (electron bond and heat interactions) rather than answer it within direct context (electron molecular bond "work effort"). It is unsatisfactory to assume I don't know the conventional view, and that is why I assert silly questions.
I have enjoyed much of what you have said, and appreciated much of our conversation. However, you continue to avoid the question I raise. Which is the whole point of my efforts. You have progressively moved towards the topic point, but then stop just short of answering to it direct, and talk about something more ambiguous where the point I make is harder to pin down. Fundamental forces are responsible for a lot of different physical activities, but the clearest example that they are undertaking work effort is the electron molecular bond. That is the reason I have singled it out. If you wont give me an account of the energy budget of the electrons activities, then you are avoiding my question.
Speaking in terms of motion energy. If an electrons motions are a measure of its energy content, then for the electron proton interaction to be a conserved value, 100% of its motion energy needs to be directed towards maintaining its motion energy. That's 100% of its energy activity accounted for, the budgets are reconciled. If the electron was asked to undertake any other type of activity, that could be interpreted as being an energetic activity, then surely it would have to tap into its energy reserves, because that's all that it has to draw on.
That being the case, if 100% of its energy needs to be conserved as motion to account for its conservation of motion. Then where is the energy budget for enacting electron molecular bonds, which are clear examples of "work" forceful energetic activities? How can a system both have the properties of perpetual conservation, while delivering perpetual products of work?
If you would like my appreciation, then you will either tell me how the electron achieves this in terms of energy budgets? Or you will acknowledge you cant answer it?
Please don't feel my frustrations are entirely directed at you. You are far closer to the point of my conversation than most. So actually I judge you quite well. But almost confronting my questions is not quite there. Please understand that I need to learn how to direct people towards the point of my discussions, and so what I am doing with you, the arguments, demeanour and tone, are experimental and I am practising. I was getting nowhere what's so ever while I was nothing but polite. Which is all I have been until recently. I am trialling a more combative approach, and although it does rub people (I hope not overly), I do have to confess. It does move people towards my intended conversation better than anything else I have tried. I critique the critique, and call out the combatant on poor method and evasive and non-scientific arguments. I'm guessing their pride then motivates them to think, "stuff you steve I'll beat you at this argument". Motivates them to try harder, even if I haven't received the answers I want just yet. I've come to realise it's a rare person who is willing to admit they cant answer a question they feel they should be able too, or that convention should be able to provide answer for.
What it comes down to is this. I am questioning the basis of the theory of fundamental forces, and that cannot be viewed as time poorly spent. I have realized an alternative approach which is more satisfactory, and it makes me certain of the problem I have exposed within the conventional approach. I have formulated a challenge that reveals this problem, and you as somebody trying to argue status quo, will not be able to provide a reconciliatory explanation although I know you would like too. That is why you haven't answered my questions in a direct sense, because you cant.
The ultimate goal of mine, is to get people to realize this contradiction within conventional view, so they will consider alternative views that resolve it. The resolution I propose is simple, you have heard it. But you think its profoundly naive because you do not yet recognise or acknowledge the failings of the conventional view. I have a beautiful view that I want people so spend more than just a passing glance at what it achieves. How it provides a better interpretation in terms of energy conservation, what are expressions of atomic force, how did a very particular type of structural complexity emerge in this universe, a simple process via a natural organisational principle. You have read some of these views, my essay and our conversations here. And ok, you judge a nice story perhaps, but pure fantasy. But that is only because you have not properly engaged with it, and allowed an unbiased assessment of the evidences it conforms too.
Give nature an freely available energy potential and it will invent a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. The property of space we measure as an energy emergence Auv cosmological redshift, is drawing on such a natural energy potential, and a rather large one at that. This Auv energy emergence can theoretically serve as the basis for a system of compounded complexity, that makes sense of the material universe we observe around us.
How can somebody like myself, propose a theory which appears to address the question of universal complexities on a forum community like this, and nobody wants to test if it can be broken. Nobody has told me why it doesn't work, even though I speech in terms of wide generalizations, and how it conforms to the measures and observations on many many levels, and also while giving so many examples of how it conforms to quantum mechanical systems and how they operate. I speak very specifically of actual processes, and nobody has shown me why they don't work.
I'll have a good conversation with somebody at some point, although I am feeling a little disillusioned by peoples lake of curiosity and lack of imagination at the moment. It turns out that uncovering these universal mysteries was one type of challenge, but find an open human mind is another type of challenge which it seams is even harder. I'll make a video at some point, so I can make my points even easy to digest, and perhaps then I can enjoy a thoughtful conversation on the prospects of this idea. I will get my point across eventually, mark my determined words.
You wont be able to give me an account of energy budgets that include 100% energy conservation, while explaining where the energy comes from to provide electron molecular bonds to work energeticly, and deflect forces applied to it from the wider world. You just cant!!!
I say respectfully
Steve
PS, like I said, I'm off sailing for a week or so. I wont be able to write much, but I can a little, and would like to receive your answer please, if you will? Short and specific to the point. After all these pages of communication, please give me this, I urge you?
Short concise to the point. Does energy conservation require 100% of the energy budget, no bleeding off of energy? if thats what electron bonds are, then why how can they absorb and resist forces from the outside world? Describe energy budgeting and energy rations in terms of atomic activity plz?
