A fifth falsification of generalizing life forces and physical forces, the bending of the space by gravity, fails also (after two corrections)

Introduction

16-11-2020: Notice, the results were corrected as a mistake in the programming caused that only the right side of the plant was competing. It led to totally contrary results.

20–4-2021: Notice 2, the results were again corrected because of a mistake in the programming. It led again to opposite results.

A think experiment (link1) showed a possible generalization of the second order polynomial pattern in the direction in time for both plant growth and gravity. The statement made was that they both emerge by evolution forces, i.e. the willing to be, while making others impossible to be in the same space. Attempts to find falsifications for this provocative assertions, did not succeed immediately with four, although it could be caused by a lack of knowledge, especially of physics. While challenging others to prove the four or to find new ones, this paper proceeds to find also new falsifications.

One emerged suddenly. Gravity is supposed, rather than to attract other masses, known to bend space to get these other masses going to the mass producing this gravity. So the question arose if a plant,  benefits from “bending” the energy intercepting space, i.e. the production mass, i.e. the leaves. If not, we would have somehow a falsification.  Stimulated by this question the two-dimensional experiments which showed a polynomial of the second order to win of faster (third order polynomial) or slower (first order polynomial) were evaluated once again.  One observation will struck immediately: The leaves were growing horizontal.

It led to speculations what would will happen if the leaves should be allowed to grow in a bending way. The productive mass would have the “choice” in a way to invest in unproductive mass, i.e. more competition, i.e. height.

Methods

We used the methods described in the earlier 2-dimensional simulations of plants (link2).

We started only with 2 plants, one with 2 horizontal leaves and one 2 with bending leaves. The bending of leaves were supposed to result in a perfect half circle, see figure 1.

The following reasoning is claimed to be logical (read for leaves and plants 2-dimensional simulated leaves and plant):

    • The winning proposition from the earlier simulation experiments (see assertion 5 and 6 in link3) was used, i.e. polynomial of the second order, concentration of offspring in time and space, maximum age of 14.
    • The bending was supposed to lead to a perfect half circle for both leaves.
    • If the length of horizontal leaves would be 1, the length of a bending leaves should be also 1.
    • This meant that the horizontal space covered by bending leaves was 1/0,5π =0.6366197 of those of horizontal leaves.
    • This meant that the amount of energy necessary to intercept  was also 0.6366197 of the amount necessary for the horizontal leaves. The bending leaves can be thinner.
    • The replication time is in that case the same for horizontal and bending leaves. If one unit production mass of horizontal leaves would produce 1 unit production mass for horizontal leaves, then 0.6366197 production mass of bending leaves would produce 0.6366197 production mass in the same time step .
    • This meant that the unproductive mass (height) of plants with bending leaves would also be 0,6366197 x the unproductive mass of plants with horizontal leaves.
    • The bending leaves, productive mass, contributes to the height. As there are two leaves, their height contribution is 0.5 x 0.6366197 x productive mass.
    • So, the total height of the plants with bending leaves is 0,6366197 x the unproductive mass + 0.5 x 0.6366197 x productive mass.

Notice, that we did not favor the plants with bending leaves, as one can argue that thinner leaves are more efficient, implicating some advantage in growth rate. This advantage was not implemented in this experiment.

They grew, multiplied  and competed.

Results

16-11-2020: Notice once more, the results were corrected as a mistake in the programming caused that only the right side of the plant was competing. It led to totally contrary results, so they had to be rewritten completely.

20–4-2021: Notice 2 once more, the results were again corrected because of a mistake in the programming. It led again to opposite results.

The horizontal leaves won clearly the competition, see the figure.

So somehow, the author is confused: Again a falsification for the provocative think experiment , assuming no fundamental differences between the forces in the dead and the living world, failed.

But two mistakes in procedural programming emphasizes that other interested researchers should repeat the simulations experiments to confirm (or reject) the results. Formal proofs of the right programming are required.

Of course in the end, everyone should be cautious to conclude anything about this mind construct .