The Wave Model for Capping and Cell Motions

[John Hewitt]

The Pseudoskeleton

Will you be answering that question?

I take that silence to be a no. What I suggest that is that the cytoskeleton should be renamed as the pseudoskeleton, or false skeleton.
This will reflect the fact that there is no true skeleton in most cells. The shape of many invertebrates is determined by muscular structures and, when these strutures are organs of locomotion, they are often called pseudopods, or false feet.
The new name will also have the merit of reflecting the volumes of pseudoscientific rubbish that are published about the cytoskeleton, now a.k.a. the pseudoskeleton.

 

[Dr Richard]

Will you be answering that question?

No John, I won't as life is too short, and some of us have to go to work, even at weekends.

By your own admission you can produce no experimental evidence that your wave model is correct.

I will agree that the cell membrane can exhibit wave like behaviour. You have provided no proof or evidence that this movement causes physical locomotion, and have failed to address the point that movement in the cytoskeleton could cause this wave behavior.

You repeatedly confuse the movement of ions across different cell membranes with the physical movement of a membrane and claim this somehow supprts your theory.

You do not seem to understand that "muscle proteins" do not actually contract.

You had an interestingidea about 30 years ago. You published a paper in a theoretical journal and did no experimental work of your own to back it up. It is no wonder that you were ignored by the scientific community.

When I look at your website, I'm afraid all I feel is a sense of loss - you obviosly felt strongly about this and put in a lot of time and effort. But how much could you have achieved if you had put this energy to work elsewhere? Give up on the wave theory and go and do some charity or volunteer work instead.

 

[Cuddles]

John, as Splossy says, you are the one making the claim. It doesn't matter how obvious it seems, or extraordinary it is, it is your claim. It is up to you to provide evidence. Evidence does not consist of fluffy reasoning about Occam's razor or attacking everyone else in your field, it consists of actual evidence that predictions of your theory match with reality. Of course, this also requires making solid predictions. So far your best attempt at providing us with evidence consists of three papers, none of which are conclusive. Do you really not see a problem here? It is not up to us to support any other model, or anything at all, it is up to you to give us good reason to look at your theory at all.

 

[John Hewitt]

No John, I won't as life is too short, and some of us have to go to work, even at weekends.

By your own admission you can produce no experimental evidence that your wave model is correct.

I will agree that the cell membrane can exhibit wave like behaviour. You have provided no proof or evidence that this movement causes physical locomotion, and have failed to address the point that movement in the cytoskeleton could cause this wave behavior.

You repeatedly confuse the movement of ions across different cell membranes with the physical movement of a membrane and claim this somehow supprts your theory.

You do not seem to understand that "muscle proteins" do not actually contract.

You had an interestingidea about 30 years ago. You published a paper in a theoretical journal and did no experimental work of your own to back it up. It is no wonder that you were ignored by the scientific community.

When I look at your website, I'm afraid all I feel is a sense of loss - you obviosly felt strongly about this and put in a lot of time and effort. But how much could you have achieved if you had put this energy to work elsewhere? Give up on the wave theory and go and do some charity or volunteer work instead.

No, I did not think you would actually address the wave model. Obviously, you either do not understand simple logic or you choose to pretend you do not to understand it – the latter I think. I would have thought you would know the difference between three and two but perhaps you have convinced yourself that this difference is a matter of opinion. I think that the reporting three as two is an "extraordinary claim" which you should justify with extraordinary evidence.

Instead you offer cheap bits of rhetoric such as "You do not seem to understand that "muscle proteins" do not actually contract." Don't be ridiculous.

You assert that I was ignored by the scientific community. Why do you not say that I was consciously and systematically ignored by the British scientific community? You might add that they systematically lied about their field and trotted out a pseudo-cytoskeletal pretence of science instead - empty, pseudoskeletal rubbish that predicts nothing and accounts for nothing. Such work is nothing but vacuous, pseudoscientific babble that creates cheap publications and the illusion of understanding.

The James Randi educational foundation is the right group to discuss the pseudoskeletal model on. You could ask readers to look carefully and note that there is nothing up your sleeve; now, here you see three theories and then, puff, now you see just two theories. Of course, those of us in the know realize that it's all done with smoke and mirrors.

When I look at this field, I too feel a sense of loss. I regret the millions of pounds and dollars spent on a field dominated by empty rubbish and deliberate deceit. How much, I wonder, could have been achieved if scientific "quality" meant something more than slavish obeisance to the scientifically incompetent and mendacious power elite who have dominated this field for so long.

Thank you for suggesting that I take up charity work. I will. It seems to me that asking these questions is in the public good and of likely benefit to the taxpayer. I am looking for replies that are true and are directed to the point at issue. I will continue to ask such questions until the replies I receive are something more than evasive and patronizing.

 

[John Hewitt]

John, as Splossy says, you are the one making the claim. It doesn't matter how obvious it seems, or extraordinary it is, it is your claim. It is up to you to provide evidence. Evidence does not consist of fluffy reasoning about Occam's razor or attacking everyone else in your field, it consists of actual evidence that predictions of your theory match with reality. Of course, this also requires making solid predictions. So far your best attempt at providing us with evidence consists of three papers, none of which are conclusive. Do you really not see a problem here? It is not up to us to support any other model, or anything at all, it is up to you to give us good reason to look at your theory at all.

You are, yet again, referred to chapter 7.

The thing about the wave model is that it has not yet been refuted. In this respect it is quite different from the pseudoskeletal babble. Where the babble can make predictions, it has been refuted. In other respects it is simply empty of predictions - simply vacuous babble and worth nothing.

 

[Cynric]

No, I did not think you would actually address the wave model. Obviously, you either do not understand simple logic or you choose to pretend you do not to understand it – the latter I think. I would have thought you would know the difference between three and two but perhaps you have convinced yourself that this difference is a matter of opinion. I think that the reporting three as two is an "extraordinary claim" which you should justify with extraordinary evidence.

Instead you offer cheap bits of rhetoric such as "You do not seem to understand that "muscle proteins" do not actually contract." Don't be ridiculous.

You assert that I was ignored by the scientific community. Why do you not say that I was consciously and systematically ignored by the British scientific community? You might add that they systematically lied about their field and trotted out a pseudo-cytoskeletal pretence of science instead - empty, pseudoskeletal rubbish that predicts nothing and accounts for nothing. Such work is nothing but vacuous, pseudoscientific babble that creates cheap publications and the illusion of understanding.

The James Randi educational foundation is the right group to discuss the pseudoskeletal model on. You could ask readers to look carefully and note that there is nothing up your sleeve; now, here you see three theories and then, puff, now you see just two theories. Of course, those of us in the know realize that it's all done with smoke and mirrors.

When I look at this field, I too feel a sense of loss. I regret the millions of pounds and dollars spent on a field dominated by empty rubbish and deliberate deceit. How much, I wonder, could have been achieved if scientific "quality" meant something more than slavish obeisance to the scientifically incompetent and mendacious power elite who have dominated this field for so long.

Thank you for suggesting that I take up charity work. I will. It seems to me that asking these questions is in the public good and of likely benefit to the taxpayer. I am looking for replies that are true and are directed to the point at issue. I will continue to ask such questions until the replies I receive are something more than evasive and patronizing.

OK. I'm out. You are impervious to reason.

 

[John Hewitt]

OK. I'm out. You are impervious to reason.

You are quite wrong, I would be delighted to hear or read some kind of reasoning to be permeable to. I am impervious to deflections and to pretences of discussion.

This thread is and has always been about the wave model and the reasoning that led to its rejection. That matter was not addressed by suggestions that I take a charity job.

 

[Mojo]

The thing about the wave model is that it has not yet been refuted. In this respect it is quite different from the pseudoskeletal babble. Where the babble can make predictions, it has been refuted. In other respects it is simply empty of predictions - simply vacuous babble and worth nothing.

What predictions does the wave model make that would contradict other models? What experiments have been carried out to find out if these predictions are correct?

 

[Cuddles]

You are, yet again, referred to chapter 7.

The thing about the wave model is that it has not yet been refuted. In this respect it is quite different from the pseudoskeletal babble. Where the babble can make predictions, it has been refuted. In other respects it is simply empty of predictions - simply vacuous babble and worth nothing.

So you still maintain that the stuff in chapter 7 is your only evidence? A theory that has been around for decades and that is all you have? And you seriously don't see a problem here?

You claim that the other models don't make prediction. As Mojo asks, would you like to provide us with some of yours? I should point out that we mean scientific predictions, which does not include the vague handwaving given in 7.7. And again I will say - it is not up to us, or anyone, to refute it. It is up to you to provide something to suggest that your ideas should be taken seriously at all.

 

[John Hewitt]

What predictions does the wave model make that would contradict other models? What experiments have been carried out to find out if these predictions are correct?

To MOJO's specific questions, "what predictions does the wave model make that would contradict other models? What experiments have been carried out to find out if these predictions are correct?"

1. The wave model predicts that the membrane will not be simply passive but that it will be subject to wave motions. This is observed and is widely reported in the scientific literature. We are not talking about one or two papers here, this is virtually a whole field in its own right, and several types of waves have been reported. These facts are not in any doubt and, despite silly claims to the contrary, they are not part of the cytoskeletal model.
2. The wave model predicts that the chemical nature of the external moving particles will be unimportant and that direct contact between particles and the cytoskeleton will not be necessary. That is observed and reported in the scientific literature. We are not talking about one or two papers here, this is virtually the whole of the beginning of this field. The facts summarized above are not in any doubt and they contradict the cytoskeletal model which demands direct contact between the particles and the cytoskeleton.
3. The wave model predicts that calcium ionophores, which would be expected to disrupt waves of calcium permeability, would also disrupt capping and particle movement. That is observed and reported in the scientific literature. It is not disputed, so far as I know.
4. The wave model predicts that, within some domains of wave particle interactions, stop start motions of exogenous particles would be expected. We are not talking about one or two papers here, stop start motions are very widely reported in the scientific literature and are called saltatory motions. Saltatory motion is not part of the cytoskeletal model but it is trivially compatible with the wave model.
5. The wave model predicts that, in some situations, it would be possible to see wave motions and particle movements in the same observational mode, so that their relationship became manifest. This is sometimes observed. For example, particles are reported to move "in concert with waves" and the physiological nature of the mucociliary escalator. I am sorry that, at present, I know of only one or two reports of this type but I would be interested in others. The cytoskeletal model does not predict such behaviour.

6. The wave model predicts that, in some situations, reversals of particle motion might be seen, as when a particle jumps over the peak of a moving wave and falls down its rear. This is also observed and again I would be interested in similar reports. The cytoskeletal model does not predict such behaviour.

As I say, in some respects I would like more observations but still data adds up to serious evidence not scotch mist. By contrast, you cannot list the predictions of the cytoskeletal model it has yet to become clear in itself, let alone make any clear predictions. So could we perhaps have some sensible attempt at discussion, instead of having this semi-religious pseudoskeletal faith spouted in the guise of science?

 

[Cuddles]

As I say, in some respects I would like more observations but still data adds up to serious evidence not scotch mist. By contrast, you cannot list the predictions of the cytoskeletal model it has yet to become clear in itself, let alone make any clear predictions. So could we perhaps have some sensible attempt at discussion, instead of having this semi-religious pseudoskeletal faith spouted in the guise of science?

And yet again you fail to understand the basic principles of science or logic. You are claiming your theory is right. It is up to you to provide evidence. It is not up to us to provide evidence for any other theory. Even if all other theories turn out to be completely wrong, your theory would not magically become correct. If the theory of gravity were proved wrong, the theory of blue fairies on the Moon is not suddenly correct, all it means is that the current theory is wrong.

To address the issue of your predictions, first of all, none of them are predictions. They are all observations on which you have based your theory. A prediction is when you say you think something will happen and then perform experiments to see if it does. Saying that observations on which you built your model match the predictions your model makes is completely meaningless.

In addition, they are nowhere near detailed enough. As I said, vague handwaving won't do. To take one as an example :

6. The wave model predicts that, in some situations, reversals of particle motion might be seen, as when a particle jumps over the peak of a moving wave and falls down its rear. This is also observed and again I would be interested in similar reports. The cytoskeletal model does not predict such behaviour.

You believe that waves will cause particles to occasionally stop and reverse direction. I believe that they won't. Prove me wrong.

 

[John Hewitt]

And yet again you fail to understand the basic principles of science or logic. You are claiming your theory is right. It is up to you to provide evidence. It is not up to us to provide evidence for any other theory. Even if all other theories turn out to be completely wrong, your theory would not magically become correct. If the theory of gravity were proved wrong, the theory of blue fairies on the Moon is not suddenly correct, all it means is that the current theory is wrong.
To address the issue of your predictions, first of all, none of them are predictions. They are all observations on which you have based your theory. A prediction is when you say you think something will happen and then perform experiments to see if it does. Saying that observations on which you built your model match the predictions your model makes is completely meaningless.

No, it is not me who fails to understand simple logic it is you. There is observational data and there is theory. Who produced the data is irrelevant. If the data set is of a sufficient size that it cannot easily be interpreted in another way, then the theory is "confirmed" pending an alternative being devised.

In addition, they are nowhere near detailed enough. As I said, vague handwaving won't do. To take one as an example :
You believe that waves will cause particles to occasionally stop and reverse direction. I believe that they won't. Prove me wrong.

Chapter 7 figure 7.4 and the reference cited there. The data is taken from a paper in Nature from Sheetz's group and replotted by me. Replot it for yourself if you like, but it is perfectly clear from their own graphs.

 

[Cuddles]

Chapter 7 figure 7.4 and the reference cited there. The data is taken from a paper in Nature from Sheetz's group and replotted by me. Replot it for yourself if you like, but it is perfectly clear from their own graphs.

All that shows is that particles can perform that motion. You have shown absolutely nothing that suggests it is can be explained by our model. Now let's see the maths that leads you to claim that this exact motion can be described to within a few percent by your model.

 

[John Hewitt]

All that shows is that particles can perform that motion. You have shown absolutely nothing that suggests it is can be explained by our model. Now let's see the maths that leads you to claim that this exact motion can be described to within a few percent by your model.

No, I don't need to play silly games.
This field doesn't provide the kind of quantitative precision found in the physical sciences. You are demanding abolute proof before you will even consider an alternative. That is just plain ridiculous.

 

[ttch]

Sent as a PM to J.H. before I saw this thread.
-----
Not the focus of the article but I thought you might want to see this if you haven't already.

From Scientific American, December 2006, pp. 38-39:

Looking Better
Advanced Light Microscopy for the research masses
by Emily Harrison

Sitting by his laptop on the Mission Bay campus, Orion Weiner of the University of California, San Francisco, is watching a movie of an immune cell called a neutrophil scurrying across his computer screen. The movie, made with a conventional optical microscope, reveals that a fuzzy vanguard of proteins is driving the neutrophil. But when he opens a second movie file of the motion, this one made with a more advanced light microscopy technique called total internal reflection fluorescence (TIRF), the vanguard no longer appears as one solid front of proteins but rather as a wave of individual proteins pushing foward like ripples from a pebble in a pond.

Weiner never expected to find this robust wave motion, ...

 

[John Hewitt]

Sent as a PM to J.H. before I saw this thread.
-----
Not the focus of the article but I thought you might want to see this if you haven't already.

From Scientific American, December 2006, pp. 38-39:

Looking Better
Advanced Light Microscopy for the research masses
by Emily Harrison

Sitting by his laptop on the Mission Bay campus, Orion Weiner of the University of California, San Francisco, is watching a movie of an immune cell called a neutrophil scurrying across his computer screen. The movie, made with a conventional optical microscope, reveals that a fuzzy vanguard of proteins is driving the neutrophil. But when he opens a second movie file of the motion, this one made with a more advanced light microscopy technique called total internal reflection fluorescence (TIRF), the vanguard no longer appears as one solid front of proteins but rather as a wave of individual proteins pushing foward like ripples from a pebble in a pond.

Weiner never expected to find this robust wave motion, ...

Thank you very much for the reference. I didn't know it but I will look it up.

 

[Cuddles]

No, I don't need to play silly games.
This field doesn't provide the kind of quantitative precision found in the physical sciences. You are demanding abolute proof before you will even consider an alternative. That is just plain ridiculous.

So you refuse to even try to work out what your model predicts, other than some vague handwaving and what you think might happen? You really think that getting some results that match with actual reality is playing silly games? I am not demanding proof, I am asking for anything that suggests your model predicts what you say it does. You spent years working on this. Do you not even know the wavelength or amplitude expected in the waves? How fast will different waves move the particles? Will the motion be regular or chaotic? Or is this all just silly games and we should accept your ideas just because you say so, despite every other person in your field ignoring you completely? As of now I officially give up. You, sir, are not a scientist.

 

[John Hewitt]

So you refuse to even try to work out what your model predicts, other than some vague handwaving and what you think might happen? You really think that getting some results that match with actual reality is playing silly games? I am not demanding proof, I am asking for anything that suggests your model predicts what you say it does. You spent years working on this. Do you not even know the wavelength or amplitude expected in the waves? How fast will different waves move the particles? Will the motion be regular or chaotic? Or is this all just silly games and we should accept your ideas just because you say so, despite every other person in your field ignoring you completely? As of now I officially give up. You, sir, are not a scientist.

Personally, I just think you flapping your lip for rhetoric effect.

If you are genuinely interested in quantitative analysis you should look at my original paper, which is quite mathematical and, I think, the worse for being so. I did that analysis at the request of a referee but I would have published it as a qualitative paper. My feelings at the time were that the analysis went beyond available data and did not really add to the theory. I have not changed my views.