We have masks if anybody needs N95 equivalent masks right now, including a buy to give program where you can buy masks at cost for medical staff, elderly, the homeless, and other at risk groups! Check it out at http://b2gmasks.com
I (believe) there is no conflict here, since the description of natural processes do not cover the origin of all life.
He was just lampooning anybody who has conflicting opinions on mainstream science theories.
What makes me think life is more common that the projection indicates is that life showed up quite early in our geological history. This is a tangent, as I think life from abiosis is also likely: As for did it come from a previous source, science is always finding nature is more complicated than any model, so people thought a supernova of a star would basically evaporate everything in the vicinity of that star. I recall, I hope correctly, astronomers being surprised at detecting bodies in orbit around a neutron star. I can see that, as not all of the supernova was moving at high speed (especially near the end of the event). What I imagine could happen is that if the side of an inhabited planet side facing the catastrophic event strong enough to kill life on the side facing the star, the dark side of the body would be protected by the bright side ablating away. As bits of the body are stripped away at the margins of the planet, pieces may be moving fast enough to leave the old solar system. Incomplete heating of zones in the pieces could act as refugia for spores and other resting stages of life. In the cold of interstellar space, some of the resting stages could last indefinitely. Anaerobic organisms might even resuscitate and reproduce inside the wet zones of newly condensed comets and larger bodies made up of significant amounts of water ice. Perhaps such a comet hit the Earth after it cooled enough to support life. My hypotheses might be proven if it is found that organisms in wet parts of other bodies in the Solar System have life clearly related to terrestrial life.
I think mainstream science is the best tool we have to understanding our universe. If I am to have a invested debate, I have to take my own position and debate those who disagree.
No such thing as random there's only the unpredictable. Cause and effect reign supreme. Everything is deterministic, that includes all quantum effects such as particles popping in and out of existence, quantum fluctuations, quantum foam, absolutely everything! The misunderstanding here is that Hiesenburghs Uncertainty Principle states, for example, YOU can't know the exact position and momentum of a particle at the same time. It doesn't say that it hasn't got an exact position and momentum. The uncertainty only comes about because your measuring instruments disturb it, (and maybe because they are not fast and accurate enough). If you leave the universe alone it all works like precise clockwork.
So, that last sentence by Hayseed "Our existence is within an unbreakable order", is an excellent way of putting it
The only bad thing about this unbreakable determinism is that it leads to both lack of free will and is impossible to prove.
Lack of free will is a good thing. If I, no, when, my brain decides I want a sandwich it all comes to me in a flash, what type of bread I want, how much, and a huge choice of fillings. Then I might have to weigh up all the health issues for each option, etc etc. I would never get it made. So I'm glad it all came at once to me. There's no need to make any decisions. I suggest it 's similar for all decisions. Most of your processing and decision making is subconscious, you only become aware of this when the final answer moves to your consciousness, and in the case of small decisions, they are completely automatic, ie reflex.
I think you can observe 'cause and effect' at work in the same way as any other experiment, then, it's just a matter of logic and reasoning from there. It would be difficult to prove something happened without a cause
Not sure about how good no free will is but by now it seems that people who have the freedom to make choices are generaly happier.
So the origins of life had a cause, abiogenisis. The only thing we don't have a cause (yet agreed upon) for in the begining of the universe. However, the quantum foam will theroreticly produce a singularity given an infinite amount of time, which can then pay back the vacuum or 'energy loan'. Then the cause may in fact be randomness.
I think everyone is looking at this from the wrong end. A deterministic responsive universe, is the only system, that would allow, a free will to be executed.
Life is supernatural. Life is the only singularity that has ever been detected.
Life is supernatural. Life is the only singularity that has ever been detected.
This is recycled old science news. Biologists think life is common, Totani thinks not:
Biologists in general think life is common since it evolved so early here on Earth, but that language capable human analogs are rare like the elephant trunk – each trait evolved just once in 4 billion years. The consensus theory, based on biology and geology, is that life evolved in alkaline hydrothermal vents. Genome trees [https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...ncestor-inhaled-hydrogen-underwater-volcanoes ], heat shock protein ancestor temperature ranges and cell metal content agree on that.
Recent evidence implies that evolution was not a fluke. Their mineral assemblies can produce simple hydrocarbon starter materials that can build cells out of CO2 and H2, and that was also adopted as the universal common ancestor metabolism. [ https://www.sciencemag.org/news/202...ly_2020-03-02&et_rid=388985880&et_cid=3228349 ].
These early vents could replicate 100s of bases long RNA strands by abiotic thermocycling PCR as demonstrated in experiments. They also concentrate biomolecules many order of magnitudes over in their pores. Another recent result is that the environment maximizes membrane vesicle production out of heterogeneous lipid mixes.
Moreover, in the early ocean the simple hydrocarbons would meet reduced, dissolved catalytic iron at the ocean interface, and together with other mechanisms the vents could produce lipids, sugars, and nucleobases in its various parts. Tthe gluconeogenesis/glycolysis could happen at the vent/ocean interface, nucleobases could be produced in the core, and lipid production could happen at the vent/crust interface from further synthesis of the simple lipids. The Fe rich ocean would sequester phosphate but the mineral filtered and pH buffered vents would likely not. Such vents could also produce the ammonia that went into nucleobases before enzyme evolution, so that nitrogen instead was pulled from the atmosphere.
Finally, very recent results suggest that early Earth was an ocean world [ https://www.universetoday.com/14521...rld-with-no-continents-at-all/#comment-159746 ].
But Totani deviate from the consensus and thus consider us rare in the universe. Along that line of analysis, cosmologists think not since we discovered inflation. Eternal inflation, which is what we see, naturally makes infinite many universes, each with its own physics. Very few – roughly 1 out of 10^120 – are habitable since star or even atoms demand physics in a narrow range. That would (arguably) explain why our universe is good for producing life but also why it is bad at supporting it (long distances between stars and galaxies). A galaxy here or there with a planet here or there will have human analogs.
Biologists in general think life is common since it evolved so early here on Earth, but that language capable human analogs are rare like the elephant trunk – each trait evolved just once in 4 billion years. The consensus theory, based on biology and geology, is that life evolved in alkaline hydrothermal vents. Genome trees [https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...ncestor-inhaled-hydrogen-underwater-volcanoes ], heat shock protein ancestor temperature ranges and cell metal content agree on that.
Recent evidence implies that evolution was not a fluke. Their mineral assemblies can produce simple hydrocarbon starter materials that can build cells out of CO2 and H2, and that was also adopted as the universal common ancestor metabolism. [ https://www.sciencemag.org/news/202...ly_2020-03-02&et_rid=388985880&et_cid=3228349 ].
These early vents could replicate 100s of bases long RNA strands by abiotic thermocycling PCR as demonstrated in experiments. They also concentrate biomolecules many order of magnitudes over in their pores. Another recent result is that the environment maximizes membrane vesicle production out of heterogeneous lipid mixes.
Moreover, in the early ocean the simple hydrocarbons would meet reduced, dissolved catalytic iron at the ocean interface, and together with other mechanisms the vents could produce lipids, sugars, and nucleobases in its various parts. Tthe gluconeogenesis/glycolysis could happen at the vent/ocean interface, nucleobases could be produced in the core, and lipid production could happen at the vent/crust interface from further synthesis of the simple lipids. The Fe rich ocean would sequester phosphate but the mineral filtered and pH buffered vents would likely not. Such vents could also produce the ammonia that went into nucleobases before enzyme evolution, so that nitrogen instead was pulled from the atmosphere.
Finally, very recent results suggest that early Earth was an ocean world [ https://www.universetoday.com/14521...rld-with-no-continents-at-all/#comment-159746 ].
But Totani deviate from the consensus and thus consider us rare in the universe. Along that line of analysis, cosmologists think not since we discovered inflation. Eternal inflation, which is what we see, naturally makes infinite many universes, each with its own physics. Very few – roughly 1 out of 10^120 – are habitable since star or even atoms demand physics in a narrow range. That would (arguably) explain why our universe is good for producing life but also why it is bad at supporting it (long distances between stars and galaxies). A galaxy here or there with a planet here or there will have human analogs.
Well mainstream science is what most of us are taught, and I would say that most is valid because of the experiments and/or observations that are required for scientific methods. I have a real problem with things that are taught as true, but not proven. Then these things become true because there's a consensus among people who were taught the same thing. It's like schools teaching about the multiverse, which would be cool, if schools actually taught the students why that theory came to be, then the students could call BS on their own. Buzz words like :Multiple Universes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, The Big Bang, Cosmic Inflation, etc, are mentioned so often that they become truth by consensus, and not evidence, or simply no way of knowing. And some "facts" simply become interpretations where you'll get many different answers, for example;
If nothing goes faster than the speed of light, and if energy cannot be created or destroyed, then what is "Energy Equals Mass Times The Speed Of Light Squared"? This tells me that energy and/or mass can be created, and things can exceed the speed of light, but the answers I received were varied and confusing. If I was somewhat influential and said "THE UNIVERSE IS NOT EXPANDING! ALL MATTER IN THE UNIVERSE IS SIMPLY SHRINKING! I would probably be laughed at, but Alan Guth claims quite confidently that "the Universe originated from a 4 or 4.5 gram of condensed matter". He says it as fact, and even points out that the half gram is "iffy" but that 4 grams is a SURE BET, and nobody disagrees. Watch the Stephen Colbert episode where he is debating with Neil DeGrass Tyson over Oumuamua shortly after it was first discovered. Tyson sat there and actually got red in the face and yelled about how it's impossible that it's anything other than an asteroid or a comet, yet we had NEVER observed an asteroid or comet or ANYTHING in nature that behaved or looked like Oumuamua. So basically Tyson's ASSUMPTION outweighed the reality of the matter and didn't require any facts. I'm not a fan of saying "It's Aliens" or "God did it", but why create some illogical, unlikely, and un-provable theory when we encounter the unknown or unknowable? Why teach it in school as fact?
I didn't initially see that there was several comments, so I concatenated my responses here:
That is not the basis for biology, which is evolution [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ). You confuse the diversity of a population with the process of replication.
But still, you want to elevate your personal incredulity above the research on abiogenesis - which doesn't say what you are ascribing it, as you turn around and admit in your next comment
See my longer comment why evolution do apply - cells has evolved, so they obviosuly, like your babies, replicate and evolve from earlier states and do not "come into existence" fully formed. There is biology all the way down to geology, to misquote an old superstitious description of the universe. And again, if you don't do research in the area, why would we accept your personal distaste against the ongoing research?
That is not the basis for biology, which is evolution [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ). You confuse the diversity of a population with the process of replication.
But still, you want to elevate your personal incredulity above the research on abiogenesis - which doesn't say what you are ascribing it, as you turn around and admit in your next comment
See my longer comment why evolution do apply - cells has evolved, so they obviosuly, like your babies, replicate and evolve from earlier states and do not "come into existence" fully formed. There is biology all the way down to geology, to misquote an old superstitious description of the universe. And again, if you don't do research in the area, why would we accept your personal distaste against the ongoing research?
Last edited:
The last option is rejected by modern inflationary big bang cosmology. Since space is flat, thanks to inflation, it is closed both general relativistically and thermodynamically - and we see no work by such magic agents.
Your ideas has nothing to do with science. We don't need to create a planet in the laboratory to know there are other planets, or how they accreted. Your idea is based in a superstition "gotcha", which do not apply.
Evolution is an observed fact and so well tested theory [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ].
<Looks at my uncharged laptop screen> No, it's not.
And even if it wasn't simple to reject your gobbledygook, you would have to replace all our science, trying to explain results from quantum field theory and what not - only better. You can't.
"Respect belief" when someone comments on science without having respect for it!?
The awful morality in that aside, science works, "beliefs" do not. (E.g. astrology, theology, homeopathy, et cetera are all known pseudoknowledge.)
There has been an evolutionary pathway down to geology since 2016 [ https://www.nature.com/articles/nmicrobiol2016116 ]. You may not think highly of it, but it shows we likely may (already) know.
But we know from physiology that "free will" decisions is a reconstruction several seconds after the fact. How else, you would run into infinite regress (a zombie within a zombie within ...) if your body-brain system was not a biochemical machine.
It is also what LHC said 2012-2017, when the standard particle model was finalized and tested - there is no room for superstitious based ideas of 'free will, ' souls' or afterlife' - not enough remaining interaction. Feynman diagrams makes the quantum vacuum potentially closed, and LHC showed it was so for normal matter. (Particle physicist Brian Cox started to talk publicly about this in his "Infinite Monkeý Cage" show 2017, though I think he just stopped at the impossibility of 'ghosts'.)
"Determinism" - a clockwork universe - is mostly a philosophical term. We know from quantum physics that states propagate deterministically but quantum collapse can be both stochastic and non-local - both of which makes trouble for classical "determinism". We can also see in the cosmic background spectra that structure formation (cosmic filaments where galaxies cluster) was a stochastic (and caustic) result of earlier quantum fluctuations during inflation.
In slow roll inflation there is no need for - again a classical philosophy approximation (here of relativistic light cone causality) - 'cause'. It is a most likely eternal process in both directions. (Again, how else. Why would the universe was future eternal and not past eternal? And putting constraints of 'beginnings' and 'ends' makes such hypotheses less likely.)
But all this is prompted by superstition and/or personal opinion arguing against biology, it isn't biology or early evolution (much).
Last edited:
This line of -again irrelevant, personal - opinion would be much stronger if you learned about the science you decry. All of those, except arguably the multiverse perhaps, are observed facts - in many cases such as big bang, dark matter and dark energy observed by many independent means, so nothing to decry really. (Discuss, potentially, though this is not the thread for that.)
Your example of relativity is backward, you must accept the Lorentz transformation that implies there is a universal speed limit (light speed in vacuum) to derive E=mc2 - Relativity 101.
Guth is correct on the observable universe, but he - the discoverer of inflation - was likely describing the energy equivalent. And it is old ideas anyway, here is a modern description that notes Guth singularities (if that was what he going for: references, please!) were abandoned 40 years ago:
You know that Colbert is a sarcastic show, I hope? The interstellar traveling 1I/'Oumuamua is now known to likely have been a gravitational splinter and eject asteroid object [ https://www.theguardian.com/science...bject-oumuamua-believed-to-be-active-asteroid ], which many times higher frequency in estimates would explain why we saw that before the mostly conventional (but unusually cold) comet 2I/Borisov, the second interstellar object.
But this is not really the thread to discuss the nature of science or of the universe (except as it applies to early evolution).
Last edited:
I am a self educated scientist and have lived in Asia for over 11 yrs --FDA said i could not stop cancer within the US (so I left) I have the formula to stop the signaling of the spike protein and have used this formula with very advanced cancer for almost 13 years with no side effects--the formula will turn the virus off from mutating same as it does the advanced cancer cells--did I not stop it in China? , left there Jan 27th and as you see China is not having virtual no deaths at present from coronavirus - have been contacted by FEMA over a wk ago after letting them know I have it (after 2 weeks of notifying them) It appears they do not want to stop this virus-Pray i am wrong-this virus is much different that the so called experts think- it is very similar somewhat to Herpes 1 and/or 2 . Maybe some of you can get to the right person--not going to be here in US as soon a I can get cleared to fly back to Thailand--All product is there also--many thousands have ordered this formula and noon (that we are aware of has died from this virus--have a 92 yr old lady with rectal cancer on it-- it is safe for a baby-- Fred
I do have a minor problem with those theories (due to personal preferences that I have been doing my best to eliminate as I learn more about physics and my endeavor to become one) but they do offer the best explainations we have. They are beyond our ability to measure right now but aren't taught in school unless it is a cosmology class at a university.
Last edited:
I don't know about the validity of my free will comment. So much is going on there with human nature that it's a hard question that my backround does not give me effective tools to answer. (no nuroscience, pschycology, or philosopy)
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
What is a living individual and is it naturally universally mobile?- Started by tonylang
- Replies: 138
-
Increasing of Earth/Sun radius via increased heat of the earth via light- Started by TheBox
- Replies: 7
-
Important Astronomy - No elliptic orbit and relativity break through
- Started by TheBox
- Replies: 63
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram