Improved Theory of Existence for Critical Appraisal or Amusement - Smokes BB

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jun 20, 2021
73
8
35
*I would like to thank space.com member Catastrophe for his patience helping my feeble mind grasp space basics. What a great member. To the moderators we can just consider this as entertainment and if it needs to be moved to a different forum I understand. I think it is a decent series of theories that may be valid. It takes time so if it is not of value I will move along. I have worked 1 day on this document and had my head in the subject less than a week.


Theory # 1 The Bangtown USA Shotgun Wedding Theory of Existence

Big bang and steady state paint the skies with a picture that describe how life came to be in existence but are incomplete as they do not adequately address how life carries forward in the universe and are speculations based on occurrences in the past. Both theories were critically appraised and validated due to their respective conformance with the Hubble–Lemaître law. A historical record of the night skies.

They are both speculative theories on how things came to be but neither truly offer explanation of how things move forward in the universe other than a basic framework, or if they offer a true vision of the future at all, only an understanding of our past. Big bang and steady state are mirrors of the past and offer no vision of the future. They are theoretical frameworks of the past that we try to interpret to predict future stellar events.

What both frameworks fail to adequately address is the relationship between the Earth and Sun.

Big Bang and Steady State theories do not mention the magnetic field relationship between the Earth and the sun in their respective theories. This magnetic field relationship is important to understand the greater relationship between the Earth, our planets, and our Universe.

Earth is the only planet we know of that has life on its surface. This life was brought forth because the Earth sits within a safe range of a star the sun due to the electromagnetic field (I think). In their ways both the Earth and Sun are life teaming. In a way all stars are life teaming as stars are an element required for life. A secondary relationship between a life teaming planet and star.

Skin turns to leather, hearts turn to glass, nothing in this world lasts forever. - Brooks Nielsen

Life on earth has a transformative relationship. There is life, death, and rebirth. We can witness this same phenomenon by looking into the heavens at stars and reviewing historical records. Nothing in our world lasts forever and the universal space seems to have a similar relationship with stars. All things that have life have death. But also rebirth.


Theory # 2 Rockstar Theory

The Earth’s core slowly begins to heat causing the molten layer to overtake the landmass and evaporate the oceans over a long period of time. This molten mass would defy nuclear fusion star formation theory but still be a small star by virtue of its attributes. The former planetary mass would give off light and heat and therefore have the transformative capability of becoming a star. Our planet Earth may be a baby rockstar.

But the star mass would be way too small to be a viable star in space. It would offer no practical value to space. That a supernova birthing event would be required to give the planetary mass formerly known as Earth the viable mass to be a viable star in universal space. Our star, the sun, is thought to be too small and incapable of such an event.


Theory # 3 The Tik Tik Tik Tik BOOM Theory

A singular condition would need to be present between the sun and the Earth to trigger their respective transformative events. The condition needed to be present has already occurred by virtue of a previous stellar event.

October of 2017 a mysterious cigar shaped object was detected and named Oumuamua, meaning “a messenger that reaches out from the distant past” in Hawaiian. On September 9, 2017, the object slingshotted past the sun and then the Earth where the object made a few unusual flight characteristics.


As the object approached the sun I believe it slowed slightly and then accelerated as it went past the Earth. The flight path was also slightly divergent as to expected, as the object passed Earth it changed course in a minor way (I think). The object came from deep in space from an unexpected “angle” that in many ways defies Big Bang and Steady State theories.


Oumuamua was ultimately classified as a comet after it’s initial classification of an asteroid defied accepted theory. In many ways it is deficient in classification as a comet; it had no tail. In many ways Oumuamua defies traditional or empirical explanation or classification at all.


Tik-1

Oumuamua was a highly magnified Iron object that was greatly demagnified by it’s passing of the Sun, due to the presence of the sun’s magnetic field which caused the brief deceleration and then subsequent acceleration of Oumuamua. Electromagnetic repulsion caused the changes in speed.

Tik -2

Though demagnified greatly Oumuamua still had magnetic properties which caused the slight change of course as it passed Earth due to interaction with Earth's magnetic core.

Tik -3

As the Oumuamua passed the Sun the electromagnetic transferral of energy was sufficient for the Sun to now have Supernova capabilities (or potentially assume them through time). The Sun has entered the transformative state of a beginning supernova by Oumuamua’s passing. A switch was flipped at the core level.

Tik -4

As Oumuamua passed the Earth it slightly changed course around Earth due to the magnetic properties and earth magnetic field which was able to flip the Earth’s core into warming mode. There may be evidence of magnetic energy transmission to Earth. The Earth’s core has been cooling by historical records until 1990’s when it began reforming itself but no longer cooling more or less. It is theorised to be some kind of hardening activity in short. The core will begin to warm as the Earth’s molten star transformation will slowly begin through time.

BOOM

The Earth will slowly become a molten new star, as described above, and the sun will go supernova primarily to give the new star Earth mass which will carry forward life and existence. Venus' toxic atmosphere will be replaced by hydrogen due to the supernova event and will be the next life-bearing planet. Some molten mass from the Earth will pass to Venus in the supernova event which will find its way to the core and carry forward a star event in the future.


I’m not totally sure on the timing but I know it is a long time from the present day. If I had to guess it would be 2000 years from Oumuamua’s passing.

<<Removed by moderator>>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jun 1, 2020
1,689
1,439
3,560
I hope you won't mind if I get a bit pedantic (picky) to help guide things into a more scientific direction.

...I think it is a decent series of theories that may be valid.
To be a legitimate "theory" it must at least be testable and fit existing knowledge. Suppositions are a nascent phase of hypotheses and theories.

Big bang and steady state paint the skies with a picture that describe how life came to be in existence but are incomplete as they do not adequately address how life carries forward in the universe and are speculations based on occurrences in the past.
Well, yes and no. BBT (or Steady State Theory) never introduced anything that addressed life itself. They certainly helped present a model for the pre-conditions for it, but we still don't know what all those pre-conditions are, for that matter.

Both theories were critically appraised and validated due to their respective conformance with the Hubble–Lemaître law. A historical record of the night skies.
Well...BBT actual emerged due to this circumstance (redshift correlated with distance). Lemitre took Slipher's redshifts and Hubble's distances to introduce an expansion rate. But, he was first building a model that solved the problem Einstein was having with redshifts, and De Sitter was having with mass. Expansion was his solution. The redshifts that soon came from Hubble and Humason did greatly assist in its viability.

But it was the prediction and subsequent discovery of the CMBR that gave it the credit it has today, not to mention a list of about a dozen other observations that furthered that support.

Big Bang and Steady State theories do not mention the magnetic field relationship between the Earth and the sun in their respective theories. This magnetic field relationship is important to understand the greater relationship between the Earth, our planets, and our Universe.
Well...:)... you can't have BBT without eventual magnetic fields. They were there from the earliest nanoseconds, as soon, if not sooner, as electrons and protons were glued into a whole piece (by quarks).

Any cosmological theory will be broad as it must encompass the whole Universe, so one planet and star will deserve a more defined model (e.g. Magneto Hydrodynamics).

Earth is the only planet we know of that has life on its surface. This life was brought forth because the Earth sits within a safe range of a star the sun due to the electromagnetic field (I think). In their ways both the Earth and Sun are life teaming. In a way all stars are life teaming as stars are an element required for life. A secondary relationship between a life teaming planet and star.
The solar EM field protects Earth from cosmic rays, so I agree it likely helps, but liquid water and steady temperatures may be a far greater benefit.

Europa, surprisingly, is cursed with radiation from Jupiter's intense radiation. Probes must double their armor to survive that moon. It is very hazardous to life if not protected.

The Earth’s core slowly begins to heat causing the molten layer to overtake the landmass and evaporate the oceans over a long period of time.
Additional heat requires an additional expenditure in energy. What is your new source of energy? Radioactivity, as a source, was its greatest 4.5 billion years ago, and has decayed ever since.

...The object came from deep in space from an unexpected “angle” that in many ways defies Big Bang and Steady State theories.
How is that? BBT doesn't address individual hyperbolic orbits. Newton does this nicely.

Oumuamua was a highly magnified Iron object that was greatly demagnified by it’s passing of the Sun, due to the presence of the sun’s magnetic field which caused the brief deceleration and then subsequent acceleration of Oumuamua. Electromagnetic repulsion caused the changes in speed.
That's interesting. Do you have a paper that addresses this idea?

As the Oumuamua passed the Sun the electromagnetic transferral of energy was sufficient for the Sun to now have Supernova capabilities (or potentially assume them through time). The Sun has entered the transformative state of a beginning supernova by Oumuamua’s passing. A switch was flipped at the core level.
There is no basis for this. The last mosquito I encountered had far more affect on me than Oumuamua had on the Sun.

As Oumuamua passed the Earth it slightly changed course around Earth due to the magnetic properties and earth magnetic field which was able to flip the Earth’s core into warming mode.
Physical changes would be easily observable and quickly made public, but the object hasn't any properties to help this wild idea.
 
Jun 20, 2021
73
8
35
I was looking at an invalid interpretation of the stars with reference to a simple combustion engine. And I thought what is the spark in the universe? How does that spark move forward? Is there a more conventional method other than popular theory?

From an invalid perspective I think threw a valid question or reasonable couple questions. I have been brainstorming since about a simple method to carry forward that relationship between life bearing planet and host star and I thought the most likely relationship in life would be as a child. Venus is a twin planet.

There is a transformative relationship to life on earth and it seems present in the universe.

Oummauana is spectacular stellar event. Really odd. And I thought it had to be connected to something bigger in some way because of the number of anomalies. There is no shortage of speculation that it is an alien craft and I thought what if it isn't but still a powerful key to the universe that unlocks the dormant cores. A crazier theory than aliens but it connected up the universe in a meaningful manner. A skeleton key for the universe.

I added this new part to my theory last night.
In the big bang event there is a recollection of two events. small bang larger blast. That this small bang targeted the blast more or less. I say this is valid and that the odd shape of Oummauana and characteristics I ascribed to it; that it may reasonably be housing from the mother of creation and have special properties. Objects in space have a natural tendency to be roundish. The aspect ratio is out conformance for natural space.

Never give creative writers no rules. You can just make up science. Scientists called it a comet. To me its magic Skelton key that unlocks the universe comes from a land called the birth of creation. Just another rock.
 
Last edited:

COLGeek

Moderator
Apr 3, 2020
847
479
1,260
Never give creative writers no rules. You can just make up science. Scientists called it a comet. To me its magic Skelton key that unlocks the universe comes from a land called the birth of creation. Just another rock.
Sounds like part of the plot for a sci-fi novel.

You can't just make up science, and expect it to be taken seriously. There must be more to it than just random thoughts and assertions.

Really nothing to dispute/discuss as a topic of fantasy.
 
Jun 1, 2020
1,689
1,439
3,560
Never give creative writers no rules. You can just make up science. Scientists called it a comet. To me its magic Skelton key that unlocks the universe comes from a land called the birth of creation. Just another rock.
This is the stuff great SiFy is made. :) Science is objective-based so there can be a large gap between supposition and hypothesis.
 

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
"I was looking at an invalid interpretation of the stars with reference to a simple combustion engine. And I thought what is the spark in the universe? How does that spark move forward?"

A star does not need a spark. It does not burn, as in a coal fire, where carbon reacts with oxygen. For most of their lives, stars like the Sun, are about 98% H and He. There is nothing to "burn".
In the 19th and early 20th centuries, scientists could not fathom where the Suns energy came from. They calculated that, if the Sun burned like coal, it would last only a very short time (in astronomical terms).
Once E = mc^2 came to light, it became clear that enormous amounts of energy could be liberated from a small mass. That is how stars function.
The "spark" of a star "igniting" is induced by gravity. As mass is accreted, it becomes compacted and temperature and pressure increase to very high levels. At some point, fusion begins and off goes the E = mc^2 reaction. I hope that helps.

Cat :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clovis

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
"Oummauana is spectacular stellar event."

It was only a small lump of rock. Not spectacular. Not stellar.

Think of several billion small lumps of rock in the Solar System. A large proportion are in the Asteroid Belt - they "mind their own business", so to speak.
The only unusual thing about Oumuamua was that it came from outside our Solar Syetem. Until recently there could have been millions, if not billions, of these, but just too small and/or too dark (low albedo) to be detected, Look at how many NEAs (near Earth asteroids or objects). Probably 40 years ago there were 50 (if any) out of billions detected. Do not attach so much importance to what was really a very trivial event.

Cat :)
 
Jun 20, 2021
73
8
35
"I was looking at an invalid interpretation of the stars with reference to a simple combustion engine. And I thought what is the spark in the universe? How does that spark move forward?"

A star does not need a spark. It does not burn, as in a coal fire, where carbon reacts with oxygen. For most of their lives, stars like the Sun, are about 98% H and He. There is nothing to "burn".
In the 19th and early 20th centuries, scientists could not fathom where the Suns energy came from. They calculated that, if the Sun burned like coal, it would last only a very short time (in astronomical terms).
Once E = mc^2 came to light, it became clear that enormous amounts of energy could be liberated from a small mass. That is how stars function.
The "spark" of a star "igniting" is induced by gravity. As mass is accreted, it becomes compacted and temperature and pressure increase to very high levels. At some point, fusion begins and off goes the E = mc^2 reaction. I hope that helps.

Cat :)
I was thinking
Sounds like part of the plot for a sci-fi novel.

You can't just make up science, and expect it to be taken seriously. There must be more to it than just random thoughts and assertions.

Really nothing to dispute/discuss as a topic of fantasy.
I was trying to give you an idea of how ideas run through my mind. From a fantasy perspective you can bring the ideas back to Earth/reality and that they still have value.

How does Earth fit in for the end of days scenario of Big Bang? Are we just a random occurrence? Is it an accident that life is on this planet ?

BB ofers no way life carry's forward from Earth. Assuming BB to be true once the sun dims existence and life would be over for Earth. The planet Earth would die and not be reborn and this defies the natural process of life as we know it on Earth. So I thought how would Earth possibly move forward in existence and came up with my theories because the scientific space was empty? A theory needs to be present in this space for science in my opinion. You say no?

I say there has to be more to the Earth Sun relationship that has gone overlooked by science and you say that is not scientific. I disagree. I also think sciences star definition may be deficient. It may sound like science fiction but you have to be imaginative when you push limits and boundaries. If you look at my concepts as a whole they aren't that bad and I understand the science is atrocious bc I am not a scientist. Things don't move forward in a box.

Thanks for your response.
 

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
"The planet Earth would die and not be reborn and this defies the natural process of life as we know it on Earth." My emphasis.

The workings of the Universe (even, of the galaxy) cap the workings of humanity. We are but ants in the vicinity of a volcano which, sooner or later, is going to erupt. Don't be an ant saying "That can't happen to me".

"I also think sciences star definition may be deficient."

The Sun is not going to obey your thoughts. You'll have to shout louder ;)

Cat :)
 

COLGeek

Moderator
Apr 3, 2020
847
479
1,260
I was thinking

I was trying to give you an idea of how ideas run through my mind. From a fantasy perspective you can bring the ideas back to Earth/reality and that they still have value.

How does Earth fit in for the end of days scenario of Big Bang? Are we just a random occurrence? Is it an accident that life is on this planet ?

BB ofers no way life carry's forward from Earth. Assuming BB to be true once the sun dims existence and life would be over for Earth. The planet Earth would die and not be reborn and this defies the natural process of life as we know it on Earth. So I thought how would Earth possibly move forward in existence and came up with my theories because the scientific space was empty? A theory needs to be present in this space for science in my opinion. You say no?

I say there has to be more to the Earth Sun relationship that has gone overlooked by science and you say that is not scientific. I disagree. I also think sciences star definition may be deficient. It may sound like science fiction but you have to be imaginative when you push limits and boundaries. If you look at my concepts as a whole they aren't that bad and I understand the science is atrocious bc I am not a scientist. Things don't move forward in a box.

Thanks for your response.
If the Sun consumed us tomorrow, that would be the end of Earth-born life as we know it.

Are you trying to describe an intent to life being here, on the third rock from our Sun? And that this "intent" would re-seed our Terran-life elsewhere in the event of such a natural phenomenon?

Regarding the definition of stars, this planet will never be a star. The components to do so are simply not here. Nothing will overcome those deficiencies, no matter how much you wish it so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
I was thinking

I was trying to give you an idea of how ideas run through my mind. From a fantasy perspective you can bring the ideas back to Earth/reality and that they still have value.

How does Earth fit in for the end of days scenario of Big Bang? Are we just a random occurrence? Is it an accident that life is on this planet ?

BB ofers no way life carry's forward from Earth. Assuming BB to be true once the sun dims existence and life would be over for Earth. The planet Earth would die and not be reborn and this defies the natural process of life as we know it on Earth. So I thought how would Earth possibly move forward in existence and came up with my theories because the scientific space was empty? A theory needs to be present in this space for science in my opinion. You say no?

I say there has to be more to the Earth Sun relationship that has gone overlooked by science and you say that is not scientific. I disagree. I also think sciences star definition may be deficient. It may sound like science fiction but you have to be imaginative when you push limits and boundaries. If you look at my concepts as a whole they aren't that bad and I understand the science is atrocious bc I am not a scientist. Things don't move forward in a box.

Thanks for your response.
"I am not a scientist."

That does not mean that you can decree your will over observed facts,

Cat :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio
Jun 1, 2020
1,689
1,439
3,560
BB ofers no way life carry's forward from Earth. Assuming BB to be true once the sun dims existence and life would be over for Earth. The planet Earth would die and not be reborn and this defies the natural process of life as we know it on Earth. So I thought how would Earth possibly move forward in existence and came up with my theories because the scientific space was empty?
Think of Earth more as a house than a home. With the recent (last few decades) discovery that planets are ubiquitous, and a few percent are in the habitable zone, then it's reasonable to have hope that we have enough time left to find another house out there. The Sun won't get crazy for another 3 billion years, perhaps, but even if we only have 100 million years left, for some odd reason, then that's plenty of time to get a caravan of moving vans to engage our plan of moving man to new lands with surfs, sands and tans. [Blondie?]

It may sound like science fiction but you have to be imaginative when you push limits and boundaries.
But science requires that any push must be objective-based; hand-waving and word salads are ineffective. You can't argue that there are serious EM effects between a super tiny fly-by object and the Sun without showing some reason that isn't just imaginary.

Things don't move forward in a box.
Actually, what is required by science is to demonstrate that there is something in the box.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
Helio, "then that's plenty of time to get a caravan of moving vans to engage our plan of moving"

I know you are allowing a lot of time but, according to your metaphor, There are a whole lot of contents to fit in the moving vans. Will resources be sufficient to make enough vans, assuming (because of fuel consumption) they would be on one-way-trips?
That is what always what worries me about moving the whole of humanity that sort of distance. Is it not Noah all over again? And what about the animals?

Cat :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio
Jun 20, 2021
73
8
35
Exactly my point. Due to the limitations of the BB universe the only theories being advanced are doomsday scenarios for Earth. The only way to carry forward life is to escape the doomed planet. Earth is hopeless. Camus Absurdist thought.

I understand that the universe has different rules but that there is a very connected relationship between our star the sun and our planet the earth beyond other planets just in the fact that life is on our surface. If life is not meant to carry forward from our surface as the universal laws state, these same laws would be naturally present on Earth, and they are not.

Stellar science seems to outright deny natural science on Earth. I say that there is an interconnected relationship. There are eddy currents in rivers and streams but also in electricity.
 

COLGeek

Moderator
Apr 3, 2020
847
479
1,260
Exactly my point. Due to the limitations of the BB universe the only theories being advanced are doomsday scenarios for Earth. The only way to carry forward life is to escape the doomed planet. Earth is hopeless. Camus Absurdist thought.

I understand that the universe has different rules but that there is a very connected relationship between our star the sun and our planet the earth beyond other planets just in the fact that life is on our surface. If life is not meant to carry forward from our surface as the universal laws state, these same laws would be naturally present on Earth, and they are not.

Stellar science seems to outright deny natural science on Earth. I say that there is an interconnected relationship. There are eddy currents in rivers and streams but also in electricity.
And your sources for these relationships (other than your thoughts) are where?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oh_My_Stars
Jun 1, 2020
1,689
1,439
3,560
Helio, "then that's plenty of time to get a caravan of moving vans to engage our plan of moving"

I know you are allowing a lot of time but, according to your metaphor, There are a whole lot of contents to fit in the moving vans. Will resources be sufficient to make enough vans, assuming (because of fuel consumption) they would be on one-way-trips?
That is what always what worries me about moving the whole of humanity that sort of distance. Is it not Noah all over again? And what about the animals?
Spaceships are not an unknown concept, of course. Even space stations are something we have had for decades. So, the question becomes can we supercharge these concepts into something seen in, say, Passenger, or the game Mass Effect.

The only things required are materials and fuel. There is an abundance of materials, and with fusion technology (only "50 years away". ;)), or matter-antimatter systems, then it is fairly reasonable to suggest we could present a long-term migration plan. First a few dozen pioneers, then a few hundred to prepare for the next few thousand, and so forth.

It's unlikely all would go, or that even most would go. The plan would be implemented long before Earth got into its final stages to accommodate a reasonably "normal" life. Thus, the latter generations who stay would simply enjoy what they have here, but produce fewer and fewer offspring. [The current rate is below maintaining our population now, at least for the US and likely Europe.]

There is reason to have some optimism we won't destroy each other. Just look how long I've lasted here! ;)
 
Jun 20, 2021
73
8
35
And your sources for these relationships (other than your thoughts) are where?
Can you state that anything in my previous comment is not valid scientifically?

It is new original thought. I was trying to move forward scientific debate that is stale. In this case it is more philosophical debate than scientific but it has stellar value.

You have to think beyond doomsday. Beyond Camus. If life or existence is not hopeless what is is it? Hopeful. How could Earth be hopeful? Maybe the Earth has some greater function in the universe? Do things happen for no reason? It is reasonable that Planet Earth has a greater function than simply being a life bearing planet for humans.

Man has a tendency to only think about himself.

Entertainment debate according to you. Looks like science to me.

To keep it legal. What is your favorite Game of Thrones episode?
 
Last edited:
Jun 20, 2021
73
8
35
Spaceships are not an unknown concept, of course. Even space stations are something we have had for decades. So, the question becomes can we supercharge these concepts into something seen in, say, Passenger, or the game Mass Effect.

The only things required are materials and fuel. There is an abundance of materials, and with fusion technology (only "50 years away". ;)), or matter-antimatter systems, then it is fairly reasonable to suggest we could present a long-term migration plan. First a few dozen pioneers, then a few hundred to prepare for the next few thousand, and so forth.

It's unlikely all would go, or that even most would go. The plan would be implemented long before Earth got into its final stages to accommodate a reasonably "normal" life. Thus, the latter generations who stay would simply enjoy what they have here, but produce fewer and fewer offspring. [The current rate is below maintaining our population now, at least for the US and likely Europe.]

There is reason to have some optimism we won't destroy each other. Just look how long I've lasted here! ;)
Spaceships are escaping the doomed planet Earth. This stagnant Camus thought. What if Earth is not doomed and has a greater purpose in the universe?
 

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
"Man has a tendency to only think about himself."
"What if Earth is not doomed and has a greater purpose in the universe?"

All this is terribly anthropocentric. Why should man thinking only about himself affect the Universe in any way? Why should an ant thinking only about its cooperative work think that it affects what goes on in UK government? or affects the moons of Pluto?

How on earth (yes, small 'e') is (planet) Earth supposed to have a purpose? Do Deimos and Phobos have a purpose in orbiting Mars? . . . does such purpose include their being captured asteroids?

Incidentally, (planet) Earth is certainly doomed, because we know that stars like the Sun go through a phase of expanding into a red giant and, even if this did not kill off the planet, the ultimate white dwarf and its successor would not warm any vestige of Earth that remained.
And if Earth survives the next 5 billion years et seq what 'on earth' would there be left to have a purpose? At best, to continue to orbit a dying star.

OMS (if I may so abbreviate your name - you can call me Cat)
You may think that I am being critical, but my motive is constructive, not destructive. If you are going to produce theories (and good luck to you) you have to be able to justify and defend them (if they are defensible). Better 'cut your teeth' here, than find the problems at a meeting of the Royal Astronomical Society. So don't think that I am out to get you. Actually, quite the opposite is the case. This does not mean that I am here to defend the theories (that you said you were going to email me) on which you could have had my comments in private, but you chose (perhaps bravely) to 'put your head in the lion's mouth'. So you forced me into giving my comments in open forum. Do not blame me for that.

Cat :)
 

COLGeek

Moderator
Apr 3, 2020
847
479
1,260
Can you state that anything in my previous comment is not valid scientifically?

It is new original thought. I was trying to move forward scientific debate that is stale. In this case it is more philosophical debate than scientific but it has stellar value.

You have to think beyond doomsday. Beyond Camus. If life or existence is not hopeless what is is it? Hopeful. How could Earth be hopeful? Maybe the Earth has some greater function in the universe? Do things happen for no reason? It is reasonable that Planet Earth has a greater function than simply being a life bearing planet for humans.

Man has a tendency to only think about himself.

Entertainment debate according to you. Looks like science to me.

To keep it legal. What is your favorite Game of Thrones episode?
Legal? Seriously? GoT is not on my list of shows to watch. I found the books boring and circuitous, at best.

You are entitled to your beliefs and thoughts. What you can't expect is for your beliefs, thoughts, or however you would like to label them, to be taken seriously without objective, substantive evidence. That is what folks are trying to explain to you.

Per your earlier statement, stellar science (as you put it) and natural science are one and the same, from a matter of perspective. One does not exclude the other. Both rely upon the same physics, chemistry, etc. Scale may be different, but the underlying science is the same.

Thinking something does not make it so. Good luck, I am done here.

Postscript: BTW, I too am hopeful than mankind will one day explore space, in person. It is not terribly likely, given the hostility of space regarding carbon-based life, and our limited technology to overcome those obstacles. Still it is something to aspire to. Just hope we don't break this planet before we figure it out.

There is no place like 127.0.0.1.
 
Jun 20, 2021
73
8
35
"Man has a tendency to only think about himself."
"What if Earth is not doomed and has a greater purpose in the universe?"

All this is terribly anthropocentric. Why should man thinking only about himself affect the Universe in any way? Why should an ant thinking only about its cooperative work think that it affects what goes on in UK government? or affects the moons of Pluto?

How on earth (yes, small 'e') is (planet) Earth supposed to have a purpose? Do Deimos and Phobos have a purpose in orbiting Mars? . . . does such purpose include their being captured asteroids?

Incidentally, (planet) Earth is certainly doomed, because we know that stars like the Sun go through a phase of expanding into a red giant and, even if this did not kill off the planet, the ultimate white dwarf and its successor would not warm any vestige of Earth that remained.
And if Earth survives the next 5 billion years et seq what 'on earth' would there be left to have a purpose? At best, to continue to orbit a dying star.

OMS (if I may so abbreviate your name - you can call me Cat)
You may think that I am being critical, but my motive is constructive, not destructive. If you are going to produce theories (and good luck to you) you have to be able to justify and defend them (if they are defensible). Better 'cut your teeth' here, than find the problems at a meeting of the Royal Astronomical Society. So don't think that I am out to get you. Actually, quite the opposite is the case. This does not mean that I am here to defend the theories (that you said you were going to email me) on which you could have had my comments in private, but you chose (perhaps bravely) to 'put your head in the lion's mouth'. So you forced me into giving my comments in open forum. Do not blame me for that.

Cat :)
What is the scientific theory to how a white dwarf forms? Why don't 30 or 100 of them form? I theorize that Earth is the white dwarf. Awesome content. Thank you!!

If you state that Earth is certainly doomed you effectively deny existence in many ways. Hopelessness Camus. Man has been thinking that same thought for 80 years. It is why nothing moves forward and we reboot the 1960's. If you open yourself up to other possibilities outside your comfort zone it breaks the thought pattern and moves the science forward. A leap of faith. You do not have to believe you just have to be open to the possibility. Hopeful. A slight change in perception. Man's perception is stifled by hopelessness.

We can only be most likely doomed to avoid existential argument. Compromise or agree to disagree? Pragmatically if the only possibility were doom life would have never come into existence.

Humans think of carrying forward their human life as the only life value of planet earth. This denies that the Earth had any other greater function in the universe. What if we are just a cog in the Greater wheel of the universe?

Everything on Earth has a transformative relationship it is not unlikely to assume that earth itself is transformative. That would give the Earth value and reason in the Universe.


Why should man thinking only about himself affect the Universe in any way? Man is the only conscious being known.

Why should an ant thinking only about its cooperative work think that it affects what goes on in UK government? An Ant has a natural function in the natural world and is thought to be incapable of thought. Why does man have consciousness?

What is the function of our planet in the space of our solar system? Our planet is unique. Why? Does this unique planet have a higher function or do something different? That is reasonable.

How on earth (yes, small 'e') is (planet) Earth supposed to have a purpose? Hoplessness can't truly exist unless you are open to the prospect of hope. You effectively deny the prospect of hope.

Do Deimos and Phobos have a purpose in orbiting Mars? . . . does such purpose include their being captured asteroids? Lifeless planets are hopeless by design. No life. No hopes. Our planet has life and a different natural design than hopelessness. Life carrys forward on our planet. How does Earth defy the universal laws? In your mind is it an accident? Would you be open to considering that it was not? I think to be fair you have to consider the reasonable alternatives. If one thing is true the opposite can be true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY