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

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.

COLGeek

Moderator
Apr 3, 2020
789
445
1,260
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.
See here: https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/objects/dwarfs2.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
Feb 18, 2020
3,838
2,427
8,070
From post #25:
"I theorize that Earth is the white dwarf. Awesome content. Thank you!!"
You can theorise as much as you like but it does not make 2 + 2 = 77. A planet the size of Earth never has been, is not, and never will be a star. Check the facts on star formation. The nearest it will ever get is in 5 billion years or so, when it might get taken into the Sun.
Repeating proven untruths as theories does not make it so.
Please give some thought to retaining some credibility here, for your own good sake.

Cat :)

P.S. Just found out that I was replying to what I thought was the end of thread. Anyway, the fact that we are coming up independently with the same reference must mean something. :) :)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Helio

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
Feb 18, 2020
3,838
2,427
8,070
Also from post #25:
"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?"
Is this not somewhat contradictory, or just ambiguous? Yes, man's anthropocentric thinking sometimes gives this impression. Then you jump to the idea that Earth (Earth is a planet) has some greater function in the Universe. Do you mean Earth, mankind, or perhaps some successors to our species? Then, what if we are a cog - cog implies machine. Are we invented to fill this Greater [sic] purpose? Am I misunderstanding something? Humans think themselves the only life value, but, no, this denies that Earth has some greater value, but, no, we (meaning humans?) may be a cog in some greater process (which came about how?). Some elucidation would be much appreciated.

Cat :)
 
Jun 20, 2021
73
8
35
From post #25:
"I theorize that Earth is the white dwarf. Awesome content. Thank you!!"
You can theorise as much as you like but it does not make 2 + 2 = 77. A planet the size of Earth never has been, is not, and never will be a star. Check the facts on star formation. The nearest it will ever get is in 5 billion years or so, when it might get taken into the Sun.
Repeating proven untruths as theories does not make it so.
Please give some thought to retaining some credibility here, for your own good sake.

Cat :)

P.S. Just found out that I was replying to what I thought was the end of thread. Anyway, the fact that we are coming up independently with the same reference must mean something. :) :)
White dwarf is the remnant of the star. I know this is the weakest part of my argument. Could you please respond to the remainder of the document when you have time. Everybody finds the first sentence or thing that they can break and does not respond to anything else. Lowest hanging fruit kind of thing.

I have done this exact same thing 1000 times in business development. I run into natural sciences all the time. I have never seen science this "soft." I use deduction more or less and look at the concept(s). Space science is very myopic. Space science is getting ready to move forward to change. This will change our understanding of the universe. This will create divergent schools of thought to our relationship in space not a concentric idea. I get it that you guys are following the book but that same book you guys are following said the world was flat. A rando off the street should not be able to push around space scientific theory with a validity spectrum as I did previously. In science I have to probe for weakness and generally find scientific law. When I probe in space science the space is empty.

Man is arrogant and thinks he is the center of the universe. What if man is just an ant, that has a function on a planet?

I have to constantly play the fool. I may not be in the premier league but I am always on the pitch and I can play.
 

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
Feb 18, 2020
3,838
2,427
8,070
White dwarf is the remnant of the star. I know this is the weakest part of my argument. Could you please respond to the remainder of the document when you have time. Everybody finds the first sentence or thing that they can break and does not respond to anything else. Lowest hanging fruit kind of thing.

I have done this exact same thing 1000 times in business development. I run into natural sciences all the time. I have never seen science this "soft." I use deduction more or less and look at the concept(s). Space science is very myopic. Space science is getting ready to move forward to change. This will change our understanding of the universe. This will create divergent schools of thought to our relationship in space not a concentric idea. I get it that you guys are following the book but that same book you guys are following said the world was flat. A rando off the street should not be able to push around space scientific theory with a validity spectrum as I did previously. In science I have to probe for weakness and generally find scientific law. When I probe in space science the space is empty.

Man is arrogant and thinks he is the center of the universe. What if man is just an ant, that has a function on a planet?

I have to constantly play the fool. I may not be in the premier league but I am always on the pitch and I can play.
If you are saying that Earth is a white dwarf, then we have no common ground to discuss. It is simply untrue. Earth was not, is not, and never will be a white dwarf. The only tenuous connection is that Earth may eventually be pulled into the Sun by gravity - when it is a red giant. Cat :)

P.S. Please note from #31 that I did read more than the first paragraph :) :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio
Jun 20, 2021
73
8
35
Also from post #25:
"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?"
Is this not somewhat contradictory, or just ambiguous? Yes, man's anthropocentric thinking sometimes gives this impression. Then you jump to the idea that Earth (Earth is a planet) has some greater function in the Universe. Do you mean Earth, mankind, or perhaps some successors to our species? Then, what if we are a cog - cog implies machine. Are we invented to fill this Greater [sic] purpose? Am I misunderstanding something? Humans think themselves the only life value, but, no, this denies that Earth has some greater value, but, no, we (meaning humans?) may be a cog in some greater process (which came about how?). Some elucidation would be much appreciated.

Cat :)
Yes I think you are right on. Happy to clarify.

Man is arrogant and assumes he is the center of the universe but if he is a cog in the wheel he feeds a greater purpose for the planet which has a greater purpose in the universe. What would that purpose be for a planet? Only thing I could come up with of value to the universe was a star. But I need someone scientific to form that theory.

Then found the transformative relationship between life on earth and thought this a reasonable theory. That needs to be validated by the space sciences if for no other reason than to strengthen BB or some other dominant theory. But it gets denied by tunnel vision myopia of the doomsday prediction. Everybody is looking at the crash.
 
Jun 1, 2020
1,614
1,361
3,560
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?
It is clear, as Cat has noted, that the Sun will eventually, (3.5 to 4.5 Gyrs from now) suffer a shortage of hydrogen in its core. The consequences will cause it to swell where its photosphere will reach possibly as far as Earth's current orbit. No planet can survive such an event.

I hold the belief that Earth does have great purpose, so sure, "there's no place like home". :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
Feb 18, 2020
3,838
2,427
8,070
Ah! If only you had put it like that in the first place. It does not mean that it seems any more true, but I will try to comment. This may come in parts, if I need to think anything through. Do not label me! Although I am a scientist, I went through a phase, about 40-50 years ago when I spent a lot of time on astrology. I knew it was logically not very well founded, but I was prepared to ignore the invert square argument. If you like, I approached it in a scientific way, although that entailed temporarily putting aside some fundamental science. So don't label me.

Quote
Man is arrogant and assumes he is the center of the universe
Quote

That is one way of putting it. Man is certainly anthropocentric.

Quote
but if he is a cog in the wheel he feeds a greater purpose for the planet which has a greater purpose in the universe.
Quote

Hey! Hold on. You are dashing off tangentially, at the speed of light. If he is a cog in the wheel of what? purpose for the planet where did that come from? And the planet (which) has a greater purpose in the universe. How can a planet have a purpose. You can only mean either mankind has this purpose, or some supernatural agent?

Quote
What would that purpose be for a planet? Only thing I could come up with of value to the universe was a star. But I need someone scientific to form that theory.
Quote


That confuses me. I thought either mankind or something supernatural. Now the purpose of the Earth is a star????? That IMHO is just a blind leap, with no foundation in anything I can think of. But I need someone scientific to form that theory. Sorry, I can see nothing yet to form the basis of any theory. Wild imagination, yes. Theory, no.

Quote
Then found the transformative relationship between life on earth and thought this a reasonable theory.
Quote

What is this "transformative" about? What connection with life on Earth? What theory? I can see no logical progression.

Quote
That needs to be validated by the space sciences if for no other reason than to strengthen BB or some other dominant theory. But it gets denied by tunnel vision myopia of the doomsday prediction. Everybody is looking at the crash.
Quote


What is this myopia of the doomsday prediction? It is a fact that Earth will never be, of itself, a white dwarf. It does not have the mass to commence fusion. Earth will terminate, either by gravitational attraction into an expanded Sun (red giant) or will end up lifeless orbiting a white dwarf star or "burnt out" white dwarf. No options.

OK. That is my honest summation.

Cat :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio

Wolfshadw

Moderator
Apr 1, 2020
496
437
1,060
And let's not forget that long before that happens the Sun's habitable zone will have moved beyond Earth's orbit (approx 1.75BY), turning this place into Venus' wicked sister.

-Wolf sends
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Jun 20, 2021
73
8
35
Ah! If only you had put it like that in the first place. It does not mean that it seems any more true, but I will try to comment. This may come in parts, if I need to think anything through. Do not label me! Although I am a scientist, I went through a phase, about 40-50 years ago when I spent a lot of time on astrology. I knew it was logically not very well founded, but I was prepared to ignore the invert square argument. If you like, I approached it in a scientific way, although that entailed temporarily putting aside some fundamental science. So don't label me.

Quote
Man is arrogant and assumes he is the center of the universe
Quote

That is one way of putting it. Man is certainly anthropocentric.

Quote
but if he is a cog in the wheel he feeds a greater purpose for the planet which has a greater purpose in the universe.
Quote

Hey! Hold on. You are dashing off tangentially, at the speed of light. If he is a cog in the wheel of what? purpose for the planet where did that come from? And the planet (which) has a greater purpose in the universe. How can a planet have a purpose. You can only mean either mankind has this purpose, or some supernatural agent?

Quote
What would that purpose be for a planet? Only thing I could come up with of value to the universe was a star. But I need someone scientific to form that theory.
Quote


That confuses me. I thought either mankind or something supernatural. Now the purpose of the Earth is a star????? That IMHO is just a blind leap, with no foundation in anything I can think of. But I need someone scientific to form that theory. Sorry, I can see nothing yet to form the basis of any theory. Wild imagination, yes. Theory, no.

Quote
Then found the transformative relationship between life on earth and thought this a reasonable theory.
Quote

What is this "transformative" about? What connection with life on Earth? What theory? I can see no logical progression.

Quote
That needs to be validated by the space sciences if for no other reason than to strengthen BB or some other dominant theory. But it gets denied by tunnel vision myopia of the doomsday prediction. Everybody is looking at the crash.
Quote


What is this myopia of the doomsday prediction? It is a fact that Earth will never be, of itself, a white dwarf. It does not have the mass to commence fusion. Earth will terminate, either by gravitational attraction into an expanded Sun (red giant) or will end up lifeless orbiting a white dwarf star or "burnt out" white dwarf. No options.

OK. That is my honest summation.

Cat :)
Myopia of doomsday is that my theory gets denied. and then whoever denies is using a doomsday scenario for Earth. Doom scenario is presented as the only scenario for the planet Earth, this means man is the center of the universe. This is only thought allowed in space science.


Tunnel vision
 
Jun 1, 2020
1,614
1,361
3,560
Man is arrogant and assumes he is the center of the universe but if he is a cog in the wheel he feeds a greater purpose for the planet which has a greater purpose in the universe. What would that purpose be for a planet?
There are plenty of books on this subject, no doubt, but they are either out of religion or philosophy.

In the nascent days of modern science (Galileo's time), scientific credibility came within a context of purpose. This is known as teleology. For instance, Ptolemy had to decide whether to put the orbit of Venus between us and the Sun, or on the other side of the Sun. He chose to put it closer to us arguing that it made little sense that God would waste all that empty space if it were on the other side of the Sun. :) The lack of telescopes and other means to get objective evidence meant that they had to rely more on the best subjective ideas they could muster.

Only thing I could come up with of value to the universe was a star. But I need someone scientific to form that theory.
A star is a fantastic source of quality energy for any planet in the proper orbit. But it offers no hope for living space, though there were many long ago who argued otherwise. It's easy to argue that the Sun has great purpose, at least anthropogenically.

Then found the transformative relationship between life on earth and thought this a reasonable theory.
Theories, in a science forum, are taken as something scientific. I could claim the Sun will turn green tomorrow and call it a theory or hypothesis, but it fails the tests to be one given the lack of credible objective evidence. Change that color to purple, then brown, then on and on and on, and eventually such "theories" become more apparent what they really are.

That needs to be validated by the space sciences if for no other reason than to strengthen BB or some other dominant theory. But it gets denied by tunnel vision myopia of the doomsday prediction. Everybody is looking at the crash.
Those that profit from such hype don't deserve a penny, unless it is in the form of entertainment, I suppose.
 

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
Feb 18, 2020
3,838
2,427
8,070
"Myopia of doomsday is that my theory gets denied"

I have already said twice that it is reliably considered that Mankind is rapidly vying with asteroids and volcanoes in the mass extinction stakes. Myopia?????

Cat :)
 
Jun 20, 2021
73
8
35
Ah! If only you had put it like that in the first place. It does not mean that it seems any more true, but I will try to comment. This may come in parts, if I need to think anything through. Do not label me! Although I am a scientist, I went through a phase, about 40-50 years ago when I spent a lot of time on astrology. I knew it was logically not very well founded, but I was prepared to ignore the invert square argument. If you like, I approached it in a scientific way, although that entailed temporarily putting aside some fundamental science. So don't label me.

Quote
Man is arrogant and assumes he is the center of the universe
Quote

That is one way of putting it. Man is certainly anthropocentric.

Quote
but if he is a cog in the wheel he feeds a greater purpose for the planet which has a greater purpose in the universe.
Quote

Hey! Hold on. You are dashing off tangentially, at the speed of light. If he is a cog in the wheel of what? purpose for the planet where did that come from? And the planet (which) has a greater purpose in the universe. How can a planet have a purpose. You can only mean either mankind has this purpose, or some supernatural agent?

Quote
What would that purpose be for a planet? Only thing I could come up with of value to the universe was a star. But I need someone scientific to form that theory.
Quote


That confuses me. I thought either mankind or something supernatural. Now the purpose of the Earth is a star????? That IMHO is just a blind leap, with no foundation in anything I can think of. But I need someone scientific to form that theory. Sorry, I can see nothing yet to form the basis of any theory. Wild imagination, yes. Theory, no.

Quote
Then found the transformative relationship between life on earth and thought this a reasonable theory.
Quote

What is this "transformative" about? What connection with life on Earth? What theory? I can see no logical progression.

Quote
That needs to be validated by the space sciences if for no other reason than to strengthen BB or some other dominant theory. But it gets denied by tunnel vision myopia of the doomsday prediction. Everybody is looking at the crash.
Quote


What is this myopia of the doomsday prediction? It is a fact that Earth will never be, of itself, a white dwarf. It does not have the mass to commence fusion. Earth will terminate, either by gravitational attraction into an expanded Sun (red giant) or will end up lifeless orbiting a white dwarf star or "burnt out" white dwarf. No options.

OK. That is my honest summation.

Cat :)
A doom scenario is presented as the only valid purpose for planet earth and this defies reason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY