Possibilities!!!

  • Thread starter emperor_of_localgroup
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest
so far all we know is we are drifting in space sitting on the top of a planet along with our star near the edge of our milky way galaxy. we grew up in water from small cells to big animals over time. but we know nothing about the universe, where it came from, who made it, where all these matter came from, etc. this thread is to speculate the possibilites until science tells us exactly what this universe is? here is my speculation:<br />this universe is the dumping ground of waste products (matter) of a larger and better universe. we grew up naturally following the properties of matter from this waste products. just like if we throw away our waste products, certain organisms grows there naturally over time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>
 
N

newtonian

Guest
emperor (local) - Our universe is actually fine tuned for life, and very complex in said fine tuning. <br /><br />Such fine tuning would require incredible intelligence and power.<br /><br />For one of many examples, note the expansion rate of our universe.<br /><br />If it had started out oh so slightly slower it would have collapsed by now.<br /><br />If it had started out expanding oh so slightly faster no stars could have formed.<br /><br />For an older estimate of this math, before acceleration of expansion was discovered scientifically (it is hinted at in Isaiah 40:22):<br /><br />"If the Universe had expanded one million millionth part faster," said Lovell, "then all the material in the Universe would have dispersed by now. . . . And if it had been a million millionth part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the Universe to collapse within the first thousand million years or so of its existence. Again, there would have been no long-lived stars and no life."<br /><br />That would be astronomer Sir Bernard Lovell.<br /><br />And all 4 forces of physics are also fine tuned for life.<br /><br />And when you go into depth in scientific research, the fine tuning becomes even more complex and amazing.<br /><br />For example, there is the triple matching of the nuclear resonances (vibrations) of Helium, Berrylium and carbon which allows carbon synthesis in certain stars.<br /><br />Without even just this one case of extreme fine tuning there could be no life, since without this there would only be hydrogen, helium and a little lithium in our entire universe!
 
A

alokmohan

Guest
Are brain cannot grab much now.We have just elementary knowledge of survival.We may keep on observing and that too witin our limited senses.We are three dimensional only.
 
E

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest
newton, im aware of most prevailing theories about universe's start and end. but i have to slightly disagree with you, the design is powerful? yes. is it complex? yes. is it mysterious? yes. is it intelligent? questionable. the reason everything seem like fit together is because that is HOW (not why) we are born (created). Your argument is conditions are created for our birth. my argument is we were born becuase conditions are met. a slight variation, then we wont be here. some other species may be. I just wanted to see some speculation, to see how far human imagination can go. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>
 
E

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest
yes, i know very well that with the present level of our intelligence there's no way to find the real truth. im also very convinced someday in the future this mystery will be solved. until then just mathematical and logical speculation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>
 
M

mooware

Guest
Emperor. I have to agree that life arose from existing conditions not because of fiddling with a cosmic control board.<br /><br />newt: <font color="yellow">Such fine tuning would require incredible intelligence and power"</font><br /><br />That's just shear speculation. argumentum ad ignorantiam if you will.<br /><br />There is no evidence that if you change the parameter of even one of the formula's for life, then life won't exist. Some type of life may exist and persist. There is just no evidence either way.<br /><br />newt:<font color="yellow">or an older estimate of this math, before acceleration of expansion was discovered scientifically (it is hinted at in Isaiah 40:22)</font><br /><br />The Biblical ref didn't take long. There you go bringing god into it again.<br /><br />Anyway, welcome Emperor..<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
 
D

dragon04

Guest
Newtonian.... I'm more inclined to ascribe to the view of an infinity of universes where some are just right for life and some are not.<br /><br />That doesn't preclude the possibility that our Universe wasn't created in some lab outside our dimension, but that brings up the troubling question of "where did God come from"?<br /><br />"He has always been here" is a fairly distasteful and very unscientific answer.<br /><br />While I believe that the "God" described in the Bible was a real being, I don't neccesarily believe the magic, smoke, and mirror explanation of Creation.<br /><br />I DO however believe that the people in the era when the Bible was authored were given an explanation they could grasp.<br /><br />Had the world been atheistic until the 20th Century and "God" shown up, I truly believe that the Bible would be taught in Science classes rather than in churches. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>
 
L

lewcos

Guest
I think every atom has a universe in it and every universe is but an atom.
 
E

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest
the reason i said our universe is a dumping ground of waste and that 'life' is not the primary intention in this universe is the matter to life ratio in the universe is extremely high. even in this solar system only 1 planet has life compared to the mass of the solar system. from the knowledge we have so far it is safe to say the universe is overwhelmingly filled with inanimate matters. this hints towards a purpose of creation of the universe, it is 'matter' not 'life'. in other words, the universe is vastly empty or lumps of matters - an apparent wasteland. <br /><br />@Dragon: i hate to use the word 'god' , becuase it has a religious connotation. but when i use 'god' , i mean 'something' which does not have the magical power of any of the religious god. We always face with the question 'if there's something behind all these, who created him?' Can it be evolution? why cant this 'god' and 'universe' be evolved like chicken-egg, mother-baby? <br /> <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>
 
E

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest
lewcos, that's also an interesting observation. i myself always have tempted to compare an atom with a solar system regardless of the type of forces involved. imagine the day we discover a gigantic nucleus of the universe at the center. my guess is many theories have to be changed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>
 
N

newtonian

Guest
emporor - I did not say the design is mysterious. However, consider a mystery as something science is interested in solving and we will be in more agreement.<br /><br />Just accepting something with the phrase "Its a mystery" is anathema to me, and it stifles scientific progress in the search for cause and effect.<br /><br />Not that you meant that, btw. Just wanted you to know my position - mysteries or unanswered questions are meant to be solved or answered.<br /><br />Can you make clear your distinction of How vs. Why? For example, I see stellar synthesis of carbon as both how and why we exist, although it is but one of many cases of fine tuning that allows life (as we know it) to exist. <br />You posted:<br /><br />"Your argument is conditions are created for our birth. my argument is we were born becuase conditions are met. a slight variation, then we wont be here. some other species may be."<br /><br />Ok, lets go with that to a logical conclusion.<br /><br />What other species would be here if that exact triple matching of Helium, Beryllium and carbon did not exist? <br /><br />In other words, what species would exist if carbon did not exist in our universe?
 
N

newtonian

Guest
mooware - You clearly would like to eliminate God's existence as a possibility. However, I have a totally different mindset. That should not make meaningful scientific discussion of the issues difficult between us. Scientists of different mindsets do it all the time!<br /><br />Remember emperor wants possibilities posted. That is thread theme. Some scientists agree with me that God is a possibility.<br /><br />Now, you posted:<br /><br />"There is no evidence that if you change the parameter of even one of the formula's for life, then life won't exist. Some type of life may exist and persist. There is just no evidence either way." <br /><br />Well, that is a sure way to end scientific research! Just ignoring evidence that is posted as if it was not posted, rather than addressing the posted evidence specifically and in a scientific manner.<br /><br />The exact triple matching of Helium, Beryllium and carbon as respects their nuclear resonance is a real subject of scientific research.<br /><br />And many scientists, I am not alone, agree that stellar synthesis of carbon is crucial to life as we know it.<br /><br />As I asked emperor, now in different words:<br /><br />What evidence do you have that life could exist without the stellar synthesis of carbon?<br /><br />BTW - I agree life could exist and does without carbon - but I am way more than curious why you agree.
 
L

lewcos

Guest
Although I am not very religious, I enjoy Newts attempts to connect science and religion - we don't have to all believe it, but at least someone is exploring the possibilities and doing quite a bit of work to look for and explain possible connections between the two. <br /><br />I say we listen to all possibilities as NOBODY really KNOWS much anyway <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />
 
M

mooware

Guest
<font color="yellow">"You clearly would like to eliminate God's existence as a possibility"</font><br /><br />I don't see any tangible evidence that a god exists. To offer up "fine tuning" as evidence of a god is not sufficient. let alone your version of god. Again, i don't believe in a cosmic control board. Life arose from existing conditions, not because someone fiddled with them. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">Remember emperor wants possibilities posted. That is thread theme. Some scientists agree with me that God is a possibility."</font><br /><br />Yes, I do remember. Contrary to your belief I'm not dense. Also, I'm not the one who posted the biblical ref am I? The bible is not a scientific text book. It's a book related to your theology, not hard core science.<br /><br />I stated that life arose from existing circumstance. So, I've offered my possibility. As well as the possibility that the JW god had nothing to do with it. So why do you feel I haven't contributed?<br /><br /><br /><br />
 
N

newtonian

Guest
mooware - You have not yet responded to the tangible evidence I posted. <br /><br />Again, what form of life do you believe would exist without stellar synthesis of carbon, and the fine tuning of 3 atomic nuclear resonances that makes this synthesis possible?<br /><br />Why not address the actual scientific research involved instead of getting hung up on whether God exists or not?<br /><br />I didn't say you were dense. Although, you are way more dense than the IGM or even the ISM!<br /><br />I agree the Bible is not a scientific textbook - ah we agree on something!<br /><br />What is hard core science, and how does it differ from the Bible as you assert?<br /><br />Like Isaac Newton, I see no conflict between the Bible and science.<br /><br />BTW - what is a cosmic control board??????<br /><br />And please explain, again, how life could have arose without carbon.<br /><br />I repeat I agree with you, but I am way more than curious why you believe this. <br /><br />I'll give you a hint why I believe this:<br /><br />Life requires informational arrangements so complex that non-repeating sequences must be incorporated. While most molecules cannot contain this degree of non-repeating sequences, and DNA is well designed to contain such information, nevertheless it is possible that information can likely be contained in purely energy based sequences that are non-repeating.<br /><br />Now, please explain why you believe as you do.
 
M

mooware

Guest
<font color="yellow">"You have not yet responded to the tangible evidence I posted. "</font><br /><br />Tangible evidence you posted regarding the existence of a god, or the tangible evidence you posted that the universe was purposly fine tuned, or both? Well, in any event, biblical scripture is not tangible evidence, it's interpretation.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Again, what form of life do you believe would exist without stellar synthesis of carbon, and the fine tuning of 3 atomic nuclear resonances that makes this synthesis possible?</font><br /><br />How would I know? I don't know what all the possibilities would be of life without carbon snyth. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">Why not address the actual scientific research involved instead of getting hung up on whether God exists or not? </font><br /><br />Because you are manipulating your posts to assert that a god does exist. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">I agree the Bible is not a scientific textbook - ah we agree on something!</font><br /><br />Once again I have to go with Eddie on this one, i have seen you assert that the Bible is a scientific text book, or can be used as such.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">What is hard core science, and how does it differ from the Bible as you assert?</font><br /><br />Theoretical Physics would be hardcore science to me. I haven't read anything in the Bible to help us understand that in any detail. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">BTW - what is a cosmic control board?????? </font><br /><br />It's an analogy. a magical being has created a universe and is sitting at a control board "fine tuning" all the parameters in order to get the conditions just right for his minions.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">And please explain, again, how life could have arose without carbon.</font><br /><br />Please see above. I don't know. Also I never asserted that life could be had without carbon. I stated it m
 
E

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest
@Newton and mooware:<br />I thought we are well past science-religion debate. i guess some people will always be reluctant to give up their long held views, but i dont know why. is it because reality is bland and boring? that it doesn't have a lead character, no drama, no suspense?<br /><br />Newton, if bible is right, science will find that you have nothing to worry about. anytime science finds soemthing new in nature, bible followers will frantically change interpretations of bible phrases again and again until they vaguely accomodate new scientific discovery and then yell," look, this is what is said in the bible". this trends we have seen so many times since science began discovering the truth about nature. this is becoming tiresome for scientists. <br /><br />I may have made some linguistic error by separating Why from How, but just to emphasize the difference a condition that just occured because of properties of matter and a condition that has been forced to occur. Note, if something is forced which suggests a violation of laws of science, is not acceptable. but if it doesn't violate the laws of science then we do not need the external help or power or hand.<br /><br />what i, and i think MOOWARE also, trying to say is this. Ok, this is a carbon based univ. if conditions were right it could have been a silicon based or sulfur-based, or phosphorous-based, or xxxx-based univ. then Si-based or S-based, or xxxx-based lifeforms would have yelled, "look,HE wanted to create just us, the conditions are exactly fit for us nothing else".<br /><br />anyway, if someone does not keep an open mind while learning or using science, it is very difficult to realize what science is trying to say.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>
 
E

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest
@par72 and lewcos:<br />that was an interesting display of things from smaller scale to very large scale. are you suggesting because an atom resembles the univ, so we are made of billions of tiny universes just like fractals? interesting thought but there are many differences between the structure and properties of an atom and the univ. one striking similarity that always makes me think is the tremendous amount of empty space (relative) in both an atom and the univ. <br /><br />if your argument is we can know all about the universe by our 'mental states' , also known as 'mental feeling', because tiny universes are within our body, you will be crossing a serious boundary between reality and imagination. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>
 
N

newtonian

Guest
mooware -Tangible evidence like those nuclear resonances you keeo ignoring.<br /><br />You are saying life could exist without carbon, but then say how would you know.<br /><br />Try posting one example - otherwise you are posting mythical speculation, not science.<br /><br />By researching and posting the results of your research, of course. Feel free to quote mine or document others on this.<br /><br />You at least admit your refusal to address the scientific research I am posting about. <br /><br />Your reason is not valid - its just an excuse to ignore the evidence and post rhetoric instead of evidence.<br /><br />I have not asserted that the Bible is a scientific textbook. I have merely shown that where the Bible touches on science it is scientifically accurate.<br /><br />You are wrong - we do agree.<br /><br />On that control board analogy - Ok, I understand. However, most of the parameters if not all were set at the instant of creation and now proceed as it was set in that instant.<br /><br />That would include all the cases of fine tuning I am aware of, including the examples I posted concerning expansion rate and triple matching of nuclear resonances.<br /><br />
 
N

newtonian

Guest
crazyeddie - Are you aware of how exactly those nuclear resonances are triple matched?<br /><br />How do you explain this without intelligent design? <br /><br />I never stated the Bible is a scientific textbook. I gave evidence that when the Bible touches on science it is scientifically accurate.<br /><br />Do I need to quote Scripture to prove this to you? <br /><br />You can say what you want - we all have free speech.<br /><br />However, I categorically deny that the Bible is a scientific textbook. Our literalture also makes our postition clear on this.<br /><br />Simple things like the earth is round stated at Isaiah 40:22, or that earth is hung upon nothing at Job 26:7, or that heaven and earth had a beginning at Genesis 1:1, etc., do not make the Bible a scientific textbook. It does, nowever, prove the Bible is scientifically accurate and way of head of contemporary scientific teachings.
 
N

newtonian

Guest
emperor - I do not like debating. I prefer friendly discussion.<br /><br />Apparently you do not understand how our universe came to have silicon, phosphorus or sulphur.<br /><br />Note again that no other elements but hydrogen, helium and a little Lithium would exist without carbon synthesis.<br /><br />The olther elements are synthesized in stars as later steps.<br /><br />Please post some example of Bible phrases you assert were interpreted differenctly.<br /><br />There is a big difference between interpretation and translation. <br /><br />Isaiah 40:22 always said earth is round. The definition of the Hebrew word hhug was never flat, it was always round.<br /><br />Job 26:7 always said earth is hung upon nothing. Again, the definition of the Hebrew word for nothing has not changed.<br /><br />If you don't cite specific examples you can say anything you want but it is not substantiated by any evidence.<br /><br />You need to post specific examples.<br /><br />It was the science of the time which thought earth was supported physically in some way.<br /><br />Scientists eventually discover the Bible is correct, such as the fact that our universe had a beginning.<br /><br />While changing scientific theories often contradict each other and the Bible, no scientific observation contradicts any Biblical statement.<br /><br />As more and more things are discovered through scientific observation, more and more Biblical statements are proven accurate.
 
N

newtonian

Guest
emperor, mooware, crazyeddie, you all -<br /><br />To help you examine the scientific evidence, rather than get diverted into tangents or rhetoric, here is a more detailed description of one example of fine tunng in our universe:<br /><br />Fine tuning #8. This is a series of 3 fine tuned factors which allow red giants to synthesize carbon. The random collision of 3 Helium atoms in a red giant to produce carbon is exceedingly unlikely: roadblock #`1- too unlikely to allow synthesis of carbon. It therefore normally occurs in two steps: <br /><br />1. Two heliums combine (with 2 protons and 2 neutrons each) to produce a very unstable isotope of Beryllium with 4 protons and 4 neutrons. It is so unstable it "bursts apart in a mere 0.000000000000001 of a second." (p. 40). Roadblock #2 - too unstable to allow creation of carbon. <br /><br />The answer? In 1953 Edwin Salpeter discovered a resonance between the energy of the Helium nuclei and the energy of the Beryllium isotope nuclei. That increased the predicted proportion of this isotope of beryllium to 1 part in 1 billion - still too small. <br /><br />Greenstein illustrates the effect of resonance with two tuning forks fine tuned to the same note. Striking one causes the other to resonate. This resonance increased the rate of formation of the unstable isotope of beryllium, but still too small. <br /><br />Step 2. Fred Hoyle joined the research into cause and effect for carbon. He predicted a resonance between this isoltope and carbon, but all calculations and observations showed no match. So he predicted the energy of the resonance and had scientists look for it and they found it! <br /><br />The exact fine tuning of these resonant energies between the nuclei of these 3 atoms is what allows the synthesis of carbon in red giant stars. This double matching is unique to these 3 atoms, and without this fine tuning there would be no elements heavier than hydrogen and helium, as carbon is the first step in the production of other elements
 
L

lewcos

Guest
Yes Emperor - perhaps each atom is its own universe and where good prevails in that universe, the atom becomes a good atom - where bad or evil prevails, the atom becomes a building block of cancer. <br /><br /><br />Who knows - we may be fighting a battle on our planet to see if we become cancer or health. And maybe hundreds of centuries from now we will spread out and fight other battles against other galaxies and the final winner will determine if we are a cancer atom or a healthy atom. <br /><br />Perhaps all that we are, is but an atom in a flea.
 
M

mooware

Guest
<font color="yellow"><br />mooware -Tangible evidence like those nuclear resonances you keep ignoring. </font><br /><br />Your invoking "god of the gaps" on this one. Gods were responsible for lightning until we determined natural causes for lightning, for infectious diseases until we found bacteria and viruses, for mental illness until we found biochemical causes for them. God is confined only to those parts of the universe we do not know about, and that keeps shrinking.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">You are saying life could exist without carbon, but then say how would you know.</font><br /><br />I said, It "might" be possible, I didn't know as there is no evidence either way.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Try posting one example - otherwise you are posting mythical speculation, not science."</font><br /><br />Yes it is speculation, what do you know. You figured out I was speculating. I also might add that your triple matching = evidence of intelligent design is also mythical speculation. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">On that control board analogy - Ok, I understand. However, most of the parameters if not all were set at the instant of creation and now proceed as it was set in that instant.</font><br /><br />Well, whatever. it was just an analogy. Not meant to be taken literally.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
 
N

newtonian

Guest
crazyeddie: Are you serious? The reason for the exact triple matching is, to quote you: <br /><br />"Just the way things turned out in the Big Bang."<br /><br />That makes no sense at all. Can you imagine if scientists stopped searching for cause and effect and simply said that everything is as it is because that is just the way things turned out!<br /><br />I'm sure glad doctors don't take that approach!<br /><br />Try again - using cause and effect.<br />To my statement:<br /><br />Simple things like the earth is round stated at Isaiah 40:22, or that earth is hung upon nothing at Job 26:7, or that heaven and earth had a beginning at Genesis 1:1, etc., do not make the Bible a scientific textbook. It does, nowever, prove the Bible is scientifically accurate and way of head of contemporary scientific teachings. <br /><br />You posted:<br /><br />Since even a simpleton could come to such conclusions, your interpretation that the bible is "scientifically accurate" is a stretch at best, and laughable at worst. <br /><br />Well, I guess you consider Aristotle a simpleton? How about all the other scientists of the past? See the various cosmologies in my thread on this.<br /><br />For example, many in the past considered earth was supported physically, not hung upon nothing as the Bible clearly states:<br /><br />What Holds Up the Earth?<br /><br />In ancient times, humans were perplexed by other questions about the cosmos: What is the earth resting on? What holds up the sun, the moon, and the stars? They had no knowledge of the law of universal gravitation, formulated by Isaac Newton and published in 1687. The idea that heavenly bodies are, in effect, suspended in empty space upon nothing was unknown to them. Thus, their explanations often suggested that tangible objects or substances held the earth and other heavenly bodies aloft.<br /><br />For example, one ancient theory, perhaps originated by people who lived on an island, was that the earth was surrounded by water and that it floated in
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts