Possibilities!!!

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.
N

newtonian

Guest
stevehw33 - We agree on somethiing! That's nice.<br /><br />Just to add to your post:<br /><br />Life requires aperiodic sequences, i.e. non-repeating sequences. <br /><br />That is related to your point about long chains in complex biomolecules.<br />That is in contrast to crystals which are periodic or repeating.<br /><br />And it gets more complex than that. There is actually information in biomolecules. <br /><br />There is a difference between, for example, a statistical protein and an informational protein.<br /><br />And just containing information is not enough - it must be recognized as information - translated or read, so to speak.<br /><br />In recent articles and programs on Titan much was made of the fact that Titan contains methane, CH4, and that it has organic chemistry so it may have had life or building blocks of life.<br /><br />The definition they are using for organic is carbon containing.<br /><br />Which brings us right back to your excellent post.<br /><br />And a question: How do you explain the origin of life?
 
E

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest
@Newton:<br />i just dont think it right to bring religion into discussion about science. if your religion is satisfied with the findings of science you should be very happy and visit churches as often as you can. <br /><br />sometimes it bothers me whenever a natural disaster happens, nostradamus fans come out of nowhere and claims nostradamus predicted the disaster. funny, we never hear about the prediction before the disaster. <br /><br />same way whenever there is a significant scientific discovery, we hear 'it is in the bible', or 'the bible doesn't contradict this findings'. could it be that it doesn't contradict because it is nowhere mentioned in the bible?<br /><br />newton, i have a request. you or find someone who is well trained in bible and rewite the bible or write an addition to the bible explaining the real meaning of the contents of bible as we all know it. then all scientists can read the bible, get all the clues or predictions or hints, and then the scientists can discover new laws of nature, new particles, new forms of force, may even be able to explain the gravity. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>
 
E

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest
@newton,<br />science has many branches, one person usually studies only one branch of science. it's not possible to become expert in all branches by 1 person. that's why you may know lot more than me about how carbon based life is formed. <br /><br />but i donnot understand why you are bringing the same Be and He and their resonances again and again? to prove fine tuning? Be isotope has a very low half life, so what? many elements doesn't even have isotopes, most probably their half life is much smaller than Be that we say their isotope dont exist. the question is does this phenomena violate the laws of science? of course not. if the isotope does not decay, that could be the violation of certain laws of physics, conservation of energy, momentum, angular momentum, spin, radioactive properties, there are so many properties are there to be satisfied. the thing is this is how this world is built. this is what MOOWARE, CRAZYEDDIE, and I all trying to tell you. <br /><br />here are a few more example what it is and what it could have been. <br />nuclear forces act within very short distances, what would happen if the distance any larger? probably we wouldn't even have carbon nuclei in this world, elements with only large nuclei be present .<br /><br />what if pauli exclusion principle is not obayed? that no 2 electrons can have the same state? many chemical reactions would n't be possible, so who knows what would happen to all the chemical reaction needed for life.<br /><br />what if light energy isnt quantized? who knows what kind of photosynthesis would have taken place then?<br /><br />even carbon isnt the most stable element either. talking about intelligent design. <br /><br />if you just read 1 chapter of basic atomic physics books, you will find full of laws, principles, rules.. if any of these laws were different, we would have a different world now.<br /><br />the thing is these are the laws of THIS univ. we grew up under this 'restricted' laws of nature. that's why it se <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>
 
E

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest
@lewcos:<br />your posts started to make me nervous,lol, when you talk about 'good' and 'bad'. these are subjective things. but something else also raise question in my mind. as i said before, 'life' does n't seem to be the primary goal of this univ, but 'matter' is. then what is the purpose of all this matter in the univ? since we all came from 'matter' and got intelligence, do 'matters' have a different type of intelligence that we donot understand? <br /><br />and yes, human must spread out, to other galaxies when possible. if not to fight the evil but to save ouselves from vanishing from universe. nothing seems to be permanent. <br /><br />Stevehw33, i have no argument against your explanation about necessity of carbon for life in the univ. i was not arguing about creating another form of life in THIS univ, but in a hypothetical univ. but who knows if someday scientists try hard to make something out of other elements... a big question mark though. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>
 
M

mooware

Guest
<font color="yellow">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! '</font><br /><br />Who said scientists had stopped looking for a cause. They are looking for a cause, and I don't believe Eddie was suggesting that we stop looking for a cause either.<br /><br />You apparently though have already made up your mind that some Diety did it. and not only any Diety, but the one you believe in.<br />
 
A

alpha_taur1

Guest
Basically I'm not going to get drawn into a religious debate, except to state that there are plenty of scientists who belong to the Monotheistic religion(s) as well as Buddhist, Hinduism, animism etc. <br /><br />Unfortunately there are some scientists (and others) who were brought up under a perfectly good animist or theist tradition, and who have abandoned it in favour of Western religion and atheism. I think people should be encouraged to pursue their own local religion, or at least made to feel that their culture/religion is not somehow inferior. To do so is to lose a considerable part of their culture, and probably some imbedded knowledge in a lot of cases. <br /><br />I've heard all the arguments from the multiplicity of 'one true' religions, so please don't preach at me. One True Religions are a dime a dozen. The monotheistic religions, with the exception of Judaism seem to feel a need to spread the word. The only others who try to impinge slightly on ones personal space are the Hare Krishnas, and the Orange people - and at least they provide some good comedy relief.<br /><br />Unfortunately there are many versions of 'the word' flying around, and I use only three in dealing with those who appear on my doorstep. They are "I'm not interested". <br /><br />Science and religions are (almost) mutually exclusive ways that people try to understand conscious perception. Much as some might prefer, religion has not been disproven by science. Religion also provides ethical codes for behaviour in society. <br /><br />There is no way that science can predict the existence or non existence of a god, and there is no way that religion can account for (say) the location of an oil reservoir. That's putting it simplistically. I realise that many indigenous people survived the recent Tsunami because of 'native' knowledge which was preserved in their local beliefs and customs.<br /><br />At one stage in human history, science and religion were intertwined. It was all lumped together as
 
A

alpha_taur1

Guest
I should add that this intertwining of science and religion is still not quite gone. <br /><br />How often have you heard an engineer/scientist spend a major part of his life planning an intricate mission or project and then, on the eve of its lauch....he or she "prays to God that this is gonna work".
 
N

newtonian

Guest
mooware - Progress. At least we agree there may have been a cause for the various fine tuned properties that allow life to exist in our universe.<br /><br />I believe firmly there is a cause. I believe God is a scientist, and therefore there is every reason to scientifically research how our universe was caused to exist, and how these properties and laws came about.<br /><br />Now, you may choose to believe these laws and properties came about by chance rather than intelligent design - that is up to you.<br /><br />However, to make your stand more convincing to me, you would have to address the actual math involved, the actual probabilities - i.e. what are the chances?<br /><br />Also, how do you propose laws came about without a lawgiver or lawmaker?<br /><br />I like Isaac Newton's object lesson when he had constructed a complex model of our solar system in motion, and invited his atheist neighbor over.<br /><br />The neighbor asked: Who made this wonderfully designed model?<br /><br />Newton answered: No one!<br /><br />The neighbor balked, finding this hard to believe.<br /><br />Newton replied - yet you believe the actual solar system, even more intricately designed, had no creator?<br /><br />That was paraphrased, btw.<br /><br />To me it is hard to believe our universe with its intricate design and many fine tuned qualities did not have an intelligent designer.<br /><br />Another illustration:<br /><br />An archaeologist finds a rock in the shape of an arrowhead. He knows there is a very slight chance this rock could have been formed in that shape by chance.<br /><br />However, he does not believe that. It is far more likely this arrowhead had an intelligent designer.<br /><br />Intelligent design is far more likely than chance when the properties are fine tuned.<br /><br />It doesn't matter how many rocks there are, even an infinite number of rocks. The archaeologist will still accept the arrowhead as proof of intelligent design.<br /><br />Now, to determine how likely intelligent desig
 
M

mooware

Guest
<font color="yellow">However, to make your stand more convincing to me, you would have to address the actual math involved, the actual probabilities - i.e. what are the chances?</font><br /><br />Seems to me that no matter how astronomical, (no pun intended) the chances are, they will turn up given an infinite amount of time. Whether time existed or not, or in what form I don't know. I use time for simplicities sake.<br /><br />I think the term "Law" as in Law of physics, "Law" of gravity, Is a bit problematic. One thinks of Laws as something that is handed down, and set of rules that is given. I believe particles operate certain ways, and interact with each other in certain ways. We call it Law to describe it to ourselves. When in actuallity it's not a Law as such, it's just the way they work together. I don't know if the above makes sense to anyone, but it's the best way I feel I can describe it. Kind of like the word "Theory" in the Theory of Evolution.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Remember the arrowhead!</font><br /><br />Ah the watchmaker argument. This is a fairly old argument. Please see the attached link.<br /><br />http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/watchmak.htm<br /><br />
 
E

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest
"I believe God is a scientist, and therefore there is every reason to scientifically research how our universe was caused to exist, and how these properties and laws came about. "<br /><br />Newton, i don't think our opinions are too different from yours. if you just put down the bible and talk to us we'll find our views on the univ are more in agreement than against. most of us think there is a possibility, i reapeat possibility, that 'something' is behind all this we see now. our differences in regard to intelligence is this, i think certain intelligence was present before the formation(creation) of matter, and you think it's after the formation of matter. so, note our views are not far apart. cheers.<br /><br />@mooware: you raised an interesting point about 'laws'. i like to term them as properties of matter, and in a twisted way those may be the intelligence that are built-in in nature. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>
 
D

dragon04

Guest
IMHO, the notion that some "creator" is responsible for the existence of our universe somehow diminishes the fundamental beauty of everything that is.<br /><br />I'm not atheistic. But the universe created God. Not the converse. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>
 
N

newtonian

Guest
mooware - Actually, you have not addressed the actual math involved.<br /><br />Your reason is posted:<br /><br />"Seems to me that no matter how astronomical, (no pun intended) the chances are, they will turn up given an infinite amount of time. Whether time existed or not, or in what form I don't know. I use time for simplicities sake."<br /><br />That argument I've heard before and it is not accurate. If it was. then your posts could have been by chance rather that intelligent design, since it is a possible arrangement of matter and energy.<br /><br />The argument goes that any possible arrangement of matter and energy will be tried given infinite time and/or and infinite number of universes, with variations.<br /><br />So, then, do you your posts constitute proof of intelligent design or not?<br /><br />I believe your posts are proof of intelligent design.<br /><br />And no process can occur or arrangement tried without time - you cannot have cause and effect without time.<br /><br />And, since it takes time to try any arrangement, when you do post the math, you need to also post the math rate, or at least some ballpark estimate of the rate.<br /><br />As an example, it takes time to form building blocks of life, and there is a speed limit in chemical reaction time and an upper limit in chemical reaction products in our universe since our universe began.<br /><br />In the latter case, consider how an upper limit of what can occur can be examined mathematically:<br /><br />1. Chemical reaction rate speed limit: 10^24 per second, the time it takes light to traverse the nucleus of an atom. Informed chemists indicate the limit is closer to 10^12 or 10^13 per second.<br /><br />2. Mass of universe - 10^79 amu (atomic mass units) - see Sir Arthur Eddington?s calculations for an estimate of subatomic particles in that range (ball parmooware - Actually, you have not addressed the actual math involved.<br /><br />3. Age of Universe - 14.7 billion years. Converted to seconds, about 500 quadri
 
I

i_think

Guest
Yes, I too think the term "law" is problematic. Laws simply describe the way things in our universe are related and interact, in a way that we can measure. Sometimes I think we can can get too hung up on the measurement aspect of a "law", to the point that we may forget the underlying relationship the "law" implies. Constants in laws have always bothered me. Like the gravitational constant needed when measuring the force of gravity. The G constant must represent a part of the gravity relationship that we are missing, just like pi is not simply a constant number, but it describes the relationship of the diameter to the circumference the circle.
 
I

i_think

Guest
Newtonian, it looks like you're trying to use math and chemistry to prove that God exists. When you find the proof I'm sure the whole world would like to know, and you will go down in history as the man who proved the existence of God. In the meantime your attempts to convert the masses get a little monotonous IMO. Good luck!
 
B

btsuj

Guest
Hellooo out there,<br />As I see it language was the specific milestone in our evolvement/advancment of "self". Once a rock was called a rock, I am using English here for obvious reasons, nothing else then could be called a rock. After that all things were defined by "that which they were not". If we take this to the nth degree of our existence we find ourselves looking for "that which this is not." Therefore this reality could not exist without something to define it.<br />This could not simply be nothing as absolute "no thing" is cancelled out by it's very definition. I would then conclude that there has to be something completely different than this mathematical construct. This being said there would be a good argument for "that" not to exist without us to define it (or more specifically a system of unseamless "oneness" if you will). <br />The many worlds theories would still be on our "side" as constructed and bound by mathematics. Interestly we do not see ourselves as others see us. When we look in the mirror we are at times surprised at what we see as our outer selves. As we see back to the origin with our instruments of today we realize that if we can see the past and the present all is happenning "now". A metaphor being a fireball in the sky. It knows where it's been, we see from tip to tail, but have only a rough idea of where it is headed, how it will change while on it's journey etc.<br /> Time is indeed an illusion. Perspective is key. For we could not possibly exist without being defined by something other than all of this, that is none of it, except it's presence.<br />The grand question is not "Who am I"?", but more to the point "Where am I?" So many more have come and gone than are here and now. In this perspective we see that the waiting room (you enter, wait, and leave) is so much "smaller" (size really doesn't matter nor time spent) than that which is not this.With this perspective we can choose what is best for this civilization. We cannot know the o
 
D

dragonous

Guest
Well hello,<br />Umm it is a possiblity but I also just formulated a theory from your post. The solar system is just one system in this vast universe. Imagine that the stars that we can visble see also has it's own planets and it's moons. I would do an accurate model but umm well. It's only the stars that appear visible. In addition the scale as well as the size of the model would be gigantic. And number two is my other theory. You won't know what really happened if the universe was made even before you was born, which is the obivious other truth. At least we figured one thing and that was evolution, but that does not mean God does not exist. I am just stating that we evoled from other original beings that was made from single celled organisims. There is a lot more that we have to learn as to understand the design that God has laid out, besides this is a lot more complicated than following a blueprint and building something. This is my third theory, God so called created the things that would later become our universe, as the so called big bang (as the matter and our materials that we have on our planet is not the only materials that we would have) theory, would expand and create mass, inertia, and distance. We would be later coming into existance.
 
B

btsuj

Guest
Anything is possible. We must use the facts to create a single acceptable belief system that gets us through this one. Again, just the facts please.<br />As far as anyone knows all that is "now" could have started one second hence. <br />Why have dinosaurs without available conscious thought of them? Better to place them under earth and all there is in correlation for the "story" to pass extreme cause and effect scrutiny, and then start "the conscious journey" with all in place.<br />String theory seems to lead to an infinite flat line "membrane" of which ( if correlated to religious belief) was breathed upon (read "Let there be Light")<br />and a small section of the flat line membrane was transformed by the perterbation of breath, in this section of the membrane, to be balled up action states of vibratory matter. Each having it's own frequency to decipher difference. As this started to "relax" it was less "bound" by "tension in the area of the membrane breathed upon", and the universe was born. It then expanded more rapidly as the arrow of "time" grew on. Easing the forces that bind and finaly flatlining back to the original undisturbed membrane of infinety. Oneness.<br />IMHO.
 
E

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest
"We cannot know the other side only the realization that it exists. " <br />"We are in a "state" of consciousness"<br />"creating an experience in order to define it's own truths"<br /><br />With due respect, IMHO, 'perception', 'feeling', 'consciousness', these and many others similar to these are caused by particular states of our brain. Neurons, synapses, chemicals in neurotransmitters etc, which vary person to person, affect these mental states. Describing reality by these mental states is probably slightly better than drug induced reality. A scientific mind, again IMHO, should not rely on these mental states for unbiased conclusions about facts.<br /><br />And about the 'other side'? IMHO, we will advance much faster in the future if we accept the fact that we humans are the most magnificient MACHINES even existed on this planet. Its just a machine that breaks down or goes out of order. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>
 
T

taolung

Guest
Newtonian, you seem to be approaching this entire thing backwards. You are essentially claiming that my nose was specifically designed for the purpose of supporting a pair of glasses.<br /><br />Everyone else here is saying that the glasses are made in order to take advantage of the existing nose.<br /><br />You are claiming that the nose (universe) contains inherent qualities that make it extremely suitable to support the glasses (life), and that the rare likelyhood of these qualities indicates that the nose must have been designed especially for the purpose. <br /><br />After all, if the nose were only a bit smaller, it wouldn't be able to hold the glasses properly. If the nose were sloped at a severe degree, or was completely flat, glasses couldn't be supported. If the nose were situated any higher or lower on the face, glasses wouldn't possibly be able to fit properly. In fact, if the nose were located anywhere else on the body, glasses (as we know them) couldn't possibly exist! Indeed, the nose takes up less than 1% of the surface area on ones body, so what are the odds that it would be in exactly the right place in order to hold up my glasses?<br /><br />There are so many variables about the nose that if it were even just a little bit different, glasses couldn't be supported on the face. The odds of all these variables working out in order to favor the glasses must prove without a doubt that the nose was *designed* *specifically* in order to support glasses.<br /><br />Everyone else is saying the exact opposite: That the nose wasn't *designed* for any such purpose at all, but rather, the glasses were fashioned in order to fit the existing nose. And furthermore, if the nose were built any differently, glasses could be fashioned differently in order to accomodate.<br /><br />The nose (universe) could care less about the state of the glasses (life.) It just happens that the design of the glasses are able to take full advantage of the structure the nose offers. <b></b>
 
B

btsuj

Guest
Emperor,<br /><br />Good discourse. Thanks.<br />All scientific facts start with feelings, gut or otherwise, and then are tested to become emperical scientific acceptable "knowledge". We are at a point of evolution where our best and brightest have an "intuition" that string theory may be the answer to the Holy Grail, the "Grand Unified Theory". A scientist may accept the fact that a sramjet can propel to 7K mph but will be sceptical until he has totaly researched every mechanical "synaptic" truism which leads to this velocity and then he accepts. <br />Why are things "beautiful"? Why does music make us laugh, cry, or even muster the reasoning for troops to surge forward in the name of whatever they have been taught to guard, even if it means loss of thier existance?<br /> This reality leads us to accept things which, like string theory, cannot be scientifically tested.<br />I can see how beauty leads to copulation in a basic rule of sustanance of life. But why a flower, or sunset. These need not be beautiful. <br />I do know that as a species we are ultimately doomed. Our Sun will expire, an astroid will hit again, these are truths of high probability. The "story" may allow for higher conscious beings that may be all around us. They may understand that interference would not be a proper tact. We cannot rule out probability, scientificaly proven facts that lead us to "judgments" based on facts. This is the crux of imagination. As we need the best possible perspective to advance all cultures we cannot rule out that which feels true yet cannot be proven.<br />The mechanics of a brain only concerned with survival should have evolved to a much more regimented advancement in order to rapidly move the species forward. It did not. The species was "allowed" many more paths through imagination.<br />One would have to admit that we would not be who we are if we evolved on a much more linear path to survival. A much more construct synaptic response would have taken over. It did not.
 
M

mooware

Guest
Bravo. Excellent post, and well articulated.<br /><br />I've stated to Newtonian before that life evolved from the properties that existed, not that the properties were fine tuned to support life. <br /><br /><br />
 
E

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest
Excellent analogy. Hope you dont mind using this next time I argue with some one. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>
 
D

dragonous

Guest
Hi there again,<br />Just image that our system, the Solar system, is just one system in this universe. Our Sun is the only star that we know to be just as to be there, in a locational type sense. The other systems, which is uncharted, is a virtual sense and understanding of what is there and what is possible. In a measure of light years from earth we can only spot the stars and made calculations as to how far a certain star is. Also finding other system and plotting courses and the other planets and moons (other debris) is what I state to be there through view of your own eyes.
 
M

mooware

Guest
Dragonous.<br /><br />Want to clue us in as to what you're talking about?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
 
B

bjdfit

Guest
is dark energy and dark matter defined? i hear tidbits about it here and there, but i haven't heard exactly WHAT it is, other than we can't see it and it is thought to be the cause for the universe's accellerating expansion. now, i dont know much about dark anything, not even darkwing duck, in fact, im still partially afraid of the dark, but couldnt dark energy and dark matter actually be light energy and light matter? we cant see photons that are travelling away from us, or past us. it seems like space, although "empty", is full of energy, and full of photons. so, photons must carry gravitons with them, otherwise, light would not bend. and what about other radiation? it just seems to me like all this dark matter and dark energy is very vague at this point and i'd like a definition. so, wouldnt photons excape away from their points of origin in the universe, taking gravitons with them, and attracting mass away from their point of origin? we would never see this energy/mass, because we cant see photons running away from us, right? <br /><br />just curious
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS