Agreed. I suspect the neurons serve more to assist, as does a map to a navigator.
Helio, those are nice words but they do not get me one jot nearer getting from inspiration to the jumping atoms.
Cat
Cat
Right, I have nothing objective to offer, though others might.
"pertaining to space" Here are some musings from me
In summary inflation epoch features 3D space expanding > 1E+21 c, https://www.scientificamerican.com/...nflation-theory-on-cosmologys-next-big-ideas/
Recombination and decoupling era features space expanding ~ 110 c until CMBR forms (angular size distance), see cosmology calculators for angular size distance using H0 67 to 69 km/s/Mpc and z = 1100
~ 110 c (angular size distance/380000 years)
CMBR until present features space expanding some 10^-18 cm/s/cm ~ 67 to 83 km/s/Mpc, Hubble constant or H0, https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/help/cosmology_calc.html and https://www.kempner.net/cosmic.php, z = 1100 and H0 values 67-69 km/s/Mpc
Diameter of universe today (13.8E+9 years after BB) ~ 93 billion light-years across, https://phys.org/news/2021-03-myths-big.html, Five myths about the Big Bang 22-Mar-2021, "That which we call the observable universe is a bubble surrounding us that is 93 billion light-years in diameter."
Expansion speed > c from origin of CMBR until present (13.8E+9 years after BB, universe radius 46.5E+9 LY) = 3.369565217 c (46.5E+9 light years /13.8E+9 years)
Lunar recession rate in cm^-yr = 3.80 cm^-yr
Lunar recession rate relative to c where c = 1.0, 4.016603170E-18 c
Lunar recession rate verified by total solar eclipses, LLR, and radar measurements and 3,000 years or so of solar eclipses recorded in Assyria and Babylon
Which do you think has better expansion rate verified? The Moon receding from Earth rate or 3D space expanding in the BB model 1E+21 c, CMBR forming with 3D space expanding ~ 110 c, H0 today some 10^-18 cm/s/cm or H0 67 to 83 km/s/Mpc
My answer the Moon.
In summary inflation epoch features 3D space expanding > 1E+21 c, https://www.scientificamerican.com/...nflation-theory-on-cosmologys-next-big-ideas/
Recombination and decoupling era features space expanding ~ 110 c until CMBR forms (angular size distance), see cosmology calculators for angular size distance using H0 67 to 69 km/s/Mpc and z = 1100
~ 110 c (angular size distance/380000 years)
CMBR until present features space expanding some 10^-18 cm/s/cm ~ 67 to 83 km/s/Mpc, Hubble constant or H0, https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/help/cosmology_calc.html and https://www.kempner.net/cosmic.php, z = 1100 and H0 values 67-69 km/s/Mpc
Diameter of universe today (13.8E+9 years after BB) ~ 93 billion light-years across, https://phys.org/news/2021-03-myths-big.html, Five myths about the Big Bang 22-Mar-2021, "That which we call the observable universe is a bubble surrounding us that is 93 billion light-years in diameter."
Expansion speed > c from origin of CMBR until present (13.8E+9 years after BB, universe radius 46.5E+9 LY) = 3.369565217 c (46.5E+9 light years /13.8E+9 years)
Lunar recession rate in cm^-yr = 3.80 cm^-yr
Lunar recession rate relative to c where c = 1.0, 4.016603170E-18 c
Lunar recession rate verified by total solar eclipses, LLR, and radar measurements and 3,000 years or so of solar eclipses recorded in Assyria and Babylon
Which do you think has better expansion rate verified? The Moon receding from Earth rate or 3D space expanding in the BB model 1E+21 c, CMBR forming with 3D space expanding ~ 110 c, H0 today some 10^-18 cm/s/cm or H0 67 to 83 km/s/Mpc
My answer the Moon.
Last edited:
Nice link. All those misconceptions might go away if BBT is taught with today’s Universe and rewind the clock.
No, it doesn't. A lot of work on things like understanding atomic structure came before the experiments that showed what was correct and what wasn't, arising in part from prior observation but only in part - incomplete science, speculatory science, science in progress maybe, but still science. It doesn't have to get clear results - the investigations and thought experiments themselves, even giving negative results, count as science.
Abiogenesis, that has been a subject of discussion, would rate as work in progress - and real science imo. The Abiogenesis may be forever unobservable and elusive but creating an abiogenesis by experiment seems possible and would shed light on the kinds of chemical pathways that might have been in play on a primordial Earth.
On the matter of thought and matter I think the links between atoms and thought are real enough; physical phenomena exciting neurotransmitters (molecules), reactions triggering electrical impulses in nerves in turn, that result in cascades of interacting biochemical and electrical effects that we perceive as thought.
It is a very peculiar thing, this thinking and perceiving business, with innate lag times and use of prediction combining to create an illusion of being present.
Helio et al. Going back to my post #29, the Moon is presently receding from Earth (expanding ) at about 1.2 x 10^-7 cm/s (about 3.8 cm/yr). That *expansion* rate from Earth is some 4 x 10^-18 c velocity. The BBT or as I call it the BB model, features various epochs where 3D space is expanding in multiples of c velocity, many times faster than c and not just during inflation epoch. Example, the universe rate of expansion from BB event until CMBR forms (universe expands many millions of light years in 380,000 years or so).
The Moon rate of recession or expansion from Earth has multiple *direct* observations in nature and measurements supporting that rate of change between the Moon and Earth vs. 3D space expansion rate changes found in the BB model for the early universe or even the current diameter of the universe said to be some 93 billion light years across. An object with z=1.4 or larger (something that can be observed today) is actually traveling in 3D space expansion faster than c velocity (the object's comoving radial distance or its present position vs. look back distance or light time distance). The faster than c velocity of expansion is not directly verifiable like the Moon rate of recession or expansion from Earth. This is something I think should be clearly presented when the BBT model is taught in science today.
) at about 1.2 x 10^-7 cm/s (about 3.8 cm/yr). That *expansion* rate from Earth is some 4 x 10^-18 c velocity. The BBT or as I call it the BB model, features various epochs where 3D space is expanding in multiples of c velocity, many times faster than c and not just during inflation epoch. Example, the universe rate of expansion from BB event until CMBR forms (universe expands many millions of light years in 380,000 years or so).The Moon rate of recession or expansion from Earth has multiple *direct* observations in nature and measurements supporting that rate of change between the Moon and Earth vs. 3D space expansion rate changes found in the BB model for the early universe or even the current diameter of the universe said to be some 93 billion light years across. An object with z=1.4 or larger (something that can be observed today) is actually traveling in 3D space expansion faster than c velocity (the object's comoving radial distance or its present position vs. look back distance or light time distance). The faster than c velocity of expansion is not directly verifiable like the Moon rate of recession or expansion from Earth. This is something I think should be clearly presented when the BBT model is taught in science today.
Yes, ideas initiate science and many ideas are subjective. But if ideas offer no testability (direct or indirect observations) then we are not formally within science, IMO.
This is a great example where ideas have come forth to advance actual science. The advancements, however, are from discovered objective evidence. The energy density near ocean floor hot vents in certain areas, for instance, match that of living cells. Much more has been learned, as well. All suggests a specific hypothesis will surface. It’s hard to argue abiogenesis isn’t a theory, but I suspect it is only a pre-hypothesis, or something along those lines.
Last edited:
Helio in post #33 said about abiogenesis "It’s hard to argue abiogenesis isn’t a theory, but I suspect it is only a pre-hypothesis, or something along those lines."
This is interesting. Charles Darwin in 1882 thought this about abiogenesis origin of life. "Though no evidence worth anything has as yet, in my opinion, been advanced in favor of a living being being developed from inorganic matter, yet I cannot avoid believing the possibility of this will be proved some day in accordance with the law of continuity.1", ref - Charles Darwin, 1. “To Daniel Mackintosh 28 February 1882,” Darwin Correspondence Project, letter 13711, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-13711.
Fred Hoyle thought this about abiogenesis (from a source I use). "Fred Hoyle1 (an atheist) estimated the probability as one chance in 10^40,000. He compared the likelihood of life originating on Earth to that of a tornado going through a junkyard and assembling a 747 airplane. Even if this improbability actually happened, one would have an inert, non-operating 747 in a junkyard rut.", ref - 1. Posted on www.azquotes.com/author/6972-Fred_Hoyle. Accessed April 30, 2021.
Also, "This was shown by Nobel Prize-winning chemist...Ilya Prigogine.2 He is famous for pointing out two aspects of life: it is dissipative and far from equilibrium. All living organisms are dissipative (constantly decaying to a lower state per the Second Law of Thermodynamics) and need a constant supply of energy to repair the decay and operate, just like a 747 needs a constant flow of fuel to fly.3 If a system at equilibrium is disturbed, physics tells us it simply decays back to equilibrium.4 A small displacement from equilibrium is not sufficient to change its state. Give a small push to a vehicle in a rut (at equilibrium), and it simply rolls back into the rut. Life needs a really big push for it to exist far from equilibrium—another near impossibility if we wait for this to happen by chance. How impossible? Before life existed, the probability of assembling molecules into a life configuration was virtually impossible. But now, life exists everywhere! All the correct molecules are assembled in the correct order. When the living thing dies, all the required molecules are still there in the correct order, just without operating—there’s no life."
My observation. It appears since Charles Darwin letter in 1882, the origin of life via abiogenesis has evolved greatly in science where today some may hold abiogenesis as a theory, some think it is *pre-hypothesis*, and perhaps some would like abiogenesis to be a law of nature too, i.e. the law of abiogenesis, just as well grounded in observation as observing the Galilean moons today at Jupiter or Newton's laws of motion
This is interesting. Charles Darwin in 1882 thought this about abiogenesis origin of life. "Though no evidence worth anything has as yet, in my opinion, been advanced in favor of a living being being developed from inorganic matter, yet I cannot avoid believing the possibility of this will be proved some day in accordance with the law of continuity.1", ref - Charles Darwin, 1. “To Daniel Mackintosh 28 February 1882,” Darwin Correspondence Project, letter 13711, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-13711.
Fred Hoyle thought this about abiogenesis (from a source I use). "Fred Hoyle1 (an atheist) estimated the probability as one chance in 10^40,000. He compared the likelihood of life originating on Earth to that of a tornado going through a junkyard and assembling a 747 airplane. Even if this improbability actually happened, one would have an inert, non-operating 747 in a junkyard rut.", ref - 1. Posted on www.azquotes.com/author/6972-Fred_Hoyle. Accessed April 30, 2021.
Also, "This was shown by Nobel Prize-winning chemist...Ilya Prigogine.2 He is famous for pointing out two aspects of life: it is dissipative and far from equilibrium. All living organisms are dissipative (constantly decaying to a lower state per the Second Law of Thermodynamics) and need a constant supply of energy to repair the decay and operate, just like a 747 needs a constant flow of fuel to fly.3 If a system at equilibrium is disturbed, physics tells us it simply decays back to equilibrium.4 A small displacement from equilibrium is not sufficient to change its state. Give a small push to a vehicle in a rut (at equilibrium), and it simply rolls back into the rut. Life needs a really big push for it to exist far from equilibrium—another near impossibility if we wait for this to happen by chance. How impossible? Before life existed, the probability of assembling molecules into a life configuration was virtually impossible. But now, life exists everywhere! All the correct molecules are assembled in the correct order. When the living thing dies, all the required molecules are still there in the correct order, just without operating—there’s no life."
My observation. It appears since Charles Darwin letter in 1882, the origin of life via abiogenesis has evolved greatly in science where today some may hold abiogenesis as a theory, some think it is *pre-hypothesis*, and perhaps some would like abiogenesis to be a law of nature too, i.e. the law of abiogenesis, just as well grounded in observation as observing the Galilean moons today at Jupiter or Newton's laws of motion
In the early 1800s, organic chemistry required only living organisms produce organic compounds, Serendipity, however, helped in the discovery of the synthesis of urea. This soon ended the old definition and the ”theory” that a “vital” force was associated with organic compounds.
Hoyle‘s calculation, along with calculations for monkeys with typewriters, assume total random assembly in a destructive environment. Evolution, though extremely slow since it is passive, allows for occasional constructive reinforcement. Hoyle was also wrong about BBT. [He was right about carbon resonance and nucleosynthesis, which should have won him the Nobel prize.]
Sunshine alone allows life the energy to climb upward (increase in negative entropy), but their are other sources as well.
It may be a fortuitous thing that abiogenesis is so illusion, and not something that a lab is apple to practice gain of function.
Hoyle‘s calculation, along with calculations for monkeys with typewriters, assume total random assembly in a destructive environment. Evolution, though extremely slow since it is passive, allows for occasional constructive reinforcement. Hoyle was also wrong about BBT. [He was right about carbon resonance and nucleosynthesis, which should have won him the Nobel prize.]
Sunshine alone allows life the energy to climb upward (increase in negative entropy), but their are other sources as well.
It may be a fortuitous thing that abiogenesis is so illusion, and not something that a lab is apple to practice gain of function.
IG2007
"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
@Catastrophe , so, I guess, this is a place where we can discuss about any philosophical or scientific matters that are related to space. Can I ask @voidpotentialenergy a question here?
IG2007
"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
I like that pun, Cat, I like all your puns.Come on, IG. I am not trying to stifle free speech. I only suggested that we have (apparently) reached an impasse and maybe should just keep to our own views. Don't try to turn me into a monster!
Cat
@voidpotentialenergy , I am pretty interested in your idea of voids having potential energy, which you have mentioned several times across many threads. I couldn't really ask you in detail what you mean to say because those were threads of other things and asking that might lead us astray to other things. Can you please explain me the idea a little more clearly? That is an interesting idea.
IG2007
"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
@Catastrophe , I think this is a thread that can be used for many things. That's why I want to ask you a question about your theory about a cyclic Universe. My question is, how does one Universe end to give way to another Universe?
IG, that's why I started it.
" My question is, how does one Universe end to give way to another Universe?"
Beginning and ending are only anthropocentric abstractions. They have no reality when applied to the Universe. IMHO the BB is not a beginning but a point of transition - likewise the BH at the other end.
Just because we perceive a book or a bicycle as having a beginning and an end: e.g.,
construction > bicycle > rust
This is just an abbreviation of the fuller story: e.g.,
atoms > construction > bicycle > rust > atoms
which is just an abbreviation of
BB > atoms > construction > bicycle > rust > atoms > BH.
We draw conclusions just by looking at the middle part.
Just as a further extension of the imagination, you may have BB > BH > BB > BH . . . . . .
with branches, but the twigs may lead back to the roots. It depends on whether the BHs are terminal, or just small BHs that do not by themselves end that part of the cycle i.e., partial transition, but that is irrelevant - maybe just unnecessary complication. The question (if you want to ask it) is: does a BH necessarily end that part of the cycle - is it the only transition point?
Cat
" My question is, how does one Universe end to give way to another Universe?"
Beginning and ending are only anthropocentric abstractions. They have no reality when applied to the Universe. IMHO the BB is not a beginning but a point of transition - likewise the BH at the other end.
Just because we perceive a book or a bicycle as having a beginning and an end: e.g.,
construction > bicycle > rust
This is just an abbreviation of the fuller story: e.g.,
atoms > construction > bicycle > rust > atoms
which is just an abbreviation of
BB > atoms > construction > bicycle > rust > atoms > BH.
We draw conclusions just by looking at the middle part.
Just as a further extension of the imagination, you may have BB > BH > BB > BH . . . . . .
with branches, but the twigs may lead back to the roots. It depends on whether the BHs are terminal, or just small BHs that do not by themselves end that part of the cycle i.e., partial transition, but that is irrelevant - maybe just unnecessary complication. The question (if you want to ask it) is: does a BH necessarily end that part of the cycle - is it the only transition point?
Cat
IG2007
"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
IG, (imho) the transition occurs in place of a singularity. Instead of a big bang out of nothing, there is simply a transition (passage) between phases (or whatever word to distinguish between states of the Universe).
Cat
Cat
Here is some very new relevant information to the cyclic models:
From an article "The Great Dark Energy Survey" by Keith Cooper (Ed Astronomy Now), ibid, July 2021 (is that up to date?):
Quote
"A cosmological constant would see space expand into infinity - as space expands, new space is created, and each bit of new space would share the same value of dark energy, so the acceleration of cosmic expansion would ramp up exponentially. This could potentially lead to a catastrophic 'Big Rip', where dark energy tears the Universe apart. A scalar field that varies with space and tie would, however, mean that all best are off - the Universe could keep expanding, but equally possible is the chance that dark energy would then weaken, slowing or even reversing the expansion and causing a Big Crunch' in the far future." My emphasis.
Quote
Cat
From an article "The Great Dark Energy Survey" by Keith Cooper (Ed Astronomy Now), ibid, July 2021 (is that up to date?):
Quote
"A cosmological constant would see space expand into infinity - as space expands, new space is created, and each bit of new space would share the same value of dark energy, so the acceleration of cosmic expansion would ramp up exponentially. This could potentially lead to a catastrophic 'Big Rip', where dark energy tears the Universe apart. A scalar field that varies with space and tie would, however, mean that all best are off - the Universe could keep expanding, but equally possible is the chance that dark energy would then weaken, slowing or even reversing the expansion and causing a Big Crunch' in the far future." My emphasis.
Quote
Cat
IG2007
"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
Um, I have a question, Cat, how did you time travel to July and get the article?
IG, sadly that is a secret I cannot even share with you, as I am sworn to secrecy by the publishers!
Cat
Cat
Catastrophe, you say you are not a scientist. But buddy you sure do talk like one. And Ive been around many.
IG2007
"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
Where did I say that? I have a B.Sc. (B. Science) in Chemical Engineering, and about 60 years interest in Cosmology>Astronomy>Planetary Science>Geology, as well as a number of granted scientific patents.
Cat
Then that makes you a scientist.Where did I say that? I have a B.Sc. (B. Science) in Chemical Engineering, and about 60 years interest in Cosmology>Astronomy>Planetary Science>Geology, as well as a number of granted scientific patents.
Cat
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 190
-
-
-
-
Silo' scores a third and fourth season from Apple TV+- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram