181 replies to this topic

[Littlelink91]

A theory of quantum gravity is like saying you fundamentally pick at what the whole of something is away from the sum of it's parts.

 

Good luck with that...Subatomic particles are what Plato considered to be the higher forms of things....His dispute with Aristotle about forms is resolved when people figure out that the world makes itself illustrious from something specific like saying:

 

"We are smaller than small, but bigger than big."

 

That's the real purpose to life. That quote right there. I'm not wrong either. I'm right.

[strike]

Russ- that is sort of what I am saying. The Big Bang is the "beginning" of time so it doesn't make any sense for it to need a cause. Saying "before the Big Bang" doesn't make any sense or asking what is before it. What I am saying is, why is the Big Bang so often treated as a big mystery to scientists? Are they just uncomfortable with limits of knowledge?

-Strike

[Dark Ice Dragon]

hmmm.. not sure that the pupose of life is...

Is great that them already undestand that the atoms exists so much centuries ago,in the ancient greek.

Fo me the big bang was caused by the collapse on itself of a universe that existed before ours..but is likely is just fantasy.

As for Pluto x-rays, i think Eddy is right.

Another couriosity on Pluto, he is a painter, no i'm not kidding, remember the red spot on Charon ? the gas that escape from Pluto are "painting" Charon like a spay!   

[Russ]

What I am saying is, why is the Big Bang so often treated as a big mystery to scientists? Are they just uncomfortable with limits of knowledge?

To a certain extent, yes. This gets a bit philosophical, but bear with me here. There are fundamental constants in the universe, such as the force of gravity, or the electromagnetic force, that determine how it behaves. It just so happens that, if these constants were only slightly different, the universe would never have developed in the way it did, and life would not be possible. So this raises the question of why. Clearly, it's an important question, as it has implications that potentially involve science, philosophy, and religion. For instance, one can argue for the existence of God by claiming that the fact that these constants are apparently set at the ideal, and only, values to bring about life is evidence for a higher power setting them as such in order to enable life to exist. Counterarguments typically involve the anthropic principle, that is, the statement that "Because we are here, the universe must be in such a state to produce us so that we make ask 'Why are these constants this?' and that's all there is to it." A lot of scientists, theistic or otherwise, have issue with this principle because it is simply a tautology.

So where does this lead us? Some have suggested that there are multiple universes, themselves spawning new universes, each with their own set of constants. This would allow for a kind of natural selection on the scale of entire universes, selecting ones that allow for the generation of more universes. This could produce a universe that has the right constants to enable life. Of course, none of this can be proven or even supported beyond mere conjecture, because what is outside the universe is outside the bounds of science. Despite this, it's enticing. Answering the question, "What came before the Big Bang," in a manner beyond, "Time was born at the Big Bang, so it's a meaningless question," could potentially change our entire notion of how existence works, and would clearly have profound effects on religion and philosophy. Likewise, eliminating the Big Bang altogether (as is done in the model I described earlier, which pictures space as boundless but not infinite), would also have profound impacts on human thought. To quote Stephen Hawking, "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?" Therefore, it's not surprising that scientists are interested in the topic, seeing as its implications could be both far-reaching and controversial, to say the least..

[Aevin]

Counterarguments typically involve the anthropic principle, that is, the statement that "Because we are here, the universe must be in such a state to produce us so that we make ask 'Why are these constants this?' and that's all there is to it." A lot of scientists, theistic or otherwise, have issue with this principle because it is simply a tautology.

Kinda off topic, but I was with you except for this. It makes sense that life would come about in its current form because the conditions for it were already there. If the universe turned out differently, life probably would have followed suit, but maybe in a different form to what we currently know as life. It's the same reason I take a bit of issue with scientists looking for life on other planets purely based on our own criteria, when it seems to me it's possible it'd follow a completely different pattern and show up in a completely different form from what happened here on Earth. Who says life on other planets requires water, or earth-like temperatures? But we seem to keep looking for Earth-like planets and going "maybe there's life there," because it's all we know.

 

All that is just to say I don't think it's unreasonable to argue life in its current form exists because the universe took the form it did. I'm not even arguing it's the obviously correct explanation, but I wouldn't dismiss it as "simply a tautology," which seems like a fancy word that isn't especially applicable here.

[Russ]

I'm not even arguing it's the obviously correct explanation, but I wouldn't dismiss it as "simply a tautology," which seems like a fancy word that isn't especially applicable here.

Actually, it is applicable. To quote wikipedia:

The anthropic principle is often criticized for lacking falsifiability and therefore critics of the anthropic principle may point out that the anthropic principle is a non-scientific concept, even though the weak anthropic principle, "conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist",[7] is "easy" to support in mathematics and philosophy, i.e. it is a tautology or truism.

Carter's SAP and Barrow and Tipler's WAP have been dismissed as truisms or trivial tautologies, that is, statements true solely by virtue of their logical form (the conclusion is identical to the premise) and not because a substantive claim is made and supported by observation of reality. As such, they are criticized as an elaborate way of saying "if things were different, they would be different," which is a valid statement, but does not make a claim of some factual alternative over another.

So yeah. It's a mathematical term with a precise meaning that totally does apply here, and is the biggest criticism of the principle.

If the universe turned out differently, life probably would have followed suit, but maybe in a different form to what we currently know as life.

Not necessarily. The problem is that the universe wouldn't have just turned out differently. If these values were much different, atoms wouldn't be able to form. Heck, protons wouldn't be able to form under some values. In other universes, no molecules would be possible, just hydrogen atoms. It's not a matter of "Life would be different," but rather one of "Life can't form if building blocks don't exist."

[Aevin]

Terminology aside, I think you're missing the main point. Who's to say that atoms, protons and molecules are the standard and prerequisites for life? Yeah, it'd be quite a different definition from what we call life. But maybe there could be creatures who evolved out of the conditions in those universes, pondering how impossible it is for beings outside whatever strange rules their universe follows to exist, because they have no concept of things like atoms and molecules at all. Our universe is our reference point, but that's not to say thinking beings couldn't arise in completely different ways. Perhaps the life we know is simply what arose out of the conditions in this specific setting.

[Littlelink91]

https://www.youtube....h?v=0LAB_NAbWGM

 

We're gonna make a mini-game out of this. Try to have fun to figure this out!

 

What you should really consider are these things in order (First to last):

 

-Platos Theory of the Cave

 

-Then move onto the science of Emergence after you figure out that the whole is other than the sum of its parts

 

-After that, when you figure out how to connect the wholes to being the driving forces of Emergence (Look up podcasts for Emergence if you need to learn audio like...thats what I did) you consider this:

 

-Placebo, and Nocebo effect. The placebo and Nocebo effect happen due to Emergence and takes place as what the driving forces of Emergence do. After you consider this, you consider....

 

-Subconscious mind: (This is the driving force of what makes you Emerge in the ways that you do) After you figure this out, you move on to this.

 

-Collective Unconscious and Subatomic Universe. (Let me explain...)*

 

*Subatomic universe is used here because thats what the subconscious and Collective Unconscious is. It's part of the subatomic universe. The reason for this is because subatomic particles exist only until they are 'observed'. The reason we can't feel the subconscious but know its there, is cause its part of the subatomic universe in that when we observe it, we feel nothing as a result. So...yes..It really does exist.

 

After you get this far...you consider this.

 

-Platos Theory of Forms.*

 

*The reason for this is cause Plato believed in higher forms that existed all around in life while Aristotle believed in forms that could only be conceived and made up of 'matter'. 

 

The subatomic universe is the higher forms that Plato was talking about. You cannot see them yourself because when you do, they become non-existent as soon as you 'observe' them. 

 

You could also look up Platos Symposium and listen to what Socrates says about "Love", but I mean...thats up to you...What he says ties directly to what the driving forces of Emergence are.

Edited by Littlelink91, 18 September 2016 - 08:42 PM.

[Aevin]

I accept a big part of the responsibility for dragging things off track, but perhaps we should try to get back toward actual astronomy instead of origin of life theories and philosophy?

 

So, tapping into my vast knowledge on astronomy ... Umm ... Black holes are cool!

[Eddy]

As for Pluto x-rays, i think Eddy is right.

Another couriosity on Pluto, he is a painter, no i'm not kidding, remember the red spot on Charon ? the gas that escape from Pluto are "painting" Charon like a spay!   

I heard about this actually, but yeah, it's really cool how the stuff happening on Pluto is painting its moon red. I guess this is x-ray work at its finest, huh

 

 

So, tapping into my vast knowledge on astronomy ... Umm ... Black holes are cool!

Black holes sure are very cool, and I especially love this design where spacetime completely distorts around the singularity point to create a really cool looking image... though I feel sorry for those who happen to fall into these black holes lel.

[Littlelink91]

Well it is all tied directly to what the universe is. I only said all that stuff because Dark Matter and Dark Energy are what makes the Subconscious, and Collective Unconscious work the ways that it does. Subconscious uses 'Negative Pressure' from Dark Matter or Dark Energy or whatever (because its claimed thats what dark matter or whatever does that), and thats why theres these accelerations all around us. Because we are smaller than small, but bigger than big.

Edited by Littlelink91, 19 September 2016 - 10:33 AM.

[Dark Ice Dragon]

I heard about this actually, but yeah, it's really cool how the stuff happening on Pluto is painting its moon red. I guess this is x-ray work at its finest, huh

 

 

Black holes sure are very cool, and I especially love this design where spacetime completely distorts around the singularity point to create a really cool looking image... though I feel sorry for those who happen to fall into these black holes lel.

 

something of more cool of a black hole may be.. a supermassive blackhole, seem that we have one in the cente of our galaxy

 

https://en.wikipedia...sive_black_hole

[Dark Ice Dragon]

The mission Exomars is underway but the  European lander Schiapparelli seems to have crashed on Mars, the nasa will try to photograph the landing zone for  figure out if Schiaparelli is destroyed or if it "survived" but can no longer communicate with Earth​.

The orbiter TGO instead is working fine and will search life on the red planet

Edited by Dark Ice Dragon, 21 October 2016 - 03:06 AM.

[Chris Miller]

Got a shot of Venus earlier.

[Dark Ice Dragon]

Hey, someone of you saw the meteor ? i don't live in Ameica and i saw it only in TV and internet

 

 

http://www.cbsnews.c...diana-michigan/

​