On Evolution & Creation

[ratiocinator]

Which one of those hypotheses has reached the level of a theory in the scientific community?

None of them. That's why I said before that we don't know.

As we get further back to the point at which GR predicts a singularity, we run out of tested theories because we don't know to make GR and QFT play nicely together.

 

[icant]

But if you'd like to try, begin by defining, precisely: "life." (Hint: you could do worse than starting with the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.)

Pretty good read with all its concepts but no answer other than it is a proven fact that non-life produces non-life.
So what's the problem?

Enjoy

 

[icant]

None of them. That's why I said before that we don't know.

That's the reason I said the best answer I have ever got was, "we don't know".

 

[ratiocinator]

That's the reason I said the best answer I have ever got was, "we don't know".

You also claimed that the universe "had to have a beginning" (#39), which is incorrect.

 

[ratiocinator]

Pretty good read with all its concepts but no answer other than it is a proven fact that non-life produces non-life.

There is nothing proven about life not being able to come from non-life. In fact, we have lots of evidence that it did, even if we're not sure how.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Pretty good read with all its concepts but no answer other than it is a proven fact that non-life produces non-life.
So what's the problem?

Enjoy

Then you didn't read it. Or you didn't understand it -- doesn't matter which.

 

[Audie]

There is nothing proven about life not being able to come from non-life. In fact, we have lots of evidence that it did, even if we're not sure how.

Pasteur only demonstrate that the way he conductrd a few experiments did not produce life.


Edison conducted far more failed experiments to make a
light bulb.

Proving it can't be done.

Then one worked.

 

[icant]

You also claimed that the universe "had to have a beginning" (#39), which is incorrect.

Incorrect by whose belief, and where is the evidence?

"Hawking got off to a flying start with his doctoral thesis, written at a critical time when there was heated debate between two rival cosmological theories: the Big Bang and the Steady State. Both theories accepted that the universe is expanding, but in the first it expands from an ultra-compact, super-dense state at a finite time in the past, while the second assumes the universe has been expanding forever, with new matter constantly being created to maintain a constant density. In his thesis, Hawking showed that the Steady State theory is mathematically self-contradictory. He argued instead that the universe began as an infinitely small, infinitely dense point called a singularity. Today, Hawking's description is almost universally accepted among scientists."

4 bizarre Stephen Hawking theories that turned out to be right (and 6 we're not sure about)

Some of Hawking's theories revolutionized the way we view the universe, but others still leave scientists scratching their heads.

www.livescience.com

He did not believe in the Steady State theory. So he gives us the BBT instead and he argued that the universe had a beginning to exist.

Since he is deceased you can't argue the point with him but you could read some of his books.

Can you tell me why he said the universe began (began means it did not exist) prior to that infinitely small, infinitely dense point called a singularity did. One of his students and a physics, professor at Cambridge at the time Hawking was there explained to me there was no such thing as a singularity. All it is, is a place where the math don't work.

My question remains, what is the source of what was contained in that little volume.

Enjoy,

 

[icant]

There is nothing proven about life not being able to come from non-life. In fact, we have lots of evidence that it did, even if we're not sure how.

In other words, assumptions trump facts as far as you are concerned.

The article plainly stated that the experiments did not produce life.

Enjoy

 

[icant]

There is nothing proven about life not being able to come from non-life. In fact, we have lots of evidence that it did, even if we're not sure how.

4. Origin(s) of Life​

Inextricable from the question of life’s nature is the question of its origin. Ancient and modern thinkers accepted that life often arose spontaneously from non-life. Two centuries of experiments eventually overturned this widely accepted view, culminating in Louis Pasteur’s swan-neck bottle experiments. Since then, the puzzle of Life’s origin has been one of the biggest and most important in all of science.

Life (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

I guess you got to tired to read this part.
Over 200 years of experiments and no progress. Oh I forgot facts don't matter.

Enjoy,

 

[shunyadragon]

I think some are mistaken, and assume anyone wanting an alternate explanation for BB or evolution makes you a creationist, even if the current theories has conceptual problems. This type of criticism sounds like the dogma of a religion, disguised as science. Not all Physicists assume the BB. Are they all Creationists simply by bucking the bureaucracy? It is all about protecting monopoly research money?

Let me show you the main conceptual problem of the current BB theory. In terms of the current BB theory at time=0+, shortly thereafter the start of the expansion, the current theory says the universe was 1000 trillion degrees Celsius. That is quite impressive, but it has a problem.

If we apply the Gibbs free energy equation G=H-TS, used to calculate changes of state and free energy change, where G is the total free energy, which is compose of H which is enthalpy or internal energy, such as heat of fusion contained in deuterium, T is temperature in degree Kelvin, S is entropy; complexity, and insert T=1000 trillion degrees Kelvin and multiple that by S; change of complexity going from a singularity to umpteen particles we get:

-TS= (1000 trillion) X (S) = ? There would be an immediate loss of enormous amounts of free energy into entropy; -TS. We would get an immediate chill down, unless the startup BB free energy was orders of magnitude, more than current universe's energy. I cannot tell you how large S would be, but each quantum particle that appears, would contain S. Multiple this by zillions to get the summation of S and multiply that by the enormous T. The startup energy need is too high to run that scenario. It is way more than the current universe. As loose analogy is like firing rocket against gravity into space and then measuring the velocity in space. The remaining energy in space is a fraction of the lift off energy. The lift off energy feed the entropy increase. Then what is left is the universe which continues to lose energy into entropy; -TS.

The second law also precludes a perfectly cyclic universe, since energy is lost to increasing entropy. If the universe could cycle, each cycle would lose lift off energy. The long term cyclic universe would be a decaying sine wave.

The BB theory as is, could work at absolute zero, where T=0 and therefore, the 0 multiplier means any amount of atomization into particles will not take away any energy; superconductor effect. Any summation of S, times 0, does not lose free energy. But the theory cannot use absolute zero since particle accelerators data is their basis and that is based on extreme temperature equivalent to get the particles they need.

G=H-TS is a tool in the engineering tool box, so if was building a hypothetical universe, using the current theory, I would need to compensate for the extra needed lift off energy, that I know will disappear in the increasing entropy of atomization expansion. My own theory had to go another way to avoid his pit fall. There are very few laws of science, while theories are a dime a dozen. You cannot break the law and expect a theory not to be challenged.

You hit the nail on the head and drove it home. But nobody will be brothered by facts they just keep on putting their faith in their assumptions that somewhere in the future they will have the answers.

As I mentioned in one of my earlier messages the best answer I have ever got when I asked the question, "what existed at T=0?' was "we don't know, but we are working on it".

At T=0 there was a singularity. Another option is cyclic universe.

That is an honest answer to the question.

But it has been taught as a fact for so long very few are willing to admit they don't know.

Enjoy,

Life produces life.
Non-life produces non-life.

Assumptions based on an extreme religious agenda not science.

Enjoy,

 

[shunyadragon]

4. Origin(s) of Life​

Inextricable from the question of life’s nature is the question of its origin. Ancient and modern thinkers accepted that life often arose spontaneously from non-life. Two centuries of experiments eventually overturned this widely accepted view, culminating in Louis Pasteur’s swan-neck bottle experiments. Since then, the puzzle of Life’s origin has been one of the biggest and most important in all of science.

Life (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

I guess you got to tired to read this part.
Over 200 years of experiments and no progress. Oh I forgot facts don't matter.

Enjoy,

Facts do not matter for your extreme religious agenda without science.

 

[ratiocinator]

Incorrect by whose belief, and where is the evidence?

By the current state of our knowledge. We simply don't know. There are conjectures and hypotheses that would lead to a beginning and others that wouldn't. Others are not really either (a literal time loop, for example).

We simply don't have enough evidence to know yet.

The steady state theory is long dead and irrelevant.

Can you tell me why he said the universe began (began means it did not exist) prior to that infinitely small, infinitely dense point called a singularity did. One of his students and a physics, professor at Cambridge at the time Hawking was there explained to me there was no such thing as a singularity. All it is, is a place where the math don't work.

Nobody in cosmology takes the singularity seriously.

Did The Universe Really Begin With a Singularity?

Did the universe begin with a singularity? A point in space and/or a moment in time where everything in the universe was crushed together, infinitely hot and infinitely densely packed? Doesn&#8217…

profmattstrassler.com

My question remains, what is the source of what was contained in that little volume.

There is no reason to think there was a source, if it was the start of time. There was no time at which the universe didn't exist. The space-time manifold itself is not subject to time. Time is a user-dependant direction through it.

You need to drag your thinking at least into the 20th century.

 

[ratiocinator]

In other words, assumptions trump facts as far as you are concerned.

The facts are that we know that there was a time in the Earth's past with no life, then there was life. It clearly started somehow.

Over 200 years of experiments and no progress.

There has been plenty of progress in abiogenesis research. Nobody claims we know the answer yet, but it's not like we're short of hypotheses.

There cannot possibly be any facts that would allow us to conclude that it's impossible. It may have happened in a way we haven't even thought of yet. Only religious blind faith could lead to such certainty.

 

[Audie]

Facts do not matter for your extreme religious agenda without science.

It's an odd combo, the assertion of science
as the Final word, proof perfect, being melded into the
iignorance of and disdain for science that so characterize
the gentle creationist.

Pasteur is a big favorite as he is misunderstood as
having disproved abio.

He showed that the few experiments ts he tried didn't work.
Thats all.
The most basic understanding of science is all
that's needed to understand that.

 

[wellwisher]

You really don't have the first clue what you're talking about, do you? This is pure gibberish.

In your previous post, you tried to apply the free energy equation. The free energy equation will, as the name implies, give you the free energy of a closed system if you input the internal energy, pressure, volume, temperature, and entropy. You tried to tell us that we could somehow deduce a large increase in entropy from it in the early part of the BB, without using anything but the temperature. It wouldn't tell you how the entropy will increase, even if you had all the parameters.

I was giving the Big Bang Theory the benefit of the doubt. The BB theory does not stop at the singularity S1, with no change. Nor is it a closed system due to assumptions of dark energy and dark matter.

The BB model has the universe expanding and diversifying into umpteen high energy particles which represents an increase in complexity and entropy; S2. I can work with that. The temperature assumption also comes from the BB theory based on extrapolation of particle accelerator and collider data. S had to increase complexity, going from the simplest state to a far more complex and diverse state.

The -TS term with those BB premises predicted, before and after, would be a very endothermic. Unless there was enough start up energy the BB singularity may have just pulsated at those conditions, or stopped slightly larger, but any continued expansion would lack sufficient energy to continue, unless the extra startup energy was already there. But since there are no solid enough models before t=0, that can provide all the extra start up energy, from nothing; must use energy conservation; Houston we have a lift-off problem.

The BB was a good stepping stone to our understanding, since it got use very close to t=0, when space-time appears. But not knowing about before t=0, created fundamental thermodynamics problems that were overlooked. There was/is a need to find another way, to build the energy supply needed, out of noting, even if not fashionable. Science is about truth in nature and not dogma and fashion.

The simplest and most elegant solution I found was a transition from independent space and independent time into tethered space-time=t=0. Independent space and independent time is more complex; zone of infinite entropy, than space-time with its finite complexity. That makes space-time a subset; spawn. While going from the higher complexity to the lower complexity, vis the tethering into space-time, if there was any temperate above absolute zero, this process will releases lots of energy, out of what would appear to be a void. It is void only in the sense of having nothing connected to the subset space-time rules, since the former is way more complex. The analogy is the seed has no visible leaves or flowers of the plant that makes it, but these are innately within the common DNA and the semblance will appear with time; time potential.

I showed that independent space and time was proven by Heisenberg experiments, but were misinterpreted. Space and time had an inverse relationship which was certain. I stood on the shoulders of giants and could see. But I was then have faced the old defense, if it is not broken, why replace it? It is broken via the second law; entropy and the lack of startup free energy. The new model has more capacity and will be useful to unlock the quantum world due its simplicity. The simple relation space-time and independent space and time can be learned by 1st graders, to plant the seeds in the future physicists.

I do not publish in a formal sense, because I am a perfectionists and don't wish to get bogged down half baked. That is good enough in most of science. I publish informally in forums to give everyone a head start, before I get too far ahead. But also to test the air and upgrade as needed.

My water model for life can be applied to evolution. It is far more simple, since water and all the organics, are reflection of each other, and one variable; water, is easier to model, logically, than thousands of organic variable, which needs the black box fudge. While the 2nd law, that states that entropy has to increase, gives even life a vector. that is not random; evolves in quantum steps. Between quantum steps are the missing links; scaffolding under construction to the next step up.

I have the same goals, just I developed the next versions than can also be combined. Even consciousness can be modeled with independent space and time. The mind and imagination can imagine what is not part of space-time; sitting on the sun, But it can exist at infinite entropy where the restraint of tethered space-time is not an issue. The seed has come full circle and now the leaves and flowers appear; human consciousness.

 

[ratiocinator]

I was giving the Big Bang Theory the benefit of the doubt. The BB theory does not stop at the singularity S1...

The BBT doesn't include a singularity. That is a popular misconception. You don't even know what you're criticising.

Nor is it a closed system due to assumptions of dark energy and dark matter.

Gibberish.

The BB model has the universe expanding and diversifying into umpteen high energy particles which represents an increase in complexity and entropy; S2.

So you don't understand entropy, let alone the complexity of applying it to the BB.

The temperature assumption also comes from the BB theory based on extrapolation of particle accelerator and collider data. S had to increase complexity, going from the simplest state to a far more complex and diverse state.

More ignorance.

The -TS term with those BB premises predicted, before and after, would be a very endothermic.

BS.

Unless there was enough start up energy the BB singularity may have just pulsated at those conditions...

You clearly don't know what a singularity is.

...but any continued expansion would lack sufficient energy to continue, unless the extra startup energy was already there. But since there are no solid enough models before t=0, that can provide all the extra start up energy, from nothing; must use energy conservation...

And you don't understand energy or its conservation.

The BB was a good stepping stone to our understanding, since it got use very close to t=0, when space-time appears. But not knowing about before t=0, created fundamental thermodynamics problems that were overlooked.

And you don't understand space-time.

The simplest and most elegant solution I found was a transition from independent space and independent time into tethered space-time=t=0. Independent space and independent time is more complex; zone of infinite entropy, than space-time with its finite complexity.

Off we go into complete fantasy and meaningless word salad.

I showed that independent space and time was proven by Heisenberg experiments, but were misinterpreted.

I could go on, but I'm bored now.

 

[Audie]

The BBT doesn't include a singularity. That is a popular misconception. You don't even know what you're criticising.


Gibberish.


So you don't understand entropy, let alone the complexity of applying it to the BB.


More ignorance.


BS.


You clearly don't know what a singularity is.


And you don't understand energy or its conservation.


And you don't understand space-time.


Off we go into complete fantasy and meaningless word salad.

I could go on, but I'm bored now.

I'd say, plz dont. It only encourages more of the same.

 

[ratiocinator]

I'd say, plz dont. It only encourages more of the same.

I already tried ignoring it, so I dunno...

 

[Audie]

I already tried ignoring it, so I dunno...

I succeeded.

To each his own

I do enjoy a good back and forth but honestly.

Ignorant made up gibberish lacks quality.

It would be great to find someone who had actual
ideas, facts, coherent arguments.
Thinking of evolution in this case as I've no particular
interest in astrophysics.

We've found nobody on the creationist side with even
a hint of a good idea or fact for their arguments.