On Evolution & Creation

[shunyadragon]

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

The problem is your extreme religious agenda that is behind your statement "we don't know." as a vague meaningless statement.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

Rambling, rambling and more meaningless rambling based on a religious agenda without science. Your claims of publishing and knowledge of science as bogus as a three dollar bill.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

The problem is not what "we do not know," but 'arguing from ignorance' to justify a religious agenda based on vague claims of what we do not know.

 

[icant]

Then you didn't read it.

But I did read it, did you?
Check message 90.

Enjoy,

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

A singularity does not exist unless you are talking about a place that the math breaks down and gives no information.
I like to think of a singularity as going down a road and you come to a stop sign and you can not go straight ahead. You have to change your direction if you want to go anywhere. You can either go to your left or right or turn around and go back to your starting place and try a different road.

Now if you don't want to do any of those three things you can unload the buldozer and head any direction you want to go even straight ahead. It seems like that is the course most have followed.

Enjoy,

 

[shunyadragon]

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

Again, your extreme religious agenda, and lack of knowledge and qualifications of the sciences of evolution and abiogenesis results in only repeating again and again the meaningless "non-life produces non-life."

By the way science does not prove anything.

 

[shunyadragon]

But I did read it, did you?
Check message 90.

Enjoy,

A singularity does not exist unless you are talking about a place that the math breaks down and gives no information.

Not true

I like to think of a singularity as going down a road and you come to a stop sign and you can not go straight ahead. You have to change your direction if you want to go anywhere. You can either go to your left or right or turn around and go back to your starting place and try a different road.

Now if you don't want to do any of those three things you can unload the buldozer and head any direction you want to go even straight ahead. It seems like that is the course most have followed.

Enjoy,

Still only "opinions based on a religious agenda" and no scientific references to support your assertions.

 

[icant]

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.

Hi wellwisher,

A stepping stone is something that lifts you to the next level. But for the last 60 years the BBT has been nothing but a dead end in a box canyon. Everybody is trying to tunnel through miles of rock with a fork and spoon and getting nowhere.

I have been told by a couple of Physicists that the BBT needs to be put in the trash can and a new theory of everything take its place. But they are in the minority.

Enjoy,

 

[ratiocinator]

I have been told by a couple of Physicists that the BBT needs to be put in the trash can and a new theory of everything take its place.

Since the BBT isn't, and never purported to be, a 'theory of everything', the idea that any physicist would say such a thing is absurd....

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

But I did read it, did you?
Check message 90.

Sorry, but it would seem you did't read (or understand) all of even that section (Origin(s) of Life) in Stanford. It still does not say what you want it to say -- that non-life produces non-life. It remains at two empirical facts:

• life exists (and has for billions of years that included no Adam & Eve and no multicellular life of any kind), and
• though we have multiple conjectures & theories, we do not know for certain how it began.

But begin it did, and although you have a theory (or conjecture) you are in the same place as the sciences -- you cannot in any way at all demonstrate or prove your conjecture.

 

[icant]

Again, your extreme religious agenda, and lack of knowledge and qualifications of the sciences of evolution and abiogenesis results in only repeating again and again the meaningless "non-life produces non-life."

By the way science does not prove anything.

Could you please explain to me what my extreme religious agenda is?

In msg 90 I posted an excerpt from an article you suggested I read and it says:


Quote"

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)"

Over 200 years of experiments proved that non-life did not spontaneously produce life.

Oh I know facts do no matter to you.

Everybody has opinions and two arm pits and both of them usually stink.

 

[ratiocinator]

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)"

Over 200 years of experiments proved that non-life did not spontaneously produce life.

It showed that the idea that "life often arose spontaneously from non-life", as people had thought (fleas from dust, maggots, from dead flesh, etc.), was wrong. It did not show (nor could it, even in principle) that it is impossible for life to arise from non-life.

 

[ratiocinator]

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)"

Over 200 years of experiments proved that non-life did not spontaneously produce life.

And if you'd even bothered to read the rest of the section, you'd know that the origin of life from non-life was still an ongoing area of investigation.

 

[icant]

Since the BBT isn't, and never purported to be, a 'theory of everything', the idea that any physicist would say such a thing is absurd....

Do you know how many Band-Aids and crutches have been used to prop the BBT up over the years.

No it has never been purported to be a theory of everything.
It is said to begin at Planck time and describe how we got from there to here.
It has never tackled the problem of where the infinite, dense, pinpoint mass of energy that expanded at Panck time into the universe Just imagine our entire universe seen and unseen being able to sit on the pin-point or your grandmothers sewing needle.

One day when I can get the time I will look it up and post his comment here. It has been 15 years since he said it .

Enjoy,

 

[icant]

It showed that the idea that "life often arose spontaneously from non-life", as people had thought (fleas from dust, maggots, from dead flesh, etc.), was wrong. It did not show (nor could it, even in principle) that it is impossible for life to arise from non-life.

Well it didn't happen in over 200 years of experiments, so what makes you think life did spontaneously arise from non-life.

Enjoy,

 

[ratiocinator]

Do you know how many Band-Aids and crutches have been used to prop the BBT up over the years.

None. Since you said this about it:

It has never tackled the problem of where the infinite, dense, pinpoint mass of energy that expanded at Panck time into the universe Just imagine our entire universe seen and unseen being able to sit on the pin-point or your grandmothers sewing needle.

it's quite clear that you have little to no understanding of what the BBT actually is.

One day when I can get the time I will look it up and post his comment here. It has been 15 years since he said it .

So, seriously out of date, at best.

 

[ratiocinator]

Well it didn't happen in over 200 years of experiments, so what makes you think life did spontaneously arise from non-life.

The evidence that the Earth formed without life and then there was life. What do you think happened?

Two hundred years is nothing in terms of the timescales we are talking about for abiogenesis, and they weren't looking into that anyway. It was all about whether maggots formed in rotten meat and the like.

If you'd bothered to read the whole section, you wouldn't have got so confused between two totally different ideas.

 

[icant]

And if you'd even bothered to read the rest of the section, you'd know that the origin of life from non-life was still an ongoing area of investigation.

So is the search for the source of the universe. So what?

 

[ratiocinator]

So is the search for the source of the universe. So what?

So, when you said that it's a "proven fact that non-life produces non-life", you were wrong.

 

[icant]

it's quite clear that you have little to no understanding of what the BBT actually is.

Then please explain what the BBT actually is.
I have always been told it explains everything about the universe from Planck time until now
You got something different

The evidence that the Earth formed without life and then there was life. What do you think happened?

So, seriously out of date, at best.

I suppose just like everything Hawking his professor said also.

 

[icant]

So, when you said that it's a "proven fact that non-life produces non-life", you were wrong.

No, not at the present I am right, now I may be proven wrong sometime in the future.

For all I know we may be brains in a jar in some lab with all the information being fed to our brain
by some alien.

Enjoy,