Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Galaxies already had enough material to form planets and life in the early Universe!
35 views
Skip to first unread message
Yousuf Khan
May 19, 2012, 10:33:07 AM5/19/12
to
Baby galaxies grew up quickly
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Baby_galaxies_grew_up_quickly_999.html
Quote:
> Up until now, researchers thought that it had taken billions of years for stars to form and with that, galaxies with a high content of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. But new research from the Niels Bohr Institute shows that this process went surprisingly quickly in some galaxies.
>
> "We have studied 10 galaxies in the early Universe and analysed their light spectra. We are observing light from the galaxies that has been on a 10-12 billion year journey to Earth, so we see the galaxies as they were then. Our expectation was that they would be relatively primitive and poor in heavier elements, but we discovered somewhat to our surprise that the gas in some of the galaxies and thus the stars in them had a very high content of heavier elements. The gas was just as enriched as our own Sun," explains Professor Johan Fynbo from the Dark Cosmology Centre at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen.
So is 12 or 13 billion year old life, possible? Looks like it might have
been superficially possible. Still we'd have to know the specific
conditions inside those early galaxies. They could've been wracked with
a lot of supernova explosions near life-forming solar systems, thus
destroying their life. Much like life chemicals were always existent in
the early Solar System, but conditions weren't exactly right until maybe
3.5 billion years ago. Similar sort of problems may have occurred in
those early galaxies, but in a galaxy-wide scenario.
Yousuf Khan
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Baby_galaxies_grew_up_quickly_999.html
Quote:
> Up until now, researchers thought that it had taken billions of years for stars to form and with that, galaxies with a high content of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. But new research from the Niels Bohr Institute shows that this process went surprisingly quickly in some galaxies.
>
> "We have studied 10 galaxies in the early Universe and analysed their light spectra. We are observing light from the galaxies that has been on a 10-12 billion year journey to Earth, so we see the galaxies as they were then. Our expectation was that they would be relatively primitive and poor in heavier elements, but we discovered somewhat to our surprise that the gas in some of the galaxies and thus the stars in them had a very high content of heavier elements. The gas was just as enriched as our own Sun," explains Professor Johan Fynbo from the Dark Cosmology Centre at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen.
So is 12 or 13 billion year old life, possible? Looks like it might have
been superficially possible. Still we'd have to know the specific
conditions inside those early galaxies. They could've been wracked with
a lot of supernova explosions near life-forming solar systems, thus
destroying their life. Much like life chemicals were always existent in
the early Solar System, but conditions weren't exactly right until maybe
3.5 billion years ago. Similar sort of problems may have occurred in
those early galaxies, but in a galaxy-wide scenario.
Yousuf Khan
Sam Wormley
May 19, 2012, 10:47:39 AM5/19/12
to
On 5/19/12 9:33 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> So is 12 or 13 billion year old life, possible? Looks like it might have
> been superficially possible. Still we'd have to know the specific
> conditions inside those early galaxies. They could've been wracked with
> a lot of supernova explosions near life-forming solar systems, thus
> destroying their life. Much like life chemicals were always existent in
> the early Solar System, but conditions weren't exactly right until maybe
> 3.5 billion years ago. Similar sort of problems may have occurred in
> those early galaxies, but in a galaxy-wide scenario.
>
> Yousuf Khan
Why not--life can get by with H, C, N and O with the latter three
> So is 12 or 13 billion year old life, possible? Looks like it might have
> been superficially possible. Still we'd have to know the specific
> conditions inside those early galaxies. They could've been wracked with
> a lot of supernova explosions near life-forming solar systems, thus
> destroying their life. Much like life chemicals were always existent in
> the early Solar System, but conditions weren't exactly right until maybe
> 3.5 billion years ago. Similar sort of problems may have occurred in
> those early galaxies, but in a galaxy-wide scenario.
>
> Yousuf Khan
first being generated in Population III Stars.
pete
May 19, 2012, 12:58:53 PM5/19/12
to
Sam Wormley wrote:
> Why not--life can get by with H, C, N and O with the latter three
> first being generated in Population III Stars.
Those four elements are essential, but insufficient.
> Why not--life can get by with H, C, N and O with the latter three
> first being generated in Population III Stars.
http://promega.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/six-required-elements-for-life-c-n-o-s-h-and-p-well-maybe-not-p/
--
pete
John Polasek
May 19, 2012, 1:41:53 PM5/19/12
to
On Sat, 19 May 2012 12:58:53 -0400, pete <pfi...@mindspring.com>
wrote:
Insufficient is right. It is child's play to define at least one other
requirement.
You still need someone clever enough to devise 4 chemicals, adnine,
guanine, cytosine and thymine.
And then he has to string billions of these together in just the
proper sequence on a molecule 2 meters long and coil it up inside
each cell, so it won't get damaged from random handling and will, in
addition, arrange for it to self reproduce.
John Polasek
wrote:
requirement.
You still need someone clever enough to devise 4 chemicals, adnine,
guanine, cytosine and thymine.
And then he has to string billions of these together in just the
proper sequence on a molecule 2 meters long and coil it up inside
each cell, so it won't get damaged from random handling and will, in
addition, arrange for it to self reproduce.
John Polasek
Chris.B
May 19, 2012, 1:43:06 PM5/19/12
to
On May 19, 6:58 pm, pete <pfil...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Sam Wormley wrote:
> > Why not--life can get by with H, C, N and O with the latter three
> > first being generated in Population III Stars.
>
> Those four elements are essential, but insufficient.
>
> http://promega.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/six-required-elements-for-lif...
> Sam Wormley wrote:
> > Why not--life can get by with H, C, N and O with the latter three
> > first being generated in Population III Stars.
>
> Those four elements are essential, but insufficient.
>
>
> --
> pete
Doesn't DNA wear out with time? Too many replications, with too many
errors, produces senility, weakness and cancers in old age. Would the
same hold true for an entire species?
What keeps them going when they know everything and have tried
everything? Would their will to live and reproduce keep going
indefinitely?
The human race is already showing signs of general dissatisfaction
with its lot. Apathy, drug, alcohol and food abuse is rife.
Mass escapism through virtual reality existence is now the norm for
many. Passive sport watching by proxy has replaced continuous tribal
warfare. Supporting (any) politics or religious faith is a game for
mugs. Neither has any useful answers except friction and strife. Big
money controls everything which matters.
Hard physical work is a rarity for the majority in many "advanced"
nations. The general populace preferring to import cheap labour to
carry out the menial tasks. Even at great personal risk to their own
health. Through obesity, apathy and almost total inactivity. The
birthrate is dropping almost everywhere. While the prison population
climbs everywhere.
The retail sector has reduced most shopping centres to a chain store
tedium. Hotels and holidays are uniformly presented globally. Products
and advertising have become uniformly boring. The Hollywood/Bollywood
conveyor belt has completely lost its inspiration. Vast fortunes are
spent playing "let's pretend" without any obvious grip on the most
basic reality. Individuality is no longer desirable except in role
playing, talentless entertainers vying for global attention in the
mutually corrupt and parasitic media.
Black boxes with minimalist decoration adorn our internationally
uniform homes. We seek further escape from reality by role playing the
past. Though antique collection or riding an old but immaculately
restored classic car or bike. Or taking luxury holidays in "backward"
countries.
We haven't been at this top of the intellectual tree for very long but
are already showing signs of chronic fatigue. The majority now spend
their entire lives sitting in front of a computer screen. Doing
utterly worthless tasks with regard to the continued existence of the
human race. How, on earth, are we going to be able to reinvent
ourselves now? Descent into anarchy and feuding warlords? We have that
already on our city streets but are powerless to change anything for
the better.
Yousuf Khan
May 19, 2012, 2:31:01 PM5/19/12
to
III stars were mostly 100 Msun+ behemoths, then likely they stopped at C
& O before they went pair-instability supernova. So those supernovas
wouldn't have produced the elements upto Fe.
Yousuf Khan
Yousuf Khan
May 19, 2012, 2:33:51 PM5/19/12
to
On 19/05/2012 1:43 PM, Chris.B wrote:
> On May 19, 6:58 pm, pete<pfil...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>> Why not--life can get by with H, C, N and O with the latter three
>>> first being generated in Population III Stars.
>>
>> Those four elements are essential, but insufficient.
>>
>> http://promega.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/six-required-elements-for-lif...
>>
>> --
>> pete
>
> Doesn't DNA wear out with time? Too many replications, with too many
> errors, produces senility, weakness and cancers in old age. Would the
> same hold true for an entire species?
The DNA gets repaired slightly with sexual reproduction.
> On May 19, 6:58 pm, pete<pfil...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>> Why not--life can get by with H, C, N and O with the latter three
>>> first being generated in Population III Stars.
>>
>> Those four elements are essential, but insufficient.
>>
>> http://promega.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/six-required-elements-for-lif...
>>
>> --
>> pete
>
> Doesn't DNA wear out with time? Too many replications, with too many
> errors, produces senility, weakness and cancers in old age. Would the
> same hold true for an entire species?
> What keeps them going when they know everything and have tried
> everything? Would their will to live and reproduce keep going
> indefinitely?
> The human race is already showing signs of general dissatisfaction
> with its lot. Apathy, drug, alcohol and food abuse is rife.
Bit of a stretch to link that to "tired and senile DNA".
Yousuf Khan
Androcles
May 19, 2012, 2:35:54 PM5/19/12
to
"John Polasek" <jpol...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:u9mfr7lrkgaugat3s...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 19 May 2012 12:58:53 -0400, pete <pfi...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>> Why not--life can get by with H, C, N and O with the latter three
>>> first being generated in Population III Stars.
>>
>>Those four elements are essential, but insufficient.
>>
>>http://promega.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/six-required-elements-for-life-c-n-o-s-h-and-p-well-maybe-not-p/
>
> "Those four elements are essential, but insufficient"
>
> Insufficient is right. It is child's play to define at least one other
> requirement.
A source of energy, such as lightning.
> wrote:
>
>>Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>> Why not--life can get by with H, C, N and O with the latter three
>>> first being generated in Population III Stars.
>>
>>Those four elements are essential, but insufficient.
>>
>>http://promega.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/six-required-elements-for-life-c-n-o-s-h-and-p-well-maybe-not-p/
>
> "Those four elements are essential, but insufficient"
>
> Insufficient is right. It is child's play to define at least one other
> requirement.
> You still need someone clever enough to devise 4 chemicals, adnine,
> guanine, cytosine and thymine.
exist.
> And then he has to string billions of these together in just the
> proper sequence on a molecule 2 meters long and coil it up inside
> each cell, so it won't get damaged from random handling and will, in
> addition, arrange for it to self reproduce.
>
G=EMC^2
May 19, 2012, 2:27:49 PM5/19/12
to
years. Get the picture TreBert
Sam Wormley
May 19, 2012, 3:11:46 PM5/19/12
to
our universe at 13.7 Gyr. End of Story!
Sam Wormley
May 19, 2012, 3:15:56 PM5/19/12
to
of *all* the naturally occurring elements?
dlzc
May 19, 2012, 4:07:12 PM5/19/12
to
Dear Chris B:
On Saturday, May 19, 2012 10:43:06 AM UTC-7, Chris.B wrote:
...
There are bacteria with ring-shaped DNA, that essentially don't age.
There are organisms that (accidentally) have 4 sets of DNA in each cell, that essentially don't age. These have to procreate by parthenogenisis.
There are systems of cells in our own body, the sex cells, that properly handle telomerase, that essentially don't age.
DNA does not wear out with age. DNA is target to radiation, and so suffers replication errors, when it tries to live near a nuclear reactor (the Sun, the Earth's core, cosmic radiation).
David A. Smith
On Saturday, May 19, 2012 10:43:06 AM UTC-7, Chris.B wrote:
...
> Doesn't DNA wear out with time? Too many
> replications, with too many errors, produces
> senility, weakness and cancers in old age.
> Would the same hold true for an entire
> species?
There are single-celled RNA-only organisms, that essentially don't age.
> replications, with too many errors, produces
> senility, weakness and cancers in old age.
> Would the same hold true for an entire
> species?
There are bacteria with ring-shaped DNA, that essentially don't age.
There are organisms that (accidentally) have 4 sets of DNA in each cell, that essentially don't age. These have to procreate by parthenogenisis.
There are systems of cells in our own body, the sex cells, that properly handle telomerase, that essentially don't age.
DNA does not wear out with age. DNA is target to radiation, and so suffers replication errors, when it tries to live near a nuclear reactor (the Sun, the Earth's core, cosmic radiation).
David A. Smith
John Polasek
May 19, 2012, 4:37:19 PM5/19/12
to
On Sat, 19 May 2012 19:35:54 +0100, "Androcles" <M...@May.2012> wrote:
>
>"John Polasek" <jpol...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:u9mfr7lrkgaugat3s...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 19 May 2012 12:58:53 -0400, pete <pfi...@mindspring.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why not--life can get by with H, C, N and O with the latter three
>>>> first being generated in Population III Stars.
>>>
>>>Those four elements are essential, but insufficient.
>>>
>>>http://promega.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/six-required-elements-for-life-c-n-o-s-h-and-p-well-maybe-not-p/
>>
>> "Those four elements are essential, but insufficient"
>>
>> Insufficient is right. It is child's play to define at least one other
>> requirement.
>
>A source of energy, such as lightning.
I read that same Popular Mechanics article and I was not convinced.
>
>"John Polasek" <jpol...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:u9mfr7lrkgaugat3s...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 19 May 2012 12:58:53 -0400, pete <pfi...@mindspring.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why not--life can get by with H, C, N and O with the latter three
>>>> first being generated in Population III Stars.
>>>
>>>Those four elements are essential, but insufficient.
>>>
>>>http://promega.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/six-required-elements-for-life-c-n-o-s-h-and-p-well-maybe-not-p/
>>
>> "Those four elements are essential, but insufficient"
>>
>> Insufficient is right. It is child's play to define at least one other
>> requirement.
>
>A source of energy, such as lightning.
>
>> You still need someone clever enough to devise 4 chemicals, adnine,
>> guanine, cytosine and thymine.
>
>That's an illogical fallacy, it requires life (he) to exist before life can
>exist.
You digress. The counter argument has to be the alternative, that A,
>> You still need someone clever enough to devise 4 chemicals, adnine,
>> guanine, cytosine and thymine.
>
>That's an illogical fallacy, it requires life (he) to exist before life can
>exist.
G, C & T created themselves. Never mind that we are unable to do it in
the lab, as far as I know. Even having them, there's more work to do
to put them to work.
>
>> And then he has to string billions of these together in just the
>> proper sequence on a molecule 2 meters long and coil it up inside
>> each cell, so it won't get damaged from random handling and will, in
>> addition, arrange for it to self reproduce.
>>
>It does get randomly "damaged", i.e. arranged.
Why be all scientific and stiff necked about this? It takes a God, and
>> And then he has to string billions of these together in just the
>> proper sequence on a molecule 2 meters long and coil it up inside
>> each cell, so it won't get damaged from random handling and will, in
>> addition, arrange for it to self reproduce.
>>
>It does get randomly "damaged", i.e. arranged.
one much more clever than we give him credit for.
Our scientists have to use E.coli to snip and transport parts of the
DNA when they attempt to tinker with species, etc.
John Polasek
GogoJF
May 19, 2012, 5:13:50 PM5/19/12
to
it is- the question is what is it that we are instantaneously seeing?
Sam Wormley
May 19, 2012, 5:18:43 PM5/19/12
to
the tools yet.
GogoJF
May 19, 2012, 5:21:19 PM5/19/12
to
technology does not change the physics. The motion does not change-
just the observation of the object itself. In the end, astronomically
we are nothing but a single point of observation- as parallax is
nearly null at this point in our evolution with respect to the rest of
the universe. Its because we haven't even put an accurate clock- even
on our nearest object- the moon. And no, mirrors are not clocks.
GogoJF
May 19, 2012, 5:25:04 PM5/19/12
to
GogoJF
May 19, 2012, 5:23:07 PM5/19/12
to
wherever you peer.
John Polasek
May 19, 2012, 5:30:34 PM5/19/12
to
On Sat, 19 May 2012 14:13:50 -0700 (PDT), GogoJF <jfgo...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
We are seeing an image of the galaxy when it also was "13.7 Gyr" of
age. I have it all worked out in my theory of dual space. Cosmology
today does not have a proper model of the structure of the universe.
That is also the source of the Gemini anomaly, where galaxies "10 Gyr
back" are seen as being fully formed, to the consternation of the
theorists.
John Polasek
wrote:
age. I have it all worked out in my theory of dual space. Cosmology
today does not have a proper model of the structure of the universe.
That is also the source of the Gemini anomaly, where galaxies "10 Gyr
back" are seen as being fully formed, to the consternation of the
theorists.
John Polasek
jacob navia
May 19, 2012, 6:25:40 PM5/19/12
to
Le 19/05/12 22:37, John Polasek a écrit :
And... who made that god?
Who created the creator?
You do not explain anything with your "god"...
Obviously because religion is based on ignorance, then explaining
anything is bad, since explaining removes ignorance.
Religion is the root of evil.
>
> Why be all scientific and stiff necked about this? It takes a God, and
> one much more clever than we give him credit for.
GREAT!
> Why be all scientific and stiff necked about this? It takes a God, and
> one much more clever than we give him credit for.
And... who made that god?
Who created the creator?
You do not explain anything with your "god"...
Obviously because religion is based on ignorance, then explaining
anything is bad, since explaining removes ignorance.
Religion is the root of evil.
Odysseus
May 19, 2012, 7:04:57 PM5/19/12
to
In article
<59dfa114-888e-4fe7...@p1g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
"Chris.B" <chr...@nypost.dk> wrote:
<snip>
> Doesn't DNA wear out with time? Too many replications, with too many
> errors, produces senility, weakness and cancers in old age. Would the
> same hold true for an entire species?
Unlikely in reality, as long as natural selection continues to
contribute negentropy, but for imagined fatigue on a larger scale see
J.G. Ballard's "The Voices of Time" (1960).
--
Odysseus
<59dfa114-888e-4fe7...@p1g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
"Chris.B" <chr...@nypost.dk> wrote:
<snip>
> Doesn't DNA wear out with time? Too many replications, with too many
> errors, produces senility, weakness and cancers in old age. Would the
> same hold true for an entire species?
contribute negentropy, but for imagined fatigue on a larger scale see
J.G. Ballard's "The Voices of Time" (1960).
--
Odysseus
Sam Wormley
May 19, 2012, 7:24:12 PM5/19/12
to
On 5/19/12 4:23 PM, GogoJF wrote:
>
> The early universe does not exist- only us and a developed universe
> wherever you peer.
Actually when we look out, we look back in time, because of the
>
> The early universe does not exist- only us and a developed universe
> wherever you peer.
finite speed of light.
We see; the moon as it was 1.3 seconds ago. The sun is as it
was more than eight minutes ago. The Andromeda galaxy 2.5 million
years ago... The CMB shows us features of the universe 13.7 Gyrs
ago.
Quoting astronomer Sandy Faber, "These giant telescopes, they
are the only true time machines that human beings have and they
are totally faithful. There's nothing hokey about this. You look
through a giant telescope, you get a view of a very distant region
of space, and it is as though you were a historian and could put
your eye to a telescope and actually see Hannibal crossing the
Alps and all those elephants trotting along. We are *actually
seeing the universe and the things in it behaving as they did
billions of years ago*".
Sam Wormley
May 19, 2012, 7:26:07 PM5/19/12
to
On 5/19/12 4:25 PM, GogoJF wrote:
>
> The universe we observe is all the same age.
>
> The universe we observe is all the same age.
Actually when we look out, we look back in time, because of the
finite speed of light.
We see; the moon as it was 1.3 seconds ago. The sun is as it
was more than eight minutes ago. The Andromeda galaxy 2.5 million
years ago... The CMB shows us features of the universe 13.7 Gyrs
ago.
Quoting astronomer Sandy Faber, "These giant telescopes, they
are the only true time machines that human beings have and they
are totally faithful. There's nothing hokey about this. You look
through a giant telescope, you get a view of a very distant region
of space, and it is as though you were a historian and could put
your eye to a telescope and actually see Hannibal crossing the
Alps and all those elephants trotting along. We are actually
finite speed of light.
We see; the moon as it was 1.3 seconds ago. The sun is as it
was more than eight minutes ago. The Andromeda galaxy 2.5 million
years ago... The CMB shows us features of the universe 13.7 Gyrs
ago.
Quoting astronomer Sandy Faber, "These giant telescopes, they
are the only true time machines that human beings have and they
are totally faithful. There's nothing hokey about this. You look
through a giant telescope, you get a view of a very distant region
of space, and it is as though you were a historian and could put
your eye to a telescope and actually see Hannibal crossing the
seeing the universe and the things in it behaving as they did
billions of years ago".
Androcles
May 19, 2012, 7:34:22 PM5/19/12
to
news:of0gr796v5ot5frfb...@4ax.com...
anything you want to, but if you want to discuss it then you'll have
to use logic.
>>> You still need someone clever enough to devise 4 chemicals, adnine,
>>> guanine, cytosine and thymine.
>>
>>That's an illogical fallacy, it requires life (he) to exist before life
>>can
>>exist.
> You digress.
No I don't, you raised the issue of "someone clever enough to devise..."
"and then he has to string...".
If anyone is digressing it is you.
The counter argument has to be the alternative, that A,
> G, C & T created themselves.
Yes. Water makes itself when a spark ignites hydrogen and oxygen.
What's so strange about that?
> Never mind that we are unable to do it in
> the lab, as far as I know.
You only know as far as you want to know. Amino acids are easily
created in the lab, you don't know very far at all.
> Even having them, there's more work to do
> to put them to work.
Nature has had a billion years to do it and another three billion to get it
> It takes a God, and
> one much more clever than we give him credit for.
"Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on,
While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on."
-- Augustus De Morgan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
Your statement is a logical fallacy.
> Our scientists have to use E.coli to snip and transport parts of the
> DNA when they attempt to tinker with species, etc.
>
So what?
That's not even close to relevant. It is child's play to point that out.
> On Sat, 19 May 2012 19:35:54 +0100, "Androcles" <M...@May.2012> wrote:
>
>>
>>"John Polasek" <jpol...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
>>news:u9mfr7lrkgaugat3s...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 19 May 2012 12:58:53 -0400, pete <pfi...@mindspring.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why not--life can get by with H, C, N and O with the latter three
>>>>> first being generated in Population III Stars.
>>>>
>>>>Those four elements are essential, but insufficient.
>>>>
>>>>http://promega.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/six-required-elements-for-life-c-n-o-s-h-and-p-well-maybe-not-p/
>>>
>>> "Those four elements are essential, but insufficient"
>>>
>>> Insufficient is right. It is child's play to define at least one other
>>> requirement.
>>
>>A source of energy, such as lightning.
> I read that same Popular Mechanics article and I was not convinced.
There is no requirement to convince a bigot. You are free to believe
>
>>
>>"John Polasek" <jpol...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
>>news:u9mfr7lrkgaugat3s...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 19 May 2012 12:58:53 -0400, pete <pfi...@mindspring.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why not--life can get by with H, C, N and O with the latter three
>>>>> first being generated in Population III Stars.
>>>>
>>>>Those four elements are essential, but insufficient.
>>>>
>>>>http://promega.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/six-required-elements-for-life-c-n-o-s-h-and-p-well-maybe-not-p/
>>>
>>> "Those four elements are essential, but insufficient"
>>>
>>> Insufficient is right. It is child's play to define at least one other
>>> requirement.
>>
>>A source of energy, such as lightning.
> I read that same Popular Mechanics article and I was not convinced.
anything you want to, but if you want to discuss it then you'll have
to use logic.
>>> You still need someone clever enough to devise 4 chemicals, adnine,
>>> guanine, cytosine and thymine.
>>
>>That's an illogical fallacy, it requires life (he) to exist before life
>>can
>>exist.
> You digress.
"and then he has to string...".
If anyone is digressing it is you.
The counter argument has to be the alternative, that A,
> G, C & T created themselves.
What's so strange about that?
> Never mind that we are unable to do it in
> the lab, as far as I know.
created in the lab, you don't know very far at all.
> Even having them, there's more work to do
> to put them to work.
to work.
>>
>>> And then he has to string billions of these together in just the
>>> proper sequence on a molecule 2 meters long and coil it up inside
>>> each cell, so it won't get damaged from random handling and will, in
>>> addition, arrange for it to self reproduce.
>>>
>>It does get randomly "damaged", i.e. arranged.
> Why be all scientific and stiff necked about this?
Because this a sci. newsgroup and you are just another preacher.
>>
>>> And then he has to string billions of these together in just the
>>> proper sequence on a molecule 2 meters long and coil it up inside
>>> each cell, so it won't get damaged from random handling and will, in
>>> addition, arrange for it to self reproduce.
>>>
>>It does get randomly "damaged", i.e. arranged.
> Why be all scientific and stiff necked about this?
> It takes a God, and
> one much more clever than we give him credit for.
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on,
While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on."
-- Augustus De Morgan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
Your statement is a logical fallacy.
> Our scientists have to use E.coli to snip and transport parts of the
> DNA when they attempt to tinker with species, etc.
>
That's not even close to relevant. It is child's play to point that out.
John Polasek
May 19, 2012, 9:45:21 PM5/19/12
to
and for even more credit, tell why it would feel impelled to do so,
lacking any sort of blueprint or other plan.
You're willing to believe in magic.
>> Never mind that we are unable to do it in
>> the lab, as far as I know.
>
>You only know as far as you want to know. Amino acids are easily
>created in the lab, you don't know very far at all.
>
>> Even having them, there's more work to do
>> to put them to work.
>
>Nature has had a billion years to do it and another three billion to get it
>to work.
Considering that DNA contains 6 billion base pairs in a particularly
>> the lab, as far as I know.
>
>You only know as far as you want to know. Amino acids are easily
>created in the lab, you don't know very far at all.
>
>> Even having them, there's more work to do
>> to put them to work.
>
>Nature has had a billion years to do it and another three billion to get it
>to work.
favorable arrangement, tell me how they could achieve this all by
themselves, even given 3 billion years, again, without an instruction
manual. (How does anything invent itself?)
>>>
>>>> And then he has to string billions of these together in just the
>>>> proper sequence on a molecule 2 meters long and coil it up inside
>>>> each cell, so it won't get damaged from random handling and will, in
>>>> addition, arrange for it to self reproduce.
>>>>
>>>It does get randomly "damaged", i.e. arranged.
>> Why be all scientific and stiff necked about this?
>
>Because this a sci. newsgroup and you are just another preacher.
>
>> It takes a God, and
>> one much more clever than we give him credit for.
>
> "Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
> And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
> And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on,
> While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on."
> -- Augustus De Morgan
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
>
>Your statement is a logical fallacy.
>
>> Our scientists have to use E.coli to snip and transport parts of the
>> DNA when they attempt to tinker with species, etc.
>>
>So what?
>That's not even close to relevant. It is child's play to point that out.
man himself cannot do, namely try to rearrange subsets of the code to
come up with something interesting, when in fact the job has already
been done "by the bases all by themselves".
Don't fix what isn't broken.
(How many times do we have to learn that one?).
Besides which you are violating thermodynamics by running entropy
backwards.
John Polasek
>
Androcles
May 20, 2012, 3:08:54 AM5/20/12
to
news:21igr7ln276lvlv5c...@4ax.com...
I asked you a question that you declined to answer.
can form H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide) which changes women's
hair colour to blonde. If that is magic then I believe in it.
To get any credence at all, answer the question.
I repeat: What's so strange about that?
>>> Never mind that we are unable to do it in
>>> the lab, as far as I know.
>>
>>You only know as far as you want to know. Amino acids are easily
>>created in the lab, you don't know very far at all.
>>
>>> Even having them, there's more work to do
>>> to put them to work.
>>
>>Nature has had a billion years to do it and another three billion to get
>>it
>>to work.
> Considering that DNA contains 6 billion base pairs in a particularly
> favorable arrangement, tell me how they could achieve this all by
> themselves, even given 3 billion years, again, without an instruction
> manual. (How does anything invent itself?)
>
So water needs an instruction manual written by your god.
How did your god invent herself and when did she do it?
People are flying in planes all over the world right now, yet nobody
invented all the parts. The electronics engineer doesn't design jet
engines, the hydraulics engineer doesn't design the airframe, the
autopilot needs a software engineer, not a landing wheels designer.
The details are left to specialists. Nobody did everything that makes
up a modern plane. If it is broken we fix it, and planes do break.
You are not even a chemist, let alone a biochemist, yet you dream
you are competent to meddle and criticise their methods.
> Besides which you are violating thermodynamics by running entropy
> backwards.
You digress. Entropy says all the pool balls will be scattered on the
table and will not rearrange themselves into a triangle at the start of
the game by themselves, WITHOUT some energy put into the pool
table system. But a human being does provide that energy. So will
an earthquake that tilts the table, rolling the balls to one end where
they form triangles. There is no violation of entropy when external
energy comes into the system. The Earth is a closed system with
an external energy source, the Sun. No entropy violation. With no
Sun, entropy wins and everything dies.
Water makes itself when a spark ignites hydrogen and oxygen.
It forms H2O, not HO2, not HO, not HO3, not H2O3, but it
can form H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide) which changes women's
hair colour to blonde. If that is magic then I believe in it.
To get any credence at all, answer the question.
I repeat: What's so strange about that?
>>> Never mind that we are unable to do it in
>>> the lab, as far as I know.
>>
>>You only know as far as you want to know. Amino acids are easily
>>created in the lab, you don't know very far at all.
>>
>>> Even having them, there's more work to do
>>> to put them to work.
>>
>>Nature has had a billion years to do it and another three billion to get
>>it
>>to work.
> Considering that DNA contains 6 billion base pairs in a particularly
> favorable arrangement, tell me how they could achieve this all by
> themselves, even given 3 billion years, again, without an instruction
> manual. (How does anything invent itself?)
>
How did your god invent herself and when did she do it?
invented all the parts. The electronics engineer doesn't design jet
engines, the hydraulics engineer doesn't design the airframe, the
autopilot needs a software engineer, not a landing wheels designer.
The details are left to specialists. Nobody did everything that makes
up a modern plane. If it is broken we fix it, and planes do break.
You are not even a chemist, let alone a biochemist, yet you dream
you are competent to meddle and criticise their methods.
> Besides which you are violating thermodynamics by running entropy
> backwards.
table and will not rearrange themselves into a triangle at the start of
the game by themselves, WITHOUT some energy put into the pool
table system. But a human being does provide that energy. So will
an earthquake that tilts the table, rolling the balls to one end where
they form triangles. There is no violation of entropy when external
energy comes into the system. The Earth is a closed system with
an external energy source, the Sun. No entropy violation. With no
Sun, entropy wins and everything dies.
John Polasek
May 20, 2012, 10:43:47 AM5/20/12
to
extension of high school chemistry. But that's the end of its
virtuosity.
I am talking about life elements adenine, guanine, cytosine and
thymine, molecules of far greater complexity and how they; are able to
work together.
These operate in pairs:
adenine with guanine;
cytosine with thymine.
adenine has
N4H4C3+NH2
while guanine has
N4H4C3+O
adenine has to have the prescience to look for a partner guanine and
they pair up.
Ponder a bit and see if you can envision these bases inventing
themselves and in such an ingenious way by linking O and NH2. They
must be able in some way to sense that this is a bright idea.
John Polasek
Androcles
May 20, 2012, 12:39:33 PM5/20/12
to
news:280ir793v5l3jmg44...@4ax.com...
The only "must" is your ignorance and faith. I see you declined
to answer any further points I've made. So be it, I need not
answer you. You have no credibility.
to answer any further points I've made. So be it, I need not
answer you. You have no credibility.
John Polasek
May 20, 2012, 1:29:44 PM5/20/12
to
Due to your short attention span you have forgotten that you brought
up the topic of lightning and it's up to you to show how it could
have augmented any of the base pair processes. In your primitive
example, you knock a couple of electrons out and you get water, a dead
end.
I cannot bring myself to believe that the 6 billion base pairs would
automatically (well, even with lightning) assume their proper places
to make unique 4bit code strings that are needed to, lets say,
procreate, and well, build cars and subdivisions.
Good luck with the water. We hope they find it on a planet.
smart.
>>>People are flying in planes all over the world right now, yet nobody
>>>invented all the parts. The electronics engineer doesn't design jet
>>>engines, the hydraulics engineer doesn't design the airframe, the
>>>autopilot needs a software engineer, not a landing wheels designer.
>>>The details are left to specialists. Nobody did everything that makes
>>>up a modern plane. If it is broken we fix it, and planes do break.
>>>
>>>You are not even a chemist, let alone a biochemist, yet you dream
>>>you are competent to meddle and criticise their methods.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Besides which you are violating thermodynamics by running entropy
>>>> backwards.
>>>
>>>You digress. Entropy says all the pool balls will be scattered on the
>>>table and will not rearrange themselves into a triangle at the start of
>>>the game by themselves, WITHOUT some energy put into the pool
>>>table system. But a human being does provide that energy. So will
>>>an earthquake that tilts the table, rolling the balls to one end where
>>>they form triangles. There is no violation of entropy when external
>>>energy comes into the system. The Earth is a closed system with
>>>an external energy source, the Sun. No entropy violation. With no
>>>Sun, entropy wins and everything dies.
>>>
John Polasek
>>>invented all the parts. The electronics engineer doesn't design jet
>>>engines, the hydraulics engineer doesn't design the airframe, the
>>>autopilot needs a software engineer, not a landing wheels designer.
>>>The details are left to specialists. Nobody did everything that makes
>>>up a modern plane. If it is broken we fix it, and planes do break.
>>>
>>>You are not even a chemist, let alone a biochemist, yet you dream
>>>you are competent to meddle and criticise their methods.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Besides which you are violating thermodynamics by running entropy
>>>> backwards.
>>>
>>>You digress. Entropy says all the pool balls will be scattered on the
>>>table and will not rearrange themselves into a triangle at the start of
>>>the game by themselves, WITHOUT some energy put into the pool
>>>table system. But a human being does provide that energy. So will
>>>an earthquake that tilts the table, rolling the balls to one end where
>>>they form triangles. There is no violation of entropy when external
>>>energy comes into the system. The Earth is a closed system with
>>>an external energy source, the Sun. No entropy violation. With no
>>>Sun, entropy wins and everything dies.
>>>
>
Androcles
May 20, 2012, 3:22:12 PM5/20/12
to
news:6e9ir7hniufc5qif0...@4ax.com...
Unlike poles attract, like poles repel. No gods needed.
I see you ran out of answering me first, so fuck off and
take your god with you.
I see you ran out of answering me first, so fuck off and
take your god with you.
jacob navia
May 20, 2012, 3:27:19 PM5/20/12
to
Le 20/05/12 16:43, John Polasek a écrit :
not see Physics World with this news:
Glycine - CH2NH2COOH - is the simplest of all the 20 amino acids.
Yi-Jehng Kuan of the National Taiwan Normal University and co-workers
from the NASA Ames Research Center and the Polish Academy of Sciences
searched for the molecule in the hot cores of three giant molecular
clouds, which are regions of active star formation. They measured the
spectral lines of the clouds - Sagittarius-B2, Orion-KL and W51 - over a
four-year period using the 12-metre telescope at the National Radio
Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) in Arizona.
The researchers claim that the discovery of glycine is the first step in
establishing the crucial link between amino acids in space and the
emergence of life in the solar system or, indeed, elsewhere in the galaxy.
See the rest in:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2003/aug/11/amino-acid-detected-in-space
What you will say now?
> I never denied lightning could join hydrogen and oxygen, it's an
> extension of high school chemistry. But that's the end of its
> virtuosity.
>
> I am talking about life elements adenine, guanine, cytosine and
> thymine, molecules of far greater complexity and how they; are able to
> work together.
>
> These operate in pairs:
> adenine with guanine;
> cytosine with thymine.
>
> adenine has
> N4H4C3+NH2
> while guanine has
> N4H4C3+O
> adenine has to have the prescience to look for a partner guanine and
> they pair up.
> Ponder a bit and see if you can envision these bases inventing
> themselves and in such an ingenious way by linking O and NH2. They
> must be able in some way to sense that this is a bright idea.
> John Polasek
>
>
Religious people just see what they want to see. For instance you did
> extension of high school chemistry. But that's the end of its
> virtuosity.
>
> I am talking about life elements adenine, guanine, cytosine and
> thymine, molecules of far greater complexity and how they; are able to
> work together.
>
> These operate in pairs:
> adenine with guanine;
> cytosine with thymine.
>
> adenine has
> N4H4C3+NH2
> while guanine has
> N4H4C3+O
> adenine has to have the prescience to look for a partner guanine and
> they pair up.
> Ponder a bit and see if you can envision these bases inventing
> themselves and in such an ingenious way by linking O and NH2. They
> must be able in some way to sense that this is a bright idea.
> John Polasek
>
>
not see Physics World with this news:
Glycine - CH2NH2COOH - is the simplest of all the 20 amino acids.
Yi-Jehng Kuan of the National Taiwan Normal University and co-workers
from the NASA Ames Research Center and the Polish Academy of Sciences
searched for the molecule in the hot cores of three giant molecular
clouds, which are regions of active star formation. They measured the
spectral lines of the clouds - Sagittarius-B2, Orion-KL and W51 - over a
four-year period using the 12-metre telescope at the National Radio
Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) in Arizona.
The researchers claim that the discovery of glycine is the first step in
establishing the crucial link between amino acids in space and the
emergence of life in the solar system or, indeed, elsewhere in the galaxy.
See the rest in:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2003/aug/11/amino-acid-detected-in-space
What you will say now?
John Polasek
May 20, 2012, 4:49:44 PM5/20/12
to
On Sun, 20 May 2012 21:27:19 +0200, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net>
wrote:
Tell them to leave the telescopes on while they are at it, and find
adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine in space also. I'm not saying
they couldn't.
You seem to think that it's up to me to conclude that these could come
crashing to earth or its equivalent and self-organizing 6 billion of
these at a time into a chain that works (in each cell , not one of
which had yet been created).
But why not just make up some Florence flasks each full of one of the
bases and then start sloshing them together and see what comes out.
Give the process a chance. Then, if nothing works, bring in the
lightning.
John Polasek
wrote:
adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine in space also. I'm not saying
they couldn't.
You seem to think that it's up to me to conclude that these could come
crashing to earth or its equivalent and self-organizing 6 billion of
these at a time into a chain that works (in each cell , not one of
which had yet been created).
But why not just make up some Florence flasks each full of one of the
bases and then start sloshing them together and see what comes out.
Give the process a chance. Then, if nothing works, bring in the
lightning.
John Polasek
GogoJF
May 20, 2012, 5:21:02 PM5/20/12
to
telescopes faithful? A single optical image is not translated like
signals. The act of observing stars is a one-way operation not two-
way. The measurement of the "finite speed of light" is a two-way
measure. We have never placed a "clock" on the moon, sun, and stars
so how do we know that what we see is finitely measured?
Sam Wormley
May 20, 2012, 7:07:57 PM5/20/12
to
program provide precision distance measurement of the moon. The round
trip time is on the order of 2.6 seconds.
GogoJF
May 20, 2012, 7:31:47 PM5/20/12
to
jacob navia
May 20, 2012, 7:44:04 PM5/20/12
to
Le 20/05/12 22:49, John Polasek a écrit :
Yes, I bet we will find them too.
> You seem to think that it's up to me to conclude that these could come
> crashing to earth or its equivalent and self-organizing 6 billion of
> these at a time into a chain that works (in each cell , not one of
> which had yet been created).
Nobody knows how life begun. Nobody knows what happens after we die.
Very few people know the mystery of life and those who know do not speak
and those who speak do not know.
The pope doesn't know, nor any priest, nor any religious moron.
Atheists do not deny the mystery of life. They just deny the existence
of that "god" that nobody has ever seen.
How can life be? It is 100% impossible and yet it exists. And we do
not know, and the only way out of this is to study and to investigate
and to go the way of knowledge till we find out.
Science is the only hope of mankind; Religion is the root of all evil.
> You seem to think that it's up to me to conclude that these could come
> crashing to earth or its equivalent and self-organizing 6 billion of
> these at a time into a chain that works (in each cell , not one of
> which had yet been created).
Very few people know the mystery of life and those who know do not speak
and those who speak do not know.
The pope doesn't know, nor any priest, nor any religious moron.
Atheists do not deny the mystery of life. They just deny the existence
of that "god" that nobody has ever seen.
How can life be? It is 100% impossible and yet it exists. And we do
not know, and the only way out of this is to study and to investigate
and to go the way of knowledge till we find out.
Science is the only hope of mankind; Religion is the root of all evil.
GogoJF
May 20, 2012, 7:47:47 PM5/20/12
to
observer and all instruments he uses)- be the "effect" of observation?
Androcles
May 20, 2012, 9:26:02 PM5/20/12
to
"jacob navia" <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote in message
news:jpbvk4$eva$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> Le 20/05/12 22:49, John Polasek a icrit :
>>> Le 20/05/12 16:43, John Polasek a icrit :
my existence will be exactly as it was before I became aware.
I think, therefore I am. When I am not, I shall not think.
John Polasek
May 20, 2012, 11:36:28 PM5/20/12
to
matter and dark energy, freely fabricating Wimps, machos, neutralinos,
that is nothing more than modern age phlogiston.
>> Atheists do not deny the mystery of life. They just deny the existence
>> of that "god" that nobody has ever seen.
He gave us a good chance to look when he sent us Jesus Christ, who I
>> of that "god" that nobody has ever seen.
will admit, failed to stand on his head for you.
I think you'll agree in principle that Christianity had made things a
lot more comfortable and safe for you atheists. But as we see
Christianity evaporating, we see young and old reverting to a hitherto
unprecedented savagery as they realize they do not need to answer to a
higher order.
>> How can life be? It is 100% impossible and yet it exists. And we do
>> not know, and the only way out of this is to study and to investigate
>> and to go the way of knowledge till we find out.
>>
>> Science is the only hope of mankind; Religion is the root of all evil.
>>
>You are right in principle, Jacob, but I do know that after death
>my existence will be exactly as it was before I became aware.
>I think, therefore I am. When I am not, I shall not think.
No, after death you will be unshackled from your bondage to the time
>> not know, and the only way out of this is to study and to investigate
>> and to go the way of knowledge till we find out.
>>
>> Science is the only hope of mankind; Religion is the root of all evil.
>>
>You are right in principle, Jacob, but I do know that after death
>my existence will be exactly as it was before I became aware.
>I think, therefore I am. When I am not, I shall not think.
we call NOW. We are all shackled to now now now now now ...
No more now for you.
Please don't judge God by the TV evangelists.
John Polasek
Chris.B
May 21, 2012, 1:42:34 AM5/21/12
to
On May 21, 1:47 am, GogoJF <jfgog...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Could the "cause"- the internal workings the the human apparatus (the
> observer and all instruments he uses)- be the "effect" of observation?
Do we question the time it takes for the impact of a distant hammer to
> Could the "cause"- the internal workings the the human apparatus (the
> observer and all instruments he uses)- be the "effect" of observation?
finally reaches our ears?
The observer at the telescope is no different from the general waiting
for a messenger to arrive from the battle front. Nobody questions the
time it takes the runner to carry his message physically to the
commander's tent. The wise general might offer the use of his finest
horse to the messenger where greater distances are involved.
Given enough distance, from the battle front, light itself has exactly
the same problems in reaching the observer as does the messenger.
Light merely travels faster than a runner, horse or sound. So the
distances to achieve any delay are much greater. The speed of light is
as as perfectly defined as that of runners, horses and sound.
The only other alternative is to accept that we are all living in "The
Matrix" and imagining everything which happens to us. Not an easy
choice given our present ability to send message packets between every
single individual of the 7 billion known occupants. Give or take an
inevitable delay.
Yousuf Khan
May 21, 2012, 4:39:12 AM5/21/12
to
On 19/05/2012 3:15 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 5/19/12 1:31 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> Still need Fe, Ni, Si, and other metals to form the planets. If the Pop
>> III stars were mostly 100 Msun+ behemoths, then likely they stopped at C
>> & O before they went pair-instability supernova. So those supernovas
>> wouldn't have produced the elements upto Fe.
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>
> Have you ever read of an exploding star that didn't create a dusting
> of *all* the naturally occurring elements?
Yeah, pair-instability supernovas. They may only go out to production of
carbon and oxygen before going boom.
Yousuf Khan
> On 5/19/12 1:31 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> Still need Fe, Ni, Si, and other metals to form the planets. If the Pop
>> III stars were mostly 100 Msun+ behemoths, then likely they stopped at C
>> & O before they went pair-instability supernova. So those supernovas
>> wouldn't have produced the elements upto Fe.
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>
> Have you ever read of an exploding star that didn't create a dusting
> of *all* the naturally occurring elements?
Yeah, pair-instability supernovas. They may only go out to production of
carbon and oxygen before going boom.
Yousuf Khan
Androcles
May 21, 2012, 5:11:38 AM5/21/12
to
news:m3djr7tdvaielirlq...@4ax.com...
You don't think at all, Polasek, you fail all tests of logic.
Religion is the wheelchair of the mentally disabled.
How did your god invent herself and when did she do it,
you stupid sick imbecile?
Religion is the wheelchair of the mentally disabled.
How did your god invent herself and when did she do it,
you stupid sick imbecile?
Sam Wormley
May 21, 2012, 8:46:03 AM5/21/12
to
production, the production of free electrons and positrons in
the collision between atomic nuclei and energetic gamma rays,
reduces thermal pressure inside a supermassive star's core.
This pressure drop leads to a partial collapse, then greatly
accelerated burning in a runaway thermonuclear explosion which
blows the star completely apart without leaving a black hole
remnant behind.
However, you are forgetting r-process, s-process and even the
rp-process that occur in *all* supernovae explosions resulting
in nucleosynthesis of the element up through Uranium.
Yousuf Khan
May 21, 2012, 6:25:11 PM5/21/12
to
therefore the rp-process does not occur, since it requires 1E9 Kelvin
(http://is.gd/HTFJyq).
The s-processes is a slow neutron capture process, so it too isn't
really a candidate inside a pair-instability supernova.
The r-process might be occurring in a pair-instability supernova, but
it's hard to say since its core never contains iron whether the
r-process progresses upto the same level as other supernovas which blow
up after producing iron.
Yousuf Khan
Sam Wormley
May 21, 2012, 7:41:27 PM5/21/12
to
Pair Instability Supernovae: Light Curves, Spectra, and Shock Breakout
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...734..102K
> The supernovae they make can be remarkably energetic (up to ~1053 erg) and synthesize considerable amounts of radioactive isotopes.
A Super-Duper Supernova
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/78344612.html
> Spectra taken in August 2008 with the 10-meter Keck I telescope in Hawaii revealed that most of SN 2007bi's light was coming from the radioactive decay of nickel-56, which was synthesized in the explosion. The high luminosity means that the supernova ejected a vast quantity of mass, which is what theorists expect for a PISN. Gal-Yam and his colleagues report on this website that SN 2007bi "appears to be a clean example" of a PISN.
>
> "Multiple lines of evidence lead to the conclusion for a huge helium core (about 100 solar masses) and a very large amount of synthesized radioactive nickel," says team member Alex Filippenko (University of California, Berkeley), a leading supernova expert.
jacob navia
May 22, 2012, 4:19:43 AM5/22/12
to
Le 21/05/12 03:26, Androcles a écrit :
You were dead and returned to tell us?
You do not know who you are, nobody knows what life is,
what is behind ourselves.
I do not know either, but many personal experiences point to the same
answer: we are more than what we think we are.
By the way, what it means "think"?
When you sleep, you do not think. Calling you by your name
doesn't work, you do not react to anything external and to all
purposes you do NOT think.
You do not exist when sleeping? You disappear from existence just
like that every night?
OK, then "think" means something else.
But this discussion is pointless. We will all see the truth
eventually.
> You are right in principle, Jacob, but I do know that after death
> my existence will be exactly as it was before I became aware.
> I think, therefore I am. When I am not, I shall not think.
>
What do you know?
> my existence will be exactly as it was before I became aware.
> I think, therefore I am. When I am not, I shall not think.
>
You were dead and returned to tell us?
You do not know who you are, nobody knows what life is,
what is behind ourselves.
I do not know either, but many personal experiences point to the same
answer: we are more than what we think we are.
By the way, what it means "think"?
When you sleep, you do not think. Calling you by your name
doesn't work, you do not react to anything external and to all
purposes you do NOT think.
You do not exist when sleeping? You disappear from existence just
like that every night?
OK, then "think" means something else.
But this discussion is pointless. We will all see the truth
eventually.
Androcles
May 22, 2012, 5:44:21 AM5/22/12
to
news:jpfi6v$ovl$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> Le 21/05/12 03:26, Androcles a icrit :
have never returned.
> You do not know who you are, nobody knows what life is,
> what is behind ourselves.
>
I am me and I know I am alive.
> I do not know either, but many personal experiences point to the same
> answer: we are more than what we think we are.
>
> By the way, what it means "think"?
>
It means you have the ability to ask that question.
> When you sleep, you do not think.
Correct.
> Calling you by your name
> doesn't work, you do not react to anything external and to all
> purposes you do NOT think.
Correct. As Rene Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am (I exist)"
I say: Rene Descartes does not exist, therefore he does not think.
> You do not exist when sleeping? You disappear from existence just
> like that every night?
>
I didn't say that.
If I walk in the rain without an umbrella, I'll get wet.
I am not wet. Therefore I have not walked in the rain without an umbrella.
I am wet. Perhaps I've been swimming.
asleep last night?
> Le 21/05/12 03:26, Androcles a icrit :
>> You are right in principle, Jacob, but I do know that after death
>> my existence will be exactly as it was before I became aware.
>> I think, therefore I am. When I am not, I shall not think.
>>
> What do you know?
I know that I think.
>> my existence will be exactly as it was before I became aware.
>> I think, therefore I am. When I am not, I shall not think.
>>
> What do you know?
>
> You were dead and returned to tell us?
>
I didn't exist before I was born, that's as good as dead, and I
> You were dead and returned to tell us?
>
have never returned.
> You do not know who you are, nobody knows what life is,
> what is behind ourselves.
>
> I do not know either, but many personal experiences point to the same
> answer: we are more than what we think we are.
>
> By the way, what it means "think"?
>
> When you sleep, you do not think.
> Calling you by your name
> doesn't work, you do not react to anything external and to all
> purposes you do NOT think.
I say: Rene Descartes does not exist, therefore he does not think.
> You do not exist when sleeping? You disappear from existence just
> like that every night?
>
If I walk in the rain without an umbrella, I'll get wet.
I am not wet. Therefore I have not walked in the rain without an umbrella.
I am wet. Perhaps I've been swimming.
I think, therefore I am. When I am not, I shall not think.
> OK, then "think" means something else.
>
> But this discussion is pointless. We will all see the truth
> eventually.
What were you thinking about at the moment you fell
>
> But this discussion is pointless. We will all see the truth
> eventually.
asleep last night?
oriel36
May 22, 2012, 4:33:20 PM5/22/12
to
long before the rings of SN1987a were discovered and specifically the
two external rings with a smaller internal ring at an intersection.I
can't say I regret taking it out a copyright back in 1990 but the
world has changed since then with less and less of an interest in the
flow of information between terrestrial sciences and astronomy or visa
versa.
Whereas mathematicians traffic in 4 dimensions,I had a look at a prime
dimension - a geometry which reflects a lot of other individual
geometries and specifically the Phi proportion, a correspondence loved
by so many people who are close to nature,astronomy and terrestrial
sciences.As a Christian,there is no effort required in recognizing
Universal traits in individual traits and moving information around
between disciplines,it is how I got so far working planetary dynamics
into plate tectonics or the modifications to climate but finding
individuals who operate that way is easily the most difficult thing of
all.
It is fine being a 'supernova expert' after the fact but the original
work I did in 1990 on density/volume ratio in stars allied with
natural efficiency (hence the phi proportion) created the outlines of
an alternative way to look at stellar evolution and the creation of
individual solar systems - including our own.There is something lovely
about our own central star and so what if it is too early to say that
the elements found throughout our solar system have their origins in
our Sun at a different phase in its evolution - the geometry which
binds stellar evolution with all the myriad of individual geometries
on this magnificent planet indicate a geometrical E Pluribus Unum.
It is a private work now and that is how it will remain.
Sam Wormley
May 22, 2012, 5:50:28 PM5/22/12
to
On 5/22/12 3:33 PM, oriel36 wrote:
> It is fine being a 'supernova expert' after the fact but the original
> work I did in 1990 on density/volume ratio in stars allied with
> natural efficiency (hence the phi proportion) created the outlines of
> an alternative way to look at stellar evolution and the creation of
> individual solar systems - including our own.There is something lovely
> about our own central star and so what if it is too early to say that
> the elements found throughout our solar system have their origins in
> our Sun at a different phase in its evolution - the geometry which
> binds stellar evolution with all the myriad of individual geometries
> on this magnificent planet indicate a geometrical E Pluribus Unum.
Gerald, what Type of a supernova, in your opinion, was SN 1987a ?
> It is fine being a 'supernova expert' after the fact but the original
> work I did in 1990 on density/volume ratio in stars allied with
> natural efficiency (hence the phi proportion) created the outlines of
> an alternative way to look at stellar evolution and the creation of
> individual solar systems - including our own.There is something lovely
> about our own central star and so what if it is too early to say that
> the elements found throughout our solar system have their origins in
> our Sun at a different phase in its evolution - the geometry which
> binds stellar evolution with all the myriad of individual geometries
> on this magnificent planet indicate a geometrical E Pluribus Unum.
oriel36
May 23, 2012, 5:45:12 AM5/23/12
to
the birth of a solar system as opposed to the death of a star and the
formative reasoning behind this did not emerge until years after I
worked on the external rings and the internal ring using a background
geometry that is found on Earth in abundance and especially the
geometries relating to the Phi proportion.It is the one area that I
have regard for physicists as they deal with evolutionary stellar
processes but these productive approaches are lost in the babble of
'black holes eating stars' and other such pulpy ephemera.
It is Christian thing,it is how I understand background faith as the
pallet against which creation is observed and appreciated - looking at
natural efficiency and process at a human level works all the way up
to stellar evolution and I have no doubt it works at greater
structures.Judging from the way my work of rotation and plate
tectonics/planetary spherical deviation was handled ,or rather
mangled,I had every right to keep this section of my work private and
it has been that way for almost 2 decades.
Unlike anyone here,in 1990 I actually worked with the geometry of
stellar evolution in terms of volume/density which provides the basis
for the rings seen in that supernova -
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap960705.html
So,the possibility is that some supernova are indeed the final moments
of stellar evolution but there is also the possibility that it could
be a transition phase and that is where it gets interesting.I found
the geometry that suits but it is not suitable for a Usenet
audience,merely for those who are serious about astronomy and the flow
of information to terrestrial effects right down to a human level and
smaller.
Brad Guth
May 23, 2012, 8:51:33 AM5/23/12
to
On May 19, 7:33 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> Baby galaxies grew up quicklyhttp://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Baby_galaxies_grew_up_quickly_999.html
>
> Quote:
>
> > Up until now, researchers thought that it had taken billions of years for stars to form and with that, galaxies with a high content of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. But new research from the Niels Bohr Institute shows that this process went surprisingly quickly in some galaxies.
>
> > "We have studied 10 galaxies in the early Universe and analysed their light spectra. We are observing light from the galaxies that has been on a 10-12 billion year journey to Earth, so we see the galaxies as they were then. Our expectation was that they would be relatively primitive and poor in heavier elements, but we discovered somewhat to our surprise that the gas in some of the galaxies and thus the stars in them had a very high content of heavier elements. The gas was just as enriched as our own Sun," explains Professor Johan Fynbo from the Dark Cosmology Centre at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen.
>
> So is 12 or 13 billion year old life, possible? Looks like it might have
> been superficially possible. Still we'd have to know the specific
> conditions inside those early galaxies. They could've been wracked with
> a lot of supernova explosions near life-forming solar systems, thus
> destroying their life. Much like life chemicals were always existent in
> the early Solar System, but conditions weren't exactly right until maybe
> 3.5 billion years ago. Similar sort of problems may have occurred in
> those early galaxies, but in a galaxy-wide scenario.
>
> Yousuf Khan
First generation stars most likely formed quickly and had to be of a
galaxy class of mass. No doubt those big initial stars didn't last
very long.
Given a billion some odd years of multiple stellar rebirthing, complex
life could have started.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
> Baby galaxies grew up quicklyhttp://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Baby_galaxies_grew_up_quickly_999.html
>
> Quote:
>
> > Up until now, researchers thought that it had taken billions of years for stars to form and with that, galaxies with a high content of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. But new research from the Niels Bohr Institute shows that this process went surprisingly quickly in some galaxies.
>
> > "We have studied 10 galaxies in the early Universe and analysed their light spectra. We are observing light from the galaxies that has been on a 10-12 billion year journey to Earth, so we see the galaxies as they were then. Our expectation was that they would be relatively primitive and poor in heavier elements, but we discovered somewhat to our surprise that the gas in some of the galaxies and thus the stars in them had a very high content of heavier elements. The gas was just as enriched as our own Sun," explains Professor Johan Fynbo from the Dark Cosmology Centre at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen.
>
> So is 12 or 13 billion year old life, possible? Looks like it might have
> been superficially possible. Still we'd have to know the specific
> conditions inside those early galaxies. They could've been wracked with
> a lot of supernova explosions near life-forming solar systems, thus
> destroying their life. Much like life chemicals were always existent in
> the early Solar System, but conditions weren't exactly right until maybe
> 3.5 billion years ago. Similar sort of problems may have occurred in
> those early galaxies, but in a galaxy-wide scenario.
>
> Yousuf Khan
First generation stars most likely formed quickly and had to be of a
galaxy class of mass. No doubt those big initial stars didn't last
very long.
Given a billion some odd years of multiple stellar rebirthing, complex
life could have started.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Message has been deleted
Yousuf Khan
May 23, 2012, 11:19:15 AM5/23/12
to
On 21/05/2012 7:41 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> I call your attention to:
>
> Pair Instability Supernovae: Light Curves, Spectra, and Shock Breakout
> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...734..102K
>> The supernovae they make can be remarkably energetic (up to ~1053 erg)
>> and synthesize considerable amounts of radioactive isotopes.
Sure, they get energetic, just like any other supernova. But that
> I call your attention to:
>
> Pair Instability Supernovae: Light Curves, Spectra, and Shock Breakout
> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...734..102K
>> The supernovae they make can be remarkably energetic (up to ~1053 erg)
>> and synthesize considerable amounts of radioactive isotopes.
doesn't mean that that energy is concentrated enough to reach the
temperatures needed for the rp-process to get protons to overcome their
Coulomb barrier repulsion. With the s-process not viable either inside
an PI SNe, so that leaves just the r-process which involves just pushing
neutrons together. When you have nuclei made of just huge amounts of
neutrons, they start breaking apart due to the Weak Interaction,
therefore they become radioactive. However, being radioactive isotope
doesn't necessarily mean that you're made up of those elements above
iron, even low elements like carbon and oxygen can become radioactive
given enough neutrons crowding their nuclei.
Yousuf Khan
Brad Guth
May 23, 2012, 3:55:06 PM5/23/12
to
On May 19, 7:33 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> Baby galaxies grew up quicklyhttp://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Baby_galaxies_grew_up_quickly_999.html
>
> Quote:
>
> > Up until now, researchers thought that it had taken billions of years for stars to form and with that, galaxies with a high content of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. But new research from the Niels Bohr Institute shows that this process went surprisingly quickly in some galaxies.
>
> > "We have studied 10 galaxies in the early Universe and analysed their light spectra. We are observing light from the galaxies that has been on a 10-12 billion year journey to Earth, so we see the galaxies as they were then. Our expectation was that they would be relatively primitive and poor in heavier elements, but we discovered somewhat to our surprise that the gas in some of the galaxies and thus the stars in them had a very high content of heavier elements. The gas was just as enriched as our own Sun," explains Professor Johan Fynbo from the Dark Cosmology Centre at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen.
>
> So is 12 or 13 billion year old life, possible? Looks like it might have
> been superficially possible. Still we'd have to know the specific
> conditions inside those early galaxies. They could've been wracked with
> a lot of supernova explosions near life-forming solar systems, thus
> destroying their life. Much like life chemicals were always existent in
> the early Solar System, but conditions weren't exactly right until maybe
> 3.5 billion years ago. Similar sort of problems may have occurred in
> those early galaxies, but in a galaxy-wide scenario.
>
> Yousuf Khan
There should be lots of intelligent other life as having at least a
> Baby galaxies grew up quicklyhttp://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Baby_galaxies_grew_up_quickly_999.html
>
> Quote:
>
> > Up until now, researchers thought that it had taken billions of years for stars to form and with that, galaxies with a high content of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. But new research from the Niels Bohr Institute shows that this process went surprisingly quickly in some galaxies.
>
> > "We have studied 10 galaxies in the early Universe and analysed their light spectra. We are observing light from the galaxies that has been on a 10-12 billion year journey to Earth, so we see the galaxies as they were then. Our expectation was that they would be relatively primitive and poor in heavier elements, but we discovered somewhat to our surprise that the gas in some of the galaxies and thus the stars in them had a very high content of heavier elements. The gas was just as enriched as our own Sun," explains Professor Johan Fynbo from the Dark Cosmology Centre at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen.
>
> So is 12 or 13 billion year old life, possible? Looks like it might have
> been superficially possible. Still we'd have to know the specific
> conditions inside those early galaxies. They could've been wracked with
> a lot of supernova explosions near life-forming solar systems, thus
> destroying their life. Much like life chemicals were always existent in
> the early Solar System, but conditions weren't exactly right until maybe
> 3.5 billion years ago. Similar sort of problems may have occurred in
> those early galaxies, but in a galaxy-wide scenario.
>
> Yousuf Khan
billion or greater years of evolution advantage over us. Of course if
they're anything like us, they'd likely have expended every possible
global resource and having died off as of billions of years ago.
First generation stars most likely formed quickly and had to be of a
hydrogen didn't last very long (perhaps only a few years per stellar
cycle).
Given an initial two or three billion some odd years of multiple
stellar rebirthing, whereas all sorts of complex life could have
started upon any number of suitable planets as having stars of 1e30 kg
or less. Those smaller stars of 10+ billion years age should still be
going as strong and steady as ever, providing a more ideal solar
system environment than what we have to work with.
John Polasek
May 24, 2012, 12:07:57 PM5/24/12
to
On Wed, 23 May 2012 12:55:06 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 19, 7:33 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Baby galaxies grew up quicklyhttp://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Baby_galaxies_grew_up_quickly_999.html
>>
>> Quote:
>>
>> > Up until now, researchers thought that it had taken billions of years for stars to form and with that, galaxies with a high content of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. But new research from the Niels Bohr Institute shows that this process went surprisingly quickly in some galaxies.
>>
>> > "We have studied 10 galaxies in the early Universe and analysed their light spectra. We are observing light from the galaxies that has been on a 10-12 billion year journey to Earth, so we see the galaxies as they were then. Our expectation was that they would be relatively primitive and poor in heavier elements, but we discovered somewhat to our surprise that the gas in some of the galaxies and thus the stars in them had a very high content of heavier elements. The gas was just as enriched as our own Sun," explains Professor Johan Fynbo from the Dark Cosmology Centre at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen.
Thst's because science today does not have a proper concept ot the
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 19, 7:33 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Baby galaxies grew up quicklyhttp://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Baby_galaxies_grew_up_quickly_999.html
>>
>> Quote:
>>
>> > Up until now, researchers thought that it had taken billions of years for stars to form and with that, galaxies with a high content of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. But new research from the Niels Bohr Institute shows that this process went surprisingly quickly in some galaxies.
>>
>> > "We have studied 10 galaxies in the early Universe and analysed their light spectra. We are observing light from the galaxies that has been on a 10-12 billion year journey to Earth, so we see the galaxies as they were then. Our expectation was that they would be relatively primitive and poor in heavier elements, but we discovered somewhat to our surprise that the gas in some of the galaxies and thus the stars in them had a very high content of heavier elements. The gas was just as enriched as our own Sun," explains Professor Johan Fynbo from the Dark Cosmology Centre at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen.
structure of the universe. Has it ever occurred to you that you really
can't look back 12 billion years.Or that the light reaches us after 12
billion years? What was it doing in the meantime?
>> So is 12 or 13 billion year old life, possible? Looks like it might have
>> been superficially possible. Still we'd have to know the specific
>> conditions inside those early galaxies. They could've been wracked with
>> a lot of supernova explosions near life-forming solar systems, thus
>> destroying their life. Much like life chemicals were always existent in
>> the early Solar System, but conditions weren't exactly right until maybe
>> 3.5 billion years ago. Similar sort of problems may have occurred in
>> those early galaxies, but in a galaxy-wide scenario.
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>
>There should be lots of intelligent other life as having at least a
>billion or greater years of evolution advantage over us. Of course if
>they're anything like us, they'd likely have expended every possible
>global resource and having died off as of billions of years ago.
>
>First generation stars most likely formed quickly and had to be of a
>galaxy class of mass. No doubt those big initial stars of mostly
>hydrogen didn't last very long (perhaps only a few years per stellar
>cycle).
>
>Given an initial two or three billion some odd years of multiple
>stellar rebirthing, whereas all sorts of ???complex life could have
>> been superficially possible. Still we'd have to know the specific
>> conditions inside those early galaxies. They could've been wracked with
>> a lot of supernova explosions near life-forming solar systems, thus
>> destroying their life. Much like life chemicals were always existent in
>> the early Solar System, but conditions weren't exactly right until maybe
>> 3.5 billion years ago. Similar sort of problems may have occurred in
>> those early galaxies, but in a galaxy-wide scenario.
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>
>There should be lots of intelligent other life as having at least a
>billion or greater years of evolution advantage over us. Of course if
>they're anything like us, they'd likely have expended every possible
>global resource and having died off as of billions of years ago.
>
>First generation stars most likely formed quickly and had to be of a
>galaxy class of mass. No doubt those big initial stars of mostly
>hydrogen didn't last very long (perhaps only a few years per stellar
>cycle).
>
>Given an initial two or three billion some odd years of multiple
>started??? upon any number of suitable planets as having stars of 1e30 kg
>or less. Those smaller stars of 10+ billion years age should still be
>going as strong and steady as ever, providing a more ideal solar
>system environment than what we have to work with.
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups/search
> http://translate.google.com/#
> Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
There's a leap of logic:
>going as strong and steady as ever, providing a more ideal solar
>system environment than what we have to work with.
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups/search
> http://translate.google.com/#
> Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
"all sorts of complex life could have
started upon any number of suitable planets".
You take for granted that there is some widely known mechanism that is
generally accepted and all that's left is a probability equation. But
a mechanism is not known. Just water and light and lightning, for
example, will not be not enough.
Watson and Crick showed that even the meanest organism requires DNA
equipped with millions of base pairs properly oriented, and as one
example, E.coli is equipped with 6 million base pairs in order to
function, as made clear by this article:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9278503ract
"Abstract
The 4,639,221-base pair sequence of Escherichia coli K-12 is
presented. Of 4288 protein-coding genes annotated, 38 percent have no
attributed function. Comparison with five other sequenced microbes
reveals ubiquitous as well as narrowly distributed gene families; many
families of similar genes within E. coli are also evident. The largest
family of paralogous proteins contains 80 ABC transporters. The genome
as a whole is strikingly organized with respect to the local direction
of replication; guanines, oligonucleotides possibly related to
replication and recombination, and most genes are so oriented. The
genome also contains insertion sequence (IS) elements, phage remnants,
and many other patches of unusual composition indicating genome
plasticity through horizontal transfer."
Notice the rich description of 4288 genes and comparison to other
microbes.
It is impossible for 6 million base pairs (first having to occur
somehow) arranging themselves properly to produce life. If such were
possible we would be now have detected much simpler molecules such as
rubber, Formica, etc.
I'm afraid we have to look for some intelligent outside agency as
being responsible for this brilliant arrangement that "could have
started".
John Polasek
Brad Guth
May 25, 2012, 6:30:10 PM5/25/12
to
On May 24, 9:07 am, John Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2012 12:55:06 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
>
> On Wed, 23 May 2012 12:55:06 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
>
populating other planets and moons with complex forms of life.
Our solar system simply isn't old enough to consider Earth as the
first or much less only Eden.
John Polasek
May 25, 2012, 9:42:47 PM5/25/12
to
I think they still have a long way to go before they get all the kinks
worked out. But, if you like it, stay with it.
>Our solar system simply isn't old enough to consider Earth as the
>first or much less only Eden.
billion not 6 million base pairs like E.coli.
It is puerile to think that, given sufficient time, water and light
can produce life. Entropy and probabilities see to that.
Darwin's idea depends on time and adapting, or we think he thought
that, but he would be dumfounded upon learning of Crick and Watson's
findings and the realization that he had to incorporate this new
digital DNA into his analog "stands to reason" philosophy.
The outside intelligence I have in mind didn't need a lot of time to
put his brilliant plan into execution.
I don't need to defend Genesis. These were people who had neither
pencil nor paper nor colleges to make them smart.
You seem to have a process in mind for development of the DNA that
makes life, so iit would be interesting if you could describe the
first step in such a process, (after which I understand, it gets more
complicated, but, given time, things will most likely work out).
John Polasek
Brad Guth
May 26, 2012, 6:52:32 PM5/26/12
to
pieces of DNA, and we're even capable of splicing those little bits of
DNA together. We are also capable of getting our science probes onto
the surfaces of other planets and their moons. So it's just a matter
of time before hybrid or entirely new species of complex life can be
exported, at least on a trial and error basis.
Imagine what another world of much older and wiser forms of
intelligent life must have be doing before our solar system even
existed.
John Polasek
May 26, 2012, 11:18:04 PM5/26/12
to
No question this is a fascinating topic, but it has the same defect as
cosmology: it's not possible to conduct controlled experiments. You
might alter a gene but realize you can only put it in one or several
cells but not the trillions in the whole body.
It is a high order of Watson/Crick ingenuity that is responsible for
some of the deductions, since you can't really see the DNA. Dyes can
be used to distinguish chromosomes (like property lines) but that's
old hat.
A genome sequencing that was broken up with semicolons or backslashes
to partition out individual genes would be ideal :>). Otherwise how
identify a gene whose size is indeterminate. (Google How big are
genes).
I liken the DNA code to the Windows code that is loaded each time,
containing thousands of DLL's that are subroutines summoned by code
written by a programmer, akin to RNA linking the DNA genes one to the
other-something like that.
Given 10,000 lines of such Windows code, I believe it would be
inscrutable to anyone but the code writer.
I stick by my conclusion: only an outside intelligence could possibly
design such a beautiful machine.
It is clear that my designer with his code, has predated, by aeons,
the likes of Microsoft or even Apple. Besides which it so much more
clever, oh, and self-healing, don't you agree?
John Polasek
Brad Guth
May 28, 2012, 7:49:55 PM5/28/12
to
dent in simulating this and multiverse theories.
Any intelligent life that's only a million years older than us could
easily accomplish great things. Imagine what a few billion years in
advanced intelligence could manage to pull off, such as by directing
stars to merge on demand could create all sorts of metallicity.
Self-healing seems like a good genetic improvement that we humans
currently lack. A lot of complex life on Earth seems better
engineered than us humans.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG, Guth Usenet/Guth Venus
John Polasek
May 29, 2012, 6:32:40 PM5/29/12
to
On Mon, 28 May 2012 16:49:55 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 26, 8:18 pm, John Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 May 2012 15:52:32 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 25, 6:42 pm, John Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 25 May 2012 15:30:10 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
>>
>> >> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On May 24, 9:07 am, John Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, 23 May 2012 12:55:06 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
>>
>> >> >> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >On May 19, 7:33 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> Baby galaxies grew up quicklyhttp://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Baby_galaxies_grew_up_quickly_999.html
>>
>>
snip
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 26, 8:18 pm, John Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 May 2012 15:52:32 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 25, 6:42 pm, John Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 25 May 2012 15:30:10 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
>>
>> >> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On May 24, 9:07 am, John Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, 23 May 2012 12:55:06 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
>>
>> >> >> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >On May 19, 7:33 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> Baby galaxies grew up quicklyhttp://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Baby_galaxies_grew_up_quickly_999.html
>>
>>
I forgot to mention how compact this information is, and it is
succintly stated in Google wiki genome:
"An analogy to the human genome stored on DNA is that of instructions
stored in a book:
The book (genome) would contain 23 chapters (chromosomes);
each chapter contains 48 to 250 million letters (A,C,G,T) without
spaces;
Hence, the book contains over 3.2 billion letters total;
The book fits into a cell nucleus the size of a pinpoint;
At least one copy of the book (all 23 chapters) is contained in
most cells of our body.
The only exception in humans is found in mature red blood cells."
DNA code blows the doors off your "supercomputer with thousands of
CPUs"
My designer wins.
John Polasek
Brad Guth
May 30, 2012, 8:51:31 AM5/30/12
to
sequencing those artificially constructed bits of human or some other
complex DNA, but it can be done.
This means that directed panspermia is technically doable, although in
our case we can just transport complete complex DNA that's already to
go.
I didn't realize this was a race.
“Guth Venus” 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/102736204560337818634/BradGuth#slideshow/5629579402364691314
Go right ahead and tell us whatever you can manage to interpret,
because if you accept other mainstream media imaging obtained from
public funded science that’s of extensively photoshopped, stacked and
color/hue saturation modified images that our NASA plus the likes of
JPL and ASU gets mainstream published and even into textbooks all the
time, then interpreting this one should be quite easy.
John Polasek
May 30, 2012, 10:46:12 AM5/30/12
to
spontaneous generation. Instead, you explain it as more like an
expensive government program to spread the good news. I think probably
such a program has been proposed, but first, they have probably been
asked to find a place with water.
>I didn't realize this was a race.
"Given a billion some odd years of multiple stellar rebirthing,
complex life could have started."
From which I gather that you actually believe that, given sufficient
complex life could have started."
time, really good things would happen, like spontaneous generation of
life. Then you trotted out your
"supercomputer with thousands of CPUs" to compete with the stunningly
clever DNA made by nature. It specifies a competition, if not a race.
snip
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups/search
> http://translate.google.com/#
> Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG, Guth Usenet/Guth Venus
John Polasek
> http://groups.google.com/groups/search
> http://translate.google.com/#
> Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG, Guth Usenet/Guth Venus
Brad Guth
May 30, 2012, 7:41:07 PM5/30/12
to
life from scratch for more than a decade. They have been genetically
modifying complex life for decades. Any of that new or improved life
could be deployed to other planets and moons, and it's not that far
fetched to think that Earth could off-world seed via directed
panspermia, populating other planets and moons with complex forms of
life.
Even if only .0001% of that exported life managed to survive, it's
quite a big step.
Thumbnail images, including mgn_c115s095_1.gif (225 m/pixel)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/thumbnail_pages/venus_thumbnails.html
Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles, Venus from Magellan Cycle 1
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.html
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
“Guth Venus” 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/bradguth/BradGuth#5630418595926178146
question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/bradguth/BradGuth#5629579402364691314
Brad Guth / Blog and my Google document pages:
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet?hl=en
http://bradguth.blogspot.com/
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsdxhv_0hrm5bdfj
John Polasek
May 30, 2012, 9:57:31 PM5/30/12
to
reachable local objects, moons included, are known to be hostile to
life. And all stars are out of range, even Proxima, 3-4 lyrs away,
which is so far planetless, or we would have heard about it.
John Polasek
>Even if only .0001% of that exported life managed to survive, it's
>quite a big step.
>
>quite a big step.
>
dlzc
May 31, 2012, 10:47:41 AM5/31/12
to
Dear John C. Polasek:
On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 6:57:31 PM UTC-7, John C. Polasek wrote:
...
http://www.space.com/10498-life-building-blocks-surprising-meteorite.html
... 19 different amino acids, floating in space...
David A. Smith
On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 6:57:31 PM UTC-7, John C. Polasek wrote:
...
> On even cursory examination, it's quite far
> fetched, because all reachable local objects,
> moons included, are known to be hostile to
> life. And all stars are out of range, even
> Proxima, 3-4 lyrs away, which is so far
> planetless, or we would have heard about it.
Well, many of our most sensitive detection methods require the stellar ecliptic plane to be nearly parallel to our axis of observation. And those that don't, require something nearly as massive as Jupiter to wiggle the star. I'd be willing to posit that *every* star will have planets, unless the stellar system encountered another star system that boosted the planets out-system.
> fetched, because all reachable local objects,
> moons included, are known to be hostile to
> life. And all stars are out of range, even
> Proxima, 3-4 lyrs away, which is so far
> planetless, or we would have heard about it.
http://www.space.com/10498-life-building-blocks-surprising-meteorite.html
... 19 different amino acids, floating in space...
David A. Smith
John Polasek
Jun 1, 2012, 10:13:24 PM6/1/12
to
On Thu, 31 May 2012 07:47:41 -0700 (PDT), dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
>Dear John C. Polasek:
>
>On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 6:57:31 PM UTC-7, John C. Polasek wrote:
>...
>> On even cursory examination, it's quite far
>> fetched, because all reachable local objects,
>> moons included, are known to be hostile to
>> life. And all stars are out of range, even
>> Proxima, 3-4 lyrs away, which is so far
>> planetless, or we would have heard about it.
>
>Well, many of our most sensitive detection methods require the stellar ecliptic plane to be nearly parallel to our axis of observation. And those that don't, require something nearly as massive as Jupiter to wiggle the star. I'd be willing to posit that *every* star will have planets, unless the stellar system encountered another star system that boosted the planets out-system.
Well, *every* star but Alpha Centauri :>) .
>Dear John C. Polasek:
>
>On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 6:57:31 PM UTC-7, John C. Polasek wrote:
>...
>> On even cursory examination, it's quite far
>> fetched, because all reachable local objects,
>> moons included, are known to be hostile to
>> life. And all stars are out of range, even
>> Proxima, 3-4 lyrs away, which is so far
>> planetless, or we would have heard about it.
>
>Well, many of our most sensitive detection methods require the stellar ecliptic plane to be nearly parallel to our axis of observation. And those that don't, require something nearly as massive as Jupiter to wiggle the star. I'd be willing to posit that *every* star will have planets, unless the stellar system encountered another star system that boosted the planets out-system.
Why wouldn't each star have several planets instead of 1, e.g. 9
(might be an eigevnalue) , and wouldn't that blunt the wiggle?
>http://www.space.com/10498-life-building-blocks-surprising-meteorite.html
>... 19 different amino acids, floating in space...
Amino acids are afterproducts whose ongoing progress is most
efficiently directed by RNA and DNA, afaik. Hitachi makes amino acide
analyzers so the stuff is quite common, in hair and the like.
It would be too much to expect that, even if accompanied by a
handbook, that you could do a lot with a batch of these chemicals.
Interesting.
>David A. Smith
John Polasek
Androcles
Jun 2, 2012, 1:23:52 AM6/2/12
to
"John Polasek" <jpol...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:eksis79bmlp1vm7ec...@4ax.com...
are amino acids. The amino acids are not afterproducts, they are
beforeproducts. The stuff is quite common in every cell in every
living thing.
John Polasek
Jun 2, 2012, 12:10:06 PM6/2/12
to
Their various conformations are cleverly directed by the DNA and RNA,
e.g, to make a left ear, a toenail, you get the idea.
It has worked out well.
John Polasek
Androcles
Jun 2, 2012, 1:15:03 PM6/2/12
to
news:3geks75t31c6om8ea...@4ax.com...
Steel girders, clay bricks, concrete blocks, sheet rock, mortar etc.
are the amino acids of artificial cave dwellings. You can build
churches, office blocks, factories, homes and tombs with them.
Nylon is "cleverly" created at the interface of two liquids.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon
You don't get the idea. It has worked out the way it did.
If things don't soon alter they'll stay as they are. Things are
more like they are now than they've ever been before.
are the amino acids of artificial cave dwellings. You can build
churches, office blocks, factories, homes and tombs with them.
Nylon is "cleverly" created at the interface of two liquids.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon
You don't get the idea. It has worked out the way it did.
If things don't soon alter they'll stay as they are. Things are
more like they are now than they've ever been before.
Brad Guth
Jun 3, 2012, 4:31:45 PM6/3/12
to
On May 30, 6:57 pm, John Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2012 16:41:07 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
>
> On Wed, 30 May 2012 16:41:07 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
>
> >Monsanto and many others have been secretly capable of creating custom
> >life from scratch for more than a decade. They have been genetically
> >modifying complex life for decades. Any of that new or improved life
> >could be deployed to other planets and moons, and it's not that far
> >fetched to think that Earth could off-world seed via directed
> >panspermia, populating other planets and moons with complex forms of
> >life.
>
> On even cursory examination, it's quite far fetched, because all
> reachable local objects, moons included, are known to be hostile to
> life. And all stars are out of range, even Proxima, 3-4 lyrs away,
> which is so far planetless, or we would have heard about it.
> John Polasek
Yes, so very hostile to any naked and dumbfounded Goldilocks.
> >life from scratch for more than a decade. They have been genetically
> >modifying complex life for decades. Any of that new or improved life
> >could be deployed to other planets and moons, and it's not that far
> >fetched to think that Earth could off-world seed via directed
> >panspermia, populating other planets and moons with complex forms of
> >life.
>
> On even cursory examination, it's quite far fetched, because all
> reachable local objects, moons included, are known to be hostile to
> life. And all stars are out of range, even Proxima, 3-4 lyrs away,
> which is so far planetless, or we would have heard about it.
> John Polasek
Are you suggesting that all other life within the nearby universe (aka
our galaxy and solar system) is every bit as dumb and/or dumber than
us?
Venus for K12 dummies: (it’s a very good resource for metals and 4He)
“Guth Venus” 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/102736204560337818634/BradGuth#slideshow/5629579402364691314
question:
Don't even try to make anything seem as though some kind of
intelligent other life could have been existing/coexisting on Venus,
because that's just silly once you realize how natural geology works
in perfectly mysterious ways of making the mountainous terrain look
exactly as though it had intelligent infrastructure with rational
logistics taking place. In other words, stick with the failsafe
mainstream status-quo interpretation of everything, and you’ll never
have to back down or otherwise explain yourself.
Brad Guth
Jun 6, 2012, 3:08:28 AM6/6/12
to
On May 19, 7:33 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> Baby galaxies grew up quicklyhttp://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Baby_galaxies_grew_up_quickly_999.html
>
> Baby galaxies grew up quicklyhttp://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Baby_galaxies_grew_up_quickly_999.html
>
> Quote:
>
> > Up until now, researchers thought that it had taken billions of years for stars to form and with that, galaxies with a high content of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. But new research from the Niels Bohr Institute shows that this process went surprisingly quickly in some galaxies.
>
> > "We have studied 10 galaxies in the early Universe and analysed their light spectra. We are observing light from the galaxies that has been on a 10-12 billion year journey to Earth, so we see the galaxies as they were then. Our expectation was that they would be relatively primitive and poor in heavier elements, but we discovered somewhat to our surprise that the gas in some of the galaxies and thus the stars in them had a very high content of heavier elements. The gas was just as enriched as our own Sun," explains Professor Johan Fynbo from the Dark Cosmology Centre at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen.
>
>
> > Up until now, researchers thought that it had taken billions of years for stars to form and with that, galaxies with a high content of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. But new research from the Niels Bohr Institute shows that this process went surprisingly quickly in some galaxies.
>
> > "We have studied 10 galaxies in the early Universe and analysed their light spectra. We are observing light from the galaxies that has been on a 10-12 billion year journey to Earth, so we see the galaxies as they were then. Our expectation was that they would be relatively primitive and poor in heavier elements, but we discovered somewhat to our surprise that the gas in some of the galaxies and thus the stars in them had a very high content of heavier elements. The gas was just as enriched as our own Sun," explains Professor Johan Fynbo from the Dark Cosmology Centre at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen.
>
> So is 12 or 13 billion year old life, possible? Looks like it might have
> been superficially possible. Still we'd have to know the specific
> conditions inside those early galaxies. They could've been wracked with
> a lot of supernova explosions near life-forming solar systems, thus
> destroying their life. Much like life chemicals were always existent in
> the early Solar System, but conditions weren't exactly right until maybe
> 3.5 billion years ago. Similar sort of problems may have occurred in
> those early galaxies, but in a galaxy-wide scenario.
>
> Yousuf Khan
When galaxies join up, the amount of rogue/wandering nomad planets
> been superficially possible. Still we'd have to know the specific
> conditions inside those early galaxies. They could've been wracked with
> a lot of supernova explosions near life-forming solar systems, thus
> destroying their life. Much like life chemicals were always existent in
> the early Solar System, but conditions weren't exactly right until maybe
> 3.5 billion years ago. Similar sort of problems may have occurred in
> those early galaxies, but in a galaxy-wide scenario.
>
> Yousuf Khan
goes up by at least another thousand fold, and redistributed smaller
items can easily run a million fold greater until they're collected as
having impacted or simply captured by significant items of mass.
Brad Guth
Jun 8, 2012, 9:39:57 AM6/8/12
to
to offer, and considerably greater numbers of wide ranging items
associated with the Sirius star system shouldn't be any big surprise
considering the recent demise of Sirius-B.
Many others besides myself have been suggesting as to the vast number
of wandering/rogue or nomad items of interstellar space could easily
out-number the stars, whereas I'm simply suggesting that a thousand
fold more items than stars shouldn't be all that unexpected and
thereby at least doubling the mass of our galaxy (especially when
including the population and mass of brown dwarfs) shouldn't be so
unlikely.
Clearly the vast amount of gravity represented by galaxies can help
cause galactic mergers and some of those might combine to reform as a
singular larger galaxy. However the closing SOA of Andromeda at 300+
km/sec should rip entirely through our galaxy and keep right on going,
creating one hell of a mess out of each galaxy.
Galactic retrograde encounters can be worse than anything imaginable,
with tidal forces and millions of supernovas causing wide spread
trauma and physical damage to each galaxy, that could easily be
sufficient to destroy 99.9% of all biodiversity and intelligent life
in either galaxy, whereas the much softer glancing pro-grade
encounters should allow 99.9% of their biodiversity plus whatever
intelligent life in either galaxy to survive.
A galactic merger that's having to toss out spare black holes is
probably another good indication of a cosmic death sentence to the
vast majority of whatever life previously existed within either of
those galaxies prior to their merging.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/multimedia/cid42.html
0 new messages