Why Extra Terrestrials as the Identity of the (Intelligent) Designer
Nathan Levesque
necessitates a supernatural creator, thus making intelligent design
still creationism.
Apparently one of the proposed designers, clearly as an attempt to put
forward a secular front, is extra terrestrial life. The problem with
this is that because there is no evidence for such a designer, and
that whatever necessitated a designer in the first place (this
argument from design) is even more applicable to extra terrestrial
life that have the capacity to do the following:
1. Interstellar Space Travel
2. Design life.
As they are even more complex then the thing they are trying to
explain.
Then the issue becomes a regress, one which must inevitably come to an
supernatural creator or...one must admit that naturalistic forces are
sufficient enough to create life so complex it can design life
artificially, and then due to the lack of evidence to support a
designer, it becomes not only parsimonious but required of logic and
rationality to then admit that naturalistic forces are sufficient
enough to create life here on earth. Making the entire enterprise of
inferring design either futile, or inevitably creationism.
Darwin123
wrote:
> Then the issue becomes a regress, one which must inevitably come to an
> supernatural creator or...one must admit that naturalistic forces are
> sufficient enough to create life so complex it can design life
> artificially, and then due to the lack of evidence to support a
> designer, it becomes not only parsimonious but required of logic and
> rationality to then admit that naturalistic forces are sufficient
> enough to create life here on earth. Making the entire enterprise of
> inferring design either futile, or inevitably creationism.
Not if you accept the posibility of an Infinite Design Chain.
Thomas Aquiness explicitly rejected such an infinite chain on first
principles. However, his reasons weren't logical. There are several
scenarios in which an infinite chain of designers makes sense.
1) It makes sense in a Steady State universe.
If there was no Big Bang, if the universe went back forever. one
could have an infinite sequence of extra terrestrials all generating
the next generations. It would be ETs all the way down.
Now, bring back the red shift. There may be ways to explain the
red shift without the Big Bang. So ET believers could merely say that
the existence of life is evidence against the Big Bang.
2) It makes sense if time travel is invented.
Suppose our descendants, or the descendants of another
intelligent life form, invent time machines. They are suffering from
the approaching Apocalypse (the Gnab Gib). They go back in time, and
start a new life in the distant path soon after the Big Bang. They
seed the universe with life. That is how life in our universe began.
This again assumes an infinite sequence of Intelligent Designers,
none of which are The Intelligent Designer.
Arkalen
know that abiogenesis is and has always been highly unlikely in the
environmental conditions that occur on Earth, but that conditions where
abiogenesis is likely occur naturally elsewhere in the universe AND that
life travelling from such a place to Earth is also likely.
Of course we know none of those things so there's no reason to assume
panspermia.
jillery
There is also the mechanism where life evolved naturalistically on one
planets and then transported naturalistically to other planets, by
hitching a ride on ejecta from cosmic collisions. This would least
unlikely within a solar system, ex. from Mars to Earth, but it's
remotely possible some hardy lifeforms could survive indefinitely
embedded in a meteor and flung into interstellar space. No
intelligent designer necessary. Instant life; just add water.
Dick
This is a closed loop, not an infinite sequence. The numbers on a
clock face keep coming, but there is not an infinite sequence. (Just a
quibble.)
Jon
> Thomas Aquiness explicitly rejected such an infinite chain on first
> principles. However, his reasons weren't logical. There are several
> scenarios in which an infinite chain of designers makes sense.
It doesn't necessarily have to be an infinite chain of designers.
There is also the possibility of one infinitely existing designer.
Darwin123
> It doesn't necessarily have to be an infinite chain of designers.
> There is also the possibility of one infinitely existing designer.
Nathan presented that as the inevitable conclusion of an panspermia
hypothesis. I was arguing that one doesn't logically need it since
there could be an infinite sequence, or closed loop, of designers.
Nathan Levesque on Feb 19.
"Why extra terrestrials as the identity of the (intelligent) designer
necessitates a supernatural creator, thus making intelligent design
still creationism."
Let me point out one logical advantage that the infinite sequence
and closed loop sequence of designers have. None of the designers in
this sequence have to violate physical law. They don't even have to be
more complex than their Creations. They just have to be able to copy
their basic patterns, with modifications, onto their Creation.
They could copy their complexity onto their Creations using
normal reproductive processes, or using artificial selection methods.
Human scientists are currently working on enhanced forms of evolution
to program computers. Genetic algorithms, evolutionary algorithms,
etc. Though they don't have complete control over the product, the
artificial evolution has the potential of creating something more
complex than themselves.
I am not pushing this model, you understand. I just want to get
some logical points straight.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
What you say is not an absolute or final answer.
Let's suppose that on some planets life arises naturally, and on some
of those planets the life learns to travel in space and visit other
planets, and intentionally or otherwise leaves at least "lower" forms
of life behind, such as microbes, which in turn may evolve in their
new environment. Then, some planets will be populated by living
things that originated independently, and some planets will be
populated by colonisation from elsewhere. As living beings, we may be
occupying a planet whose history is one or other of the two
descriptions, but to decide which, we need to know the probabilities
of a planet producing or not producing life, and then of that life
transmitting itself to other planets. And we don't, really, although
personally I think Earth did it on its own.
An origin or development of terrestrial life due to extraterrestrial
visitors is a psychologically attractive idea in several ways: a lot
of people appear to believe in more or less non-supernatural
extraterrestrial visitors; it provides a provisionally acceptable
alternative to believing in the difficulty of evolution or the fatuity
of religious creationism; and it's a lot less scary than supposing
that terrestrial life was shaped by super-powerful beings that lived
and may live /here/, for instance dormant, and may object to primates
taking over their real estate once they wake up.
Nathan Levesque
The only thing though, is that all of this is in the context of
intelligent design which necessitates certain things.
> An origin or development of terrestrial life due to extraterrestrial
> visitors is a psychologically attractive idea in several ways: a lot
> of people appear to believe in more or less non-supernatural
> extraterrestrial visitors; it provides a provisionally acceptable
> alternative to believing in the difficulty of evolution or the fatuity
> of religious creationism; and it's a lot less scary than supposing
> that terrestrial life was shaped by super-powerful beings that lived
> and may live /here/, for instance dormant, and may object to primates
> taking over their real estate once they wake up.
It's certainly possible it's just that the ID BS that requires one
propose a designer is what leads to a regress to creationism, or the
conclusion of abiogenesis' plausibility.
Steven L.
"Arkalen" <ski...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5RF*hv...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk:
Time travel--if it were feasible--would render all abiogenesis
superfluous.
The origin of life on Earth could have been a time traveler from the
future who traveled back in time to the primordial Earth and brought
bacteria on his person to that environment, either unwittingly or
deliberately.
In that sense, life on Earth began because life on Earth exists because
life on Earth began because....--a self-sufficient loop in time.
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
"Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org"
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:85770783-91a5-4653...@d12g2000vbz.googlegroups.com:
The Raelians have turned that notion into a religion.
-- Steven L.
jillery
> "Arkalen" <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
ISTM time-loops are disallowed by physics, but I'm no expert.
Arkalen
I think it was a sandwich.
Kermit
If the universe were eternal, and life as unlikely as math-challenged
Creationists claim, it would still happen eventually - and maybe those
galactic elders started seeding life from there. Not that we have any
reason to think this.
Kermit
John Vreeland
>> Time travel--if it were feasible--would render all abiogenesis superfluous.
>>
>> The origin of life on Earth could have been a time traveler from the
>> future who traveled back in time to the primordial Earth and brought
>> bacteria on his person to that environment, either unwittingly or
>> deliberately.
>
>I think it was a sandwich.
We are all descended from some timeless bologna.
--
My years on the mudpit that is Usnenet have taught me one important thing: three Creation Scientists can have a serious conversation, if two of them are sock puppets.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
That sounds "Faustian"...?
Damaeus
on Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:13:00 -0800 (PST) the following:
> Why extra terrestrials as the identity of the (intelligent) designer
> necessitates a supernatural creator, thus making intelligent design
> still creationism.
What's wrong with an intelligent design? I don't even hear scientists
saying about nature or physics, "Gee, what a stupid design." Apparently
the nature of whatever brought the universe into being is intrinsically
intelligent -- so intelligent that it doesn't have to think. It just
responds, and all responses are right.
> Apparently one of the proposed designers, clearly as an attempt to put
> forward a secular front, is extra terrestrial life. The problem with
> this is that because there is no evidence for such a designer, and that
> whatever necessitated a designer in the first place (this argument from
> design) is even more applicable to extra terrestrial life that have the
> capacity to do the following:
>
> 1. Interstellar Space Travel
> 2. Design life.
I don't even believe in the existence of extra-terrestrials much less that
form of space travel. There is simply no way to currently exceed the
speed of light because cosmic density prevents it.
> As they are even more complex then the thing they are trying to
> explain.
>
> Then the issue becomes a regress, one which must inevitably come to an
> supernatural creator or...one must admit that naturalistic forces
Or the supernatural creator *is* the naturalistic force.
Damaeus
Damaeus
Feb 2011 09:38:15 -0800 (PST) the following:
> Now, bring back the red shift. There may be ways to explain the red
> shift without the Big Bang.
From Earth, don't we see red-shift in every direction?
> 2) It makes sense if time travel is invented.
Time travel is impossible.
Damaeus
Damaeus
21 Feb 2011 16:17:52 +0000 the following:
> The origin of life on Earth could have been a time traveler from the
> future who traveled back in time to the primordial Earth and brought
> bacteria on his person to that environment, either unwittingly or
> deliberately.
Nothing from the future can come back in time because the future hasn't
happened yet. Furthermore, suppose humans are actually at the top of the
evolutionary chain for the entire universe. The survival of our species
depends on people's ability to refrain from nuking the entire world and
destroying every last man, woman and child on Earth. Wouldn't it be a
shame if all humans were killed. Then gorillas take over as the top of
the evolutionary chain and humans never get to see it happen.
Damaeus
Burkhard
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 18:07:38 +0000, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Time travel--if it were feasible--would render all abiogenesis superfluous.
>
> >> The origin of life on Earth could have been a time traveler from the
> >> future who traveled back in time to the primordial Earth and brought
> >> bacteria on his person to that environment, either unwittingly or
> >> deliberately.
>
> >I think it was a sandwich.
>
> We are all descended from some timeless bologna.
>
I would give this idea Bari a thought. I think you don't have the
Foggia'st where we descent from.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> In news:talk.origins, Nathan Levesque <nathanmleves...@gmail.com> posted
> on Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:13:00 -0800 (PST) the following:
>
> > Why extra terrestrials as the identity of the (intelligent) designer
> > necessitates a supernatural creator, thus making intelligent design
> > still creationism.
>
> What's wrong with an intelligent design? I don't even hear scientists
> saying about nature or physics, "Gee, what a stupid design." Apparently
> the nature of whatever brought the universe into being is intrinsically
> intelligent -- so intelligent that it doesn't have to think. It just
> responds, and all responses are right.
You just haven't seen universes that are better. Where space travel
is easier, for instance. (Well, you see that on TV and in films.)
Also, you haven't seen universes that are worse than this one, because
people don't live in those universes at all. This universe is
probably barely survivable.
Living things are in many respects not well designed. Have you
noticed how many people wear spectacles? This is because our eyes
wear out and don't work well. They are a bad design. There are many
examples like that in human, animal, or plant bodies.
Mike Lyle
Lazi o'r what? Far from making a herculaneum effort, you're just
letting your mind romabout.
--
Mike.
Arkalen
> In news:talk.origins, "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> posted on Mon,
> 21 Feb 2011 16:17:52 +0000 the following:
>
>> The origin of life on Earth could have been a time traveler from the
>> future who traveled back in time to the primordial Earth and brought
>> bacteria on his person to that environment, either unwittingly or
>> deliberately.
>
> Nothing from the future can come back in time because the future hasn't
> happened yet.
Can something from the present come back in time ?
> Furthermore, suppose humans are actually at the top of the
> evolutionary chain for the entire universe.
What a strange thing to suppose.
> The survival of our species
> depends on people's ability to refrain from nuking the entire world and
> destroying every last man, woman and child on Earth. Wouldn't it be a
> shame if all humans were killed. Then gorillas take over as the top of
> the evolutionary chain and humans never get to see it happen.
Why gorillas ? Or is that a "Planet of the Apes" thing ?
You realize there is no such thing as an evolutionary chain of course.
> Damaeus
>
Arkalen
> In news:talk.origins, Nathan Levesque <nathanm...@gmail.com> posted
> on Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:13:00 -0800 (PST) the following:
>
>> Why extra terrestrials as the identity of the (intelligent) designer
>> necessitates a supernatural creator, thus making intelligent design
>> still creationism.
>
> What's wrong with an intelligent design? I don't even hear scientists
> saying about nature or physics, "Gee, what a stupid design."
That's funny, I hear scientists saying that all the time. About their
backs, their appendix, their eyes...
> Apparently
> the nature of whatever brought the universe into being is intrinsically
> intelligent -- so intelligent that it doesn't have to think. It just
> responds, and all responses are right.
Well, given the Universe is the set of its responses and our only
reference for "right" is the universe, that's pretty tautological.
>> Apparently one of the proposed designers, clearly as an attempt to put
>> forward a secular front, is extra terrestrial life. The problem with
>> this is that because there is no evidence for such a designer, and that
>> whatever necessitated a designer in the first place (this argument from
>> design) is even more applicable to extra terrestrial life that have the
>> capacity to do the following:
>>
>> 1. Interstellar Space Travel
>> 2. Design life.
>
> I don't even believe in the existence of extra-terrestrials much less that
> form of space travel. There is simply no way to currently exceed the
> speed of light because cosmic density prevents it.
There's your stupid design right there. Or your thoughtless,
mean-spirited design at least.
Kermit
wrote:
> In news:talk.origins, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> posted on Mon,
> 21 Feb 2011 16:17:52 +0000 the following:
>
> > The origin of life on Earth could have been a time traveler from the
> > future who traveled back in time to the primordial Earth and brought
> > bacteria on his person to that environment, either unwittingly or
> > deliberately.
>
> Nothing from the future can come back in time because the future hasn't
> happened yet. Furthermore, suppose humans are actually at the top of the
> evolutionary chain for the entire universe. The survival of our species
> depends on people's ability to refrain from nuking the entire world and
> destroying every last man, woman and child on Earth.
Actually I think a greater danger is our failure to give up our
unsustainable lifestyle - particularly burning fossil fuels.
> Wouldn't it be a
> shame if all humans were killed. Then gorillas take over as the top of
> the evolutionary chain and humans never get to see it happen.
Alas, whatever kills off all humans will very likely kill the gorillas
and all other great apes also. Perhaps raccoons will replace us. Or
cockroaches.
>
> Damaeus
Kermit
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
<no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid>:
>In news:talk.origins, Darwin123 <drose...@yahoo.com> posted on Sun, 20
>Feb 2011 09:38:15 -0800 (PST) the following:
>
>> Now, bring back the red shift. There may be ways to explain the red
>> shift without the Big Bang.
>
>From Earth, don't we see red-shift in every direction?
Yes. Your point?
>> 2) It makes sense if time travel is invented.
>
>Time travel is impossible.
Sorry, but despite some arguments (*both* ways) there is no
proof that time travel is either possible or impossible.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Mark Isaak
> In news:talk.origins, Darwin123 <drose...@yahoo.com> posted on Sun, 20
> Feb 2011 09:38:15 -0800 (PST) the following:
>
>> Now, bring back the red shift. There may be ways to explain the red
>> shift without the Big Bang.
>
> From Earth, don't we see red-shift in every direction?
Only if you look far enough.
>> 2) It makes sense if time travel is invented.
>
> Time travel is impossible.
Time travel is inescapable. Of course, it is always in the same
direction.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Damaeus
Feb 2011 14:47:21 -0800 the following:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 01:36:37 -0600, Damaeus wrote:
>
> > In news:talk.origins, Darwin123 <drose...@yahoo.com> posted on Sun, 20
> > Feb 2011 09:38:15 -0800 (PST) the following:
> >
> >> Now, bring back the red shift. There may be ways to explain the red
> >> shift without the Big Bang.
> >
> > From Earth, don't we see red-shift in every direction?
>
> Only if you look far enough.
>
> >> 2) It makes sense if time travel is invented.
> >
> > Time travel is impossible.
>
> Time travel is inescapable. Of course, it is always in the same
> direction.
That's not time travel. That's just existing while time progresses. You
cannot single yourself out and get outside the inescapable timeline. That
kind of time travel is impossible.
Damaeus
Damaeus
2011 12:11:47 -0700 the following:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 01:36:37 -0600, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
> <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid>:
>
> >In news:talk.origins, Darwin123 <drose...@yahoo.com> posted on Sun, 20
> >Feb 2011 09:38:15 -0800 (PST) the following:
> >
> >> Now, bring back the red shift. There may be ways to explain the red
> >> shift without the Big Bang.
> >
> >From Earth, don't we see red-shift in every direction?
>
> Yes. Your point?
Then the big bang started here.
> >> 2) It makes sense if time travel is invented.
> >
> >Time travel is impossible.
>
> Sorry, but despite some arguments (*both* ways) there is no
> proof that time travel is either possible or impossible.
I don't need proof. I'm just saying it's impossible because it is.
Damaeus
Damaeus
talk-o...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.ca...@excite.com> posted on Tue,
22 Feb 2011 02:45:38 -0800 (PST) the following:
> On Feb 22, 7:33 am, Damaeus <no-m...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote:
> > In news:talk.origins, Nathan Levesque <nathanmleves...@gmail.com> posted
> > on Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:13:00 -0800 (PST) the following:
> >
> > > Why extra terrestrials as the identity of the (intelligent) designer
> > > necessitates a supernatural creator, thus making intelligent design
> > > still creationism.
> >
> > What's wrong with an intelligent design? I don't even hear scientists
> > saying about nature or physics, "Gee, what a stupid design." Apparently
> > the nature of whatever brought the universe into being is intrinsically
> > intelligent -- so intelligent that it doesn't have to think. It just
> > responds, and all responses are right.
>
> You just haven't seen universes that are better.
And for good reason. There is only one universe.
> Where space travel is easier, for instance. (Well, you see that on TV
> and in films.) Also, you haven't seen universes that are worse than this
> one, because people don't live in those universes at all. This universe
> is probably barely survivable.
For the time being, we can live for a while. In the future, we'll live
forever.
> Living things are in many respects not well designed. Have you
> noticed how many people wear spectacles? This is because our eyes
> wear out and don't work well. They are a bad design. There are many
> examples like that in human, animal, or plant bodies.
Eyes are not a bad design. They don't wear out because of normal use.
They are damaged over time by cosmic density and the vibration of the
molecules that make up our eyes, and every other part of our bodies. When
the molecules of the universe stop vibrating (which will happen when the
universe expands to fill infinity) then our eyes will no longer suffer
damage from molecular vibration and they will last forever.
Damaeus
Damaeus
2011 12:42:10 +0000 the following:
> On 22/02/11 07:33, Damaeus wrote:
> > In news:talk.origins, Nathan Levesque <nathanm...@gmail.com> posted
> > on Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:13:00 -0800 (PST) the following:
> >
> >> Why extra terrestrials as the identity of the (intelligent) designer
> >> necessitates a supernatural creator, thus making intelligent design
> >> still creationism.
> >
> > What's wrong with an intelligent design? I don't even hear scientists
> > saying about nature or physics, "Gee, what a stupid design."
>
> That's funny, I hear scientists saying that all the time. About their
> backs, their appendix, their eyes...
They assume there are genetic errors or imperfections. They haven't
thought about the fact that molecular vibration (which also vibrates our
DNA) is what causes misrepairs and errors in transcription. It's not a
stupid design. It's an incomplete design of the universe.
> >> Apparently one of the proposed designers, clearly as an attempt to put
> >> forward a secular front, is extra terrestrial life. The problem with
> >> this is that because there is no evidence for such a designer, and that
> >> whatever necessitated a designer in the first place (this argument from
> >> design) is even more applicable to extra terrestrial life that have the
> >> capacity to do the following:
> >>
> >> 1. Interstellar Space Travel
> >> 2. Design life.
> >
> > I don't even believe in the existence of extra-terrestrials much less that
> > form of space travel. There is simply no way to currently exceed the
> > speed of light because cosmic density prevents it.
>
> There's your stupid design right there. Or your thoughtless,
> mean-spirited design at least.
It's not stupid. It's just incomplete. That the universe is still
expanding proves it's incomplete. It's designed to be infinite. Since
it's not yet infinite, it isn't complete. Since it's not yet infinite, it
is compressed. Since it is compressed, we have an increased density of
the fabric that makes up the expanding space. Once the universe is
infinite, the density of the fabric of space will be decreased and the
speed of light will increase dramatically. Maybe the speed of light will
even be infinite and will only be blocked by solid objects in its path,
dust, fog or whatever. In that case, we will see things as they happen,
when they happen, not after they happened.
Damaeus
Arkalen
> In news:talk.origins, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> posted on Tue, 22 Feb
> 2011 12:11:47 -0700 the following:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 01:36:37 -0600, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
>> <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid>:
>>
>>> In news:talk.origins, Darwin123 <drose...@yahoo.com> posted on Sun, 20
>>> Feb 2011 09:38:15 -0800 (PST) the following:
>>>
>>>> Now, bring back the red shift. There may be ways to explain the red
>>>> shift without the Big Bang.
>>>
>> >From Earth, don't we see red-shift in every direction?
>>
>> Yes. Your point?
>
> Then the big bang started here.
The big bang is the expansion of space. It started in every spatial
location.
Damaeus
2011 11:34:48 +0000 the following:
> On 23/02/11 09:10, Damaeus wrote:
> > In news:talk.origins, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> posted on Tue, 22 Feb
> > 2011 12:11:47 -0700 the following:
> >
> >> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 01:36:37 -0600, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
> >> <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid>:
> >>
> >>> In news:talk.origins, Darwin123 <drose...@yahoo.com> posted on Sun, 20
> >>> Feb 2011 09:38:15 -0800 (PST) the following:
> >>>
> >>>> Now, bring back the red shift. There may be ways to explain the red
> >>>> shift without the Big Bang.
> >>>
> >> >From Earth, don't we see red-shift in every direction?
> >>
> >> Yes. Your point?
> >
> > Then the big bang started here.
>
> The big bang is the expansion of space. It started in every spatial
> location.
That's only if you have the erroneous view that there was no such thing as
an "outside" relative to the infinitesimal point that existed before the
big bang began. If there was no such thing as an "outside" relative to
the singularity, then we would not be here. There would be nowhere in
existence for the singularity to expand. So saying that the big bang
started in every spatial location, when the singularity was
infinitesimally small, becomes a meaningless statement.
So there was an empty void outside the singularity. That empty void had a
"suction" force that exceeded the gravity of the singularity. Obviously
that suction force is greater than infinite since it overpowered infinite
density. And that's also why the universe is going to expand until it
becomes infinite in size, and that's why it will expand faster and faster
until its acceleration becomes exponential, and then becomes so fast that
the expanding edge of the universe teleports the rest of the way to
infinite size. That could not happen if the suction force was *just*
infinite. It has to be greater than infinity or the universe might be
doomed to expand and contract for eternity. That would be horrible. And
we are designed to live in a fun universe, not a horrible one. So throw
out all ideas of gloom and doom. The universe will last forever and so
will we.
Damaeus
Damaeus
2011 12:34:09 +0000 the following:
> On 22/02/11 07:41, Damaeus wrote:
>
> > In news:talk.origins, "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> posted on
> > Mon, 21 Feb 2011 16:17:52 +0000 the following:
> >
> > > The origin of life on Earth could have been a time traveler from the
> > > future who traveled back in time to the primordial Earth and brought
> > > bacteria on his person to that environment, either unwittingly or
> > > deliberately.
> >
> > Nothing from the future can come back in time because the future
> > hasn't happened yet.
>
> Can something from the present come back in time ?
You write that as if you live in the past. Nothing from the present can
go back in time.
> > Furthermore, suppose humans are actually at the top of the
> > evolutionary chain for the entire universe.
>
> What a strange thing to suppose.
It certainly isn't strange to me. Humans are the ones building satellites
and putting them into orbit. Gorillas are just eating bananas and
nibbline the lice off the heads of their fellow gorillas.
> > The survival of our species depends on people's ability to refrain
> > from nuking the entire world and destroying every last man, woman and
> > child on Earth. Wouldn't it be a shame if all humans were killed. Then
> > gorillas take over as the top of the evolutionary chain and humans
> > never get to see it happen.
>
> Why gorillas ? Or is that a "Planet of the Apes" thing ?
No, I find Planet of the Apes a rather disturbing movie. I actually can't
stand gorillas, chimps and the like. Something about those animals annoys
me deeply. I just use gorillas, bonobos and chimps as examples in many of
my posts because so many seem to praise them, sometimes as animals even
greater than humans. That is what I consider strange, given the
overwhelming evidence of human superiority.
> You realize there is no such thing as an evolutionary chain of course.
I see that you think so, but it isn't an important point. I will say,
however, that the lineage that takes humans back to the first life forms
has always been the ultimate and dominate series of species, all the way
back to the beginning. Sure, at times a few of ancestors were overtaken
by others, but overall, we've avoided extinction. We're clearly the
masters of this domain.
All species, plants and animals, that have ever existed on Earth arose
because of our existence here. If we had not been here, no other life
would have been here, either.
Damaeus
Arkalen
> In news:talk.origins, Arkalen <ski...@yahoo.com> posted on Wed, 23 Feb
> 2011 11:34:48 +0000 the following:
>
>> On 23/02/11 09:10, Damaeus wrote:
>>> In news:talk.origins, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> posted on Tue, 22 Feb
>>> 2011 12:11:47 -0700 the following:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 01:36:37 -0600, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
>>>> <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid>:
>>>>
>>>>> In news:talk.origins, Darwin123 <drose...@yahoo.com> posted on Sun, 20
>>>>> Feb 2011 09:38:15 -0800 (PST) the following:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, bring back the red shift. There may be ways to explain the red
>>>>>> shift without the Big Bang.
>>>>>
>>>> >From Earth, don't we see red-shift in every direction?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. Your point?
>>>
>>> Then the big bang started here.
>>
>> The big bang is the expansion of space. It started in every spatial
>> location.
>
> That's only if you have the erroneous view that there was no such thing as
> an "outside" relative to the infinitesimal point that existed before the
> big bang began. If there was no such thing as an "outside" relative to
> the singularity, then we would not be here. There would be nowhere in
> existence for the singularity to expand.
Why would the singularity have to expand into an outside ? "Expand" just
means "become bigger". Which can be measured relative to the other
things inside the universe that also have sizes. No outside required.
As for the infinitesimal point, we don't know there actually was one.
The moment of the Big Bang is something we don't know all about yet and
according to certain theories there is nothing smaller than the Planck
length so there wouldn't have been an infinitesimal point.
> So saying that the big bang
> started in every spatial location, when the singularity was
> infinitesimally small, becomes a meaningless statement.
>
> So there was an empty void outside the singularity. That empty void had a
> "suction" force that exceeded the gravity of the singularity. Obviously
> that suction force is greater than infinite since it overpowered infinite
> density. And that's also why the universe is going to expand until it
> becomes infinite in size, and that's why it will expand faster and faster
> until its acceleration becomes exponential, and then becomes so fast that
> the expanding edge of the universe teleports the rest of the way to
> infinite size. That could not happen if the suction force was *just*
> infinite. It has to be greater than infinity or the universe might be
> doomed to expand and contract for eternity. That would be horrible. And
> we are designed to live in a fun universe, not a horrible one. So throw
> out all ideas of gloom and doom. The universe will last forever and so
> will we.
What if we die before infinity is reached ?
> Damaeus
>
Damaeus
Tue, 22 Feb 2011 10:56:34 -0800 (PST) the following:
> On Feb 21, 11:41 pm, Damaeus <no-m...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > In news:talk.origins, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> posted on Mon,
> > 21 Feb 2011 16:17:52 +0000 the following:
> >
> > > The origin of life on Earth could have been a time traveler from the
> > > future who traveled back in time to the primordial Earth and brought
> > > bacteria on his person to that environment, either unwittingly or
> > > deliberately.
> >
> > Nothing from the future can come back in time because the future
> > hasn't happened yet. Furthermore, suppose humans are actually at the
> > top of the evolutionary chain for the entire universe. The survival
> > of our species depends on people's ability to refrain from nuking the
> > entire world and destroying every last man, woman and child on Earth.
>
> Actually I think a greater danger is our failure to give up our
> unsustainable lifestyle - particularly burning fossil fuels.
That doesn't matter. We're made of the same things found in stars. We
can handle a little smog. Thank goodness for adaptive genetics. That
said, I don't recommend sucking on a tailpipe because that would make you
feel like crap. But you won't suddenly be poisoned just because you smell
auto-exaust. I do think it's a good idea, however, to do what we can to
keep nice, clean air to breathe. It's just sad that the economic
situation is set up to make cheating more likely since it can costs more
to contain pollutants than to just let them fly into the air.
I've often wondered why factories don't just find some way to remove
particles from their fumes and condense them into bricks or some kind of
solid mass that can be used in other ways. I used to think it would be
nice if we had a space dock that would accept pollutant bricks from
factories. We'd just get rid of what we can't use by sending the bricks
toward the sun. But surely chemists can come up with some use for these
things.
> > Wouldn't it be a shame if all humans were killed. Then gorillas take
> > over as the top of the evolutionary chain and humans never get to see
> > it happen.
>
> Alas, whatever kills off all humans will very likely kill the gorillas
> and all other great apes also. Perhaps raccoons will replace us. Or
> cockroaches.
I'm certainly not going to worry about it.
Damaeus
Arkalen
> In news:talk.origins, Arkalen <ski...@yahoo.com> posted on Tue, 22 Feb
> 2011 12:34:09 +0000 the following:
>
>> On 22/02/11 07:41, Damaeus wrote:
>>
>>> In news:talk.origins, "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> posted on
>>> Mon, 21 Feb 2011 16:17:52 +0000 the following:
>>>
>>>> The origin of life on Earth could have been a time traveler from the
>>>> future who traveled back in time to the primordial Earth and brought
>>>> bacteria on his person to that environment, either unwittingly or
>>>> deliberately.
>>>
>>> Nothing from the future can come back in time because the future
>>> hasn't happened yet.
>>
>> Can something from the present come back in time ?
>
> You write that as if you live in the past. Nothing from the present can
> go back in time.
I wrote that because the reason you gave for "nothing in the future can
come back in time" was "because the future hasn't happened yet", which
doesn't apply to the present or the past so I wondered it this meant you
believed in present- or past-past time travel. Apparently not.
>
>>> Furthermore, suppose humans are actually at the top of the
>>> evolutionary chain for the entire universe.
>>
>> What a strange thing to suppose.
>
> It certainly isn't strange to me. Humans are the ones building satellites
> and putting them into orbit. Gorillas are just eating bananas and
> nibbline the lice off the heads of their fellow gorillas.
To quote Douglas Adams, "on the planet Earth, man had always assumed
that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so
much - the wheel, New York, wars and so on - whilst all the dolphins had
ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But
conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more
intelligent than man - for precisely the same reasons."
>>> The survival of our species depends on people's ability to refrain
>>> from nuking the entire world and destroying every last man, woman and
>>> child on Earth. Wouldn't it be a shame if all humans were killed. Then
>>> gorillas take over as the top of the evolutionary chain and humans
>>> never get to see it happen.
>>
>> Why gorillas ? Or is that a "Planet of the Apes" thing ?
>
> No, I find Planet of the Apes a rather disturbing movie. I actually can't
> stand gorillas, chimps and the like. Something about those animals annoys
> me deeply. I just use gorillas, bonobos and chimps as examples in many of
> my posts because so many seem to praise them, sometimes as animals even
> greater than humans. That is what I consider strange, given the
> overwhelming evidence of human superiority.
Of course "superiority" requires a valuation system. It is no surprise
that you would choose a valuation system under which you happen to be on
top.
The use of "gorillas" as animals that would "take over" from humans if
all humans were killed is strange because as Kermit pointed out,
gorillas wouldn't be particularly likely to survive something that
killed all humans, and the species that "took over" from humans would
have to be very versatile and gorillas don't strike me that way. I might
be wrong of course.
>> You realize there is no such thing as an evolutionary chain of course.
>
> I see that you think so, but it isn't an important point.
It is, actually. An amazing amount of misconceptions stem from this idea.
> I will say,
> however, that the lineage that takes humans back to the first life forms
> has always been the ultimate and dominate series of species, all the way
> back to the beginning.
Really ?
> Sure, at times a few of ancestors were overtaken
> by others,
Oh, I see, not really.
> but overall, we've avoided extinction.
Yeah, unlike every other living species today. Wait...
> We're clearly the
> masters of this domain.
There we go with the valuation systems again. I can understand when you
choose "putting satellites in space" as a criterion, it's kind of
transparent but nobody can deny humans are at the top of that one, but
*survival* ? We're much too young as a species to even be in the contest.
> All species, plants and animals, that have ever existed on Earth arose
> because of our existence here. If we had not been here, no other life
> would have been here, either.
What a strange statement. If you don't believe in time travel how did
humans go and cause the first stromatolites ?
> Damaeus
>
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
<no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid>:
>In news:talk.origins, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> posted on Tue, 22
>Feb 2011 14:47:21 -0800 the following:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 01:36:37 -0600, Damaeus wrote:
>>
>> > In news:talk.origins, Darwin123 <drose...@yahoo.com> posted on Sun, 20
>> > Feb 2011 09:38:15 -0800 (PST) the following:
>> >
>> >> Now, bring back the red shift. There may be ways to explain the red
>> >> shift without the Big Bang.
>> >
>> > From Earth, don't we see red-shift in every direction?
>>
>> Only if you look far enough.
>>
>> >> 2) It makes sense if time travel is invented.
>> >
>> > Time travel is impossible.
>>
>> Time travel is inescapable. Of course, it is always in the same
>> direction.
>
>That's not time travel. That's just existing while time progresses.
There is no evidence that "time progresses" other than as an
artifact of the observer.
<snip opinion>
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
<no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid>:
>In news:talk.origins, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> posted on Tue, 22 Feb
>2011 12:11:47 -0700 the following:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 01:36:37 -0600, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
>> <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid>:
>>
>> >In news:talk.origins, Darwin123 <drose...@yahoo.com> posted on Sun, 20
>> >Feb 2011 09:38:15 -0800 (PST) the following:
>> >
>> >> Now, bring back the red shift. There may be ways to explain the red
>> >> shift without the Big Bang.
>> >
>> >From Earth, don't we see red-shift in every direction?
>>
>> Yes. Your point?
>
>Then the big bang started here.
It started everywhere. I think you fail to grasp the
implications of expansion from a point.
>> >> 2) It makes sense if time travel is invented.
>> >
>> >Time travel is impossible.
>>
>> Sorry, but despite some arguments (*both* ways) there is no
>> proof that time travel is either possible or impossible.
>
>I don't need proof. I'm just saying it's impossible because it is.
Ah, so it's an unsupported claim (i.e., an opinion)...
OK; glad you cleared that up so I can ignore it.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
<no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid>:
>In news:talk.origins, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
>talk-o...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.ca...@excite.com> posted on Tue,
>22 Feb 2011 02:45:38 -0800 (PST) the following:
>
>> On Feb 22, 7:33 am, Damaeus <no-m...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote:
>> > In news:talk.origins, Nathan Levesque <nathanmleves...@gmail.com> posted
>> > on Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:13:00 -0800 (PST) the following:
>> >
>> > > Why extra terrestrials as the identity of the (intelligent) designer
>> > > necessitates a supernatural creator, thus making intelligent design
>> > > still creationism.
>> >
>> > What's wrong with an intelligent design? I don't even hear scientists
>> > saying about nature or physics, "Gee, what a stupid design." Apparently
>> > the nature of whatever brought the universe into being is intrinsically
>> > intelligent -- so intelligent that it doesn't have to think. It just
>> > responds, and all responses are right.
>>
>> You just haven't seen universes that are better.
>
>And for good reason. There is only one universe.
You seem obsessed with making unsupported claims. Is there
some reason for that or is it a personal failing?
<snip>
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> In news:talk.origins, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
> talk-orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> posted on Tue,
> 22 Feb 2011 02:45:38 -0800 (PST) the following:
>
> > > In news:talk.origins, Nathan Levesque <nathanmleves...@gmail.com> posted
> > > on Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:13:00 -0800 (PST) the following:
>
> > > > Why extra terrestrials as the identity of the (intelligent) designer
> > > > necessitates a supernatural creator, thus making intelligent design
> > > > still creationism.
>
> > > saying about nature or physics, "Gee, what a stupid design." +AKA-Apparently
> > > the nature of whatever brought the universe into being is intrinsically
> > > responds, and all responses are right.
>
> > You just haven't seen universes that are better.
>
> And for good reason. There is only one universe.
Technically, I agree with you. Well... I'm not even sure that the
number of universes is as high as one. It may be that there is no
such thing.
> > Where space travel is easier, for instance. (Well, you see that on TV
> > and in films.) Also, you haven't seen universes that are worse than this
> > one, because people don't live in those universes at all. This universe
> > is probably barely survivable.
>
> For the time being, we can live for a while. In the future, we'll live
> forever.
>
> > Living things are in many respects not well designed. Have you
> > noticed how many people wear spectacles? This is because our eyes
> > wear out and don't work well. They are a bad design. There are many
> > examples like that in human, animal, or plant bodies.
>
> Eyes are not a bad design. They don't wear out because of normal use.
> They are damaged over time by cosmic density and the vibration of the
> molecules that make up our eyes, and every other part of our bodies. When
> the molecules of the universe stop vibrating (which will happen when the
> universe expands to fill infinity) then our eyes will no longer suffer
> damage from molecular vibration and they will last forever.
I don't agree with this part. Sorry...
Christopher Denney
> In news:talk.origins, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> posted on
> Tue, 22 Feb 2011 10:56:34 -0800 (PST) the following:
>
>
> > > > The origin of life on Earth could have been a time traveler from the
> > > > future who traveled back in time to the primordial Earth and brought
> > > > bacteria on his person to that environment, either unwittingly or
> > > > deliberately.
>
> > > Nothing from the future can come back in time because the future
> > > top of the evolutionary chain for the entire universe. +AKA-The survival
> > > of our species depends on people's ability to refrain from nuking the
> > > entire world and destroying every last man, woman and child on Earth.
>
> > Actually I think a greater danger is our failure to give up our
> > unsustainable lifestyle - particularly burning fossil fuels.
>
> That doesn't matter. We're made of the same things found in stars. We
> can handle a little smog. Thank goodness for adaptive genetics. That
It's not the smog he was talking about, but the collapse from running
out of FF.
(The unsustainable part gave it away)
> said, I don't recommend sucking on a tailpipe because that would make you
> feel like crap. But you won't suddenly be poisoned just because you smell
> auto-exaust. I do think it's a good idea, however, to do what we can to
> keep nice, clean air to breathe. It's just sad that the economic
> situation is set up to make cheating more likely since it can costs more
> to contain pollutants than to just let them fly into the air.
Doing something costs more than doing nothing.
> I've often wondered why factories don't just find some way to remove
> particles from their fumes and condense them into bricks or some kind of
> solid mass that can be used in other ways. I used to think it would be
> nice if we had a space dock that would accept pollutant bricks from
> factories. We'd just get rid of what we can't use by sending the bricks
> toward the sun. But surely chemists can come up with some use for these
> things.
Anything that costs money will be resisted bitterly by those that have
to pay.
If someone could make all the pollution in the world into something
useful, it would only ever happen if it paid for itself.
And maybe only if it made a profit, increasing annually.
> > > Wouldn't it be a shame if all humans were killed. +AKA-Then gorillas take
> > > over as the top of the evolutionary chain and humans never get to see
> > > it happen.
>
> > Alas, whatever kills off all humans will very likely kill the gorillas
> > and all other great apes also. Perhaps raccoons will replace us. Or
> > cockroaches.
>
> I'm certainly not going to worry about it.
>
> Damaeus
Sometimes it seems my cat knows how to operate my computer, she steps
on exactly the right key to do exactly what I don't want happening.
Christopher Denney
> In news:talk.origins, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> posted on Wed, 23 Feb
> 2011 11:34:48 +0000 the following:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 23/02/11 09:10, Damaeus wrote:
> > > In news:talk.origins, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> posted on Tue, 22 Feb
> > > 2011 12:11:47 -0700 the following:
>
> > >> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 01:36:37 -0600, the following appeared
> > >> in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
>
> > >>> In news:talk.origins, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> posted on Sun, 20
This is like reality the way a 5 year old's drawing of the roadrunner
cartoon character is like a real roadrunner.
Demonstrating a failure to grasp the idea of space-time, gravity,
vacuum, "void", acceleration, and more.
Well, pretty much everything, actually.
Christopher Denney
> In news:talk.origins, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
> 22 Feb 2011 02:45:38 -0800 (PST) the following:
>
> > > In news:talk.origins, Nathan Levesque <nathanmleves...@gmail.com> posted
> > > on Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:13:00 -0800 (PST) the following:
>
> > > > Why extra terrestrials as the identity of the (intelligent) designer
> > > > necessitates a supernatural creator, thus making intelligent design
> > > > still creationism.
>
> > > saying about nature or physics, "Gee, what a stupid design." +AKA-Apparently
> > > the nature of whatever brought the universe into being is intrinsically
> > > responds, and all responses are right.
>
> > You just haven't seen universes that are better.
>
> And for good reason. There is only one universe.
>
> > Where space travel is easier, for instance. (Well, you see that on TV
> > and in films.) Also, you haven't seen universes that are worse than this
> > one, because people don't live in those universes at all. This universe
> > is probably barely survivable.
>
> For the time being, we can live for a while. In the future, we'll live
> forever.
>
> > Living things are in many respects not well designed. Have you
> > noticed how many people wear spectacles? This is because our eyes
> > wear out and don't work well. They are a bad design. There are many
> > examples like that in human, animal, or plant bodies.
>
> Eyes are not a bad design. They don't wear out because of normal use.
> They are damaged over time by cosmic density and the vibration of the
> molecules that make up our eyes, and every other part of our bodies. When
> the molecules of the universe stop vibrating (which will happen when the
> universe expands to fill infinity) then our eyes will no longer suffer
> damage from molecular vibration and they will last forever.
>
> Damaeus
Thus demonstrating you can't parody "true believers"
Christopher Denney
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 03:11:20 -0600, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In news:talk.origins, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> posted on Tue, 22
> >Feb 2011 14:47:21 -0800 the following:
>
> >> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 01:36:37 -0600, Damaeus wrote:
>
> >> > Feb 2011 09:38:15 -0800 (PST) the following:
>
> >> >> Now, bring back the red shift. There may be ways to explain the red
> >> >> shift without the Big Bang.
>
> >> > From Earth, don't we see red-shift in every direction?
>
> >> Only if you look far enough.
>
> >> >> 2) It makes sense if time travel is invented.
>
> >> > Time travel is impossible.
>
> >> Time travel is inescapable. Of course, it is always in the same
> >> direction.
>
> >That's not time travel. That's just existing while time progresses.
>
> There is no evidence that "time progresses" other than as an
> artifact of the observer.
With our lives a music roll, and our minds a player piano.
Christopher Denney
> In news:talk.origins, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> posted on Tue, 22 Feb
> 2011 12:11:47 -0700 the following:
>
> > On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 01:36:37 -0600, the following appeared
> > in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
>
> > >In news:talk.origins, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> posted on Sun, 20
> > >Feb 2011 09:38:15 -0800 (PST) the following:
>
> > >> Now, bring back the red shift. There may be ways to explain the red
> > >> shift without the Big Bang.
>
> > >From Earth, don't we see red-shift in every direction?
>
> > Yes. Your point?
>
> Then the big bang started here.
>
> > >> 2) It makes sense if time travel is invented.
>
> > >Time travel is impossible.
>
> > Sorry, but despite some arguments (*both* ways) there is no
> > proof that time travel is either possible or impossible.
>
> I don't need proof. I'm just saying it's impossible because it is.
>
> Damaeus
Why would you say that?? I travel through time constantly, at a rate
of 1sec/sec.
The idea of time-travel must frighten you terribly to make such
unsupported pronouncements.
Perhaps you understand that unfettered time-travel removes the
"special position" of the present.
And that scares you so much that you have to declare it impossible,
unequivocally.
Christopher Denney
> In news:talk.origins, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> posted on Tue, 22 Feb
> 2011 12:42:10 +0000 the following:
>
> > On 22/02/11 07:33, Damaeus wrote:
You really have no idea what infinite means do you?
Oh wait, you obviously think you do... you don't.
No, I do not require any kind of mind reading to know that.
Your (mis)usage of the term makes it clear.
consider:
Infinite matter in finite universe: infinitely dense matter throughout
all of the universe.
Finite matter in infinite universe: matter density of zero throughout
universe. (cf. no matter in finite universe.)
Finite matter in finite universe, and infinite matter in infinite
universe could look similar, but probably don't.
We won't even go into different orders of infinity.
Ceorl Jones
<no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote:
>In news:talk.origins, Arkalen <ski...@yahoo.com> posted on Wed, 23 Feb
>2011 11:34:48 +0000 the following:
>
>> On 23/02/11 09:10, Damaeus wrote:
>> >
>> > Then the big bang started here.
>>
>> The big bang is the expansion of space. It started in every spatial
>> location.
>
>That's only if you have the erroneous view that there was
>no such thing as an "outside" relative to the infinitesimal point
>that existed before the big bang began.
You assume our 4-D (3-D plus time) universe (or something like
it) for this "outside" to exist in.
Baseless asumption.
> If there was no such thing as an "outside" relative to
>the singularity, then we would not be here. There
>would be nowhere in existence for the singularity to expand.
Not required. The expansion of the singularity produces the
dimensions.
> So saying that the big bang
>started in every spatial location, when the singularity was
>infinitesimally small, becomes a meaningless statement.
You misunderstand. The big bang, at that point,*was* every
spatial location. (Excuse the unintentional pun.) So, as it expands,
the uiverse started from everywhere.
>So there was an empty void outside the singularity.
No. There was no "empty void" as you would know it outside
the singularity. That would require 4-D space outside the
singularity.
<snip>
The rest assumes our 4-D space outside of our 4-D space.
---
if u cn rd ths u cn gt a gd jb, bt if u rt lk ths gd lk.
Ceorl Jones
snorefoot @ Alpha Alpha Tango dot November Echo Tango
Darwin123
> On Feb 21, 11:17 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Arkalen" <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:5RF*hv...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk:
>
> > > (2011/02/21 2:38), Darwin123 wrote:
> > > > On Feb 19, 11:13 pm, Nathan Levesque<nathanmleves...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > >> Then the issue becomes a regress, one which must inevitably come to an
> > > >> sufficient enough to create life so complex it can design life
> > > >> artificially, and then due to the lack of evidence to support a
> > > >> designer, it becomes not only parsimonious but required of logic and
> > > >> rationality to then admit that naturalistic forces are sufficient
> > > >> enough to create life here on earth. Making the entire enterprise of
> > > >> inferring design either futile, or inevitably creationism.
> > > > Not if you accept the posibility of an Infinite Design Chain.
> > > > Thomas Aquiness explicitly rejected such an infinite chain on first
> > > > principles. However, his reasons weren't logical. There are several
> > > > scenarios in which an infinite chain of designers makes sense.
> > > > 1) It makes sense in a Steady State universe.
> > > > If there was no Big Bang, if the universe went back forever. one
> > > > could have an infinite sequence of extra terrestrials all generating
> > > > the next generations. It would be ETs all the way down.
> > > > Now, bring back the red shift. There may be ways to explain the
> > > > the existence of life is evidence against the Big Bang.
> > > > 2) It makes sense if time travel is invented.
> > > > intelligent life form, invent time machines. They are suffering from
> > > > the approaching Apocalypse (the Gnab Gib). They go back in time, and
> > > > start a new life in the distant path soon after the Big Bang. They
> > > > seed the universe with life. That is how life in our universe began.
> > > > This again assumes an infinite sequence of Intelligent Designers,
> > > > none of which are The Intelligent Designer.
>
> > > Panspermia can be a valid alternative without infinite regress if we
> > > know that abiogenesis is and has always been highly unlikely in the
> > > environmental conditions that occur on Earth, but that conditions where
> > > abiogenesis is likely occur naturally elsewhere in the universe AND that
> > > life travelling from such a place to Earth is also likely.
>
> > Time travel--if it were feasible--would render all abiogenesis
> > superfluous.
>
> > The origin of life on Earth could have been a time traveler from the
> > future who traveled back in time to the primordial Earth and brought
> > bacteria on his person to that environment, either unwittingly or
> > deliberately.
>
> > life on Earth began because....--a self-sufficient loop in time.
>
> > -- Steven L
>
> ISTM time-loops are disallowed by physics, but I'm no expert.
Basically, you are right.
It is allowed by some of the loopier hypotheses in cosmology.
For example=:
According to some variation on general relativity,a large spinning
black hole There are several ways to resolve the underlying paradoxes.
However, there are serious conundrums involved. I would call them
paradoxes, except there are some logical ways to resolve them.
I don't think these variations on GR are reasonable. It is not a
hypothesis that I would spend any money trying to prove or disprove.
However, I have been wrong before !-)
I wasn't presenting time travel as a reasonable hypothesis for
the origin of life. However, there are different grades of
unreasonable.
If you "scientifically" accept the God hypothesis, you would
have to it to the time travel hypothesis. To be scientific, you would
have to consider which breaks the most known scientific laws. You have
to decide which hypothesis is testable.
I know there are rather far out conjectures concerning time travel
that are at least consistent with relativity. I would normally reject
out of hand any OOL hypothesis that involved time travel.
One problem with the ID hypothesis is it involves negative
evidence. If a phenomenon can't be explained by any other "natural"
process, it is ascribed to an intelligent designer. However, "negative
evidence supports time travel has much as it presents the existence of
God. An item that is "irreducibly complex" could have come from the
future.
Suppose you found out that Paley had actually found a quartz
electric watch on the beach. This wasn't known before because his
diary had been buried by Darwinists. It was just last week on that
very beach. Not only that, it was labeled "Seiko." Hundreds of studies
from the best laboratories in the world have attested that this was
really the watch Paley found, and is more than a hundred years old.
One could claim that it was created by God as a miracle. He
engraved "Seiko" on it using his Omniscient power, which enabled him
to know about the company at least one hundred years before the
company was even named. He did it to prove his power.
One could absolutely refuse to believe that it was Paley's watch
under any circumstances. Twenty reputable scientists witnessed it
being unburied. All sorts of dating methods and geological studies
show that it really came from a hundred years ago. Other studies have
uncovered further references of the watch by members of his family.
Still others would confirm that the first quartz watch had been
invented in the late twentieth century, and that no Seiko had ever
manufactured a watch up to that time. However, some people would still
refuse to believe that Paley found a Seiko quartz watch.
I wouldn't believe in the discovery at first. However, at some
point sufficient evidence would come in whereby I recant my views.
Time travel is possible. Then, I would have to consider time travel a
valid hypothesis for OOL.
I would briefly consider the Creation hypothesis. I would not
consider the Creation hypothesis seriously for very long. At some
point, I would believe in time travel.
The time travel hypothesis should be required in classrooms.
Since it can't be rejected entirely on scientific grounds alone, it is
equally valid. The law should recognize this !-)
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Christopher Denney
<christoph...@gmail.com>:
>On Feb 23, 11:47 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 03:11:20 -0600, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
>> <no-m...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >In news:talk.origins, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> posted on Tue, 22
>> >Feb 2011 14:47:21 -0800 the following:
>>
>> >> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 01:36:37 -0600, Damaeus wrote:
>>
>> >> > In news:talk.origins, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> posted on Sun, 20
>> >> > Feb 2011 09:38:15 -0800 (PST) the following:
>>
>> >> >> Now, bring back the red shift. There may be ways to explain the red
>> >> >> shift without the Big Bang.
>>
>> >> > From Earth, don't we see red-shift in every direction?
>>
>> >> Only if you look far enough.
>>
>> >> >> 2) It makes sense if time travel is invented.
>>
>> >> > Time travel is impossible.
>>
>> >> Time travel is inescapable. Of course, it is always in the same
>> >> direction.
>>
>> >That's not time travel. That's just existing while time progresses.
>>
>> There is no evidence that "time progresses" other than as an
>> artifact of the observer.
>
>With our lives a music roll, and our minds a player piano.
Neat imagery; thanks!
jillery
> On Feb 21, 11:34 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip to avoid overflow>
Frankly, I could not choose between time travel and the Creation
hypothesis. Both are equally flawed, because they destroy the link
between cause and effect.
Steven L.
"Damaeus" <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:ltp6m6tpbgic4fqo2...@4ax.com:
> In news:talk.origins, "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> posted on Mon,
> 21 Feb 2011 16:17:52 +0000 the following:
>
> > The origin of life on Earth could have been a time traveler from the
> > future who traveled back in time to the primordial Earth and brought
> > bacteria on his person to that environment, either unwittingly or
> > deliberately.
>
> Nothing from the future can come back in time because the future hasn't
> happened yet. Furthermore, suppose humans are actually at the top of the
> evolutionary chain for the entire universe. The survival of our species
> depends on people's ability to refrain from nuking the entire world and
> destroying every last man, woman and child on Earth.
Only as long as we are bound to the Earth.
Once we have colonized exoplanets successfully, the destruction of any
one planet--even the Earth--wouldn't end human civilization. It's a good
insurance policy against a "When Worlds Collide" scenario wiping out the
Earth.
There may also be dangers to an interstellar civilization, dangers we
haven't thought about yet. But that's a long way off in human future.
-- Steven L.
Darwin123
In my hypothetical case, the watch said "Seiko." However, that
could be the true name of the Intelligent Designer." !-)
Kermit
wrote:
> On Feb 23, 7:28 am, Damaeus <no-m...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In news:talk.origins, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> posted on
> > Tue, 22 Feb 2011 10:56:34 -0800 (PST) the following:
>
> > > On Feb 21, 11:41+AKA-pm, Damaeus <no-m...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > In news:talk.origins, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> posted on Mon,
> > > > 21 Feb 2011 16:17:52 +-0000 the following:
>
> > > > > The origin of life on Earth could have been a time traveler from the
> > > > > future who traveled back in time to the primordial Earth and brought
> > > > > bacteria on his person to that environment, either unwittingly or
> > > > > deliberately.
>
> > > > Nothing from the future can come back in time because the future
> > > > hasn't happened yet.+AKA-Furthermore, suppose humans are actually at the
> > > > top of the evolutionary chain for the entire universe. +AKA-The survival
> > > > of our species depends on people's ability to refrain from nuking the
> > > > entire world and destroying every last man, woman and child on Earth.
>
> > > Actually I think a greater danger is our failure to give up our
> > > unsustainable lifestyle - particularly burning fossil fuels.
>
> > That doesn't matter. We're made of the same things found in stars. We
> > can handle a little smog. Thank goodness for adaptive genetics. That
>
> It's not the smog he was talking about, but the collapse from running
> out of FF.
> (The unsustainable part gave it away)
Yes, but not only that.
Also, the consequences of global warming - from the fossil fuel CO2
exhaust - are dire.
Also, the acidification of the oceans from the CO2 absorption will
kill much sea life.
But yes, the running out of oil is a big problem.
>
> > said, I don't recommend sucking on a tailpipe because that would make you
> > feel like crap. But you won't suddenly be poisoned just because you smell
> > auto-exaust. I do think it's a good idea, however, to do what we can to
> > keep nice, clean air to breathe. It's just sad that the economic
> > situation is set up to make cheating more likely since it can costs more
> > to contain pollutants than to just let them fly into the air.
>
> Doing something costs more than doing nothing.
Sometimes doing something costs less. For instance, the house is on
fire - which is cheaper, putting the fire out or letting it burn its
course? Or is tooth maintenance cheaper than letting teeth decay?
Or... global warming has already caused droughts and floods costing
tens billions in crop loss, and billions in lost productivity and
property damage. It has already led to higher food prices globally,
which is a major factor in all the unrest in the Near East. It will
get much worse even if we stop adding CO2 now, but we can minimize the
damage by switching to sunlight and wind from oil and coal, using
current technology.
>
> > I've often wondered why factories don't just find some way to remove
> > particles from their fumes and condense them into bricks or some kind of
> > solid mass that can be used in other ways. I used to think it would be
> > nice if we had a space dock that would accept pollutant bricks from
> > factories. We'd just get rid of what we can't use by sending the bricks
> > toward the sun. But surely chemists can come up with some use for these
> > things.
>
> Anything that costs money will be resisted bitterly by those that have
> to pay.
What really counts (by a certain measure) is how much it costs those
who make the decisions.
> If someone could make all the pollution in the world into something
> useful, it would only ever happen if it paid for itself.
> And maybe only if it made a profit, increasing annually.
Or if people realized the true cost of it. Compare the pollution of
former Soviet Bloc countries to the US. We can pay in dollars, or in
the loss of habitat and natural resources, or in our health (with the
lives of our children!), or indirectly by government subsidies, etc.
>
> > > > Wouldn't it be a shame if all humans were killed. +AKA-Then gorillas take
> > > > over as the top of the evolutionary chain and humans never get to see
> > > > it happen.
>
> > > Alas, whatever kills off all humans will very likely kill the gorillas
> > > and all other great apes also. Perhaps raccoons will replace us. Or
> > > cockroaches.
>
> > I'm certainly not going to worry about it.
>
> > Damaeus
>
> Sometimes it seems my cat knows how to operate my computer, she steps
> on exactly the right key to do exactly what I don't want happening.
Well, duh. She's a cat.
Kermit
pnyikos
wrote:
> On Feb 23, 3:19 am, Damaeus <no-m...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In news:talk.origins, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> posted on Tue, 22 Feb
> > 2011 12:42:10 +0000 the following:
>
> > > On 22/02/11 07:33, Damaeus wrote:
> > > > In news:talk.origins, Nathan Levesque <nathanmleves...@gmail.com> posted
> > > > on Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:13:00 -0800 (PST) the following:
>
> > > >> Why extra terrestrials as the identity of the (intelligent) designer
> > > >> necessitates a supernatural creator, thus making intelligent design
> > > >> still creationism.
It doesn't necessitate it, if by "the intelligent designer" is meant
the hypothetical beings responsible for the beginning of life ON EARTH
as opposed to the universe.
That is the kind of hypothetical intelligent beings I have been
posting on ever since I returned in December to talk.origins after a
decade of absence. My various proposals as to what those beings might
be like are strictly natural. I hypothesize that they arose as a
result of an incredibly rare but strictly natural abiogenesis event
between 12 and 6 billion years ago, seeding the earth ca. 3.9 bya.
> > > > What's wrong with an intelligent design? I don't even hear scientists
> > > > saying about nature or physics, "Gee, what a stupid design."
>
> > > That's funny, I hear scientists saying that all the time. About their
> > > backs, their appendix, their eyes...
[...]
> > > >> Apparently one of the proposed designers, clearly as an attempt to put
> > > >> forward a secular front, is extra terrestrial life.
No front, just an honest attempt to explore the possibilities for a
natural beginning of life on earth. A technological civilization
sending space probes here carrying microorganisms to seed earth is my
favorite scenario. See:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a3f67b2251d84e5a
> > > > >The problem with
> > > >> this is that because there is no evidence for such a designer, and that
> > > >> whatever necessitated a designer in the first place (this argument from
> > > >> design) is even more applicable to extra terrestrial life that have the
> > > >> capacity to do the following:
>
> > > >> 1. Interstellar Space Travel
> > > >> 2. Design life.
I've tried to explain that if abiogenesis is a once-in-a-galaxy (or
even rarer) event, there's a sound line of reasoning that says that it
is more likely that we are one of MANY results of planetary seeding
than the ONE civilization that did (or might, if we are that
civilization) the seeding. See my posts to the following thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/5e840a9968c6d5fe/a3f67b2251d84e5a
The post linked earlier is the lead post in that thread.
> > > > I don't even believe in the existence of extra-terrestrials much less that
> > > > form of space travel. There is simply no way to currently exceed the
> > > > speed of light because cosmic density prevents it.
There is no need to send the probes any faster than 1/30th the speed
of light, and that speed is within our reach now. See that thread
again.
> >That the universe is still
> > expanding proves it's incomplete. It's designed to be infinite. Since
> > it's not yet infinite, it isn't complete. Since it's not yet infinite, it
> > is compressed. Since it is compressed, we have an increased density of
> > the fabric that makes up the expanding space. Once the universe is
> > infinite, the density of the fabric of space will be decreased and the
> > speed of light will increase dramatically. Maybe the speed of light will
> > even be infinite and will only be blocked by solid objects in its path,
> > dust, fog or whatever. In that case, we will see things as they happen,
> > when they happen, not after they happened.
>
> > Damaeus
>
> You really have no idea what infinite means do you?
Neither, apparently, have the people responsible for this scientific
popularization of a fascinating but tricky theme: experiments have
shown that the universe is "essentially flat" and the final line says
that, but watch the use of "perfectly flat" before that, and watch the
contrast with "curved" in the last sentence::
"The research is published in the journal Nature
and in an accompanying commentary, Wayne Hu,
of the US School of Natural Sciences, New Jersey, said:
"The Boomerang result supports a flat Universe.
A perfectly flat Universe will keep on expanding forever,
because there is not enough matter to make it recollapse
in a 'Big Crunch'."
The research backs the inflation theory of the Universe
put forward in 1980, which suggests that the whole of the
cosmos expanded from a single tiny point at the Big Bang.
At that time, and for a short while after, space was curved
because it was confined in a small region. However,
the Universe's expansion has been so great that space
has now been stretched to the point that it is essentially flat.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/727073.stm
If the first sentence in that last paragraph is true, then space is
still curved, just like the earth's surface is curved even though it
looks flat. The alternative is that the universe at some finite point
in time went from being a compact manifold to a noncompact one,
infinite in extent.
> Oh wait, you obviously think you do... you don't.
> No, I do not require any kind of mind reading to know that.
> Your (mis)usage of the term makes it clear.
>
> consider:
> Infinite matter in finite universe: infinitely dense matter throughout
> all of the universe.
I don't think you can even give a meaning to that concept. Certainly
it isn't matter as we know it.
> Finite matter in infinite universe: matter density of zero throughout
> universe. (cf. no matter in finite universe.)
Imprecise. The density is infinitesimal, but not zero, unless you
adopt some dubious conventions.
> Finite matter in finite universe, and infinite matter in infinite
> universe could look similar, but probably don't.
I don't know whether our instruments are good enough to detect the
difference. The BBC article suggests not.
> We won't even go into different orders of infinity.
They do exist. I work with them all the time in my research.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
pnyikos
On Feb 23, 7:59 am, Damaeus <no-m...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote:
> In news:talk.origins, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> posted on Wed, 23 Feb
> 2011 11:34:48 +0000 the following:
>
>
>
> > On 23/02/11 09:10, Damaeus wrote:
> > > In news:talk.origins, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> posted on Tue, 22 Feb
> > > 2011 12:11:47 -0700 the following:
>
> > >> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 01:36:37 -0600, the following appeared
> > >> in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
> > >> <no-m...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid>:
>
> > >>> In news:talk.origins, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> posted on Sun, 20
> > >>> Feb 2011 09:38:15 -0800 (PST) the following:
>
> > >>>> Now, bring back the red shift. There may be ways to explain the red
> > >>>> shift without the Big Bang.
>
> > >> >From Earth, don't we see red-shift in every direction?
>
> > >> Yes. Your point?
>
> > > Then the big bang started here.
>
> > The big bang is the expansion of space. It started in every spatial
> > location.
That's the consensus among cosmologists.
> That's only if you have the erroneous view that there was no such thing as
> an "outside" relative to the infinitesimal point that existed before the
> big bang began. If there was no such thing as an "outside" relative to
> the singularity, then we would not be here. There would be nowhere in
> existence for the singularity to expand.
On the contrary, there is nothing contradictory about a self-contained
universe, having the topology of a 3-sphere (or some other compact 3-
manifold) and expanding in itself, so to speak, its metric size
changing but its topology remaining the same.
On the other hand, a universe such as you envision below would have to
change its topology from compact to noncompact in a finite period of
time, and that strains the bounds of credulity.
As a topologist since 1970, I know whereof I speak. You can look at
my CV here:
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/cv09.pdf
I keep having to remind myself to update it--the last time was in
2009.
[snip some things on which you have been adequately corrected already,
IMO]
> And that's also why the universe is going to expand until it
> becomes infinite in size,
Mere expansion will never do that within a finite period of time.
The most you can say (and it may well be TRUE) is that the size of our
universe will increase without bound. And that's almost inevitable as
long as it goes on expanding forever.
>and that's why it will expand faster and faster
> until its acceleration becomes exponential,
Why? even if that were true, the following would be a non sequitur:
> and then becomes so fast that
> the expanding edge of the universe teleports the rest of the way to
> infinite size.
If the universe is compact, there need be no edge to the expansion,
and all current theories postulate that there is none. If there is
one, it is only because our universe has at least two parts, one of
which is expanding and the other is either stationary or contracting.
> That could not happen if the suction force was *just*
> infinite. It has to be greater than infinity or the universe might be
> doomed to expand and contract for eternity. That would be horrible. And
> we are designed to live in a fun universe, not a horrible one. So throw
> out all ideas of gloom and doom. The universe will last forever and so
> will we.
Only if you postulate continuous creation of matter, a la Hoyle.
Damaeus
Feb 2011 15:43:51 -0800 (PST) the following:
> My goodness, a topic right down my alley!
>
> On Feb 23, 7:59 am, Damaeus <no-m...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote:
> > In news:talk.origins, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> posted on Wed, 23 Feb
> > 2011 11:34:48 +0000 the following:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 23/02/11 09:10, Damaeus wrote:
> > > > In news:talk.origins, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> posted on Tue, 22 Feb
> > > > 2011 12:11:47 -0700 the following:
> >
> > > >> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 01:36:37 -0600, the following appeared
> > > >> in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
> > > >> <no-m...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid>:
> >
> > > >>> In news:talk.origins, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> posted on Sun, 20
> > > >>> Feb 2011 09:38:15 -0800 (PST) the following:
> >
> > > >>>> Now, bring back the red shift. There may be ways to explain the red
> > > >>>> shift without the Big Bang.
> >
> > > >> >From Earth, don't we see red-shift in every direction?
> >
> > > >> Yes. Your point?
> >
> > > > Then the big bang started here.
> >
> > > The big bang is the expansion of space. It started in every spatial
> > > location.
>
> That's the consensus among cosmologists.
Was that every spatial location within an infinite space? Was it every
spatial location within an infinitesimal space? Or was it something in
between?
> > That's only if you have the erroneous view that there was no such thing as
> > an "outside" relative to the infinitesimal point that existed before the
> > big bang began. If there was no such thing as an "outside" relative to
> > the singularity, then we would not be here. There would be nowhere in
> > existence for the singularity to expand.
>
> On the contrary, there is nothing contradictory about a self-contained
> universe, having the topology of a 3-sphere (or some other compact 3-
> manifold) and expanding in itself, so to speak, its metric size
> changing but its topology remaining the same.
I can see an already-infinite space with a sphere of matter and energy
inflating inside of it. That's the simplest form of a self-contained
universe expanding inside itself. Part of it is expanding, part of it is
stationary. The part that is stationary is being filled by the part that
is expanding.
I looked 3-spheres and related topics, and honestly, I don't understand
why four-dimensional concepts are being introduced into a
three-dimensional expansion. Why are four dimensions needed to expand the
universe? I can think of one simpler reason why one might need four
dimensions, but when looking at some images of 3-spheres, they look too
complex and I don't see what that degree complexity has to do with cosmic
inflation. For me, basic inflation is as simple as a regular,
3-dimensional, inflating sphere of space filling an infinite space outside
of it. What are those 3-sphere illustrations trying to show?
The only point I can see in having more than three dimension is to
mathematically demonstrate the effects of the folding of the fabric of
space that happens because all the matter and energy in the universe is
contained within a compacted space. So once the universe becomes infinite
in size, it would be a "non-compact space". There would be no more
folding of the fabric of space, and there would be no need for extra
dimensions beyond the three observable spatial dimensions.
> On the other hand, a universe such as you envision below would have to
> change its topology from compact to noncompact
Would the yeasted raisin bread analgy be valid here?
> in a finite period of time, and that strains the bounds of credulity.
> As a topologist since 1970, I know whereof I speak. You can look at my
> CV here: http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/cv09.pdf I keep having to
> remind myself to update it--the last time was in 2009.
>
> [snip some things on which you have been adequately corrected already,
> IMO]
>
> > And that's also why the universe is going to expand until it
> > becomes infinite in size,
>
> Mere expansion will never do that within a finite period of time.
> The most you can say (and it may well be TRUE) is that the size of our
> universe will increase without bound. And that's almost inevitable as
> long as it goes on expanding forever.
Yes, that's the one little area I've been thinking about. Will the
universe accelerate its expansion exponentially forever, or will some
unprecedented event take place that causes the universe to suddenly
"become" infinite in an instant?
I know people in this group seem to hate any kind of quote from any kind
of science documentary, and many have even come to hate Michio Kaku, but I
must quote what he said in one documentary about Einstein:
Everything about the quantum theory revolted Einstein. The
quantum theory makes even bizarre events possible. For example,
walking across the street we expect to wind up on the other
side. However there is a finite calculable probability that you
will dissolve and wind up on Mars, dissolve and wind up on the
Earth again. Of course you will have to wait longer than the
lifetime of the universe but in principle it could happen.
Source:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/einstein_symphony_trans.shtml
Okay. First, is what he said true? I should caution that just because
someone says, "Well, no, he didn't know what he was talking about" or
"that's not what he really meant", I have to laugh at that. It was a
television program. If he blooped when speaking, he could have said, "Oh,
I made a mistake, and I need to re-record that!" Plus, he's a
college-educated scientist. Aren't we supposed to trust that they
understand English well enough to actually say what they mean and not emit
gibberish? But what he said made it to the airwaves, so I feel I should
take him seriously.
If what Mr. Kaku said is actually possible, why does it have to be merely
dissolving on Earth, appearing on Mars, dissolving on Mars, then appearing
back on Earth? Why couldn't it be something more grand, like the universe
dissolving out of finiteness and winding up in an infinite state? He
ended it by saying we would have to wait longer than the lifetime of the
universe for his example to happen, but what was he thinking the "lifetime
of the universe" was when he said that? 13.7 billion years? 13,700,000,02
years? If quantum theory makes bizarre events possible, and some
scientists really believe what has been stated by Michio, then what's
wrong with an idea that says the entire universe could dissolve out of a
finite state and re-appear in an infinite state? If the expansion becomes
exponential, it seems like the faster it expands, the more likely it would
be that we would reach that special day when that one bizarre, calculable
event happens: the universe becomes infinite in size. If my dissolving
and reappearing at different points in the universe is calculable, the day
of infinity for the universe should be calculable, too.
> > and that's why it will expand faster and faster until its acceleration
> > becomes exponential,
>
> Why? even if that were true, the following would be a non sequitur:
>
> > and then becomes so fast that the expanding edge of the universe
> > teleports the rest of the way to infinite size.
>
> If the universe is compact, there need be no edge to the expansion,
> and all current theories postulate that there is none.
Are you trying to tell me there was no dividing line between what was
expanding and what was being filled? I can grasp that concept, but it
seems odd to me to think of the universe in that way. It's like saying a
balloon in an infinitesimal space can be inflated. How? If there's no
space available for it the balloon to be inflated, it simply can't
inflate. It would be like trying to use your lungs to air up a lead
vault.
Besides, if space is created as the universe expands, then whether or not
there is an outside relative to the expanding area become a moot point.
Space is created as it's needed to make room for more, so in the end, it
simply doesn't matter. We still get a larger cosmos whether or not an
outside, relative to the expanding area, exists or ever existed.
But if everything that exists is compacted into a finite space, and
everything that exists is actually infinite, then it makes sense that the
universe would appear to have no edge. Everything within the compacted
space can be calculated because it's everything that actually exists, even
though what exists is growing larger every second. And if the contents of
a compacted universe are infinite, then it seems reasonable to me that it
would keep expanding until it is no longer compacted.
At this point, I'd like to bring up the idea of folding space that's been
promoted as one way to exceed the speed of light. The way I see a
compacted universe, you can't fold space in a compacted universe bceause
it's already folded! That's why it takes infinite energy to reach the
speed of light. Space is already folded, the resistance to exceed the
speed of light in this compacted space is infinite. So the speed of light
186,282 miles per second, not only in a vacuum, but within folded space. I
anticipate that within an noncompacted space, where space is no longer
folded, the speed of light will be faster than 186,282 miles per second.
> If there is one, it is only because our universe has at least two
> parts, one of which is expanding and the other is either stationary or
> contracting.
Well, yes. I cast my vote for the stationary version. I don't believe
there's a contracting wave of nothingness closing in on an expanding area
of matter and energy.
While I can mentally handle the idea of a finitely-sized universe without
an outside, imagining a finite, inflating space filling a larger, infinite
space just makes more sense. It fits together better because the infinite
space gives the finite space room to expand. The infinite space that has
not yet been reached by the expanding area of matter and energy is
completely void of everything, even cosmic background radiation. There is
simply and absolutely nothing there but empty space. That is as close to
"nothing" as I like to get. Going into the realm of non-existence becomes
a bit absurd, but I can play that way if people insist on it.
Some have angrily told me that "outside" relative to the expanding space
is meaningless because it doesn't exist. They even try to get me to
understand that it's not even an emptiness. The emphasize that it doesn't
exist, even as a void. Like I said, I can easily wrap my mind around that
and force it to make sense, but it doesn't make sense to natural thinking.
For something to expand, it needs room to expand. That's true for
everything on Earth. Why shouldn't it be true for the whole universe? If
I try to inflate a life raft with the potential to reach 200 cubic feet of
air space, I can't inflate it very much in a closet with only 50 cubic
feet of air space. The life raft would inflate to 50 cubic feet and could
not expand any more. That's why the expanding area *needs* an infinite
space beyond itself—so it can actually expand. Therefore, that the
universe is actually expanding is proof that there is at least SOME space
outside the expanding area. I see no reason yet why that exterior space
should not be infinite. And frankly I'm even surprised I should even have
to go to this length to talk about what, to me, is a very elementary point
of logic: If Space A is finite and is going to grow, it needs a larger
Space B to grow into.
> > That could not happen if the suction force was *just* infinite. It
> > has to be greater than infinity or the universe might be doomed to
> > expand and contract for eternity. That would be horrible. And we are
> > designed to live in a fun universe, not a horrible one. So throw out
> > all ideas of gloom and doom. The universe will last forever and so
> > will we.
>
> Only if you postulate continuous creation of matter, a la Hoyle.
I checked on Hoyle. I believe in the continuous creation of matter, but
also in the big bang/expanding universe. I see black holes as the "zip
files" that are "unzipping" their matter, symbolically speaking, as the
universe expands. It's black hole evaporation. That explains why smaller
black holes lose their mass more quickly: there's less gravity holding
them together against the pulling force of the inflating cosmos.
Obviously the force causing the expansion of the universe when everything
was packed into an infinitesimal point was strong enough to pull apart
*that* gravity nightmare. I see no reason why the universe cannot handle
lesser black holes that have remained since the universe began expanding.
Seems like they would be child's play to the force of inflation.
If CERN creates micro-black holes, I have no fear at all of these
artificially-created black holes swallowing up the universe because cosmic
inflation is already evaporating natural black holes that are larger than
the ones CERN would be able to create. Fears of destroying the universe,
then, are not justifiable. As soon as a micro-black hole is created,
cosmic inflation would immediately evaporate it, so they'd better look
quickly!
Damaeus
Damaeus
23 Feb 2011 19:42:43 -0500 the following:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 06:59:33 -0600, Damaeus
> <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote:
>
> > If there was no such thing as an "outside" relative to the
> > singularity, then we would not be here. There would be nowhere in
> > existence for the singularity to expand.
>
> Not required. The expansion of the singularity produces the dimensions.
Okay, that's fine. That point doesn't really matter anyway. Whether a
stationary space existed to be later occupied by an expanding, or whether
space is created as it's needed makes no difference. The end result is
still a larger universe that continues growing. lol
> > So saying that the big bang started in every spatial location, when
> > the singularity was infinitesimally small, becomes a meaningless
> > statement.
>
> You misunderstand. The big bang, at that point,*was* every spatial
> location. (Excuse the unintentional pun.) So, as it expands, the uiverse
> started from everywhere.
Yes, the way I see your explanation, if the universe was a foot in
diameter, the big bang was happening at every spatial location, even
though at that time, every spatial location was confined to a one-foot
diameter.
> > So there was an empty void outside the singularity.
>
> No. There was no "empty void" as you would know it outside the
> singularity. That would require 4-D space outside the singularity.
How odd. You think it is impossible to have a 3-dimensional, infinite,
stationary space outside a finite, 3-dimensional space that is expanding?
Even if that's not how the universe is set up, I don't see why you'd need
a fourth dimension outside a finite, 3-dimensional sphere of expanding
matter and energy. I don't see why you need four dimensions, anyway,
unless you're trying to account for the folding of an infinite space into
a finite space. From a visual perspective, the universe is observable
with a three-dimensional perspective.
Damaeus
Damaeus
2011 10:47:48 -0700 the following:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 03:11:20 -0600, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
> <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid>:
>
> >In news:talk.origins, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> posted on Tue, 22
> >Feb 2011 14:47:21 -0800 the following:
> >
> > > Time travel is inescapable. Of course, it is always in the same
> > > direction.
> >
> > That's not time travel. That's just existing while time progresses.
>
> There is no evidence that "time progresses" other than as an artifact of
> the observer.
Oh come on! Here's an example:
Five seconds ago, someone spilled a Coke.
Right now, someone is spilling a Pepsi.
In five seconds, someone will spill a Dr. Pepper.
Six seconds have now passed. Those three events happened in an order.
Since one event happened after the previous one, they happened at
different times. They didn't all happen at the same time. Also, within
the context of the three events, the universe was smallest when the Coke
was spilled, it was larger when the Pepsi was spilled, and it was largest
when the Dr. Pepper was spilled. The passage of natural time separates
the three events.
I don't know what you're trying to say with "there is no evidence that
'time progresses'". Perhaps you could expand on that idea. What kind of
evidence would you need to prove the passage of time, or that "time
progresses". Maybe you're nitpicking my use of words. Maybe I should
have said, "That's just existing while time passes."
Is that better?
Damaeus
Damaeus
23 Feb 2011 05:19:36 -0800 (PST) the following:
> On Feb 23, 9:14 am, Damaeus <no-m...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote:
>
> > And for good reason. There is only one universe.
>
> Technically, I agree with you. Well... I'm not even sure that the
> number of universes is as high as one. It may be that there is no
> such thing.
Brevity is not always a good thing. I feel like I just sat down to a
movie to see:
"A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away..."
....followed immediately by the closing credits.
What would make you think there may be no such thing as the universe? That
people think the universe is expanding to fill a space that doesn't exist
is bad enough, but to say that we don't even exist is even worse.
Damaeus
Damaeus
2011 10:50:04 -0700 the following:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 03:14:10 -0600, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
> <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid>:
>
> > And for good reason. There is only one universe.
>
> You seem obsessed with making unsupported claims. Is there
> some reason for that or is it a personal failing?
Ask the guy I just responded to right above your message that question. He
is indicating that he thinks there might not even be one universe. I'd
call that an unsupported claim.
And have you seen another universe? Did you bring back any pictures of
it? Talk about unsupported claims!
Damaeus
Damaeus
posted on Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:35:56 -0800 (PST) the following:
> Thus demonstrating you can't parody "true believers"
What true believers, oh master of brevity?
Damaeus
Damaeus
> On Feb 23, 3:19 am, Damaeus <no-m...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote:
>
> > It's not stupid. It's just incomplete. That the universe is still
> > expanding proves it's incomplete. It's designed to be infinite. Since
> > it's not yet infinite, it isn't complete. Since it's not yet infinite,
> > it is compressed. Since it is compressed, we have an increased density
> > of the fabric that makes up the expanding space. Once the universe is
> > infinite, the density of the fabric of space will be decreased and the
> > speed of light will increase dramatically. Maybe the speed of light will
> > even be infinite and will only be blocked by solid objects in its path,
> > dust, fog or whatever. In that case, we will see things as they happen,
> > when they happen, not after they happened.
>
> You really have no idea what infinite means do you?
Yes, I know exactly what it means. What's your point? If you have
problems with specifics in my post, please point them out instead of being
so vague.
> Oh wait, you obviously think you do... you don't. No, I do not require
> any kind of mind reading to know that. Your (mis)usage of the term makes
> it clear.
>
> consider:
> Infinite matter in finite universe: infinitely dense matter throughout
> all of the universe.
Yes, I've thought of that before. That's one of my supporting claims for
the vibration of molecules. My belief is that molecules could be
vibrating because of the effect of stuffing infinite matter into a finite
space. We just won't know until the universe's size is infinite what the
effect will be of equalizing infinite matter with infinite size. Right
now, we have infinite matter and finite size. That's *bound* to create
some "problems" we've been living with all our lives without really
noticing them as problems of the dissonance caused by infinite space
compacted into a finite space.
> Finite matter in infinite universe: matter density of zero throughout
> universe. (cf. no matter in finite universe.)
Yes, as spooky as that sounds. Though it's comforting to think of it with
finite matter localized into a finite space within an infinite space, the
tendency would be for matter to spread into unfilled areas of infinity,
eventually becoming so thin that everything is non-existent. Even
hydrogen atoms would disintegrate in an infinite universe with finite
matter.
> Finite matter in finite universe,
That would lead to boredom if we had eternal life with infinite time.
> and infinite matter in infinite universe could look similar
Similar to what? That's the model I believe in, by the way, infinite
matter in an infinite universe, but it's not all solid matter. For
example, an infinite universe with infinite matter of infinite density
would be worse than Hell. To be livable, the universe has to have a
division of infinity or we could have one infinite black hole. So we have
a division of lightness and darkness, divisions of greater density and
lesser density, while overall, we can have infinite air, infinite water,
infinite land, infinite space, etc... without having them all exist in all
space all at the same time. Yuck!
> , but probably don't.
> We won't even go into different orders of infinity.
They probably aren't necessary, anyway.
Damaeus
Damaeus
> On Feb 23, 2:47 pm, Christopher Denney <christopher.den...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Feb 23, 3:19 am, Damaeus <no-m...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > In news:talk.origins, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> posted on Tue, 22 Feb
> > > 2011 12:42:10 +0000 the following:
> >
> > > > On 22/02/11 07:33, Damaeus wrote:
> > > > > In news:talk.origins, Nathan Levesque <nathanmleves...@gmail.com> posted
> > > > > on Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:13:00 -0800 (PST) the following:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The problem with this is that because there is no evidence for
> > > > > > such a designer, and that whatever necessitated a designer in
> > > > > > the first place (this argument from design) is even more
> > > > > > applicable to extra terrestrial life that have the capacity to
> > > > > > do the following:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Interstellar Space Travel
> > > > > > 2. Design life.
>
> I've tried to explain that if abiogenesis is a once-in-a-galaxy (or
> even rarer) event, there's a sound line of reasoning that says that it
> is more likely that we are one of MANY results of planetary seeding
> than the ONE civilization that did (or might, if we are that
> civilization) the seeding. See my posts to the following thread:
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/5e840a9968c6d5fe/a3f67b2251d84e5a
> The post linked earlier is the lead post in that thread.
If our galaxy is right around the area where the big bang originated, it
seems to me that our galaxy would be in the most hospitable area for life
to form. Hasn't it been said that the universe is expanding outwardly
more quickly at its edges than it is at the point of origin? If that's
the case, the closer a galaxy is to the big bang's point of origin, the
more hospitable the conditions there would be to allow life to be
possible.
I have never gotten a straight answer about where the Milky Way is in
relation to where the big bang originated, so I'm saying this rather
cautiously: If the Milky Way happens to be closer to the big bang's point
of origin than any other galaxy, then life is more likely in this galaxy
than any other. So the further away other galaxies are from us, the less
likely it would be to find life in those galaxies.
Now what about life on other planets in this galaxy? As far as I know, no
other life-filled planets have been found. Compound that with our
location relative to the big bang's point of origin and the rarity of life
becomes even more astounding. It could turn out that we're the only ones
able to populate the rest of the universe, and if that's the case, being
fruitful and multiplying becomes a paramount task. It means that not
going into space "just because we can't afford to" becomes a silly excuse
to confine ourselves to Earth. It becomes an issue of budgets and
political bickering. Would we sit here and allow everyone to starve to
death just because we can't afford to plant tomatoes anymore?
> > > > > I don't even believe in the existence of extra-terrestrials much
> > > > > less that form of space travel. There is simply no way to
> > > > > currently exceed the speed of light because cosmic density
> > > > > prevents it.
>
> There is no need to send the probes any faster than 1/30th the speed
> of light, and that speed is within our reach now. See that thread
> again.
>
> If the first sentence in that last paragraph is true, then space is
> still curved, just like the earth's surface is curved even though it
> looks flat. The alternative is that the universe at some finite point
> in time went from being a compact manifold to a noncompact one,
> infinite in extent.
It would be interesting to know when that happened. Do they have
observations of a curved universe as well as observations of a flat one?
And "essentially flat" doesn't sound quite as flat as "absolutely flat".
> > Oh wait, you obviously think you do... you don't. No, I do not require
> > any kind of mind reading to know that. Your (mis)usage of the term
> > makes it clear.
> >
> > consider:
> > Infinite matter in finite universe: infinitely dense matter throughout
> > all of the universe.
>
> I don't think you can even give a meaning to that concept. Certainly
> it isn't matter as we know it.
My "theory" is that infinite matter stuffed into a finite universe would
constantly try to kill everything inside of it. If that's the case, then
the fact that we exist at all is a miracle. Now what would happen if a
finite space with infinite matter became infinite in size?
First I'd have to think backwards by imagining an infinitely-sized
universe with infinite matter, but there are still variances of densities
so you can still have air, land, water, light objects and heavy objects.
So what would happen if you contract a universe of infinite size that has
infinite matter? You'd have infinite compaction. To say that wouldn't
have some effect on beings living in such a universe is rather absurd.
So now think from the starting point of the big bang. At first it there
was infinite density. You'd think that would create infinite gravity that
could not be overcome by anything, but here we are. So either the matter
contained in the tiny point of origin for the big bang was finite, or
whatever pulled the point of origin apart somehow exceeded infinity, or
the tiny point was a black hole that was evaporating just like today's
black holes are evaporating. If it was evaporating, that would explain
why space was curved back then. The black hole would evaporate some of
its matter and that would immediately be sucked back in. Yet the process
continued and the universe grew.
> > Finite matter in infinite universe: matter density of zero throughout
> > universe. (cf. no matter in finite universe.)
>
> Imprecise. The density is infinitesimal, but not zero, unless you
> adopt some dubious conventions.
I had that gut reaction in my own response but was too cowardly to
confront him with it. I settled with hydrogen atoms even disintegrating,
but yes, even with that, density wouldn't be absolutely zero.
Damaeus
Damaeus
2011 10:46:29 -0700 the following:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 03:10:34 -0600, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
> <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid>:
>
> > In news:talk.origins, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> posted on Tue, 22
> > Feb 2011 12:11:47 -0700 the following:
> >
> > > On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 01:36:37 -0600, the following appeared
> > > in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
> > > <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid>:
> > >
> > > > In news:talk.origins, Darwin123 <drose...@yahoo.com> posted on
> > > > Sun, 20 Feb 2011 09:38:15 -0800 (PST) the following:
> > > >
> > > > > Now, bring back the red shift. There may be ways to explain the red
> > > > > shift without the Big Bang.
> > > >
> > > > From Earth, don't we see red-shift in every direction?
> > >
> > > Yes. Your point?
> >
> > Then the big bang started here.
>
> It started everywhere. I think you fail to grasp the
> implications of expansion from a point.
I grasp it, but people assume I don't, so they continue to pelt me with
assumptions that I don't understand it. Rephrased, suppose right here (or
very near here) is the center of the expanding area that grew out of the
point of origin of the big bang.
> > > > > 2) It makes sense if time travel is invented.
> > > >
> > > > Time travel is impossible.
> > >
> > > Sorry, but despite some arguments (*both* ways) there is no proof
> > > that time travel is either possible or impossible.
> >
> > I don't need proof. I'm just saying it's impossible because it is.
>
> Ah, so it's an unsupported claim (i.e., an opinion)...
>
> OK; glad you cleared that up so I can ignore it.
I haven't seen any supported claims of time travel. In my view, the only
way you could even begin to travel through time is to contract the
universe and expand it again, but in doing so, you destroy yourself to be
recreated without a memory of having contracted the universe, and you end
up ignorantly going through all this again only to arrive at the same
question: Is time travel possible? Thank God we can't contract the
universe!
And even if we could, would all the events on Earth unfold in exactly the
same way? Maybe the second time around there'd be no JFK. Though it
seems like everything would happen exactly the same way, really, if the
universe has infinite matter. Infinite matter would leave no wiggle-room
at all. I think the only way you could have truely random events is if
the universe had finite matter. So if the universe was contracted and
expanded again, you'd have another JFK assassination, another Jesus story,
another Obama, and another me posting in talk.origins.
Damaeus
Damaeus
> On Feb 23, 3:10 am, Damaeus <no-m...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote:
> > In news:talk.origins, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> posted on Tue, 22 Feb
> > 2011 12:11:47 -0700 the following:
> >
> > > Sorry, but despite some arguments (*both* ways) there is no
> > > proof that time travel is either possible or impossible.
> >
> > I don't need proof. I'm just saying it's impossible because it is.
>
> Why would you say that?? I travel through time constantly, at a rate
> of 1sec/sec.
That's not the kind of time travel we mean, and I think you know that.
> The idea of time-travel must frighten you terribly to make such
> unsupported pronouncements.
No, it doesn't frighten me at all. I just think it's a stupid idea. I
would love to be able to travel in time (in the sense of
science-fiction-style time-travel, leaving 2011 to return to 1950, for
example), but I just don't believe it's possible.
> Perhaps you understand that unfettered time-travel removes the "special
> position" of the present.
What special position of the present?
> And that scares you so much that you have to declare it impossible,
> unequivocally.
No, now you're making baseless assumptions. To make your theory of my
declarations of time travel true, you have to assume I fear it. I do not
fear it, so your theory is wrong.
Try again.
Damaeus
Damaeus
> On Feb 23, 7:28 am, Damaeus <no-m...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote:
> > In news:talk.origins, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> posted on
> > Tue, 22 Feb 2011 10:56:34 -0800 (PST) the following:
> >
> > > On Feb 21, 11:41+AKA-pm, Damaeus <no-m...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > In news:talk.origins, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> posted on Mon,
> > > > 21 Feb 2011 16:17:52 +-0000 the following:
> > > >
> > > > > The origin of life on Earth could have been a time traveler from
> > > > > the future who traveled back in time to the primordial Earth and
> > > > > brought bacteria on his person to that environment, either
> > > > > unwittingly or deliberately.
> > > >
> > > > Nothing from the future can come back in time because the future
> > > > hasn't happened yet.+AKA-Furthermore, suppose humans are actually
> > > > at the top of the evolutionary chain for the entire universe.
> > > > +AKA-The survival of our species depends on people's ability to
> > > > refrain from nuking the entire world and destroying every last
> > > > man, woman and child on Earth.
> > >
> > > Actually I think a greater danger is our failure to give up our
> > > unsustainable lifestyle - particularly burning fossil fuels.
> >
> > That doesn't matter. We're made of the same things found in stars.
> > We can handle a little smog. Thank goodness for adaptive genetics.
>
> It's not the smog he was talking about, but the collapse from running
> out of FF.
FF?
> (The unsustainable part gave it away)
>
> > said, I don't recommend sucking on a tailpipe because that would make
> > you feel like crap. But you won't suddenly be poisoned just because
> > you smell auto-exaust. I do think it's a good idea, however, to do
> > what we can to keep nice, clean air to breathe. It's just sad that
> > the economic situation is set up to make cheating more likely since it
> > can costs more to contain pollutants than to just let them fly into
> > the air.
>
> Doing something costs more than doing nothing.
That's only because man has set up a cost and value system to everything.
If an asteroid was tumbling toward Earth and we all knew it would collide
with us, we also knew we had the technology to stop it, and we also knew
the whole world was bankrupt, would we allow ourselves to be destroyed by
the asteroid just because nobody could "afford" to stop the thing? That's
pretty much how I see the world. We aren't making speedy progress in
space travel because of the lack of money. We aren't getting more high
speed internet access in rural areas because of the lack of money. Some
countries have starving people with hardly any infrastructure because of
the lack of money. Banks are foreclosing on people's homes because they
want the money the debtors can't afford to pay, so it boils down to a lack
of money. So as a result, civilization is putt-putting along at a snail's
pace because the social engineers have set up the world to operate on
money. If there's no money, there's no progress.
> > I've often wondered why factories don't just find some way to remove
> > particles from their fumes and condense them into bricks or some kind
> > of solid mass that can be used in other ways. I used to think it
> > would be nice if we had a space dock that would accept pollutant
> > bricks from factories. We'd just get rid of what we can't use by
> > sending the bricks toward the sun. But surely chemists can come up
> > with some use for these things.
>
> Anything that costs money will be resisted bitterly by those that have
> to pay.
Indeed! And what a shame.
> If someone could make all the pollution in the world into something
> useful, it would only ever happen if it paid for itself.
Yes, and what a shame!
> And maybe only if it made a profit, increasing annually.
Yes, I know.
Damaeus
Damaeus
25 Feb 2011 16:51:34 +0000 the following:
> "Damaeus" <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
> news:ltp6m6tpbgic4fqo2...@4ax.com:
>
> > In news:talk.origins, "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> posted on Mon,
> > 21 Feb 2011 16:17:52 +0000 the following:
> >
> > > The origin of life on Earth could have been a time traveler from the
> > > future who traveled back in time to the primordial Earth and brought
> > > bacteria on his person to that environment, either unwittingly or
> > > deliberately.
> >
> > Nothing from the future can come back in time because the future
> > hasn't happened yet. Furthermore, suppose humans are actually at the
> > top of the evolutionary chain for the entire universe. The survival of
> > our species depends on people's ability to refrain from nuking the
> > entire world and destroying every last man, woman and child on Earth.
>
> Only as long as we are bound to the Earth.
True, but I think even if we do end up with some kind of nuking of a bunch
of people on Earth, it'll be the last time it ever happens. I think if it
happens, people will see why it happens, and the learning experience will
prevent it from happening again. Namely, don't go into someone else's
country and tell them how to live their lives. That will only make them
mad and it will make them want to kill you. If Americans can't handle the
way people are living in the Middle East, I don't think they'd be able to
handle how people are living on Mergatroid. And no, I have no proof
Mergatroid exists. I only offer the reasoning that in an infinite
universe, eventually we'll find a planet named Mergatroid. It seems like
a mathematical certainty.
> Once we have colonized exoplanets successfully, the destruction of any
> one planet--even the Earth--wouldn't end human civilization. It's a good
> insurance policy against a "When Worlds Collide" scenario wiping out the
> Earth.
Yes. I think if all the world's militaries would go home to their
families and stop trying to kill each other, we'd have a more pleasant
time working toward colonizing other planets instead of trying to wipe
everyone else off this one.
Damaeus
Mark Isaak
> [...]
> I have never gotten a straight answer about where the Milky Way is in
> relation to where the big bang originated, [...]
The (energy which would become particles which would become the) Milky
Way was at the very center of (which is to say, at the entirety of) the
Big Bang. As was every other point in the universe. There was nowhere
else for anything to be.
I have often asked what the formal name of the corkscrew shape is called,
and I never got a straight answer.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Bob Casanova
Really? Other than by observation (see my statement above)
how do you know that?
>I don't know what you're trying to say with "there is no evidence that
>'time progresses'". Perhaps you could expand on that idea. What kind of
>evidence would you need to prove the passage of time, or that "time
>progresses". Maybe you're nitpicking my use of words. Maybe I should
>have said, "That's just existing while time passes."
>
>Is that better?
Not really; it's the "time passes" part for which the only
evidence is subjective.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
<no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid>:
<snip>
>If our galaxy is right around the area where the big bang originated
Get it through your head; this idea isn't right. It's not
even wrong. The BB took place everywhere at once.
<snip>
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
<no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid>:
>In news:talk.origins, Christopher Denney <christoph...@gmail.com>
>posted on Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:47:17 -0800 (PST) the following:
<snip>
>> You really have no idea what infinite means do you?
>Yes, I know exactly what it means.
Which infinity? Be specific; there's more than one.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
<no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid>:
>In news:talk.origins, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> posted on Wed, 23 Feb
>2011 10:50:04 -0700 the following:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 03:14:10 -0600, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
>> <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid>:
>>
>> > And for good reason. There is only one universe.
>>
>> You seem obsessed with making unsupported claims. Is there
>> some reason for that or is it a personal failing?
>
>Ask the guy I just responded to right above your message that question. He
>is indicating that he thinks there might not even be one universe. I'd
>call that an unsupported claim.
Nope. If he'd said "There isn't even one universe" *that*
would be an unsupported claim, just like "There is only one
universe" and "There are many universes". Although it seems
that many (especially religious fundamentalists) don't
understand the point, facts, claims and conjectures are all
different beasts.
>And have you seen another universe? Did you bring back any pictures of
>it? Talk about unsupported claims!
Ummm... I'm not making any claims; you are. And your claim
is unsupported.
Bob Casanova
....thus showing that you *don't* understand it. Oy...
>> > > > > 2) It makes sense if time travel is invented.
>> > > >
>> > > > Time travel is impossible.
>> > >
>> > > Sorry, but despite some arguments (*both* ways) there is no proof
>> > > that time travel is either possible or impossible.
>> >
>> > I don't need proof. I'm just saying it's impossible because it is.
>>
>> Ah, so it's an unsupported claim (i.e., an opinion)...
>>
>> OK; glad you cleared that up so I can ignore it.
>
>I haven't seen any supported claims of time travel.
And that means...what? Do you believe that everything
possible has been done? Apparently so, based on your
statement above: "I don't need proof. I'm just saying it's
impossible because it is.". *That* claim is unsupported; the
fact that you believe something to be impossible doesn't
constrain reality. And I'm sure you'll fail to grasp the
meaning of this once again.
> In my view, the only
>way you could even begin to travel through time is to contract the
>universe and expand it again, but in doing so, you destroy yourself to be
>recreated without a memory of having contracted the universe, and you end
>up ignorantly going through all this again only to arrive at the same
>question: Is time travel possible? Thank God we can't contract the
>universe!
>
>And even if we could, would all the events on Earth unfold in exactly the
>same way? Maybe the second time around there'd be no JFK. Though it
>seems like everything would happen exactly the same way, really, if the
>universe has infinite matter. Infinite matter would leave no wiggle-room
>at all. I think the only way you could have truely random events is if
>the universe had finite matter. So if the universe was contracted and
>expanded again, you'd have another JFK assassination, another Jesus story,
>another Obama, and another me posting in talk.origins.
Did it ever occur to you that what you can imagine isn't the
totality of the possibilities available?
TomS
>I have never gotten a straight answer about where the Milky Way is in
>relation to where the big bang originated, so I'm saying this rather
>cautiously: If the Milky Way happens to be closer to the big bang's point
>of origin than any other galaxy, then life is more likely in this galaxy
>than any other. So the further away other galaxies are from us, the less
>likely it would be to find life in those galaxies.
Asking for an answer from a cosmologist:
Where is the center of the Local Supercluster of galaxies with respect
to the Milky Way?
--
---Tom S.
"... the heavy people know some magic that can make things move and even fly,
but they're not very bright, because they can't survive without their magic
contrivances"
Xixo, in "The Gods Must Be Crazy II"
Damaeus
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 08:30:47 -0600, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
> <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid>:
>
> >In news:talk.origins, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> posted on Wed, 23 Feb
> >2011 10:46:29 -0700 the following:
> >
> >> On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 03:10:34 -0600, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
> >> <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid>:
> >>
> >> > In news:talk.origins, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> posted on Tue, 22
> >> > Feb 2011 12:11:47 -0700 the following:
> >> >
> >> > > On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 01:36:37 -0600, the following appeared
> >> > > in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
> >> > >
> >> > > Yes. Your point?
> >> >
> >> > Then the big bang started here.
> >>
> > > It started everywhere. I think you fail to grasp the implications
> > > of expansion from a point.
> >
> > I grasp it, but people assume I don't, so they continue to pelt me
> > with assumptions that I don't understand it. Rephrased, suppose right
> > here (or very near here) is the center of the expanding area that grew
> > out of the point of origin of the big bang.
>
> ....thus showing that you *don't* understand it. Oy...
I don't see you giving any god-damned explanations. All you do is accuse
others of ignorance!
> > > Ah, so it's an unsupported claim (i.e., an opinion)...
> > >
> > > OK; glad you cleared that up so I can ignore it.
> >
> > I haven't seen any supported claims of time travel.
>
> And that means...what? Do you believe that everything possible has been
> done? Apparently so, based on your statement above: "I don't need proof.
> I'm just saying it's impossible because it is.". *That* claim is
> unsupported; the fact that you believe something to be impossible
> doesn't constrain reality. And I'm sure you'll fail to grasp the meaning
> of this once again.
I don't care. They're your rules. I'm not going to dance around them
anymore. I'm telling you time travel is impossible and I mean it. I
don't give a fuck whether you like it or not! And how dare you ask me for
proof you know you wouldn't recognize since you're too stupid to realize
intuitively that time travel is impossible. Time travel is one of the
stupidest ideas I've ever heard about. To think you can just step outside
the only timeline in existence and just walk into any time you wish is the
most absurd thing I've ever heard. Questioning the impossibility of time
travel makes you look like a greater imbecile that some mangy ape in the
Congo. So fuck off and pull that dildo of arrogance out of your ass, you
pompous prick!
I know what you're doing, too. You know what you believe, but you're
afraid to express it outright. Instead you like to dance around to
different posotions to oppose anyone who picks a specific angle to discuss
from and sticks to it. I'd say you're what people call a troll.
> > In my view, the only way you could even begin to travel through time
> > is to contract the universe and expand it again, but in doing so, you
> > destroy yourself to be recreated without a memory of having contracted
> > the universe, and you end up ignorantly going through all this again
> > only to arrive at the same question: Is time travel possible? Thank
> > God we can't contract the universe!
> >
> > And even if we could, would all the events on Earth unfold in exactly
> > the same way? Maybe the second time around there'd be no JFK. Though
> > it seems like everything would happen exactly the same way, really, if
> > the universe has infinite matter. Infinite matter would leave no
> > wiggle-room at all. I think the only way you could have truely random
> > events is if the universe had finite matter. So if the universe was
> > contracted and expanded again, you'd have another JFK assassination,
> > another Jesus story, another Obama, and another me posting in
> > talk.origins.
>
> Did it ever occur to you that what you can imagine isn't the
> totality of the possibilities available?
Did it ever occur to you that what you imagine is impossible is
restricting what you imagine so much that you can't recognize the
simplicity of reality minus all the inane attempts to explain it? It's
not that fucking hard to understand. You don't need a degree in physics,
just some common sense, a little intuition, and a discarding of that
retarded, idiotic idea that anecdotes don't prove anything. They don't
prove anything because you don't want them to! That's because you think
your way is best, when it's really the way that sucks ass the most because
it prevents freedom of thought. All you do is deny, deny, deny the
reality of anything anybody suggests that doesn't fit in your little lunch
box. Well fuck that. Live like the pigheaded people of the past who
thought they knew it all and knew the best method of learning more.
Damaeus
Damaeus
If I know that by observation, why the fuck would I care about trying to
find out any other god-damned way?
> > I don't know what you're trying to say with "there is no evidence that
> > 'time progresses'". Perhaps you could expand on that idea. What kind
> > of evidence would you need to prove the passage of time, or that "time
> > progresses". Maybe you're nitpicking my use of words. Maybe I should
> > have said, "That's just existing while time passes."
> >
> > Is that better?
>
> Not really; it's the "time passes" part for which the only evidence is
> subjective.
Oh, yes. That doesn't fit in the triangular opening of your Fisher-Price
Brilliant Basics Baby’s First Blocks set so you don't know what to do with
it. It's pretty simple. Time passes/progresses as the days, hours,
minutes, seconds, etc... go by. That's another one of those common sense
ideas you seem to be too fucking retarded to understand. A little time
has passed since while ago, and just a little bit from now, we can look
back on now and say, "Oh, some more time has passed! How exciting!!"
Yes, you've proven it to the newsgroup. You REALLY ARE a true ape! Maybe
when you figure out how time works, you'll start to understand a few more
things many of us on Earth have come to accept as the simple, natural
order of things and you can join the human race. That does require more
intelligence than you seem to possess at the moment.
Damaeus
Damaeus
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 07:18:49 -0600, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
> <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid>:
>
> >In news:talk.origins, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> posted on Wed, 23 Feb
> >2011 10:50:04 -0700 the following:
> >
> >> On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 03:14:10 -0600, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
> >> <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid>:
> >>
> >> > And for good reason. There is only one universe.
> >>
> >> You seem obsessed with making unsupported claims. Is there
> >> some reason for that or is it a personal failing?
> >
> >Ask the guy I just responded to right above your message that question. He
> >is indicating that he thinks there might not even be one universe. I'd
> >call that an unsupported claim.
>
> Nope. If he'd said "There isn't even one universe" *that* would be an
> unsupported claim, just like "There is only one universe" and "There are
> many universes". Although it seems that many (especially religious
> fundamentalists) don't understand the point, facts, claims and
> conjectures are all different beasts.
What's become evident to me is that you don't believe anything. You just
like to sit around and talk about ideas. Well, I suppose that's probably
exciting in some way, but I actually like to pick a model of the universe
and talk about it like I'm actually able to figure things out for myself.
You seem to refuse to actually discuss from any particular viewpoint, and
every reply is "unsupported claim" or something similar.
> > And have you seen another universe? Did you bring back any pictures of
> > it? Talk about unsupported claims!
>
> Ummm... I'm not making any claims; you are. And your claim
> is unsupported.
/yawn. Yes, and what's your point? You don't know how to believe
something without evidence? It's a wonder you're able to dream, or are
you? If your inability to believe anything at all is so bad you can't
even dream, your consciousness is so weak that you're little more than a
shit pump. Basically all you'd do is sit around, eating, making poop,
believing nothing (except maybe in your own death, which also stupid), and
basically spending your time contributing virtually nothing at all to
these threads. I'm not sure how you behave toward other posters. I
hadn't thought to watch your activities because it wasn't until my last
few posts that I realized on a whole new level how completely useless many
of your posts have been. They don't offer any new ideas or insight. It
seems to just be a bunch of accusations of people not following some set
of rules you have in your mind. Well, big deal! At least other posters
are actually THINKING.
Damaeus
Damaeus
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 08:11:51 -0600, Damaeus wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > I have never gotten a straight answer about where the Milky Way is in
> > relation to where the big bang originated, [...]
>
> The (energy which would become particles which would become the) Milky
> Way was at the very center of (which is to say, at the entirety of) the
> Big Bang. As was every other point in the universe. There was nowhere
> else for anything to be.
The big bang spread out from a point. Where is the center of that
spreading out? How far is that center from where the Milky Way is?
Damaeus
Damaeus
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 08:11:51 -0600, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
> <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid>:
>
> <snip>
>
> >If our galaxy is right around the area where the big bang originated
>
> Get it through your head; this idea isn't right. It's not
> even wrong. The BB took place everywhere at once.
You really are dim. The Milky Way does not exist everywhere, does it? No.
Where the hell is the Milky Way now compared to where the big bang
originated relative to the space it takes up now? There is an answer to
this question, you know, if you're intelligent enough to understand what
I'm asking for.
This is why there needs to be at least an imaginary "outside" to the point
of origin. If there isn't one, people can't comprehend what it means to
have a point of origin for a big bang within an infinite space. It's like
they have no idea what I'm talking about. They instead focus on the fact
that everywhere at once was all stuffed into an infinitesimal point. Okay,
fine. I *DO* grasp that concept, but just because everything in the
universe was once in an infinitesimal point does not mean the question I
ask is meaningless. Relative to the size of the universe NOW, the point
of origin had a location. Where is it?
Or would you like to suggest the universe started out as infinite and then
the big bang happened everywhere at once? That's an even more absurd idea
than the one you mentioned above. I also noticed you didn't mention that
back then, "everywhere" was infinitesimal, or perhaps extremely tiny, just
to cover any other theories you might like to dance toward to avoid making
a real point. Why did you leave that out? Were you hoping to continue
your charade?
Damaeus
Damaeus
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 07:38:02 -0600, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
> <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid>:
>
> >In news:talk.origins, Christopher Denney <christoph...@gmail.com>
> >posted on Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:47:17 -0800 (PST) the following:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> You really have no idea what infinite means do you?
>
> >Yes, I know exactly what it means.
>
> Which infinity? Be specific; there's more than one.
See what I mean? This is proof of my claims in several other posts. As
soon as jump through your hoop, you want to throw up another one.
Okay, so how many infinities are there? I'll just make this a little post
since you seem to have trouble managing more than two or three sentences
per post.
Damaeus
Damaeus
In news:talk.origins, Arkalen <ski...@yahoo.com> posted on Wed, 23 Feb
2011 13:46:33 +0000 the following:
> On 23/02/11 13:18, Damaeus wrote:
>
> > In news:talk.origins, Arkalen <ski...@yahoo.com> posted on Tue, 22
> > Feb 2011 12:34:09 +0000 the following:
> >
> > > On 22/02/11 07:41, Damaeus wrote:
> > >
> > > > In news:talk.origins, "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> posted
> > > > on Mon, 21 Feb 2011 16:17:52 +0000 the following:
> > > >
> > > > > The origin of life on Earth could have been a time traveler from
> > > > > the future who traveled back in time to the primordial Earth and
> > > > > brought bacteria on his person to that environment, either
> > > > > unwittingly or deliberately.
> > > >
> > > > Nothing from the future can come back in time because the future
> > > > hasn't happened yet.
> > >
> > > Can something from the present come back in time ?
> >
> > You write that as if you live in the past. Nothing from the present
> > can go back in time.
>
> I wrote that because the reason you gave for "nothing in the future can
> come back in time" was "because the future hasn't happened yet", which
> doesn't apply to the present or the past so I wondered it this meant you
> believed in present- or past-past time travel. Apparently not.
I don't believe in any form of time-travel. However, in a completed
universe, one might be able to create around himself a reality that looks
like what he imagines the past would have been like and enjoy that.
> > > > Furthermore, suppose humans are actually at the top of the
> > > > evolutionary chain for the entire universe.
> > >
> > > What a strange thing to suppose.
> >
> > It certainly isn't strange to me. Humans are the ones building
> > satellites and putting them into orbit. Gorillas are just eating
> > bananas and nibbline the lice off the heads of their fellow gorillas.
>
> To quote Douglas Adams, "on the planet Earth, man had always assumed
> that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so
> much - the wheel, New York, wars and so on - whilst all the dolphins had
> ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But
> conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more
> intelligent than man - for precisely the same reasons."
....
I'm almost speechless. You think that's some kind of proof that you're
right? How the hell would Adams know what dolphins believed? Did he ask
them? Did he perform a Vulcan mind-meld?
> > > > The survival of our species depends on people's ability to refrain
> > > > from nuking the entire world and destroying every last man, woman
> > > > and child on Earth. Wouldn't it be a shame if all humans were
> > > > killed. Then gorillas take over as the top of the evolutionary
> > > > chain and humans never get to see it happen.
> > >
> > > Why gorillas ? Or is that a "Planet of the Apes" thing ?
> >
> > No, I find Planet of the Apes a rather disturbing movie. I actually
> > can't stand gorillas, chimps and the like. Something about those
> > animals annoys me deeply. I just use gorillas, bonobos and chimps as
> > examples in many of my posts because so many seem to praise them,
> > sometimes as animals even greater than humans. That is what I consider
> > strange, given the overwhelming evidence of human superiority.
>
> Of course "superiority" requires a valuation system. It is no surprise
> that you would choose a valuation system under which you happen to be on
> top.
And no other animals are even able to make such a distinction. Imagine
that.
> The use of "gorillas" as animals that would "take over" from humans if
> all humans were killed is strange because as Kermit pointed out,
> gorillas wouldn't be particularly likely to survive something that
> killed all humans,
That's true, of course, unless they first plant all people with GPS
tracking, then program all nuclear weapons to blow up within range of all
GPS tracking devices. As long as all humans are far enough away from some
gorillas to prevent their deaths, then gorillas would take over...at least
for a while. I assume the radiation left over would probably kill them
eventually, but that's not a guarantee. They might continue to live and
reproduce as something out of a Chris Cunningham nightmare.
> and the species that "took over" from humans would have to be very
> versatile and gorillas don't strike me that way. I might be wrong of
> course.
They don't strike me as very versatile, either, and to me, versatility
comes from intelligence.
> > > You realize there is no such thing as an evolutionary chain of
> > > course.
> >
> > I see that you think so, but it isn't an important point.
>
> It is, actually. An amazing amount of misconceptions stem from this
> idea.
I probably should have said "evolutionary totem pole".
> > I will say, however, that the lineage that takes humans back to the
> > first life forms has always been the ultimate and dominate series of
> > species, all the way back to the beginning.
>
> Really ?
Yes. There's a chain of events there, though I don't claim to know
exactly what it is. It would be mathematically calculable, though I don't
need to see the math to believe what makes the most sense based on an
acceleration of human evolution. Understand that in my model, no other
species was accelerated—it was just humans and their direct ancestors.
I've seen reports that the Nakalipithecus nakayamai is close to the last
common ancestor of chimpanzees, gorillas and humans, so stream it right
back through the Nakalipithecus nakayamai. It came about through other
species, as well.
Gorillas and chimpanzees look like genetic defectives to me. Their
behavior exhibits some human-like characteristics, but they lack the
intelligence to do what we do, such as engaging in flame wars on usenet.
I wonder if there was some kind of natural disaster, like cosmic
radiation, that afflicted with genetic mutations some populations of
Nakalipithecus nakayamai, but not other populations. That could be why
some of them turned out to be chimps and gorillas -- defective, but living
offspring with the ability to survive and reproduce more. It could have
been two doses of different types and intensities of cosmic radiation,
affecting the populations in different ways. In the absence of some kind
of genetic damage, it just seems so strange that one offshoot of
Nakalipithecus nakayamai would become us, and two other offshoots would
become chimps and gorillas with whom we cannot really communicate with in
the way we can communicate with other humans.
> > Sure, at times a few of ancestors were overtaken by others,
>
> Oh, I see, not really.
You don't know what it means for two animals to get in a fight in which
one is victorious and the other is defeated?
> > but overall, we've avoided extinction.
>
> Yeah, unlike every other living species today. Wait...
Did you forget something?
> > We're clearly the masters of this domain.
>
> There we go with the valuation systems again. I can understand when you
> choose "putting satellites in space" as a criterion, it's kind of
> transparent but nobody can deny humans are at the top of that one,
It's not transparent. It's clear. I said that because it's clear
evidence. And people actually *have* denied type of example. People have
told me that they see no reason why putting satellites into orbit and
building and enjoying race cars makes humans anything better than a roach,
or an ant, or a monkey. They're exhibiting the results of a clear choice
to ignore the evidence of human superiority in this domain, probably so
they can continue deluding themselves into thinking they know what they're
talking about.
> but *survival* ?
Possibly. I theorize that people sometimes die of strokes or heart
attacks, not because of some physiological problem that was destined to
kill them before it started, but because they actually became so scared
that their own fear finished them off.
I've had times when I thought I was at death's door just from standing up
in the shower from a squatting position. The way my body felt after
that—the throbbing head; the pounding heart; the fuzzy, tingling sensation
in both arms and legs—I thought I was about to drop dead. I turned my
mind around, thinking, "Okay, so I feel this way. It might not be death
coming to claim me; Instead of falling on the floor in a panic, I'll stand
here and explore this new sensation to find out what's really going on."
So I did that, and the way my body felt stopped scaring me to death. My
heart rate re-normalized, my head stopped pounding, while other sensations
intensified. The sensations that intensified felt like they were becoming
a new kind of body—a better, improved human form without the problems and
drawbacks of this current body, a drawback such as the tendency to
accumulate fat when overeating, a trait that would not be necessary in an
immortal human. The "new body" felt like it was trying to impose its
design over my current one. Imagine another body—one that is improved
over the one you have now—then imagine it as a diffusion of particles that
you can feel as something like intense static electricity all around you.
This fuzzy feeling would not feel at first like another body. It didn't
to me until I decided to stop being scared half to death. After making
that decision, what had been a "blurry fuzziness" became more focused and
it began to take on the form of a body which I could tell was improved
beyond my current form, and I could sense that my body was trying to
rapidly change to fit that fuzzy superimposition. I'm not saying that the
impetus for the feeling of change came from outside me like a cloud of
particles; I believe it came from inside, but the sensation gave the
impression that it was "around" me like static electricity near a
television screen.
I felt my arms trying to shorten themselves, I felt the muscles all over
me becoming looser and more relaxed, yet more muscular as if they were
developing very quickly without exercise, and as if they would not need
exercise to be maintained. Even my face felt like it was being reformed.
It was quite remarkable.
Now when I have similar incidents, my heart doesn't beat in terror. All
that is skipped and the sensations jump into a more direct feeling of
accelerated evolution.
> We're much too young as a species to even be in the contest.
Too young compared to what, cyanobacteria? I didn't know what the first
life was, so I looked it up and found some information on cyanobacteria
found in stromalites. As soon as I saw the word "cyanobacteria", the
lyrics from /One Night in Bangkok/ (Murray Head) came to mind:
Excerpt:
Siam's gonna be the witness
To the ultimate test of cerebral fitness
This grips me more than would
A muddy old river or Reclining Buddha
If life is a dream (and if someone can tell me the one universe we live in
might not actually exist, then I can claim that life might be a dream),
then "Siam", since it rhymes with "cyan", makes this an interesting point
because it's like a linkage of dream symbolism through rhymes.
Cyanobacteria is going to be the witness to the ultimate test of cerebral
fitness. And who better than humans to undertake that ultimate test of
cerebral fitness? Incidentally, when I used to hear that song as a kid, I
always thought Murray was singing "Cyan's gonna be the witness..." I
didn't even know what that first word actually was until I looked up the
lyrics a few moments ago.
> > All species, plants and animals, that have ever existed on Earth arose
> > because of our existence here. If we had not been here, no other life
> > would have been here, either.
>
> What a strange statement. If you don't believe in time travel how did
> humans go and cause the first stromatolites ?
Oh, I don't mean us in our current form. I meant us as a lineage of
ancestry traced all the way back through Nakalipithecus nakayamai and
beyond. I consider Nakalipithecus nakayamai us, just not as developed as
we are, obviously.
Damaeus
Mark Isaak
I just told you. The center spread out. It is everywhere now.
Bob Casanova
Not "others"; mostly just you, based on your demonstrated
ignorance.
>> > > Ah, so it's an unsupported claim (i.e., an opinion)...
>> > >
>> > > OK; glad you cleared that up so I can ignore it.
>> >
>> > I haven't seen any supported claims of time travel.
>>
>> And that means...what? Do you believe that everything possible has been
>> done? Apparently so, based on your statement above: "I don't need proof.
>> I'm just saying it's impossible because it is.". *That* claim is
>> unsupported; the fact that you believe something to be impossible
>> doesn't constrain reality. And I'm sure you'll fail to grasp the meaning
>> of this once again.
>
>I don't care. They're your rules. I'm not going to dance around them
>anymore. I'm telling you time travel is impossible and I mean it. I
>don't give a fuck whether you like it or not!
You can "mean it" all you want; reality doesn't listen to
your tantrums.
> And how dare you ask me for
>proof you know you wouldn't recognize since you're too stupid to realize
>intuitively that time travel is impossible. Time travel is one of the
>stupidest ideas I've ever heard about. To think you can just step outside
>the only timeline in existence and just walk into any time you wish is the
>most absurd thing I've ever heard. Questioning the impossibility of time
>travel makes you look like a greater imbecile that some mangy ape in the
>Congo.
OK, so time travel is impossible because you say it is, even
though you seem unaware of any particular research on that
subject, or on the subject of multiple universes; your
"intuition" trumps knowledge. Once again, your beliefs don't
constrain reality, which is what it is, not what either of
us wishes it to be. And since you've apparently decided that
your lack of any evidence supporting your beliefs justifies
going off in a snit when that lack of evidence is pointed
out, I believe we're done.
> So fuck off
You, too. HANL.
Darwin123
> In news:talk.origins, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> posted on Wed, 23 Feb
> 2011 11:34:48 +0000 the following:
>
>
>
> > On 23/02/11 09:10, Damaeus wrote:
> > > In news:talk.origins, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> posted on Tue, 22 Feb
> > > 2011 12:11:47 -0700 the following:
>
> > >> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 01:36:37 -0600, the following appeared
> > >> in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
>
> > >>> In news:talk.origins, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> posted on Sun, 20
> > >>> Feb 2011 09:38:15 -0800 (PST) the following:
>
> > >>>> Now, bring back the red shift. There may be ways to explain the red
> > >>>> shift without the Big Bang.
>
>
> > >> Yes. Your point?
>
> > > Then the big bang started here.
>
> > location.
>
> That's only if you have the erroneous view that there was no such thing as
> an "outside" relative to the infinitesimal point that existed before the
> big bang began. If there was no such thing as an "outside" relative to
> the singularity, then we would not be here. There would be nowhere in
> existence for the singularity to expand.
Gramatically, there can be no such thing as "a singularity
expanding." A singularity by definition is a dimensionless point. What
you said had nothing to do with cosmological theory.
There would always be somewhere that an particle could move. If
the universe is "expanding", a particle can always move into the
volume of space vacated by another particle. There doesn't have to be
an edge of the universe needed for particles to move.
When we say the universe is "expanding", we don't mean that there
was a boundary changing either its shape of surface area. We mean that
there are volumes of space that, formerly filled with particles, are
being vacated. Once they are vacated, the other particles have
someplace to go. It doesn't matter whether or not the universe has an
"edge".
Another way to put it is that the number of degrees of freedom
increase with time. At time zero, there were not degrees of freedom.
There were no empty volumes of space where a particle could move into.
In a short times, "bubbles" formed. The particles, by moving away from
each other, left spaces. Particles could now move into these spaces.
There was more freedom. As time increased further, there were larger
gaps in material where particles could move into. Note there doesn't
have to be any real edge to the universe.
An equivalent way to look at it is if you imagine each particle
shrinking in a "universe" whose boundaries have remained the same
size. At first, all the particles are packed together. However, by
"shrinking," more room has been provided for the particles to move.
What the equations of motion involve is the change of state in
a closely associated cluster of particles.
Even Newton saw some of the paradoxes involved in the idea of
infinite space. What really matters is the density of the "phase
space", not the actual volume. If density goes down, the universe is
"expanding." There really doesn't have to be an "edge". The equations
of relativity, like all dynamical equations, involve a "phase space."
The universe ends in this case, anyway. If the volume of empty
space increases without end, the universe ends anyway. Particles will
get to the point where they are so far apart, they can't interact
anyway. Entropy is actually proportional to the logarithm of the
number of degrees of freedom. So if the number of degrees of freedom
increase without end, this is equivalent to all energy being turned
into heat. So the universe ends in a heat death. No edge needed.
Arkalen
LOL. Maybe you're unfamiliar with Douglas Adams; he wrote humorous
books. I didn't post that as any kind of proof that I was right, I was
just too lazy to make the point that there is no absolute objective
scale on which to measure the worthiness of different species when
Douglas Adams had said the same thing in a funnier way.
As to the proof for this assertion that there is no absolute objective
scale on which to measure the worthiness of different species, it's an
obvious consequence of the fact that "worthiness" (or "the evolutionary
chain") is ill-defined.
Note that Douglas Adams was poking fun at the comparisons between
different species' intelligence, which is actually a much more objective
measure than "at the top of the evolutionary chain" is.
>>>>> The survival of our species depends on people's ability to refrain
>>>>> from nuking the entire world and destroying every last man, woman
>>>>> and child on Earth. Wouldn't it be a shame if all humans were
>>>>> killed. Then gorillas take over as the top of the evolutionary
>>>>> chain and humans never get to see it happen.
>>>>
>>>> Why gorillas ? Or is that a "Planet of the Apes" thing ?
>>>
>>> No, I find Planet of the Apes a rather disturbing movie. I actually
>>> can't stand gorillas, chimps and the like. Something about those
>>> animals annoys me deeply. I just use gorillas, bonobos and chimps as
>>> examples in many of my posts because so many seem to praise them,
>>> sometimes as animals even greater than humans. That is what I consider
>>> strange, given the overwhelming evidence of human superiority.
>>
>> Of course "superiority" requires a valuation system. It is no surprise
>> that you would choose a valuation system under which you happen to be on
>> top.
>
> And no other animals are even able to make such a distinction. Imagine
> that.
So ? You're implying judging animals on whether they can evaluate other
animals' absolute value and rank them. Why not, but it's still a
valuation system you chose. It's a perfectly defensible choice but not
an absolute or self-evident one.
Besides, how do you know no other animals are even able to make such a
distinction ? Did you perform a Vulcan mind-meld ?
>> The use of "gorillas" as animals that would "take over" from humans if
>> all humans were killed is strange because as Kermit pointed out,
>> gorillas wouldn't be particularly likely to survive something that
>> killed all humans,
>
> That's true, of course, unless they first plant all people with GPS
> tracking, then program all nuclear weapons to blow up within range of all
> GPS tracking devices. As long as all humans are far enough away from some
> gorillas to prevent their deaths, then gorillas would take over...at least
> for a while. I assume the radiation left over would probably kill them
> eventually, but that's not a guarantee. They might continue to live and
> reproduce as something out of a Chris Cunningham nightmare.
I don't know who Chris Cunningham is but why would his nightmare feature
gorillas ? Are gorillas horrible ?
>> and the species that "took over" from humans would have to be very
>> versatile and gorillas don't strike me that way. I might be wrong of
>> course.
>
> They don't strike me as very versatile, either, and to me, versatility
> comes from intelligence.
Not necessarily. Rats and cockroaches are very versatile but they're
probably not as smart as gorillas. Dolphins and chimps and parrots, now...
Actually I'm seeing the problem : the assumption that something would
"take over" in the first place. To me the image of a species "taking
over" the world implies a very widespread distribution and environmental
change, preferably caused by intelligence. I can't think of an obvious
candidate for this, those animals that have a very widespread
distribution don't tend to be the most intelligent and those that are
(dolphins) I don't really see doing much environmental change. But of
course we know quite little about intelligence in general and animal
intelligence specifically.
One thing that is clear : gorillas are very much NOT widespread globally.
>>>> You realize there is no such thing as an evolutionary chain of
>>>> course.
>>>
>>> I see that you think so, but it isn't an important point.
>>
>> It is, actually. An amazing amount of misconceptions stem from this
>> idea.
>
> I probably should have said "evolutionary totem pole".
Same thing.
>>> I will say, however, that the lineage that takes humans back to the
>>> first life forms has always been the ultimate and dominate series of
>>> species, all the way back to the beginning.
>>
>> Really ?
>
> Yes. There's a chain of events there, though I don't claim to know
> exactly what it is. It would be mathematically calculable, though I don't
> need to see the math to believe what makes the most sense based on an
> acceleration of human evolution. Understand that in my model, no other
> species was accelerated—it was just humans and their direct ancestors.
Nice, a model. What does "accelerated" mean and what is your evidence it
happened to humans, their direct ancestors and nothing else ?
> I've seen reports that the Nakalipithecus nakayamai is close to the last
> common ancestor of chimpanzees, gorillas and humans, so stream it right
> back through the Nakalipithecus nakayamai. It came about through other
> species, as well.
>
> Gorillas and chimpanzees look like genetic defectives to me.
One member of a species thinks that members of a very close but distinct
species look a lot like him but with very distinct differences ! Incredible.
> Their
> behavior exhibits some human-like characteristics, but they lack the
> intelligence to do what we do, such as engaging in flame wars on usenet.
>
> I wonder if there was some kind of natural disaster, like cosmic
> radiation, that afflicted with genetic mutations some populations of
> Nakalipithecus nakayamai, but not other populations. That could be why
> some of them turned out to be chimps and gorillas -- defective, but living
> offspring with the ability to survive and reproduce more.
What do you mean by "defective" ? As I alluded to higher the only way in
which your use of it makes sense is if it means "not human beings" in
which case it's kind of a tautology. If we actually take a more
common-sense meaning, like "unfit for its purpose", well we still have
to find the purpose of chimps and gorillas but there's no reason to say
they're defective.
> It could have
> been two doses of different types and intensities of cosmic radiation,
> affecting the populations in different ways.
Or maybe there was a rift valley that opened in a jungle and one side
kept being jungle and the population there kept being what they were
while the other side underwent great environmental change and thus the
population there evolved different morphology, capacities and behavior.
> In the absence of some kind
> of genetic damage, it just seems so strange that one offshoot of
> Nakalipithecus nakayamai would become us, and two other offshoots would
> become chimps and gorillas with whom we cannot really communicate with in
> the way we can communicate with other humans.
Why does the divergence of humans and other primates require genetic
"damage" (which is another way of saying "mutation" except with the
implication it's deleterious, which is REALLY strange unless you're
saying chimps and gorillas evolved from humans ?) and cosmic rays when
the divergence of just about any other group (according to what you said
higher about acceleration) doesn't ? Why are gorillas different from
chimps and orangs ? Why are horses different from zebras ?
>>> Sure, at times a few of ancestors were overtaken by others,
>>
>> Oh, I see, not really.
>
> You don't know what it means for two animals to get in a fight in which
> one is victorious and the other is defeated?
I don't know what this has to do with your argument. Whatever your
argument was; my "really?" and "not really" were because I thought you
were saying every single species ancestral to humans has been the
dominant species of its time. But I don't see what Nakalipithekus
nakayamai has to do with that so maybe I misunderstood you.
>>> but overall, we've avoided extinction.
>>
>> Yeah, unlike every other living species today. Wait...
>
> Did you forget something?
Yeah, for a second there I'd forgotten that every living species is the
result of a long chain of life that has avoided extinction overall until
now.
>>> We're clearly the masters of this domain.
>>
>> There we go with the valuation systems again. I can understand when you
>> choose "putting satellites in space" as a criterion, it's kind of
>> transparent but nobody can deny humans are at the top of that one,
>
> It's not transparent. It's clear. I said that because it's clear
> evidence. And people actually *have* denied type of example. People have
> told me that they see no reason why putting satellites into orbit and
> building and enjoying race cars makes humans anything better than a roach,
> or an ant, or a monkey. They're exhibiting the results of a clear choice
> to ignore the evidence of human superiority in this domain, probably so
> they can continue deluding themselves into thinking they know what they're
> talking about.
No, they're saying that human superiority in this domain doesn't imply
some kind of cosmic, objective superiority. Or at least that the
assertion that is does isn't obvious and needs to be defended.
>
>> but *survival* ?
>
> Possibly. I theorize that people sometimes die of strokes or heart
> attacks, not because of some physiological problem that was destined to
> kill them before it started, but because they actually became so scared
> that their own fear finished them off.
Any evidence for that theory ? How about people who die of radiation
poisoning ?
And your experience of standing up quickly after squatting in the shower
totally sheds light on how strokes and heart attacks work. And how they
feel to their victims.
>> We're much too young as a species to even be in the contest.
>
> Too young compared to what, cyanobacteria?
That would be an extreme example. How about trilobites. Or (to take a
random animal I looked up on wikipedia) elephants.
So... that random cretaceous mammal that's our ancestor, how did it
cause the evolution of archaeopteryx ? How did that early Devonian fish
that's our ancestor cause the evolution of land scorpions and trees ?
If you just mean that every species ancestral to ours affected directly
or indirectly every other contemporary species and thus their evolution
then that's true but not exclusive to our line. Is that what you mean or
do you have something stronger in mind ?
> Damaeus
>
Arkalen
> In news:talk.origins, "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> posted on Fri,
> 25 Feb 2011 16:51:34 +0000 the following:
>
>> "Damaeus" <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:ltp6m6tpbgic4fqo2...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> In news:talk.origins, "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> posted on Mon,
>>> 21 Feb 2011 16:17:52 +0000 the following:
>>>
>>>> The origin of life on Earth could have been a time traveler from the
>>>> future who traveled back in time to the primordial Earth and brought
>>>> bacteria on his person to that environment, either unwittingly or
>>>> deliberately.
>>>
>>> Nothing from the future can come back in time because the future
>>> hasn't happened yet. Furthermore, suppose humans are actually at the
>>> top of the evolutionary chain for the entire universe. The survival of
>>> our species depends on people's ability to refrain from nuking the
>>> entire world and destroying every last man, woman and child on Earth.
>>
>> Only as long as we are bound to the Earth.
>
> True, but I think even if we do end up with some kind of nuking of a bunch
> of people on Earth, it'll be the last time it ever happens.
Oh well that's good then. Seeing as how it happened in 1945.
Arkalen
location. Let's measure spatial location with some coordinate system.
Now let's say the coordinate system is tied to the Universe. As the
Universe expands or shrinks, our Universe-dependent coordinate system
expands and shrinks with it, thus the position of everything in the
Universe according to that coordinate system *stays the same*. They may
be closer or further apart but this is because the coordinate system
changed, not the objects themselves.
The usual analogy here is dots drawn on an inflating or deflating balloon.
Now the balloon has a whole universe outside it and the dots on the
balloon have a location not only relative to the balloon, but also
relative to what's outside it. From what I understand you're saying
"sure, but how about the Milky Way's position according to an absolute,
Universe-independent coordinate system ?"
And to that the answer is : why on Earth would we use one ? The Universe
is called what it is because it's all we know exist. There might be
something outside (whatever "outside" means, yet another spatial term...
should I say "beyond" ?) it, but we can't know this as of now and more
to the point, if we ever discovered it... *we can't know what this
outside would be like*. There's no reason to assume it would have
spatial locations, and if it does there's no reason to assume they would
resemble anything we know.
Thus, the answer to your question if we limit ourselves to the Universe
is "the Big Bang originated everywhere, including the Milky Way".
If we don't limit ourselves to the Universe but imagine something
outside it, as you suggested we do in another conversation, the answer
becomes "we have absolutely no idea, as we don't know of anything
outside the Universe or what the word "where" would mean in such a context"
Arkalen
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> posted:
>> On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 08:11:51 -0600, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
>> <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid>:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> If our galaxy is right around the area where the big bang originated
>>
>> Get it through your head; this idea isn't right. It's not
>> even wrong. The BB took place everywhere at once.
>
> You really are dim. The Milky Way does not exist everywhere, does it? No.
> Where the hell is the Milky Way now compared to where the big bang
> originated relative to the space it takes up now? There is an answer to
> this question, you know, if you're intelligent enough to understand what
> I'm asking for.
>
> This is why there needs to be at least an imaginary "outside" to the point
> of origin. If there isn't one, people can't comprehend what it means to
> have a point of origin for a big bang within an infinite space.
You're right that an "outside" is required for the big bang to have a
point of origin. But there's no reason the big bang should have a point
of origin. Moreover there is no reason to assume this "outside" would
even have points or space.
> It's like
> they have no idea what I'm talking about. They instead focus on the fact
> that everywhere at once was all stuffed into an infinitesimal point. Okay,
> fine. I *DO* grasp that concept, but just because everything in the
> universe was once in an infinitesimal point does not mean the question I
> ask is meaningless. Relative to the size of the universe NOW, the point
> of origin had a location. Where is it?
The point of origin didn't *have* a location, it *was all location*. It
still is; it's just a lot bigger now. There's no reason to assume there
exists anything outside that point, and if there does there's no reason
to assume concepts like "location" would apply there.
"Space" and "Time" are properties of the Universe. Space and time as we
understand them aren't infinite, immutable or eternal anymore than the
Universe is.
If you want to assume an infinite, immutable or eternal space or time
then the space and time you're assuming aren't the space and time our
world is made of.
And when you ask "where is the Milky Way?" everyone will understand
"where" as referring to the space our world is made of, and will thus
give an answer that accounts for the fact this space is not immutable.
Christopher Denney
> In news:talk.origins, Christopher Denney <christopher.den...@gmail.com>
> posted on Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:35:56 -0800 (PST) the following:
>
> > On Feb 23, 3:14+AKA-am, Damaeus <no-m...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > Eyes are not a bad design. +AKA-They don't wear out because of normal use.
> > > They are damaged over time by cosmic density and the vibration of the
> > > molecules that make up our eyes, and every other part of our bodies.
> > > +AKA-When the molecules of the universe stop vibrating (which will happen
> > > when the universe expands to fill infinity) then our eyes will no
> > > longer suffer damage from molecular vibration and they will last
> > > forever.
>
> > Thus demonstrating you can't parody "true believers"
>
> What true believers, oh master of brevity?
>
> Damaeus
It's a variation on the saying "truth is stranger than fiction".
Which comes from the fact that many writers will limit themselves to
things that are believable in the context of their story.
Whereas reality has never limited itself in that fashion.
Taking that back to the context under discussion, some folks will try
and parody people who believe things not in agreement with existing
evidence.
But in doing so they never come up with the truly bizzaro things that
real "True Believers" come up with, because nobody would believe its
real.
Still a bit brief but perhaps long enough to get the point across.
Christopher Denney
> On Feb 23, 2:47 pm, Christopher Denney <christopher.den...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> > consider:
> > Infinite matter in finite universe: infinitely dense matter throughout
> > all of the universe.
>
> I don't think you can even give a meaning to that concept. Certainly
> it isn't matter as we know it.
True, but he doesn't get enough of the idea(s) to be more accurate.
> > Finite matter in infinite universe: matter density of zero throughout
> > universe. (cf. no matter in finite universe.)
>
> Imprecise. The density is infinitesimal, but not zero, unless you
> adopt some dubious conventions.
I've heard it argued both ways, but if the density asymptotically
approaches zero (at infinity)...
:)
> > Finite matter in finite universe, and infinite matter in infinite
> > universe could look similar, but probably don't.
>
> I don't know whether our instruments are good enough to detect the
> difference. The BBC article suggests not.
This is were I like to use the "the difference that makes no
difference, is no difference" line of "reasoning".
> > We won't even go into different orders of infinity.
>
> They do exist. I work with them all the time in my research.
But poor Damaeus would blow a gasket.
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolinahttp://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
Damaeus
> On Feb 23, 7:59 am, Damaeus <no-m...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote:
>
> > That's only if you have the erroneous view that there was no such
> > thing as an "outside" relative to the infinitesimal point that existed
> > before the big bang began. If there was no such thing as an "outside"
> > relative to the singularity, then we would not be here. There would
> > be nowhere in existence for the singularity to expand.
>
> Gramatically, there can be no such thing as "a singularity
> expanding." A singularity by definition is a dimensionless point.
> What you said had nothing to do with cosmological theory.
> There would always be somewhere that an particle could move. If
> the universe is "expanding", a particle can always move into the
> volume of space vacated by another particle. There doesn't have to be
> an edge of the universe needed for particles to move.
> When we say the universe is "expanding", we don't mean that there
> was a boundary changing either its shape of surface area. We mean that
> there are volumes of space that, formerly filled with particles, are
> being vacated. Once they are vacated, the other particles have
> someplace to go. It doesn't matter whether or not the universe has an
> "edge".
It sounds like you're saying that the universe was first infinitesimal;
then, if the big bang occured in all spatial locations at once, which to
me implies infinity, then it sounds like the universe skipped from
infinitesimal to infinite in a single instant. In other words, it sounds
like you're saying the universe was never the size of a basketball, nor
was it the size of Epcot Center, nor was it ever the size of the moon. So
the universe never grew like someone inflating a balloon; It just appeared
everywhere at once. Is that correct?
That also seems to indicate that the universe was once infinitely dense
everywhere, not stuffed into a tiny point. Just one massive, infinite
block of mass. That's a bit of a scary thought, really. It seems
miraculous that anything could have formed from that.
> Another way to put it is that the number of degrees of freedom
> increase with time. At time zero, there were not degrees of freedom.
> There were no empty volumes of space where a particle could move into.
> In a short times, "bubbles" formed. The particles, by moving away from
> each other, left spaces. Particles could now move into these spaces.
> There was more freedom. As time increased further, there were larger
> gaps in material where particles could move into. Note there doesn't
> have to be any real edge to the universe.
> An equivalent way to look at it is if you imagine each particle
> shrinking in a "universe" whose boundaries have remained the same
> size. At first, all the particles are packed together. However, by
> "shrinking," more room has been provided for the particles to move.
> What the equations of motion involve is the change of state in
> a closely associated cluster of particles.
> Even Newton saw some of the paradoxes involved in the idea of
> infinite space. What really matters is the density of the "phase
> space", not the actual volume. If density goes down, the universe is
> "expanding." There really doesn't have to be an "edge". The equations
> of relativity, like all dynamical equations, involve a "phase space."
Well, I've talked about the density of space before. Since I had always
been led to believe in school that the big bang was an explosion, that
first made me imagine a universe blowing up from a small point into an
expanding sphere of matter and energy. I was okay with that. Then, I was
told it was never an explosion (someone please retire the teacher), but a
gentle expansion or stretching. That still made me imagine a universe
swelling from a small point to a larger area. Then people tried to tell
me that the big bang happened in all spatial locations at once. Since
they also told me there was no such thing as an "outside" relative to the
big bang or space, that made me imagine all of infinity stuffed into a
finite space. So I figured they meant "all spatial locations" were inside
an expanding area of matter and energy. So I then imagined an infinite
space stuffed inside a finite space, causing the fabric of space to be
folded by gravity, an effect of stuffing infinite space, matter and energy
inside a finite, but expanding space. And finally I arrive here, today,
where it appears you're telling me that the big bang happened in all of
space, meaning if space is infinite, then the big bang happened in all of
infinity at the same time. Is that true? If it is, it's rather funny
because I'd already considered that in the past and it sounded rather
strange to have an infinite space that is expanding. It reminds me of one
of those illusion tricks where you stare into an animated pattern on the
computer screen, then look at your hand. Your hand would appear to expand
and remain the same size.
> The universe ends in this case, anyway. If the volume of empty
> space increases without end, the universe ends anyway. Particles will
> get to the point where they are so far apart, they can't interact
> anyway. Entropy is actually proportional to the logarithm of the
> number of degrees of freedom. So if the number of degrees of freedom
> increase without end, this is equivalent to all energy being turned
> into heat. So the universe ends in a heat death. No edge needed.
It seems like the whole universe is evaporating, then.
Damaeus
jillery
> Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> posted:
>
> > On Feb 23, 7:59+AKA-am, Damaeus <no-m...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > That's only if you have the erroneous view that there was no such
> > > thing as an "outside" relative to the infinitesimal point that existed
> > > relative to the singularity, then we would not be here. +AKA-There would
> > > be nowhere in existence for the singularity to expand. +AKA-
Try this thought experiment. Imagine yourself in a room that is
perfectly enclosed; nothing from inside that room can get out, and
nothing from outside that room can get in. Imagine that room and
everything in it is expanding equally. How could you tell you and the
room were expanding?
You can reverse the experiment if you want, and imagine a shrinking
room. In that case, how could you tell you and the room were
shrinking?
The other point is that, based on the assumption of a perfectly
enclosed room, how do you even begin to define the meaning of "outside
the room"?
Darwin123
> Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> posted:
> > It doesn't matter whether or not the universe has an
> > "edge".
>
> It sounds like you're saying that the universe was first infinitesimal;
> then, if the big bang occured in all spatial locations at once, which to
> me implies infinity, then it sounds like the universe skipped from
> infinitesimal to infinite in a single instant.
I refuse to speculate on what happened before, or even at the
very moment, of the singularity. With my level of expertise, I can
only extrapolate to within a few minutes of the Big Bang. And I am not
sure about that. Right now, I have my doubts about what happened
500,000 years after the Big Bang. I am trying to learn GR well enough
so I can sound lucid about what happened after 500,000 years. You can
have the speculation of what happened before that.
> In other words, it sounds
> like you're saying the universe was never the size of a basketball, nor
> was it the size of Epcot Center, nor was it ever the size of the >moon.
That is right. I am saying that "the universe" may not have had a
finite size, ever. Or maybe I mean that the multiverse needn't have a
finite size.
I notice that the word "universe" is being used a little
differently these days than it used to. I think the word is being used
now to mean, "All matter and energy that can possibly be seen from
earth at this moment." The word multiverse is being used to mean "all
the matter and energy that can be now or ever seen from earth at this
moment." This includes matter and energy that may become visible one
billion years from now.
There is also that little matter of dimensionality in the word
multiverse. I myself would prefer that the word universe had retained
its original character as meaning "everything." However, one can't
stop language from changing.
I am a physicist with a background in optics and material science.
So, when I see a cosmologist use a word or concept in a strange way, I
automatically try to imagine an analogous system in optics or material
science. For example, someone says universe and I think of a kettle
of water. I'll get back to that analogy soon.
Most scientists who write popular books on cosmology qualify these
statements. They specify "the size of the visible universe." In other
words, all the matter that we now see through telescopes was condensed
to the size of a basketball. There may have been, there probably was,
material that we haven't seen yet in telescopes which was outside the
basketball. However, the authors aren't counting that matter.
Only matter that can now be seen through telescopes was condensed
to a very small volume. The universe could have been, and may possibly
be, infinite in size.
Note that this qualification makes the inflation theory easier to
understand. These "other universes" are actually part of this one, but
are in regions that haven't been observed yet.
If a popular science writer states that the size of the universe
was that of a basketball, and doesn't qualify the statement sensibly,
I generally return it unread to the library. Or I give it to the used
book store, if I already paid money for it.
> So
> the universe never grew like someone inflating a balloon;
It depends on the point of view in your image of an expanding
balloon. As a human being looking at the expanding balloon from
outside, then no. If you look at it from the POV of a bacteria on the
expanding balloon, maybe it is a good analogy. A community of bacteria
on the balloon wouldn't see an edge that was expanding. They would
just notice each other growing away from each other.
I also think of myself as a newly formed bubble in the middle of a
kettle of water. New bubbles are forming all the time. The other
bubbles seem to be moving away from me. If there is an edge to the
water, I can't find it with my telescope.
However, I can extrapolate back to a time when all the bubbles
were touching. That was the singularity. All the bubbles close to me
were in a volume the size of a thimble. I don't know where the bubbles
far from me were, and there is no way to find out.
> It just appeared
> everywhere at once. Is that correct?
That is close to how I think of it. The material, at the moment
it appeared, was too compact to allow motion. The universe was
infinite, but solid. However, gaps in the material formed.
The so called Big Bang" would be more like a HUGE pot of water
coming to boil in a kettle with the top closed. The edge had very
little to do with the bubbles forming.
The water being heated was quiet until the boiling point was
reached. Then the bubbles formed, everywhere at once.
Now, I would not call this process gradual or gentle, even if it
occurs everywhere at once. I call that agitated. Or I would call it
turbulent. However, I wouldn't call it an explosion.
My concept of explosion requires a boundary called a shock wave.
If the system isn't a shock wave, I don't call it an explosion. I call
it turbulence. The universe is often described by cosmologists as a
turbulent system.
Now, the edge does have an effect on the bubbles. The edge
provides a pressure. However, the existence of pressure does not a
priori needed an edge. Mach pointed this out. Einstein used this idea
in GR.
>
> That also seems to indicate that the universe was once infinitely dense
> everywhere, not stuffed into a tiny point. Just one massive, >infinite block of mass.
Most physicists accept the idea that there is some unknown
physical laws that become dominant close to that point. We are just
extrapolating the state of the universe to the earliest time where we
think the currently known laws of the universe are still applicable.
Even Einstein stated that at some point in the past, before the
extrapolated singularity, there is probably some violation of General
Relativity. Some of the observations now are being explained by models
that are modified versions of Relativity. Very few physicists thought
that GR could be extrapolated back to the very beginning of time. If
it turns out that GR works precisely after 3 minutes, and doesn't work
before that time, I will call GR a wildly successful theory. Three
minutes seems to be optimistic.
>That's a bit of a scary thought, really. It seems
> miraculous that anything could have formed from that.
In this theory, it is something. It is a solid block.
Things form from the gaps in the block.
Granite formed from magma, which is liquid rock. The liquid used
to be very homogeneous. The magma freezes. Look at granite under a
microscope. It has all sorts of crystals in different shapes made of
different materials. No one <directly> ordered the feldspar to go
there, the quartz to go there, this crystal goes into this shape, that
one goes into that shape. The different patterns emerged everywhere in
the magma at once, as it cooled.
There are places where a surface influenced the shape of the
crystals being formed. These interesting variations do not explain
most granite. Most granite seems to have been formed by a nearly
homogeneous freezing of liquid without anything that looks like
guidance. The intricate patterns seen under a microscope in most
granite are local, not global.
How do all those crystals form in magma, a homogeneous material?
The edge of a huge granite block doesn't seem differentiated from the
bulk.
> There really doesn't have to be an "edge". The equations
> > of relativity, like all dynamical equations, involve a "phase space."
>
>So the universe ends in a heat death. No edge needed.
>
> It seems like the whole universe is evaporating, then.
That sounds like a better metaphor than some of the others that
you are presenting.
The problem is, most people visualize an evaporation as occurring
at a surface. So the image evokes an image of "the edge" of the
universe. When water vapor evaporates from the sea, it evaporates from
a surface of the sea.
Maybe boiling is more like it. If you heat a kettle of liquid
water, some of the vapor forms bubbles in the bulk of the liquid
water. The water vapor appears in the water, not at the surface. The
bubbles may float to the top, but they can appear anywhere in the
water.
There is a tendency for bubbles to form near the bottom, where
the heat is applied. The top of the water cools if the lid is off, so
the bubbles don't appear near the top. However, if you cover the top
of the pot, the heat in the liquid water is evenly distributed. The
bubbles appear everywhere at once in the liquid water. The result is
that the pot boils over.
I think this is more like the Big Bang. As the pressure went down,
"bubbles" appeared in the universe everywhere at once. If there was an
edge, it hasn't yet manifested its existence to us. So think of a pot
boiling over.
For a more sophisticated image that may be a little closer to
cosmology, look at critical point phenomena.
There is a peculiar type of "evaporation" that occurs in some
materials at the "critical point." I don't think you want to visualize
the Big Bang as a normal evaporation, as with an edge between phases.
What you may want to look up "critical point phenomena."
For every material, there is a "critical point" defined by a
"critical temperature" and a "critical pressure." For the material
past this point, or near it, the boundary between gas and liquid are
badly defined. There is no separation between liquid and gas beyond
the critical point. Transitions between "liquid" and "gas" are rather
complicated. They can't be described by a simple evaporation or
condensation.
Cycling around the "critical point" causes rather strange
patterns to develop. What dominates critical point transitions are
long wavelength waves. A boundary can form as one lowers the
temperature of pressure, but the boundary emerges from these long
wavelength waves.
I suggest that the universe just after the Big Bang went through
periods that are best described in terms of critical points. That is,
it went through changes that are not associated with sharp boundaries.
For instance, the universe probably started at a temperature much
higher and a pressure much higher than at the critical point of
molecular hydrogen. At some point, temperature and pressure fell to a
point where molecular hydrogen can form. There was no sharp boundary
between the
I am talking about materials that really exist now on earth,
though most of them on earth need an environmental assistance to
survive. Critical point phenomena are rather straightforward to
observe under certain conditions, though not as easy to describe in
words. There is an entire technology that depends on critical point
phenomena. Some exotic materials, such as aerogels, have to be made
using materials near their critical point. So when I talk about
critical point phenomena, I am not talking about phenomena which are
merely conceptual with no self consistent description. However, I am
making a bit of a conjecture by stating that the parts of the
expansion of the universe probably are best described in terms of
critical point phenomena.
Okay, I am not an expert on cosmology. I am proposing an image
for the Big Bang based on the material sciences that I have worked
with. I am trying to learn General Relativity now. Critical point
transition is the type of image that the GR equations are evoking as I
work with them.
Buy a glass pot. Fill it with water. Heat it while watching. You
will get some idea of what the cosmologists are imagining. On a larger
scale, of course.
Christopher Denney
> In news:talk.origins, Christopher Denney <christopher.den...@gmail.com>
>
> > On Feb 23, 3:10+AKA-am, Damaeus <no-m...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote:
> > > In news:talk.origins, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> posted on Tue, 22 Feb
> > > 2011 12:11:47 -0700 the following:
>
> > > > proof that time travel is either possible or impossible.
>
>
> > Why would you say that?? I travel through time constantly, at a rate
> > of 1sec/sec.
>
> That's not the kind of time travel we mean, and I think you know that.
Same thing, just a matter of "velocity"
> > The idea of time-travel must frighten you terribly to make such
> > unsupported pronouncements.
>
> No, it doesn't frighten me at all. I just think it's a stupid idea. I
> would love to be able to travel in time (in the sense of
> science-fiction-style time-travel, leaving 2011 to return to 1950, for
> example), but I just don't believe it's possible.
That's not what you said you said, you said:
"I don't need proof. +AKA-I'm just saying it's impossible because it
is."
There is no room for "believe" in that statement.
You are stating it as it were a FACT.
People tend to be that way about things for which they have certain
knowledge,
or things that would comfort them if true. AKA if they are frightened
of the alternative.
We know you don't have certain knowledge, so I made a guess.
> > Perhaps you understand that unfettered time-travel removes the "special
> > position" of the present.
>
> What special position of the present?
Personally I don't think much of it, it just happens to be where(when)
I am.
The thought behind the statement is that if one travels through time
then times are "places",
and many people have a strong need to think of NOW is being more real
than the future or past.
I've been to Europe, but I don't think it's less real than the US
(where I live)
Folks I've talked with are terrified of time travel because it
challenges their perception of NOW as being special.
If that's not you, you are different, but display the same type of
denial.
> > And that scares you so much that you have to declare it impossible,
> > unequivocally.
>
> No, now you're making baseless assumptions. To make your theory of my
> declarations of time travel true, you have to assume I fear it. I do not
> fear it, so your theory is wrong.
>
> Try again.
>
> Damaeus
Well, something made you declare it impossible, unequivocally; maybe
just run of the mill dishonesty?
Please don't insult us by saying you were stating an opinion... or
learn english, if opinion was you intent.
Christopher Denney
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> posted:
>
> > On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 07:38:02 -0600, the following appeared
> > in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
>
> > >In news:talk.origins, Christopher Denney <christopher.den...@gmail.com>
> > >posted on Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:47:17 -0800 (PST) the following:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > >> You really have no idea what infinite means do you?
>
> > >Yes, I know exactly what it means.
>
> > Which infinity? Be specific; there's more than one.
>
> See what I mean? This is proof of my claims in several other posts. As
> soon as jump through your hoop, you want to throw up another one.
>
> Okay, so how many infinities are there? I'll just make this a little post
> since you seem to have trouble managing more than two or three sentences
> per post.
>
> Damaeus
You missed the point of Bob's post (I think)
By saying
> > >Yes, I know exactly what it means.
you prove that you don't.
Christopher Denney
> In news:talk.origins, Christopher Denney <christopher.den...@gmail.com>
> posted on Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:47:17 -0800 (PST) the following:
>
>
> > > It's not stupid. It's just incomplete. +AKA-That the universe is still
> > > expanding proves it's incomplete. +AKA-It's designed to be infinite. Since
> > > it's not yet infinite, it isn't complete. +AKA-Since it's not yet infinite,
> > > it is compressed. +AKA-Since it is compressed, we have an increased density
> > > of the fabric that makes up the expanding space. Once the universe is
> > > infinite, the density of the fabric of space will be decreased and the
> > > speed of light will increase dramatically. Maybe the speed of light will
> > > even be infinite and will only be blocked by solid objects in its path,
> > > dust, fog or whatever. +AKA-In that case, we will see things as they happen,
> > > when they happen, not after they happened.
>
> > You really have no idea what infinite means do you?
>
> problems with specifics in my post, please point them out instead of being
> so vague.
>
> > Oh wait, you obviously think you do... you don't. No, I do not require
> > any kind of mind reading to know that. Your (mis)usage of the term makes
> > it clear.
>
> > consider:
> > Infinite matter in finite universe: infinitely dense matter throughout
> > all of the universe.
>
> the vibration of molecules. My belief is that molecules could be
> vibrating because of the effect of stuffing infinite matter into a finite
> space. We just won't know until the universe's size is infinite what the
> effect will be of equalizing infinite matter with infinite size. Right
> now, we have infinite matter and finite size. That's *bound* to create
> some "problems" we've been living with all our lives without really
> noticing them as problems of the dissonance caused by infinite space
> compacted into a finite space.
Nope, infinite matter in a finite universe means (if there is any
meaning to it)
the whole universe is a "solid block" of infinitely dense matter.
> > Finite matter in infinite universe: matter density of zero throughout
> > universe. (cf. no matter in finite universe.)
>
> Yes, as spooky as that sounds. Though it's comforting to think of it with
> finite matter localized into a finite space within an infinite space, the
> tendency would be for matter to spread into unfilled areas of infinity,
> eventually becoming so thin that everything is non-existent. Even
> hydrogen atoms would disintegrate in an infinite universe with finite
> matter.
>
> > Finite matter in finite universe,
>
> That would lead to boredom if we had eternal life with infinite time.
Which might be a problem if we had that.
> > and infinite matter in infinite universe could look similar
>
> Similar to what?
If you didn't split up my sentence it might have made more sense.
Similar to each other.
"Finite matter in finite universe, and infinite matter in infinite
universe could look similar"
> That's the model I believe in, by the way, infinite
> matter in an infinite universe, but it's not all solid matter. For
> example, an infinite universe with infinite matter of infinite density
> would be worse than Hell. To be livable, the universe has to have a
> division of infinity or we could have one infinite black hole. So we have
> a division of lightness and darkness, divisions of greater density and
> lesser density, while overall, we can have infinite air, infinite water,
> infinite land, infinite space, etc... without having them all exist in all
> space all at the same time. Yuck!
Yeah you're still proving you misconceptions about infinity.
> > , but probably don't.
> > We won't even go into different orders of infinity.
>
> They probably aren't necessary, anyway.
>
> Damaeus
lol
Darwin123
> In news:talk.origins, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> posted on Mon,
> 21 Feb 2011 16:17:52 +0000 the following:
>
> > The origin of life on Earth could have been a time traveler from the
> > future who traveled back in time to the primordial Earth and brought
> > bacteria on his person to that environment, either unwittingly or
> > deliberately.
>
> Nothing from the future can come back in time because the future hasn't
> happened yet. Furthermore, suppose humans are actually at the top of the
> evolutionary chain for the entire universe. The survival of our species
> depends on people's ability to refrain from nuking the entire world and
> destroying every last man, woman and child on Earth.
travel was brought up only as an alternative theory of OOL. You seem
to want to deflect.
Okay, I'll bite the hook. Lets discuss the end of the human
species. It eventually happens to all species. Nuclear war could speed
up the extinction of human beings, but it could actually put it off
for a while. The reason is that there are many other things that can
cause the extinction of the human race.
> Wouldn't it be a
> the evolutionary chain and humans never get to see it happen.
It won't happen. The gorillas are bush meat.
We humans will kill all the other primates before we kill kill
ourselves. Gorillas don't stand a chance. We are very seriously
killing all higher life forms on the planet. We will have killed off
the wolves, and in fact all large wild animals. Bears will be gone,
and whales will be gone. Dogs have been bred to be dependent on us.
Dogs and cats won't survive much longer than the human race.
Fact is, the great apes stand very little chance of surviving the
end of this century. Chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas will remain in
zoos for a while. However, we will have destroyed their habitats.
Chimpanzees and bonobos can't live without jungle. We are destroying
the jungle. When the human race is destroyed, it will take a long time
for jungles to come back. Jungles will come back in a few million
years, they always do. However, it will be too late for the great
apes. They will die by the time jungles come back.
The best we could hope for is rodents evolving intelligence
after we are gone. I think the rats have a chance of surviving.
Even if we don't nuke each other, we stand a good chance of using
up the resources and destroying the environment that keeps us alive.
The fisheries in the oceans are collapsing. We are using up the water
resources all over the planet. The fresh water is disappearing.
Bacteria and viruses are developing resistance to the antibiotics that
keep them at bay.
Humans stand as much chance of surviving the next 30 KY as the
yeast in a bottle of wine have the chance of surviving their wine
bottle. We will likely eliminate all other species capable of
replacing our niche. In fact, we will have probably destroyed our
niche.
We will leave no mineral resources for any intelligent animals
that follow us. For example, there will be no metal ores to smelt. At
the beginning of the iron age, iron ore actually lied on the ground
where people could pick it up. There was coal and limestone all over
the place with which to reduce the ore. There were other ores all over
the place. Now, we have to dig deep underground for iron, for other
metals and for coal. Even if rats somehow evolve intelligence, they
will have to remain in the stone age forever.
I am reminded of what the African chief, Ichaka Zulu, said about
his heir (circa 1790). "After me, there will be nothing." He killed
every woman who he made pregnant, so that there would be no heir to
challenge him. We are doing it on a larger scale. We will scorch the
earth so no species could possibly follow us. Then, our children will
die in our excrement. After us, there will be nothing.
Darwin123
> In news:talk.origins, Christopher Denney <christopher.den...@gmail.com>
>
> > On Feb 23, 3:14+AKA-am, Damaeus <no-m...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > Eyes are not a bad design. +AKA-They don't wear out because of normal use.
> > > They are damaged over time by cosmic density
normal to be in an environment without cosmic rays.
> and the vibration of the
> > > molecules that make up our eyes, and every other part of our bodies.
It is not normal to be in an environment with no thermal vibrations.
> > > +AKA-When the molecules of the universe stop vibrating (which will happen
> > > when the universe expands to fill infinity) then our eyes will no
> > > longer suffer damage from molecular vibration and they will last
> > > forever.
reaches absolute zero. At that point, everything will be frozen and
nothing is going to move anymore. The eyes will not be working at all.
The body will not be working.
However, it is worse than that. The body could never be revived
again.
The water molecules embedded in a cell membrane, while the cell
is freezing, tear themselves out of the membrane doing permanent
damage. Therefore, most cells don't survive being frozen. If a human
body were to be frozen to absolute zero, most cells in that body will
be damaged by the water being frozen from the membranes. The human
body requires a high percentage of living cells to work. Thus, a human
body frozen through and through the way you are describing would be
destroyed with no chance of revival.
The eyes will be destroyed, also. Most polymers in the eyes will
be destroyed by dehydration during freezing. Without those polymers,
the eye will be destroyed.
The universe will reach absolute zero expands to infinity, as you
say. However, nothing in the human body including the eyes is designed
to work at absolute zero.
You are implying that the human body would work best at absolute
zero temperature. You obviously believe this as being self evident. In
fact, you use this as part of the evidence for a Creator. You don't
support it, you just know it.
Your belief in the medical benefits of absolute zero temperature is
difficult to satirize. It is already so absurd that there is no way to
mock it, other than than to quote it precisely.
pnyikos
> In news:talk.origins, Ceorl Jones <snoref...@see.the.sig> posted on Wed,
> 23 Feb 2011 19:42:43 -0500 the following:
>
> > On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 06:59:33 -0600, Damaeus
> > <no-m...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > If there was no such thing as an "outside" relative to the
> > > existence for the singularity to expand.
>
>
> Okay, that's fine. That point doesn't really matter anyway. Whether a
> stationary space existed to be later occupied by an expanding, or whether
> space is created as it's needed makes no difference. The end result is
> still a larger universe that continues growing. lol
But not to infinite size, not within a finite time.
> > > So saying that the big bang started in every spatial location, when
> > > the singularity was infinitesimally small, becomes a meaningless
> > > statement.
>
> > You misunderstand. The big bang, at that point,*was* every spatial
> > location. (Excuse the unintentional pun.) So, as it expands, the uiverse
> > started from everywhere.
>
> Yes, the way I see your explanation, if the universe was a foot in
> diameter, the big bang was happening at every spatial location, even
> though at that time, every spatial location was confined to a one-foot
> diameter.
>
> > > So there was an empty void outside the singularity.
>
> > No. There was no "empty void" as you would know it outside the
> > singularity. That would require 4-D space outside the singularity.
>
> How odd. You think it is impossible to have a 3-dimensional, infinite,
> stationary space outside a finite, 3-dimensional space that is expanding?
He isn't saying it is impossible--and it isn't. It just is not the
prevailing theory as to what our universe is like.
> Even if that's not how the universe is set up, I don't see why you'd need
> a fourth dimension outside a finite, 3-dimensional sphere of expanding
> matter and energy.
You do not need one.
> I don't see why you need four dimensions, anyway,
> unless you're trying to account for the folding of an infinite space into
> a finite space.
There is no need to hypothesize any folding.
> From a visual perspective, the universe is observable
> with a three-dimensional perspective.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
The standard disclaimer is that I am writing purely on my own and not
representing the organization whose name appears in my work address.