Why and how did life come about?

Author: Tradesecret

Posts

Total: 193
#121
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Ordering systems requires expenditures of already existing energy.
And how does that relate to origins of biological life? Youve not done any significant dumbing procedure. Try again

Due to the conservation principle,
Are you refering to 1st law of thermodynamics that ive presented three times in this thread, and countless times at DArt?

as mass increases, energy decreases.
"rest mass of a particle is some kind of energy." LINK, ergo, your statement is contradictory and is not a dumbing procedure by you.

Still no origin of biological life scenarios here either.

As the mass of a black hole increases, the energy of a black hole decreases.
Where do you get these ideas? You need to provide URL link of such statments, as maybe some context will help you with so called "dumb it down" comments.

Less energy in a system means less ability to remain ordered. Or in layman's terms: dead.
Ive already addressed "energy" in two or more posts in this thread. You need to actually read what Ive presented and address my comments regarding energy aka physical reality i.e. fermions and bosons.  Gravity and Dark Energy are meta-physical. Let me dumb this concept for you.

Meta is greek for beyond, and Gravity and Dark Energy fields --as space--  are beyond physical reality { energy }. Read my lips/text.

The origins of the universe never ponder the creation of mass,

..." Mass (symbolized m) is a dimensionless quantity representing the amount of matter in a particle or object. The standard unit of mass in the International System (SI) is the kilogram (kg)."...LINK

but the creation of the massive amounts of energy that is perpetually in decline throughout the known universe due to ever increasing entropy.

False. Entropy leads to heat death of Universe, and that is is one very large and and very flat { longest frequency } photon.  This is not "energy in decline" because EMRadition { photons } are a form of energy.  I will dumb this for you.  Naught --occupied space as mass of physical reality } is created nor destroyed, only transformed, and ive stated this in this thread two three or more times. Old news that you dont seem to grasp, irregardless of how dumb we attempt to present it for others like your self.


This URL is asking me to disable my adblocker. no thank you. The point your trying to make is the defining entropy in regards to order or disorder.

.." a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system. "....

Again, read my lips/text. Eternally existentgravity as found in black holes super-cede all  of the above as does Dark Energy and where I believe biological life and all else is encoded. Do you grasp concepts of Gravity and Dark Energy as being more fundamental than energy of physical reality?  This is my speculation and again, the first URL you listed in #118 was in regards to Hawking evaporation and speculative string theory scenarios.

Please share any significant comments that dispute my origins of biological life being encoded in gravitational (  ) and Dark Energy )( fields of black holes.

#122
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
origins of biological life? 

Go read post 114
#123
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
The general observable rule of the universe is that everything naturally is more likely to become disordered rather than ordered.
Aka entropy and entropy leads to the 'Heat Death of Universe' i.e. all disintegrates to become one, very large { ultra-long }, very low frequency { ultra-low energy } sine-wave set of electric and magnetic photon /\/\/\/\/\/. However we also have syntropy ergo eternally existent Universe has cyclic  transformations aka big bangs or WOWs!

Think of flat lining of biologic  on oscilloscope ____ only it is heat death of Universe ________________________________.

This heat death scenario does not take into account, Gravity { (  )positive geodesic space }  and Dark Energy { )( negative geodesic space }.

/\/\/\/ >>> _______________________ >>> then what?  1st law of thermodynamics, energy{ physical reality } cannot be created nor destroyed, ergo, we live in an eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe, that, can only transform its various phases of occupied space.

For simplicity purposes aka dumb it 2ndary  symbolism I  offer a bisection of a positive and negative space torus with a sine-wave inside the tube.
.....macro-infinite..truly non-occupied space.........space (> /\/\/\/\/\/ <)(> /\/\/\/\/ <)space........truly non-occupied macro-infinite...space......

....................................finite Universe is there >>>..space (> /\/\/\/\/\/ <)(> /\/\/\/\/ <) space....<<< there is inite Universe..................................

....................................finite Universe is there >>>..space (> ________ <)(> ______ <) space....<<< there is finite Universe..................................

................................................................................................^ ^flat line heat death^ ^................................................................

Our eternally existent, finite, occupied space and dynamic LINK Universe is not a torus, rather, all of its quantum parts --excluding graviton-darkEon--- are combinations of overlapping and interfering, space-time tori, wherein, we do not see { tune-in }  the associated Gravity or  Dark Energy.

We have no direct evidence of any origins of biologic life. We have no evidence of a spark-of-life occurrence. Yes the Miller-Urey experiement of 60's used a spark of electricity to create the left { biologic life} and right handed amino-acids.

Syntropy (  )(  ) eternally existent, geodesic integrity? Path of least resistance?

Entropy /\/\/\/ >>> ________  /\/\/ >>_______ cyclic integrity? Sine-wave must die, only to arise again from its flatline ashes?

The spark of biologic life may exist eternally in as encodings within and on surface of some, or combination of black holes.

What exists inside a black hole is represented on its 2D event horizon. The spherical cubo-octahedron ---four great circle planes--- outer surface area, is equal to the area of the four, 60 degree oriented, great circle planes, that bisect each other --at a common center point--  to define the cubo-octahedron aka Vector Equlibrium { chords 24 >< 24 radii }.

#124
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,510
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
I think your dilemma can be solved by assuming life, at any form, has always existed.

Life is movement and consciousness, so if we consider the whole universe as a form of life and consciousness, then the universe has never had a beginning, and will never have an end, its always existed and is always transmuting.
#125
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@ebuc
We have no evidence that biologic life ( * I * ) came from before where there was none.
 
Yout dont understand.  We have no evidence of any orgins of bioologic life. All we know is, that it exists, ergo, to best of our knowledge it has existed eternally, since we have no evidence of and origin. Understand?
 
We have no direct evidence of origins of biological life, and after many years of human mind doing experiements, humans have not created biologic life. 

We have no direct evidence of any origins of biologic life. We have no evidence of a spark-of-life occurrence.

Nonsense, there is a preponderance of solid and direct observational evidence that the history of the Universe demonstrates a temporal sequence that went from a world with no biologic life, to a world with biologic life, clearly establishing the fact that in time, biologic life originated from a state in which biologic life did not exist.

What we have observed is a universe in which entities of matter are increasing form and complexity in space and time, the evidence is clear that temporally speaking, biologic life emerged at a point in time, that much we know with certainty. 

#126
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@ebuc
Naught { energy aka physical reality /\/\/ or Spirit-2  }  is neither created nor destroyed, only transformed { fermions < > < >bosons }. Grasp the 1st law of thermodynamics.

3} Naught is created nor destroyed only  transformed from Spirit-3 Gravity and Spirit-4 Dark Energy into Spirit-2 { fermions and bosons }, etc eternally. You dont seem to grasp this simple cosmic scenario, that, is  transferred from 1st law of thermodynamics, by me.

Are you refering to 1st law of thermodynamics that ive presented three times in this thread, and countless times at DArt?

/\/\/\/ >>> _______________________ >>> then what?  1st law of thermodynamics, energy{ physical reality } cannot be created nor destroyed, ergo, we live in an eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe, that, can only transform its various phases of occupied space.

Huh? You dont seem to grasp the 1st law of thermodynamics, naught is created nor destroyed, only transformed eternally and this translates over to our finite occupied space Universe. Understand? It is simple.
I’m sorry, but it’s only simple if your science is over a century old. Today, the 1st law is only an axiom of science, it isn’t a conclusion of science, and in fact, current scientific theory is explicit that the 1st Law does not hold for the Universe as a whole.  The most obvious example is that we know the Universe is expanding because of Redshift, but if the light is Redshifted, then it is going to a less energetic state, there is a net loss of energy in the Universe.

Back when you thought energy was conserved, there was a reason why you thought that, the 1st “law” was mathematically formalized as Emmy Noether’s time-translational symmetry, which is the theoretical basis of the conservation law, but time-translational symmetry only applies to a static system with a single frame of reference and coordinate system, and only to a closed system, which is to say, it only applies to Newtonian physics.  So theoretically, any system that evolves with time will not obey the conservation law, with our most successful current theories, Relativity Theory, Quantum Physics, and Big Bang Cosmology, the conservation law is no longer applicable either theoretically or experimentally. 

It’s been over a hundred years since the energy conservation law (and the corresponding time-translational symmetry) was an unassailable principle.  Conservation of energy is really only an approximation that holds for systems in which the background is not dynamic and therefore does have time translation symmetry, which is to say, in scenarios where Newtonian Physics applies.



#127
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Sidewalker
All theories as you stated.

So no one as yet knows anything for certain then.

Will we ever know?
#128
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Sidewalker
Nonsense, there is a preponderance of solid and direct observational evidence that the history of the Universe demonstrates a temporal sequence that went from a world with no biologic life, to a world with biologic life, clearly establishing the fact that in time, biologic life originated from a state in which biologic life did not exist.

Again, you dont seem to grasp the facts...we have no direct evidence of an origin of biologic life, and that is what you cannot present that direct evidence. When you find the direct evidence of an origin of biologic life, please share

What we have observed is a universe in which entities of matter are increasing form and complexity in space and time, the evidence is clear that temporally speaking, biologic life emerged at a point in time, that much we know with certainty.
What we dont have, is direct evidence of an origin of biologic life irregardless of your comments.  None of which provides any direct evidence of an origin of biologic life. Like myself, all you have is speculation of and origin of biologic. You dont seem to understand between speculation and factual evidence of an origin please share when you understand and provide the direct evidence.

We dont even have direct evidence of evolution, other than bacterias, ive not seen any info that clearly gives evidence that bacteria evolution is simple-to-complex rather than, complex-to-simple or lateral evolution. Understand SW?
 

#129
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@ebuc
Nonsense, there is a preponderance of solid and direct observational evidence that the history of the Universe demonstrates a temporal sequence that went from a world with no biologic life, to a world with biologic life, clearly establishing the fact that in time, biologic life originated from a state in which biologic life did not exist.
Again, you dont seem to grasp the facts...we have no direct evidence of an origin of biologic life, and that is what you cannot present that direct evidence. When you find the direct evidence of an origin of biologic life, please share
I grasp the facts just fine, you seem to think that if we can't reproduce it in an experiment then there is no direct evidence, that is nonsense, unless you are a science denier, there is plenty of evidence that life came into existence at some point in the history of the Universe.  
 
You blather on a lot about Black Holes, Dark Energy, singularities, syntropy, and a lot of other things that by your criteria there is no direct evidence that any of these things even exist.  When you find the direct evidence of black holes, dark energy, singularities, or syntropy, please share.
What we have observed is a universe in which entities of matter are increasing form and complexity in space and time, the evidence is clear that temporally speaking, biologic life emerged at a point in time, that much we know with certainty.
What we dont have, is direct evidence of an origin of biologic life irregardless of your comments.  None of which provides any direct evidence of an origin of biologic life. Like myself, all you have is speculation of and origin of biologic. You dont seem to understand between speculation and factual evidence of an origin please share when you understand and provide the direct evidence.

We dont even have direct evidence of evolution, other than bacterias, ive not seen any info that clearly gives evidence that bacteria evolution is simple-to-complex rather than, complex-to-simple or lateral evolution. Understand SW?
There is no direct evidence (or rational basis) for anything you have typed in this entire thread.
 
Other than ego fluffing, is there a point?
#130
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Sidewalker
I grasp the facts just fine,

False. Like me your speculating about, an origin of biological life, wehrease i'm speculating about eternally existent encoding of biologic life in some or collection thereof.

you seem to think that if we can't reproduce it in an experiment then there is no direct evidence,
 Your False. It is not just that one thing. It is that plus, we have no direct evidence of an origin of biologic life, anywhere in Universe. Just your repeating there is, does not make it so. Provide  the specific evidence when you have it. You do not, because you have none.

that is nonsense, unless you are a science denier, there is plenty of evidence that life came into existence at some point in the history of the Universe. 

No there is not one shred of direct evidence for an origin of biologic life.  Repeatedly you dont seem to grasp the differrence between indirect circumstantial evidence, and direct evidence. Ex we have direct evidence of evolution, via bacteria, and again, I dont know if that is simple to complex, complex to simple or just lateral evolution. Understand?
 
  When you find the direct evidence of black holes, dark energy, singularities, or syntropy, please share.

I'm speculating just as you are. Call it blather, then that is what your doing also. Its obvious your ego is in the way of truth and facts regarding direct evidence of an origin of biologic life. We none, nada, zip etc.

Ive asked you repeatedly to present direct evidence, and of course you dont, because, there is none.  Your ego walks in fear of this truth and fact.

Ive never said the origin of biological life is not possible, only that we have no direct evidence. Do you understand these simple words? No? I  didnt think so. Your ego is in the way.

Based on circumstantial evidence, many people believe black holes exist at center of most galaxies. If you dont want to believe that, fine by me.

If you want to go on beliveing there is direct evidence of an origin of biologic life, is also fine by me. Please share when the direct evidence is observed.

#131
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@zedvictor4
All theories as you stated.
 
Yep, that’s what science has, theories.

So no one as yet knows anything for certain then.
 

Science is empiricle, and the term "empirical" presupposes inductive reasoning, it fundamentally attempts to derive general principles from specific instances, but the truth of those general principles is inferred, they can never be proven empirically. Inductive reasoning can only allow you to have probabilities, not certainty.

Will we ever know?
 

Knowledge is accumulating at a ferocious pace, and over time it is becoming more and more complete, the truth goes marching on so to speak, but no, we will never know with certainty.

Perhaps the biggest mystery of all is why we think that finite creatures can comprehend the whole, that our finite minds can circumscribe an infinitely diverse universe of reality of which we are a mere part.
#132
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@ebuc
I grasp the facts just fine,

False. Like me your speculating about, an origin of biological life, wehrease i'm speculating about eternally existent encoding of biologic life in some or collection thereof.
I’m sorry, I thought the conversation was about science, I was talking about science, you are the only one denying science in favor of speculation.

you seem to think that if we can't reproduce it in an experiment then there is no direct evidence,
 Your False. It is not just that one thing. It is that plus, we have no direct evidence of an origin of biologic life, anywhere in Universe. Just your repeating there is, does not make it so. Provide  the specific evidence when you have it. You do not, because you have none.
There is a boatload of geochemical evidence of the conditions of the primitive Earth over time, the evidence shows that the Earth came into existence around 4.5 billion years ago, and the evidence is that conditions of the early Earth could not support life for the first billion years, there is evidence that around 3.4 billion years ago the conditions were such that Earth could support life, and we have fossil evidence that single celled life existed around three billion years ago.  The evidence shows clearly that life came into being between 3.5 and 3 billion years ago.

that is nonsense, unless you are a science denier, there is plenty of evidence that life came into existence at some point in the history of the Universe. 

No there is not one shred of direct evidence for an origin of biologic life.  Repeatedly you dont seem to grasp the differrence between indirect circumstantial evidence, and direct evidence. Ex we have direct evidence of evolution, via bacteria, and again, I dont know if that is simple to complex, complex to simple or just lateral evolution. Understand?
I understand science, and there is an abundance of deductive scientific evidence that there was an origin to life, you don’t seem to grasp the difference between science and your fanciful speculation, I’m not sure what that fantasy crap is, but I know what it isn’t, it isn’t science.

 
  When you find the direct evidence of black holes, dark energy, singularities, or syntropy, please share.

I'm speculating just as you are. Call it blather, then that is what your doing also. Its obvious your ego is in the way of truth and facts regarding direct evidence of an origin of biologic life. We none, nada, zip etc.
Nope, you are speculating, I am talking about science.  Your ego is in the way of accepting science in favor of your fantasy.

If the tree in my front yard is standing when I go to bed, and during the night there is a storm and when I wake up the tree in on the ground, I would consider that direct evidence that the tree fell last night.  I suppose you could bloviate about fallen trees are eternally existent and throw out some random geometric shapes as supporting evidence, but why be flakey.  The change of state between last night and this morning provides direct evidence that the tree fell. 
 
Ive asked you repeatedly to present direct evidence, and of course you dont, because, there is none.  Your ego walks in fear of this truth and fact.
I have explained the evidence several times, your ego demands that you deny science.  Its fine that you have your science fiction accounts, very creative, and it’s fine that your ego demands that you proclaim yourself smarter than the scientific community, just don’t pretend that it has anything to do with science.

Ive never said the origin of biological life is not possible, only that we have no direct evidence. Do you understand these simple words? No? I  didnt think so. Your ego is in the way.
I get it, you deny science so you can speculate your fantasy, because your ego demands it, got it. 

Based on circumstantial evidence, many people believe black holes exist at center of most galaxies. If you dont want to believe that, fine by me.
I accept science, and recognize that we have an abundance of direct evidence that black holes exist.

If you want to go on beliveing there is direct evidence of an origin of biologic life, is also fine by me. Please share when the direct evidence is observed.
OK, and please share if you come across anything resembling a logical, rational, or scientific basis for your make-believe fantasies.
#133
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Sidewalker
I’m sorry, I thought the conversation was about science, I was talking about science, you are the only one denying science in favor of speculation.

Thread title, how did life come about.  Either there exists  origni{s} or not. Simple concept you have yet to grasp. I dunno that is possible crete biologic life, from where before there was none, and niether do you, ergo its all speculation. Accept this truth or keep letting your ego try to prove otherwise.

Murphys law states, that, anything that is possible, sooner or later will occur. And this is more so in an eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe.  Logic common sense, that, is often based on empirical evidence if used by many scientist etc. 

Your ego working over time, to present an origin of biologic life, of which there is no direct evidence proof, regardless of you constantly hoping that whatever you say is the proof. Get read Swalker.

  The evidence shows clearly that life came into being between 3.5 and 3 billion years ago.
Came to exist on Earth. Again, drop  you ego, and read my lips/text, we have no direct evidence of and origin of biologic life being created from where before there was none. We dont know how that biologic life ---bacteria--- came to exist on earth. Its called speculation, not direct evidence. Drop your ego and accept that truth.

I understand science, and there is an abundance of deductive scientific evidence that there was an origin to life, you don’t seem to grasp the difference between science and your fanciful speculation, I’m not sure what that fantasy crap is, but I know what it isn’t, it isn’t science.
You dont seem to grasp that 'deductive ' is not direct evidence of and origin of biologic life on Earth. Drop the ego and accept this simple, logical common sense truth. Can you do that SWalker? no? I didnt think so.

I have explained the evidence several times,
You have offered no direct evidence of biological life being created from where before there was none.

I get it, you deny science so you can speculate your fantasy, because your ego demands it, got it. 
Your repeating the word ' science ' is not direct evidence of an origin of biologic life. I dont know if it is possible or not.
Ive offered speculation on an alternative viewpoint, of eternally existing biologic life in some black holes etc.

I accept science, and recognize that we have an abundance of direct evidence that black holes exist.
Ive repeated such to you many times, Glad you finally come to believe what I and most cosmologist have believed for 10 or more years now, however, we are all still speculating as to what these phenomena are at center of most galaxies.  We have no direct evidence that these phenomena are actually black holes.

Yes the fit much of the criteria we  would attribute to black holes, but that is not yet empirical evidence.

Were both speculation. Yours is and origin --that I dont deny may be feasible--mind is an alternative view of eternally existent biologic life in an eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe. I think my version is more simple than and origin from scratch.  Well not totally from scratch, because we have evidence of left-handed amino-acids existing in metorites.





#134
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Sidewalker
I agree.

#135
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
I’m sorry, I thought the conversation was about science, I was talking about science, you are the only one denying science in favor of speculation.

Thread title, how did life come about.  Either there exists  origni{s} or not. Simple concept you have yet to grasp. I dunno that is possible crete biologic life, from where before there was none, and niether do you, ergo its all speculation. Accept this truth or keep letting your ego try to prove otherwise.
No shit Rainman, either there was an origin or there wasn’t, I get that, my dog gets that, but hey, if declaring that profound fact is necessary to fluff your ego, go for it.   

Murphys law states, that, anything that is possible, sooner or later will occur. And this is more so in an eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe.  Logic common sense, that, is often based on empirical evidence if used by many scientist etc. 

Your ego working over time, to present an origin of biologic life, of which there is no direct evidence proof, regardless of you constantly hoping that whatever you say is the proof. Get read Swalker.
Either there was, or there wasn’t, woo hoo, that is profound, and it makes you smarter than me, it makes you smarter than the scientific community, your ego is fulfilled.

  The evidence shows clearly that life came into being between 3.5 and 3 billion years ago.
Came to exist on Earth. Again, drop  you ego, and read my lips/text, we have no direct evidence of and origin of biologic life being created from where before there was none. We dont know how that biologic life ---bacteria--- came to exist on earth. Its called speculation, not direct evidence. Drop your ego and accept that truth.
Science is speculation, scientists are stupid, you are so smart that you deny science, yep, that’s a big ego you got there.

I understand science, and there is an abundance of deductive scientific evidence that there was an origin to life, you don’t seem to grasp the difference between science and your fanciful speculation, I’m not sure what that fantasy crap is, but I know what it isn’t, it isn’t science.
You dont seem to grasp that 'deductive ' is not direct evidence of and origin of biologic life on Earth. Drop the ego and accept this simple, logical common sense truth. Can you do that SWalker? no? I didnt think so.
You forgot the geometry stuff, isn’t there a hexidecimally triangular geodesic showing that it is infinately finite and horizontally vertical that you are more smarter than science? 

I have explained the evidence several times,
You have offered no direct evidence of biological life being created from where before there was none.
Got it, the vast majority of accepted science doesn’t count, observation doesn’t count, inductive reasoning doesn’t count, deductive reasoning doesn’t count, science bows down to your speculation because of the rhombic circularity of the innermost outside of Buckminster Fullerene and the null geodesics of Roger Penrose.

I get it, you deny science so you can speculate your fantasy, because your ego demands it, got it. 
Your repeating the word ' science ' is not direct evidence of an origin of biologic life. I dont know if it is possible or not.
Ive offered speculation on an alternative viewpoint, of eternally existing biologic life in some black holes etc.
Considering the octogonic singular dualities of the photonically consistent irregularities, of course there either was or there wasn’t, and that is the circuitously direct evidence that there wasn’t.

I accept science, and recognize that we have an abundance of direct evidence that black holes exist.
Ive repeated such to you many times, Glad you finally come to believe what I and most cosmologist have believed for 10 or more years now, however, we are all still speculating as to what these phenomena are at center of most galaxies.  We have no direct evidence that these phenomena are actually black holes.

Yes the fit much of the criteria we  would attribute to black holes, but that is not yet empirical evidence.

Were both speculation. Yours is and origin --that I dont deny may be feasible--mind is an alternative view of eternally existent biologic life in an eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe. I think my version is more simple than and origin from scratch.  Well not totally from scratch, because we have evidence of left-handed amino-acids existing in metorites.
But panspermia only applies if the amino acids are either tetrahedonally oblong or intermittently continuous.

Why does your ego demand that you ignore the eternally existent direct evidence of the origin of biologic life?
#136
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Sidewalker
it is possible the conservation principle still applies across the universe as we really don't know alot about black holes and very dense matter with relatively low energy in proportion to the mass constantly escaping as Hawking radiation.
#137
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ebuc
To me, the origins of life are not nearly as interesting as the origins of the vast amount of energy required to exist first in order to create life.
#138
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Sidewalker
Science is speculation, scientists are stupid, you are so smart that you deny science, yep, that’s a big ego you got there.

Your ego still working overtime creating a false narrative above.  Sad :--) And you still repeating the word science as if stating that word makes every thing you say the truth. Sad :--( ego based mental blockages to truth.

You forgot the geometry stuff, isn’t there a hexidecimally triangular geodesic showing that it is infinately finite and horizontally vertical that you are more smarter than science? 
Did I post any recent, or any geometry stuff in this thread. You ego based feelings are hurt so now lashing out { acting out } you lack of integrity on this issue that is ultimately speculation on both our parts, yet your ego blocks from seeing this obvious truth.

Got it, the vast majority of accepted science doesn’t count, observation doesn’t count, inductive reasoning doesn’t count, deductive reasoning doesn’t count,
YOur still confused an avoiding obvious truths because of your ego. So you lash out with repeated false narratives in this above. Sad :--( waste of intellect

Your dont want to have a logical, common sense, critical thinking conversation. You prefer ridicule and degradation. Sad :--(

#139
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
To me, the origins of life are not nearly as interesting as the origins of the vast amount of energy required to exist first in order to create life.
Huh? Your not very clear here
#140
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Tradesecret
How did life come about?

we dont know, and most likely never will. Simple. No irrelevant tangents needed.
#141
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,595
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Greyparrot

I agree, the Big Bang of the universe released approximately 10 to the 68 joules of energy. Where did this come from?
#142
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
it is possible the conservation principle still applies across the universe as we really don't know alot about black holes and very dense matter with relatively low energy in proportion to the mass constantly escaping as Hawking radiation.

For that to be the case the Universe would have to be a closed system, and there is no way we can know whether or not it is a closed system, a strong arument can be made that Kurt Godel proved in cannot be a closed system.

The law of Conservation has always been fundamental, it is embedded in the structure of most classical theories, and a lot of effort is put into preserving it with new kinds of energy and creative mathematics, but our current scientific theories involve fundamental violations.

Current cosmological theory explicitly violates the 1st law, in an expanding universe light is "redshifted to a lower energy state, and Dark Energy is understood to be the intrinsic energy per volume of empty space, in an expanding Universe the volume of space expands and so does the total energy.

General Relativity tells us that depending on how they are moving in relation to one another, different observers will measure different energy for the same system, it also gives us a dynamic time and space which eliminates the requisite translationally invariant background.  The conservation law is fundamentally incompatible with General Relativity,

The 1st law doesn't even port to quantum physics in any recognizable way, it cannot deal with wave particle duality, or the collapse of the wave function.

Those are our three best physical theories, the 1st law conflicts with all three in basic ways, in the end, the Conservation law is going the way most of our classical laws of physics have gone,  to a limited domain of applicability 



#143
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
we really don't know alot about...
Robert Frost likened scientific knowledge to a clearing in the forest, the greater the clearing, the more contact we have with the unknown.

That sounds right to me, you would think that the more we know the less we don't know, but that doesn't seem to be the case, it seems that as what we know expands, what we don't know expands right along with it.

#144
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Sidewalker
I love Frost, and if the universe is ever expanding, then the universe cannot be a closed system?
#145
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Sidewalker
..a strong arument can be made that Kurt Godel proved in cannot be a closed system.
Nothing he offers informs of a closed Universe scenario. Nor does validate or invalidate an origin  of biological life, or the opposite, eternal biologic life.

but our current scientific theories involve fundamental violations.

Provide the info please. I think it is not valid info.

Current cosmological theory explicitly violates the 1st law, in an expanding universe light is "redshifted to a lower energy state, and Dark Energy is understood to be the intrinsic energy per volume of empty space, in an expanding Universe the volume of space expands and so does the total energy.
A photon going to longer wave { lower frequency } length does not violate 1st law. Try again.

The conservation law is fundamentally incompatible with General Relativity,
I dont think so. Try again.

The 1st law doesn't even port to quantum physics in any recognizable way, it cannot deal with wave particle duality, or the collapse of the wave function.

Sine-wave is conceptual abstract of multiple quanta { observed reality }

Those are our three best physical theories, the 1st law conflicts with all three in basic ways, in the end, the Conservation law is going the way most of our classical laws of physics have gone,  to a limited domain of applicability.
Not. Pleases share evidence of such violation.

#146
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@FLRW
Where did this come from?

FLW, Get a dictionary and attempt to grasp the word eternity ergo eterenally exist, finite, occupied space Universe. Simple not complex to grasp
#147
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
if the universe is ever expanding, then the universe cannot be a closed system?

1} above is false, higher frequency can become lower frequency. See entropic  heat death of Universe,

2} the Universe of occupied space may not be expanding, i.e. our empirical evidence may be misperception of the data we gather,

...2a} Ive laid out my  scenario of how we could have the misperception of an expanding Universe,

....2b} and Bucky  Fuller also lays out his, that, involves a 'diminishing viewpoint ",

So many people want to invoke infinity, as if that is the mysterious answer to everything, ergo, a mystery we can never answer.

Lets say that there are not inviolate physical laws  --I call cosmic laws ---, and even  that were true, there do exist inviolate cosmic principles, and here again there is no mysterious infinitty of this, that or another.  It is just people throwing the beans/brains to the wind and hoping they will not blow back in their face. 

Much of humanity lacks much logic, common sense and critical thinking.
#148
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
Ebuc 

Much of humanity lacks much logic, common sense and critical thinking.
Also ebuc

Buckminster Fuller is to be taken seriously and is not a retarded crank
#149
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
Ebuc

Anything we don't have direct evidence of is false
Also ebuc after I ask him where he. Has direct evidence to support that conclusion

🤷
#150
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Anything we don't have direct evidence of, is false.
Until proven otherwise.


We can postulate intellectual hypotheses.

And we can either criticise or congratulate dissent with hindsight.