The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is life in this Universe a one-off occurrence?  (Read 14973 times)

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is life in this Universe a one-off occurrence?
« Reply #50 on: 28/06/2015 07:17:37 »
Quote from: alancalverd
Wrong forum. Science is about how, not why. But I'll happily answer "how".
I disagree for the same reasons I have several times in the past. While I don't believe that physics has a set procedure for answering "why" questions, that can't be taken to mean that it's not the goal of science to do so. E.g. In the opinion of Mendel Sachs, from Concepts of Modern Physics: The Haifa Lectures page 4
Quote
Though some scientists believe that the descriptive level of science is al that there is to know, that is, they believe that scientists should only ask 'what' questions, I believe that the explanatory level that follows the descriptive level is the actual goal of science - the answers to the 'why' questions.
Alan Lightman made a remark when he wrote the foreword to Alan Guth's book The Inflationary Universe noting that Guth was seeking to answer a 'why' question which then led him to the Inflationary Universe model. On the first page of the foreword Lightman wrote
Quote
In the 1970’s, the study of cosmology went through a major conceptual change. Prior to this time, modern cosmologists asked such questions as: What is the composition of galaxies and where are they located in space? How rapidly is the universe expanding? What is the average density of matter in the cosmos? After this time, in the “new cosmology,” cosmologists began seriously asking questions like: Why does matter exist at all, and where did it come from? Why is the universe as homogeneous as it is over such vast distances? Why is the cosmic density of matter such that the energy expansion of the universe is almost exactly balanced by its energy of gravitational attraction? In other words, the nature of the questions changed. The questions became more fundamental. “Why?” was added to “What?” and “How?” and “Where?”. Alan Guth was one of the young pioneers of the new cosmology, asking the Whys, and his Inflationary Universe theory provided many answers.

There have been times when I've asked myself Why does ...? and in some cases go answers. An important one that readily comes to mind is the "why" question Why does E = mc2? Before I got an answer it was always impressed on me by others that this question can't be answered when in fact I found that it could, and I did. It's too complicated to post in a thread and I don't like  posting new theories in physics forums myself. Therefore when I write it up I'll post a link to it. That will take some time because its a low priority for me.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4719
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is life in this Universe a one-off occurrence?
« Reply #51 on: 28/06/2015 09:09:32 »
Bit of a diversion here, but as the Michelin Guides say, worth it!

"Why" implies a search for purpose. This further implies control by a sentient being with a sense of time and mortality (otherwise why do it now? It is bound to happen eventually!) and produces anthropomorphic statements like "the electron chooses the path of least action to the anode"  when we mean "is constrained to..."

"Why" is kinda fun for teaching primary school, but at some point we need to grow up and realise that the universe taken as a whole is entirely mechanistic, with no evidence of gods or entanglement molecules* floating about to direct the processes of chemistry and physics.

In the worst case, you can fall into a trap of selfdelusion like our friend jccc who starts with a model and asks why the universe doesn't behave like his model predicts. Far better to start from the observation that the hydrogen atom is stable, or that E = mc2 balances your equations, and use that to generate a model that explains and predicts how other stuff works.


*OK, not so much a diversion as a pretty route.
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Re: Is life in this Universe a one-off occurrence?
« Reply #52 on: 28/06/2015 09:33:26 »
you can fall into a trap of selfdelusion like our friend jccc who starts with a model and asks why the universe doesn't behave like his model predicts.

my model says the space is infinite, time is infinity, there is only 1 force that rules the universe.

i never started a model and ask why the universe doesn't behave like my model predicts.

can you prove me wrong?

good morning!
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is life in this Universe a one-off occurrence?
« Reply #53 on: 28/06/2015 12:50:13 »
Quote from: alancalverd
"Why" implies a search for purpose.
Perhaps in your mind but not in the minds of the physicists who ask those kinds of questions. E.g. I was never asking about any purpose when I was asking "why" E = mc^2. People don't ask about any purpose when they ask "Why is the sky blue?" and Guth didn't wonder about any purpose when he asked "why" the uniform was so homogeneous.

Quote from: alancalverd
This further implies control by a sentient being with a sense of time and mortality ..
Not at all. How did you ever arrive at such a conclusion by what Lightman and Sachs wrote?
 

Offline tonylang

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Re: Is life in this Universe a one-off occurrence?
« Reply #54 on: 29/06/2015 15:44:08 »
Species Loyalty: Why should Mr. Zebra or any living individual seek to preserve its current species?

Wrong forum. Science is about how, not why. But I'll happily answer "how".


Upon reading, and with reasonable comprehension, of the above post it should at least become clear, whether one agrees with the ideas or not, that what is being proposed is a natural, purely cause and effect, ultimately testable description for observations which have gone either unexplained or described by less plausible means, invocations of gods and spirits etc. not required. I recognize that this hypothesis treads on observational territory which has long been addressed by religious narratives as were ideas concerning the living form before 1859 (On the Origin of Species) and the ensuing genetic revolution.

As I mentioned in another post it soon became clear to me that it was essential to begin consideration of these concepts with a clean slate and a steely objectivity accompanied by fundamental scientific principles. I needed to dismiss most of the prefabricated ideas popular in the world today and historically. Ideas that are mostly self-serving, agenda based narratives. To be clear this does not suggest an avoidance of any particular result. If my best considered, rational, logical, objective conclusions lead to a man with a crown of thorns, on a cross impaled and dying, then so be it. Further, if the instantiation hypothesis in its current form is reminiscent of any of countless ideas of resurrection or reincarnation or such, then so be it.

The historical nature of human understanding has never emerged from a lack of intellect but from a deficit of information. So it should come as no great surprise if our ancestor’s beliefs may not have been completely wrong and science today may not be completely right.  Instead the reality we live and experience is a stunningly flexible and amazing hybrid implementation of nature which ironically incorporates necessary elements of several schools of thought. This hybrid implementation makes life possible; it makes you possible anywhere in existence. Such a truth would be embraced by few in their current instantiation but would be embraced more readily by those same individuals in their future instantiations. Progress by reinstantiation, today we call it mortality, has been one of the primary vehicles of progress for humankind since the beginning of human history.
« Last Edit: 29/06/2015 16:01:58 by tonylang »
 

Offline tonylang

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Re: Is life in this Universe a one-off occurrence?
« Reply #55 on: 04/07/2015 13:54:37 »
In the presence of ignorance questions of “How” and “Why” both go unanswered and both questions are as untethered kites fluttering arbitrarily in the wind, each open to all manner of mystical, fanciful or ill conceived musings or agenda inspired narratives. When the question as to how any observation is as it appears becomes finally resolved so is the why of it. Not until the question of how is answered does the question of why become tethered, understood and explained. Why and how is the sky blue?… Why and how does the apple fall? How and why are babies made? How and why are you here? The real question asked (or denied) by each living individual, consciously or not, is; what about me?

We often misrepresent this as what about my species? But this latter question is a miscomprehension of the reality of life in this universe. You see taking your current species with you is a nonstarter in a vast expanding universe permeated by a Higgs field. We have always entertained the notion that we can take our form with us since we are a somewhat mobile species. We have legs, we are able to travel. So it is that we attempt to travel as far and as wide as we are able to cajole the resources of nature we find around us into facilitating our journey from our origins. So it is an understandable and noble endeavor that we explore the limits of feasibility of our locomotion through space-time to the extent that the laws of nature may allow. But make no mistake; this universe is an individualized universe. This is a universe in which mobility of the individual component of life is implemented not the mobility of its’ host form.  So it is that the question; “What about Me” goes misunderstood as we misrepresent our being with our form.

Charles Darwin cast the first tether of understanding for the ideas surrounding hosts for life on earth, species. Many have been, and are convinced that it is the only tether of explanation needed to answer the question of “How” is the individual implemented in this universe. However, many aspects of nature suggest that Darwins ideas are only part of the reality of life in this universe. Once again we have been placated by notions which either misrepresent the reality of life, or as is the case today, only exposes a part of its true implementation in this universe. The instantiation of life hypothesis offers a description for the missing tether of understanding.

The instantiation hypothesis suggests that natural entanglement places no restrictions or limitations on the form or general function of potential host. It is the local environment which dictates such stresses and thereby shape and define the forms that emerge. Ergo “cherry-zebras” if they can emerge in any given environment, are welcome. Natural entanglement permits individuality to occur anywhere viable host may emerge.  The primary point being submitted for your collective consideration is; Form vs being is not a chicken or the egg question, rather it is a statement of clarification that a universe may be a living universe even in the absence of any living forms or hosts so long as such a universe possesses the basic implementation for individualized being via natural entanglement. Conditions which prohibit the formation of living hosts may predominate in a universe for too long a time for hosts to emerge or a universe may exist for too short a time for such hosts to emerge yet such a universe may have the natural framework for an individualized position-of-view. Of course one without the other, for all practical purposes, is inconsequential. Nonetheless, for understanding the true nature of life it is fundamental to realize this structure in nature.
« Last Edit: 04/07/2015 14:00:59 by tonylang »
 

Offline tonylang

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Re: Is life in this Universe a one-off occurrence?
« Reply #56 on: 13/07/2015 13:15:55 »
The monogamy of entanglement is the law of nature that isolates an entangled state from intrusion by non participant, non indoctrinated entities. So how is it that the organelles in any given cell manage to share a common entangled state to the exclusion of other entities that may violate the cells wall? Isn’t the law of monogamy being violated? No, the law of monogamy isn’t being violated anymore than the law of gravity is being violated when we construct and fly 100 ton airliners carrying hundreds of passengers thru the atmosphere. As is always the case the laws of nature are never violated only manipulated and utilized to achieve a desired behavior. So it is in the living cell. To understand the living cells utilization of a common entangled state think of a cruise ship at sea, it either has an onboard wireless communications transceiver (ham-radio etc.) or it doesn’t. A ship with such a device may allow its hundreds of crew members each in possession of their own hand units (talkies) to communicate with one another but also it permits the ship as an entity to communicate and share its state information with the cloud that is the outside world. In this scenario the crew shares a common channel of communication which is isolated from intrusion by some common degree-of-freedom defined by some uniquely quantifiable aspect of the electromagnetic spectrum. Usually that property is electromagnetic frequency modulation combined with a layer of encryption derived from a private encryption key for added security.


In the lab today we understand the promise of entanglement as a security encryption protocol primarily because of its monogamistic properties. We see that we may use the public and private key approach for encrypting and decrypting information securely. Likewise the cell utilizes a sort of private encryption key process to indoctrinate new entities manufactured within the cell from the cells own DNA to become participants, new organelles within the cell. This private key bestows upon newly minted entities a common shared degree-of-freedom defined by this individual cells’ specific quantum entanglement frequency (QEF). The QEF is a uniquely quantifiable aspect of the quantum entanglement spectrum. It is exposed only via the cells entanglement molecules which at this stage in evolution of earth-life have likely been fully incorporated within the molecular structure of the cell’s DNA.

It is through the utilization of the cells entanglement molecules that the individuals unique QEF is made available as a private key for the indoctrination of new cellular organelles. In our cruise ship analogy, consider a responsible crew member is tasked to program secure hand units (talkies) with the ships unique frequency and encryption key and then to distribute those units to each new member of the crew. This enables each new arrival to become a participating member of the ships staff thereby animating the ship as a self contained living organism. In the living cell it is hypothesized that a similar activity is undertaken when a ribosome manufactures a new protein line from its’ RNA and DNA within the cell’s nucleus. All new organelles are imbued with a common aspect of the entanglement spectrum. This property is exposed by the entanglement molecule within the cells’ DNA and permits the otherwise inanimate organelle to utilize the cellular natural entanglement connection to metamatter. In so doing the organelle is not entangled but like the crew members on the ship is in communion on some level with other cellular entities and also able to shares cellular state information with the universal cloud-storage of metamatter accessible by other naturally entangled host anywhere in this universe. No doubt today in the modern living cell this is a complicated process to describe and document but it is nonetheless recognizable through this analogy.  This describes the natural implementation that is the predominant difference between a living entity and a non living one and the instantiation of the individual by natural entanglement.   
« Last Edit: 13/07/2015 18:21:05 by tonylang »
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is life in this Universe a one-off occurrence?
« Reply #57 on: 13/07/2015 14:23:47 »


"Why" is kinda fun for teaching primary school, but at some point we need to grow up and realise that the universe taken as a whole is entirely mechanistic, with no evidence of gods or entanglement molecules* floating about to direct the processes of chemistry and physics.


Webster's does assign to the word "why" the notion of "reason or purpose". However, for many of us, this word simply asks for an explanation that leads to the understanding of a physical occurrence.

Nevertheless, I do understand the point you've made about a few members here using the word "why" in a philosophical or religious sense. But in those cases, it becomes evident very quickly that they are trying to assign a purpose to the use of this word. However, for those of us that are interested in the reality of the physics involved, the word is simply asking for an explanation about the physical events revolving around the phenomenon.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4719
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is life in this Universe a one-off occurrence?
« Reply #58 on: 14/07/2015 00:44:17 »
The problem with allowing "why" questions is that they tend to lead to anthropomorphic explanations ("the electron wants to...") which can mislead people into thinking that classical mechanics can be applied at all levels of analysis, or that nature must obey laws.

Fact is that QM describes what is, and how things evolve, with no overarching reason, and physical "laws" are no more than convenient mathematical descriptions of apparently universal phenomena.   
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is life in this Universe a one-off occurrence?
« Reply #59 on: 14/07/2015 02:59:00 »
The problem with allowing "why" questions is that they tend to lead to anthropomorphic explanations ("the electron wants to...") which can mislead people into thinking that classical mechanics can be applied at all levels of analysis, or that nature must obey laws.
I find myself agreeing with you on every point except one alan. While it's true that those predisposed to the anthropomorphic "religious" point of view, will tend to explain events by invoking the supernatural, I find it inconsistent with the typical researcher to not ask "why?". Research is BTW, initiated because an unanswered "question" has been asked or at least entered the consciousness of the researcher. I nevertheless concede to the danger you have warned us about and the misdirection it can often produce if the supernatural is allowed to enter the equation.

 

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
Re: Is life in this Universe a one-off occurrence?
« Reply #60 on: 14/07/2015 15:07:16 »
In the context of the most recent posts, an interesting"why" for cosmologists would be, "why are all Type One A supernovae so uniform?"

Another "why" thought to think over would be why cellular organelles so intricate that (when one penetrates to the "nano" scale) their complexity is so great that it defies the imagination as to how they could have arisen, using familiar quantum scale theories of energy and biological systems.

I espouse an aether view of cosmic systems (as distinguished from earthbound quantum-scale energy systems, as we perceive them). -I submit that biological systems arose in cosmic settings  in which there were super-intense energy levels, derived from transient magnetic entrainments in the early cosmos, inducing super-fluxes in etherically-super-refined physical systems. -When a self-reproducing sub-system finally emerged from the fluxes, physical life could begin. A key set of amino acids was probably among the life-producing ingredients.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is life in this Universe a one-off occurrence?
« Reply #61 on: 14/07/2015 15:50:47 »
In the context of the most recent posts, an interesting"why" for cosmologists would be, "why are all Type One A supernovae so uniform?"

Another "why" thought to think over would be why cellular organelles so intricate that (when one penetrates to the "nano" scale) their complexity is so great that it defies the imagination as to how they could have arisen, using familiar quantum scale theories of energy and biological systems.
These are examples of questions where the word "why" can accurately be used. However, I think the point some are making here is that the word "how" can easily be substituted in it's place. In my opinion, either one would be appropriate, that is unless, one chooses to associate the anthropomorphic with the word "why".
Quote from: MichaelMD
I espouse an aether view of cosmic systems
I doubt you will receive much support for that view my friend. Aether theories have, for a long time now, been found to be lacking credible evidence.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4719
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is life in this Universe a one-off occurrence?
« Reply #62 on: 14/07/2015 16:11:14 »
In the context of the most recent posts, an interesting"why" for cosmologists would be, "why are all Type One A supernovae so uniform?"
Presumably because the laws of physics are universal.

Quote
Another "why" thought to think over would be why cellular organelles so intricate that (when one penetrates to the "nano" scale) their complexity is so great that it defies the imagination as to how they could have arisen, using familiar quantum scale theories of energy and biological systems.
Again, it's a "how". The "why" only arises because your imagination is more limited than the potential implications of chemistry. I'm often led to the conclusion that "why" is a reflection of human vanity, and actually means "because I don't understand it, it can't be true". Hence religion and other absurdities.

Quote
I espouse an aether view of cosmic systems (as distinguished from earthbound quantum-scale energy systems, as we perceive them). -I submit that biological systems arose in cosmic settings  in which there were super-intense energy levels, derived from transient magnetic entrainments in the early cosmos, inducing super-fluxes in etherically-super-refined physical systems. -When a self-reproducing sub-system finally emerged from the fluxes, physical life could begin. A key set of amino acids was probably among the life-producing ingredients.
An explanation of "how" would be appreciated, along with an estimate of the resulting density and distribution of biological systems in the universe. For the time being, the presence of liquid water and a few simple carbon compounds seems crucial. 
« Last Edit: 14/07/2015 16:24:29 by alancalverd »
 

Offline tonylang

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Re: Is life in this Universe a one-off occurrence?
« Reply #63 on: 14/07/2015 21:43:35 »
The monogamy of entanglement enforces the integrity and isolation of an existing entangled state such as the hypothesized position-of-view (POV). It is in fact nature’s last line of defense against infiltration upon any entangled state. This effect can essentially be thought of as a self-destruct mechanism. The concept of defense by self destruction appears at times in implementations both technological and natural. In human affairs when vital information needs to be isolated or otherwise protected from infiltration at any cost we wire the asset for destruction with explosives or such. In nature the integrity of a law of conservation is often when such an effect is observed. In the case of an entangled state it is indeed when the conservation of information, one of nature’s fundamental laws, is threatened with violation is when the asset, the entangled relationship, forfeit. If one wired an asset to explode upon infiltration or upon specific violation then one would also need to broadcast this fact to interested parties for it to be an effective deterrent. Alternatively, one would need to erect obstacles of a defensive, offensive, and perhaps cognitive nature to actively keep out unwanted intrusions upon the protected asset. This is exactly what living hosts (species) are.
 
 This evolutionary arms race to protect the individuals’ vital asset the POV began with a simple cell wall in the early proto-cell. This cell wall may be metaphorically compared to the posts of timber erected by early peoples that settled in a new land. They often erected a defensive barrier to keep out environmental threats and also to protect vital assets on the inside of the encampment. Today these walls have grown and evolved substantially both in nations and in the living cell. In the living cell and in any other host all systems are evolved to support in the protection of the POV the entangled state maintained by the entanglement molecules within the single cell. In complex (multi-cellular) hosts the POV is the entangled state maintained specifically by the entanglement cells (EC) which must be protected from intrusion or infiltration while sacrificing many other non-EC cells in due course.
 
 Another apt metaphor for this idea is the starship enterprise on the popular iconic TV show star trek. Though the enterprise bristles with offensive as well as defensive and cognitive systems, both living and non-living, the last line of protection is to isolate or protect the information content inherent in the enterprise from infiltration. This is accomplished similarly by annihilating the ship. So it is that the well known self-destruct system of the enterprise is ushered into service at the last possible moment. Likewise the monogamy of entanglement as previously stated is nature’s last line of defense of the law of conservation of information in this universe. Make no mistake this is purely a cause and effect mechanism of natural law. Quantum coherence and its monogamistic properties are observations made in the laboratory and are given labels, names. No one should suggest at this juncture to know the fundamental underlying implementation in nature of these phenomena. However, plausible well considered hypothesis are welcome.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4719
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is life in this Universe a one-off occurrence?
« Reply #64 on: 15/07/2015 10:06:20 »
You are now asserting purpose in nature. But since purpose is an emergent property of transient, sentient beings, i.e. the creatures of nature, this is a circular argument and requires a redefinition of nature as something other than "what happens in the observable universe".

Your definition of nature would be appreciated.
 

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
Re: Is life in this Universe a one-off occurrence?
« Reply #65 on: 15/07/2015 17:21:27 »
In alluding to how my aether-overview could address a couple of theoretic areas, including the possible origin of biological life, I left out why I consider an aether a viable concept, despite the position of Science that an aether doesn't exist.

The old concept of a universal underlying aether medium which transmits forces was discarded after the Michelson-Morley Experiment (MMX) of 1887 reportedly indicated the absence of an aether. -However, I submit, the MMX used a faulty theoretic criterion as its basic premise. -In the MMX, it was assumed (I believe falsely) that any kind of aether would have to behave inertially with respect to earth's movements through it, producing a dragging "wind" effect which should be detectable, using the optical refractive measurements in the MMX. -However, if an aether was non-inertial, the key theoretic assumption used to dismiss the aether would not apply, the MMX would be cosmologically irrelevant, and its dismissal by physics, which continues to this day, would be in error.

In my aether model, the aether originated in space, which in the beginning, before the first appearance of forces, was self-compatible, such that point-localities oscillated reciprocally and symmetrically, until oscillatory fatigue induced a pair of adjacent "points" to fall together curvilinearly, in "Yin and Yang" fashion, which broke the perfect symmetry of original space, leading to a vibrationally (as derived from the oscillational) energic aether. (Oscillatory fatigue is known to occur in metals, but since metallic oscillatory fatigue is a quantum process, it cannot be definitively correlated with oscillatory fatigue in first-cause space.)

Once aggregative forces from such an aether led to larger "particle capacities," then to atoms, then to aggregational bodies in space, the elemental underlying aether framework would function in an energically-contiguous fashion, such that a body's surface would be in constant vibrational interactive resonance with identical elemental aether units in space. -The aether in space would thus be non-inertial with respect to the body (such as earth), because the aetheric resonances between a body and the aether of space would resonationally tend to "follow" the body as it moves through space.

Such "auric" elemental aetheric forces would also serve to mediate such cosmic effects as gravity, light, and other effects. We are unable to detect the aether, so we cannot appreciate the various magnetic and gravitational auric forces at work.

So-called quantum entanglement just represents radiated packets of aetheric energy, which have the same vibratory pattern. Elemental aether units are the only actual participants in this phenomenon, with the quantum units walled-off kinetically, like cool arms of an underlying quiet purring aether mechanism, which can turn itself on and off by itself, any time.   

 
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is life in this Universe a one-off occurrence?
« Reply #66 on: 15/07/2015 18:46:16 »
We are unable to detect the aether, so we cannot appreciate the various magnetic and gravitational auric forces at work.

And this is the reason aether theories are unacceptable, without evidence, such theories will remain unscientific.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3926
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Is life in this Universe a one-off occurrence?
« Reply #67 on: 16/07/2015 01:03:08 »
An Aether theory that simply has the Aether moving in concert with celestial bodies serves no purpose. There are thought to be constant vacuum fluctuations that send ripples of short lifetime virtual particles through space. These do move but not necessarily in concert with mass. This is not an Aether. Why on earth does this theme keep cropping up? It may well be easier to resurrect this than learn the physics that is in use today. To work through the history of the developments in physics is fascinating. Once you appreciate how one discovery led to another it all starts to make sense. It amazes me just how correct the theorists were without the experimental evidence to validate the postulates. Many were later vindicated by experimental results. You cannot skip the journey through the history of physics and hope to be taken seriously.
« Last Edit: 16/07/2015 01:04:48 by jeffreyH »
 

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
Re: Is life in this Universe a one-off occurrence?
« Reply #68 on: 16/07/2015 13:55:01 »
JeffreyH,

I don't claim my Model of the Aether compares, empirical-evidence-wise, with the standard model of physics. The latter is based on empirical evidence obtained in our earthbound setting, where quantum forces are what mediate our observational evidence.

In my Model, quantum forces just represent a spin-vector type of energy which, in our setting, is superimposed upon  underlying aetheric vibrational forces which are what originated the cosmic forces in space. -Our everyday perceptions prejudice us to think scientifically, also, in terms of our quantally-mediated world, where "quantum-scale forces are the elemental forces and are all there is."

I gather we're all supposed to just keep waiting for quantum physics to find the answers to questions like the nature of gravitation, Time, quantum entanglement, and so on.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4719
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is life in this Universe a one-off occurrence?
« Reply #69 on: 16/07/2015 15:45:58 »
Setting aside my wonder at the difference between vibrational and oscillatory forces, and my concern that you equate force to energy, what does your aetheric theory predict, that is not correctly predicted by any other theory?
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is life in this Universe a one-off occurrence?
« Reply #70 on: 17/07/2015 01:20:36 »
-Our everyday perceptions prejudice us to think scientifically,
So just how ought we to think if not scientifically? Turning from the scientific method leaves us with little more than; Myth, Philosophy, Anthropomorphism, and Intuition. All of which may or may not lead to new thought, but without evidence no real progress in our understanding of reality can be achieved. It's called "spinning your wheels", as in getting nowhere rapidly.
 

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
Re: Is life in this Universe a one-off occurrence?
« Reply #71 on: 18/07/2015 14:53:51 »
Setting aside my wonder at the difference between vibrational and oscillatory forces, and my concern that you equate force to energy, what does your aetheric theory predict, that is not correctly predicted by any other theory?

The concept of "oscillation" I work with is of a process involving oscillating entities, a non-directional (thus non-energic) process, symmetrical in all possible directions, and reciprocal with respect to other like-entities (in my case, "entities" would refer to point-localities of original space.)
In my Origins Model, a symmetrical oscillational process in space transitioned, due to oscillational fatigue of certain "Yin and Yang" point-pairs, to a directional vibrational process. The vibrational process can be thought of as analogous to the point-localities having "nodes," as their vibrations extend outwardly in certain directions, so that loose connections (not "fixed" connections) occur between the elemental etheric "points." -In the overall context of non-energic space. the appearance of such resonational forces then would have tended to form transient magnetic entrainments of elemental etheric units, which in turn produced energic foci, producing larger "particle capacity" units, and eventually, atoms.
 

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
Re: Is life in this Universe a one-off occurrence?
« Reply #72 on: 18/07/2015 15:01:32 »
Setting aside my wonder at the difference between vibrational and oscillatory forces, and my concern that you equate force to energy, what does your aetheric theory predict, that is not correctly predicted by any other theory?

alancalverd,

As to whether my aether model could lead to predicted, or objective, evidence, I do have a potential test for that. (The test would be based on information obtained from an obscure source, derived by code breaking.) The test would involve generating a selectively aetheric force field, and measuring densities of materials inside the test system for a predicted decrease in density. -Such an effect on density does not occur with known forms of energy. -However, this test would be expensive to conduct, and I lack the funds to do it, myself.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4719
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is life in this Universe a one-off occurrence?
« Reply #73 on: 26/07/2015 16:35:49 »
Having read very little science fiction, I would be grateful to know what a "force field" is. Apart, that is, from "the answer to everything".
 

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
Re: Is life in this Universe a one-off occurrence?
« Reply #74 on: 26/07/2015 17:21:53 »
The term "force field" has been used in alternative physics to refer to the concept of motivating UFO craft by first energizing them, using a super-intense energy field that has been generated technologically. -In correlating this concept with my theory of the aether, such a field would comprise aetheric-scale forces, but in a technologically greatly-magnified strength (which confers to such craft their ability to traverse cosmic distances unattainable via our inertial methods of propulsion in space). It is a "force" field because its strength is over and above the natural aether forces that exist naturally all around us as "auric" forces. -Reviewing my model for the aether, at an elemental, basic, level, aether/auric forces are really what account for all energic phenomena, with manifested differences observed (at our quantum level of observation) such as light, gravitation, magnetism, spontaneous human combustion, "quantum entanglement," and others. At the basic elemental aether level, the differences between them are only due to variations in the vibratory patterns of radiated packets of aetheric energy. -Of course, when the aether forces are manifested in our earthly quantum systems, those manifestations appear vastly different from each other, misleading us as to their true basic origin.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Is life in this Universe a one-off occurrence?
« Reply #74 on: 26/07/2015 17:21:53 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums