[tianman32 (OP)]

All organiams come fron inorganic life.Only when te earth,the Solar System and galaxiea are life bodies,organisms occur on the earth.
The interaction of varying-organization, forming-organization and control organization leads to the production of universe background temperature which is constant and not historical remains of big bang.
Galaxies are life bodies whose internal energy and motion velocity gradually develop.Hence,astronomers always find galaxies be in red shift that does not support the expansion of the universe.
Peneration of neutrino prove that the universe is limetless.

from Unity of Physics and Biology

[Pablo]

Wow! Galaxies are alive!? No wonder I had a feeling that I was inside an organism's gut. I've also read about the theory that our planet is a huge organism and not a lifeless piece of rock...Now, how do galaxies reproduce? sexually or asexually?

Pablo Gonzalez

[Simmer]

Can't be sexually, we've already ruled out the big bang :-) I suppose these organism eat hydrogen and other intergalactic debris.  Are they sentient, do you think?

[Pablo]

I believe that they are sentient, but their thoughts are limited to themselves, the Universe, and God. They don't know that we are here.

Pablo Gonzalez

[David Sparkman]

(not so loud, they might hear us)

David

[Andrew K Fletcher]

I agree there is no big bang, never was and never will be, however, there will be an incalculable number of smaller bangs when every planet reaches its ultimate climax as its mass exceeds that of which can remain stable, then the planet will become a new sun and visible from another evolving planet in some far flung area of the universe!

The Earth is growing, as is every single planet in space, smaller planets either evolve into larger planets, or are drawn to the larger planets, as can be seen with the moons surrounding Jupiter, or indeed the large objects that crashed into Jupiter a few years back.

Growth of planets is an infinitesimally slow process, and calculations of the Earth’s age are so far off the true age of this planet it makes a mockery of the very substance of science! For example, carbon dating rocks found on the surface or even below the surface in the deepest mines. To analyse the true age of the earth, one would have to attempt to evaluate the first atomic particle that was the seed for its beginning and this would prove somewhat difficult given that it is most likely part of the molten mass at the earths core.

I believe there have been many other civilisations on this planet, possibly even more advanced than ourselves, yet all have failed to manage their environment and have long perished. For example, did you know that a crystal goblet has been found embedded in quartz? And a steel cube has been found embedded in the same medium? Modern mans fossils have been found in coal dating back in excess of 26 million years.

As for black holes, they only exist in some thesis designed to earn a PHD and can neither be proved or disproved by the governing bodies of the PHD boards, or are part of some incredible fictionary, fantasy state of mind designed to sell a book or two.

I would love to see the sands of time rolled back in the Sahara, for there lies all of the answers to who has been here before and screwed around with environmentally unsound policies.

Andrew K Fletcher


"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"

[Simmer]

I remember someone telling me that the Sahara was down to excessive use of goats leading to soil erosion.  I don't think that's entirely true, although it may explain some of its spread in that last few thousand years.

Not sure about the rest of your argument, although it sounds interesting.  I wouldn't be surprised if black holes were a hoax though, in my experience PhDs have a broad sense of humour and almost no principles :-)

[David Sparkman]

Wow this is a weird thread. Why do you assume the earth should remain like it was before? We measure contential drift, we measure varing energy levels from the sun, we see the growth of the human race in historical times. We know of ice ages that have come and gone. What is so strange about climate patterns changing? They have always been changing. Egypt's earliest records are of winning their independence from another race that lived where there is now desert.

We cannot stop the earth from spinning, and as of yet, we cannot stabalize the energy output of the sun. We just have to learn to live with change, or move someplace else...

David

[Ultima]

quote:Growth of planets is an infinitesimally slow process, and calculations of the Earth’s age are so far off the true age of this planet it makes a mockery of the very substance of science! For example, carbon dating rocks found on the surface or even below the surface in the deepest mines. To analyse the true age of the earth, one would have to attempt to evaluate the first atomic particle that was the seed for its beginning and this would prove somewhat difficult given that it is most likely part of the molten mass at the earths core.

I believe there have been many other civilisations on this planet, possibly even more advanced than ourselves, yet all have failed to manage their environment and have long perished. For example, did you know that a crystal goblet has been found embedded in quartz? And a steel cube has been found embedded in the same medium? Modern mans fossils have been found in coal dating back in excess of 26 million years.

First off can we see some links? Plus quartz doesn't take very long to form. If I chucked something down a volcano and it didn't quite hit dead center; it wouldn't be all that crazy for it to get coated in quartz, since water heated underground by volcanic activity brings up dissolved minerals like quartz etc.

If they found a coke can inside a metamorphic rock like marble or something which was studded with fossils of early life then that would be something! []

What about fossil records are you going to ignore them? ALL life would have to have been extinguished and the whole crust of the planet to have been replaced for what you believe to be true. Then life would have to have independently evolved several times over... It took a great deal of time to get multi celled organisms. If we can't be certain of the age of the planet, we can be of the Sun! Indirectly we know the rough age of Earth. Since when did planets grow to the size of stars and explode?

The Earth didn't start from an "atomic" particle. The Sun isn't a first generation star, it formed from a planetary nebula of a bigger less stable star that came before. So our planet formed from large clumps of stuff that was left behind from the previous system. It isn't likely that it was atomised!

Also "infinitesimally slow" wouldn't that mean very fast?

Black holes obviously can't be directly observed. I believe they have been observed indirectly looking at how they effect other objects, such as through gravitational lensing, accretion discs, jets or plumes of matter/radiation, unusual orbits of other stars. A shadow is "real" but how would you prove/find it?! by looking at what's around the shadow!

http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/po/050111.shtml

wOw the world spins?

[Simmer]

quote:Originally posted by David Sparkman

Egypt's earliest records are of winning their independence from another race that lived where there is now desert.

We cannot stop the earth from spinning, and as of yet, we cannot stabalize the energy output of the sun. We just have to learn to live with change, or move someplace else...

Some important factors are beyond our control but we do have an impact on our environment. There have been well established instances of poor agricultural practices permanently reducing the fertility of an environment(1930's "Dust Bowl" in the US, prehistoric Dartmoor in the UK for example).  

On a global scale there is ozone depeletion and, more contraversially, the theory that the climate of the whole planet may be changing irreversibly due to man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

I don't think I can get my head round planets growing from atomic nucleation points into stars but I don't think self extinction through poor ecological practice is all that far fetched!

[David Sparkman]

How about the theory that the climate is changing on it's own and nothing man can do can change it. Why do folks blame everything on mankind when we know one volcano puts more sulfur in the air than fossil fuels can ever hope to match?

You are buying into the university professors that want research funding, and use scare tactics to get it. Yes the glaciers are getting smaller, but they have been small before. We are entering a warm spell, but where is the detailed study of how much is man, how much is the sun, and how much is everything else? The good old earth has lots of checks and balances built in.

Burn more fossil fuels and the higher CO2 produces more plant life. Melting the polar icecaps will dump more cold water into the oceans and reduce the hurricanes (not happening). We simply do not have enough data or understaning of the earth systems to be going off half cocked.

David

[Simmer]

quote:Originally posted by David Sparkman

How about the theory that the climate is changing on it's own and nothing man can do can change it.

Yes, I am aware of that theory and can't refute it!  I think you would agree that what we do has some affect on the atmosphere (you mention the potential benefits of the CO2 concentration increase yourself) but, as you say, nobody can prove that it is affecting the climate.  

However it seems probable to me that there is some correlation between observed changes in climate and measured changes in the composition of the atmosphere.  This is a fairly widely held view and the basis for attempts to persuade governments and people to reduce their contribution to this change before it becomes irreversible.

You might argue that introducing such expensive changes without categorical proof is crazy.  But how sure do you have to be to gamble a whole planet, specially when you've only got one! []

[David Sparkman]

Mankind's activity has also reduced fires that annually swept the grasslands, and frequently cleared the forests of dead brush.

You would bankrupt society to stop what has happened through out the past history of the earth: the changing temperature. I think society has other things they want to waste their money on, such as Aids and it's ilk.

As far as "lets not take risks, we only have one planet" remember to follow the money. Who is getting rich promoting reduced life styles? The oil cartel is having great fun in their effort to corner all the money in the industral world. When energy saving devices actually save money, they are adopted.

You have a gaggle of professors quacking about global warming but they are avoiding answering the real questions about the earth's history, and the natural variation of temperature, and elasticity of the overall system. It doesn't take much to see a system where the outcome is rigged to generate even more research grants. Those guys won't be happy until we can trigger another ice age, which, by the way, is due anytime in the next few thousand years.

David

[rosy]

Of course there is another argument for switching to non-fossil fuels, which is that as easily accessible reserves are steadily depleted the price of oil will creep up and up, and if we aren't in some degree prepared for the switch away from oil we're going to "bankrupt society" anyway.
If there's a concern that we *might* be going to trash the world (worse than we already have) by releasing all the CO2 on the way there, it seems daft to me not to attempt to make the switch now.

[David Sparkman]

I am all for change when it works. Would you like nucelar breeder plants? We could make a lot of them easily enough. They use pultonium for a fuew source which can be made self renewing. they are only a thousand times more dangerous than a uranium fuel plant during a meltdown, and mildly dangerouse when given to some nutcake like Iran or North Korea who can quickly convert the fuel to bombs.

Shall we go to noisy windmills that Senator Kennedy loves to see in someone else's back yard but not in his own? I am sure they can be made safe so that large birds don't fly into them.

Shall we go for solar power so that people in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Southern California can have electricty instead of their silly excuse for a lawn?

The fusion bottle still doesn't work after 20+ years research, and laser fusion doesn't either. We could try solar panels up in space orbit and microwave the stuff down. That idea actually looks better to me the most of the rest of the SiFi ideas, tough it would cost a fortune to start up.

We only have 300 years of coal energy, and maybe 30 to 50 years of oil energy. Natural gas is an unknown, but probabily more than oil if we get better at finding it.

Having the price go up moderatly will fund more and more research. The Saudis and Iranians, aside from funding terrorists, invest their money in the western stock exchanges and real-estate markets, so the money comes back to us in a sense.

It is not nice to see our standard of living continuing to go down to pay for such things, but we can't always be fat and happy. Rome didn't last forever either.

David

[Simmer]

I can see I haven't convinced you that the world is about to end![]

Still, I think we might be able to agree on Rosy's point, that it makes sense to increase the diversity of our energy sources so that if one fails (or starts causing unforeseen problems) we aren't totally screwed.

Personally I'm still pinning my hopes on fusion but I liked your idea of solar power from space, indirect fusion as it were []  

If neither of those pans out in the necessary timescale and it turns out that that there is a problem with greenhouse gases (just hypothetically, don't toast me!) then we could look at cleaning up fossil fuel emissions (eg burying CO2) or perhaps even back to nuclear fission, for all its faults.  

[David Sparkman]

The plants are very good at burying CO2. We humans can survive down to 10% oxygen while canaries die at 12%. Was the earth once much lower in Oxygen (i.e. higher in CO2)? Did that lead to the end of the ice age as more trees grew? There is a balance out there that controls the swing of temperature. Rather than say the sky is falling because things change, let's understand this fantastic planet.

I understand the dinosaurs also couldn't stop the temperature swings, even though they had a program of eating all the plant eaters that were producing all the methane gasses by farting. I try to help too by eating cow. If you want to help keep the C02 down, plant a tree.

David

[Simmer]

Yes plants are pretty good at burying CO2, they've been at it for hundreds of millions of years.  Trouble is humans have spent the last two hundred years digging it all up again!

That's a joke rather than a serious argument, btw, I've given up trying to convert you on the basis of existing evidence and intend to wait until Chicago becomes a seaside winter sun resort. []

However I pour scorn on your assumption that, if the worst comes to the worst, at least we will see those bloody canaries off by pointing out that atmospheric oxygen concentration hasn't fallen below 12% for 600 million years or more!
From http://www.palaeos.com

[David Sparkman]

That is a very interesting website, I have bookmarked it and will read though it as I can. The graphic is also very interesting. Do average temperatures or estimates exist for these periods? I realise that other external things may have changed that would void direct relationships between gas levels and temperature, but it would be a place to start.

Don't get too upset with Canarys. Miners used to use them as a warning system for dead areas of mines. If the bird died, you had better get out. My point was that humans seem to be designed to survive in lesser oxygen levels. The graphic shows a good deal of variation, which does not seem attribable to humans.

I realise that a lot of our chemicals including Carbon have been buried in the past ages which make our planet more compatable with human life. For example, if we extract all the sulfur and we would be in a terriable fix. Venus has way too much sulfer in its atmosphere in the form of Sulferic acid. The concept of planet engineering is kind of SiFi but is really what we are heading to.

The present age gives certain countries in the world very good agriculture and devistates others. Were the world slightly warmer, Russia would have better and more reliable crops. Were the world cooler, Iraq and Iran might return to being the food centers they were 4-5 thousand years ago.

There was an artical on Drudge today that suggested that the warmer climates were drasticly reducing the amount of Carbon in the soils (organic materials?). The numbers seemed rather large, but we know that organic material is consumed by organisms that benefit by warmer weather. Here in the states they blame it on earth worms consuming the mulch in forests. The earth worms were introduced to new areas by fishermen.

I would think from the graphic, the earth is in danger of loosing its historical Carbon Dioxide. It has rarely been this low.



David

[tianman32 (OP)]

Human  will get into cosmic age  in the 21st century.

Three problems in cosmic age:time problem,energy source and velocity problem will be solved.Time problem will be solved by human body relativity.Energy source will be solved by superconducting theory of human body.Velocity will be solved by thinking control human body science.Quasar is cosmic model of light velocity spacecraft.