Atheists are hoping aliens from outer space will contact us...

[MarkDuffy]

You have been mentioning many times about how the perfect ratio of forces in our universe allow our universe to exist, and is therefore a sign that "god" exists because of the precise nature of the ratios.

I have been trying to tell you that the ratio of forces in our universe is not perfect.

Our universe is expanding, which you agree with, and eventually that expansion is going to lead to the end of the universe.

So the ratio of forces is not perfect in this universe, as should be expected by a perfect "Creator" like you suggest.

And now you're changing your tune to save face because you realize I'm right. Go back and look at your posts, before this turns into another slapping battle.

You can't change your tune in the middle of a song.

I did not use the word "perfect" anywhere in my commentary. That is all you baby. I also didn't say "ratio of forces" ...not sure what that means. I said there are several immutable dimensionless physical constants that must be fine tuned as they are for a universe to exist and life to exist in it. I do not know what a "perfect" universe would be since I am a mortal human without the capability to know what perfection in a universe actually is.

I also didn't say "this is a sign god exists." I merely pointed out this is something physics hasn't explained and perhaps there is a spiritual explanation. Do you see a difference in what I say and what you are interpreting? Saying "this IS..." happens to be very different than suggesting a possibility of something.

From my perspective, there are no "slapping battles" between you and I. While you flail at me like a little girl, I beat you down like a pimp on his crack ho. It embarasses you, so you respond by being rude and holding a grudge.

You mean you think physical constants are special. I don't. Different constants would produce a possible different universe and if they produced one w/o us, we wouldn't care cuz we would not be here to wonder about it.

I believe life and us are a direct result of the chemistry of the periodic table.

A different constant for the force of gravity would result in no material universe. Differences in other constants would result in no carbon. A universe without carbon cannot support life. Even the periodic table relies on immutable dimensionless physical constants which are finely tuned.

Your disbelief in the constants being 'special' is akin to finding a radio set on a deserted island and surmising that it's nothing special, if it weren't there. we wouldn't be worried about where it came from. The fact is, the constants are there and we exist because they are there. And you have no physics explanation for why they are as they are.

You are going waaay afield here. There would still be gravity with a different G. A difference in constants would change the properties of carbon so that there would not be any periodic table or element with 6 protons? Wow! I am talking about changes, not the obliteration of constants and physics itself.

I think you are actually referring to Einsteins cosmological constant from general relativity, shape of the universe & whether or not the universe is open or closed (expansion rate).

Shape of the universe - Wikipedia

Cosmological constant - Wikipedia

 

[Hyddan92]

Why couldn't stuff come from nothing?

Because it defies physics.

How?

 

[tecoyah]

Human centric thinking has always limited progress and led to incorrect belief. In the case of "Life" outside our planet it is expanded beyond "Human" centric into carbon and DNA. Who's to say there aren't Silicon squid swimming in the Methane lakes of Titan or Hydrogen blimp bladder thingys floating in the clouds of Jupiter. Hell, just extremophiles or deep sea vent worms on Earth should be enough to make people think twice.

Silicon does not form chain molecules important for life. It is too brittle.

As far as you know...perhaps.

 

[Boss]

What ARE you saying?

For evolution to be true, all life must have an information molecule that is different from DNA?

That is crazy

Okay, it's more complicated than simply saying "evolution is true" or "evolution is not true."

I have said that MICRO-evolution (evoultion within a genus taxon) is true. We have substantial evidence for this and DNA even lends support to this theory. It's how we have black bears, polar bears and grizzly bears.

What is not supported with any finding is MACRO-evolution. That is the concept that every living thing has evolved from a universal common ancestor. IF this were true, DNA would be virtually the same in all living things. All living things have DNA but the DNA is unique. Each DNA has a specific combination of amino acids and proteins and these are not interchangeable. The DNA for humans has a completely different type of amino acids and proteins than the DNA of a chimpanzee, even though the structure of our DNA is remarkably similar.

To compound the problem, the amino acids and proteins seem to be unique to the DNA itself. It is as if the DNA is required to produce these amino acids and proteins which enable the DNA to exist. So how does the DNA exist to produce amino acids and proteins essential for the DNA to exist? We don't have an explanation.

This is just dumb. The DNA for humans and other apes is biochemically the same. The DNA sequences differ by only a few percent. There is no problem there, only in your mind. Humans ARE apes.

Which came first, nucleic acids or proteins?

Ever heard of RNA, the primitive nucleic acid?

Humans are NOT apes

Uh, yes we most certainly are apes.

Family Hominidae ~ The Great Apes

The Hominidae (/hɒˈmɪnɪdiː/), whose members are known as great apes[note 1] or hominids, are a taxonomic family of primates that includes seven extant species in four genera: Pongo, the Bornean and Sumatran orangutan; Gorilla, the eastern and western gorilla; Pan, the common chimpanzee and the bonobo; and Homo, which includes modern Humans and its extinct relatives (e.g., the Neanderthal), and ancestors, such as Homo erectus.[1]

Hominidae - Wikipedia

If we were, we could breed with apes.

We are a different species. We breed with other apes, human apes. Now if you had said gorilla, chimp, orang, you would be correct. We are not them. Apes is a general category.

I realize that you resent being a member of the ape family. It is why I use one as my avatar.

This is my baby pic, my windows avatar

View attachment 146698

The biochemistry is NOT the same, if it were, there would be no reason for the RNA World theory your article is about.

You are confused. The biochemistry is exactly the same. The genetics are different. We are talking modern apes/humans, not primitive life with RNA.

I already said the DNA structure (sequences) is remarkably similar. We share 53% commonality with DNA of bananas but no serious person thinks we're descendants of a banana.... although, you might believe that!

LOL, why does that give you pause? There is a LOT of DNA that just gives rise to the basic biochemistry of the cell & multicellularity. This common DNA is further proof that all life is related.

I read the article you posted because I am always genuinely interested in the topic but what I am seeing is not anything conclusive. It's simply more theory. You cannot present theories as facts.

DNA was an improvement on RNA due to the double helix providing self repair of mutations. RNA has no way to fix itself since it is a single primitive strand. If one strand of DNA has an substitution error, the other strand is used as a template to fix the error.

https://www.quora.com/Why-was-DNA-chosen-to-be-the-genetic-material-instead-of-RNA

RNA world - Wikipedia

Yes, I understand we are part of the same family. We're not part of the same genera. Until you can show me clear indisputable evidence that one genera ever became another genera, I can't accept that is a valid assumption. You can certainly have faith that is true... you just can't pass that off as a fact, which you're attempting to do here.

 

[Boss]

Why couldn't stuff come from nothing?

Because it defies physics.

How?

Because physics doesn't support things coming from nothing.

 

[Boss]

You are going waaay afield here. There would still be gravity with a different G. A difference in constants would change the properties of carbon so that there would not be any periodic table or element with 6 protons? Wow! I am talking about changes, not the obliteration of constants and physics itself.

I think you are actually referring to Einsteins cosmological constant from general relativity, shape of the universe & whether or not the universe is open or closed (expansion rate).

Shape of the universe - Wikipedia

Cosmological constant - Wikipedia

You don't know if there would still be gravity if the gravitational force were different. You assume there would be but you can't know. Physicists are still arguing this but most conclude if the gravitational constant weren't as it is, there would be no planets orbiting suns.

Carbon is a necessary component of all life that we know.

12C, a stable isotope of carbon, is abundantly produced in stars due to three factors:

1. The decay lifetime of a 8Be nucleus is four orders of magnitude larger than the time for two 4He nuclei (alpha particles) to scatter.
2. An excited state of the 12C nucleus exists just above the energy level 8Be + 4He. This is necessary because the ground state of 12C is 7.3367 MeV below the energy of 8Be + 4He. Therefore, a 8Be nucleus and a 4He nucleus cannot reasonably fuse directly into a ground-state 12C nucleus. The excited Hoyle state of 12C is 7.656 MeV above the ground state of 12C. This allows 8Be and 4He to use the kinetic energy of their collision to fuse into the excited 12C, which can then transition to its stable ground state. According to one calculation, the energy level of this excited state must be between about 7.3 and 7.9 MeV to produce sufficient carbon for life to exist, and must be further "fine-tuned" to between 7.596 MeV and 7.716 MeV in order to produce the abundant level of 12C observed in nature.
3. In the reaction 12C + 4He → 16O there is an excited state of oxygen which, if it were slightly higher, would provide a resonance and speed up the reaction. In that case insufficient carbon would exist in nature; it would almost all have converted to oxygen.

This is just one of many examples of dimensionless physical constants and how they MUST be fine tuned for our universe and life to exist.

 

[RWS]

You are going waaay afield here. There would still be gravity with a different G. A difference in constants would change the properties of carbon so that there would not be any periodic table or element with 6 protons? Wow! I am talking about changes, not the obliteration of constants and physics itself.

I think you are actually referring to Einsteins cosmological constant from general relativity, shape of the universe & whether or not the universe is open or closed (expansion rate).

Shape of the universe - Wikipedia

Cosmological constant - Wikipedia

You don't know if there would still be gravity if the gravitational force were different. You assume there would be but you can't know. Physicists are still arguing this but most conclude if the gravitational constant weren't as it is, there would be no planets orbiting suns.

Carbon is a necessary component of all life that we know.

12C, a stable isotope of carbon, is abundantly produced in stars due to three factors:

1. The decay lifetime of a 8Be nucleus is four orders of magnitude larger than the time for two 4He nuclei (alpha particles) to scatter.
2. An excited state of the 12C nucleus exists just above the energy level 8Be + 4He. This is necessary because the ground state of 12C is 7.3367 MeV below the energy of 8Be + 4He. Therefore, a 8Be nucleus and a 4He nucleus cannot reasonably fuse directly into a ground-state 12C nucleus. The excited Hoyle state of 12C is 7.656 MeV above the ground state of 12C. This allows 8Be and 4He to use the kinetic energy of their collision to fuse into the excited 12C, which can then transition to its stable ground state. According to one calculation, the energy level of this excited state must be between about 7.3 and 7.9 MeV to produce sufficient carbon for life to exist, and must be further "fine-tuned" to between 7.596 MeV and 7.716 MeV in order to produce the abundant level of 12C observed in nature.
3. In the reaction 12C + 4He → 16O there is an excited state of oxygen which, if it were slightly higher, would provide a resonance and speed up the reaction. In that case insufficient carbon would exist in nature; it would almost all have converted to oxygen.

This is just one of many examples of dimensionless physical constants and how they MUST be fine tuned for our universe and life to exist.

And who fine-tuned that?

 

[RWS]

The universe is facing 4 different outcomes:

Contraction. This seems to be ruled out by the ever-increasing expansion of the universe.

Expansion. There are three possibilies for this as we can imagine thus far before "alien intervention" :
a. The Big Chill
b. The Big Freeze
c. The Big Rip

A and B are not likely unless the ever-increasing expansion decides to stop at some point. Why would it suddenly stop when it is increasing exponentially?

That leaves us with The Big Rip. Which is what I have been trying to explain, and that expansion continues forever, based on the ratio of constants in this universe.

In that scenario, expansion continues to increase to the point where it starts ripping apart the space inside our atoms. And then the space between our sub-atomic particles that make up our atoms. And then rips apart our sub-atomic particles into ever-smaller quantum particles.

Those quantum particles, as they reach absolute zero will convert to the energy that created them. Thus, this universe will eventually have 0% matter, and 100% energy, and be ready for the next iteration of the "Big Bang" or whatever it was that started the whole thing.

Now, if God exists, he wouldn't have made the constant of expansion as high as he did. Unless his intention was for us to all fail. No, it seems more likely that our universe is existing for the amount of time that it has, due to pure chance. We are not the best universe there can be.

We are just living out our lives in the universe that we were born into, and trying to make sense of it.

Some prefer a scientic approach and lots of questions and discovery, and some prefer "gods" and "religions" as a quick and easy solution.

Doesn't really matter in the end...

We won't be around to get a cookie.

 

[Boss]

And who fine-tuned that?

I don't need to define the fine tuner. That's a logical fallacy.

The fact is, the universe IS fined tuned. And it's not just that another tuning would produce a weirder universe, it would have resulted in no universe at all or one devoid of matter, or one devoid of basic fundamental elements. The focus of science is not on defining WHO fined tuned the universe but rather, WHY it is fine tuned. The answer cannot be just because it HAS to be. It certainly does NOT have to be. You can give up on science and believe that but it's circular reasoning.

It would be like discovering a road that leads to the ocean and determining the road leads to the ocean because it has to. That's not WHY the road leads to the ocean.

 

[RWS]

 

[Boss]

That leaves us with The Big Rip. Which is what I have been trying to explain, and that expansion continues forever, based on the ratio of constants in this universe.

In that scenario, expansion continues to increase to the point where it starts ripping apart the space inside our atoms. And then the space between our sub-atomic particles that make up our atoms. And then rips apart our sub-atomic particles into ever-smaller quantum particles.

Those quantum particles, as they reach absolute zero will convert to the energy that created them. Thus, this universe will eventually have 0% matter, and 100% energy, and be ready for the next iteration of the "Big Bang" or whatever it was that started the whole thing.

This is just absolutely not supported by any physics, quantum or otherwise. It is a hypothesis based on theories surrounding dark matter and dark energy, of which we know virtually nothing. That's fine but it's really no different than spiritual faith. I could just as easily argue that God is Dark Energy.... where does that leave your theory?

 

[Hyddan92]

Why couldn't stuff come from nothing?

Because it defies physics.

How?

Because physics doesn't support things coming from nothing.

But some kind of being creating stuff from nothing is supported by physics?

 

[Boss]

Why couldn't stuff come from nothing?

Because it defies physics.

How?

Because physics doesn't support things coming from nothing.

But some kind of being creating stuff from nothing is supported by physics?

Not a physical being.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Human centric thinking has always limited progress and led to incorrect belief. In the case of "Life" outside our planet it is expanded beyond "Human" centric into carbon and DNA. Who's to say there aren't Silicon squid swimming in the Methane lakes of Titan or Hydrogen blimp bladder thingys floating in the clouds of Jupiter. Hell, just extremophiles or deep sea vent worms on Earth should be enough to make people think twice.

Silicon does not form chain molecules important for life. It is too brittle.

As far as you know...perhaps.

Oh we have tried!

Although silicon can form chains, these are not stable like hydrocarbon chains; neither does silicon share carbon’s ability to easily make and unmake bonds with oxygen. When energy is released from a carbon compound during respiration it is ‘oxidised’, and the waste product is carbon dioxide – an easily excretable gas. When silicon compounds go through the same process, solid silica is produced as a by-product – less easy to remove, although the brick-excreting sci-fi aliens seem to have the answer.

Big Picture

Chains are required for life. Long chains = proteins and nucleic acids, the informational structures with life.

 

[MarkDuffy]

You are going waaay afield here. There would still be gravity with a different G. A difference in constants would change the properties of carbon so that there would not be any periodic table or element with 6 protons? Wow! I am talking about changes, not the obliteration of constants and physics itself.

I think you are actually referring to Einsteins cosmological constant from general relativity, shape of the universe & whether or not the universe is open or closed (expansion rate).

Shape of the universe - Wikipedia

Cosmological constant - Wikipedia

You don't know if there would still be gravity if the gravitational force were different. You assume there would be but you can't know. Physicists are still arguing this but most conclude if the gravitational constant weren't as it is, there would be no planets orbiting suns.

Carbon is a necessary component of all life that we know.

12C, a stable isotope of carbon, is abundantly produced in stars due to three factors:

1. The decay lifetime of a 8Be nucleus is four orders of magnitude larger than the time for two 4He nuclei (alpha particles) to scatter.
2. An excited state of the 12C nucleus exists just above the energy level 8Be + 4He. This is necessary because the ground state of 12C is 7.3367 MeV below the energy of 8Be + 4He. Therefore, a 8Be nucleus and a 4He nucleus cannot reasonably fuse directly into a ground-state 12C nucleus. The excited Hoyle state of 12C is 7.656 MeV above the ground state of 12C. This allows 8Be and 4He to use the kinetic energy of their collision to fuse into the excited 12C, which can then transition to its stable ground state. According to one calculation, the energy level of this excited state must be between about 7.3 and 7.9 MeV to produce sufficient carbon for life to exist, and must be further "fine-tuned" to between 7.596 MeV and 7.716 MeV in order to produce the abundant level of 12C observed in nature.
3. In the reaction 12C + 4He → 16O there is an excited state of oxygen which, if it were slightly higher, would provide a resonance and speed up the reaction. In that case insufficient carbon would exist in nature; it would almost all have converted to oxygen.

This is just one of many examples of dimensionless physical constants and how they MUST be fine tuned for our universe and life to exist.

I have no idea what you are trying to prove, but it isn't what you argued.

The constants are part of physics.

Triple-alpha process - Wikipedia ~ formation of carbon in stellar cores

What I do appreciate is your basic posting philosophy is against creation by a God. The universe and its mechanisms are just to complicated for a magical shazaam moment from the alien God.

The funniest thing is that believers expect us to prove everything immediately when advanced science is barely a few hunderd years old, while the believers claim they need to prove nothing.

 

[MarkDuffy]

The universe is facing 4 different outcomes:

Contraction. This seems to be ruled out by the ever-increasing expansion of the universe.

Expansion. There are three possibilies for this as we can imagine thus far before "alien intervention" :
a. The Big Chill
b. The Big Freeze
c. The Big Rip

A and B are not likely unless the ever-increasing expansion decides to stop at some point. Why would it suddenly stop when it is increasing exponentially?

That leaves us with The Big Rip. Which is what I have been trying to explain, and that expansion continues forever, based on the ratio of constants in this universe.

In that scenario, expansion continues to increase to the point where it starts ripping apart the space inside our atoms. And then the space between our sub-atomic particles that make up our atoms. And then rips apart our sub-atomic particles into ever-smaller quantum particles.

Those quantum particles, as they reach absolute zero will convert to the energy that created them. Thus, this universe will eventually have 0% matter, and 100% energy, and be ready for the next iteration of the "Big Bang" or whatever it was that started the whole thing.

Now, if God exists, he wouldn't have made the constant of expansion as high as he did. Unless his intention was for us to all fail. No, it seems more likely that our universe is existing for the amount of time that it has, due to pure chance. We are not the best universe there can be.

We are just living out our lives in the universe that we were born into, and trying to make sense of it.

Some prefer a scientic approach and lots of questions and discovery, and some prefer "gods" and "religions" as a quick and easy solution.

Doesn't really matter in the end...

We won't be around to get a cookie.

The big rip is really out there as far as hypotheses go. More like a very bad acid trip.

Big Rip - Wikipedia

Phantom energy - Wikipedia

Some mathematicians have waaay too much time on their hands.

 

[MarkDuffy]

And who fine-tuned that?

I don't need to define the fine tuner. That's a logical fallacy.

The fact is, the universe IS fined tuned. And it's not just that another tuning would produce a weirder universe, it would have resulted in no universe at all or one devoid of matter, or one devoid of basic fundamental elements. The focus of science is not on defining WHO fined tuned the universe but rather, WHY it is fine tuned. The answer cannot be just because it HAS to be. It certainly does NOT have to be. You can give up on science and believe that but it's circular reasoning.

It would be like discovering a road that leads to the ocean and determining the road leads to the ocean because it has to. That's not WHY the road leads to the ocean.

Hogwash

 

[Boss]

You are going waaay afield here. There would still be gravity with a different G. A difference in constants would change the properties of carbon so that there would not be any periodic table or element with 6 protons? Wow! I am talking about changes, not the obliteration of constants and physics itself.

I think you are actually referring to Einsteins cosmological constant from general relativity, shape of the universe & whether or not the universe is open or closed (expansion rate).

Shape of the universe - Wikipedia

Cosmological constant - Wikipedia

You don't know if there would still be gravity if the gravitational force were different. You assume there would be but you can't know. Physicists are still arguing this but most conclude if the gravitational constant weren't as it is, there would be no planets orbiting suns.

Carbon is a necessary component of all life that we know.

12C, a stable isotope of carbon, is abundantly produced in stars due to three factors:

1. The decay lifetime of a 8Be nucleus is four orders of magnitude larger than the time for two 4He nuclei (alpha particles) to scatter.
2. An excited state of the 12C nucleus exists just above the energy level 8Be + 4He. This is necessary because the ground state of 12C is 7.3367 MeV below the energy of 8Be + 4He. Therefore, a 8Be nucleus and a 4He nucleus cannot reasonably fuse directly into a ground-state 12C nucleus. The excited Hoyle state of 12C is 7.656 MeV above the ground state of 12C. This allows 8Be and 4He to use the kinetic energy of their collision to fuse into the excited 12C, which can then transition to its stable ground state. According to one calculation, the energy level of this excited state must be between about 7.3 and 7.9 MeV to produce sufficient carbon for life to exist, and must be further "fine-tuned" to between 7.596 MeV and 7.716 MeV in order to produce the abundant level of 12C observed in nature.
3. In the reaction 12C + 4He → 16O there is an excited state of oxygen which, if it were slightly higher, would provide a resonance and speed up the reaction. In that case insufficient carbon would exist in nature; it would almost all have converted to oxygen.

This is just one of many examples of dimensionless physical constants and how they MUST be fine tuned for our universe and life to exist.

I have no idea what you are trying to prove, but it isn't what you argued.

The constants are part of physics.

Triple-alpha process - Wikipedia ~ formation of carbon in stellar cores

What I do appreciate is your basic posting philosophy is against creation by a God. The universe and its mechanisms are just to complicated for a magical shazaam moment from the alien God.

The funniest thing is that believers expect us to prove everything immediately when advanced science is barely a few hunderd years old, while the believers claim they need to prove nothing.

I have no idea what you are trying to prove, but it isn't what you argued.

Not trying to "prove" anything really. Has anyone ever proven anything on a message board? My "argument" has simply been, that we have a finely-tuned universe and that's possibly more than mere coincidence.

The constants are part of physics.

Well of course they are, what did you think we were talking about--Theological pancakes with the image of Jesus? Many would say the constants are what makes physics work. I mean, can you imagine how hard it would be to calculate things if the gravitational constant were an ever-changing variable?

Yes, I understand the Triple-alpha process, I just posted about it. You indicated you thought I was referring to Einstein's cosmological constant and I was illustrating one of many physical dimensionless constants.

What I do appreciate is your basic posting philosophy is against creation by a God. The universe and its mechanisms are just to complicated for a magical shazaam moment from the alien God.

Let me be clear. I don't believe a physical argument for God is worthwhile. Although, I do believe there is a philosophical argument for both God and a physical universe. MY God is Spiritual Energy. While this is not something physics is adequate to evaluate, it certainly can be debated philosophically. I believe there is a reason human beings have always been spiritually connected to something greater than self. It's not an accident or some vestigial behavior and it shouldn't be easily dismissed as such.

I've always believed the best argument for Spiritual Energy is the paradox that physical nature cannot have created itself. As for some mythical incarnation of a deity with a white beard and robe, with a Charlton Heston voice, sitting on a cloud and casting judgment and condemnation down on mankind... I don't believe in that. However, I do believe there is an ever-present mercurial force flowing through our physical universe that we cannot observe directly or evaluate with physics. I believe it's possible that force explains the finely-tuned universe as well as life. And yes... that is a philosophical argument.

 

[BreezeWood]

Expansion. There are three possibilies for this as we can imagine thus far before "alien intervention" :
a. The Big Chill
b. The Big Freeze
c. The Big Rip

RWS, there is a 4th result of expansion - the Boomerang Theory

matter is expelled from Singularities sphere, its center outward / at a finite angle (trajectory) all matter will then return in unison to that origin, point of Singularity without ever changing direction following the trajectories curvature. to recompact creating a new Singularity and new cyclical expulsion.

 

[Boss]

WS, there is a 4th result of expansion - the Boomerang Theory

matter is expelled from Singularities sphere, its center outward / at a finite angle (trajectory) all matter will then return in unison to that origin, point of Singularity without ever changing direction following the trajectories curvature. to recompact creating a new Singularity and new cyclical expulsion.

And this defies Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.