NASA Scientist - Universe seems hardwired to produce life

Discussion in 'Politics' started by jem, Apr 8, 2016.

  1. jem

    jem

    Time is part of our universe
    Outside of our universe there may be no time or different time.
    Therefore there may be know before or after.
    Therefore a Creator need not be created.

    As we do more science I suspect we will see its all about Light.


     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2016
    #61     Apr 12, 2016
  2. jem

    jem

    Science discusses the fact that our universe appears to be extremely fine tuned.
    1. The vast majority of scientists will tell you the standard model of physics is extremely fine tuned. One of the constants is tuned to over 120 decimal places. a slight change at the 120 decimal point and the universe collapses on itself or expands and breaks apart. If there is only one universe... there is no way we got that lucky. Thats the physics of it.

    2. This is the biology of it. a. science does not have a plausible pathway from non life to life. b. it seems there probably was not enough time for lucky combinations to happen. c. some scientists like the OP say that the drive for life was built into the building blocks. (how did it get there? )

    I have provided 100s of quotes from top scientists supporting above... sometimes with the science of it. On many threads here.



    3. Therefore... The 1950s idea that this all got here by random chance is just about dead.

    Science has developed the idea that there may be almost infinite universe to explain this fine tuning. Which takes as much faith as a creator... at the moment.


     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2016
    #62     Apr 12, 2016
    traderob likes this.
  3. jem

    jem

    you told me to look him up. I did. his quotation max planck quote was very interesting.


     
    #63     Apr 12, 2016
    piezoe likes this.
  4. Jeez, we have these idiots coming here with "the science is settled" attitudes but we have obvious things like the moon appearing as exactly the same size as the sun and that being considered to be the greatest coincidence possible... so great that it can't be coincidence.. I guess we're supposed to just put up with these idiots and get a laugh? They bore me to tears...
     
    #64     Apr 13, 2016
  5. Piptaker

    Piptaker

    The video didn't address the elephant in the room which is the act of observing and not observing the experiment, personally I think the bigger question is does the measuring device affect the result?
     
    #65     Apr 13, 2016
  6. stu

    stu

    Why do you think I take offense? That you find comfort from superstition is fine. It's a sad failure of human reasoning, but perfectly ok by me.
    When you try to rationalize it in unreasonable ways, or attempt to elevate it to the level of science, that's where I take issue.
    Why would you criticize me for doing that?
     
    #66     Apr 13, 2016
  7. stu

    stu

    Let me try that.
    Outside the universe, is still the universe, time or no time, whether no before or no after. The universe is everything there is.
    Therefore a universe need not be created.

    At 120 decimal points, it must also appear out of tune by a slight amount
    A universe by cosmic mistake then. Or what you might call 'random chance'.

    ....and yet , all the time there are existing and new naturalistic explanations for plausible pathways. Weird that, as they are so easy to find should one look.
    But put simply, natural chemical reaction is plausible, while supernatural magic and woo is not.
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2016
    #67     Apr 13, 2016
    Frederick Foresight likes this.
  8. stu

    stu

    It seems observing does affect the result. Perhaps not really surprising, as observing or interacting with photons must fundamentally interfere with them.
    I think you'll find observing to determine which slit the photons pass through will localize them and so produce the double bar pattern. Observing after it has passed through without observing which slit, results in the interference pattern.
     
    #68     Apr 13, 2016
  9. nowadays, At least on the Science channel (I get all my knowledge from tv) they usually refer to the "Universe" as only that which was created as a result of the big bang. Something about our laws of physics break down before that point. So, there could be other universes. Or Big Bangs could be occuring every instant somewhere creating new universes which have their own laws of physics.
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2016
    #69     Apr 13, 2016
  10. Snarkhund

    Snarkhund

    We've started to develop some understanding of black holes and have begun to find some spectacularly large ones (100+ billion solar masses).

    All the math says we should be encountering "white holes" as well but we haven't even given that they would be far easier to detect than distant black holes.

    Now there are theories that when a black hole reaches some upper limit of mass it spews out mass (as pure energy) into a new space (a new universe) in the form of a white hole. It could be that the "big bang" was a white hole. I like the idea because it suggests a perpetual oscillatory system .
     
    #70     Apr 13, 2016