Crosswords4 mins ago
Self-Replicating Molecules.
How did certain chemicals combine to produce the first self-replicating molecules?
Answers
We don't know. Writings on the subject are still full of the words 'possibly' and 'perhaps'.
18:56 Wed 13th Nov 2013
Dear jim,
Oh dear we Klugscheissers really land ourselves in the scheissen! (Don't bother Khandro...I've said it myself). Everything below is my
(mis?)understanding.
(a) The Big Bang Theory (BBT) is only a theory.
(b) It's basis lies in the red-shift. This is just an extension of the Doppler Effect - the changes in frequencies of a passing express train etc.
(c) When we extrapolate our basic here-on-earth whole matter knowledge to the inside of the atom or out to the universe the theories usually break down. What if there is another factor causing the red-shift e.g your invisible dark matter? If so the BBT collapses.
(d) Why only a red shift (change in frequency/wavelegth)? Are the frequencies of other parts of the EM spectrum changed as they should be if it's speed effect. If not it sounds more like the effect of a particle of similar size to the wavelength of red light interfering (red sky at night..) but of course not merely diffraction.
(e) You seem happy to believe in the BBT excusers pure invention of "dark matter". O.K. what is it? Where is it? What are its properties? Jim, as a particle physicist, you ought to be able to explain - so carry on please.
(f) As "dark matter" swells across the universe what happens to the vacuum? The velocity of light is variable, as you know, and is only constant in a vacuum. Although E=mc(power 2) is basically true (viz atomic/nuclear bombs) it's beginning to look wobbly as the vacuum disappears.
My personal scientific philosophy always leads me to seek the beautiful. I find the original Fred Hoyle theory of Continuous Creation (CC) beautiful and the BBT ugly! No CC is not dead! Because the BBT is only an unproven theory and can conceivably be overthrown.
Compromise: CC driven by random mini BB's. Nope, I know you can't say that or you won't be published - banned by the "peer"-review.
Seriously, despite the diversion, please educate me jim.
With Kindest Regards,
SIQ.
Oh dear we Klugscheissers really land ourselves in the scheissen! (Don't bother Khandro...I've said it myself). Everything below is my
(mis?)understanding.
(a) The Big Bang Theory (BBT) is only a theory.
(b) It's basis lies in the red-shift. This is just an extension of the Doppler Effect - the changes in frequencies of a passing express train etc.
(c) When we extrapolate our basic here-on-earth whole matter knowledge to the inside of the atom or out to the universe the theories usually break down. What if there is another factor causing the red-shift e.g your invisible dark matter? If so the BBT collapses.
(d) Why only a red shift (change in frequency/wavelegth)? Are the frequencies of other parts of the EM spectrum changed as they should be if it's speed effect. If not it sounds more like the effect of a particle of similar size to the wavelength of red light interfering (red sky at night..) but of course not merely diffraction.
(e) You seem happy to believe in the BBT excusers pure invention of "dark matter". O.K. what is it? Where is it? What are its properties? Jim, as a particle physicist, you ought to be able to explain - so carry on please.
(f) As "dark matter" swells across the universe what happens to the vacuum? The velocity of light is variable, as you know, and is only constant in a vacuum. Although E=mc(power 2) is basically true (viz atomic/nuclear bombs) it's beginning to look wobbly as the vacuum disappears.
My personal scientific philosophy always leads me to seek the beautiful. I find the original Fred Hoyle theory of Continuous Creation (CC) beautiful and the BBT ugly! No CC is not dead! Because the BBT is only an unproven theory and can conceivably be overthrown.
Compromise: CC driven by random mini BB's. Nope, I know you can't say that or you won't be published - banned by the "peer"-review.
Seriously, despite the diversion, please educate me jim.
With Kindest Regards,
SIQ.
^ It's a good question naomi. The Strong Anthropic Principle states "Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being."
I watched the beautiful sunrise at 8:45 this morning, now the whole valley is flooded with glorious sunlight, without conscious, sentient beings to observe all of this, would it exist, would anything exist?
I watched the beautiful sunrise at 8:45 this morning, now the whole valley is flooded with glorious sunlight, without conscious, sentient beings to observe all of this, would it exist, would anything exist?
Dear Jim,
I am disappointed the you cannot reply here. Surely you can point out my errors, if any, and explain your ideas with bullet points here.
It was you who said that the BBT was firmly established!
It would not cause a debate distraction - I would just bow to your superior knowedge (maybe). But if you are fuzzy in parts we can just agree to differ.
I am reluctant to start a new thread because I am so biassed.
Challenge for you: you can't knock me down easily can you? After all you are a subatomic physicist not an astrophysicist. And neither am I as you know.
Please take this post and wording in the friendly light-hearted spirit in which I write it - but I remain disappointed as you are clearly red hot in your scientific knowledge and your arguments - so far.
Kindest regards,
SIQ.
I am disappointed the you cannot reply here. Surely you can point out my errors, if any, and explain your ideas with bullet points here.
It was you who said that the BBT was firmly established!
It would not cause a debate distraction - I would just bow to your superior knowedge (maybe). But if you are fuzzy in parts we can just agree to differ.
I am reluctant to start a new thread because I am so biassed.
Challenge for you: you can't knock me down easily can you? After all you are a subatomic physicist not an astrophysicist. And neither am I as you know.
Please take this post and wording in the friendly light-hearted spirit in which I write it - but I remain disappointed as you are clearly red hot in your scientific knowledge and your arguments - so far.
Kindest regards,
SIQ.
Dear Khandro,
Re your mini debate with Naomi and jomifl:
Naomi, jomifl nor I saw that sunrise - caused by diffraction by particles of dust or vapour in the atmosphere, but it happened. Thugh not necessarily elsewhere, depending on the air-cleanliness and air-vapour in your area.
Had I seen it with you, I might have hated it because I saw it as a bad omen weather- and health-wise. The most "beautful/ugly" sunrises and sunsets are in the dirtiest of cities.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - end of story.
Kindest Regards,
Klugscheisser.
Re your mini debate with Naomi and jomifl:
Naomi, jomifl nor I saw that sunrise - caused by diffraction by particles of dust or vapour in the atmosphere, but it happened. Thugh not necessarily elsewhere, depending on the air-cleanliness and air-vapour in your area.
Had I seen it with you, I might have hated it because I saw it as a bad omen weather- and health-wise. The most "beautful/ugly" sunrises and sunsets are in the dirtiest of cities.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - end of story.
Kindest Regards,
Klugscheisser.
I can reply here, and will do so at some point -- I just figured that it was a topic that in itself ought to have a whole thread about it.
Might take me a while or I might forget as I'll have to do a bit of digging. For now it suffices to say that BBT is far more robust than "just a theory" might imply. Evolution is "just a theory" in pretty much the same way. So is gravity, really.
Might take me a while or I might forget as I'll have to do a bit of digging. For now it suffices to say that BBT is far more robust than "just a theory" might imply. Evolution is "just a theory" in pretty much the same way. So is gravity, really.
solvitquick; //Had I seen it with you, I might have hated it..// Well only if you were brain dead, or you could wish to align yourself with the clown R.Dawkins, who once said with pride how, when his young daughter told him how pretty the flowers were, said no, they they were not pretty, their colours were only caused by the refraction of light and were to attract insects so they would be pollinated, and.... blah blah", what a monumental Pratt!
By the way, in his new book which is about - wait for it! - HIMSELF! he tells us with his usual modesty, how his first name is Clinton, which means he has exactly the same initials as - wait for it again- none other than the author of 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection'.
Geddit!
By the way, in his new book which is about - wait for it! - HIMSELF! he tells us with his usual modesty, how his first name is Clinton, which means he has exactly the same initials as - wait for it again- none other than the author of 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection'.
Geddit!
Dear Naomi,
Ty for your posts re Khandro's sunrise. Of course you are right about it happening irrespective of mankind's existence (with the exception of it's nature in the absence of our local pollution, no nothing there about global warming). I understood his point and your answer all the time but ty for your "clarification".
I joined in because Khandro appeared to be squirming out of simply agreeing when you said "Yes it would" into the concept of "beautiful and glorious" as though these were real and absolute entities.
You, jomifl (I think) and I are in 100% agreement on all these aspects.
Aaaw he's now trying to associate me with R. Dawkins although all my posts have come from my own thinking others' evidence where needed.
Don't you just love the Khandroesque comment that if I disagreed about what he saw as beautiful and glorious I must be brain dead - lol.
He really demeans himself every time he posts these days - how sad.
With Kindest Regards,
SIQ.
Ty for your posts re Khandro's sunrise. Of course you are right about it happening irrespective of mankind's existence (with the exception of it's nature in the absence of our local pollution, no nothing there about global warming). I understood his point and your answer all the time but ty for your "clarification".
I joined in because Khandro appeared to be squirming out of simply agreeing when you said "Yes it would" into the concept of "beautiful and glorious" as though these were real and absolute entities.
You, jomifl (I think) and I are in 100% agreement on all these aspects.
Aaaw he's now trying to associate me with R. Dawkins although all my posts have come from my own thinking others' evidence where needed.
Don't you just love the Khandroesque comment that if I disagreed about what he saw as beautiful and glorious I must be brain dead - lol.
He really demeans himself every time he posts these days - how sad.
With Kindest Regards,
SIQ.
Dear jim,
Ty so vey much for agreeing to respond to my BBT critique here. Sure take all the time you need. But please concentrate on my points and questions and only add other evidence afterwards i.e. pleae don't "do a Khandro" by ignoring my post and just supply different evidence for the BBT.
I am very grateful to you, as much of what I said or asked does bother me at the classical science level.
With Kindest Regards,
SIQ.
Ty so vey much for agreeing to respond to my BBT critique here. Sure take all the time you need. But please concentrate on my points and questions and only add other evidence afterwards i.e. pleae don't "do a Khandro" by ignoring my post and just supply different evidence for the BBT.
I am very grateful to you, as much of what I said or asked does bother me at the classical science level.
With Kindest Regards,
SIQ.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Crosswords6 mins ago
Cutting Off Their Nose To Spite Their...
News8 mins ago
ChatterBank9 mins ago
