Abiogenesis not probable but inevitable, says physicist

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

Why would we not be able to be at or near the center of the universe?

Because mainstream physics says that the universe has no edge and no center

I see nothing mysterious about dark matter. It is an as of yet identified force conductor who's influence can easily be observed in cosmological interactions.

You see nothing mysterious about an invisible substance that cannot be detected or identified?

You must be smarter than Neil deGrasse Tyson.

"Dark matter. I get asked what it is. And my best answer is we haven't a clue. We don't know what it is," Tyson tells us. Read more: www.businessinsider.com...

dusty1
Because mainstream physics says that the universe has no edge and no center

It has neither because every point if both the 'edge' and 'center'. Every point in the universe was in contact at the singularity.

You see nothing mysterious about an invisible substance that cannot be detected or identified?

No, because prior to Electrical Theory the electron's properties and interactions was not understood. It did not make the electron 'mysterious', only ill-defined. Eventually 'dark matter' will be identified and its properties cataloged.

You must be smarter than Neil deGrasse Tyson.

"Dark matter. I get asked what it is. And my best answer is we haven't a clue. We don't know what it is," Tyson tells us. Read more: www.businessinsider.com...

And if you ask Tyson why he would tell you that we have not gathered enough data. Not that it is some magical, undefinable substance.

I see nothing mysterious about dark matter. It is an as of yet identified force conductor who's influence can easily be observed in cosmological interactions.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus



I am beginning to think you don't understand what the word mysterious means.

Eventually 'dark matter' will be identified and its properties cataloged.

Or it won't.

"Dark Matter is the longest standing unsolved problem in modern astrophysics"

And if you ask Tyson why he would tell you that we have not gathered enough data. Not that it is some magical, undefinable substance.

Did you even watch the video?

On Dark Matter Tyson says and I quote "we haven't a clue", "85% of all the gravity has some Mysterious unknown source". "we don't know if it's even made of matter" "dark matter is just what we call this thing about which we know nothing"


Dark matter and abiogenesis are ideas.

Ideas which stem not from evidence, but a lack there of.

I am beginning to think you don't understand what the word mysterious means.

What is relevant us your hyperbolic use of the word.

Or it won't.

"Dark Matter is the longest standing unsolved problem in modern astrophysics"

A few decades is nothing in the grand scheme. Human ingenuity will eventually determine what dark matter/energy is or manifests from.

Did you even watch the video?

On Dark Matter Tyson says and I quote "we haven't a clue", "85% of all the gravity has some Mysterious unknown source". "we don't know if it's even made of matter" "dark matter is just what we call this thing about which we know nothing"

And? Being that we do not know what it is at this point makes it what? Beyond the realm of physics? A never to be explained natural phenomenon?

Dark matter and abiogenesis are ideas.

Ideas which stem not from evidence, but a lack there of.

Dark matter/energy have observable and tangible affects on the observable universe, the evidence that something keeps the galaxy from spiraling apart is obvious.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

What is relevant us your hyperbolic use of the word.

You said dark matter was not mysterious.

mys·te·ri·ous məˈsti(ə)rēəs/ adjective adjective: mysterious

1. difficult or impossible to understand, explain, or identify.

Try Google.

It can be helpful.

About 39,500,000 results (0.17 seconds

The Incredible Dark Matter Mystery: Why Astronomers Say it is Missing in Action

MIT


The scientific consensus is dark matter is a mystery.

And? Being that we do not know what it is at this point makes it what? Beyond the realm of physics? A never to be explained natural phenomenon?

Perhaps it makes it a bit mysterious?

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

Dark matter/energy have observable and tangible affects on the observable universe, the evidence that something keeps the galaxy from spiraling apart is obvious.

I find your acceptance of dark matter/energy interesting.

It cannot as of yet be directly observed.

However it's effects, can be observed.

You do however believe that in the future dark matter/energy will be observed.

dusty1
Because mainstream physics says that the universe has no edge and no center.

I guess it's just a matter of perspective. Since the entire universe once occupied a tiny little bit of reality and everything was crunched down into it, it was essentially where I am right now. Then everything expanded from this point. So I'm at the center of the universe. That's the way I like to look at it.

dusty1
You said dark matter was not mysterious.

Not in the manner in which your posts seem to use this word to discount the subject of dark matter/energy.

dusty1
I find your acceptance of dark matter/energy interesting.

It cannot as of yet be directly observed.

However it's effects, can be observed.

You do however believe that in the future dark matter/energy will be observed.

Yeah, similar to the electron a hundred years ago.

We knew it was there. We could observe its effects. We could not see it physically. Until now.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Not in the manner in which your posts seem to use this word to discount the subject of dark matter/energy.

I use the term mysterious the same way that many science articles do.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yeah, similar to the electron a hundred years ago.

Or maybe similar to Aether.

Dark Matter simply fills in the gaps of a model of the universe.

originally posted by: dusty1
I use the term mysterious the same way that many science articles do.

No, scientists are not using the word to discount the phenomenon.

Or maybe similar to Aether.

Dark Matter simply fills in the gaps of a model of the universe.

Except the concept of the Aether directly lead to Huygens discovering the wave theory of light which leads eventually to the photon.

It also lead to Newton postulating a force conveyor for gravity which leads to the graviton.

The fact that there is an observable phenomenon affecting gravitational interactions throughout the universe makes it obvious that there is a force/particle causing them. You are getting too hung up on the name and the fact that we do not completely understand the cause. Eventually we will.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The fact that there is an observable phenomenon affecting gravitational interactions throughout the universe makes it obvious that there is a force/particle causing them.

Or the model of the universe is flawed.

"Missing mass" according to the current model of the universe.

Or the model is correct and this unseen invisible thing influences the universe.

I actually have a belief system that allows for this type of thing already.

You are getting too hung up on the name and the fact that we do not completely understand the cause. Eventually we will.

We don't understand the cause at all.

Just like abiogenesis.


Which brings me back to the topic of this discussion.


I applaud your defense of the idea of Dark Matter. It is an interesting topic.

You defend the idea of a thing or force that can not be directly observed, but has a visible effect on the universe.

You cannot see it or observe it, but you are confident that someday you will.


Once again, I have a belief system that mirrors yours.

We can only observe a small portion of the universe.

There is much we cannot see, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist


I agree that sometimes we all just get hung up on what we call it.

originally posted by: dusty1

Or the model of the universe is flawed.

"Missing mass" according to the current model of the universe.

Or the model is correct and this unseen invisible thing influences the universe.

I actually have a belief system that allows for this type of thing already.

Then you should not mind explaining how your system explains the observed phenomenon.

We don't understand the cause at all.

There are several solid hypotheses that outline what could be constituting dark matter/energy. As they move through the testing phase the results will either prove or disprove them. There have already been experiments that have presented data outlining that they have detected non-baryonic particles which would be evidence for dark matter. They need to be vetted and replicated before moving forward.

You defend the idea of a thing or force that can not be directly observed, but has a visible effect on the universe.

You cannot see it or observe it, but you are confident that someday you will.

You analogy is flawed. My support of dark matter/energy as a influencing factor in the universe is based on the reported data. I was initially skeptical of this hypothesis when it was first promoted but as the experiments progressed I have come to feel that it is an accurate representation on the observable universe that explains gravitational interactions between objects.

I've only just come across an article about this new hypothesis. First time I heard about it, and now I wonder why wasn't it sending waves across the popular science media.

This hypothesis resonates a lot with me, especially since I watched the BBC documentary "Secret Life of Chaos" which talks about self-organisation and patterns and complexity that emerge from seemingly random and featureless beginning - www.dailymotion.com...

Seeing as this hypothesis is a couple years old, has there been any progress in testing it?

originally posted by: GetHyped

dusty1
reply to post by GetHyped

 

Creationism/intelligent design is Not Even Wrong:

"Well, I'd say that also our friend GetHyped has got a religion, and the first commandment of this religion is 'God does not exist and GetHyped is his prophet'"

The first commandment is in fact "Thou shall not hold firm beliefs about the natural world that are not backed up by empirical evidence, no matter how philosophically comforting those beliefs may be to you". I know this is a tough concept for creationists to grasp but we really don't care about gods or religion, we care about evidence. I couldn't give 2 shakes of a monkey's tale whether or not there is a god, all I know is that it's a lame explanation for natural phenomenon held by people who are more interested in cowering in the darkness of ignorance and superstition than being intellectually honest in their pursuit of knowledge.

"God did it" is not an answer, it's an excuse to stop asking questions.

James A. Shapiro, a biologist, an expert in bacterial genetics, a professor in the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of Chicago, part of the first team to isolate a single gene from an organism (the gene they isolated was lacZ), fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and winner of the Darwin Prize Visiting Professorship of the University of Edinburgh, teacher and promoter of evolutionary philosophies and philosophical naturalism (which comes from Pantheism, 'Mother Nature did it' / 'Gaia did it'):

For those scientists who take it seriously, Darwinian evolution has functioned more as a philosophical belief system than as a testable scientific hypothesis. This quasi-religious function of the theory is, I think, what lies behind many of the extreme statements that you have doubtless encountered from some scientists opposing any critical analysis of neo-Darwinism in the classroom. It is also why many scientists make public statements about the theory that they would not defend privately to other scientists like me.

That "philosophical belief system" being derived from the old Pagan religious philosophy of Pantheism and now present in or referred to as philosophical naturalism or methodological naturalism (stripping or leaving out some philosophies from Pantheism while the core philosophy of 'Nature did it' remains the same; and then conflating it with "science" and/or "the scientific method"):



Ecclesiastes 1:9:

What has been is what will be,

And what has been done will be done again;

There is nothing new under the sun.

Now I'm sure your comment was not intended to demonstrate the following and is probably only demonstrating it based on you not being aware of some of the things mentioned above and in the video (or having a hard time dealing with those facts/truths/realities, historical or current), so please don't see it as an insult or accusation but rather as a heads-up to help you not do something you didn't want to do:

HYPOCRITE

A person who pretends to be what he is not; a person whose actions are out of harmony with his words.
...
...the Greek word hy·po·kri·tesʹ came to be used in a metaphoric sense to apply to one playing false, or one putting on a pretense.
...
A hypocritical course cannot be concealed indefinitely. (Lu 12:1-3)

Isaiah 5:20:

Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good,

Those who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness,

Those who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

The "light" spoken about above is referring to knowledge and understanding regarding specific important subjects of reality. The "darkness" would be referring to myths/false stories and misunderstanding about these subjects (especially the ones of the Pagan religious kind).

originally posted by: NAVO66
reply to post by Prezbo369

 

Gods creator did silly.

There's always a bigger fish.

Infinity is such a wonderful concept. Never ending.

One day our descendants will also make a universe and the entities in that universe will debate about their creator.

a reply to: iRoyalty

Sure. That's why the universe is "teeming" with life. We're surrounded by thousands/millions of barren lifeless planets.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
a reply to: iRoyalty

Sure. That's why the universe is "teeming" with life. We're surrounded by thousands/millions of barren lifeless planets.

“Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.”

― Arthur C. Clarke

i have an alternate version: either there is a god. or there is not. both are equally terrifying.

a reply to: Astyanax


Sounds to me like he went to great lengths to rationalize his personal beliefs.

Sounds like more irrational faith, to me.