BF2S Forums Origins of Life

topal63 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

I am biting... I am guessing neither do you - not really.

So OK, Mr. Smarty-pants. Irregardless of any relationship of String-theory (mythmatics) to Dark Matter (a non-empirically tested idea as of yet; it is an invention of mind; a pure-hypothetical; because the Standard-Model cannot account for the shape of Universe; based upon gravity; so and therefor there must be matter we can't see - Dark-matter). But so what, whatever, please make the CORRECT correlation - what does your post DIRECTLY have to do with "evolution" and the "origins of life" here on Planet Earth.

So you wouldn't say that the origins of the universe and the Earth are directly related to the origin of life on Earth?

Its a matter of specifity...

How did the hypothetical of Dark-matter based upon String-theory; directly cause the "origin of life" or proto-life and the chemical-reaction that continues to spiral-on and copy itself today.

The answer is NOT; that's what happened before - that happened.

It's a matter of what?

Bertster7 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

LOL - you know I misspelled a word... and you know what "specific" word it was.

You are reading what is being posted - right? I am assuming so - but I have been wrong in the past; even about simple assumptions like that.

So recapping (the above), Kmarion was asked (by voodoodolphins) why he posted something he was interested-in (astronomy, from another thread he just created) into this particular thread... because it is not "specifically" related; and instead of  answering that - he attempted to brow-beat and subtly insulted the other poster - and me being me said “BS” - put up or SU.

He can't be specific about its relation - because as a matter of “specificity”; it is something that merely (& hypothetically) happened before - and it lends no explanatory value to the "origin of life" question. The “origin of life” lies on the chemical boundary of atoms; all bonds began at the electron-shell level; a little more bio-chemistry is needed - “specifically.”

But where do those atoms come from? What determines which atoms will be available as building blocks for life?

It's the process of development of the Earth and more generally, the Universe.

Although I agree the links to dark matter are tenuous at best.

Bertster are you familiar to M theory? It adds an 11th dimension to the existing 6 string theories. It is what pulls them all together.

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-01-23 16:41:36)

Bertster7 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

But where do those atoms come from? What determines which atoms will be available as building blocks for life?

It's the process of development of the Earth and more generally, the Universe.

Although I agree the links to dark matter are tenuous at best.

Bertster are you familiar to M theory? It adds an 11th dimension to the existing 6 string theories. It is what pulls them all together.

A bit. I don't read that much into String theory because I don't properly understand it. The maths behind it confuses me. Original hadronic string theory is hard enough to get your head around, let alone all these weird new ones they keep coming up with. M-theory is kind of like a unified string theory in progress, isn't it?

I just think of it as a radical extension to QFT and then it's not so bad. Aren't there some string theories with 21 dimensions (or something like that) too?

There could be.. admittedly I am playing catch up. I am overwhelmed by the math of it as well but it is not necessary to understand the basic principles. You may have seen this before http://www.tenthdimension.com/flash2.php . Its very general but it lays the foundation for understanding. I have just finished watching a slew of documentaries dealing with cosmic evolution. Some of them are older, but like I said I'm playing catch up .

Astronomy vs. Quantum Theory, Horizon 2001 Death Star, Horizon 2002 Parallel Universes, Horizon Supermassive Black Holes . The Supermassive Black Holes was pretty interesting. It is now believed there is one in the center of every galaxy.

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster are you familiar to M theory? It adds an 11th dimension to the existing 6 string theories. It is what pulls them all together.

A bit. I don't read that much into String theory because I don't properly understand it. The maths behind it confuses me. Original hadronic string theory is hard enough to get your head around, let alone all these weird new ones they keep coming up with. M-theory is kind of like a unified string theory in progress, isn't it?

I just think of it as a radical extension to QFT and then it's not so bad. Aren't there some string theories with 21 dimensions (or something like that) too?

There could be.. admittedly I am playing catch up. I am overwhelmed by the math of it as well but it is not necessary to understand the basic principles. You may have seen this before http://www.tenthdimension.com/flash2.php . Its very general but it lays the foundation for understanding. I have just finished watching a slew of documentaries dealing with cosmic evolution. Some of them are older, but like I said I'm playing catch up .

Astronomy vs. Quantum Theory, Horizon 2001 Death Star, Horizon 2002 Parallel Universes, Horizon Supermassive Black Holes . The Supermassive Black Holes was pretty interesting. It is now believed there is one in the center of every galaxy.

Supermassive black holes, eh. That's quite a new theory isn't it, 90's or something? I think I've seen that documentary (I liked their doomsday scenario of blackholes colliding). They're basically galactic hubs.

If you're really interested, I think the best book on physics in general is "The Road to Reality" by Roger Penrose. At about 1100 pages (with a lot of obscene maths in it - I'd done a lot of it before though (doing a computer engineering degree) so found much of it (Laplace, fourier etc.) perfectly ok) it's quite a difficult read, but very satisfying when you get to grips with the concepts.

Bertster7 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

A bit. I don't read that much into String theory because I don't properly understand it. The maths behind it confuses me. Original hadronic string theory is hard enough to get your head around, let alone all these weird new ones they keep coming up with. M-theory is kind of like a unified string theory in progress, isn't it?

I just think of it as a radical extension to QFT and then it's not so bad. Aren't there some string theories with 21 dimensions (or something like that) too?

There could be.. admittedly I am playing catch up. I am overwhelmed by the math of it as well but it is not necessary to understand the basic principles. You may have seen this before http://www.tenthdimension.com/flash2.php . Its very general but it lays the foundation for understanding. I have just finished watching a slew of documentaries dealing with cosmic evolution. Some of them are older, but like I said I'm playing catch up .

Astronomy vs. Quantum Theory, Horizon 2001 Death Star, Horizon 2002 Parallel Universes, Horizon Supermassive Black Holes . The Supermassive Black Holes was pretty interesting. It is now believed there is one in the center of every galaxy.

Supermassive black holes, eh. That's quite a new theory isn't it, 90's or something? I think I've seen that documentary (I liked their doomsday scenario of blackholes colliding). They're basically galactic hubs.

If you're really interested, I think the best book on physics in general is "The Road to Reality" by Roger Penrose. At about 1100 pages (with a lot of obscene maths in it - I'd done a lot of it before though (doing a computer engineering degree) so found much of it (Laplace, fourier etc.) perfectly ok) it's quite a difficult read, but very satisfying when you get to grips with the concepts.

lol, I know the Supermassive blackhole theory is not new, however the concept that there is one in the center of every galaxy is new (last few years) as well as the amount of them. There is much we still do not know about them. I may check that book out. I must say I take this stuff in better when it's on the tube . I have always been interested in this stuff and I am somewhat of an amateur astronomer.

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-01-23 17:39:28)

Bertster7 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Supermassive black holes, eh. That's quite a new theory isn't it, 90's or something? I think I've seen that documentary (I liked their doomsday scenario of blackholes colliding). They're basically galactic hubs.

If you're really interested, I think the best book on physics in general is "The Road to Reality" by Roger Penrose. At about 1100 pages (with a lot of obscene maths in it - I'd done a lot of it before though (doing a computer engineering degree) so found much of it (Laplace, fourier etc.) perfectly ok) it's quite a difficult read, but very satisfying when you get to grips with the concepts.

lol, I know the Supermassive blackhole theory is not new, however the concept that there is one in the center of every galaxy is new (last few years) as well as the amount of them. There is much we still do not know about them. I may check that book out. I must say I take this stuff in better when it's on the tube . I have always been interested in this stuff and I am somewhat of an amateur astronomer.

I'm assuming you've read "A Brief History of Time" - if not read that first, it's much simpler and nicer to read.

I'm pretty sure they've known supermassive blackholes were in the centre of galaxies since their discovery - which I think was something to do with quasars, which would naturally lead to that conclusion. In fact I think it's the opposite way round and supermassive blackholes not at the centre of galaxies have recently (2004) been discovered.

Not in inactive Galaxies (as well). At least not from what I have seen. I'll post a video soon. We have found the one in our "inactive" galaxy also, The Milky Way.

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-01-23 18:25:16)

It was in the 90's but it hasn't always been believed they were the center of inactive galaxies as well. http://video.tinypic.com/player.php?v=4i4v495
Hubble did clear this up some time ago though. I was under the impression it was more recent though. This is what happens when you take a hiatus from cutting edge physics.

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-01-23 18:45:53)

The Flying Spaghetti Monster made all life, and yes...  You are a monkey, Mr. (Mrs.?) Garrison. 

voodoodolphins wrote:

omg why has this thread turned into a discussion about  black holes and String theory.....cant you go to your thread kmarion and discuss this?

Why?

This is one of the best discussions I've seen in a while.

Now. My thoughts on string theory.

Great theory. The alternative is the Standard Model, which has been called a kind of 'elegant messiness', but really, it's just a huge jumble of particles which don't really explain anything. For one, you have to introduce imaginary particles (imaginary particles not being the ACTUAL imaginary particles of physics, as in virtual particles, but rather the product of imagination. Those familiar with particle physics should get my drift) such as gravitons and Higgs bosons (the former being the only SM explanation for gravity, the latter for mass), which have never been detected and may not even exist.

String theory fixes all this. Above all, it simplifies things by saying that all these particles are just different strings. It makes all the pieces of hte puzzle (well, almost all) fit together. There's just one big, big problem.

By definition, science is evidence through observation. The obvious problem being that strings never HAVE been observed. So there is no evidence of them. So string theory is entirely the work of the mind, meaning it is not science, but philosophy. These are not teething problems (one could argue that the theories of relativity was philosophy too - for a while). Particle/Standard-Model physics, on the other hand, IS based on evidence via obsevation - the observation (mostly) of the going on in particle accelerators. Many of these particles actually have been observed or are being searched for. That's really my stance on string theory and its alternative, that both have big fundemental flaws at their heart.

Last edited by Spark (2007-01-24 06:49:57)

voodoodolphins wrote:

omg why has this thread turned into a discussion about  black holes and String theory.....cant you go to your thread kmarion and discuss this?

I'm sorry you can't see the connection of cosmic evolution and the origins of life.

Is life not just energy itself? Are we not just comprised of the remnant's of star dust all the way down to the iron in our blood? I see the origins or developments of energy as the same thing. All of the energy that comprises us and makes us who we are comes from a single star after all.

Okay Kmarion you keep saying that the topics are related, which they may be I don't know, but instead of explaining it further you keep on with the "I'm sorry you don't understand" why do you keep doing that?
I work with Molecular Biology every day and I do research in, among other things, the evolution of mankind (not life, but mankind) but not in a traditional way. My research is in the field of X-ray crystallographic and its appliance in evolution of man through similarities of proteins and other complexes. I know a lot about that, but I know squad about String theory and I don't care about it, to be honest, because it will contribute to very very little, if anything at all, in my field. But you may be right in the fact that the Origin of life is related to the string theory, but I will still state that the topic belongs in your other thread, because the part you are fascinated about is the part with math and physics not the molecular biology of life. Of course you do talk about other things, I am only referring to the astronomy topics, that's it.

My 2 cents.

Last edited by voodoodolphins (2007-01-24 13:30:19)

Kmarion wrote:

voodoodolphins wrote:

Okay Kmarion you keep saying that the topics are related, which they may be I don't know, but instead of explaining it further you keep on with the "I'm sorry you don't understand" why do you keep doing that?
I work with Molecular Biology every day and I do research in, among other things, the evolution of mankind (not life, but mankind) but not in a traditional way. My research is in the field of X-ray crystallographic and its appliance in evolution of man through similarities of proteins and other complexes. I know a lot about that, but I know squad about String theory and I don't care about it, to be honest, because it will contribute to very very little, if anything at all, in my field. But you may be right in the fact that the Origin of life is related to the string theory, but I will still state that the topic belongs in your other thread, because the part you are fascinated about is the part with math and physics not the molecular biology of life. Of course you do talk about other things, I am only referring to the astronomy topics, that's it.

My 2 cents.

There was a reason for me bringing in the discussion of comic evolution into the Origins of Life thread. I have already explained it in this thread while discussing the topic with topal63. It's there for the reading if you would like. Astronomy gives us the ability to look back in time billions of years. I think that's important when discussing the origins of life.

I believe the topic is Origin of life on earth even though the topic title says differently.....And don't you assume that there is life somewhere else when your look back in time through space?..correct me if I'm wrong.