i hafta write an essay my senior exit project and i was wondering if anyone could give any feedback on what i have thus far: There are many strange theories about our universe concocted by science nerds that have nothing better to do. One is that one single string holds the universe and all other universes together. Another is that we are nothing, and therefore we don’t truly exist. Yet another is that we are nothing but a dream of some other being. Another that seems completely out there when you first hear about it is that our universe is living. That theory doesn’t seem to make any sense what so ever. How could our universe be living? However, the more I thought about this, the more sense it made. Interesting questions started coming to mind. How would the universe function as a cell? Is the universe shaped like a cell or is everything in the universe just a jumbled mess? How was the universe “born,” and what happened if it “died?” What would be the purpose of black holes and would this prove anything about extraterrestrial life? Once these questions, and a few others, are answered, this theory cannot be easily dismissed. Maybe, in fact, our universe is living and this isn’t a completely fabricated idea. If our universe were in fact living that would mean it had to be born at some point in time. Every organism starts out as a single cell. Before any of us were born we were all a single cell. The Big Bang Theory states that our universe “exploded” from a single cell. Why would this single cell all of a sudden explode after thousands of years of being just one cell? That would be like saying that all of a sudden an amoeba is going to explode and become a universe. However, using common sense, we know this would be extremely improbable. If our universe is living then it would have been born just like all other organisms and that would explain the single cell. Also, space isn’t infinite. It has boundaries, just like every living organism has boundaries within itself. Living organisms have boundaries, just as space does. A living organism needs to expand and grow. If we take humans for this instance, we are always growing or changing in some way. We never stay the same. If we never changed we wouldn’t be able to tell a 20 year old from an 80 year old. We have found, through research that our universe has been constantly expanding rapidly. Scientist Floyd E. Bloom said this about our expanding universe, ''Rarely could we expect a dramatic breakthrough in one of these grand, fundamental questions. Yet this year, early but hard evidence has shown that the universe is flying apart at ever-greater rates.'' Evidence of this is in exploding stars, or supernovas. When a star explodes the light is so bright it can be seen from the other side of the universe. Months after this, the star fades away. By mapping out the distance and speed of exploding stars, researches have been able to prove the universe is expanding. The universe also has the freedom and spontaneity to grow in unexpected ways. These would be the equivalent to growth spurts. For instance, from ages 12-18 for humans is one of the most dramatic changes in our lives. There is no way to tell how we will turn out, what we will look like, nor can anyone tell us to have natural blonde hair and natural hazel eyes and we can respond in the manner to give them that choice. If the universe expanded slightly faster or slower, even by a trillionth of a second, all the matter in the cosmos would have either collapsed back into a black hole or spread out so fast it would evaporate. Are we basing our whole existence on a hope that the cosmos aren’t a trillionth of a second off at any time or is there something more to it? All living organisms need to be able to reproduce. Cosmos are able to reproduce through the help of black holes. Our universe would have come from the mother universe, which will be discussed more in depth later. Since our universe came from a black hole from our mother universe, that would mean that black holes are the “seeds” of new universes. Just like any organism, the stronger will survive. Each universe has its own characteristics and if one cannot reproduce once all that type of universe has collapsed, or died, that particular universe will become extinct. If we are nothing more than a chance of luck, where did the cosmos come from? Would it have been just a coincidence of perfect timing, perfect atmosphere, and a perfect cell? Unfortunately, just as every organism is born, every organism will die. Nothing can live forever. A universe dies just as a man dies: it comes to a point where most of its energies have passed into an invisible realm. The cosmos are maintained by an unbroken flow of energy. The universe is what would be called “zero point energy.” That means that if we were to put the entire universe in a vacuum there would still be energy. If our universe were not living, what would be the need of so much energy? Also, why would there still be energy in a vacuum? Living organisms are the only things that if put in a vacuum would still show signs of having energy. When someone looks up at the sky at night they tend to see darkness, the moon, a disarray of stars, and occasionally another planet or two. There seems to be no order what so ever. This is a completely incorrect statement. The arrangement of our stars is very organized. If the Big Bang just exploded stars, planets, moons, etc. all over the place why would there be such organization? This is just like a person. If someone was to look at a diagram of what a person looks like from the inside they wouldn’t find the heart in their leg, their liver in their head, or their brain in their hand. We are created in a way so that we function correctly and allows us to live. The question comes up many times, “If we are in a living universe, why wouldn’t we know it by now?” It should be easy to tell if we’re in a living universe. To explain this use the example of bacteria in our bodies. It’s irrational to think the bacteria knows they are living in a human being and that they’re purpose is to protect us or to hurt us. Science classes make it seem that they have feelings and they know they’re job is to serve and protect or kill and destroy. In reality, this is highly unlikely. All the bacteria does is move around and do what’s in its nature. With the help of other bacteria, white blood cells, red blood cells, and other single-celled and some multi-celled organisms’ humans can be humans. Humans go around and do what’s in their nature. If our cells and bacteria don’t know they’re helping us, why should we be expected to know we’re helping something bigger? When our universe was born from smaller than a pinpoint, what did it emerge from? It had to come from somewhere. This is referred to as the idea of the Mother Universe. Our universe is referred to as a “daughter” universe of the Mother Universe. The Mother Universe holds a countless number of daughter universes while they mature through time. They were born from the black holes within the Mother Universe. It is a super space, which means it has multiple dimensions, and it has more dimensions than our universe would have. Its daughter universes could have different number of dimensions as long as it does not contain more than the Mother. Compared to a human, a human can have different characteristics of each parent. If the child’s mother has green eyes and the father has blue eyes the child could either have green eyes or blue eyes, it could not have brown eyes. The Mother is too big for us to be able to comprehend and its present everywhere and it’s in everything, and we are part of it. It has compassion for its universes, but allows all other organisms of its universes create their own joy and suffering. Biblically speaking, when Jesus was asked, “When will the kingdom come?” he responded, “It will not come by waiting for it –Rather the kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the Earth, and men do not see it.” Consciousness is basic to life. Without consciousness an organism could not be considered living. Physicist Freeman Dyson says this about consciousness at a quantum level, “Matter in quantum mechanics is not an inert substance but an active agent, constantly making choices between alternative possibilities. . . . It appears that mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every electron.” He is not trying to say that atoms have the same consciousness as humans, but rather that atoms have reflective capacity appropriate to its form and function. Also, consciousness is present at the most basic forms of molecules. Molecules are able to have complex interactions in the same way all other organisms do. One researcher of this states, “We were surprised that such simple proteins can act as if they had a mind of their own.” Even single-celled amoeba can show that they are capable of complex thoughts and ideas. For example, when slime mold gets hungry, it can send signals out to other slime mold and they gather together, without any leader, organize themselves, and move across the ground until they get to a good eating ground. If consciousness can be found in atoms, molecules, and single-celled organisms, why should we be surprised that consciousness is a property of our universe? After all, everything in the universe is made up of atoms. And if our universe is not living how logical is it to say that nothing pushed on nothing to create everything? Dean Radin, director of the Consciousness Research Laboratory at the University of Nevada, did over 800 studies and 60 investigations on whether or not consciousness is present throughout the universe. At the end of his studies he concluded that consciousness “operates between minds and through space.” The two types of experiments he worked with are called “sending” and receiving.” The “receiving” part of the two experiments was also called remote viewing. He would take a person and lock them in a bare room with nothing other than a pencil, paper, and tape recorder. He would lock the door and then he would draw a random envelope out of a pot of over 100 different locations from a locked safe. After traveling to the destination the person in the locked room would either have to write down or draw the location of where he was, with no prior knowledge what so ever. Was he in a boat on the bay? In a car on the freeway? In a grove of redwood trees? In a movie theater? In the room next door? Almost everyone involved in the experiment could correctly interpret where he was. Unless everyone whom he did his experiments on was an extremely good guesser, this shows that our thoughts can travel through a conscious space. The “sending” part of the two experiments involved a randomly selected computer with four buttons on top of it. The person’s task was to intuitively pick which of the four buttons was selected and press that button. In controlled conditions, over 7,000 results were tallied. The results were significantly above what chance would have been. One person involved with these experiments said, “These grueling experiments convinced me that we do have an intuitive connection with the universe. The most important insight that I take away from these and other experiments is that we all have an intuitive faculty. An empathic connection with the universe is nothing special; it is built into the workings of the cosmos. Participating in these experiments showed me that our being does not stop at the edge of our skin but extends into and is inseparable from the universe.” The Big Bang Theory is the most widely accepted theory of the creation of the universe. However, there are many problems with this theory. In this theory, no one can explain where the single atom of our universe came from. The Static Universe fits the data of the Big Bang Theory better than the Expanding Universe, but the same people who accept the Big Band Theory believe in an expanding universe. There are too many large scale structures (“walls” and voids) to have been created 10-20 billion years ago when the Big Bang would have happened. Also, no one can explain where everything came from. It’s impossible to just create matter out of nowhere. In the Big Bang Theory, the universe is not alive, but it is dead. If the universe is dead what would be the point of existence? There would be none. Everything anyone thinks their living for would be false. Since there is no point in existence, there would be no religion. So are we all just wandering around believing in false gods to make ourselves feel better? We spend every Sunday sitting in a building praying for no reason what so ever? There would be no ethical or moral consequences to actions beyond the immediate and physical ones from police officials, parents, i.e. After death we would be nothing but part of the ground. There would be no heaven or hell for our actions on Earth. Thanks to anyone who can help Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Oh, SO many things to say... First: "If the child’s mother has green eyes and the father has blue eyes the child could either have green eyes or blue eyes, it could not have brown eyes." Incorrect. Grandparents factor in, too, because of recessive genes. My father has brown eyes, my mother has dark green eyes, and I have light blue eyes. I suggest changing that sentence and the ones around it. Second: "If consciousness can be found in atoms, molecules, and single-celled organisms, why should we be surprised that consciousness is a property of our universe?" Very good point! *applause* Nice, although I seriously don't agree with some other things that you said. Third: "The Big Bang Theory is the most widely accepted theory of the creation of the universe. However, there are many problems with this theory. In this theory, no one can explain where the single atom of our universe came from... The Static Universe fits the data of the Big Bang Theory better than the Expanding Universe, but the same people who accept the Big Band Theory believe in an expanding universe." There's been a new innovation in the big bang theory, jic you don't read the news. One group of scientists has actually recreated it by, basically, shooting one atom at another. They have recently found that microwaves (no, not the appliances, but rather the waves that they use) seem to effectively prove the big bang theory, as they are the remnants of the explosion, kind of like tiny tidal waves after a huge tsunami. Anyway, they shot one of these atoms at another one and the reaction was a stream of hot, semi-plasma particles that shot away from each other at a very fast speed. (This produced temperatures tens of thousands of times hotter than the sun, btw, which I absolutely love to think about. So small and yet so full of energy...) Also, there was a theory created by a person who was against the big bang theory that said if this were true, the universe would be 75% hydrogen and 25% helium. Recent viewings of the universe have proven this correct. But, you most likely will make this evidence somehow fit your own means, because the thing is with any piece of evidence, it becomes biased to the person viewing it. Yes, I am bias, and I know that. Here was where I found the story about the small big bang test. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/11/13/little.bang/index.html If you have any arguements about that you can dispute it with the CNN news network. But like I was saying, when we look at a piece of evidence we pick up on patterns that sometimes are not really there. Like the person who said 'Stairway to Heaven' played backwards is a song about Satan. We know it's not there, but we've spent so much of our lives hearing halves of things that we're very good at picking up patterns and fitting it together to hear sentences and words that really aren't there. It's the same with evidence and the universe. The only thing we have to realize is that science is not definite nor is it accurate 100% of the time. Ever. Period. Even the sentence 'We are alive and rocks are not.' is disputed by some people. Nothing is ever definite because everyone is bias. Fourth: "Since there is no point in existence, there would be no religion. We spend every Sunday sitting in a building praying for no reason what so ever? There would be no ethical or moral consequences to actions beyond the immediate and physical ones from police officials, parents, i.e. After death we would be nothing but part of the ground. There would be no heaven or hell for our actions on Earth." I hate to say this because it's your paper, but if you don't tone down the christian theme, people are not going to read it because they'll pass you off as a 'religious nutcase'. And I'm sorry to break it to you, but that first sentence is completely wrong. There is a point in existence, but if there wasn't, there would still be religion. Forget not how religion started: Not as a meaning for life, but a meaning for lightning, a meaning for rain, grass, water, and good fortune. Even though you'll hate me for it, the truth of the meaning of life is this: All organisms are on the planet to reproduce and die. You'll understand this someday, hopefully. It doesn't exactly apply to humans, because we have enough of a population that you can not reproduce and still be a productive and effective member of the human race, but even Einstein recognized that we live on only through our children and our contributions to society. Second sentence is wrong, too. You spend every sunday sitting in church for hours for your own personal reasons. Some do it because they follow everything their parents do. Some do it because they think that it's absolutely accurate, period, which it isn't because nothing is. The moral and ethical consequences are there because of advanced sociological reasons and how people react to someone being destructive to their own race. The heaven and hell thing is your own belief. The one bad thing is that we as humans tend to go through life thinking that in the end justice will be weilded by some creature. But life, if you haven't yet noticed, is balanced. Good and bad things happen to "good" and "bad" people. It's how we REACT to those things that make us "good" or "bad". We all, every single one of us, whether you're sitting in a jail cell or in a comfy lounge, are only trying to reach the goals we have with what little means we have. If your goals are bad or the means that you use is unethical, then it's no one's fault but your own, and that is what sets the bad apart from the good. Our goals are a response to the environment that we're placed in. The poor will dream to be rich. The underling will dream to be the Alpha. One of the true problems is human ambition. We all want to be right, we all want to be THE leader, THE alpha, in a world with 7 + billion people. It's impossible. And it's VERY childish to define what is right by your own actions and beliefs. Please, feel free to cuss me out now.
Gem8717, are you looking for input on your ideas , or writing style, or just what? Re your writing style, your paper needs to be broken up into more digestible smaller paragraphs. Also, your very first sentence is juvenile and demeaning both to scientists and to yourself, and adds nothing to the interesting thoughts you present farther down in your paper. Perhaps eliminating the gratuitis phrase "concocted by science nerds that have nothing better to do.", will fix that problem and make the reader feel disposed to hear what you have to say. Re the content. I don't want to comment on your comments on the universe as a living entity because that is your thesis, your ideas. However, I would agree with Shadow Master that if you want to cite genetics as an argument for or against something, you had better bone up a bit on the science of genetics. In addition, you need to excise the references to religion, the bible, etc. They have nothing whatsoever to do with your main points, and give the paper a rather revival tent meeting rambling feel that is unnecessary and actually works against you. I liked your paper very much, you have some interesting and original ideas. Remember that in writing, as in most things in life, less is more. If you have to submit a certain length paper, expand your ideas, not your verbiage. Marti in Mexico
mexicomarti, i'm just looking for any input right now. This is my first draft on this paper and i was just wondering on any aspects that could use improvement or additional work, and also parts that are good the way they are that i shouldn't worry so much about. Shadow, thanks for your help. As far as the bibical stuff went, i looked back over that and realized that i could probably cut out some of it, or move it not to leave it in the last point which is the lasting impression/point. Thanks to both of you very much. It is appreciated
I'd be interested in reading your next draft. BTW; how old are you? Is this paper for university or high school? Marti in Mexico (Edited for typos, not content.)
Even though you'll hate me for it, the truth of the meaning of life is this: All organisms are on the planet to reproduce and die. You'll understand this someday, hopefully. Great post. But here you wrong. We don't know the purpose of existence...period. There are many theories but we just don't know. Never claim you know the truth unless the truth is undeniable supported by ironclad evidence. Although even then we can't be certain........
Hey gem........Find your exploration really exciting. if there is one thing this world NEEDS--ie., the world that is dominating everyone, everything--is the insight that Nature and universe is ALIVE! so Right In with your explorations dude...i am delighted the crit though, i share with one or two others here. ie., SPACE. you talk about it, yet dont introduce it into your actual presented essay. i personally feel very claustrophobic when i read great blocks of sords with out any space. also giving space allows for further emphasis for points you make also where you mention about 'religion'...and sitting in churches, and heaven and hell. etc. WHEN you beging exploring that universe is alive, i feel you should also exapnd you understandingof mythology. For you will find that --what i call 'patriarchal' mythology and ideas tends to separate consciousness from matter-energy. In fact as you wuill be aware. THAt idea still persists in the 21st century, and it has a long history for example checkout here From Orphism to Gnosticism www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/ukraine/231/dionysian/orphism.html Where you will see how the Orphics 'split' Earth from the universe, and devized a philosophy that split Nature from 'spirit', etc. Orphic thought was influenced by Eastern ideas, and went on to influence Christianity. throughout you can see a fear of Nature, and the indoctrination about 'heavens' and 'hells' The idea that the Universe is alive and organic as a very primal ancient one, and is shared by pre-patriarchal Goddess mythology and shamanistic cosmology. sooo, forget Church dude and look up about that. it will enrich your exploratory researches
By the fact that the meaning of life is to reproduce and die I meant that it's the only thing that all organisms can do, it's the one thing that all organisms owe to their species. Down to the single-celled life. We reproduce, and we die. We all have that in common and we all owe it to our species so that the race and the species can continue, grow, and become more and more powerful. It's what every species wants of it's members - children and death. If you read the Ender books, Orson Scott Card can give a better explanation of it than I can, through storytelling. Laying down this statement will, of course, make me some enemies, but if I wrote a book that had that theme or sentence said somewhere by one character and then gave a bunch of background stuff and made a nice little ending, it would be more acceptable. But I don't have the time to do that in one sitting. If I did, I think I'd have to go down in the book of world records, because that would be amazing. Mostly those who have children (for the right reasons) understand this, but they tend to be muddled in their minds with other things and never dwell on it much. Humans contradict this sometimes, because our species is so dominant there's no longer a need for it. But it's still written into your subconscious, your genetic code, your very body longs for things that some religions actually look down upon, for a reason I can't understand. The continuation of the species is the most primitive instinct that we have. Who are we to deny it?
im 18 and this paper is for my senior year in high school but its an AP class going towards my college credits jagger...im not claiming to know the truth, but rather just to state a theory if anyone is interested enough i'll post my next draft when im done with it...it should be in about 1/2 a week
It's a C- at best. Delete this, how is there anything better to do than figure out the essential questions of existence, and isn't that what you are doing with this paper anyway? LOL, that's not string theory! Did you do any research? Well, there are living things in the universe, and also there are no real boundries between those living things and anything else, so the universe is in a very real and direct way- living. From a singularity, not a single cell, bit of a difference. Not all organisms are born. You might want to mention the red-shift in the star's light, which is how scientists know the universe is expanding. If consciousness can be found in humans too, why should we be surprised that consciousness is a property of our universe? Singularity, not single atom. I highly doubt the Big Bang Theory states this. Why do you think that? Things mean something only in relationship to other things. Life on Earth can have meaning in relation to our ecosystem, and our society, it doesn't depend on our kind of conciousness being representative of the universe's conciousness. There is no point, yet there are still religions, go figure. Not all religions seek to accomplish or explain the same thing. Pretty much, yeah. There are social reasons for religion, these would still function. True. Why the would the universe care about us? The universe might be living, but it doesn't follow that it cares about you, or has an individual consciousness. Where's the hell for tigers, lion, or birds of prey? The Earth is a living system, but the individual creatures do what they will. The question is one of intention. Consciousness doesn't always imply intention.
spidergoat: "Delete this, how is there anything better to do than figure out the essential questions of existence, and isn't that what you are doing with this paper anyway?" <~~~i thought this part was corny and didnt have it in at first but my teacher wanted it in there "LOL, that's not string theory! Did you do any research?" <~~~~i knew it was the string theory but i think the string theory is a bunch of crap "From a singularity, not a single cell, bit of a difference"<~~~i had to do about a month of research on the topic to start and you'd be amazed how many scientist say a cell rather than singularity "Not all organisms are born."<~~~everything is born...whether it be as in a mammal, an egg, or asexually...otherwise its not alive..its a book, or a computer, or something inanimate "You might want to mention the red-shift in the star's light, which is how scientists know the universe is expanding."<~~~i'll look more into this but what i found about the expanding universe (which is the newest part of my paper actually) is what i mentioned above "I highly doubt the Big Bang Theory states this."<~~~it never implies or says its alive either "Why do you think that? Things mean something only in relationship to other things. Life on Earth can have meaning in relation to our ecosystem, and our society, it doesn't depend on our kind of conciousness being representative of the universe's conciousness. "<~~~nothing after death would mean existance means nothing more than what is on earth as you live it
im realizing something very quickly about this paper though...either people seem to like it or hate it...different people have different beliefs and i respect that...im not trying to seem like a bad person here
*deep breath* We don't need an arguement here. 1) Some people seem to think that birth means being born from a mammalian reproductive system. There are three definitions. The first pertains to what we're saying. birth Pronunciation Key (bûrth) noun a) The emergence and separation of offspring from the body of the mother. b) The act or process of bearing young; parturition: the mare's second birth. c) The circumstances or conditions relating to this event, as its time or location: an incident that took place before my birth; a Bostonian by birth. If I'm wrong in that this is what you're thinking, you need something called grade school logic. Matter is never created or destroyed. 2) Spidergoat, I'd just like to say that you really need to be a little bit nicer in what you say. I'm usually the first person to jump in and criticize someone for the sole purpose of trying to help, but it's usually taken in a different context, and I'm kind of thought of at school as the person who you NEVER ask a question to, because I'll give you an answer, some background information, my opinion, and a philosophy about it. But at least I state it nicely and try to put in as few of my religious beliefs as possible. Yes, I do state my philosophy and my opinion, but I don't mean to force it into the open and say, "THIS IS RIGHT. OOOH, OOOH, YOU HAVE TO THINK THIS! THIS IS RIGHT!" I actually try to stick to the facts. Do I do it all the time? Of course not, to err is human. But from what I see you were openly criticizing her when you have no grounds to do so. OK, so she didn't know what the string theory was. There was no need to laugh at her because of it, and I think that you really shouldn't insult someone like that. I share some of your views on her essay, but overall I think you could've been a little more mature about it. Take it for a fact that if you give someone no respect, they will treat you the same. I don't agree with some of the things you said, though. I was raised athiest. My entire childhood was christians being overall bastards to me and my parents making fun of any and every kind of religion at home. This doesn't mean that I'm not respectful of it. If someone wants to have their beliefs, please, don't just tell them that what they believe is wrong because any type of belief is an opinion over something. You're entitled to your opinion, but she's entitled to hers. I don't think the intention of this thread was to be criticized in what she wrote that included religion. OK, I agree, some of the stuff should be edited, BUT I at least tried to give a more scientific and intellectual reason. And yes, Gem, basically in life, you will see that the people who talk to you at all either really like or really dislike your paper. I personally liked your flare for creativity, although I think that the religious side of science could be toned down to make it a little more acceptable to the non-religious people. However, if you're going to a Christian school or if you're writing this for some sort of a metaphysics class, it's great. I strongly applaud your interest in these philosophical routes, by the way. I just realized that this is probably the most philosophical thing I've seen from anyone under the age of 24 in YEARS. (The kids at my school just don't seem to get philosophy AT ALL. I wonder why it's even a class if all the kids do is ask why we're doing these things, and what the teacher meant when he said, "Live for tomorrow for today will soon be gone." This is the closest thing I've seen to actual, mature philosophical discussion on the basis of religion in a long while!) But as I was saying (I tend to get off-track, don't I?), the people who will reply will either love it, or they'll hate it. If they think it's mediocre, what would be their reason to reply? Generally, anything you post on the internet that doesn't go along with a little rating thing where people can click '3' will be ignored by anyone who thinks it isn't too thought provoking, or for anyone who doesn't understand it, which, here, hopefully, would be no one. Edit: Oh, and, Gem, you don't seem like a 'bad' person at all. You've not done anything wrong. You've just stated your opinions. Sadly, you left yourself open for criticism from people like me, who do have a little evil streak. (When I say 'little', it's like saying the Grand Canyon is a tiny crack in the sidewalk, but I think I mean comparatively...) looking back at your post again, I really admire the fact that you see something more when you look at life. It makes me sad because I don't see it; I wasn't raised nor was I trained to. I've spent so much of my life telling myself it isn't there that I can't even find it. You really think there's something more, some higher meaning, something beyond this life that we live. Oh how I wish I could believe that... It's amazing that you hold that belief, even with all of the evil, all of the dark, cold things that are done... And you're right, the Big Bang theory never says the universe is alive, although here's some food for thought. In a cell, if the tiny prokaryots in it weren't alive (Forgive me if that's the wrong name, but I heard from the website I'm relying on for my studying that prokaryotes still exist in cells.), would it still function? That may be a good thing to muse about in your essay: is it a collective life, or a life defined in and of itself? Is it dependant on the living organisms within it, like a cell, or does it have a life force of it's own? By the way, if any of you would like to read up on the string theory (not to seem like I'm being mean, although it seems to be in my nature...): http://www.strings.ph.qmw.ac.uk/WhatIs/Nutshell.html
shadow: i actually started my paper researching prokaryotic cells and how they function, ect...i was originally starting off with a different idea/theory that came into what my paper is now.... Also my religion is episcapalian which is in the minority too (especially in indiana...almost everyone else around here is christian)...the reason i incorporate religion at all is because my teacher is big into going into all aspects and angles of a paper...and thats one angle of it even though its much more of a touchy subject than the rest and most definitely the most criticized through different peoples beliefs...i just don't want anyone to think i'm putting down there religion in any way...that was never the intention...so for anyone, if you feel i have put down your religion in any way i'm sorry about that.
Gem, I think for an 18-year old high school student it is an excellent paper. It should and will be judged in relation to other papers written by high school students. And in response to some of the other comments about this paper, I say: he's a kid trying out a theory, looking for some feedback and assistance, not some 30-year-old know-it-all with a personal agenda trying to stuff some personal philosophy down our throats. Cut him a break, and be a little kinder. It's good for your karma. And yes, I want to see the next draft. Marti in Mexico
So how would you account for the existence of the Universe then? Or the hydrogen bomb? Or the synthesis of heavier elements in the interior of stars? Or the possibility that Hoyle may have been correct? gem8717: a) Interesting thoughts; not too original, but diverse enough. b) Lose the reference to 'science nerds'. It took me four attempts to get past that. If I'd known where you lived I'd have flown the Atlantic and beat the crap out of you for such sloppy expression. [See the problem?] c) Try to give it a bit more structure. Clearly defined paragraphs. Definitive sentences. Run a spelling and grammar check. d) Good luck.
So how would you account for the existence of the Universe then? Or the hydrogen bomb? Or the synthesis of heavier elements in the interior of stars? Or the possibility that Hoyle may have been correct? I think that there's always been matter SOMEWHERE. It's not really something that's created, if space is truly infinite. (On the note of infinity, my aunt said that she had a hard time picturing it, but in my mind, infinity is darkness. Most people try and look at it, try and picture infinity. But if that infinite SPACE is truly mostly empty, inifinity is easy to picture. It's just like being in a room with no light and closing your eyes. It's just black.) Now, the hydrogen bomb: The H-Bomb is a fusion device that fuses the nuclei of hydrogen isotopes, deuterium and tritium. The most basic bomb design includes a fission bomb which consists of several "lenses" of chemical explosive (lense-shaped to direct the blast) around a core of enriched uranium. The difference is that, at the center of the core of fissionable material, there is a ball (about the size of a grapefruit) of these fusable hydrogen isotopes. Or more accurately, the deuterium is present, mixed with lithium to form a stable metal (called lithium deuterate) that can be stored. Tritium has a very short half-life and is almost impossible to store, but we'll get to the solution for that problem in a moment. When the device is triggered, the fission bomb works in the normal way. The shaped charges deliver asymmetrical shock wave inward, compressing the fissionable material. At sufficiently high pressures and temperatures, the atoms of U-238 begin to split, releasing x-rays and neutrons. These neutrons collide with other atoms causing them to split, and a chain reaction is sustained. Now for the part that makes it and H-bomb and not just an A-bomb. The x-rays from the fission reaction heat the lithium deuterate to a high-energy state. Meanwhile, neutrons bombarding the lithium produce the hydrogen isotopes, tritium. When these two things have occurred, the result is deuterium and tritium contained in a small space, and very high temperature, and under extreme pressures. Under these conditions, deuterium fuses to tritium, and also to other deuterium. H-Bombs rely on fission and fusion, not creation. There's a lot of difference. When two atoms fuse together, it doesn't create new matter, it simply transforms it. Sadly I'm not smart enough to know about Hoyle, but since this discussion is getting away from the main topic of Gem's thread, I think this should be continued through PM. Ack, I'm at school, and I need to go. Tbc.
Sorry if I seemed too critical, there are some interesting ideas there. It just struck me as a funny idea that string theory was that the universe is tied up with a single string, like a birthday present.
