Life is generative and evolvative, isn't it?

[786]

I pointed out that both views are un-provable

I agree, I never said my view was provable- I believe I made it quite clear in my 'God of Science' thread.

Anyways

Assuming no one cares or that everyone agrees with that topic on this thread, I am working up a couple of posts to bring together the discussion and possibilities mentioned. I want it to be part of the thread that we are talking from the perspective of a multi-arena eternal universe, and I want the part about the possibilities of life and the possible heritages of life to be the focus.

I don't understand what you are trying to get at.. I think there are many abiogenesis hypothesis out there. Secondly I don't see how this would have anything to do with multiple arenas, which is part of your QWC as your arenas are formed after a 'big crunch'- which would elimiate all life (in those arenas) with it... So a formation of a new arena by definition would require that the overlapping arenas would yield no life- since these arenas are separated by energy densities- there is nothing that allows the formation of 'life' from one to get to the other arenas. Once this arena overlaps, you go into another big crunch and baaam, life's gone again.

So formation of many arenas, for me at least , has absolutely no relevence to the formation of life- except I guess for the extinction of life- which will result from overlapping arenas.

Peace be unto you

 

[quantum_wave]

I agree, I never said my view was provable- I believe I made it quite clear in my 'God of Science' thread.

Anyways

I don't understand what you are trying to get at.. I think there are many abiogenesis hypotheses out there. Secondly I don't see how this would have anything to do with multiple arenas, which is part of your QWC as your arenas are formed after a 'big crunch'- which would eliminate all life (in those arenas) with it...

Have you ever seen my two graphics of how the big crunch forms? I’ll post them here for you because when a crunch forms from the intersection and overlap of two parent arenas, there is a new arena formed and there are the remnants of the two parent arenas that don’t get captured in the new arena. Presumably there are whole galaxies left vacating the scene of the new arena and they survive the crunch and the burst of the new arena.

Those remnants of the parent arenas are what occupy the space between active arenas (corridors). So it is natural that life would exist within those remnant galaxies in the space in the corridors. The duration of life in those galaxies could extend beyond the duration of the individual arenas. The heritages of life forms in the corridors between arenas could be quite lengthy indeed, and the possible evolution and technology of such life forms could be very significant relative to ours and even relative to our imaginations.

So a formation of a new arena by definition would require that the overlapping arenas would yield no life- since these arenas are separated by energy densities- there is nothing that allows the formation of 'life' from one to get to the other arenas. Once this arena overlaps, you go into another big crunch and baaam, life's gone again.

The possibility of life getting from one arena to another is greatly improved if life can escape the crunch/burst by riding the remaining galaxies out into the corridors between arenas.

So formation of many arenas, for me at least , has absolutely no relevance to the formation of life- except I guess for the extinction of life- which will result from overlapping arenas.

I just wanted to give you my alternative view from the QWC perspective .

 

[786]

Man, I seriously don't get how the expansion after the crunch will not overtake those arenas... I would bet that this would not work under physics simulation... Have you ever tried talking to physicist who have access to supercomputers to see if they can simulate such an event- perhaps that can show you if your idea is even plausible..

Peace be unto you

 

[spidergoat]

I think the idea that our big bang was just a local event in a sea of big bangs and crunches makes sense. After all, if it can happen once, why can't it happen all over the place? The only issue is, what if there is no overlap?

 

[786]

I think the idea that our big bang was just a local event in a sea of big bangs and crunches makes sense. After all, if it can happen once, why can't it happen all over the place? The only issue is, what if there is no overlap?

Well I'm not contesting that there can be many big bangs- what I am contesting is how exactly will these big crunches expand again, and once they do how will this affect the surrounding 'arenas'- and also how these changes in other arenas will affect neighboring arenas and would or would there not be evidence of this happening? I think all these answers could be known with current physics- and I have a feeling that at least this model will not work (for some reason)- That is why I was hoping an actual physicist could help explain things- a simulation should be able to show all this I think.

Peace be unto you; )

 

[spidergoat]

If the other big bangs were beyond reach by a certain number of light years, then we couldn't know about them. I'm not certain there would be any crunches, maybe they all just expand until there is nothing left.

 

[786]

If the other big bangs were beyond reach by a certain number of light years, then we couldn't know about them.

Sure, but this model doesn't provide any reason why arenas would be extremely far apart, at least I don't see a reason-

I'm not certain there would be any crunches,

Well that is what QWC is based on.. There are 'big crunches' and then 'big bangs'... at least as far as I can understand.

maybe they all just expand until there is nothing left.

That is exactly what I thought and said but quantum-wave seems to disagree. He provided his reasons a few pages back I think- but I'm not advanced in physics enough to know if his explanation actually works- but my hunch is that it doesn't thats why I thought a simulation or input by physicists would be better suited to address this cosmology.

Peace be unto you

 

[quantum_wave]

A universe with one arena would be like our currently accepted consensus, Big Bang Theory. Under BBT, given that we have detected signs of accelerating expansion, our universe could expand forever. Check out one theory about that outcome, i.e. the Big Rip. The outcome is just like Spidergoat suggested could happen to each of the other arenas. Instead of overlapping and forming new arenas, why wouldn’t they be so remote to each other that they would have the same fate as in the Big Rip theory to a final infinite disbursement of their finite amount of matter? And they could if they were so far apart that they couldn’t interact but isn’t that impossible when we are talking infinite time?

In QWC I replace BBT with a universe where our known universe is just one temporary arena in infinite space and time; there could be a potentially infinite number of arenas at any given time.

I'm thinking that there is an average energy density in the greater universe that provides enough matter and energy for these multiple arenas to be proportionally spaced to allow for the intersections and overlaps without causing endless chaos that would interfere with the generation and evolution of life. I guess that means that a new arena would need billions of years to mature before it overlaps with its nearest neighbor. It becomes a matter of what the average energy density of the universe really is. Too high, chaos and no life, too low, no intersections and no new arenas. Everything dies.

But in QWC each arena will have a life cycle long enough for life, and they will be close enough to keep the Big Rip from happening. They form from the intersection of two arenas, galactic matter from each collapses around a center for gravity to form a crunch, and the crunch bursts into expansion when a finite amount of material is accumulated. That new arena will expand and form galaxies that will all be moving away from each other. Except for the portions of an arena that get caught up in a subsequent big crunch out there somewhere, they will just expand away, burn out, disburse, etc. and become part of the background.

I seriously don't get how the expansion after the crunch will not overtake those arenas…

786, if you don’t see what keeps the newly expanding arena from overtaking the remnants of the parent arenas as they expand I’ll give you my thinking. You are not questioning the possibility of there being other big bangs and therefore other arenas out there, it is just that you think it wouldn’t work the way I have them intersecting and forming new arenas that themselves bang and expand. You are thinking that the bursting new arena would immediately (or too soon for comfort) run into interference from the remaining debris from the parents that escaped the big crunch?

My graphics aren't very good but the second one shows that the galaxies of the parents don’t all get caught up in the new crunch. I’m thinking that when the crunch forms, matter from the parents is compressed in the new big crunch until it ceases to function as matter. In my view matter is composed of energy in quantum increments and those quantum increments need a certain tiny space in order to function. When the crunch compresses matter in its core to such small space, there isn’t enough space for matter to function. I see gravity as a function of matter and when matter stops functioning, gravity stops working.

Now this doesn’t happen overnight. The crunch forms slowly and there is about half of the galaxies in each parent that will never get compressed in the crunch. Those safe galaxies still have the momentum that keeps them moving away. If the crunch is forming in the overlap, many of the safe galaxies will continue to move away from the crunch even before the gravity of the crunch starts to diminish due to the idea of matter ceasing to function and gravity ceasing as a result. But when the gravity of the crunch does begin to decline, the inertial connection to the remaining galaxies of the parents diminishes as well and they are set free from the gravity of the crunch. They move away. Under this scenario, by the time the crunch is mature enough to burst the safe galaxies will have distanced themselves from the overlap space.

But in addition, the overlap space is very large compared to the size of the crunch. The overlap space becomes a huge low density patch of relatively empty space with an extremely small and extremely dense crunch in the middle. What if the tiny crunch was surrounded by billions of light years of mostly empty space by the time it bursts because it has swept up the galactic material from the overlap space and because the safe galaxies have expanded away from the overlap space at an accelerating rate of expansion?

My view is that the burst of the new big crunch will just be playing catch up with those safe galaxies from the two parents.

 

[quantum_wave]

Very few people have ever shown much interest in my line of thought . At first there wasn’t any practical application for it except for my own interest in deciding about the cosmology of the universe for myself. Lately the philosophy of an eternal universe, a universe that employs no Supernatural acts but at the same time establishes a pivot point between nature and God had some merit. The pivot point is that if you believe there is no God (and don’t accept the concept that the universe came from nothing on its own) you can accept a natural eternal universe. If you can’t help but see the hand of God in nature then the QWC universe having always existed shares the characteristics of “infinite” and “eternal” with the fundamental characteristics of God, i.e. eternal and omnipresent. The QWC universe is a pivot point that fits both sides of the God/No God issue and therefore can be a useful point of common ground.

QWC started as a way to describe the Cosmology of the universe. Big Bang Theory (BBT), the consensus, has no explanation for the Big Event; was it a bang or a collision of planes/dimensions, infinite and eternal energy, and/or an explosion of space. BBT didn’t take a position on “if or if not” there was a beginning as opposed to “something from nothing”, “God did it”, or “it has always existed”.

I wanted to learn the various theories from a layman’s perspective, see if there were any answers to the basic imponderables, and think through cosmology for myself. QWC is simply my ongoing process of answering the questions for me alone. QWC isn’t for the professional and isn’t presented in a fashion that professionals would be interested in, but it satisfies me that there can be answers to the cosmological imponderables.

I keep a Google.doc updated and as my ideas improve and evolve I add to or edit the document. I’m using this thread to explore the possibilities of life in and throughout the QWC eternal universe. I have added a section to the QWC document that links to this thread and when I get around to it the thoughts from this thread will be put into the document in place of linking here.

Already I have gone too far for most people with the speculations of QWC and now life in the QWC so I thought an explanation was in order. This post is my explanation for exploring the possibilities of life with speculations that assume an eternal infinite universe.

My Google.doc. I’m starting to build a linked Index and Table of Contents which should help me get it organized and make updates.

 

[quantum_wave]

I was watching the Fiddler Crabs here by looking over the edge of the Maple Pavilion. The pavilion is on the edge of the salt mash that spreads out around the top of Old Tampa Bay and is bordered by another habitat called a Pine Flatwoods. I come here often with my deep cell marine battery, coffee warmer, laptop and my Verizon Internet card (and of course some snacks, usually veggies and fruit or granola bars). After awhile the Fiddlers get use to you being up above them and they go about their normal activities.

Since this thread is about life and I was noting their activities I thought I would mention what I observed. They come out of their holes and graze around, sometimes show impatience with each other but generally they go about staking out a small territory of a few square inches and grazing.

When they graze they use their front legs with tiny little claws to scrape some wet sand and silt into their mouths and they suck the life out of it, literally. The silt is rich in microscopic life which I assume is algae and tiny organisms. They then reach up to their mouths and pull out a tiny ball of pretty clean sand which they neatly deposit next to the last ball. Then they scrape up some more wet sand and silt, suck it clean and spit out another ball. The size of the little ball of sand is directly proportional to the size of the Fiddler crab.

If you catch them early enough after the tidal flow has left the salt marsh, the whole area looks like a sandy beach with a lot of little bumps and holes, and the foot prints and digs of large marsh birds like herons. But after a few hours of Fiddler grazing the area is peppered with tiny little balls of drying sand surrounding a lot of very distinct and nicely crafted holes into which they disappear when you make a rapid movement from above.

The life cycle is taking place right before your eyes and it sometimes leads to contemplation of the intricacy of the chain of life and how evolution might build from opportunity; silt rich in microscopic life feeds the Fiddlers which in turn become food for the Herons and fish that themselves graze on the crabs.

I keep looking over my shoulder to see if something hungry is watching me .

 

[quantum_wave]

I can see it happening to me slowly. I’m finishing up here in the Pseudoscience forum or to put it another way, the SciForums Pseudoscience forum is finishing up with me. Science is what it is. What I see it as is the sum of human effort to understand what we observe without invoking the supernatural. Science is for everyone and is a part of every life. The part that science plays in our lives, beyond the benefits it brings to mankind, suits each of us in relation to our aptitudes, interests and philosophy.

There are four categories in my philosophy that I contemplate and that guide me in how I present myself outwardly on the forum. They are my view of the science of cosmology which describes the physical universe, my view of the infinites as they pertain to the universe and the meaning of eternity, my view of life and its scope and breadth in an infinite and eternal universe (this thread), and my view of God which I state as, “the possibility that the universe and God may be one in the same”, and beyond that, my view that the natural laws are fixed for eternity throughout an infinite universe that has always existed and therefore could be no other way (which I will take up in the SciForums Philosophy forum).

I guess I have my views of cosmology pretty well shaped. The potential of scientific discovery to unfold some imponderable awaits the LHC data. Even the LHC findings which are a few years off aren’t likely to lead to a significant change in the consensus cosmology. No one will be moving from, “we just don’t know”, to giving an answer about what exactly initiated the observed expansion (there will be no confirmation of the implications of the standard cosmological consensus). What may change as progress occurs is that we will understand some physics that will “decode” the nature of matter, gravity and energy and maybe even my outwardly vocal opinion that matter is composed of energy in quantum increments and that gravity is a function of matter will gain ground.

Being philosophical about self-image, I say that I am the type who can be myself and learn what I want to learn on the go in forums and on the Internet while being undaunted by the flaming that has followed me for my two years at SciForums. I don’t remember ever being warned or threatened with suspension or banning; I was flamed, I flamed back, and I don’t care. I stopped returning the flames.

Does anyone want to speculate with me as to the possibilities of advanced life forms and advanced technology in an eternal and infinite universe? If not I will post some speculation upon speculation about panspermia from arena to arena just so I will have said it, and move on to the Philosophy forums to discuss and learn about how science and philosophy are connected.

 

[Ophiolite]

I was flamed, I flamed back, and I don’t care

And that is why you were flamed. You apparently don't seem to care that many of your statements are unsubstantiated and your arguments unscientific. When this has been pointed out to you, you have ignored it, blithely sailing ahead with your unsubstantiated claims and pseudo-scientific arguments.

Topic change:

Does anyone want to speculate with me as to the possibilities of advanced life forms and advanced technology in an eternal and infinite universe?

I don't.
Do I want to speculate as to the possibilities of advanced life forms and advanced technology? Yes. Certainly.
Do I want to speculate as to the possibility that the universe is eternal and infinite? Yes.
Do I wish to do both in combination? Absolutely not.

 

[quantum_wave]

And that is why you were flamed. You apparently don't seem to care that many of your statements are unsubstantiated and your arguments unscientific. When this has been pointed out to you, you have ignored it, blithely sailing ahead with your unsubstantiated claims and pseudo-scientific arguments.

Topic change:
I don't.
Do I want to speculate as to the possibilities of advanced life forms and advanced technology? Yes. Certainly.
Do I want to speculate as to the possibility that the universe is eternal and infinite? Yes.
Do I wish to do both in combination? Absolutely not.

I didn’t say I didn’t learn from the experience of being flamed and flaming back. I did, and I have changed my own view of what I was doing. At first it didn’t occur to me that talking about cosmology would turn out to be far out. It seemed to me that science did not have a cosmology of the universe. What passes as cosmology to science is a consensus that is an incomplete cosmology. That is what got me started on cosmology years ago.

Any statements that go beyond the standard cosmology can be viewed as unsubstantiated and unscientific. That is why science does not have a complete cosmology. There are no answers that science has yet that fill in and round out the consensus to make it a complete cosmology. Flaming any discussion of what it would take to fill in the missing pieces is what some people do, often because they consider it a waste of time. To people who contemplate the missing pieces, flaming speculations about the missing pieces is a waste of time. That is why I don’t care about the flaming; it is part of discussing the missing pieces.

Blithely sailing ahead with unsubstantiated claims is a mischaracterization of what I am doing. It is not being done “blithely” because I evaluate all the comments and flames and consider them from the perspective of the intention of speculating. If the criticism was that speculating was a waste of time then I considered it a waste of time to point it out. If the criticism was that I had something that was “not even wrong” I fixed it.

To call my speculations “claims” isn’t descriptive; they are speculations not claims.

Going ahead with unsubstantiated speculations is exactly what I intended to do but I do it with a methodology which I put out there right from the start. I take the scientific consensus and go forward with speculation about what I personally find to be the simplest answer for the missing pieces. But it is not wild or idle speculation. I devote a lot of time, thousands of hours of personal study, to knowing what the consensus is, why it is the consensus, and why it only goes as far as it goes. My thinking has been presented and preserved in my threads and Google.docs and I revise it and update it all the time.

The methodology has been applied consistently throughout my step by step speculations. I do not start with anyone’s theory. I start from the bottom up to figure out for myself what I think is the next step and I have done that from the first step. Each step must seem to me to be reasonable and responsible and must follow and be compatible with the previous steps all the way back to the explanation for the accelerating expansion that we observe.

So yes, unsubstantiated and unscientific speculation has been the genesis of Quantum Wave Cosmology. If you have a problem with that then I respond by asking you if you have a view of a complete cosmology. I haven’t seen you willing to compare your ideas to mine so maybe you don’t have one. I do and I came up with it through the process you have seen happening. What I have found is that by figuring it out for myself with the help of various research sources, input from forums, and speculation done with a clear methodology, is that the universe could be eternal.

By asking the question, “what caused the expansion that we observe”, and by exploring the explanations that have been offered by science professionals, and by examining the reasons that those explanations did not or have not yet replaced the standard cosmology, I was able to make a decision for myself as to what I thought the most likely cause was. I don’t claim I am right; I claim that I have a set of speculative ideas that are not easily refuted, and that represent what I call a complete cosmology of the universe. QWC comes along with some detailed speculations that offer ideas about processes and physics that would have to exist in order for the cosmology to work. They are missing pieces but everyone knows there are missing pieces and I the ones I speculate about are my view of what would be necessary to explain the universe as we observe it.

Though I admit I am certainly wrong and have failed to capture reality, I am convinced that the universe could have always existed in a fashion that has always provided hospitable environments for the generation and evolution of life. So my view of QWC is that life has always existed if the universe has always existed. Therefore speculation about the possibilities of intelligent life forms and advanced technology in a universe that has always existed makes sense to me. Panspermia from one arena to another is an idea that I am contemplating and speculating about. This thread is where I am at on that.

 

[quantum_wave]

A rough drawing of a multiple arena section from the landscape of the greater universe.

 

[quantum_wave]

In order for the universe to provide an eternal set of hospitable environments for life it would have to be continually recycling old used up galactic remnants into new low entropy arenas. Each arena then must go through the process of particle formation, accumulation, star formation and galaxy formation to again generate and evolve all sorts of life forms. Call it the arena process where two or more arenas overlap and their galactic material collapses into new big crunches that burst into expanding low entropy arenas; a perpetual process.

In an infinite universe at any given time there could be a potentially infinite number of hospitable arenas that have reached the life bearing stage, each with billions and billions of galaxies, each with significant life generating opportunities.

But could life survive from one arena to another? What a boost it would be if life could adapt to a multiple arena environment by developing bacteria spores capable or enduring extreme conditions for long periods of hibernations. From this article, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=231: “Given the fact that there are known terrestrial bacteria that live happily in nuclear reactors, around deep sea thermal vents, within rocks miles beneath the Earth's surface, inside airplane fuel tanks, and on the surface of spacecraft hardware in a hard vacuum on the lunar surface, the probability that a bacterial species with both traits (radiation resistance and extreme hibernation capabilities) is not at all improbable.”

There must be some probability that much more durable spores than the ones that have evolved here on earth would evolve or adapt somewhere throughout any given arena.

 

[quantum_wave]

There must be some probability that much more durable spores than the ones that have evolved here on earth would evolve or adapt somewhere throughout any given arena.

In an infinite and eternal universe where entropy is defeated by a perpetual arena process, if there is any possibility at all of life forms evolving that could manage to make the arena transition, isn't it a certainty that they would exist?