the universe and space....?

Ican, re "irrevalent difference"

At this point I doubt it. Perhaps with humans there are less hangers-on than the dinosaurs had. But I am not inclined to think that humans, as yet, have been dominant enough to have much to do with any large scale species extinction. Yes, we probably had a little to do with some larger species disappearance, but bacterias, viruses,and prions don't leave much behind. , yet it is still fair to count them as species.

Weather (climate changes) may also have something to do with the proliferation of species. Todays climate may well offer fewer niches what with the polar ice caps and large deserts that other epochs didn't have.

Currently I am sitting 1500 feet above mean sea level. The fossil record indicates that this particular location was once on the bottom of a shallow saline sea. Currently there are none of those type environments except for a the upper reaches of a few bays. The Chesapeake Bay is one, especially noted for its variety and abundance of living organisms.
The Ice Ages and "plate tectonics" apparently did away with most of the rest of them.

I have recently read (again) in a book called "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson, Broadway Books, 2003, That 99.9 % of all species that have ever lived are extinct. The short term decline of species amounting to probably fewer than a small fraction of one percent of all species doesn't worry me over much. Everything is relative saith Albert.

Conversationally now--- Bill Bryson points with some pride to his scientific illiteracy but about three years previous to publication he decided to write a book. So he began a series of correspondence and conversations with scientists. Subsequently he wrote a book which purports to explain the physics of everything. Talk about a person with the "courage of his convictions".

You, Terry, Me, Frank, Bogowo, Satts, Msgr Hottinger, and several others have been researching largely just one small part of the development of a Universe for about three years now. We have agreed on very few things as facts, and even fewer as reasonable conclusions. Damn, it sure must be nice for Bill to KNOW enough about everything to be able to tell us about it . Why ain't I that bright

I am even beginning to wonder about the Gospels

Adele,
We will entertain most any idea. We are not even demanding any proofs here. Logic and probabilities must suffice. Believe me, we can trust Frank to give a comeuppance if somebody gets carried away. It is quite possible to get carried away with ideas, but generally we have agreed that they must have some relation to observations.

See you often, Mech

So, pundits to the corner, How could we determine if space and time were reversed? How do you think it would change our observations?
What differences would it make towards "Ultimate Questions"

CI particularily, Einstein theorized (relativity) that the speed of light is constant. However this means that the speed of time varies with gravity, defined as an acceleration.
As Adele mentioned, and I ask, what happens to relativity if the speed of time is constant and the speed of light varies?
Uh-O Thats what.

Population:

1830: 1 billion
1930: 2 billion (60 years to add a billion)
1960: 3 billion (30 years to add a billion)
1975: 4 billion (15 years to add a billion)
1986: 5 billion (11 years to add a billion)
1999: 6 billion (13 years to add a billion)

So, it seems, we are slowing down adding on the billions (or levelled off)...Still, by 2025, the population is projected to hit 8 billion.

At current rates of extinction, 90% of all species will be gone in 50 years...Something we don't understand: how humans are connected to other species...

The carrying capacity of the Earth for us is 120 million people... when you surpass that capacity, you are borrowing from the future to pay for excesses today.
There are 6 billion people on the planet, which means we have surpassed the carrying capacity by 5000%
The Earth has a "buffer capacity" that is obviously pretty good, from our point of view, which means looking ahead 5 years...
Every 20 minutes, another 3500 humans are added to the planet, and in the same time, one more species goes extinct... this means 27,000 species gone forever each year...

So please come again with how we've NOT been a domineering force in large scale species extinction?

winchi, I think humans are gonna grow at a faster rate in the future, because of medical science. I'm kind'a glad I won't be around to see the over-capacity 50 years from now when land and water will be at a premium. We can already see the shortage of water in many parts of this world. If we think water is expensive today, I'd hate to think what it's gonna cost 50 years from now.

wenchy; good point!

(i understand you know a little something about chemistry, maybe we could put a little 'potion' together, eh, and ...............................) :wink:

Please define carrying capacity and explain how it is computed?

ican, I don't think the numbers are important: only the thesis. The human population is growing at a exponential rate; it's not going to be too long before it's impact will be felt.

Mech,
I chose merely to suggest the entertainment of such thoughts.
That's all.

Adele

I would appreciate your opinion from all you scientific types on this link I received from a friend.
I haven't a clue as to whether this energy source is viable. What do you think? http://www.cheniere.org/

wenchi,lina, re your post of Sep 01, 9:45 PM

We have been a major factor in the extinction of the Dodo, Great Auk, and Bustard.

Climate change or catastrophe took care of the dinosaurs,mastodon,and most of the rest.

Overspecialization and limited niches allowed quite few more species to vanish. We helped in many cases but most also would have vanished all by themselves, ie, mammoth.

But we can take complete credit for the passenger pigeon for sure, and possibly a few others. This isn't very many considering how many species have existed.

Considering we have also supplied new niches for new species, Aids, Smallpox,Flu, Human intestinal worms, our record isn't all bad .

Please talk some more about "carrying capacity". You might also mention at what level of intelligence, expressed as technology, you are discussing. M.

Adele, re your post of Sep 02,6:30 AM

We've been entertaining similar ideas for years. Go ahead, lets boogey

I haven't a clue either. I require more information on how the "energy of the vacuum" can be converted to do work.

I can speculate for the fun of it.

Assume our universe is expanding because it is rotating relative to the empty space in which it is contained (whatever that means).

If that were actually the case, then the centrifugal force of rotation could exceed the force of gravity of the stuff within our universe, but the energy of rotation would probably be constant (Law of the conservation of energy). Furthermore, if that were happening, then we should be able to detect that our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Furthermore, we should be able to detect whether the rate of acceleration is itself, decelerating.

Well, by golly, cosmologists do allege that our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. None have claimed the rate of acceleration is itself decelerating. At some point of the expansion, assuming the law of conservation of angular (e.g., rotational) momentum is valid for the whole universe, the rate of rotation of the universe will become zero. At that point the gravity of the stuff of the universe, as small as it might be over the distances then existing, will cause the universe to begin contracting at an accelerating rate, that is itself accelerating.

So what may be the energy of the vacuum? It could be the energy of a rotating universe. Could that be converted in some way to do work on our earth? I don't know. I need a lot more information regarding the alleged conversion process.

Thanks for asking! It was fun thinking about this!

Well then, since it doesn't matter, let me modify the number expressed in the thesis.

I say the carrying capacity of the earth is not 120 million, but is rather 120 billion human beings. But assume human beings themselves have a spatial limitation which must be met in order for them to survive even if they get enough nontoxic air, water, and food. I'll assume that spacial limit is one square foot times their individual's height. The number of square feet of surface of the entire earth including the water surface is 5500 trillion (land only, 1468 trillion). That means that if my assumptions regarding nontoxic air, water, and food are valid (I know they are not ), the carrying capacity of the earth is 5500 (or 1468, land only) trillion humans. So if there are only 120 billion of us, then we'll average over the land about 12 thousand square feet per person (a lot about 110 by 110 feet square.

But like you indicated the numbers are unimportant.

YOUR PROBLEM

The number of different sequences of 4 atoms in a 1000 atom sequence is 4^1000 = 10^602.

Area of water surface of the earth = 4032 trillion sq. ft.

Assume average depth of water = 1000 feet.

Volume of water = 4,032,000 trillion cubic feet

1 liter = 61.025 cu. inches = 0.0353 cubic feet.

1 millileter = 3.53 x 10^(-5).

Total number of mililiters = 0.114 x trillion trillion = 0.114 x 10^24.

Interactions per second per totalmilliliters = 1000 x 0.114 x 10^23 = 1.14 x 10^26.

Seconds per year = 3600 x 24 x 365.25 = 31,557,600 = 3.16 x 10^7

Interactions per year per total milliliters = 3.6 x 10^33.

Interactions per 10 billion years = 3.6 x 10^33 x 10^10 = 3.6 x 10^43

ASSUMING ONLY ONE SEQUENCE "WORKS"

Probability = P = 3.6 x 10^43 / (10^602) = 3.6 x 10^(-557).

But if about 1 % of the sequences "work",

THEN P = 3.6 x 10^43 x 2.8 x 10^60 / 10^602 = 10^104 / 10^602 = 10^(-498).

But if 2.8 x 10^459 of the sequences "work",

THEN P = 3.6 x 10^43 x 2.8 x 10^459 / 10^602 = 10^(-99).

Any questions?

Ican, re any problem,
I have trouble translating "probabilities into time elapsed. So for what it's worth here is how I looked at it. You may take this as "The Gospel Truth".

Simplest possible life (4 colors-elements) like a deck of cards.

4000X3999 --All possible ways to arrange 1,000 molecules with 4 elements
-15,996,000-

15996000X15995999-- All possible ways to arrange 4 elements with 1,000 or less atoms
-255,872,000,004,000-.

-159,600-- All possible ways to arrange 100 elements in groups of 4

255,872,000,004,000X159,600X159,600 All possible ways to combine any four of 100 elements in any grouping of 1,000 or less
-408,371,712,006,384,000,000-

Lets call it 408>18th

Interactions per second on Earth (actually only in the oceans)-- 1.14>26th

1.14>26th / 408>18 = 343,137 seconds to run through all possible interactions on Earth.
-343,137/86,400=3.971
Works out that all possible combinations can be tried every 3.9 days.

IMO 3.9 days is such a small fraction of Earths Age that I believe it fair to say that the appearance of"life-intelligence" on Earth was practically instantaneous. I suspect it occurred as soon as things quieted down enough so that a molecule could stay associated. In other words, "inherent in the Universe". I am not even going to mention the Cosmos. I don't need it to show life .

How did I get on this side of the arguement anyways

Elderberries are fermenting happily again in our kitchen. Very good season for them. Happy times are coming, Best Mech

I need you to explain this to me.

I presume the atoms (cards) are oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen (O, C, H, N).

A deck consists of 1000 of these cards. How many ways can one arrange
a single, 1000 card deck of these 4 kinds of cards? A single deck could be all Os, or all Cs, or all Hs, or all Ns. Or a single deck could be OCHN repeated 250 times. Or a single deck could be say 250 Os, followed by 250 Cs, followed by 250 Hs, followed by 250 Ns or many other strange and wonderous sequences.

So let's look at position 1 of the sequence. There are 4 choices: which shall it be O, C, H, or N? The same is true for the nth position, the (n+1)th position, and of course for the thousandth position.

So what are the possibilities?

4 choices for position 1, 4 choices for position 2, 4 choices for position n, 4 choices for position n+1, and 4 choices for position 1000.

Suppose there were only 3 positions. then we would have 4 x 4 x 4 = 4^3 = 64 different possible sequences. If there were 10 positions then we would have 4 x 4 x 4 x 4 x 4 x 4 x 4 x 4 x 4 x 4 = 4^10 = 1,048,576 possible sequences.

In the case of 100 positions, we would have 4^100 = approximately 1.606938044 x 10^60 possible sequences.

In the case of 166 positions, we would have 4^166 = approximately 8.749002899 x 10 ^99 possible sequences (multiply that by 4 one more time and you would have over a googol sequences).

In the case of 1000 positions and 4 different kinds of "cards", we wouild have 4^1000 different possible sequences. Well, 4^1000 = approximately 10^602.059991 = 10^602, for short.

But I infer from you, you want to consider seqences as few as 4, 5, 6, up to as many as 998, 999, 1000. So the actual total would be the sum of all the possible sequences for each and every sequence length of 4 to 1000. Clearly a number much bigger than I calculated.

Yes, there IS something invalid about my calculation. It presumes all the life intrinsic molecules consist of one dimensional sequences of the 4 elements. They probably do not. They can be two or three-dimensional configurations. I'll bet that it's some of the three dimensional configurations of atoms that form living molecules. I know! You want me to calculate those odds. Sorry, I don't know how (or at least at this time, I don't know how).

By the way, I assume that what you mean by a living molecule is: a molecule that can reproduce itself from its environment (e.g., sea water). Please correct me if I'm wrong about what you mean.

Another possibility is that any mix greater than a to be determined/discovered finite critical mix of the 4 atoms in sea water can form a living molecule. If that's the case, then you are probably correct, that life and its relentless evolution to higher intelligence is all but certain (i.e., so close to 1 that the difference isn't worth calculating).

Ican,
My facility with numbers is limited. I do better with spatial relationships although often I can't prove it it usually works.
I speak math with a very bad accent. This is why I had thought that perhaps you could show me the error of my ways .

I hope you think about it a bit. As I understand it the way to calculate all possible combinations is - The number of colors times the number of cards times the number of cards less one. Thats how those numbers in the post in question were arrived at.
However in math as in English there are nuances that I may have missed. ie Bow-Bough, Coff-Cough, I happen to live near Baffman- Baughman Settlement. Remember a couple years ago we took the canoe down the Troff-Trough-Truffe-Troth of the South Branch of the Potomac River!

So in the meantime are we agreed that life is probably inherent in the Universe?

I sure hate to give up infinity though, even though I don't need her to live, I've grown accustomed to having her around. We've spent a lot of time together over the past 60 years or so. Best, M

Further thought,
Althoug infinity may not be necessary in order to live or get smart, She still may be necessary for us to exist.

Apparently then there must be prerequisites for life-intelligence to exist.

I'm talking about all possible sequences: that is, the order of the different colors determines whether the molecule is self-replicating (i.e., self-procreating). But you, I think, are talking about all the differents sets of colors.

Suppose there are 4 different digits 0,1,2,3. Suppose a sequence we are examining consist of 100 digits. Then there are 4^100 = 1.606938044 x 10^60 possible sequences. However, if the sequence is irrelevant to procreation and only quantity of each color is relevant, then there are 4 x 100 = 400 different sets of 100 digits: 4 different digits in the 1st position; 4 different digits in the 2nd position; ... 4 different digits in the 100th position.



Yes, but we really do not yet know why or even how that inherency is actually manifested. Yours is a good quess, however.



There's no need to give up that old friend. For example, what is 1/0? I think it's infinity: That is, an infinite number of zeros can be contained in the digit 1 (or in any other finite number).

Ya know what Mech? :wink:
I think I will take you up on that and............ 'boogey'. ( in EVERY sense of the word ).
well....except for a few, but you get the jest of it.