the universe and space....?

Ican, I am glad for you. Through these threads you have discovered God. The difficulty lies in the fact that neither I, Moses, Asimov or the Ayatollah is apt to accept your definition. We won't even mention Frank. Smile

For the purposes of this post I will accept your definition. ONLY for the purposes of this post.

Now what Intelligent thing does it do Question

Does it do anything other than Be Question

Please describe what else, if anything.

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

Ican, I am glad for you. Through these threads you have discovered God. The difficulty lies in the fact that neither I, Moses, Asimov or the Ayatollah is apt to accept your definition. We won't even mention Frank.

Aaaah! What did/do you, me, he and they know? Smile

akaMechsmith wrote:

For the purposes of this post I will accept your definition. ONLY for the purposes of this post.

Now what Intelligent thing does it do Does it do anything other than Be

"ONLY for the purpose of this post", huh? Well, I can and will play that game! :wink:

game's on

INTELLIGENT THINGS GOD=Universe DID/DOES/WILL DO

0. Bursts hot and rapidly spinning into existence.
1. Evolves by trial and error from minimum homogeneous single intelligence stuff to greater heterogeneous multi-intelligence stuff.
2. Expands, cools and slows its spin.
3. Terminates some of its mistakes.
4. Counsels those other intelligent beings who it has evolved by trial and error, and who sincerely and persistently seek its counsel.
5. Persists.

HOW DO I KNOW THIS Question

I don't know this for certain. Crying or Very sad

HAVE I EVER SINCERELY SOUGHT ITS COUNSEL Question

Frequently Exclamation

HAVE I EVER OBTAINED ITS COUNSEL Question

Yes, frequently I have obtained its counsel from what I have chosen to observe of it and infer from it! Very Happy

HOW DO I RATE THE RELIABILITY OF THAT COUNSEL Question

As good as it gets Exclamation

game's off

See, nothing to it! Laughing

0 Replies

Good luck, Mech.

I can see where this one is going.

0 Replies

Ican, re "for the porposes of this post"

0. Nope, not shown, ambiguous intrepretations of observations Confused

1. Nope, singular intelligence not shown. Sad

2. It just can't help it- nor does it have any intelligence with which to wish to do those things. (Dumb ol'e God, any ways)

3. Some rocks go to the ocean and make sand, some rocks stay home and make mountains. Nor do they seem to have any particular desires as to their future employment. Extrapolate to galaxies- Minipolate (like that Smile

to quarks. Works about the same way.

4. Counsels" those it has evolved". Implies a goal. No goal can be shown, present company excepted of course, and that shows a lack of imagination on Gods part. Crying or Very sad

5. Welcome to infinity Exclamation

Unnumbered statements in order.

We don't know this but I'll settle for probably, perhaps. Smile

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Game off, Nope Everything is to it. Shocked

Frankly I prefer the Greek word "Cosmos". If we use the word "God" as a synonym for Cosmos we get into all sorts of religious difficulties. That word has been pretty well pre-empted by those who prefer not to observe.

You see, God is usually thought of trancending the Cosmos, making "Choices" and thinking dirty thoughts. Somehow I don't think the circumcision of random interactions is of much concern to a rock. But thats only my opinion. If you think the Cosmos cares if we lop the foreskin off of a Jewish baby boy then we can debate it on another thread.

So now back to the definitions hallowed by use and outlined in my "Websters Third New International Dictionary.

I hope that restrictions will not be too onerous. Evil or Very Mad

0 Replies

Frank, Did it get there yet Question

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

Ican, re "for the porposes of this post"

Game's on again? Sheeezzz!

ok, games on

We are playing the game of possibility and not the game of probability. Consequently, the only test any of my assertions have to meet is that it be possible. Show me they are certainly not possible.

0. "Nope, not shown" You're correct, but it is nevertheless possibly true.

1. "Nope, ... not shown". You're correct, but it is nevertheless possibly true.

2. Not shown, but it is nevertheless possibly true.

You should have quit when you were ahead. :wink:

akaMechsmith wrote:

It just can't help it- nor does it have any intelligence with which to wish to do those things. (Dumb ol'e God, any ways)

(Now it's my turn) Smile

Nope, not shown.

3. Not shown, but it is nevertheless possibly true.

akaMechsmith wrote:

Some rocks go to the ocean and make sand, some rocks stay home and make mountains. Nor do they seem to have any particular desires as to their future employment. Extrapolate to galaxies- Minipolate (like that to quarks. Works about the same way.

Nope, not shown.

4. Not shown, but it is nevertheless possibly true.

akaMechsmith wrote:

Counsels" those it has evolved". Implies a goal. No goal can be shown, present company excepted of course, and that shows a lack of imagination on Gods part.

Nope, not shown.

5. Not shown, but it is nevertheless possibly true.

akaMechsmith wrote:

Welcome to infinity

Nope, not shown.

I didn't say how long it will persist. I figure a finite number of years greater than 10 billion is enough to warrant persists Smile

akaMechsmith wrote:

Unnumbered statements in order.

We don't know this but I'll settle for probably, perhaps.

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Game off, Nope Everything is to it.

Yes

Nope, not shown, but as you imply (possibly), it's all possibly probable or probably possible.

akaMechsmith wrote:

Frankly I prefer the Greek word "Cosmos". If we use the word "God" as a synonym for Cosmos we get into all sorts of religious difficulties. That word has been pretty well pre-empted by those who prefer not to observe.

You see, God is usually thought of trancending the Cosmos, making "Choices" and thinking dirty thoughts. Somehow I don't think the circumcision of random interactions is of much concern to a rock. But thats only my opinion. If you think the Cosmos cares if we lop the foreskin off of a Jewish baby boy then we can debate it on another thread.

So now back to the definitions hallowed by use and outlined in my "Websters Third New International Dictionary.

I hope that restrictions will not be too onerous.

I prefer www.m-w.com It is more easily accessed. Smile

Main Entry: 1god
Pronunciation: 'gäd also 'god
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
Date: before 12th century
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler

Nope not shown. Possibly these definitions are probably true! :wink:

Main Entry: cos·mos
Pronunciation: 'käz-m&s, 1 and 2 also -"mOs, -"mäs
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek kosmos
Date: 1650
1 a (1) : an orderly harmonious systematic universe -- compare CHAOS (2) : ORDER, HARMONY b : UNIVERSE 1
2 : a complex orderly self-inclusive system
3 plural cosmos /-m&s, -m&z/ also cosmoses /-m&-s&z/ [New Latin, genus name, fr Greek kosmos] : any of a genus (Cosmos) of tropical American composite herbs; especially : a widely cultivated tall annual (C. bipinnatus) with yellow or red disks and showy ray flowers

Nope, not shown. Possibly these definitions are probably true!

Main Entry: cir·cum·ci·sion
Pronunciation: "s&r-k&m-'si-zh&n, 's&r-k&m-"
Function: noun
Date: 12th century
1 a : the act of circumcising; especially : a Jewish rite performed on male infants as a sign of inclusion in the Jewish religious community b : the condition of being circumcised
2 capitalized : January 1 observed as a church festival in commemoration of the circumcision of Jesus

Main Entry: cir·cum·cise
Pronunciation: 's&r-k&m-"sIz
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -cised; -cis·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin circumcisus, past participle of circumcidere, from circum- + caedere to cut
Date: 13th century
: to cut off the prepuce of (a male) or the clitoris of (a female)
- cir·cum·cis·er noun

Main Entry: pre·puce
Pronunciation: 'prE-"pyüs
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin praeputium
Date: 15th century
: FORESKIN; also : a similar fold investing the clitoris
- pre·pu·tial /prE-'pyü-sh&l/ adjective

Main Entry: cli·to·ris
Pronunciation: 'kli-t&-r&s, kli-'tor-&s
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural cli·to·ris·es also cli·to·ri·des /kli-'tor-&-"dEz/
Etymology: New Latin, from Greek kleitoris
Date: 1615
: a small erectile organ at the anterior or ventral part of the vulva homologous to the penis
- cli·to·ral /'kli-t&-r&l/ or cli·tor·ic /kli-'tor-ik, -'tär-/ adjective

T' hell with it! I ain't goin' to show nuttin' to nobody no way -- exceptin' possibly my wife probably.

Laughing

game's off possibly.

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

Frank, Did it get there yet

Possibly, when it gets to where ever it's going, Frank will say "that's where I knew it was going." But, then again, possibly he won't say that. Confused

0 Replies

Yeah, it's there!

0 Replies

Mech,
Now that Frank agrees "it's there", we possibly need not probably continue the game beyond "there". Confused

0 Replies

Mech,
Please tolerate this marginal attempt of mine to return to serious discussion. Shocked

Main Entry: pos·si·bil·i·ty
Pronunciation: "pä-s&-'bi-l&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Date: 14th century
1 : the condition or fact of being possible
2 archaic : one's utmost power, capacity, or ability
3 : something that is possible
4 : potential or prospective value -- usually used in plural <the house had great possibilities>

Main Entry: prob·a·bil·i·ty
Pronunciation: "prä-b&-'bi-l&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Date: 15th century
1 : the quality or state of being probable
2 : something (as an event or circumstance) that is probable
3 a (1) : the ratio of the number of outcomes in an exhaustive set of equally likely outcomes that produce a given event to the total number of possible outcomes (2) : the chance that a given event will occur b : a branch of mathematics concerned with the study of probabilities
4 : a logical relation between statements such that evidence confirming one confirms the other to some degree

MY DEFINITIONS

A Possibility is that which has a finite chance of being true.

An Impossibility is that which has a zero or infinitesimal chance of being true.

A Probability is that Possibility which is inferred to be more likely (i.e., have the best or greatest chance) to be true than any other Possibility.

HYPOTHESES

1. It is a Probability that our observable/inferable universe is finite in time, space, and stuff (i.e., matter and energy).

2. It is a Probability that our observable/inferable universe has a propensity to evolve intelligent life within it.

3. It is a Probability that our observable/inferable universe is all there is/was/will be.

SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS

The discovery and repeated verification that distant galaxies of our observable/inferrable universe are separating from our galaxy at speeds proportional to their distance from our galaxy, is based on redshift, standard candle (i.e., stars that emit the same intensity light regardless of their age), and CMBR (i.e., Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) observations/inferences.

If true, these observations/inferences imply that our observable/inferable universe is finite in time, space, and stuff.

The discovery and sequencing of the mouse and human genome reveals that the probability that undirected chance plus natural selection is sufficient to cause the occurrence any particular genome sequence is much less than a moogolth (i.e., 1 divided by 1 followed by a million zeros).

The discovery that multiple geological strata with zero fossils exist distributed between multiple geological strata with fossils, implies that the evolution of intelligent life was interrupted and reversed multiple times (e.g., more than a half dozen times within the last billion years).

If true, these observations/inferences imply that our observable/inferable universe has a propensity to evolve intelligent life within it.

Thus far, there has been no discovery from any observation/inference of our observable/inferable universe that anything other than Nothing exists outside of our observable/inferable universe.

If no such discovery is made within our finite future, that will imply that our observable/inferable universe is probably all there is/was/will be.

DISCUSSION

OK! Let it fly. :wink:

0 Replies

Here...

...and beyond!

0 Replies

Ican, First post first, I confuse easily. Possibly prionic interactions Smile

1. still not possible without showing more dimensions. a. Trial and error isn't shown, b. trial and error assumes a goal. c. there is no trial and there is no goal. d. only interactions in four dimensions.

2. Intelligence. The least intelligent thing that I can find reproduces, affects its environment, and survives. I can find no indication of anything doing that on a galactic scale. Therefore Intelligence must do something, if it just sits there it ain't intelligent Exclamation

3. Again if something does nothing, takes up no space, uses no energy,has no weight, and has no effect on anything, I suspect that it is impossible for it to exist. Since it doesn't exist it makes it rather difficult to show that it doesn't. Smile

4.It is impossible for a rock to have a desire. It is very likely for one to have an interaction.

5. Back to 3.

Welcome to infinity
After it persists, where will it go Question

6. Definitions of "god"or "God"

1. Supreme reality-- IS-- You remember my good buddy, Izzy. You met him back on "2 bibles" . He's still here, faithful as a dog. :wink:

1.a Is not shown, not required, not possible.
b. Christain Science, Not shown to exist, not required to exist, Has no effect on existence hence back to 3 again.
c. Infinite mind-- NOTE THIS, an infinite mind implies an infinite universe Very Happy

2. Not shown, not needed, not apparent, doesn't do anthing, in short doesn't exist.
3&4. These definitions have largely been supplanted. Now a days the Dehli Lama is about the only one around since Hirohito gave up the job.

Cosmos-- Shown as defined. Observe Razz

Prepuce. I may safely assume that you have-had one. If you don't some intelligence was required. Assuming that you exist (shown earlier).

0 Replies

Getting serious, Ican? Aw shucks Smile

Summary of arguements.

1st, See my discussions here with Satts.

We do not KNOW if they are actually separating, or if OOU is becoming denser, or if it merely looks like one of those scenarios is happening Confused

In order for a Big Bang to work (Mechanically) the energy sources must actually be moving apart. OOU must actually be becoming thinner Less mass energy per given volume. We do not KNOW if this is actually happening. In order to show that this scenario is happening we must figure out the three known factors that affect "light" or electromagnetic energies. None of these have been adequetly IMO worked out.
They are. Gravitational Red Shift--The Doppler Effect--The Time Dilation Effect. There may also be a diffusion effect also.
The Doppler effect is easy, The GRS, and the TDE are dependent upon the relative masses and the diffusion effect would depend on the relative densities of "space dust" or perhaps the number of hydrogen atoms per volume within the path traveled by the "light" Confused

Since these are all factors in the mathematical concept of the word it would take very little error in any one of these calculations to stop the "expansion of OOU" in it's tracks. (time lines Very Happy

)
This problem seems to be noted by the techies. In the latest things that I have read "Z" is based on "the APPARENT" speed of recession. The engineers are not about to go too many parsecs "out on a limb" Twisted Evil

Second paragraph, WE (you and I) showed that life would appear on an earth sized object in less than four and one half days once conditions became acceptable. Remember thats when I gave up Infinity as a prerequisite for life. She's still here but I don't need her as bad as I used to.

second-a. I showed that "life" changes things from "undirected chance" to "selected chance" immediately, thus rendering all calculations using "random mutations" fantastic.( I have since come to prefer selected change,ie has an effect) . I also showed that the "selected change" must arise. (require no other direction or intelligence) You did not concede that Crying or Very sad

. I think you should have Twisted Evil

.

third We, Bogowo and I showed that each successive extinction necessarily leaves a larger base for the next cycle to build upon. Remember the Bingo Game Question

. This would result in more and more Intelligence becoming apparent on earth with each extinction. No other intelligence is required,shown to exist, or has any effect on- Anything Exclamation

PURE FANTASY. I suspect that if humanity succeeds in exterminating itself (I don't think that natural means could do it without totally destroying Earth) and if Earth remains I suspect that something as bright as we imagine ourselves to be will show up in way less than a billion years. If Earth itself lives to a ripe old age it has several billion to go. That may be time enough for a cockroach to build a space ship. Personally I think a modern cockroachs' genome is too stable for it or it's decendents ever to contend for the stars. I suspect that the genome that finally reaches the stars is one that is not "wrapped too tight". This describes quite a bit of humanity Twisted Evil

. I hope we make it Exclamation

0 Replies

Ican, A quick paraphrasal look at our views.

I regard the Cosmos as no more than a container. Within this container there are many many things. Even some Intelligence may reside within but this intelligence has less effect on the Cosmos than the mite on a cockroachs behind has on the solar system. So far the most effect that intelligence has had on the cosmos has been to hasten the conversion of a few ounces of uranium to energy. This would have happened in a few billion years anyway. (there went the arguement of intelligence having an effect on the environment, from now on I will have to say immediate environment, damn Twisted Evil

I don't think that you are ever going to be able to show that the box as a container has any innate intelligence whatever. But I'm listening Exclamation

May I make a suggestion. I'm gonna anyway!

You must try assuming that "selected change" is always beneficial and factor in the number of changes required from "mouse"to "man" and then see how much your odds of arriving at a goal (man) change.

As we found out when we tried the time required for life to appear, I think that we will find out that something intelligent is damn near inevitable given an Earthlike environment and time frame. Think about how to frame the problem. I will.
Best, M

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

Ican, First post first, I confuse easily. Possibly prionic interactions
...

Prepuce. I may safely assume that you have-had one. If you don't some intelligence was required. Assuming that you exist (shown earlier).

I have already agreed that I have not shown that anything I wrote while playing the game is probably true.

All I did while playing the game is claim certain things were possible. I did not define possible until after the game ended.

What in my mind made the whole game a game was my employment of the word possible while using a standard dictionary definition of possible. This to my mind made my discussion a frivolous but perhaps comical game deserving no serious attention. Others have too frequently (perhaps unknowingly) resorted to the same frivolous game. You have sometimes done the same.

However, in your case, to your credit you have rarely played this frivilous game. You have almost always supplied data supporting your hypotheses to the point of establishing that what you hypothesized had a finite, and not merely an infinitesimal, probability of being true. Some others have never done that.

If you want to seriously debate my purely faith based assumption that God = the observable/inferable universe, and the observable/inferable universe = God, I will disappoint you. Ican cannot do that.

If you want to seriously debate my purely faith based assumption that the observable/inferable universe is all five of the things I listed in my previous posts, I will disappoint you. Ican cannot do that either.

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

Getting serious, Ican? ...

Summary of arguements.

1st, See my discussions here with Satts.

We do not KNOW if they are actually separating, or if OOU is becoming denser, or if it merely looks like one of those scenarios is happening

I agree! But, is what you wrote probably true?

akaMechsmith wrote:

In order for a Big Bang to work (Mechanically) the energy sources must actually be moving apart. OOU must actually be becoming thinner Less mass energy per given volume. We do not KNOW if this is actually happening.

I agree! But, is what you wrote probably true?

akaMechsmith wrote:

In order to show that this scenario is happening we must figure out the three known factors that affect "light" or electromagnetic energies. None of these have been adequetly IMO worked out.

I agree! None of these possibly have been adequately worked out.

akaMechsmith wrote:

... Since these are all factors in the mathematical concept of the word it would take very little error in any one of these calculations to stop the "expansion of OOU" in it's tracks.

I haven't decided whether I agree or not! Define "very little error".

akaMechsmith wrote:

second-a. I showed that "life" changes things from "undirected chance" to "selected chance" immediately, thus rendering all calculations using "random mutations" fantastic.( I have since come to prefer selected change,ie has an effect) . I also showed that the "selected change" must arise. (require no other direction or intelligence) You did not concede that ... . I think you should have ... .

I cannot concede or refute that because I do not have sufficient data to infer that "selected change" is or is not sufficient . Tell me more why you think it is sufficient.

akaMechsmith wrote:

third We, Bogowo and I showed that each successive extinction necessarily leaves a larger base for the next cycle to build upon. Remember the Bingo Game . This would result in more and more Intelligence becoming apparent on earth with each extinction. No other intelligence is required,shown to exist, or has any effect on- Anything

Well now! Finally, I have come to something you wrote that I can unequivocally disagree with.

The "larger base" you refer to may or may not have been a larger base. We do not have sufficient data to infer this one way or the other. Whatever sized base that was left each time, it did not for many thousands of years evolve to living organisms that subsequently left fossils in the geological record. That is, over the approximately 4 billion years of the evolution of life on this planet, the fossil record shows multiple (e.g., more than ten), complete and total wipe-outs of life that produced a fossil. I infer that constitutes multiple do-overs such that the evolution of intelligent life had to restart from previous states of its evolution. Just in the last 600 million years, such restarts from a previous state of evolution occurred five (some claim six) times.

akaMechsmith wrote:

... I hope we make it

Me too! Confused

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

...
I don't think that you are ever going to be able to show that the box as a container has any innate intelligence whatever. But I'm listening

May I make a suggestion. I'm gonna anyway!

May I remind you (I'm gonna anyway) that the doctrine which governs my debate is: Certainty is impossible and probability suffices to govern belief and action. Get over it!

akaMechsmith wrote:

You must try assuming that "selected change" is always beneficial and factor in the number of changes required from "mouse"to "man" and then see how much your odds of arriving at a goal (man) change.

As we found out when we tried the time required for life to appear, I think that we will find out that something intelligent is damn near inevitable given an Earthlike environment and time frame. Think about how to frame the problem. I will.

I have done that. I guess that if "selected change" always produces a genome that survives to reproduce more intelligent life than itself, then less than 10 million selected changes would have been required.

If such changes occurred one per second, then the entire evolution of intelligent life to humans would have taken only 10^7/(24 x 3600 x 365.25 seconds per year) = 0.316881 years or a little less than 17 weeks. Assuming that this process was interrupted say 100 times with restarts back from the equivalent of the 8th week and forward to the equivalent of say the 13th week, then the whole thing would have taken 17 weeks + (100 x (13-8) weeks) = 67 weeks.

If the selected changes occurred once per year, then divide the 67 weeks by 52 weeks per year, and multiply the result times 31,557,600 (i.e., the number of seconds in a year). Then the time to evolve humans would have been = 40, 660, 754 years, say 41 million years. Hmmmm? But it actually took more than 3 billion years! How come?

My guess is that some learning took place between restarts and the selected changes did not always produce something better.

0 Replies

Ican, Summary,
"Is what you wrote probably true"
Possibly; it agrees with alleged observations.
Possibly but we don't know
Possibly they cannot be worked out, Possibly the calculations are impossible to do.

Define small error.
Any error in these estimates which, when extrapolated 13>9 light years
would be sufficient to remove any apparent motion of expansion from OOU.
For instance in the seven million mile uncertainty in the observed value of a parsec changes the location of an observation at the edge of OOU by about 279>15 miles. About one percent total error would throw the whole universe back in our laps tomorrow. In order to show where something was some 13 billion years ago we need two fixed points to anchor our triangle to. We simply don't have them. Sad

We have perhaps one chance in three of determining the location of something only one parsec out accurately enough to be able to use it to extrapolate the trajectory of a galaxy in the most general terms. We won't even talk about the precision required to locate an infinitesimial point in spacetime 13 billion years out. Factor in the other factors Laughing

and I calculate that there is only about a confidence in the extrapolations required to show that OOU is expanding of about one in fifty or worse.

How? In your next post you appear to have already done as well as can be done in comparing a random change scenario with a selected change scenario,

(fossil record) We are not necessarily dealing with fossil forming stuff.
If I understand it correctly each time the fossilforma were extinguished the interval of fossilless time was shorter. It took about 3 billion years for fossilforma to appear on Earth the first time. The intervals have been shorter each cycle. Just a simple result of getting another Bingo Card each game. And that generally seems to agree with observations.
I am not much interested in argueing that. Nor am I qualified.

Personally I am so disappointed in our Priests and Physicists extrapolating the most minimal observations past all reason that I am about sick of the matter. Sometimes they even extrapolate conclusions that are downright unreasonable. Twisted Evil

Since we are often discussing "probability" I shall conclude with.
IMO it is more probable that no "Creation Event" ever happened than the converse. I think I recognize what that "opinion" implies, Maybe Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

Define small error.
Any error in these estimates which, when extrapolated 13>9 light years
would be sufficient to remove any apparent motion of expansion from OOU.

I agree with your definition.

akaMechsmith wrote:

For instance in the seven million mile uncertainty in the observed value of a parsec changes the location of an observation at the edge of OOU by about 279>15 miles.

I disagree.

The parsec is equal to a distance of 3.26 light years = 19.1775859 trillion miles. The fact that this distance is less than 206,265 times the actual mean radius of the earth's orbit around the sun will have zero effect on the accuracy of calculations of the number of parsecs between us and anything else.

However, it is possible that the so-called standard candles (i.e., certain pulsating stars found in all galaxies) is not actually standard over the observable time span of our universe. These standard candles could possibly be variable to the extent that the actual distance to distant galaxies is actually different than currently computed. If that were true, then Hubble's so-called constant could be legitimately questioned on that account.

Yes, the lengths of intervals of zero fossils did generally (not always) decrease with time. Yes, evolution did return to earlier stages and then subsequently resume its relentless evolvution of more intelligent life.

0 Replies

I'd like to return to the following definitions and their implications (e.g., my hypotheses).

MY DEFINITIONS

A Possibility is that which has a finite chance of being true.

An Impossibility is that which has a zero or infinitesimal chance of being true.

A Probability is that Possibility which is inferred to be more likely (i.e., have the best or greatest chance) to be true than any other Possibility.

HYPOTHESES

1. It is a Probability that our observable/inferable universe is finite in time, space, and stuff (i.e., matter and energy).

2. It is a Probability that our observable/inferable universe has a propensity to evolve intelligent life within it.

3. It is a Probability that our observable/inferable universe is all there is/was/will be.

The distance to galaxies within a few hundred million light years from us is determined by geometry which is then used to calibrate the relatioinship between the brightness of standard candles and their distance from us. This same calibration is then used to determine the distance to galaxies more than a billion light years from us. Lots of opportunity for error here.

So far, however, there is zero evidence that space itself causes redshift. If space did cause redshift, then the redshift of light from the sun ought to be less than the red shift in the light from other stars in our galaxy that are not moving toward or away from us. It isn't.

Also, so far, there is zero evidence that the intensity of the gravitational field through which light travels causes a significant amount of red shift. If it did, then the red shift of light from our sun would be significantly greater than the red shift of equivalent light on our earth. It isn't.

Despite major interruptions and major setbacks in the process of evolution, more intelligent life evolved on our planet. This implies that our earth at least exhibits a propensity to evolve more intelligent life.

So far, nothing we did/do observe/infer appears to be located outside our calculated universe.

0 Replies

the universe and space....?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know