M
Moody
Guest
Millenia isn't 1000 years, its the plural of millenum, which is 1000 so he was talking about alot of 1000 years ago
Science: Evolution, life on Mars etc.
- Thread starter daszo24
- Start date
Saxamaphone
New Member
see below
Avesther
New Member
[b said:
[b said:
Can we get anymore general then "alot".
Millenia is plural for a thousand years, 2,000 is plural. And who is to say he didn't mean only 2 milleniums? When people argue in generalities and in ambiguities, then I will take liberty in there meanings and applications.
You can not debate upon generalities...how do I form an arguement against "Humans haven't breathed fluid for a millenia." Does he mean a few thousand year, few million years, 20,000,000 years a billion years?
By actually giving specific timelines, I might actually be able to counter argue him. He didn't.
And for the record, millenia is an adjective for "a span of one thousand years" as well as being plural for a millenium. Which is a noun.
Again, because Mr_Eon did not give context to which meaning, I simply took the meaning that best suited my position. If he meant the plural, then surely he would have modified millenia with several.
"It has been several millenia since humans have breathed fluid."
Kidan
Moderator
I know I said I wouldn't get involved in this discussion again, but some various errors on the part of my side if you will need to be called.
First, there was someone arguing about a dominant gene, requireing another dominant gene to actually come into play in the species. This is wrong. A dominant gene will overpower the passive gene. it requires two passive genes for the passive set to be there
Secondly, Eon used the word millenia properly in his post. His argument would read 'Humans have not breathed fluid in thousands of years' This as a noun is the proper tense of millenium, not to be confused with the adjective
but anyways, here's an interesting article that ought to give new fire to some of these discussions
Speed of Light is not a constant
The above article brings into question the age of the universe as well as questions about what other 'constants' that are assumed can change with time.
First, there was someone arguing about a dominant gene, requireing another dominant gene to actually come into play in the species. This is wrong. A dominant gene will overpower the passive gene. it requires two passive genes for the passive set to be there
Secondly, Eon used the word millenia properly in his post. His argument would read 'Humans have not breathed fluid in thousands of years' This as a noun is the proper tense of millenium, not to be confused with the adjective
but anyways, here's an interesting article that ought to give new fire to some of these discussions
Speed of Light is not a constant
The above article brings into question the age of the universe as well as questions about what other 'constants' that are assumed can change with time.
Avesther
New Member
Still, doesn't change the fact that you can not argue with generalities.[b said:
Let me try.
The problem with evolution is that it requires milliards of years not millenia as suggested by Mr_Eons arguement.
Let us take for example the arguement that difference between a homo-sapian and a ape like creature is only a genetic gap of 2%.
In an attempt to understand this using evolutionary standards, we make the first assumption that both the homo-sapien and the ape creature come from a common ancestor. The second assumption is that as the two would evolve seperately and deviate only 1% from the ancestory, one in one direction they other in the other direction thus totalling between the two, the 2% variance.
We know for a fact that one change on one chromosone will generate offspring with Downs syndrome, or CF, or that the offspring will be inflicted with Lou Gherigs disease at some time in their lives. But we shall ignore these facts and allow gene sequences to mutate at a rate larger than 1. Also, if mutations occour too rapidly, species will die out because of the mutations, the genetic coding will alter too much and the resulting loss of information would be to great to expect a living creation to ever from with a few generations of continuous mutations. We can not allow mutations to happen with each generation, however we will account for a succussful mutation making it into the next generation every few generations.
Taking all those facts and extrapulating how large an actual 1% genetic deviation actually means when taking into account the shear size of DNA and permutations of genetic sequences, it would take many more milliards to account for the variance than there have been to date. And thats by using the very generous assumptions I have made. Using more realistic assumptions, we would have to count years in the trilliards. And we don't have that kind of time
Avesther
New Member
The have managed to stop light altogether and then kick start the photons again...at room temperature.[b said:
It wasn't until a few decades ago that the speed of light was called a constant. Before that, a science journal would anually update variables such as the speed of light, gravitional constants and more. It was not until an atheist took reigns of the journal that these variables were declared constants. The new editor simply didn't like what it would mean to his personal theories if these calculations continuously evolved over time. LOL, I love that implication. First, you have an evolutionist that argues that the only constant is change but is afraid of what changes in constants would mean.
M
Mr_Eon
Guest
<Shrugs> I guess we've known for a while that the speed of light varies depending on things like the presence of a strong gravitational field, haven't we?
Isn't that why Mr Hawking is looking for a Unified Field Theory?
I, too, hate people who dogmatise science. Science isn't a religion, it's a biro scribbled book of instructions to programming the VCR of the universe. One day we'll boil everything down to a single equation and, at that point maybe, we'll have science as religion. Until that point, dogma only works counter to the proper evolution of scientific theory.
Mr Bacon. If you're reduced to arguing the usage of Millenia in my post (as a classically educated Englishman you may assume that I am using it in the proper sense, and not incorrectly as a descriptor for a single millenial time period) then it is my imputation that you are already on thin ice.
Speaking about genetic "drift", don't forget that the idea of a uniform genetic pool from which changes quickly go global is a fairly recent one. In the past you were facing more of a "ring" effect where a genetic marker would spread out as the "enhanced" population supplanted or interbred with the "un-enhanced" population.
Eon
Isn't that why Mr Hawking is looking for a Unified Field Theory?
I, too, hate people who dogmatise science. Science isn't a religion, it's a biro scribbled book of instructions to programming the VCR of the universe. One day we'll boil everything down to a single equation and, at that point maybe, we'll have science as religion. Until that point, dogma only works counter to the proper evolution of scientific theory.
Mr Bacon. If you're reduced to arguing the usage of Millenia in my post (as a classically educated Englishman you may assume that I am using it in the proper sense, and not incorrectly as a descriptor for a single millenial time period) then it is my imputation that you are already on thin ice.
Speaking about genetic "drift", don't forget that the idea of a uniform genetic pool from which changes quickly go global is a fairly recent one. In the past you were facing more of a "ring" effect where a genetic marker would spread out as the "enhanced" population supplanted or interbred with the "un-enhanced" population.
Eon
Avesther
New Member
[b said:
[b said:
Genetic drift would still stop at the edges of contenants and would not spread to other parts of the world without a host capable of transporting the new genetic code across the vast oceans.
This does not explain why finches in North America share the same physical traits as finches in Europe. Assuming that the North American and European continents were the same continent a few billion years ago, or at the very least hundres of millions of years ago, then there should much more biological and genetic variation between the birds. There isn't.
[b said:
I really don't know why he is looking for a unified field theory...unless all the current scientific theories don't support each other.
Eon - during this entire discussion, one thing REALLY is bugging me, so I have to straighten it out..
You are certainly not an athiest, but rather, seem to even be more pantheistic. You call Thor your patron deity, and you claim to have belief in many other gods, many of which are Egyptian/Roman/Greek. Did not these religions claim creation? If so, why do you choose to leave this part out of your belief system, and instead look for scientific answers? Heck, if your gods are to believed, fire was a gift...
You are certainly not an athiest, but rather, seem to even be more pantheistic. You call Thor your patron deity, and you claim to have belief in many other gods, many of which are Egyptian/Roman/Greek. Did not these religions claim creation? If so, why do you choose to leave this part out of your belief system, and instead look for scientific answers? Heck, if your gods are to believed, fire was a gift...
[b said:
I hate to display ignorance, but oh well.
I was under the impression that the speed of light didn't vary at all in a gravitational field. If we measure it in three dimensions, yes, but that thing about the gravitational field is that it is warping a fourth dimension, which light is stuck to just as much as the others. All four dimensions considered together, light travels at a constant speed. Or so I interpreted what I was taught.As for the GUT, I was under the impression that that was spurned on by the discovery of the electroweak force (combined electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces). If two can be combined, all can be combined, supposedly.
Feel free remove my misconceptions, which are likely to exist plenty of places.
M
Mr_Eon
Guest
You're assuming there that we are kinda in a first person perspective to the light in question, right? That's what I wasn't doing - I was assuming a third person perspective - not situated at the Grav field and not situated with the travelling light.
So from our vantage point Light would appear to bend and slow.
Eon
So from our vantage point Light would appear to bend and slow.
Eon
[b said:
I wouldn't have had to mention a fourth dimension if I was using a perspective within a local region of the light. If that were the case, yes, light would be constant within the perceived three dimensions because the fourth dimension would be flat between the viewpoint and the light. A third-person perspective (needing clarification, that means the space the light exists in is not flat relative to the viewpoint) sees the light slow in three dimensions because a component of the light's speed would be in that fourth dimension. Light would still be a four-dimensional constant. It's the same thing that the article mentions about string theory allowing for a perceived four-dimensional variable speed for light when the 5th+ dimensions start to have a noticeable effect.
Now, is that still wrong?
M
Mr_Eon
Guest
So what all this verbage has done is basically say that my initial statement about the speed of light varying in the presence of a strong gravitational field should really be "the perceived speed of light from an external viewpoint seems to vary in the presence of a strong gravitational field"?
Because I would hate to be involved in a pedantic conversation designed to prove how smart the participants are...
Eon
Because I would hate to be involved in a pedantic conversation designed to prove how smart the participants are...
Eon
Well, I'd be fine to leave it at "the perceived three dimensional speed of light can vary in the presence of a gravitational field." I leave out "seems" because it is accepted that it can vary three dimensionally (well, there is an implied "seems" in pretty much every statement, but there's no point tossing it in here and not everywhere else). I leave out "strong" because it should theoretically be able to vary in every gravitational field; also, "strong" means that changes in the speed of light can be perceived, which is a little redundant.
Anyway, unless there are further comments, I'll shut up now and stop pretending to know anything.
I leave out "seems" because it is accepted that it can vary three dimensionally (well, there is an implied "seems" in pretty much every statement, but there's no point tossing it in here and not everywhere else). I leave out "strong" because it should theoretically be able to vary in every gravitational field; also, "strong" means that changes in the speed of light can be perceived, which is a little redundant.Anyway, unless there are further comments, I'll shut up now and stop pretending to know anything.
Saxamaphone
New Member
I think the whole slowing of light and the recent discoveries that you can stop photons at room temperature is meant to show that the persummed oldest light in the universe isn't that old at all.
Which does nothing to support or reject evolution.
Evolution = Something from nothing. Something to non-living matter. Non-living matter to single celled living organisms. Single-celled to multi-celled living organisms. Multi-celled organisms to major phyla and kinds. Major phyla and kinds to new unrelated major phyla and kinds.
As a matter of fact, discussions on the mutations within a kind (finches) has nothing to do with what evolution really stands for. Evolution attempts to describe the creation of a finch through a lineage of some ancient beast, like the dinasour, without any evidence.
Mutations within the different classificiations of finches does not support the mutations required to go from dinosaurs (one phyla) to birds (unrelated phyla). And the mutations within the finches does not explain differences between finches and ostriches (whithin the same major phyla).
Back to my general example given above which nobody knows how to comment on regarding the difference between man and chimpanzees.
First, chimps have 98% similiar DNA of Humans. Humans have 3 billion "letters" (base pairs) in each cell. 2% variance equals 60,000,000 "spelling errors". That is equivalent to twenty 500 page books of new information that needs to be explained by mutation and selection.
If we give evolutionists 10,000,000 (ten million) years (evolutionists figure that the earliest form of man came into existance about 5,000,000 years ago, so we are doubling their time period for them, aren't we nice) to explain it using their own information on how long a typical generation is for human and human like animals (20 years) and how many generations are required for a mutation (beneficial or not) to become "standard" (just under 300 generations using their own studies).
Using the above information, you could explain 1,700 of the 60,000,000 variations in 10,000,000 years. You would actually require 6 genetic mutations per year (never mind per generation) for 10,000,000 years to explain the 2% difference between chimps and man. If you bump the time back to where evolutionists believe humans started to come into existance, you would need 12 mutations per year.
We know that one mutation will generate a disease like MS which will come into full effect over the rest of your life. Image what 12 mutations per year would do to a bioligical system, even if 75% of the mutations were beneficial.
In order to explain the 60,000,000 variance between chimps and humans, you would need over 18,000,000,000 (18 billion) years to explain it. Never mind trying to explian how the common ancestor evolved to the point of human - chimp seperation. I think that would require about a trillion years.
Which does nothing to support or reject evolution.
Evolution = Something from nothing. Something to non-living matter. Non-living matter to single celled living organisms. Single-celled to multi-celled living organisms. Multi-celled organisms to major phyla and kinds. Major phyla and kinds to new unrelated major phyla and kinds.
As a matter of fact, discussions on the mutations within a kind (finches) has nothing to do with what evolution really stands for. Evolution attempts to describe the creation of a finch through a lineage of some ancient beast, like the dinasour, without any evidence.
Mutations within the different classificiations of finches does not support the mutations required to go from dinosaurs (one phyla) to birds (unrelated phyla). And the mutations within the finches does not explain differences between finches and ostriches (whithin the same major phyla).
Back to my general example given above which nobody knows how to comment on regarding the difference between man and chimpanzees.
First, chimps have 98% similiar DNA of Humans. Humans have 3 billion "letters" (base pairs) in each cell. 2% variance equals 60,000,000 "spelling errors". That is equivalent to twenty 500 page books of new information that needs to be explained by mutation and selection.
If we give evolutionists 10,000,000 (ten million) years (evolutionists figure that the earliest form of man came into existance about 5,000,000 years ago, so we are doubling their time period for them, aren't we nice) to explain it using their own information on how long a typical generation is for human and human like animals (20 years) and how many generations are required for a mutation (beneficial or not) to become "standard" (just under 300 generations using their own studies).
Using the above information, you could explain 1,700 of the 60,000,000 variations in 10,000,000 years. You would actually require 6 genetic mutations per year (never mind per generation) for 10,000,000 years to explain the 2% difference between chimps and man. If you bump the time back to where evolutionists believe humans started to come into existance, you would need 12 mutations per year.
We know that one mutation will generate a disease like MS which will come into full effect over the rest of your life. Image what 12 mutations per year would do to a bioligical system, even if 75% of the mutations were beneficial.
In order to explain the 60,000,000 variance between chimps and humans, you would need over 18,000,000,000 (18 billion) years to explain it. Never mind trying to explian how the common ancestor evolved to the point of human - chimp seperation. I think that would require about a trillion years.
[b said:
Well, since that idea was bugging me, I looked it up. From what I read, they aren't technically stopping light. It's just a variation on the well known behaviour of atoms to absorb photons (and radiate them). The higher the index of refraction of the atoms used, the longer they store the energy before releasing it again (so to speak). When that energy is in photon form, however, and moving between atoms, it travels at its normal constant speed. It sounds like the experiment simply used a group of atoms with an extremely high index of refraction, and used a frequency of light that would cause the re-emitted photon to be the same frequency. So photons aren't really stopped, their energy is just stored.
As for the oldest light in the universe, the microwave background radiation, it would have been released when the universe was small enough to be ~3,000 K. Right now it is 2.73 K. Whatever its age, the universe would have to had expanded enough to make that difference (about 1000x). It used to be thought the expansion was happening at a constant rate, giving the light a certain age (though the rate was questionable). It was recently discovered that the expansion rate is accelerating, making the light older than once thought because the expansion would have been slower in the past. As for the 4th+ dimensions, I am pretty sure they would have had little effect on the 3 dimensional speed of light during those billions of years, though I reserve the right to be wrong on that.
Anyway, just repeating what I've learned and reasoned, as usual.
Avesther
New Member
Light actually does slow down when going through a medium other than a vacuum such as glass, water, an atmosphere, gases, stray electrons or gravitational fields.
There are studies that show even the vacuum of space is not a true vacuum and its structure/nature has been changing as it "expands." And if the nature of the vacuum of space has been changing, so has the speed of light because of how it reacts in space.
There are studies that show even the vacuum of space is not a true vacuum and its structure/nature has been changing as it "expands." And if the nature of the vacuum of space has been changing, so has the speed of light because of how it reacts in space.
M
Mr_Eon
Guest
One of the first things you learn is that the Universe abhors any extreme - whether it be vacuum, a sun or a blue-green planet.
So no, space is NOT a perfect vacuum.
But these answers and more are in the works. In the words of MC Hawking (and to the tune of Anarchy in the UK, by the Sex Pistols)....
UFT For The MC
Trash Talk
Right now!
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
Verse 1
I am a scientist.
I am a physicist.
I know what I want, and I know how to get it,
I want to unlock the universe.
Chorus
Yes, I want a unified field theory.
It's the only one for me.
Verse 2
A unified field theory,
it's coming some day wait and see.
A theory to combine electromagnetivity,
with the weak and strong forces and gravity.
Chorus
Yes, I want a unified field theory.
Not Newtonian gravity.
Verse 3
Einstein tried, but he couldn't see,
the random state of the galaxies.
But quantum theory will be key,
to a unified field theory.
Chorus
Yes, I want a unified field theory.
Not relativity.
Verse 4
Right now the best bet seems to be,
the work being done in M-Theory.
Time will tell but I guarantee,
they ain't gonna find it at MIT.
Chorus
The institute won't beat me.
Ain't gonna happen G.
Outro
Cause, I want a unified field theory.
Yes, I want a unified field theory.
You know what I mean?
Yes, I want a unified field theory.
And a Nobel prize for me.
O yeah!
Uhh!
Eon
So no, space is NOT a perfect vacuum.
But these answers and more are in the works. In the words of MC Hawking (and to the tune of Anarchy in the UK, by the Sex Pistols)....
UFT For The MC
Trash Talk
Right now!
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
Verse 1
I am a scientist.
I am a physicist.
I know what I want, and I know how to get it,
I want to unlock the universe.
Chorus
Yes, I want a unified field theory.
It's the only one for me.
Verse 2
A unified field theory,
it's coming some day wait and see.
A theory to combine electromagnetivity,
with the weak and strong forces and gravity.
Chorus
Yes, I want a unified field theory.
Not Newtonian gravity.
Verse 3
Einstein tried, but he couldn't see,
the random state of the galaxies.
But quantum theory will be key,
to a unified field theory.
Chorus
Yes, I want a unified field theory.
Not relativity.
Verse 4
Right now the best bet seems to be,
the work being done in M-Theory.
Time will tell but I guarantee,
they ain't gonna find it at MIT.
Chorus
The institute won't beat me.
Ain't gonna happen G.
Outro
Cause, I want a unified field theory.
Yes, I want a unified field theory.
You know what I mean?
Yes, I want a unified field theory.
And a Nobel prize for me.
O yeah!
Uhh!
Eon
[b said:
Well, no, actually it doesn't slow down. As I pointed out, the photons merely get absorbed and re-emitted, not to mention scattered. The photon speed, which is light speed, is constant. Any apparant slowing of light is due to the disruptions by the atoms. When absorbed, light does not stop because it is no longer light, but the energy does get tied up for short periods of time. Again, the light speed itself (that is to say, the photon speed when the energy is in the form of a photon) is constant. And I already explained why it is constant in graviational fields.
Avesther
New Member
very interesting...good digression, back to topic on hand, if anybody cares to continue or at least attempt to pose a counter.
Mr_Eon...I would like to hear your position: Are you a creationist or an evolutionist? You've mentioned that you believe in the Norse gods. If I am not mistaken, they (ie...Odin) where creators, yet you defend evolution:
Mr_Eon...I would like to hear your position: Are you a creationist or an evolutionist? You've mentioned that you believe in the Norse gods. If I am not mistaken, they (ie...Odin) where creators, yet you defend evolution:
[b said: