Cosmology: Latest theories of everything (Introduction)

by John Kalber, Wednesday, July 19, 2017, 16:33 (2683 days ago) @ David Turell

"But I don't understand the 'commercial interests' comment. We are not going to colonise the universe." No -hopefully! Virtually all astronomy is supported by private interests. This is so for NASA who’s funding is controlled by those same commercial interests that in practice control government funding. Billions of dollars are involved.If you imagine that commercial interest is not involved, try telling that to the Marines! Universities have 'chairs' etc funded in a similar manner. Consequently, the public purse etc.will not countenance any suggestion that the heart of cosmology lives up a gum tree! If you need an example of ‘commercial interest’, try ‘Boeing Defense, Space & Security’ for starters!
If you doubt the power of money (particularly in the USA), look at their sociologically insane Gun Law!
It was mentioned that Biology does not work by the accretion atomic structures.I most definitely disagree! I feel sure that you didn't mean what you said. Everything works that way - everything. The place where things change and progress in advanced biology is within the gene bank, influenced at times by outside forces that may damage or destroy tissue but sometimes have a positive result in reordering the gene bank and so fostering a new species.
The same rules apply - any modification must be atomically acceptable by the existing structure or no 'modification' can result. The probably intrinsic nature of the outcome dictates and limits the next acquisition - and so on. Simple because Nature can manage only tiny steps and does not'do' arithmetic.
Like it or not, what I here demonstrate (in layman's terms) accounts for Evolution. The origin of life itself poses a possibly unanswerable problem. However, the same class of problem applies to the origin of the constituent parts of atoms. The answer is the same as before. Matter is eternal, as are its effects. We cannot ‘make’ an atom without using bits of other atoms. Perhaps life is also an eternal ‘element’. The trouble with this idea is that unlike atoms we cannot take life apart. So, it remains an enigma!
Once you see how this can work (accepting for a moment my thesis), the next steps will only be possible if sensitive, chemical awareness has been attained. This ability is demonstrated in even the most primitive life forms. An organism can live on sunlight but must develop a form of photo synthesis to do so. In this case, sunlight acts as an ‘exterior force’ that directly influences its botanical recipient to select further advantageous chemical (atomic!) structures. Thus is born the level of photo synthesis we see and love.
This magical assemblage is called life because it has the ability to regenerate itself into distinct and separate offspring. It should be noted that every cell in any offspring is itself distinctly alive and dies principally because the blood supply has been cut off.If it cannot do this, it is not alive. In a very marginal way, the inorganic material called crystal can also reform itself, but these seeming ‘additions’ have no independent existence and are most definitely not alive!
The variety of life forms is extraordinary, whereas the inorganic formations are few. To offer an analogy, perhaps Mother Nature is the peasant sowing her field with dormant seed which will bloom in the Spring. A nice picture but it will find few buyers!
Now for the 'pebble' etc. “Out of the Blue” is a euphemism that, I suggest, betrays an attitude of mind that has chosen not to accept that the laws of nature entail influences that ‘open doors’ to a range of possible and automatic outcomes. If they didn’t there could be no mechanism for any change – at all! If you dispute this please suggest an alternative!
In the ‘polemic’, much is made of some meaningless drivel. I think I agree with the laughing off those silly ideas and the conclusions he draws, but his wording rather confuses me. My ideas stem from my adoption as a child of the atheist ideology, which I freely admit was extensively discussed with my atheist father. One of his big points was his insistence that I take nothing for granted, even his ideas. This led me to read every word in my school version of the Bible. I achieved top marks in every test. The religion mistress asked me “Why”? I said that for me not to believe something I needed to know and understand what is wrong with it.
This has proved to be of fantastic value to me in arriving at my personal idea of logical opinions rather than being drawn into 'joining the crowd’. I find, (sadly in my opinion) few thinkers, especially the religious, approach what are - in truth mind problems - using only logic.
Human emotions readily affect our thinking (and quite rightly so) but we need to see that we do not use them to override our reasoning.
The concept of ‘use’ has no place in natural activity. Evolution simply allows nature to evolve as its potential dictates. Therefore a discard in whole or in part must surely entail distinct processes that, eventually, so act.
More to come!