Re: Need some assistance

On Jun 30, 6:32 pm, rick_so...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jun 30, 3:18 pm, Patas...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:



On Jun 30, 8:21 pm, rick_so...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

DNA is digitally encoded information. That is what separates life from
a lot of the other things in the universe.

You know today we understand computer programming, we understand so
much of these wonders, like fractal math, and we ourselves model
reality, using physics, and math, and we do know how a lot of it is
done.

A Boeing 747, is no where near as complex as DNA, yet you will never
see anything like that, form in a scum filled pond, and if you threw
your computer, into a scum filled pond, would it get a better
operating system?

Water is a solvent, it doesn't make complex machines by itself, and
this whole wonder regarding lightning as if people were still living
in the time of Mary Shelly, where all you need is a metal cap and a
good jolt of lightning to bring your beast to life.

"Well perhaps if we gave it just a little more juice."

Digitally encoded. That requires an intellect. Simply put. It requires
consciousness.

It requires a conscious effort on behalf of someone or something.

The universe by itself is not digital, it is analog. Waves and waves
smeared out and yes, crystals form, and things stick together, but
writing doesn't appear in nature more than a letter or two does it?

You ever see a sentence in a rock? One sentence. Did you ever see a
rock formation, with smoe natural feature of erosion, that spelled a
meaningful sentence?
Just one.

Ever see a math equation? You know, a simple one. 2 plus 2 equals 4.

How about something like calculus? Ever see calculus in the rocks of
Mars, or in a tea cup?

Just recently, scientists took a bacterium, and transplanted its
entire genetic code and turned it into a different species.
They turned one species into another.
And it grew and lived as that other species.

Now they are attempting to make a new form of bacteria, and they are
saying that will be creating a new life form.

Now they are not creating life, they merely plan to make a new
bacteria, out of parts.
And that is the same as making a new program, out of someone else's
computer code.

Just like when you write a Window's program, you are using functions
etc that Windows provides, in a set of tools that work with it, or you
are using the code that Windows itself uses, to make the operating
system.

So if they were to use molecules, to make DNA, and then mixed that
together to make a new life form, then they would be creating life.
But still not from scratch, because they would be using someone else's
code.

DNA is digital code, like computer code.

We are at the point in science where we do understand that much.

But obviously when it comes to theories, about how it all began, well
they are only theories, and often upon examination, the prime
originating portion of the theory, was proven false but just refused
to die.

The big bang, originally was supposed to have happened, a couple
hundred million years ago or so originally.

And just kept getting pushed further and further back, based on the
expansion of the universe.

Well ok, so galaxies are heading towards each other and some are
moving away at the speed of light and well, is it a steady state
universe then, was the cosmological constant really a faux pas, is
there really an attractive gravity, do planets coalesce from galaxies
because we used to think spiral galaxies were nebular clouds. And even
if you say well gas clouds period.
You know ok, we were wrong about spiral galaxies being clouds of gas
that made solar systems, but just other clouds of gas then.
What clouds, of gas then.
Well the Oort cloud then.

Well there is no proof of any Oort cloud only speculation.

And further there is no attractive gravity, unl;ess someone out there
can prove Einstein wrong. So how do they coalesce again?

Face it. Science is just wandering around out there in the wilderness,
and is really just convinced it is correct, and has no proof of its
major assumptions as to the origins of the universe.
The cosmic background radiation touted as absolute proof, only proves
that em waves are a continous spectrum and you can find any frequency
you look for can't you?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We always get closer to the truth, never further away.

Einstein's theories did not falsify newtonian mechanics; they -
reduced- to them.

That is completely false.

General Relativity says that gravity is the curvature of absolute
space-time and that mass and gravity are one and the same.
That is to say, that accelerated mass is equivalent to the force of
gravity.

Einstein said that there is no Newtonian attractive instantaneous
gravitational force. He called that spooky action at a distance.

Gravity is caused by the expansion of the universe. It is not
magnetism. It is nothing like magnetism.

It is like inertia.

So all these cosmological answers by these learned men, sound so
wonderful to a non physicist, but to a physicist, they are just plain
ridiculous, because Einstein, proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, that
Newton was wrong about gravity.http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=124

And if there was such a thing as attractive gravity, then galaxies
would be clumped together in round balls, wouldn't they.

Well they aren't.

Even when they are clumped together, they do not form round clumps.
At all.

In fact there is no proof whatsoever, of attractive gravity. Only the
misconception, because roughly, it appears like that.
Well, appearances are often deceiving. And in this case, General
Relativity won over Newtonian attractive magnetic gravity because why?
Well it failed, read failed, was falsified, it did not properly
predict, certain things.
Right?
Like the precession of the perihelion of Mercury
A long-standing problem in the study of the Solar System was that the
orbit of Mercury did not behave as required by Newton's equations.

Newton was wrong, his theory was wrong, was proven wrong, is wrong.

Get over it.

Here is General Relativity so that people can test their own
hypothesis against a proven conjecture instead of leaning on false
conjectures.

Picture two balloons in the void. On these balloons are painted
rulers.

These balloons are expanding. On the surface are galaxies, painted on
as well, but the paint doesn't stick entirely to the surface of the
balloon, just enough that the galaxies painted on the surface expand
when you expand the balloon.

Now one balloon looks at the other balloon and it says, I have used my
ruler, and you are not expanding.
The other balloon does the same and agrees, they are not expanding.
A third observer however looks and what does he see?
He sees two expanding balloons.

Where are they expanding into? They are expanding into hyperspace.

As matter and space and all things within the universe expands it
gives rise to inertia. As it expands out, if you were standing on that
balloon, you would feel gravity below your feet. If you jump, the
balloon rises to meet you.
The reason you do not know that matter is expanding, is because you,
and your ruler are expanding too.

And so what do we see, between these two expanding balloons?

We see the space between them shrinking.

And galaxies could be seen as moving towards each other as the space
between them shrinks.

And so then why doesn't the moon impact the earth as the space shrinks
between them?
Because all matter emits dark energy, black body radiation, in the
form of em waves, which repels other massive bodies.

The matter of a planet lets say, resists expansion, because it has
intrinsic mass. And space-time is compressed around massive bodies,
leaving you with high and low pressure areas, and such things as frame
dragging, as absolute space-time, the quantum foam if you will, the
very subtle ultimate substance of the universe, to be dragged along
with massive bodies.

Newton spun a bucket, and noticed that the water was acting relative
to some unseen thing which he called absolute space.
Einstein changed that, vision of the luminiferous aether, to absolute
space-time, and even when you make Bose Einstein condensate, and spin
it, it forms eddies and whirlpools, but not like the bucket, it forms
them to discreet entities.
The quantum foam itself.


And yes, there is a base fluid to the universe, a ether, the quantum
foam, and we suspect that inflationary theory was when the liquid,
changed phase, and became the expanding quantum foam.The reason we
know that there is an ultimate liquid, is because all movement, is
fluid movement.

Anything with mass, has inertia, and the movement of mass, with
inertia, is fluent.
It is not erratic like if you shine a laser pointer on a wall and
jiggle it around like mad. Light has no mass.
Anything with mass, has to travel through the foam with resistance.
And it does so fluently.


So that is GR, with a bit of SR and some modern cosmology, without
attractive gravity and all of it has been proven true, and never been
proven false, in any way.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: expansion
    ... Therefore if you subscribe to 'expanding universe', ... This is not true of a balloon. ... Take the balloon analogy into another dimension. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: moving through space vs space expanding
    ... The difference is that the observed horizon of our universe appears to be ... expanding between the objects. ... It includes a new theory of gravity and it unites gravity with the ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: moving through space vs space expanding
    ... The difference is that the observed horizon of our universe appears to be ... expanding between the objects. ... It includes a new theory of gravity and it unites gravity with the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: expansion
    ... the most common example of something that is expanding, ... the two dimensional balloon surface world. ... Is the whole universe expanding? ... to imagine than the balloon, since it's not easy to think in 4 dimensions, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: I am just a bison eating grass, alien zookeepers, nothing to see here...
    ... to go against the expansion of the universe. ... collapse with enough energy, to supernova, but becomes a black hole, ... The two balloons are in the void, one balloon looks at the other ... expanding says, you are expanding into n dimensional space. ...
    (sci.physics)