Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Our perfect place in the heavens..
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5112 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 16 of 53 (27562)
12-20-2002 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by John
12-20-2002 8:30 AM


Is not the context of the discussion that Earth orbit if perturbed a slight bit would lead to extinction that ipso facto makes Earth's trajectory "perfect" or as near as it can be to "sustain" life.
If this is a fair assement of where this discussion came from (Compericus vs Ptolemy etc) then I would sustain that maintainence of life works to bias a probalism towards the idea of what is livable and not in the solar system based on a non-life notion. Heaven is obviously NOT what is on the Earth or the "straighr" line it would otherwise travel in.
I believe it is possible to look in the horizontal plane of the solar system just as for example one looks up a the bank of a creek such that it is not a matter of deciding where is a more perfect place of different kinds of life or in the case of earth any to all life itself but rather that this is misled by atomistic philosophy but not atomistic science. I am sorry I lost the chain of consciousness piece last night. In any case I am finding out that I actually disgree with Einstein.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by John, posted 12-20-2002 8:30 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by John, posted 12-21-2002 12:07 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5112 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 17 of 53 (27563)
12-21-2002 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Coragyps
11-24-2002 11:11 AM


There are many details of the place of earth with respect to newtons idea of the center of the universe which he placed in the solar system and Mach pointed out on the non-idea of perpetum mobile that Einstein then seperated the galelian and machian influence (if I got that part of physics correct) and it may be that we as humans have the goal to explore and sustain or survive and not calculate the probability of where we came from (ie rather to where we are going)( much like the influence of cars through the information age but rather in the space age). I for one am fairly certain this is not Marx's figuration and whether it is a circle or ellipse that on my version is a catastrophe set I can not say. But the relation of the shape of the oribit to some trajectory it is part (such as circle to sun) could still be relevant even with Venus and Neptune are pointed out if one contains Newton's idea of absoulte rotation. Einstein attempted to use field theory and not deal with this which if a staple like it might be that Humphreys visualization of edges and centers then this internalized could especially if one is will taxogenically and speciation wise to disgree with Einstein as to the reason facultatively involved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Coragyps, posted 11-24-2002 11:11 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5112 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 18 of 53 (27564)
12-21-2002 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by forgiven
12-13-2002 7:05 AM


John this may indeed be the same point i am trying to make to establish context of my position on the questio of "perfect place". Obviously it would be a mistake to read of the new heavens and new earth in this manner but the science I speak to/of is not at odds with a BIBLE reading as far as I can see out of the cosmological contribution of Humphreys.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by forgiven, posted 12-13-2002 7:05 AM forgiven has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 53 (27565)
12-21-2002 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Brad McFall
12-20-2002 11:54 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Brad McFall:
Is not the context of the discussion that Earth orbit if perturbed a slight bit would lead to extinction that ipso facto makes Earth's trajectory "perfect" or as near as it can be to "sustain" life.
You have encapsulated the basic design argument, and yes this is the topic of discussion. One researcher has done work suggesting that this is not the case. That instead, many quite radically different orbits could support and sustain life. The first post in this thread has a link to the article that caught my attention.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Brad McFall, posted 12-20-2002 11:54 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Brad McFall, posted 12-21-2002 12:28 AM John has replied

  
logicalunatic
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 53 (27566)
12-21-2002 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by John
11-24-2002 12:33 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
One major argument for ID revolves around the idea that conditions in the universe had to be just-so or we wouldn't be here.

The question to ask, I think, is...
Is the Universe well suited for us or are we well suited for this universe?
LogicaLunatic
http://www.objectivity.tk
------------------
LogicaLunatic
http://www.objectivity.tk

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by John, posted 11-24-2002 12:33 AM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Brad McFall, posted 12-21-2002 12:38 AM logicalunatic has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5112 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 21 of 53 (27567)
12-21-2002 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by John
12-16-2002 2:34 PM


The "5th" dimension is a cosmological rendering of SPACE based on a certain topography of the universe as a whole but with respect to "life" since we only know it endemic to Earth we can not speak of it yet or maybe never on the scale of this model as Humphreys expressed in Starlight and Time. That does not mean the physics of 4D relativistic space-time as any organism experiences it populational genetically does not have some even possibly biologically detectable influence of the extra space dimension that according to Humphreys, Einstein "swept" under the rug. May fleas experience this. The reason I had difficult immediately posting a response was beacuse I had to imagine a biological ordering such that temperature differences were independet of the concept of space change in range I would have been using to continue. I have done this now and ended up in consequence thinking about some new ideas in chem about "disease". It is far from certain however that such cosmological influences can have any physiological effect but do note that dissipative systems can enhance small perturbations and I have always wondered if it was possible for organisms to "sense" gravity waves directly through metabolic rates. There is a difference between theory and the practice of it as well as any future investment of its truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by John, posted 12-16-2002 2:34 PM John has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5112 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 22 of 53 (27568)
12-21-2002 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by John
12-21-2002 12:07 AM


Ok then, it is the same stuff.
What I had visulized is not many different "orbits" since that notion is tied with the "cause" of gravity for which my thinking steming from biology has no a priorir reason to believe that this is contributing to where Maxwell for instance took this. Instead I am begging to look at the Solar System as I used to my back yard in New Jersey. Whether Earth can have different orbits or not is not critical to my investigation of trajectories sensu stricto though this will certianly be important to the extent it is verifed. What I am learning how to visualize is what in biogeography had been called "endemism" but what I am speaking of in this thread is a life-endemism to use the word as a euphemism. Such it is obviously or inevitably is not. I do not know if this is strictly an ID thing of simply something that biology had not done becuase it tends to teach students to think in the past and not some mirrored future. Such is however possible.
There will not necessarily be nice fitting figures like Kepler found but rather fractaled ones that scale across the horizontal expanse of the solar system to some angle via the mIlky way to a a congruence with galaxy large scale. It is possible that life came from two differnet kinematics to earth even if it only originated on earth but to seperate the chemical kinetics and the total dynamics I think no one has a handle on. That is one reason to belive that this site with its mix of evolutionists and creations could supply the rest of us with some usable product in this kind of projection we any one can percieve.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by John, posted 12-21-2002 12:07 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by John, posted 12-22-2002 12:11 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5112 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 23 of 53 (27569)
12-21-2002 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by logicalunatic
12-21-2002 12:17 AM


Actually i think this IS NOT the question to ask. I am at some disagreement with Einstein and I do not yet know if it is the fault theoretically of invariants, tensors or vectors as per a common readable history. It may be that if Humphreys is correct that beyond the "edge" only civilizations products can travel un-maned but not un-lifed to the "new universe" the extra dimension gave us to travel that scientists like before Colombous said was "homogenous" The universe may even be strictly heterogenous to the intution of such a standard scientist as Simon Levin but his ideas are left with a bath water that this Multiverse would not be.
And there is the problem. The homogenity of evolutionary cosmologists (copernican ones) tends to not find this diversity centrically becasue there is no CENTER in that model. Do not get the idea that I can fancy as of yet 4-D relativistic physics in 5-D Cantor ordertype of fundamental series but sequentially I know this is not prima facie false. The VIDEO of Starlightandtime just like any special TV effect or TV Commerical has mis-colored some pixels but this differences are often also perceptual that not even all physicsists, painters, and doctors can agree. So it can not really about us relative to the universe and the universe relative to us but rather some as yet, at least for me, criticism of Einstein that I had left tonite with the word "extension" or if you choose Humphreys sleep well with "basic priniciples" for I doubt if I continue to be correct that Einstein's division of theory and Expt physcs will remain (as per axioms etc) the same principle Einstein used. I think a more homogenous reading without the cosomolgy can be read between galelio and maxwell but is less conservative that EInstein and more risky for that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by logicalunatic, posted 12-21-2002 12:17 AM logicalunatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by logicalunatic, posted 12-21-2002 12:44 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
logicalunatic
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 53 (27570)
12-21-2002 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Brad McFall
12-21-2002 12:38 AM


Brad...
Sorry but all of that just ran around my head, flicked my ears a few times, poked me in the eye and then disappeared. Can you suggest a few books I might read so that I might understand you?
Thanks much...
------------------
LogicaLunatic
http://www.objectivity.tk

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Brad McFall, posted 12-21-2002 12:38 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Brad McFall, posted 12-21-2002 1:00 AM logicalunatic has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5112 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 25 of 53 (27575)
12-21-2002 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by logicalunatic
12-21-2002 12:44 AM


Insofar as you will stay with me on this particular loaming loom that roams you need only refer to Starlight and Time and By RUSS HUMPReys. As for me I am sorry I have not met my Dyson (to explain me to the rest of me). I hope this spring to come out with a web sight on which I will have with links three working papers from which I hope if this comes to frution will be the references BACK towards any future post I make from that time on. As of yet I it would be easier to simply find A post of mine you like (and respond/comment)and hope I get over to it in due time to respond. So far I am trying to turn ever red light here in to a green one but this board has experienced much growth that it is hard to continue to keep up on this basis by only making all my e-commerce both here and elsewhere down to 1 hour a day. The reason I objected to the UNIVERSE comparision is that I do not think that General relativity is correct but I have not a shread of discussion to contribute on this most recent bias of mine. I try to keep this kind of stuff off the web.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by logicalunatic, posted 12-21-2002 12:44 AM logicalunatic has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 53 (27648)
12-22-2002 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Brad McFall
12-21-2002 12:28 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Brad McFall:
Instead I am begging to look at the Solar System as I used to my back yard in New Jersey.
I don't know how you used to look at the Solar System.
quote:
What I am learning how to visualize is what in biogeography had been called "endemism" but what I am speaking of in this thread is a life-endemism to use the word as a euphemism. Such it is obviously or inevitably is not.
I don't know how you can do this without having a extra-universe life forms for comparison.
quote:
It is possible that life came from two differnet kinematics to earth even if it only originated on earth but to seperate the chemical kinetics and the total dynamics I think no one has a handle on.
Agreed. Possible, but the evidence for this is vanishingly small.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Brad McFall, posted 12-21-2002 12:28 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Brad McFall, posted 12-24-2002 10:13 PM John has replied

  
Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 53 (27671)
12-22-2002 5:48 PM


USE PUNCTUATION!

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5112 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 28 of 53 (27811)
12-24-2002 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by John
12-22-2002 12:11 PM


The comparison is ALL with in taxa but with potentially contradicting as of yet multiple physicalities. I used to look at the Solar System as too big to take in, in the same sense the topography of NJ I took in when recording where keyed out herps (the first taxa I began to compare with)where actually found. I make NON-sense because the ability of make this rasion de etre of the Harvard Museum Of COMPARATIVE Zoology NOT revert to Aggasiz's for a Maxwell jellyfish sounds not-sense; which it is not but physico-chemistry if...because it is relative to a never ending comparision of forms. I do not have this worked out inside biology at present. All I know is that I keep trying to imagine different forms until in the conxtent of the discussion I am not longer thinking of biology; I ID this in terms physical and then write. Write I do and Clash I hope less.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by John, posted 12-22-2002 12:11 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by John, posted 12-25-2002 2:56 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 53 (27848)
12-25-2002 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Brad McFall
12-24-2002 10:13 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Brad McFall:
The comparison is ALL with in taxa but with potentially contradicting as of yet multiple physicalities. I used to look at the Solar System as too big to take in, in the same sense the topography of NJ I took in when recording where keyed out herps (the first taxa I began to compare with)where actually found. I make NON-sense because the ability of make this rasion de etre of the Harvard Museum Of COMPARATIVE Zoology NOT revert to Aggasiz's for a Maxwell jellyfish sounds not-sense; which it is not but physico-chemistry if...because it is relative to a never ending comparision of forms. I do not have this worked out inside biology at present. All I know is that I keep trying to imagine different forms until in the conxtent of the discussion I am not longer thinking of biology; I ID this in terms physical and then write. Write I do and Clash I hope less.
Brad, buddy, I am completely lost as to how this relates to the topic of the thread.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Brad McFall, posted 12-24-2002 10:13 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Brad McFall, posted 12-26-2002 6:18 PM John has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5112 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 30 of 53 (27936)
12-26-2002 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by John
12-25-2002 2:56 PM


There is some admixture of interpretation here so let me revert specifically back to the observation I stated prior to conviction that I was beginning to see what science was looking like WITHOUT evolution and on the information that I probably should have read for myself that there may be multiple earth orbits but that the one we are inertially bound to at present is a chance in large number.
What I am suggesting FROM within Biology (and this goes as well for another thread where I made my first stab at cosmology) the three body problem may indeed be numbered by baramins or not only one common continguity as Darwin inspected Barancles for but that this has meaning as well for life possiblly on other planents if not only these other orbits refered to (that much of the discussion of the perfection that has to do with organisms means of dispersal relevant if found OUTside Earth)but it is not that this is some "perfect" place a la the accuracy of the Bible but only happens to be the places that life actually happens to live at. For the biologist, simply try to imagine the "niche" of lizard and then do this for all life. The problem is not merely about the law of Leibig's minimum but involves visualization of habitiat physiography.
I admit the relation to the thread topic is not easily discernable because the physicality of inertia in Enstein's special relativity must be able to be seen in the kind of biology I am presenting which is not what Wolfram thinks will happen as technology catches up with him and then these THEORETICAL insights need to be transferable to physics generally so I guess this project is getting a little bit too difficult for me to expound in bite size chunks that I will refrain from adding to this thread except maybe to address your very pointed comments that I am and was grateful you posted. God Bless.
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-26-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by John, posted 12-25-2002 2:56 PM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Kolyahu, posted 12-26-2002 10:24 PM Brad McFall has replied
 Message 32 by zipzip, posted 12-27-2002 12:11 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024