It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Origin of Life (may not have happened!)

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Let me just start off by saying, yes, I know, this thread belongs in several topics.

The other day I was having a debate with someone over the origin of man.
I said the classic "life from water" theory was more likely.
He said the classic "Organic material from a meteor" theory was more likely.
We were both deep into it when someone came in and said several sentence along the lines of:
"God is eternal. God created life. Life is eternal."
We both ignored this and continued our debate until both our information was depleted.
Later I thought, "That guy has a point! Not about God...But about life!" I have even lost sleep over this.


"The universe has always existed."
-This is a valid and accepted scientific theory.
"Life on Earth began with a meteor carrying organic material"
-This is a valid and accepted scientific theory.

So if the two above mentioned statments are valid why would the next statment not be?
"Life has always existed."


In theory, if the universe has always existed, and if life on Earth began with a meteor carrying organic material, is it possible that life has ALWAYS existed?

(Am I the only person who put two and two together? If not, why haven't I heared this theory before?)





[edit on 25-01-2004 by Gear]




posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 01:03 PM
link   


"The universe has always existed."
-This is a valid and accepted scientific theory.
"Life on Earth began with a meteor carrying organic material"
-This is a valid and accepted scientific theory.

So if the two above mentioned statments are valid why would the next statment not be?
"Life has always existed."

The universe hasn't always existed. Molecules didn't exist until a long time after the big bang, and before the big bang was a singularity ie: not desribable via current mathematics/physics. IOW... not life.



In theory, if the universe has always existed, and if life on Earth began with a meteor carrying organic material, is it possible that life has ALWAYS existed?

(Am I the only person who put two and two together? If not, why haven't I heared this theory before?)


One of the prerequisites for abiotic formation of life is the presence of complex atoms, things other than hydrogen and helium. These two elements are the remnants of former stars. Given everything science knows about the formation of metals, life couldn't have always existed, and thus had a beginning.


[edit on 16-10-2006 by ozcore]



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Jesus! I knew this would happen!




The universe hasn't always existed. Molecules didn't exist until a long time after the big bang, and before the big bang was a singularity

The big bang?! Yes, the big bang is a valid theory. But that's all it is. A Theory.
The universe always existing is also Valid Theory. It is just as, if not, more widely accepted than the big bang theory.



One of the prerequisites for abiotic formation of life i...thus had a beginning.

See above.


This NOT a discussion on theories about how long the universe existed, nor how it came into being.
It is a discussion about a new theory. A theory about the origins (or lack thereof) life.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   
good point, gear. I dig your line of thought.
Just like the concept of infinite space is difficult to understand, the same logic can be used for life. What if it's eternal, never started, never ended, it just is. Forever.
Difficult to grasp? definetely.
A valid theory? sure, why not

mr.Jones



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   
I wasn't aware that the "always existed" theory was that widely accepted.
At least, not currently, in this universe.
Do you have some stats on that?

But, to go along with the question, if it was always here, in it's current form, then life could have always been in existence, why not? Always is a really long time.

In order for the universe to be always existent, I have a feeling that matter would have to behave in a much differnt manner. Much less reactive, very docile in it's interaction with other moecules..and sub-atomic particles.
And if that were that case, a non-reactive universe, would have trouble forming life at all!



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gear
Jesus! I knew this would happen!


The big bang?! Yes, the big bang is a valid theory. But that's all it is. A Theory.
The universe always existing is also Valid Theory. It is just as, if not, more widely accepted than the big bang theory.

This NOT a discussion on theories about how long the universe existed, nor how it came into being.
It is a discussion about a new theory. A theory about the origins (or lack thereof) life.


Maybe you could tell us what you actually mean by theory. I feel what you think 'theory' means is not the same as 'theory' in science.

[edit on 16-10-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   


good point, gear. I dig your line of thought.

Yeah, It's nice to have someone not to go off-topic.




I wasn't aware that the "always existed" theory was that widely accepted.
At least, not currently, in this universe.
Do you have some stats on that?

Basically there's the First Law of Thermodynamics. Enough said? I'll tell you anyway. First Law of Thermodynamics states that although form can change, no matter or energy can ever be created or destroyed. IE: All the matter and energy that exists now has always existed.



if it was always here, in it's current form, then life could have always been in existence, why not? Always is a really long time.

In order for the universe to be always existent, I have a feeling that matter would have to behave in a much differnt manner. Much less reactive, very docile in it's interaction with other moecules..and sub-atomic particles.
And if that were that case, a non-reactive universe, would have trouble forming life at all!

As you can see, i highlighted your word time.
Time, on the other hand did not always exist, at least not in THIS universe. With the progression in quantum physics we are making, we know that there are 'vibrations' that keep us in our current dimension. We are currently in the 3rd dimension: IE: time. How we came to be in this dimension is still unknown.

First Law of Thermodynamics + Quantum Physics =
A universe of matter and energy that has always existed with little understanding of whether or not time itself has always existed.
When put together it doesn't make sense, does it? Solve that one, and you will earn yourself Nobel Prize.




Maybe you could tell us what you actually mean by theory. I feel what you think 'theory' means is not the same as 'theory' in science.

How can you misinterprete my use of the word theory?
A theory is meerly an idea built and based on certain results to explain previously unexplainable events. Visa Versa applies.
How does 'my view' differ from science.


NOW let us return to the actual subject of interest.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gear
Basically there's the First Law of Thermodynamics. Enough said? I'll tell you anyway. First Law of Thermodynamics states that although form can change, no matter or energy can ever be created or destroyed. IE: All the matter and energy that exists now has always existed.


Note that the laws of physics break down at planck time. However, what we now see as the universe, was not in existence at that point. All the matter in the universe came from the singularity.





Maybe you could tell us what you actually mean by theory. I feel what you think 'theory' means is not the same as 'theory' in science.

How can you misinterprete my use of the word theory?
A theory is meerly an idea built and based on certain results to explain previously unexplainable events. Visa Versa applies.
How does 'my view' differ from science.


Well, when you say something is 'just a theory' you suggest the notion that it is a wild guess. If you think your 'theory' is as valid as BB, I think you could be just a tad mistaken. Theories are more than a wild guess and are the meat of science, you theory differs, because, at this point, it is really a hypothesis and needs evidence and must explain what BB can even better.

Maybe you could outline what your theory entails. You seem to accept that at one point time did not exist, which is what BB predicts. BB is based on empirical data, mainly the background cosmological radiation produced from the BB and the observable expansion.

How does your idea differ? Turok & Steinhardt believe we are just in one of an infinite series of bang-crunch cycles. The other old theories, that are not accpeted anymore, are the steady-state universe and the static universe. The fact is that the universe is expanding, i.e. it is changing and the presence of the radiation was predicted by BB theory.

Thus, how can life have always existed if time and space did not?

If you think I'm off-topic, just ignore me, but I don't see the point of posting something challenging and unusual, then hoping everyone agrees...

[edit on 16-10-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   
That time thing, the one you highlighted..."figure of speech"

I'm also familiar with the 1st law of TD...but thanks for the refresher.
Isn't time the 4th dimension?
time/space, that is.

What kind of life do you think might exist in a Universe without time.
and possibly without dimension..?



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   
So if life always existed and the universe always existed and therefore time must always have existed, then perhaps this conversation has always existed and now we are in loop mode.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gear
The big bang?! Yes, the big bang is a valid theory. But that's all it is. A Theory.
The universe always existing is also Valid Theory. It is just as, if not, more widely accepted than the big bang theory[/quote )

No, it's not.


It is a discussion about a new theory. A theory about the origins (or lack thereof) life.


Life does have a beginning, the organic material brought by meteors was not alive.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 05:11 AM
link   
I love everything you've stated in this post. It is beautiful and you are right on. Everything that you convey is 100% accurate.... the eternity of life and the infinity of the ubiquitous universe =)



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarkSide

Originally posted by Gear
The big bang?! Yes, the big bang is a valid theory. But that's all it is. A Theory.
The universe always existing is also Valid Theory. It is just as, if not, more widely accepted than the big bang theory[/quote )

No, it's not.


It is a discussion about a new theory. A theory about the origins (or lack thereof) life.


Life does have a beginning, the organic material brought by meteors was not alive.


Everything is alive... everything... =)



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Melatonin


Note that the laws of physics break down at planck time. However, what we now see as the universe, was not in existence at that point. All the matter in the universe came from the singularity.

You can't say that, as it does not apply here. The theory of plank time is exclucive to the BB theory. This thread has NOTHING to do with BB. At least it's not supposed to.
On a side note, planck time in no way relates to, or denounces First Law of Thermodynamics, as your response is supposed to indicate.
However, for the sake of argument , I will assume that it does relate.


All the matter in the universe came from the singularity.

So in other words, the big bang happened. All matter just "popped" into existance. Only after that did the First Law of Thermodynamics come into play.
That doesn't make any sense at all. Regardless of how you look at it, bias or not.



Well, when you say something is 'just a theory' you suggest the notion that it is a wild guess. If you think your 'theory' is as valid as BB, I think you could be just a tad mistaken. Theories are more than a wild guess and are the meat of science, you theory differs, because, at this point, it is really a hypothesis and needs evidence and must explain what BB can even better.

A wild guess? Give me a break.
"A theory is meerly an idea built and based on certain results to explain previously unexplainable events. Visa Versa applies."
How does that suggest a notion that my version of the word 'theory' is a wild guess?
My theory has NOTHING to do with BB theory. I've said It over and over again.
MY theory is the unification of the two existing and valid theories:
"The universe has always existed."
"Life on Earth began with a meteor carrying organic material"
I think you are implying that my theory is that "The universe has always existed." I did not develop this theory. If you have a problem with it, then do some research. Read a book or two. Take a class or something.




Maybe you could outline what your theory entails.

Read the first post in this thread.


"The universe has always existed."
-This is a valid and accepted scientific theory.
"Life on Earth began with a meteor carrying organic material"
-This is a valid and accepted scientific theory.

So if the two above mentioned statments are valid why would the next statment not be?
"Life has always existed."

That is what my theory entails. I thought it was pretty obvious, but it seems I was wrong.




You seem to accept that at one point time did not exist, which is what BB predicts. BB is based on empirical data, mainly the background cosmological radiation produced from the BB and the observable expansion.

As with your comment on planck time, you are stuck in a BB mind-set.
You are confusing time with time-space.
There are other theories apart from BB that explains the expansion of the universe. Does that make the BB theory obsolete? No, it does not. BB is still a valid theory, as are apposing theories to BB.




Turok & Steinhardt believe we are just in one of an infinite series of bang-crunch cycles. The other old theories, that are not accpeted anymore, are the steady-state universe and the static universe.

Yes, I am aware of this theory. It's not that it is not accpeted anymore, it's just that it is not as widely accepted anymore. It is still somewhat valid.



The fact is that the universe is expanding, i.e. it is changing and the presence of the radiation was predicted by BB theory.

You keep bringing up the expanding universe as a result of BB. If Universe may have been around forever, it in no way at all means it WOULD NOT expand.



Thus, how can life have always existed if time and space did not?

Your implying that it is pure fact and irrefutable that time and space did not always exist. Well it is not a fact. It is a theory. Just as BB is only a theory. Just as the universe has always existed, is only a theory.
Again, as I said in my first post.



"The universe has always existed."
-This is a valid and accepted scientific theory.
"Life on Earth began with a meteor carrying organic material"
-This is a valid and accepted scientific theory.

So if the two above mentioned statments are valid why would the next statment not be?
"Life has always existed."




If you think I'm off-topic, just ignore me, but I don't see the point of posting something challenging and unusual, then hoping everyone agrees...

Yes, you are off-topic. This has turned into a debate of the origin of the universe. The origin of the universe is not supposed to be the subject of discussion.
I had a feeling that this would go off-topic, but I thought it would spin the other way: The origin of life.


Spacedoubt


Isn't time the 4th dimension?

[embarrassment]
Whoops.

After I had a go at Melatonin for confusing space and time...It looks I did the exact same thing!
[/embarrassment]
Yes, time is the 4th dimension, and percieved differently to all other dimensions.



What kind of life do you think might exist in a Universe without time.

Not active life, but I'm thinking that organic material may have already existed by the time that time itself came into play.


DarkSide


Life does have a beginning, the organic material brought by meteors was not alive.

If by not alive, you mean dead, then yes, your right. But it 'was' organic material, none the less.



UbiquitousInfiniteReality



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gear
Melatonin
On a side note, planck time in no way relates to, or denounces First Law of Thermodynamics, as your response is supposed to indicate.


No it doesn't, you seem to suggest that 1-LOT is an issue for BB. It is not. All the energy, the source of matter was present in a different from. 1-LOT suggests that matter/energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but can be changed from one form to another. That is what happened, whether energy was created or destroyed before planck time is an open question, we can't apply classical physics, that includes 1-LOT, we can assess and explain after planck time....BB does a fantastic job.

So, you accept that thermodynamics is important, 1-LOT supports your theory, what about 2-LOT?



So in other words, the big bang happened. All matter just "popped" into existance. Only after that did the First Law of Thermodynamics come into play.
That doesn't make any sense at all. Regardless of how you look at it, bias or not.


See above. It 'evolved' from the big bang.

But whilst we talk about thermodynamics, how does your theory sit with 2-LOT? Current theory suggests that the universe will undergo increasing disorder/entropy and will lead to the big freeze predicted.

You need to overcome 2-LOT.


...My theory has NOTHING to do with BB theory. I've said It over and over again.
MY theory is the unification of the two existing and valid theories:
"The universe has always existed."
"Life on Earth began with a meteor carrying organic material"
I think you are implying that my theory is that "The universe has always existed." I did not develop this theory. If you have a problem with it, then do some research. Read a book or two. Take a class or something.


Almost funny.



"The universe has always existed."
-This is a valid and accepted scientific theory.
"Life on Earth began with a meteor carrying organic material"
-This is a valid and accepted scientific theory.

So if the two above mentioned statments are valid why would the next statment not be?
"Life has always existed."

That is what my theory entails. I thought it was pretty obvious, but it seems I was wrong.


What I'm talking about is how it explains stuff we know. You need to explain why your theory predicts expansion, BB can do so readily. You need to explain why we have this background radiation, BB can readily do so. BB predicts many things, some have been confirmed. You also need to overcome 2-LOT.


Einstein's general theory of relativity implies that the universe cannot be static; it must be either expanding or contracting.


The more distant a galaxy is, the faster it is receding from us (the Hubble law). This indicates that the universe is expanding. An expanding universe implies that the universe was small and compact in the distant past.


The big bang model predicts that cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation should appear in all directions, with a blackbody spectrum and temperature about 3 degrees K. We observe an exact blackbody spectrum with a temperature of 2.73 degrees K.


The CMB is even to about one part in 100,000. There should be a slight unevenness to account for the uneven distribution of matter in the universe today. Such unevenness is observed, and at a predicted amount.


The big bang predicts the observed abundances of primordial hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium. No other models have been able to do so.


The big bang predicts that the universe changes through time. Because the speed of light is finite, looking at large distances allows us to look into the past. We see, among other changes, that quasars were more common and stars were bluer when the universe was younger.

www.talkorigins.org...

How does your theory explain these findings?



As with your comment on planck time, you are stuck in a BB mind-set.
You are confusing time with time-space.
There are other theories apart from BB that explains the expansion of the universe. Does that make the BB theory obsolete? No, it does not. BB is still a valid theory, as are apposing theories to BB.


You're the one who mentioned time, not me, earlier...


Time, on the other hand did not always exist, at least not in THIS universe


Your theory may well sit well with 1-LOT but how about 2-LOT and general relativity. BB is based on Einstein's theory.



Yes, I am aware of this theory. It's not that it is not accpeted anymore, it's just that it is not as widely accepted anymore. It is still somewhat valid.


Well, yeah, it was a theory, the fact it could not explain certain phenomena sort of killed them, BB explains them.



You keep bringing up the expanding universe as a result of BB. If Universe may have been around forever, it in no way at all means it WOULD NOT expand.


And if we wind the expansion backwards, where does it lead?


Your implying that it is pure fact and irrefutable that time and space did not always exist. Well it is not a fact. It is a theory. Just as BB is only a theory. Just as the universe has always existed, is only a theory.
Again, as I said in my first post.


See your statement above. I have no issue with the notion of multiverses, Turok's theory would suggest time and space is not restricted to this universe we find ourselves in - it is possible that our universe is one of an infinite series of cycles.



.....So if the two above mentioned statments are valid why would the next statment not be?
"Life has always existed."


It really depends what you mean, if you're saying life always existed in this universe (the one we see), I would say no, the evidence agrees. If you're hypothesising mulitverses and infinite cycles with life developing within, well, who knows, why not...


Yes, you are off-topic. This has turned into a debate of the origin of the universe. The origin of the universe is not supposed to be the subject of discussion.
I had a feeling that this would go off-topic, but I thought it would spin the other way: The origin of life.


Yeah, I do understand but methinks you have made two claims that attract attention. BB just explains how this universe developed, Turok et al. expand it, before and after...

[edit on 17-10-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gear
Basically there's the First Law of Thermodynamics. Enough said? I'll tell you anyway. First Law of Thermodynamics states that although form can change, no matter or energy can ever be created or destroyed. IE: All the matter and energy that exists now has always existed.
First Law of Thermodynamics + Quantum Physics =
A universe of matter and energy that has always existed


Interesting that you mentioned the 1 LOT and quantum physics. By the way, do you know something about the Casimir effect?


This is sometimes described in terms virtual particles of interacting with the objects, due to the mathematical form of one possible way of calculating the strength of the effect



In order to conserve the total fermion number of the universe, a fermion cannot be created without also creating its antiparticle; thus many physical processes lead to pair creation. The need for the normal ordering of particle fields in the vacuum can be interpreted by the idea that a pair of virtual particles may briefly "pop into existence", and then annihilate each other a short while later.

Thus, virtual particles are often popularly described as coming in pairs, a particle and antiparticle, which can be of any kind. These pairs exist for an extremely short time, and mutually annihilate in short order. In some cases, however, it is possible to boost the pair apart using external energy so that they avoid annihilation and become real particles.

Now...how would that contradict the 1 LOT?.
Just a thought...maybe there is an anti-Univers that was created in the same time with ours...so that they form a pair.



If Universe may have been around forever, it in no way at all means it WOULD NOT expand.

See melatonin's answer, but here's something else: if the univers allways existed and it expands...how come we still have galaxy clusters, gallaxies and stars? Wouldn't the expansion of the ever existing univers sepparate all the atoms in the univers? Unless there is a constant source for new matter, then the univers' density will be virtualy zero (and I mean something like 1 atom per cubic light year or worse). And if you have a constant source for matter...then what about the 1 LOT?

Further more, if the univers allways existed, how come we still have hydrogen? Aren't the stars using hydrogen to produce helium through nuclear fusion? Again, without a constant source of matter, the stars would have wear out most of the hydrogen.
And I'm not off-topic. You proposed that life have ever existed based on a univers that have ever existed. Now, if I can argue about the ever existing univers...well..where does this gets us in the discussion about your theory of life?



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 12:30 AM
link   
On another note, how could expansion take place? For instance; take the first law of thermodynamics and apply an infinite amount of energy/existence.

Second law of thermodynamics has already been eternally completed, infinitely, statically infinite, but never just static. =)

The third law is pretty much correct in its findings.

Expansion never occurs. Everything already exists infinitely and eternally, everywhere. Even time. Change is an illusion of sorts. When one thinks one is creating something... one is really not... it was already there to begin with.
The major problems with the laws of thermodynamics is they seperate the environment, the system, and the 'body' too often and the goal they are really striving for becomes lost in the division that is created.

I hope this helps =) If you have anymore questions I'd love to try and answer them. I'm sorry if the answers are a bit vague... I'm just growing bored of everyone denying me. The scientists on this planet are corrupt and outrageously close minded.

Anyway, oh well, there's a little something. I'm just getting bored of this planet =( I try, and try, and try, but no one is like me and it seems as if everyone is afraid of love, truth, and honesty. Why are everyone's minds so closed? Ugh... my brain's going dead from lack of stimulation.

The Third law already found infinity, it just denied that it's a source of existence since it 'can't' reach 'absolute Zero'... whatever. Perhaps that's what absolute Zero is... an infinite amount of energy... just as 1/3 of 10 is never truly one third of 10... .333333333333... but we take it for what it's worth and use it at face value in our everyday lives. Perfection isn't just what the Human wants, needs, and expects it to be... it's what the existence says it is. Perfection needs not any amount of limitation for a human to grasp.

Hope you all begin understanding the infinite perfection.

Infinite love and eternal peace.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 12:38 AM
link   
I hope you all see that with infinite reality there are no longer any barriers, not even the speed of light. Enjoy yourself, you're being set free mankind. All laws and all theories will be revised with infinity and eternity. The World is changing, reality is changing, consciousness is changing... yet it's all already been here waiting to be discovered and waiting to be accepted.

[edit on 19-10-2006 by UbiquitousInfiniteReality]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gear
"The universe has always existed."
-This is a valid and accepted scientific theory.
"Life on Earth began with a meteor carrying organic material"
-This is a valid and accepted scientific theory.

So if the two above mentioned statments are valid why would the next statment not be?
"Life has always existed."


In theory, if the universe has always existed, and if life on Earth began with a meteor carrying organic material, is it possible that life has ALWAYS existed?

(Am I the only person who put two and two together? If not, why haven't I heared this theory before?)


Well, most scientists prefer the Big Bang theory, but I'm with you on
the universe always existing, just not always in the same way as it
does now.

I think life may have existed at various times in our universe, if life is
eternal, than pre-big bang life would have been so different, we may
not even be able to recognise it as life, or of existing at all.


You may well be the first person here to think of it, I can honestly say
I never have.


Oh,a nd on a sidenote, I don't consider the first law of thermodynamics
to be correct, it's in my opinion a supradimensional void existed before
the big-bang, thana particle popped into existance, and caused a chain
reaction, creating our universe.

[edit on 10/19/2006 by iori_komei]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 12:42 AM
link   
'Most scientists' are of a time past and working for an agenda. Suffice to announce that their time is up and the ushering in of a new age is appearing before our eyes with no way to stop it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join