swansont

"Because Andrew William Henderson said so" is not a physics principle. Repetition does not make something true. Is anyone predicting an exact outcome of a future event here? I'm not understanding your point. Asserted without evidence. (I'm sensing a pattern) Abiogenesis might actually be relatively easy under the conditions of the the early earth. It might be that it only took a thousand years after the right conditions were met for it to occur. That's fast using the age of the earth as a scale. We just don't know. And if we don't know, you can't make a valid assertion one way or the other.

Hence the "dark" moniker There's no reason to think there is, either, which is a stronger statement. The BB extrapolates back to a singularity, but at all times past that (i.e. at all times we have physics that we can discuss) there is dark energy and no singularity. "All sides around the universe" has no meaning.

And this depends on what that "thing" is. If that "thing" is some kind of eye is developed, then that "thing" has happened multiple times. Your examples have focused this down to a narrow instance of something so that the statement is true, but it's only true for those narrowly-defined instances, and you are improperly extrapolating those examples. Suns (i.e. stars) happen all the time. Suns similar to ours happen pretty often. There's no reason to think a star has to be exactly like our sun to support life. Abiogenesis in no way "bypasses" entropy, and I don't see how the Lorenz effect applies. (and you have made the case for neither; just doing a Gish gallop isn't going to get you anywhere)

Perhaps there is some bit of relevance: the differences in the gold between two locations is dependent on stuff that isn't gold. The gold itself (the atoms of a given isotope) are identical I'm not even sure you could rule out life emerging more than once on earth. Abiogenesis happens, and then some cataclysm wipes it out before it can spread and take hold, and a thousand years later abiogenesis happens again. This could potentially have happened many times. None of the evidence would have survived.

! Moderator Note A reminder that your (fredreload) responses that stray from the topic will remain hidden. This thread is not about some fanciful application that's loosely based on science. Such discussion is why you are in the moderation queue.

I provided three links that shows this to be in error. Have you provided any examples of it being "hidden"? Usually it's derived with few constraints to it, and no initial conditions. e.g. start with a = dv/dt, which is the definition of acceleration (always true) Add in the condition that acceleration is constant, and integrate the equation and you get v = v0 +at Apply the definition of velocity, v = dx/dt Integrate again and you get s = v0t + 1/2 at2 The initial velocity is there (as it is in so many textbooks, if you'd only bother to look), and the only restriction is that you must have a constant acceleration Only if you forget to include it, but that's on you

To a very limited extent, yes. It's more difficult to confine them because you don't have an overall neutral configuration as you have in a plasma, so the electrostatic repulsion will quickly get very large as you add electrons.

No, it's information

! Moderator Note If you present speculation, you MUST PRESENT EVIDENCE FOR IT After 200+ posts, ignorance of the rules isn’t an excuse that buys you additional chances

No. Unless you can hand me a cup of information.

Hogan's Heroes is (mostly) 60s

We're not talking about Fibonacci. In any event, it shows the growth is related to φn which is indeed exponential. If you click on your link and then the "exponential rate" link and look at the graph, it shows a linear function, as well as 2n and x3 You can see that they are not the same growth.

"I know nothing" — Sgt Schultz

2±n is exponential x±2 is not

Black holes attract matter in violation of the inverse-square law (where Newtonian physics would apply)? Citations please.

Sure they are. And as such, fermions follow Fermi-Dirac statistics. Bosons follow Bose-Einstein statistics. Both of which require identical particles. This is the opposite of what was discussed, which was: same process, different outcomes. You are asking for identical outcomes. If I drop two masses off the tower of Pisa, they will both undergo the same gravitational acceleration, even as other forces may be present to give small differences in their velocities at any point. You seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that your original framing did not ask for identical results. You said nothing happens again or twice. Gold being formed in California and again in Queensland (or vice-versa) is something that happened. You are now moving the goalposts, something that has also happened many times, particularly in arguments like this.

No, it's not. Convergent evolution wouldn't result in identical species. But you didn't say anything about the same species emerging. The claim that "Nothing in nature is observered (sic) to happen again or twice ...have a look yourselves! " is not the same as saying some species would emerge twice. The former is very vague* and demonstrably false, while the latter is true and unsurprising, given what we know of evolution. * "nothing" covers a pretty wide range of items and phenomena. All of them, in fact. So as exchemist notes, processes repeat all the time, even if the outcomes differ.

No, it's the galaxies not bound to each other that will continue to recede from each other. The stars in these galaxies will burn out and eventually new stars will not be able to form. Redshift is caused by motion away. If the motion is towards each other, there will be a blueshift. There's also a redfshift as light climbs out of a gravity well.

Octopus eyes and human eyes are "wired" differently (humans have a blind spot); they did not arise from a common ancestor. Eyesight is something that developed multiple times in the course of evolution. It's not the only trait to have done so.

"impenetrable" implies there is something there that might penetrate. Again, this is treating nothing as a substance, which it is not.

Gravitationally bound systems don't expand. From the article: "we’re measuring the inverse-square law below the dark-energy length scale to look for a possible new gravitational phenomenon" (emphasis added) They aren't looking at distances where expansion is observed. They're saying that dark energy doesn't perturb gravitationally-bound systems.

Yes, semantics is a big part of this. Are we? Is nothing an object? There are a number of cases where a certain class of nothing is defined by something: a hole in the dirt is defined by a lack of dirt, dark is the absence of light. It's not an object, it is a state or condition. It's dark inside the box. Is it the same dark if you move it? Kind of nonsensical. The same condition exists, but the phrasing is treating it as an object rather than as a condition. Which makes is a bit of a silly semantic game, as people have hinted at or suggested in the thread. Which is why this is silly.

Dark energy causes accelerating expansion, which is not a part of Newtonian gravity.

! Moderator Note Posting videos in this fashion violates rule 2.7

No thing can enter the box is not the same as saying nothing can enter the box. Are we sure that nothing can't pass through the box? What if nothing can enter the box, and nothing can leave the box. How do you you check to see if this happens?