beecee

I also reject the label "Atheist" I prefer scientific realist. And again you refuse to answer the question...Perhaps due to some agenda? Let me put that question again..the first from Curious Layman.... I'm not sure I follow, are you suggesting that it points towards evidence of god? the article does but what about you? And the obvious refutation re your nonsensical claim re Intelligent design... "Not in the manner that you seem to be unjustly applying to him. He is suggesting [a suggestion that I absolutely abhore] that perhaps we are simply a simulation created by a supreme race of beings. He is certainly not suggesting any Intelligent design for the existence of the universe and life as a whole [he is afterall an intelligent atheist] which is the general meaning taken when impressionable people speak of intelligent design, that is some magical spaghetti monster beyond the universe itself". The second question..Do you deny that is generally what is meant by intelligent design? Lets put in a third question in reply to your rambling rhetoric.....Is this the agenda behind your crusade against Tyson? You know being an Atheist or agnostic...or if you like a non believer?

So again you refuse to answer two former questions now, and instead proceed on your Tyson bashing crusade. I smell an agenda afoot.

So this is your "bash Tyson" crusade thread. Again you ignore the fact re the true definition of intelligent design and the fact that Tyson is an intelligent Atheist. Or is this the reason for such unsupported drivel that you have posted? Also you have avoided a question put to you earlier in this thread, thus....... you answered..... So again, please answer the question as asked. Note...Tyson is an intelligent avowed Atheist.

Speculation is a required step in science that Tyson was using. Nonsense...You have not shown that. Actually plenty of irony as seen in your rather "over the top" Tyson bashing crusade and exaggerated claims and extrapolation of them. .And again in reply to your mistaken claim that Tyson supports intelligent design, and my answer that you seem to have missed......"Not in the manner that you seem to be unjustly applying to him. He is suggesting [a suggestion that I absolutely abhore] that perhaps we are simply a simulation created by a supreme race of beings. He is certainly not suggesting any Intelligent design for the existence of the universe and life as a whole [he is afterall an intelligent atheist] which is the general meaning taken when impressionable people speak of intelligent design, that is some magical spaghetti monster beyond the universe itself".

Simplifying appears to be exactly what you seem to be doing, along with an apparent "over the top" dislike of an obvious intelligent scientist with appropriate credentials. Recognising the fact that we all make errors, what you claim is at best a slight exaggeration. Not in the manner that you seem to be unjustly applying to him. He is suggesting [a suggestion that I absolutely abhore] that perhaps we are simply a simulation created by a supreme race of beings. He is certainly not suggesting any Intelligent design for the existence of the universe and life as a whole [he is afterall an intelligent atheist] which is the general meaning taken when impressionable people speak of intelligent design, that is some magical spaghetti monster beyond the universe itself.

Certainly not in the vane in which you seem to be applying meaning to. The fact remains that all frames are as valid and real as each other. The measurement taken [as Strange has said] is observer dependent and GR tells us that there is no preferred frame. That is the crux of the matter.

It has also been shown that microscopic life forms can survive the effects of space and of course the same methodology is thought to be instrumental in delivering at least some of Earth's abundant water. It is though just a hypothetical at this time, but certainly we know that at one time there was no life [universally speaking] then there was. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

As answered twice previously, yes, the expansion of the universe does affect the wave length of light. What you need to consider is that firstly, all frames of references are as valid as each other, and of course the observed wave length is relative to that frame. And it follows that from the observers aspect on Earth, we certainly see a real cosmological redshift or lengthening of the wave length of the light.

Yes...The expansion of the universe affects light and this is observed by the lengthening of the wavelength or shift to the red end of the spectrum, and is known as "cosmological redshift" The actual trajectory is affected by spacetime curvature or warping by intervening objects.

https://phys.org/news/2019-06-nasa-woman-moon-world.html NASA to land first woman on the moon. 'It would be out of this world.' From 1969 to 1972, six NASA missions named for the Greek god Apollo successfully landed 12 men on the surface of the moon; Neil, "Buzz," two men named Alan, two men named Charles, Edgar, David, James, John, Jack and Eugene. At the time of Neil and Buzz's 1969 moonwalk, Libertyville author and former rocket test engineer Suzanne Slade was 4 years old. She remembers none of it. She does remember three years later, when Eugene and Jack—the last of the men to have walked the moon—made their trip out of earth and back. "It was almost unbelievable," she said. Now, nearly 50 years later, NASA has set out on a mission that would have then been considered even more unbelievable—to land the first woman on the moon. more at link........ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: The new projected mission will be called "Artemis" the Greek goddess of the Moon and as I have interestingly just found out, Apollo's twin sister...quite appropriate! The other interesting fact is that this projected landing will take place at or near the Lunar South pole...NB: The polar regions of the Moon are conjectured to probably contain surface water ice in craters, due to the negligible Lunar axial tilt and being in permanent "shadow,"

https://phys.org/news/2019-06-comet-impacts-jump-start-life-earth.html Comets screaming through the atmosphere of early Earth at tens of thousands of miles per hour likely contained measurable amounts of protein-forming amino acids. Upon impact, these amino acids self-assembled into significantly larger nitrogen-containing aromatic structures that are likely constituents of polymeric biomaterials. That is the conclusion of a new study by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) researchers who explored the idea that the extremely high pressures and temperatures induced by shock impact can cause small biomolecules to condense into larger life-building compounds. The research appears in the journal Chemical Science and will be highlighted on the back cover of an upcoming issue. Glycine is the simplest protein-forming amino acid and has been detected in cometary dust samples and other astrophysical icy materials. However, the role that extraterrestrial glycineplayed in the origins of life is largely unknown, in part because little is known about its survivability and reactivity during impact with a planetary surface. more at link....... the paper: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2019/SC/C9SC00155G#!divAbstract Synthesis of functionalized nitrogen-containing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and other prebiotic compounds in impacting glycine solutions: Abstract: Proteinogenic amino acids can be produced on or delivered to a planet via impacting abiotic sources and consequently were likely present before the emergence of life on Earth. However, the role that these materials played in prebiotic scenarios remains an open question, in part because little is known about the survivability and reactivity of astrophysical organic compounds upon impact with a planetary surface. To this end, we use a force-matched semi-empirical quantum simulation method to study impacts of aqueous proteinogenic amino acids at conditions reaching 48 GPa and 3000 K. Here, we probe a relatively unstudied mechanism for prebiotic synthesis where sudden heating and pressurization causes condensation of complex carbon-rich structures from mixtures of glycine, the simplest protein-forming amino acid. These carbon-containing clusters are stable on short timescales and undergo a fundamental structural transition upon expansion and cooling from predominantly sp3-bonded tetrahedral-like moieties to those that are more sp2-bonded and planar. The recovered sp2-bonded structures include large nitrogen containing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (NPAHs) with a number of different functional groups and embedded bonded regions akin to oligo-peptides. A number of small organic molecules with prebiotic relevance are also predicted to form. This work presents an alternate route to gas-phase synthesis for the formation of NPAHs of high complexity and highlights the significance of both the thermodynamic path and local chemical self-assembly in forming prebiotic species during shock synthesis. Our results help determine the role of comets and other celestial bodies in both the delivery and synthesis of potentially significant life building compounds on early Earth.

Right on all counts.

The parameter for the acceleration in the expansion rate is termed DE...or Dark Energy, because as yet we just do not know specifically exactly the nature of it. The theory most accepted, in fact overwhelmingly accepted, is the Big Bang. The observed expansion, along with the CMBR at a current 2.7K, and the abundance of H and He, lighter elements, and the large scale galactic structure are the four main pillars of the BB theory. The addition of Inflation is seen as supporting other aspects such as the flatness and the isotropic nature of the observable universe.

Bingo! They are doing a job and such efforts need commending. If only 10% become interested in the dumbed down, pop science versions [which I believe charlatans and others with agendas use for derision purposes] and chose to proceed and make it their career choice, or just out of pure interest, they will inquire further and undertake deeper learning, and that could be of great benefit to us all....Another Einstein perhaps? To call him an incompetent buffoon, is an ignorant remark at best. I welcome all the DeGrasse Tyson's, Brian Cox's, the Bill Nye's and the many others stemming back to the late great Carl Sagan and David Attenbourough, for their efforts in educating the masses.

https://phys.org/news/2019-06-astronomers-history.html Cosmic waves discovery could unlock mysteries of intergalactic space: Scientists were celebrating a groundbreaking astronomical discovery Thursday that they say could pave the way for mapping the outer reaches of the universe. An Australian-led team of international astronomers have determined for the first time the precise source of a powerful, one-off burst of cosmic radio waves. They have pinpointed it to a massive galaxy billions of light years away, with properties that upend what scientists previously thought they knew about the formation of mysterious fast radio bursts (FRBs). "This result is highly anticipated within the astronomy community," Casey Law, an astronomer at UC Berkeley who was not involved in the study told AFP. The findings, published in the journal Science, are among the most significant since the discovery in 2007 of FRBs, which flash for only a micro-instant but can emit as much energy in a millisecond as the Sun does in 10,000 years. more at link..... the paper: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2019/06/26/science.aaw5903 A single fast radio burst localized to a massive galaxy at cosmological distance: Abstract: Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) are brief radio emissions from distant astronomical sources. Some are known to repeat, but most are single bursts. Non-repeating FRB observations have had insufficient positional accuracy to localize them to an individual host galaxy. We report the interferometric localization of the single pulse FRB 180924 to a position 4 kpc from the center of a luminous galaxy at redshift 0.3214. The burst has not been observed to repeat. The properties of the burst and its host are markedly different from the only other accurately localized FRB source. The integrated electron column density along the line of sight closely matches models of the intergalactic medium, indicating that some FRBs are clean probes of the baryonic component of the cosmic web.

Time and distance certainly do not necessarily prohibit inter planetary/stellar/galactic contact, but it damn well makes it much harder and unlikely in many circumstances, assuming the logical assumption that the laws of physics apply everywhere. Of course the main aspect of what Carl has always said, is that one of mankind's most enduring and inspiring questions, is are we alone? Like Carl who I see as an incredible educator, while the likelyhood of life elsewhere is very probable, as yet we do not have any evidence of any life existing off the Earth. And while Carl also agrees that Aliens could well have visited Earth at some time in the past, we have no evidence of such visitations.

https://phys.org/news/2019-06-santorini-volcano-terrestrial-analogue-mars.html The Greek island of Santorini is now one of the most popular tourist destinations in the Mediterranean, but 3,600 years ago it suffered one of the largest volcanic eruptions in recorded history. Among the material that was exposed, scientists have now found rocks similar to those of Mars. "In the Balos Cove, located to the south of the island, we have discovered basalts such as those that have been identified by the rovers on Mars and with properties similar to those of certain meteorites from the red planet and those of terrestrial rocks classified as Martian analogues," says Ioannis Baziotis, a researcher at the Agricultural University of Athens and co-author of the study, recently published in Icarus. more at link..... the paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S001910351830681X?via%3Dihub Santorini volcano as a potential Martian analogue: The Balos Cove Basalts: Αbstract The interpretation of geologic processes on Mars from sparse meteorite, remote sensing and rover data is influenced by knowledge gained from well-characterized terrestrial analogues. This calls for detailed study of candidate terrestrial analogues and comparison of their observable features to those encountered on the surface of Mars. We evaluated the mineralogical, geochemical, and physical properties of the Balos covebasalts (BCB) from the island of Santorini and compared them to Martian meteorites, Mars rover surface measurements, and other verified Martian analogues obtained from the International Space Analogue Rockstore (ISAR). Twenty rock samples were collected from the Balos cove area based on their freshness, integrity, and basaltic appearance in the field. Optical microscopy of BCB revealed a pilotaxitic to trachytic texture, with olivine and clinopyroxene phenocrysts in a fine groundmass of olivine, clinopyroxene, plagioclase, magnetite, and devitrified glass. All major minerals show normal zoning, including calcic plagioclase (An78–85 at the core and An60–76 at the rim), augite(En36-48Wo41-44Fs11–21), and olivine (Fo74–88). The dominant bands in the infrared-attenuated total reflectance (IR-ATR) spectra from BCB can be assigned to olivine (~875 cm−1), calcic plagioclase (~1130 cm−1), and augite (~970 cm−1). The whole-rock chemical compositions and mineralogy of the BCB are similar to published analyses of typical olivine-phyric shergottites and basalts and basaltic materials analyzed in Gusev and Gale craters on Mars. BCB porosity is in the range of 7–15% and is similar to the porosities of the ISAR samples. Although no terrestrial rock is ever a perfect match to Martian compositions, the differences in mineralogy and geochemistry between BCB and some classes of Martian samples are relatively subtle and the basalts of Santorini are as close a match as other accepted Mars basalt analogues. The Santorini site offers excellent field logistics that, together with the petrology of the outcrop, makes it a valuable locality for testing and calibration deployments, field training, and other activities related to current and future Mars exploration.

https://phys.org/news/2019-06-physics-life-d-universe.html Researcher shows physics suggests life could exist in a 2-D universe by Bob Yirka , Phys.org James Scargill, a physicist at the University of California, has written a paper reporting that the laws of physics allow for the existence of a life-supporting two-dimensional universe. MIT's Technology Review has reviewed the paper and found that the work does show that such a 2+1 universe could exist. Because we live in three-dimensions, it is difficult for us to envision a universe in which the third dimension does not exist—or one in which there is a fourth or fifth dimension. But philosophers and physicists have spent a lot of time and work trying to figure out if life could exist in anything but the three dimensions we know. In such discussions, time is also included, which has led to the description of what we experience as a 3+1-dimensional universe. more at link..... the paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.05336.pdf Can Life Exist in 2 + 1 Dimensions? Abstract: There are anthropic reasons to suspect that life in more than three spatial dimensions is not possible, and if the same could be said of fewer than three, then one would have an anthropic argument for why we experience precisely three large spatial dimensions. There are two main arguments levelled against the possibility of life in 2 + 1 dimensions: the lack of a local gravitational force and Newtonian limit in 3D general relativity, and the claim that the restriction to a planar topology means that the possibilities are ‘too simple’ for life to exist. I will examine these arguments and show how a purely scalar theory of gravity may evade the first one, before considering certain families of planar graphs which share properties which are observed in real-life biological neural networks and are argued to be important for their functioning. Conclusions: In this paper I have considered the two main arguments which are commonly presented against the possibility of complex life in 2 + 1 dimensions: the absence of a local gravitational force in three-dimensional general relativity, and that the topological restrictions placed by requiring planarity are too severe to allow complex life. The first can be avoided by changing the gravitational theory. As a proof-of-principle I have presented a purely scalar theory of gravity which allows stable orbits around point sources, and has a not-obviously-fatal (though unusual) cosmology; it could potentially be improved by making the whole metric dynamical. One could also imagine a brane-world scenario in which the massless graviton is not localised to the brane, thus allowing two-dimensional life to enjoy fully four-dimensional gravity. To deal with the second objection I have turned to research that has been conducted into the properties of biological neural networks, and created a family of planar graphs (the ‘cycle-based’ ones from section 3.1.3) which seem to exhibit many of the properties which have been conjectured to be important for complex brains. In particular they are approximately ‘small-world,’ they have a hierarchical and modular construction, and they show evidence of the stretching (in parameter space) of a critical point into a finite critical region for certain stochastic processes. It should be noted that whilst this is certainly suggestive of the possibility of complex brains in two dimensions, it is not conclusive, as it likely that the properties described above are not sufficient on their own. Therefore more work is needed to compare the graphs presented here with real-life neural networks (and also to include edge weights and directions, which have been neglected here), as well as to consider further families of planar graphs, in order to arrive at a more complete understanding of the possibility of complex brains in two dimensions. Overall it would seem that if one wishes to use anthropic reasoning to explain the observed dimensionality of space-time, then the possibility of life in 2+1 dimensions requires further investigation. In particular it would be interesting to determine if there might be other impediments to life which have so far been overlooked, as well as to continue to search for non-anthropic explanations for the dimensionality of space-time. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't like it, but hey! it's only me!

The two highlighted words should not be there. Look, I am the first to agree that at best the defining of time is controversial and there are plenty of opinions on that. And obviously as swansont has also said, it is more a philosophical question then anything else. But in support of the Odenwald quote, we are reasonably confident that matter/energy did first arise from the evolution of space and time and the "Superforce" in that first 10-43 second. As that superforce started to decouple, and phase transitions created, excesses of energy and fundamental particles evolved. So as Odenwald claims, and confidently, without the time and space, we have no matter or energy and subsequently no universe. Hint: Read Odenwald's answer again. and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superforce Disclaimer: The further back in time we go and the closer to the BB, the less certainty applies to what we believed happened. But they are the best answers we have at this time, according to experimental and observational data.

I'm reasonably sure that space and time [as we know them] evolved from t+10-43 seconds. So a tentative yes to your question. An important question that needs to be asked is that can space and time [or spacetime] exist without the matter/energy within it. An answer to that is from Sten Odenwald... https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html Special & General Relativity Questions and Answers Can space exist by itself without matter or energy around? No. Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Now obviously that sounds contradictory as the two words I have highlighted. So I E-Mailed Sten Odenwald about this and he apologised and did say it was an error and the highlighted part should not be there..... Does that answer the question in the OP?

I actually think we know as much about time as we do space. That which came into existence in there current form at t+10-43 seconds...or perhaps both are just simple mundane requirements of the universe and its existence. One separates everything, the other stops everything from happening in an instant and both can be interchanged. and are the same thing as per Minkowski.

Agreed.... Yeah the Matilda's done well! Being a Rugby League man though, I'm waiting anxiously for the greatest RL contest to take place tonight...State of Origin between NSW and Q,Land!!

Hmmm, OK, I see...I may have to change my ways. Don't get me wrong...I have always viewed it as energy being added to the system so to speak. And obviously the following supports both your views.... Thanks for the answers and your efforts in trying to shift an old fart from his rather entrenched position!

In my travels I have heard it said that "relativistic mass" is an outdated concept. It always had me wondering about its validity but I was never really sure how to conduct an argument against what I saw as wrong. Why did I see it as wrong? Probably two reasons that I know of...[1] As a body gains speed, the harder it gets to get it to continue to accelerate, illustrated by the fact that the energy would need to be infinite to push it beyond "c"...the second being that light/photons have zero rest mass, but yet is able to exert a force due to its momentum. Am I wrong? or do the points I made mean that relativistic mass is certainly a concept still useful and valid?

Heroic to put it mildly, agreed.