Reproduction of biospheres and civilizations.

[Ivan Gorelik]

Reproduction of biospheres and civilizations.

 

Our human Civilization is the constituent part of the Earth's biosphere. We will speak here about the ways of biospheres reproduction in cosmos. It is clear that the reproduction of human civilizations is the constituent and final part of more general process, - the reproduction of biospheres.

But is that possible?

Let's try to answer the following questions, at first, and after, we'll try to make some conclusions, according to scientific definitions and observations.

Is our biosphere a living organism? Or, is it superorganism?

Is human a living organism or a living superorganism?

 

Biosphere[1].

 

The concept that the biosphere is itself a living organism, either actually or metaphorically, is known as the Gaia hypothesis.

 

James Lovelock, an atmospheric scientist from the United Kingdom, proposed the Gaia hypothesis to explain how biotic and abiotic factors interact in the biosphere. This hypothesis considers Earth itself a kind of living organism. Its atmosphere, geosphere, and hydrosphere are cooperating systems that yield a biosphere full of life.

 

Gaia hypothesis [2].

 

The Gaia hypothesis is an ecological hypothesis proposing that the biosphere and the physical components of the Earth (atmosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere) are closely integrated to form a complex interacting system that maintains the climatic and biogeochemical conditions on Earth in a preferred homeostasis. Originally proposed by James Lovelock as the earth feedback hypothesis, it was named the Gaia Hypothesis, after the Greek supreme goddess of Earth. The hypothesis is frequently described as viewing the Earth as a single organism. Lovelock and other supporters of the idea now regard it as a scientific theory, not merely a hypothesis, since they believe it has passed predictive tests.

 

One of the criteria of the empirical definition of life is its ability to replicate and pass on their genetic information to succeeding generations. Consequently, an argument against the idea that Gaia is a "living" organism is the fact that the planet is unable to reproduce.

 

Organism [3].

 

In biology, an organism is a living thing (such as animal, plant, fungus, or micro-organism). In at least some form, all organisms are capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development, and maintenance of homeostasis as a stable whole. An organism may either be unicellular or be composed of many billions of cells grouped into specialized tissues and organs. The term multicellular describes any organism made up of more than one cell.

 

A superorganism is an organism consisting of many organisms. This is usually meant to be a social unit of eusocial animals, where division of labor is highly specialized and where individuals are not able to survive by themselves for extended periods of time. Ants are the most well known example of such a superorganism. Thermoregulation, a feature usually exhibited by individual organisms, does not occur in individuals or small groups of honeybees... When these bees pack together in clusters of between 5000 and 40000, the colony can thermoregulate. James Lovelock, with his "Gaia Theory" has paralleled the work of Vladimir Vernadsky, who suggested the whole of the biosphere in some respects can be considered as a superorganism…

 

It is also argued that humans are actually a superorganism that includes microorganisms such as bacteria. It is estimated that the human intestinal microbiota is composed of 1013 to 1014 microorganisms whose collective genome contains at least 100 times as many genes as our own. Thus, humans are superorganisms whose metabolism represents an amalgamation of microbial and human attributes.

 

The first conclusion: Humans are superorganisms. Planetary biospheres can also be named the superorganisms, if we will find some proves to the last missing property, required by the definition of the living organism, - the ability of reproduction.

 

 

 

Panspermia [4].

 

Panspermia is the hypothesis that "seeds" of life exist already all over the Universe, that life on Earth may have originated through these "seeds", and that they may deliver or have delivered life to other habitable bodies.

 

Panspermia can be said to be either interstellar or interplanetary. Mechanisms for panspermia include radiation pressure (Arrhenius) and lithopanspermia (microorganisms in rocks) (Kelvin). Directed panspermia from space to seed Earth (Orgel and Crick, 1973) or sent from Earth to seed other solar systems (Mautner 1979, 1997) has also been proposed.

 

Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe were important proponents of the hypothesis who further contended that lifeforms continue to enter the Earth's atmosphere, and may be responsible for epidemic outbreaks, new diseases, and the genetic novelty necessary for macroevolution. This extension has also been adopted by proponents of Cosmic ancestry.

 

In the strongest version of panspermia, life never originated, but always existed — this axiom would require amending the big bang theory.

 

The mechanisms proposed for interstellar panspermia are hypothetical and currently unproven.

 

 

 

The second conclusion: Official science persistently denies the Steady State models of Universe and the Panspermia hypothesis, despite the fact that there are a lot of observations and physical evidences of these theories. This leads me to the thought that the official science is some organ of our living Biosphere, which has genetic innate property, aimed at implementing of the suicidal reproduction of biospheres.

 

The third conclusion: Scientists, who are interested in the launch of the Large Hadron Collider, can be named "the curiosity cells" of our Biosphere. Scientists, who are crying everywhere about the possible global risks, can be named “the good reason cells” of our Biosphere. If the first large group of physics will win, then our Biosphere will die, as a thoughtless female-animal. If the second very small group will win, then Biospher will survive and look like a reasonable, thinking female, able to anticipate the danger.

 

The forth conclusion: The mechanism for interstellar panspermia is absolutely clear; it is the explosion of the planet, where the biosphere had grown to the reproducing age. The method of biosphere's reproduction is similar to that of exploding cucumber. The more powerful explosion, - the more reliable reproduction.

 

Possible detonators of global explosion:

 

1. Collision of particles with the energy about 1 TeV or higher per particle.

 

2. Creating of Bose-Einstein Condensate in the laboratories, experimenting with the matter under extremely low temperatures.

 

3. Underground tests of nuclear weapons, which can lead to thermonuclear detonation of geological stratum of such nuclear fuel, as KH.

 

4. Creating the transuranium elements.

 

How it must look in order to better preserve the seeds of life.

With some part of fantasy.

 

Magnetic hole absorbs the inner part of our planet. Planet self-contracts. Oceans cover the mainland by water. Magnetic hole is growing exponentially and, finally, a huge explosion occurs, which sends the shell of the Earth's into outer space. All of us, with grass, cats, fish, tadpoles fly, covered by ocean water, with the speed of ten times more, than the speed Voyagers. Due to the reduction of pressure the water boils, transforming into foam, and soon it freezes. Thus the comets are formed. The temperatures are about "minus" 150-250 degrees Centigrade. Flies and tadpoles in comets are in a state of hibernation.

 

Finally, some comet enters some Earth-like platen’s atmosphere. The comet splits, and its icy parts drop into warm lakes. There the comet’s parts are melting. Flies wake up and fly away, some fishes and tadpoles, too, wake up, and swim away.

 

The human will appear on this planet on the next stage, when n’th comet will arrive to this planet, when comet’s shell will melt under the rays of that star, when human's DNA molecules will subside to that planet.

 

 

 

The cosmic space has a huge amount of organic substance.

 

Each year, only in our Galaxy, containing approximately 150 billion stars, from one to ten civilizations die. Mourning marches, that are, nova and supernova explosions, play several times frequently. Part of the nova stars exert repeated explosions. The cause is clear - magnetic hole, reaching a mass roughly equal to 1/20 of solar masses, transform into a black hole. Their radii at this mass are equal, and the transition is accompanied by explosion. Therefore, the Sun will be eaten in twenty receptions, accompanied by explosions that would occur with intervals of several tens of years. Supernovae are exploding at once, because they have thin shells, and magnetic holes fail in supernovae’s rarefied central parts.

 

 

 

From the letter (slightly corrected).

 

In his commentary to the article How do we know the LHC really is safe?, published in NewSientist the 21 January 2009, James Tankers wrote: "To mitigate possible risk, I would like CERN to agree to follow Dr. Habil Rainer Plaga's compromise recommendation to increase energy levels only slowly and examine results before significantly increasing energy levels further."

 

James, say me, please, is it possible to prevent sperm ejaculation by "increasing energy levels only slowly" at the time of sexual intercourse?

 

Our civilization is a huge alive superorganism. Organisms must reproduce themselves. CERN is the possible reproductive organ of our Civilization. The launch of LHC is the sexual act, leading to the explosion of Earth, and to the launch of Civilization’s seeds into cosmos.

 

We must postpone the act of Civilization reproduction act as far as possible. The sexual act of our Civilization, which is the launch of collider, must be forbidden. The “slowly LHC-sex” will not safe us from reproductive suicide.

 

 

 

Some thoughts and questions.

 

Is our Biosphere a brainless organism, or it is able to reasonably think?

What is the Biosphere's brain: governments, religious organizations, scientific organizations, independent researchers? Can very rarefied "cells of good reason" prevent or postpone the reproductive suicide of Biosphere? Who are you, dear reader: "a cell of good reason", "a curiosity cell", or "thoughtless muscular cell"?

 

External referred links: Pages from Wikipedia:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

 

Magnetic trap of Devil. Recent calculations show that it is not excluded that microscopic magnetic traps were already created,

and they are growing now somewhere inside the Earth.

 

Arguments, proving that "The LHC will lead to global catastrophe"; "Magnetic holes exist";

"We will not be able to prevent the LHC launch and the following global catastrophe". Religious and mystic arguments.

 

The failed report "What will LHC give us, the particle of God, or magnetic trap of Devil?"

 

The Letter to the President of Russia.

 

The Letters to the Prosecutors Office of the Russian Federation.

 

Read the frequently updated page "Save Yourself - the Business Offer" for more news, links and developments of this topic.

[Mokele]

Lovelock and other supporters of the idea now regard it as a scientific theory, not merely a hypothesis, since they believe it has passed predictive tests.

 

Bullshit. The Gaia delusion is held only by those with poor knowledge of prehistory, as any significant knowledge of the history of life on earth immediately refutes it (such as the time life almost poisoned itself in its own waste).

 

It's also logically flawed - the fact that we exist to ask the question means life hasn't screwed up badly enough to eradicate itself yet, but if it had, we wouldn't be here to ask the question.

 

The first conclusion: Humans are superorganisms. Planetary biospheres can also be named the superorganisms, if we will find some proves to the last missing property, required by the definition of the living organism, - the ability of reproduction.

 

Wrong. Super-organisms are more than just 'things living on other things' - they are groups of organisms cooperating for a single goal and whose reproductive success in the immediate sense requires this. Ants are super-organisms, herds of wildebeest are not.

 

The second conclusion: Official science persistently denies the Steady State models of Universe and the Panspermia hypothesis, despite the fact that there are a lot of observations and physical evidences of these theories.

 

Show me this evidence. Because everyone else who's made this claim has failed to do so.

 

This leads me to the thought that the official science is some organ of our living Biosphere, which has genetic innate property, aimed at implementing of the suicidal reproduction of biospheres.

 

So, we're evil because we don't accept your ideas? Great reasoning.

 

The third conclusion: Scientists, who are interested in the launch of the Large Hadron Collider, can be named "the curiosity cells" of our Biosphere. Scientists, who are crying everywhere about the possible global risks, can be named “the good reason cells” of our Biosphere. If the first large group of physics will win, then our Biosphere will die, as a thoughtless female-animal. If the second very small group will win, then Biospher will survive and look like a reasonable, thinking female, able to anticipate the danger.

 

Your "conclusion" is nothing but an opinion, and an uninformed one at that. Do you have definitive evidence that the LHC will kill us all? Or even that such risks exist at all? No.

 

The forth conclusion: The mechanism for interstellar panspermia is absolutely clear; it is the explosion of the planet, where the biosphere had grown to the reproducing age. The method of biosphere's reproduction is similar to that of exploding cucumber. The more powerful explosion, - the more reliable reproduction.

 

That's possibly one of the dumbest ideas I've heard in a long while. Let's ignore the fact that the magnitude of such as explosion would kill off just about any organism, and move on - what are the odds that any chunk of the planet would hit another planet that's habitable? Remember, more chunks means better odds, but the chunk would just burn up the in other planet's atmosphere.

 

Anyone with any grasp of the distances even within our own solar system would laugh at this until they vomited.

 

All of us, with grass, cats, fish, tadpoles fly, covered by ocean water, with the speed of ten times more, than the speed Voyagers.

 

And everything instantly dies, because living things cannot withstand that level of acceleration.

 

Due to the reduction of pressure the water boils, transforming into foam, and soon it freezes. Thus the comets are formed. The temperatures are about "minus" 150-250 degrees Centigrade. Flies and tadpoles in comets are in a state of hibernation.

 

No multicellular organism can recover from those temperatures. Hell, only a tiny few can even survive being frozen, and then only for a few months. You're talking about tens of millions of years to reach other star systems.

 

The human will appear on this planet on the next stage, when n’th comet will arrive to this planet, when comet’s shell will melt under the rays of that star, when human's DNA molecules will subside to that planet.

 

Completely wrong. Humans will not "re-evolve" - evolution does not always come up with the same result, and even if a sapient species does evolve, it'll look nothing like us.

 

Secondly, DNA molecules do nothing on their own except decay.

 

Each year, only in our Galaxy, containing approximately 150 billion stars, from one to ten civilizations die.

 

Oh, I'd LOVE to see a source for this. The Galactic Census? The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?

 

 

 

 

This whole post is a mix of poor science, flights of fancy, and outright delusions.

[Ivan Gorelik]

Why my topic are already in Pseudoscience.

Doing thus you approaching the global catastrophe.

Think about your children!

Do you want CERN kill them?

You have only 90 days to make actions!

[Mokele]

Why my topic are already in Pseudoscience.

 

Because I've seen episodes of Spongebob Squarepants with more scientific accuracy.

[Ivan Gorelik]

Bullshit. The Gaia delusion is held only by those with poor knowledge of prehistory,.

 

Yes, such ideas can not be understood by 2-d (flat) brains.

 

..Super-organisms are more than just 'things living on other things' - they are groups of organisms cooperating for a single goal and whose reproductive success in the immediate sense requires this. Ants are super-organisms, herds of wildebeest are not...

 

Biosphere and human have properties of super-organism.

I don’t want to discuss these properties here, in the Pseudoscience-pit, with 2-d thinking man.

 

...Do you have definitive evidence that the LHC will kill us all? Or even that such risks exist at all?..

 

Of course, I have.

LHC will lead to Earth’s magnetic collapse, and to resulting planetary explosion with the probability of about 50%.

Go home, and say to your children/parents that you had also make your part in this process, in the preparations of killing them.

You thrown my letter into the pit, you named my idea “bullshit”.

Laugh and be ready to day.

We have only 90 days in order to stop CERN, in order to prevent the act of reproductive suicide of Earth’s biosphere.

[the tree]

You said 90 days yesterday.

[padren]

Yes, such ideas can not be understood by 2-d (flat) brains.

 

Biosphere and human have properties of super-organism.

I don’t want to discuss these properties here, in the Pseudoscience-pit, with 2-d thinking man.

I'm going to assume the 2-d brain snipe (attacking the opponent, not his argument... very 'higher dimensional' of you) is a metaphor and not literal so I'll leave that alone, but for the record:

 

With whom, do you think you can debate anywhere that will be fine with you making a claim (in this case "Biosphere and human have properties of super-organism.") and simply accept your assertion without challenge because "I don’t want to discuss these properties here" and all that?

 

Are you literally asking for blind faith because while you do have evidence and it apparently is really good we should just take your word for it, since you just don't feel like discussing it?

 

 

If you want to discuss your idea you need to give us more than blind faith to go on. There are 10s of 1000s of ideas all screaming out there in a din of white noise that need nothing more than blind faith. If you want yours to stand out from that it needs something to set itself apart from the rest: creativity, urgency, the importance of the implications (even imminent world destruction) and all that can be found thousands and thousands of times over. The only thing that sets ideas apart for discussion is credibility through empirical evidence, consistent logic, and where ever possible the ability to make predictions.

 

Otherwise it's: you came, you posted, you left... like 10,000 others before you who's ideas are just as likely to conflict with yours (prove you wrong, you just have to take it on faith since they don't like discussing it with close minded people) as to not... and nothing to stand out from the rest any more than one more ice crystal in a blizzard.

 

 

Of course, I have.

LHC will lead to Earth’s magnetic collapse, and to resulting planetary explosion with the probability of about 50%.

Go home, and say to your children/parents that you had also make your part in this process, in the preparations of killing them.

You thrown my letter into the pit, you named my idea “bullshit”.

Laugh and be ready to day.

We have only 90 days in order to stop CERN, in order to prevent the act of reproductive suicide of Earth’s biosphere.

 

I smell a bet.

 

You think there is a 50/50 that the Earth's magnetic field will collapse - what do you think will be visibly apparent should it not collapse? Super auroras? EMP? What 'near catastrophe' will occur if something less than the worse does?

 

It would have to be something that scientifically shouldn't happen (just like the Earth shouldn't blow up) but can be verified. I want to make a bet - if we can agree on something and it does happen - I'll upload a video of myself singing "I'm a little teapot" on the steps of my State Capitol. If we do not blow up and there is no evidence we were in danger of doing so, then you do.

 

Would you be game?

[JohnB]

Ivan, I don't see what you are worried about.

 

It is clear that the reproduction of human civilizations is the constituent and final part of more general process, - the reproduction of biospheres.

 

Consequently, an argument against the idea that Gaia is a "living" organism is the fact that the planet is unable to reproduce.

 

The mechanism for interstellar panspermia is absolutely clear; it is the explosion of the planet, where the biosphere had grown to the reproducing age. The method of biosphere's reproduction is similar to that of exploding cucumber. The more powerful explosion, - the more reliable reproduction.

 

Our human Civilization is the constituent part of the Earth's biosphere.

 

Organisms must reproduce themselves.

 

If you believe these things then the only logical conclusion is that human civilisation evolved for the specific purpose of allowing the planet to reproduce.

 

Hence, any demand to stop the possible reproduction of the planet must be viewed as an "unnatural act" as it goes against the very basic desire of organisms to reproduce.

 

You need to get some perspective and see the big picture. Reproduction of the planet to spread life throughout the Universe is the goal, to create a "Super Gaia". What is the life of a single civilisation compared to that?

 

More to the point, demanding that this process be stopped is counter to the evolutionary process that will guide the Universe to it's ultimate and rightful destination.

 

You're being selfish.

[Mokele]

So, you're refusing to provide evidence for your claims?

 

Why shouldn't we just ban your right now?

[Ivan Gorelik]

So, you're refusing to provide evidence for your claims?

 

Wait a little. I’ll answer.

 

Why shouldn't we just ban your right now?

 

If you do that, you will prove my hypothesis.

Read it once more. Find yourself in my hypothesis.

 

Hence, any demand to stop the possible reproduction of the planet must be viewed as an "unnatural act" as it goes against the very basic desire of organisms to reproduce.

 

Do you understand, what is the Biosphere’s reproduction? That is the suicidal reproduction. Our Solar system will look as the remnants of the SN1987A, after the switch on of Large Hadron Collider, leading o magnetic collapse on the billions of created microscopic magnetic holes.

 

It would have to be something that scientifically shouldn't happen (just like the Earth shouldn't blow up) but can be verified. I want to make a bet - if we can agree on something and it does happen - I'll upload a video of myself singing "I'm a little teapot" on the steps of my State Capitol. If we do not blow up and there is no evidence we were in danger of doing so, then you do.

 

OK. The launch of collider is planned on November, 2009. I think we’ll have about one year till we fill the pain, and about two years till the Earth’s explosion, till the start in the outer space, packed in icy comets.

 

We will not be able to stop the collapse, if it will start.

http://darkenergy.narod.ru/magtren.html

[Mokele]

Yes, yes, more pathetic dodging of the questions.

 

Are you always this intellectually dishonest, or just when you gibber about your crackpot theories?

[JohnB]

Do you understand, what is the Biosphere’s reproduction? That is the suicidal reproduction.

Yes, I do. You just can't seem to grasp the bigger picture here. Why should the Universe give a tinkers damn about one piddly little planet? Especially since that one could lead to the genesis of thousands?

 

Who are we to stand in the way of Universal evolution?

[Ivan Gorelik]

Do you understand, what is the Biosphere’s reproduction? That is the suicidal reproduction.

 

Yes, I do. You just can't seem to grasp the bigger picture here. Why should the Universe give a tinkers damn about one piddly little planet?

 

You have some reason.

 

...Especially since that one could lead to the genesis of thousands?..

 

No. Not thousands. We’ll feed existing civilizations. We’ll move them forward in their development.

In the Eternal Universe the quantity of civilizations at the different stages of their development is approximately the same, always.

 

...Who are we to stand in the way of Universal evolution?

 

We could postpone the End of Earth, for hundreds years, if our governments approved the law, banning the extreme physical experiments. The pressure and temperature in some places of collider will be much more then inside the stars.

[AzurePhoenix]

No. Not thousands. We’ll feed existing civilizations. We’ll move them forward in their development.

In the Eternal Universe the quantity of civilizations at the different stages of their development is approximately the same, always.

And where'd you get this information from, the ever so achromatic Zeta Reticulans?

[Ivan Gorelik]

And where'd you get this information from, the ever so achromatic Zeta Reticulans?

 

There are two main cosmologies: the cosmology of Eternal Universe and Big Bang cosmology.

 

According BB cosmology our Universe was born about 13,7 billions years ago; the quantity of energy from that moment in it is constant; entropy – grow.

 

According the cosmology of Eternal Universe: the period of one 4-d rotation is equal to 13,34 billons years (this value is analogues to the number 365 days for Earth); the quantities of energy, entropy, information is approximately constant. It is logically correct to assume the following: if the quantity of information is constant, than the average number of civilizations is also constant at any moment of time.

 

Now academic science does not regard Big Bang as hypothesis, and not as a theory, but as a fact.

 

One of the main goals, put in front the LHC, is to look at the conditions, which were at the very first microseconds of Big Bang; and, as a result, to prove this religious dogma.

But I think that bigbangers will not prove their dogma, but can make a real big bang of Earth.

 

Bigbangers, preparing and conducting the future experiment on LHC, even do not suspect that they are performing the Low of Eternal Universe; - they make the inevitable act of suicidal reproduction of biospheres in the living Eternal Universe.

 

It seems, we are not able to postpone the global suicide. The strength of “sells of interest” is much greater than the voices of “sells of precautions”.

[AzurePhoenix]

There are two main cosmologies: the cosmology of Eternal Universe and Big Bang cosmology.

The former isn't really "main" nowadays... at all.

 

 

One of the main goals, put in front the LHC, is to look at the conditions, which were at the very first microseconds of Big Bang; and, as a result, to prove this religious dogma.

there is evidence for a big bang and an expanding universe, not the other way around.

 

 

Bigbangers, preparing and conducting the future experiment on LHC, even do not suspect that they are performing the Low of Eternal Universe; - they make the inevitable act of suicidal reproduction of biospheres in the living Eternal Universe.

now, see, there is no evidence for any of these claims, theyre fantasy, seemingly pulled right out of the air.

[Ivan Gorelik]

The former isn't really "main" nowadays... at all.

 

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community was published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004. Thirty-three researchers, well known in the world, signed it. Hundreds of reasonable scientists had joined themselves to the appeal. The Steady State models have one main common feature, - there was no divine Beginning of the Universe..

 

More about adherents of Eternal Universe read on my page “Steady State Models of the Universe and their Authors”.

 

there is evidence for a big bang and an expanding universe, not the other way around.

 

Not evidences, but falsifications. To know, who firstly registered and predicted the cosmic microwave background radiation read this article: “History of the 2.7 K temperature prior to Penzias and Wilson”

 

now, see, there is no evidence for any of these claims, theyre fantasy, seemingly pulled right out of the air.

 

In my gif-animated figure you can see 4-d rotation. (4-th dimension is associated with color.)

 

 

 

If you change one spatial coordinate into time coordinate, you will receive the model of Eternal Universe, which rotates with angular velocity 2.376*10^-18 rot/s, or in units, used in astronomy, 73.305 km/s/Mpc. Do you know this number? That is Hubble constant. Bigbangers thinks that it describes the universal expansion.

Let’s wait, till the LHC launch in order to see another evidences.

[Mokele]

Blah blah blah universe blah blah.

 

Even *if* the universe is steady-state, and even *if* the LHC will blow up the Earth, there is no way in hell anything could survive that, even less chance of any fragment making it to a habitable world, and no evidence for anything you claim.

 

Oh, and by the way, information is *NOT* conserved or constant - it decays all the time. That's what mutation is.

 

And furthermore, even if there *are* a constant number of civilizations, why would you suspect they're even remotely common? Why not 1 in a trillion stars?

[Ivan Gorelik]

Blah blah blah universe blah blah.

 

Even *if* the universe is steady-state, and even *if* the LHC will blow up the Earth, there is no way in hell anything could survive that,.

 

1. Universe is Eternal with high degree of probability.

2. LHC will make many millions of microscopic magnetic holes (it is supposed to make billions of proton-proton collisions per second on LHC). Magnetic collapse of Earth’s matter on holes will overheat the regions around the holes. This will transform the matter into hot-temperature plasma. These bubbles of hot-temperature plasma will fuse together, and

a. can be ejected from the Earth (with x% probability), or

b. can move to the region of Earth, with the most strong magnetic field (with y% probability). To know x and y, we must know the values of some additional parameters. Let’s continue the variant b.

The growing bubble will widen the Earth. The growing Earth’s surface will have the regions of naked mantle. Oceans will cover these regions. The “endless” heavy rain will begin. The Earth with doubled radius will be covered by 1-kilometer layer of mud. The mud will be perfectly mixed. Billions of seeds of my small 10m*10m garden will be dispersed in huge thickness of mud...

 

3. The explosion of Earth can be smooth and long. Billions of comets (wet mad peaces of 1-km radius will transform into 10-km radius foam comets – under zero pressures liquid transforms into gas) will start to other star’s systems, accelerated at first by ionic pressure from huge geysers, and after by photon pressure from the same geysers, which will become transparent.

 

 

..there is no way in hell anything could survive that, even less chance of any fragment making it to a habitable world,.

 

Survive? Did you hear that some viruses can survive in atomic reactor? I think that large amount of genetic information from my small garden, and even seeds of grass and flowers, seeds of mosquitoes, of wasps, of spiders, of dog’s insects… will survive, and be able to develop on the other planet, if the place of “landing” will not be so aggressive. It is not excluded that some virus of my cat will grow there into dinosaur, if there will not be enemies and if there will be more food for it…

 

.. and no evidence for anything you claim.

 

It is known that appearing of comets was connected with the appearing of new illnesses, epidemics on the Earth. Why? I think, comets had arrived here from large variety of civilizations, which had killed themselves. Comets have seeds of frozen life. Comets have different layers with different temperature conditions. Comets can enter into the atmosphere and make pollution, or can burn in atmosphere, or can drop into a warm lake. Send the satellites to comets and you will find there the seeds of life. Hundreds of died civilizations had genetically helped us to develop to our present stage. Our civilization must help other hundreds of civilizations to develop. But I want to postpone this suicidal reproduction: “STOP LHC!”

 

…Oh, and by the way, information is *NOT* conserved or constant - it decays all the time. That's what mutation is.

 

The more region of Universe we investigate, - the less fluctuation of the quantity of information in the region.

 

And furthermore, even if there *are* a constant number of civilizations, why would you suspect they're even remotely common? Why not 1 in a trillion stars?

 

There are about 100 000 000 000 stars in our Galaxy.

 

Let every 10-th star has its planetary system; let every star with planetary system have 10 planets. Then in our Galaxy there are 100 000 000 000 planets.

 

Let every 100-th planet can have biosphere, which develops from simplest to having humans. Then there are 1000 000 000 civilizations in our Galaxy, but only small part of them are developed.

 

If the average time, needed to develop from simplest to human civilization is 1 000 000 000 years, then every year 1 civilization in the Galaxy dies.

 

Let’s compare: one supernovae explosion occurs in the Galaxy with the period about 100 years.

Is it the funeral march of dying civilization?

Every year about 15 explosions on novae occurs. And we know that some of these explosions are connected with the same stars.

Are the novae explosions are also the funeral marches and repeated echoes of the dying civilizations?

Mention about the bubble that can be thrown out of the planet, - but it will drop again... on this planet, or on its star… and again will be thrown out... How many times is needed, the magnetic hole eat the star completely?

[Mokele]

3. The explosion of Earth can be smooth and long. Billions of comets (wet mad peaces of 1-km radius will transform into 10-km radius foam comets – under zero pressures liquid transforms into gas) will start to other star’s systems, accelerated at first by ionic pressure from huge geysers, and after by photon pressure from the same geysers, which will become transparent.

 

If the explosion is "smooth and long" enough for life to survive it, the fragments will move so slowly it'll take *trillions* of years for them to reach other worlds. Nothing survives that long.

 

Survive? Did you hear that some viruses can survive in atomic reactor? I think that large amount of genetic information from my small garden, and even seeds of grass and flowers, seeds of mosquitoes, of wasps, of spiders, of dog’s insects… will survive, and be able to develop on the other planet, if the place of “landing” will not be so aggressive. It is not excluded that some virus of my cat will grow there into dinosaur, if there will not be enemies and if there will be more food for it…

 

A virus isn't alive. And it's not about radiation, it's about temperature, shock due to explosions, and length of time without nutrients.

 

I'm more than aware of what the hardiest organisms can survive, and what you describe isn't possible to survive.

 

Remember, many organisms that survive extreme conditions do so by actively repairing the damage, which costs energy. If they're in extreme conditions *without* nutrients (such as those you describe), they'll starve.

 

It is known that appearing of comets was connected with the appearing of new illnesses, epidemics on the Earth. Why?

 

No, they didn't. Ever.

 

Cite a source for this that come from *before* the 19th century.

 

think, comets had arrived here from large variety of civilizations, which had killed themselves. Comets have seeds of frozen life. Comets have different layers with different temperature conditions. Comets can enter into the atmosphere and make pollution, or can burn in atmosphere, or can drop into a warm lake. Send the satellites to comets and you will find there the seeds of life.

 

Wrong. Every living thing has the same arbitrary codon translation. If some life on Earth had come from elsewhere, you'd expect that not to be the case.

 

The more region of Universe we investigate, - the less fluctuation of the quantity of information in the region.

 

Bullshit. You're just stringing random words together that you don't understand.

 

Let every 100-th planet can have biosphere, which develops from simplest to having humans. Then there are 1000 000 000 civilizations in our Galaxy, but only small part of them are developed.

 

Why would any of them have civilization?

 

Civilization is not some sort of 'goal' or inevitable endpoint. There is absolutely no reason to presume that our civilization is anything more than an accident.

 

Let’s compare: one supernovae explosion occurs in the Galaxy with the period about 100 years.

Is it the funeral march of dying civilization?

Every year about 15 explosions on novae occurs. And we know that some of these explosions are connected with the same stars.

Are the novae explosions are also the funeral marches and repeated echoes of the dying civilizations?

 

A nova or supernova will not product chunks of a planet. It will *vaporize* it, and then convert the vapor to plasma. No life will survive it.

 

 

Seriously, this is just science fiction, and badly-written sci-fi at that.

 

Present some empirical evidence, or this thread gets locked.

[Ivan Gorelik]

If the explosion is "smooth and long" enough for life to survive it, the fragments will move so slowly it'll take *trillions* of years for them to reach other worlds. Nothing survives that long.

 

In order to make conclusions one must consider one more parameter – the time of acceleration. Did you see my words “huge geyser”, “ionic pressure”, “photon pressure”, “transparent”?

 

A virus isn't alive.

 

Is it organism? Does it reproduce? Does it mutate? Does it exist? Does it live?

 

Remember, many organisms that survive extreme conditions do so by actively repairing the damage, which costs energy. If they're in extreme conditions *without* nutrients (such as those you describe), they'll starve.

 

There are several models of “cosmic panspermia”. I think that “explosive panspermia”, discussed here, has much more chances to be real. Huge and long explosion, mud, creation of huge comets with different temperature and pressure conditions give much more chances to survival of life seeds, than in the other models of panspermia.

If you do not recognize the idea of panspermia, and if you are the aggressive fighting Darwinist, you can close this topic by your sward.

 

It is known that appearing of comets was connected with the appearing of new illnesses, epidemics on the Earth.

 

No, they didn't. Ever.

 

Cite a source for this that come from *before* the 19th century.

 

Send an expedition to comets and you will find the evidences, proving the “explosive panspermia”.

----

Planets

 

Why would any of them have civilization?

 

Civilization is not some sort of 'goal' or inevitable endpoint. There is absolutely no reason to presume that our civilization is anything more than an accident.

 

Can you imagine the situation:

In my garden there is plenty of grass, flowers... But on the neighboring gardens with the same conditions is absolutely empty.

 

Life in my garden is not an accident. Life will develop on any suitable garden / planet.

 

A nova or supernova will not product chunks of a planet. It will *vaporize* it, and then convert the vapor to plasma. No life will survive it.

 

In November 2009 microscopic magnetic holes will be created on LHC. In a couple of months/years the fused magnetic hole will smoothely expand and explode the Earth. Created comets will possibly have dozens of years before the hole will lead to the explosion of our Sun as supernovae or repeated nova. The shock wave from this explosion and the radiation will only additionally accelerate the comets further on their way to other stars. Astronomers from distant stars will not see the explosion of Earth, but the successive explosion of the Sun will be excellently visible. That will be the funeral march about our Civilization.

 

Seriously, this is just science fiction, and badly-written sci-fi at that.

 

This is a chain of hypotheses of different famous authors. I only formed this chain of hypotheses into a single unifying hypothesis “Reproduction of Biospheres and Civilizations”. In this chain of hypotheses there is only one my own link: The Magnetic Hole and its Creation.

 

Present some empirical evidence, or this thread gets locked.

 

Some evidences you will see after the launch of the LHC.

There is one more evidence of my hypothesis: in order the Biosphere’s Reproductive Act happens, “the cells of interest” must defeat the “cells of precautions”, and you must make me fool in the eyes of readers; you must delete the information, which was said by the “cells of precautions”.

 

These your words:

 

..this thread gets locked.

 

are an additional evidence of my hypothesis.

[the tree]

In order to make conclusions one must consider one more parameter – the time of acceleration. Did you see my words “huge geyser”, “ionic pressure”, “photon pressure”, “transparent”?

Not if it only takes one factor to make the idea impossible.

 

Is it [an] organism? Does it live?

No, and no.

Does it reproduce? Does it mutate? Does it exist?

Yeah, but this is true of lots of things that aren't alive - computer viruses being an apt example.

 

 

There are several models of “cosmic panspermia”. I think that “explosive panspermia”, discussed here, has much more chances to be real. Huge and long explosion, mud, creation of huge comets with different temperature and pressure conditions give much more chances to survival of life seeds, than in the other models of panspermia.

You can think all you like, but science forums have a thing for evidence.

 

If you do not recognize the idea of panspermia, and if you are the aggressive fighting Darwinist, you can close this topic by your sward.

Mokele is a research biologist actually - so yeah, he'd be familiar with the idea - but you're just turning it into a complete mess. Do you even know what a sward is?

 

 

 

Send an expedition to comets and you will find the evidences, proving the “explosive panspermia”.

Some evidences you will see after[/u'] the launch of the LHC.

Shifting the burden of proof is both fallacious and lazy.

 

 

Seriously, this is just science fiction, and badly-written sci-fi at that.

This is a chain of hypotheses of different famous authors.

There is a very important difference between fiction and reality.

[Ivan Gorelik]

About the received velocities:

Not if it only takes one factor to make the idea impossible.

 

Do you know the difference between explosions caused by chemical, nuclear, collapse explosives? Do you know how many percents of mc^2 transforms into radiation, into kinetic energy of thrown out fragments at these different explosions? Do you know the rate of collapse of matter onto magnetic hole? I think, you don’t know. Then, why do you deny my ideas completely, without any computation, without any knowledge about magnetic hole?

 

About living matter.

No, and no.

Yeah, but this is true of lots of things that aren't alive - computer viruses being an apt example.

 

I think that difference between computer virus and organic virus is much more than the difference between organic virus and simple bacteria.

 

About hypothesis, science, evidences, dogmas, falsifications.

You can think all you like, but science forums have a thing for evidence.

Some hypotheses in science had transformed in dogmas in contemporary science. I think that real scientist must undergo any theory to certain doubt and don’t mix it with reality. There is no theory, describing the Nature, with 100% correspondence. Any theory/hypothesis has it’s region of applicability.

 

Mokele is a research biologist actually - so yeah, he'd be familiar with the idea - but you're just turning it into a complete mess.

 

My “complete mess” is much more real, than directed panspermia with the help of rockets; or as panspermia, caused by acceleration of viruses by solar wind.

 

Do you even know what a sward is?

 

Sorry. English is not my native language. I must write “sword”, as moderator’s weapon.

 

Shifting the burden of proof is both fallacious and lazy.

 

In my cited pages I wrote about some experimental proofs, wrote some arguments, and wrote some links to other authors.

CERN will launch the LHC and we’ll have a lot of Last Evidences, with great probability.

 

About a chain of hypothesis of different famous authors:

There is a very important difference between fiction and reality.

 

You had lost one more word: “theory”.

Or: “generally accepted theory”.

Thus:

1. fiction;

2. generally accepted theory;

3. reality.

 

Is Newton theory fiction?

Is Einstein’s theory of gravity corresponds to reality with 100% precision?

 

Do not make dogmas from good-looking theories.

Do not reject hypotheses, if it looks at first as mad hypothesis, especially, if your life depends with its developments.

In reality two different theories can have their part, for example: Darwinism and Explosive Panspermia.

[Mokele]

Congratulations, you have now managed to reach two pages of pure, baseless speculation.

 

You have not once presented even a hint of actual empirical evidence for your claims, in spite of repeated requests.

 

You seem to think that wild speculations and possibilities are a substitute for actual evidence. They are not. Not here, and not in science.

 

This thread is closed. Try to re-open it, and you will be banned.

 

And for everyone's sake, learn how to actually do science before you post again. A claim without empirical evidence is *worthless*.