.
Abstract
Basic idea is – current cosmological changes may be reflected in any atom. At any given cosmic time, ‘Hubble length’ can be considered as the gravitational or electromagnetic interaction range. Some cosmologists use the term ‘Hubble volume’ to refer to the volume of the observable universe. With reference to the Mach’s principle and Hubble volume, at any cosmic time, if ‘Hubble mass’ is the product of cosmic ‘critical density’ and the ‘Hubble volume’, then it can be suggested that, each and every point in the free space is influenced by the Hubble mass. Clearly speaking, with Hubble volume and Hubble mass: quantum physics, nuclear physics and cosmic physics can be studied in a unified manner. In this new direction authors noticed some interesting coincidences. With reference to the present fine structure ratio, present value of Hubble’s constant is 69.53 km/sec/Mpc or 71.75 km/sec/Mpc.
Peter Forsberg:
Yes, you made a point that matches with what I think.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Eernie1:
when you talk of “combinations” you automatically fall in a probabilistic calculation.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Now the question is : why ?
Matter evolves in intelligence structure and this has self counsiosness,the matter gets eyes for watching itself.
Why ?
Why universe has this prerogative,this need ?
I don’t know “what” is God,I don’t know if He is ex machina or immanent in everythig,but I know that when we watch in the deep of ours eyes in a mirror, we see somethig that is over the time,and if we look around we can see the same thing in everythig.
Why ?
Is this the last answer? I don’t know,but it could be.
Mystics regards ! G G
Dear Andrea,
You must be as excited and anxious as an expectant father. The publication of the 3PI report should determine what you have sired. Perhaps you have an ultrasound picture(pre unofficial information) but as in any birth, only when the baby emerges do you have positive conformation of its health. I hope this discussion of human character and its development can provide you with a little diversion from anxiety about such a tremendously important event.
I have attempted to confine the discussion to mathematical statistical probabilities but one other consideration must be included. Some researchers claim that the development of human intelligence required a combination of genetic and sociological factors. Because of the ability to communicate complex thoughts to others in the family, participation by these individuals provided refinements which expanded the knowledge inherent in the ideas much like this discussion we are having now. As more individuals participate the ideas can become more cognizant.
I do not smoke so I will drink a toast to the birth of your invention.
Interesting Andrea,
As you suspect, so do I. Namely that Darwin’s evolutionary therory does not tell the whole story. The gradual adaptions that Darwin invented, do not explain speciation (i.e. when new species are created). Evolution created different versions of canines, but it did not create canines in the first place. From the empirical evidence, it is clear that it is very difficult for new species to be created.
Regards
Peter Forsberg
Dear Andrea,
“why thousands of other animals did not make whatever it needs to evolve beyond the standard of the survival evolution kit?”
Because they didn’t need to. Sulfur bacteria at the bottom of the sea are arguably the crown of evolution, because they use anaerobic chemosynthesis and would survive a nuclear holocaust or an asteroid. Evolution isn’t directed towards higher order, but adaptability. As the ancestors of humans wandered from the forest to the savanna some millions of years ago, they found themselves in a new situation that favored walking upright and divising more clever methods of hunting. But we wouldn’t probably consider something like an Australopithecus a human by today’s standards. The “last mile” advancements that spawned culture and inventions may have been a lucky fluke that is unique in the whole Universe, and if we went extinct, such a fluke would probably not happen again. We simply do not know.
I think because a larger brain didnt help them. I bet there were and are a lot of little mutations in other mamals as well so single individuals have larger and smarter performing brains. But not for every form of life this equals better chance of survival.
Andrea Rossi
April 28th, 2014 at 9:09 AM
Teemu:
We are missing the core of the problem: why thousands of other animals did not make whatever it needs to evolve beyond the standard of the survival evolution kit?
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi Andrea,
You mentioned: “I totally disagree on the convinction that a monkey can become homo sapiens through the same principle, because in this case there should be no reason at all for a lion not to become a Lion Sapiens, as well as a mouse become a mouse sapiens etc”. But Please remember that evolution is a “blind” process and is driven by the “pressure” of the environment, where the animals live and “Intelligent” is not an ultimate goal but the ultimate goal is how successful the species turn out to be. The Lion does not turn into a “Lion Sapiens” and a mouse does not turn into a “mouse sapiens” because The Lion can do better as a species with better claws better teeth better muscles to bring down preys… Likewise the mouse can do better as a species with the ability to reproduce extremely quickly and can consume any food types and better camouflage. “Intelligent” may be not the best survival strategy at all, we call ourselves intelligent beings but we can nuke each others a bring an end to our world at anytime. If a giant asteroid hits earth tomorrow I bet the cockroaches will fair better than humans. Homo sapiens were under “pressure” and naturally selected to develop bigger brain as a survival strategy because they had no sharp teeth or claws..and were best perform as species with bigger brain.
Mark
Mark
Teemu:
We are missing the core of the problem: why thousands of other animals did not make whatever it needs to evolve beyond the standard of the survival evolution kit?
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
I’m with you on evolution. Evolution exists but it cannot explain the sudden ascendancy of man. Velikovsky, an atheist and friend of Einstein, argued the same. Velikovsky suspected that man’s dna was suddenly induced to rapid mutation, possibly by a cataclysmic event, such as a solar radiation storm. I doubt that’s the answer, because the other animals would have also been exposed.
My guess is that primitive man was interbred with extraterrestrial beings, possibly angels. The Bible speaks of fallen angels breeding with earthen women. The ancient Sumerians wrote of visitors from the sky interbreeding with humans.
An extraterrestrial visitation, in my mind, could have been God’s way of creating modern man. Only man is capable of unconditional love. God is love and He created us in His image.
Sincerely,
Iggy Dalrymple
Dear Andrea,
The similarity between base pairs of humans and chimpanzees is not the only thing. Human chromosome 2 appears to be a fusion of chimpanzee chromosomes 2a and 2b (which explains why humans have one chromosome less). Here they are compared side-by-side:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OdgI-vecao
Now, there’s no way the pattern of similarity would continue into the 2b chromosome, if the two didn’t share a common ancestor. At least the Creator has made it seem that way, wouldn’t you agree?
Best Regards,
Teemu
Eernie1:
Yes, but: why thousands of other animals have not evoluted someway along a similar path? Maybe…not able to study the Relativity, but at least able to read and write like a first grader! But still I understand, while I am writing, that maybe there is an example of an animal that someway found a way to write and read, albeit with some limitation: the Snake.
Joe:
Same answer I gave to Orsobubu, plus: the apparently slightness of the DNA difference between man and monkey, appears to be substantial: “very small” is a very uncertain definition. But, rethinking, maybe you are right: the missing link between man and monkey could be found in the Snake and his Pseudonyms family.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Domenico Canino:
…but after some year he exited the cave and came out with what had invented during the long years of imprisonment, making a mess.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea Moraitis:
Same answer I gave to Orsobubu.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
You have doubts that the line starting from amoebas of certain kind evolved into homo sapiens only by Darwinian evolution.
You are right saying that Darwinian evolution unlikely conducted the game alone.
Personally I think that Darwinian evolution and genetics are comparable to the publication printing on a large scale of a book: it’s the market to decree then the success or failure over other books, but upstream there is another non-negligible process of “authoring”.
In this process, the author has produced a limited number of photostatic copies of his work, technology more suitable for those volumes, distributing them to the people close to him and to potential publishers, and then exceeded this level before going to press. This process is implemented in Nature by epigenetics.
But even before this verification process the author has worked alone to write his script, reading and correcting his text repeatedly, that does not show anyone until it does not satisfy him fully. This process is implemented in Nature by repeated activation of SBS Programs (which I tried to explain briefly in my slides) whose residual effects today are what we call diseases or cancer.
Understanding this disease process, illness make no fear…
It remains unexplained to me how and why it has been possible to develop the infrastructure behind SBS Programs in the first multicellular organisms… Here I spread my arms and everyone now can have their opinion: Fortuity, intrinsic properties of matter, cosmic panspermia, alien visitors, God, the Shan… Choose one and hope! 🙂
Best wishes
Silvio
Pekka Janhunen:
same answer I gave to Orsobubu; I agree with you we need a logical explication, but once we get it we can make “epochè” and attack it to find something more logical. This too is evolution.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Teemu:
Evolution of hominides is still inside the family of human beings. After that, hominides exterminated each other to predate. Nothing substantially new. That re-enters in the field of internal evolution within the same specimen.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Eugenio Meli:
I do not apply any principle, I am not a biologist; I apply the “epochè” to the Darwinism and observe that under a pure probabilistic mathematical calculus it is extremely unlike that among thousands of animals only humans have been able to evolve beyond the surviving evolutionary standard. I don’t say it is impossible ( everything is possible applying a proper probabilistic factor), I just say it is very, very unprobable.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Orsobubu:
You cannot compare what the other species have reached in term of evolution, just to survive in a changing environment, with what has been achieved by the human race. One thing is the reproduction of characteristics more fit to survive and non reproduction of the less fit, a completely different thing is to write the Relativity Theory, make the sculpture of the Pietà of Michelangelo, write the music of Beethoven, etc.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Frank Acland:
Our R&D never stops. Every day progress is made. I cannot give specific information about what we are doing, but we will give exhaustive information regarding the products that will be generated by the R&D we are making. Let me also remind you that the results of R&D could be positive, but also negative.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
You mention that you are solely involved in R&D efforts with the E-Cat these days. Can you give us an idea of the rate of progress that is taking place with your technology? How do the E-Cats you are experimenting with today compare with your early models?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Andrea,
I understand that we are off-topic in this blog, but your reply is too interesting to be left open.
You apply the so-called “principle of mediocrity”, which states: if a thing happened once, it could happen again with the same ease. Simple and straightforward.
Contrasted to this principle which, we must remember, is an a priori assumption, there is the “anthropic principle” according to which our existence unbalances any evaluation since it is the cornerstone not only of our history, but of the entire universe (see the fine book by John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, “the Anthropic Principle”, Milan, Adelphi, 2002).
An “anthropic” description (which I prefer) rather than “mediocre” of events can certainly suggest the existence of a preconceived plan (natural or divine), of a ultimate goal. But things are more complicated… as always. Especially if we are dealing with events that occur in one case out of ten billions each galaxy.
Eugenio
Andrea,
I like these posts, they make me happy because assuring you are always interested in the selection of specific Ecats more fit to survive that other kinds of Ecats, and this is good for us and for LENR evolution.
About organic evolution, I would add that we should decide what is intelligence. In example, I know a lot of animal species that cannot write, but are incredibly more “intelligent” than us in their adaptation to their environment. I think that if someone would menace their existence, given sufficient time, they would evolve to survive, perhaps learning to build weapons, communicate, etc. One can say that we can destroy their environment first, impeding this evolution, but this would be a grim perspective for our intelligence, because this would wipe out us before them. There are tribes of men living in the jungle exactly genetically evolved as us, but more intelligently adapted and harmonic with their environment than us, and they don’t write, but also don’t destroy, etc. We should not confuse biological, darwinian evolution, with cultural, marxian evolution, you know.
About the divine intervention, we should consider that there are a lot of recent improvements on Darwin theories and DNA mechanisms, well explaining some misteries: for example, the obscure parts of DNA now are known to be of paramount importance in genetics, triggering changes that would be impossible on an evolution by selection timespan. A casual, single gene modification in only one blind insect can incredibly produce a full developed functional eye!
I think that man is more culturally, marxistically evolved than others species, but, genetically, we are equally evolved than theirs, at the top of each current specifical potential in the specific environment. Man evolved his intelligence in order to survive in the casual biologial niche he was living in; now there are new viruses and bacteria that are evolving more “intelligently” and more quickly than us, in order to survive in their specific microscopic niche, and we are losing too.
We should see the question in this way: a single flux of biological evolution, where the living being is a unique flux of life originating by primordial waters, where we are at the top of the dominating chain, but we are at the top exactly because there are plenty of other species perfectly evolved in such a way to permit us to be here. So, we are not here because there is a superior entity that divinely choosed for us, but we are here because there are inferior species that genetically choosed for us. A sort of anthropic principle applied to biology.
So we can shift, if you want, the question of a superior intervention, from the evolution of man, where frankly I cannot see it, and where I would focus mainly on Ecat evolution and on marxistic cultural revolution, to the evolution of the universe. Here there are more doubts, and there is space to imagine
some unknown natural, spinozian forces or some supernatural entities driving the process, even if I would not bet on them and where I would not assign a special role to man. Don’t forget that almost the totally of our theistic, supernatural production is derived from marxian necessity of class-exploitation control, and I say it because I know that you don’t agree but you will defend to the death my right to etc etc.
Another interesting field for you is the possibility of a “mechanical” evolution of man itself, a mix of biology and synthetic technology, what Kurtzweil sees as the “singularity”, when machines will evolve into autonomous entitites incorporating the biologic man and – I add – probably empowered by a small Ecat-engine. But also this topic raises more social and technologic issues than religious ones.
Dear Andrea,
It could well be that the circumstances that lead to selective pressure for higher cognitive function, and the subsequently required lucky homeotic gene mutations are extremely rare — perhaps as or even more rare than the creation of RNA and DNA itself. We simply do not know, because we do not have a basis for comparison. Consider the Anthropic principle: if there were no intelligent life in the Universe, there would be no intelligent life to observe it. Indeed, the odds against our existence as a species may be absurdly high, yet here we are only after the fact.
It is also not correct to say that cats only evolve within cats (microevolution). A species does not have a clear-cut specification locked into place. Directional selection causes a species to drift into different directions over time. If a single species splits due to a geological barrier, for example, after some millions of years the two sub-species won’t be able to mate anymore –> they will have become cousins of each other. There really couldn’t be any other way, because there isn’t a mechanism in DNA to stop drifting away from the original genotype after a certain time. Still, macroevolution is not categorically different from microevolution; it is simply a series of microevolutions. Every offspring is still the same species as its parent. Like the hour hand of a clock, the differences only become apparent over eons.
There have been many hominid species, as you are well aware, but they were all competitively excluded by our ancestors. This is because they inhabited the same ecological niche.
I highly recommend Richard Dawkins’ book, The Greatest Show on Earth. It gave me answers and an understanding to the similar kinds of questions that you ask.
Best Regards,
Teemu
Dear Andrea and others,
Concerning homo sapiens and friends. The genetic difference between us and apes is small: the difference is smaller than the difference between a cat and a dog, for example. We are the “cultural ape”: we are smart enough as a society to systematically improve our own intelligence by putting kids to school, for example, and we are smart enough to spread (by written language) the fruits of intelligence of the best guys for the benefit of society. In some sense, the “artificial intelligence revolution” started already 10000 years ago, i.e. transition from slow genetic evolution to faster cultural one.
I don’t think that “intelligence” is a uniquely rare product of evolution because it was invented by nature about four times. Among mollusks, an octopus is anomalously intelligent. Among birds, crows and parrots are the smart ones. Among whales, dolphins excel, and among primates homo sapiens does. I think that intelligent life is not that much more uncommon (perhaps only factor 10-100) in the universe than microbial life. But life in general might or might not be very rare: this we don’t know. The route from bacterium to man is biologically rather well known and does not look improbable in retrospect in my opinion, but the route from molecule to bacterium remains a complete mystery.
Although I’m a space physicist, as a “hobby” I participated into some research of astrobiology and origin of life. More specifically, in 2007 we looked into mechanisms how multicellular life emerged (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000214). The birth of multicellular life looked at first to me like an unexplained miracle, but it’s possible to make some sense of it. Of course our proposed mechanism is not necessarily the right one, but it’s better to have at least one logically sounding explanation rather than none.
regards, /pekka
Dear Andrea Rossi,
We still don’t know which species on this planet will win the race. From nature’s point of view, we might not at all be the ‘smartest’, as we tend to assume.
Best regards,
Andreas Moraitis
Il pianeta delle macchine
Un giorno su uno strano pianeta non molto distante dal nostro apparve la vita, ma non la vita come la conosciamo noi, in forma biologica, ma in forma meccanica. Cioè apparvero esseri meccanici costituiti di acciaio, leve, motori a combustione, fili, tubi dell’olio, etc. Insomma un mondo di macchine. C’erano macchine molto semplici con funzioni basilari elementari come produrre calore o forza motrice e macchine molto più complesse che potevano fare cose meravigliose, come pensare, volare, trasmettere suoni ed immagini a distanza, etc.
Questo mondo aveva delle religioni e degli scritti antichissimi in cui si parlava di un Dio macchina che aveva creato gli esseri macchina a sua immagine e somiglianza, ed aveva dato loro anche la capacità di riprodursi, e che bisognava seguire le dieci tavole della legge, cioè non avrai altra macchina fuori di me, non rubare l’olio lubrificante altrui, etc. Ma la scienza su questo pianeta progrediva, e molte macchine tra le più sapienti ed evolute, con più memoria (RAM) più intelligenza (processori di ultima generazione) e capacità di progettare altre macchine (software evoluto), cominciarono a porsi il problema di come fosse apparsa la prima macchina sul pianeta. Se c’era stata una creazione da parte di un Dio oppure la vita delle macchine era nata dal caso.
Molti furono tacciati di eresia dai sacerdoti del Dio macchina, e fusi al rogo degli altiforni, perché avevano osato contraddire la Creazione e gli scritti religiosi. Ma gli scienziati macchina più testardi elaborarono la teoria della evoluzione delle macchine, perché nel frattempo l’archeologia e la storia avevano trovato degli antichi reperti meccanici, resti delle prime forme di vita primitiva, e cosa sorprendente queste macchine primitive funzionavano con lo stesso principio di quelle moderne.
Allora si teorizzò che per caso in un tempo lontano il minerale ferro che stava nelle viscere del pianeta si fosse liberato delle impurità, poi si fosse (sempre da solo e per caso) fuso in forme strane di vita come cilindri e pistoni, che poi milioni di anni dopo si sarebbero incontrati, e infilati l’uno dentro l’altro, per un movimento possibile. Molti milioni di anni dopo ci fu l’incontro (sempre casuale) con il carburante petrolio che si era posizionato in un serbatoio sempre casualmente formatosi in milioni di anni di cristallizzazione nelle immediate vicinanze.
Poi erano nati da lunghissimi processi evolutivi separati e casuali, il carburatore, la pompa, la candela, l’albero di trasmissione del moto, la cinghia dentata in gomma e la puleggia, etc. E poi dopo svariati milioni di anni, di eventi catastrofici planetari, di tempeste di meteoriti, di numerosi enormi eventi sismici, sempre per caso e progressivamente tutti i pezzi erano andati al posto giusto, il cilindro ed il pistone, furono messi in un blocco motore, vicino alla candela, e così via tutti gli altri pezzi, dalla combustione all’alternatore all’impianto elettrico. Era nata la macchina con il motore a combustione termico.
Poi in molti milioni di anni la macchina motore si era molto evoluta, aveva molti più cavalli rispetto all’esemplare primordiale grazie sempre al caso si erano evolute tutte le parti meccaniche del motore, erano nate candele di nuova generazione da una nuova millenaria cristallizzazione di ceramiche, si erano costituite casualmente per reazioni iterative delle nuove leghe metalliche per i cilindri ed i pistoni, poi era nata da un fulmine globulare la iniezione elettronica del carburante, etc. La teoria della evoluzione soppiantò nel pensiero corrente, quella della creazione, e diventò quella maggioritaria, il Maistream.
Ma poi qualcuno che non credeva al Dio macchina e che non credeva neanche a tutta questa infinita serie di eventi casuali, si mise a fare degli esperimenti sui pistoni e cilindri. E si accorse che per quanto provasse a lasciare alle intemperie ed al caso ciottoli di minerale ferroso al massimo otteneva delle pietre bucate, o delle pietre levigate, ma la probabilità che il caso creasse separatamente un cilindro di acciaio levigato ed un pistone di acciaio levigato perfettamente a misura che uno potesse produrre lavoro utile uno dentro l’altro era infinitesima. Enunciò pubblicamente la propria teoria che una intelligenza potesse aver creato cilindro e pistone in tali forme e per uno scopo, e fu attaccato ferocemente da tutti gli evoluzionisti del Mainstream che dicevano che no, che allora si ricadeva nelle credenze religiose antiquate del Dio macchina, e contemporaneamente anche dagli altri sacerdoti del Dio macchina, che dicevano che non bisognava né studiare né fare esperimenti, poiché la creazione era descritta chiaramente nei loro testi religiosi, e che bisognava credere in quelli ciecamente e basta, dogmaticamente.
Insomma il povero scienziato macchina che voleva sperimentare per capire, fu schiacciato da entrambi gli schieramenti, solo perché aveva osato indagare, e vera o falsa che fosse la sua idea, recava con sé il peccato originale di tutte le macchine, cioè voi non siete nate per pensare, a pensare ci pensiamo noi che sappiamo e possiamo, tu non sei un nostro pari, non sei peer reviewed. Fu rinchiuso nelle caverne segrete della regione degli esseri del motociclo, i terribili Honda, a regime di benzina putrida ed antigelo: unica concessione un pistone ed un cilindro con cui lambiccarsi la centralina e continuare a chiedersi: ma come è stato possibile che…
Ogni riferimento a persone e fatti accaduti è puramente casuale.
Dr Rossi,
1. You seem to contradict yourself with the two following statements:
“With the extinction of dinosaurs the evolution of new animals started.”
“But I still have a question: why all the thousands of other species did not evolve,…”
2. You ask, “Why there is not a beast able to write and read…” But evolutionists do not base their theory on whether or not an animal can read or write. In fact, homo sapiens has been reading and writing only very, very recently.
3. The distance between a non-reading, non-writing chimpanzee and a reading, writing human is very small:
“…human DNA is approximately 98.4% identical to that of chimpanzees when comparing single nucleotide polymorphisms…” (Wikipedia, Hominidae)
All the best,
Joe
Dear Andrea,
A very interesting conversation. I think the large odds against the evolution of animals to the status of thinking humans is the reason more cognizance is not found in other species. Homo sapiens won the lottery by developing a number of characteristics not found in other animals.Two of which are the growth of larger brain sizes and the necessary vocal structures for complex verbal communication. These traits among others(Gestation periods, etc) I think reduced the odds to the point where intelligence could be obtained.
Eugenio Meli:
Let alone the cosmic time, we have a precise timespan to take in consideration, and it is limited to several millions of years, which is the timespan after the extinction of dinosaurs. With the extinction of dinosaurs the evolution of new animals started. That is our time application point. From then to now ( several millions of years, not cosmic times) the darwinists say that the line that starting from amebas of certain kind, arriving to monkeys evolved into homo sapiens. Good, I am happy of that. But I still have a question: why all the thousands of other species did not evolve, with exception of some secondary characteristics to get the fittest to survive? Why there is not a beast able to write and read ( except the snake, with some limitations)?
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Eernie 1:
Mathematic probabilistic calculus is against darwinism; as a matter of fact my good sense tells me it is impossible that, if Evolution is the deus ex machina, among thousands of animal lines only monkeys evolved in a sapiens form ( with exception of the snake ). It is a nonsense. Obviously I share the concept of evoluton made by selection of the fittest, but this within the evolution of specific cats more fit to survive that other kinds of cats; I totally disagree on the convinction that a monkey can become homo sapiens through the same principle, because in this case there should be no reason at all for a lion not to become a Lion Sapiens, as well as a mouse become a mouse sapiens etc. You could answer : ” because mankind has stopped by predation their evolution”. Nonsense: they have had the same timespan of monkeys to evolve, and there is no evidence in archeology of struggles between ” sapientes” of different species struggling to survive as the fittest.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
eernie1:
“You have outlined the philosophies of Pantheism(don’t kill a flea)”
We where talking about cancer cells, not fleas.
You want to kill cancer cells because you think they are “bad”. This idea (that they are “bad”) is one biologic paradigm. I gave you the opportunity to discover another different biologic paradigm. Discovering it, or not, is your choice. Nothing to do with any -theism.
“Existentialism(Nature is the guide for all events)”
Nothing to do with any -ism. I repeat: I am talking about biology. Nature is the “book” to study, embriology/evolution the “key”.
“and for good measure, Metaphysics(mental curing) in your remarks.”
Nothing to do with metaphysics or magic or new age… Only biology.
“Show me how the scientific method can prove the existence of a supreme being and I will join your group.”
Which supreme being? Which group?
“Again I cant argue against faith.”
Me neither.
Orsobubu:
To shield the back of Darwin you just explain why among thousands of animal species only monkeys evoluted to a sapiens level. Under mathematically probabilistic rules, it is impossible.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea,
I disagree with what you say, and I don’t know if I will defend to the death your right to shoot an arrow into the back of Darwin
Dear Andrea,
I forgot to add that chance and probability is the God brought by the machine. You have created much enjoyment in my life through the drama of your work.
Dear Andrea,
The only reason I can propose for the evolution of only one humanoid species capable of the intelligence of man is that the statistics involved in assembling the necessary combination of genes to create this marvelous species is overwhelming large. It is a miracle that we exist as an intelligent life form.We can thank chance for creating humans such as you who can contribute so much to the knowledge and utility that man enjoys.
Andrea,
you’re right. The probabilities that we consider in these cases(the spontaneous emergence of intelligent life) are very small if compared to the common life.
However, these probabilities are sufficiently meaningful if they refer to the size and cosmic times.
There is a book by Claudio Maccone (International Academy of Astronautics), Mathematical SETI, that is a monumental work on the statistical calculation of the spread of intelligent life.
Starting from the famous Drake equation, he manages mathematically to find answers even to fundamental questions such as yours.
I found it amazing.
Eugenio
Eernie:
My Friend,
show me one reason for which in some billion years only humans got evolution from monkeys to homo sapiens, and not at least one out of the thousands of animals of this planet got evolution to something sapiens and I will believe to the creative capacity of Evolution ( Deus ex machina).
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Silvio,
You have outlined the philosophies of Pantheism(don’t kill a flea), Existentialism(Nature is the guide for all events) and for good measure, Metaphysics(mental curing) in your remarks. Show me how the scientific method can prove the existence of a supreme being and I will join your group. Again I cant argue against faith.
@ Orsobubu,
I don’t agree completely with what you wrote in your last message.
You wrote: Differently from cosmic microwave background anisotropies and baryon acoustic oscillations, which are really observed, redshifts and galaxy’s receding speed are not yet really confirmed, so the existence of dark matter, dark energy, inflation and accelerating universe are having only indirect support and can be considered as ‘enigmatic concepts’.
My answer: Referring to what I wrote earlier on this blog ( http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=829&cpage=2#comment-847121 ), I don’t agree with what you wrote above, because based on the well known spectrum of supernovae, that were used as a reference, astronomers have proven that in the first 5 to 6 or 7 billion years of the universe, we had decelerated expansion of the universe (deceleration due to gravity), but after that period, the universe suddenly started to expand with an – up to now – ever accelerating pace. So, astronomers have proven that our universe behaves and behaved like this, but, I agree, they cannot explain it. So they had to introduce the concept of ‘dark energy’ as a ‘deus ex machina’. But, of course, using red-shifts (of the wellknown spectra of supernovae) in their method, presumes that the speed of light is a constant in the vacuüm (special relativity), and from the moment you doubt the latter, then you can say that this is not well established science, but in that case you put everything under doubt. So, if you accept special relativity, and the fact that the speed of light is a constant in the vacuüm, than you also have to accept what astronomers observed (in 1998) with the Hubble telescope.
Kind Regards,
Eernie1:
“I will not discuss natural/alternative medicine since…”
Neither me. I am speaking of biology.
I am afraid you were not able to read the italian language slides, sorry.
“There is no conclusions that can be made because there is no way to logically prove a point and that is why people base their conclusions on faith.”
There was something called “scientific method” time ago… 🙂
“However your statement that Nature does not make mistakes can be disputed by noting the number of organisms which have become extinct because of a fault in their construction.”
Even the fact that you and me will die is not a mistake but an efficent strategy of Nature. If you have a better strategy for evolution you had to suggest it to Nature millions years ago… Why didn’t you do that? Oh… Perhaps you were not there… Perhaps you are the result of all this mistakes… Ok, probably sometimes something goes wrong… 🙂
“Another example could be how sickle cell anemia has spread in Africa. People with the errant gene are immune to Malaria and therefor survive in larger numbers to spread the gene. A million people a year die from Malaria many of them children.”
Think on the fact that malaria deaths are not proportional to parasitemia… Remember ptolemaic epicycles? 🙂
Anyway, as I already said, you are free to kill everythink you think is “bad”, I only warn you that there are alternative biologic paradigms about this.
When you finish things to kill and have still not solved your problems, remember to consider them. 🙂
Silvio,
I will not discuss natural/alternative medicine since much of it depends on faith and thus in my opinion in the same category as Religion. There is no conclusions that can be made because there is no way to logically prove a point and that is why people base their conclusions on faith. However your statement that Nature does not make mistakes can be disputed by noting the number of organisms which have become extinct because of a fault in their construction. Another example could be how sickle cell anemia has spread in Africa. People with the errant gene are immune to Malaria and therefor survive in larger numbers to spread the gene. A million people a year die from Malaria many of them children.
Prof. Seshavatharam:
Orsobubu comments your paper. What do you think? By the way: we would appreciate very much more comments regarding Astrophysics, because “in asteris” there are nuclear laboratories unthinkable to be made on the Earth, from which there is to learn substantially.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
we constantly hear talkng about dark matter, and I think this is a clear example of the enormous distance physics will have to ride in the search of explanation of reality. In this link, you can read a professor supporting dark energy against aether:
http://www.sciencefriday.com/blogs/06/08/2012/dark-matter-vs-aether.html
here the opposite instead:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060908-dark-matter.html
and here there is a summary of current aether theories:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Dark_Energy_as_Aether
it is also interesting that, here in ROssi’s JONP, there are numerous articles by
Prof. Seshavatharam and Lakshminarayana that, although never discussing aether, are strongly critical of dark energy and dark matter. If i understood well – only the summaries 🙂 – their main field is cosmology; due to Hubble constants, the indication for the existence of dark energy is related with observations of distance measurements and associated redshifts. Differently from cosmic microwave background anisotropies and baryon acoustic oscillations, which are really observed, redshifts and galaxy’s receding speed are not yet really confirmed, so the existence of dark matter, dark energy, inflation and accelerating universe are having only indirect support and can be considered as ‘enigmatic concepts’. So, considering the atomic and nuclear physical constants, till today cosmic acceleration is not yet verified and the role of dark energy or dark matter is very insignificant, unclear and undecided in understanding the basic concepts of unification of fundamental interactions. In particle cosmology, also “popular” 10 dimensional string theory is not in a position to couple the nuclear scale and planck scale. They propose a math theory instead based on atomic and nuclear physics to verify the cosmic acceleration and cosmic geometry.
it would be interesting if the Professors could tell us their opinion on the aether subject, also in relation to recent discoveries about cosmic microwave background anisotropy and inflation
Eernie1:
Some people have studied the cancer problem, and generally speaking the “illness” problem, under a point of view different from mainstream paradigm of standard medicine.
It’s like looking at sun and planets movements with the tolemaic approach or with the new copernican paradigm shift: each cancer gets a biological significance, according to evolutive history, in each specific living organism.
I tried to synthesize the core concepts of their studies in some slides here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/9z8hvgr78k0o8s9/Corso%20Le%205%20Leggi%20Biologiche.doc
I am sorry that it’s an italian language document, but I hope you can google-translate it or find your language specific resources in the net.
Keep in mind that Nature never do stupid things, while humans do a lot… History should teach us something.
Silvio,
I agree that if a cell can show it benefits any human physical well being it should be preserved. However I have never encountered any situation where a cancer cell has enhanced the quality of any organ or animal function. On the contrary all cancer cells I have knowledge of produced negative effects. Can you cite an instance where a cancer cell has been beneficial?
Joseph Fine, Robert Curto, Eernie1:
Before to kill a living cell we should ask ourself which is the role of that cell in our entire organism.
Millions years evolution cannot create a complex process that has no biological significance.
Every cancer, as any other so called “illness”, has a specific and well defined biological significance in the economy of the organism’s life.
If you understand this biological significance you can follow its program according to its millions-years wisdom. Otherwise you can kill all that you don’t understand, with the consequences we know…
Steven N. Karels wrote in April 25th, 2014 at 1:15 PM
Wladimir,
Some questions – I am being neutral on your theory
1. —————————–
Is the existence of some type of aether critical to your theory?
——————————–
Steven,
from an empty space magnetic and electric fields cannot be created.
Einstein solved such paradox simply claiming that the empty space has the property of to create magnetic and electric fields.
In my theory is proposed a structure of the aether able to create magnetic, electric, and gravitational fields.
2. ———————————————–
Can this aether be detected through experimental testing?
————————————————–
Yes,
you can see the aether in action when you see iron dust in magnetic field:
http://fuches.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/campo_magnetico.jpg
In 2011 an experiment proved the existence of the aether, published in the journal Nature:
Light created from vacuum shows empty space a myth
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-11-19/science/30418928_1_vacuum-dce-photons
An empty space cannot create light
Light (electromagnetic radiation) is naturally always created (emitted) by excitation of matter (nuclei, atoms, molecules).
In the experiment published by Nature in 2011 light was created by the aether (without excitation of matter). This means that the aether must have a structure, subjected to be excited so that to emit light.
An empty space cannot have a structure. Therefore an empty space cannot be excited, so that to emit light
Any person who believes that the empty nothing can be excited so that to create light should be admitted to a hospice.
3. ——————————————–
If it cannot not be detected, would this disprove your theory?
———————————————–
The aether was already detected in the experiment published by the journal Nature in 2011.
Light created from vacuum shows empty space a myth
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-11-19/science/30418928_1_vacuum-dce-photons
regards
wlad
Wladimir,
Some questions – I am being neutral on your theory
1. Is the existence of some type of aether critical to your theory?
2. Can this aether be detected through experimental testing?
3. If it cannot not be detected, would this disprove your theory?