Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Evolution
03-21-2017, 05:35 AM
Post: #1
Evolution
according to Joutenism our DNA and the fact that all life exists now and did so only after numerous generations of trials and tribulations is a testament of the nature of the universe. Indeed our solar system and it's planet seem very much alive, and without each bodies on strengths and locational advantage they would've died out a long time ago.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-21-2017, 10:19 AM
Post: #2
RE: Evolution
no.. planets don't seem alive. they seem active, but there is zero hint of consciousness or anything traditionally related to 'life' within planets themselves.

~~~

when we enter a discussion on matters of discordance, we should search for truth not victory, In this manner we always win, there are no losers.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-21-2017, 11:55 AM
Post: #3
RE: Evolution
(03-21-2017 10:19 AM)PeterPants Wrote:  no.. planets don't seem alive. they seem active, but there is zero hint of consciousness or anything traditionally related to 'life' within planets themselves.

When I was young, there was a Saturday morning program called Space Patrol. Pretty impressive science fiction FX for live TV. Anyway there was an episode where the planet they landed on was alive. Rocks attacked them and stuff like that. In sci-fi anything can happen.

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
- Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-21-2017, 12:20 PM (This post was last modified: 03-21-2017 05:08 PM by Visqueen.)
Post: #4
RE: Evolution
The human definition of life is very bias (which is ironic because science is specifically intended to not be bias.) If something is subject to natural selection and reproduces calling it "life" seems appropriate. No one can know everything in this life, but some things should be self apparent. From what we know of life on earth it must come from something thats already alive, and (although joutenism states it was fertilized by a primitive virus brought by a celestial body.. which embedded itself into a clay "cellular shell"), the shell did display some very life like qualities without the virus.. and the descendants of the virus-strain that didn't assist in the creation of cellular life went on to evolve into other strains. Humans for decades have associated the moon with love, romance, and reproduction.. i think this is as good an explanation as any as to why. Seriously you should check out the website, i think it can explain alot about the nature of the universe and "God".
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-21-2017, 12:47 PM (This post was last modified: 03-21-2017 05:08 PM by Visqueen.)
Post: #5
RE: Evolution
(03-21-2017 12:20 PM)sonjouten Wrote:  The human definition of life is very bias (which is ironic because science is specifically intended to not be bias.) If something is subject to natural selection and reproduces calling it "life" seems appropriate. No one can know everything in this life, but some things should be self apparent. From what we know of life on earth it must come from something thats already alive, and (although joutenism states it was fertilized by a primitive virus brought by a celestial body.. which embedded itself into a clay "cellular shell"), the shell did display some very life like qualities without the virus.. and the descendants of the virus-strain that didn't assist in the creation of cellular life went on to evolve into other strains. Humans for decades have associated the moon with love, romance, and reproduction.. i think this is as good an explanation as any as to why. Seriously you should check out the website, i think it can explain alot about the nature of the universe and "God".

I did check it out. I will not be back. If you really want to present new ideas you have to learn how to organize presentations so people can understand what you are saying. And learn how to edit - you are far too wordy. No one is going to bother reading all that or if they manage to get through it they will not have a clear grasp of what you are trying to say.

Rather than posting your link all over the place, try restating what you want to convey in a briefer clearer way in individual posts.

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
- Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-21-2017, 01:02 PM
Post: #6
RE: Evolution
Its actually pretty simple. Atomic particles move out of phase with out aspect of time, so they are in our perspective going backwards.. and because of this a particle is actually not created until its destroyed.. And each planet is on some level alive. its actually not that complicated.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-21-2017, 01:17 PM
Post: #7
RE: Evolution
(03-21-2017 01:02 PM)sonjouten Wrote:  Its actually pretty simple. Atomic particles move out of phase with out aspect of time, so they are in our perspective going backwards.. and because of this a particle is actually not created until its destroyed.. And each planet is on some level alive. its actually not that complicated.

Do a coherent post of not unreasonable size in a new thread on your particle theory and you might get a response.

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
- Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-21-2017, 01:18 PM (This post was last modified: 03-21-2017 01:23 PM by sonjouten.)
Post: #8
RE: Evolution
Einstein was right in the sense that normal macroscopic matter is limited to the speed of light. What he missed (and it was a problem with him altogether.. considering he never like quantum mechanics) was that the speed of light is not absolute. any photons that move beyond it are not detectable by any of our equipment (they look for things moving forward in time), the particles existing as they do and keeping the energy they need to sustain themselves is a consequence of their individual parts going faster than c and having done so since their existence (however like i said theyre infact not created until theyre destroyed.) the individual parts when looked at from the outside appear to be going backwards in time, but the entire atom from our reference is moving forward in time. This concept was known for a long time (heisenberg uncertainty principle) but they didn't really accept the conclusion, which from my point of view is true.. that an individual particle doesnt exist in the classical sense until its destroyed.. because it is in fact out of phase and going backwards in time from our perspective.
(03-21-2017 01:17 PM)Imprecise Interrupt Wrote:  
(03-21-2017 01:02 PM)sonjouten Wrote:  Its actually pretty simple. Atomic particles move out of phase with out aspect of time, so they are in our perspective going backwards.. and because of this a particle is actually not created until its destroyed.. And each planet is on some level alive. its actually not that complicated.

Do a coherent post of not unreasonable size in a new thread on your particle theory and you might get a response.

The theory on particles I'm positive is scientifically accurate. But my insistence that the nuclear strong force is more consequence than an actual force (a by product of electromagnetic reactions within the atom.. like how gravity is a consequence of local geometry and not particularly a force.) it will cause some controversy. And the positions on the life status of planets (and especially storms) will to some be more religious/philosophical than scientific. Despite science's strict adherence to removing bias when it comes to defining life it always has and always will be prejudice. (at least to the general public)
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-21-2017, 02:22 PM (This post was last modified: 03-21-2017 02:25 PM by Herminator.)
Post: #9
RE: Evolution
(03-21-2017 01:18 PM)sonjouten Wrote:  The theory on particles I'm positive is scientifically accurate.

I'm positive it is not. Sentences like : "If it exists where its at then electromatically that is where it is" can't be considered scientific by any stretch of the imagination.

Do as II says: state your theories in the way physicists do, and only then they can be compared to the existing framework that describes the behaviour of particles.
(03-21-2017 01:18 PM)sonjouten Wrote:  Despite science's strict adherence to removing bias when it comes to defining life it always has and always will be prejudice. (at least to the general public)

It isn't. Life is defined in a certain way, and if you don't agree with that definition it will be impossible to discuss with you whatever "life" is.

Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-21-2017, 02:46 PM (This post was last modified: 03-21-2017 02:52 PM by sonjouten.)
Post: #10
RE: Evolution
The fact that a virus is not defined as a lifeform despite it having dna/rna (and probably being a descendant of one of the ancestors of cellular life) reveals that. Honestly the entire idea of the nuclear strong force is just over eagerness to confirm the standard model. No quark has ever been detected beyond color confinement. And considering that a moving particle thats almost completely massless would appear to be rather massive, it makes more sense to define it as the parts that are readily detected when its busted.. a positron, a neutrino.. and some gamma rays produced by the other positron and electron self annihilating. I love science but many times it will break occam's razors instead of reworking an obvious flaw in the initial theory.
(03-21-2017 02:22 PM)Herminator Wrote:  
(03-21-2017 01:18 PM)sonjouten Wrote:  The theory on particles I'm positive is scientifically accurate.

I'm positive it is not. Sentences like : "If it exists where its at then electromatically that is where it is" can't be considered scientific by any stretch of the imagination.

Do as II says: state your theories in the way physicists do, and only then they can be compared to the existing framework that describes the behaviour of particles.
(03-21-2017 01:18 PM)sonjouten Wrote:  Despite science's strict adherence to removing bias when it comes to defining life it always has and always will be prejudice. (at least to the general public)

It isn't. Life is defined in a certain way, and if you don't agree with that definition it will be impossible to discuss with you whatever "life" is.

You're a scientist right? Go over the evidence and come to a conclusion yourself. If you think it's possible formulate a scientific theory and wait on a nobel prize. I don't need recognition or anything just remember me if you get super rich off of it (I am not surprisingly dirt poor). Honestly a deeper and more accurate understanding of the world is more important to me over all.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)