| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"rev.goetz" |
| Date: |
18 Feb 2006 06:30:41 PM |
| Object: |
Life in the Cosmos |
I have no training in advanced physics, and I want to make sure that I
understand a couple of the concepts that I read in Smolin (1997) _The_
_Life_ _of_ _the_ _Cosmos_. Smolin proposes Cosmological Natural
Selection (CNS), where evidently a self-organizing mechanism makes a
black hole with entropy per baryon = 10^20 to generate a universe with
entropy per baryon = 10^<8. And as far as I can guess, he proposes an
origin of past-eternal oscillation where evidently there never was an
open universe that failed to generate a black hole until there were
multiple universes that started to generate multiple black holes. Does
this sound like a correct interpretation of CNS?
.
|
|
| User: "Teslia" |
|
| Title: Re: Life in the Cosmos |
19 Feb 2006 01:08:27 AM |
|
|
"rev.goetz" <jimgoetz316@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140309041.408053.323470@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I have no training in advanced physics, and I want to make sure that I
understand a couple of the concepts that I read in Smolin (1997) _The_
_Life_ _of_ _the_ _Cosmos_. Smolin proposes Cosmological Natural
Selection (CNS), where evidently a self-organizing mechanism makes a
black hole with entropy per baryon = 10^20 to generate a universe with
entropy per baryon = 10^<8. And as far as I can guess, he proposes an
origin of past-eternal oscillation where evidently there never was an
open universe that failed to generate a black hole until there were
multiple universes that started to generate multiple black holes. Does
this sound like a correct interpretation of CNS?
it is complete bullcrap.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "boson boss" |
|
| Title: Re: Life in the Cosmos |
18 Feb 2006 09:47:11 PM |
|
|
Black holes have the highest entropy. This is okay. But also, around a
black hole seem to be exciting new events that create new stars. When
something is going on, some dynamics, nature seems to go 'round through
interesting events. But this is not clear because dynamical systems
aren't clear. Instead, simply say that life is created by fusion and
supported by fusion.
Fusion is described energetically by some empirical curve of nuclear
energetics. Simple elements fuse and climb towards the top where you
can find iron, and release energy. And complex elements too, climb
toward top from the right, through fission which also releases energy.
Yeah, it's a bell shaped curve. And now just tip the image upside down
to make it rational; iron is at the bottom of nuclear potential ...
curve.
Once that solar system is there, sun light (from fusion) seems to be
enough for everything. Just tip the sun upside down, and it is just
another rational potential minimum, intertwined somewhere on the scale
of bio-relevant affairs. :-))
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Life in the Cosmos |
19 Feb 2006 08:54:37 AM |
|
|
rev.goetz wrote:
I have no training in advanced physics, and I want to make sure that I
understand a couple of the concepts that I read in Smolin (1997) _The_
_Life_ _of_ _the_ _Cosmos_. Smolin proposes Cosmological Natural
Selection (CNS), where evidently a self-organizing mechanism makes a
black hole with entropy per baryon = 10^20 to generate a universe with
entropy per baryon = 10^<8. And as far as I can guess, he proposes an
origin of past-eternal oscillation where evidently there never was an
open universe that failed to generate a black hole until there were
multiple universes that started to generate multiple black holes. Does
this sound like a correct interpretation of CNS?
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_natural_selection
"Cosmological natural selection is a hypothesis proposed by Lee Smolin
intended as a scientific alternative to the anthropic principle. It
addresses the problem of complexity in our universe, which is largely
unexplained. Just a few minor changes in the mass of certain
elementary particles or in the strength of the forces of the universe
would prevent atoms from forming, let alone galaxies. Being that
natural selection has explained the complexity of life so well in
biology, this concept is borrowed and applied to cosmology in an
attempt to explain the complexity of the universe. Cosmological
natural selection is also referred to as the theory of Fecund universes".
Of course there is no evidence for multiple universes, the anthropic
principle or CNS.
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Life in the Cosmos |
19 Feb 2006 04:23:26 PM |
|
|
Sam I have no doubt that we have a horizontal twin universe that is only
a membrane away. It is positive(positron) Nature only creates in pairs.
This can explain where anti-matter ended up. Treb told all this
to me over 35 years ago,and Inow I'm a believer. Go figure TreBert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Life in the Cosmos |
19 Feb 2006 05:43:36 PM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Sam I have no doubt that we have a horizontal twin universe that is only
a membrane away. It is positive(positron) Nature only creates in pairs.
This can explain where anti-matter ended up. Treb told all this
to me over 35 years ago,and Inow I'm a believer. Go figure TreBert
Wishful thinking, Herb? Why is it that people believe in things
without and theory, data or evidence for?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Life in the Cosmos |
19 Feb 2006 07:36:50 PM |
|
|
Wishful thinking, Herb? Why is it that people believe in things
without and theory, data or evidence for?
*******
No big mystery. Indoctrination. Critical thinking skills never
developed. Lust for money. The list goes on.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Life in the Cosmos |
19 Feb 2006 03:13:20 AM |
|
|
rev.goetz wrote:
I have no training in advanced physics, and I want to make sure that I
understand a couple of the concepts that I read in Smolin (1997) _The_
_Life_ _of_ _the_ _Cosmos_. Smolin proposes Cosmological Natural
Selection (CNS), where evidently a self-organizing mechanism makes a
black hole with entropy per baryon = 10^20 to generate a universe with
entropy per baryon = 10^<8. And as far as I can guess, he proposes an
origin of past-eternal oscillation where evidently there never was an
open universe that failed to generate a black hole until there were
multiple universes that started to generate multiple black holes. Does
this sound like a correct interpretation of CNS?
Yes, it's basiically the same trick all physics does,
Take a cosmology and run it time-reversed
to determine initial conidtions.
But none of the entropy models, explain anything
about anti-matter.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
