Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst
1
2
3
LastLast
  1. #21
    Over 9000! Gheld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,646
    Quote Originally Posted by Stickybuds View Post
    why living systems are predominantly CHNOPS (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur)
    Because carbon, is the only one of those capable of forming polymers, the rest of them just happen to be the other most common elements on earth.

    So if life requires complex polymers then it stands to reason (based on the existing scientific models) that it would be "CHNOPS".

    The particle+timespace model of the universe has yet to fail us so far and is not currently in need of a replacement.

  2. #22
    Needs moar time-cube.
    Higgledy-piggledy Lord Wyman Manderly
    Sups with his foes, leaving Nary a crumb.

    Wolvering wolverenes Incontrovertibly
    Tell all who hearken that Winter is come.

  3. #23
    The Lightbringer Rhys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,710
    Quote Originally Posted by Sorrior View Post
    Soooo no one else thinks FFVII? Still interesting idea gonna hafta read more when i feel better.
    I thought of that at first, but then I realised that would be cool.

    The world ain't cool.
    I've hidden all your signatures, so nyeh.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Sorrior View Post
    Soooo no one else thinks FFVII? Still interesting idea gonna hafta read more when i feel better.
    Beaten to the punch!

    My response was going to be "This particular scientist has been playing too much Final Fantasy 7."

  5. #25
    The news title is misleading. His not actually saying the Earth is alive per se, at least not in the everyday sense of the word. Also this theory is pretty bullshit. He's saying that we can model the Earth as being alive - if we redefine life to mean something as basic and not-alive like a gyre. And the only evidence he has seems to be that this incredibly simplistic theory that doesn't actually explain anything is so vague and broad enough that it doesn't outright contradict some scenarios he imagined.
    Last edited by semaphore; 2012-01-27 at 07:12 AM.

  6. #26
    Stood in the Fire
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Stormwind, Eastern Kingdoms
    Posts
    395
    You need math to back it up buddy, there are lots of nice sounding ideas out there, the problem is none of them offer any proof.

    Edit to add: It looks like a very interesting read though, I'll get back to you when I've had time to read through it all.
    Last edited by MLX; 2012-01-27 at 07:21 AM.
    Www.facebook.com/magelordx
    Feel free to add me if you wish

  7. #27
    The Lightbringer Calzaeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Kopervik, Norway
    Posts
    3,238
    just like all other posters who wants to comment on the substance on this theory, I'll read it first.

    Consider this post placeholder.
    If you add me on Steam, Skype or whatever program/client I share my info for, please write something to identify you in the "Dude/gal wants to join your club"-message. Just so I know that an actual human is on the other end :P

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Xami View Post
    What's the definition of life again?
    With current state of science, one has to have its own metabolism in order to be alive.

  9. #29
    Titan apepi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Mostly harmless
    Posts
    12,657
    Metaphorically I think your right.
    Time...line? Time isn't made out of lines. It is made out of circles. That is why clocks are round. ~ Caboose

  10. #30
    The Insane smrund's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In the state of Denial.
    Posts
    15,522
    I can feel the elements...they're telling me...no wait, that's my stomach. This "theory" gives me indigestion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Masark View Post
    People in cars cause accidents. Accidents in cars cause people.
    Sometimes life gives you lemons, other times life gives you boobies. Life is always better with more boobies.
    Blizzard removed my subscription from WoD's features, it'll be added sometime later.
    And thus I give you: MALE contraception!

  11. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhys View Post
    Neat.

    Would like a "too much science; couldn't understand" version, though.
    Here's my take on it. I only skimmed the first 10 pages or so, and found it to be utter bull, so the accuracy of my interpretation is open for debate/ridicule.

    One analogy to rule them all
    The universe likes balls. Planets are balls. Atoms are balls. Animals are (roughly) balls. Therefore it's completely valid to think of everything as balls. To make the analogy useful, the properties of planets/atoms/animals are translated to spins in different directions/speeds.
    The author goes on to state that it's beyond current science to do this accurately, thus making any attempt at validating it with math null and void.
    He then goes on to use mathematical-looking notation to make it seem all legit when he tries to explain how interactions between planets/atoms/animals can be viewed as a translation of spins between them.


    I'm sure his analogy works in many ways, but it definitely feels that he's stretching it way too far.
    Grammer nazi's aren't a per-requisite for you're enjoyment of these signature. Although for all intensive purposes its really a mute point, per say.

  12. #32
    "One of these, the natural law of unity, decrees that the living cell and any part of the visible universe are irreducible."

    This quote caught my eye, as it is a hallmark of a certain other theory everyone here is certainly very familiar with(intelligent design). Does not appear that this guy has any ties to the discovery institute though after a quick search.

  13. #33
    This thread just got cited on Pharyngula

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngu...is-inevitable/

    Now you know I read both =D

  14. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Lothaeryn View Post
    Just cause he doesn't use math doesn't mean there Isn't a scientific understanding being made here, Newton didn't use math immediately when he discovered gravity.

    Theories tend to exist without the know how, math usually comes afterward to support it.
    I'm sorry, but this displayed such a blatant misunderstanding of basic science that I had to make an account just to reply. First, you misunderstand the how the word theory is used in scientific discourse. A scientific theory explains and predicts something. That prediction is usually done with math, thus, Newton's theory of gravity: F = G*m1*m2/r. What I think you're referring to is the hypothesis.

    And this "paper" amounts to even less than that. It's simply conjecture* with no base in observation or empirical evidence. It can't make any predictions, and it can't be proven through experiment. It is essentially a big "What if this is the way the universe works?". It is no more a scientific theory than me suggesting that the earth is really just an abstract representation of a metaphysical turtle swimming through a sea of space-time, ectoplasm, and quantum gyraxiums. The only difference is that I made up less words than this paper did.


    Sorry, couldn't let this one slide.


    *Special thanks to terrorsolda for the correction =)
    Last edited by Rune21; 2012-01-29 at 04:11 AM.

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by ramsesakama View Post
    This thread just got cited on Pharyngula

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngu...is-inevitable/

    Now you know I read both =D
    He insulted us. WoW fans are MUCH more scientifically literate that the Discovery Institute.
    Higgledy-piggledy Lord Wyman Manderly
    Sups with his foes, leaving Nary a crumb.

    Wolvering wolverenes Incontrovertibly
    Tell all who hearken that Winter is come.

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by JonTargaryen View Post
    He insulted us. WoW fans are MUCH more scientifically literate that the Discovery Institute.
    Lol, perhaps

  17. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by JonTargaryen View Post
    He insulted us. WoW fans are MUCH more scientifically literate that the Discovery Institute.
    It is demeaning to even be mentioned in the same line as the Discovery Institute on matters of science. I demand he retract that insult!

  18. #38
    Pandaren Monk vep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    1,895
    Quote Originally Posted by Snes View Post
    That's a bit misleading, as the title implies that the Earth is some kind of living, breathing being that reproduces etc. It's "alive" in a totally different context.
    Oh, but technically, it is breathing and reproducing. Only technically tho.

    The earth is not only the planet, but all that lives on it. The planet gave birth to whatever kind of micro bio-organisms that then evolved onward and brought us life as we know it. Everything on earth is connected together. From the trees to the bees.

    Take this movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxEN...-button&wide=1 It's a good movie to watch. Plus it's free!

  19. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by vep View Post
    Oh, but technically, it is breathing and reproducing. Only technically tho.
    Actually it's not. Technically.

    By definition the Earth does not breath or reproduce. You are either redefining the terms breathing and reproducing, or you don't know what "technically" means.

  20. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Rune21 View Post
    I'm sorry, but this displayed such a blatant misunderstanding of basic science that I had to make an account just to reply. First, you misunderstand the how the word theory is used in scientific discourse. A scientific theory explains and predicts something. That prediction is usually done with math, thus, Newton's theory of gravity: F = G*m1*m2/r. What you're referring to is the hypothesis.

    And that's exactly what this "paper" boils down to. A hypothesis with no base in observation or empirical evidence. It can't make any predictions, and it can't be proven through experiment. It is essentially a big "What if this is the way the universe works?". It is no more a scientific theory than me suggesting that the earth is really just an abstract representation of a metaphysical turtle swimming through a sea of space-time, ectoplasm, quantum gyraxiums. The only difference is that I made up less words than this paper did.


    Sorry, couldn't let this one slide.
    I'm sorry, but I couldn't let your incorrect use of hypothesis slide. A scientific hypothesis, in the context of the scientific method, must be testable. Yet, you state that this hypothesis cannot be proven through experiment. Thus, it is not testable. I believe you are looking for a word similar to conjecture, not hypothesis.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •