Evolution

[dlamberth]

It's interesting to speculate... for myself I think the universe has always been there and will continue.... and that the process of "creation" is continuous. It didn't start and end...there's always something "before" and "after".

Would the the evolution of Consciousness be effected by the the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Some mystics, like Teilhard de Chardin think not.

 

[Arthra]

Would the the evolution of Consciousness be effected by the the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Some mystics, like Teilhard de Chardin think not.

Sorry ... somewhat "out of my league".

 

[klutedavid]

You cannot say the whole universe is open or closed in itself. The universe itself is just celestial bodies in a vaccum, so we must account for those individual bodies. The earth is not "partially" closed, there is no such thing.

Hello OR.

Thanks for your reply.

You cannot say the whole universe is open or closed in itself.

That is a claim that will be extremely difficult to justify regarding my claim. The ideology of science
makes continuous claims, even the primary claim of an observable universe that can be understood,
amounts to nothing more than a claim. How do you know if this observable universe (?), is itself another
contained, celestial body in an even larger celestial entity? I thought the purpose of the acquisition
of knowledge, was to understand how incomprehensible our universe really is. Not that we would ever
be able to understand the true universe. Science is currently claiming that we observe less than 5% of
the real universe, we have not been actually observing the true universe. The unseen, the undetectable,
is the vast bulk of the universe.

The universe itself is just celestial bodies in a vaccum, so we must account for those individual
bodies. The earth is not "partially" closed, there is no such thing.

This so called 'universe' contains so called 'celestial bodies', in a partial vacuum, not a perfect vacuum OR.
The universe is probably far more dense an entity, than what it was once thought to be.

Let us consider the celestial body we call Mercury. This closest planet to the Sun, this planet Mercury is
fully bathed in solar radiation, Mercury has no ionosphere either, therefore Mercury is also exposed to
extreme levels of cosmic radiation.

Now consider our planet Earth. This planet of ours is at a much greater distance from the Sun than Mercury.
The intensity of the solar radiation that reaches the earth, is much less than the solar radiation that reaches
Mercury.

The Earth also has a filtering ionosphere and a thick atmosphere. The solar radiation and cosmic radiation
that reaches the surface of the Earth, is dramatically less than the total radiation reaching the surface of
Mercury.

Hence, this planet Earth must be seen as a partly closed system in regards to all forms of external radiation.
Where as the planet Mercury is a much more open system to radiation. To consider a celestial body as either
an open system, or a closed system, is not justified and a simplistic perception.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Hello OR.

Thanks for your reply.

That is a claim that will be extremely difficult to justify regarding my claim. The ideology of science
makes continuous claims, even the primary claim of an observable universe that can be understood,
amounts to nothing more than a claim. How do you know if this observable universe (?), is itself another
contained, celestial body in an even larger celestial entity? I thought the purpose of the acquisition
of knowledge, was to understand how incomprehensible our universe really is. Not that we would ever
be able to understand the true universe. Science is currently claiming that we observe less than 5% of
the real universe, we have not been actually observing the true universe. The unseen, the undetectable,
is the vast bulk of the universe.

This so called 'universe' contains so called 'celestial bodies', in a partial vacuum, not a perfect vacuum OR.
The universe is probably far more dense an entity, than what it was once thought to be.

Let us consider the celestial body we call Mercury. This closest planet to the Sun, this planet Mercury is
fully bathed in solar radiation, Mercury has no ionosphere either, therefore Mercury is also exposed to
extreme levels of cosmic radiation.

Now consider our planet Earth. This planet of ours is at a much greater distance from the Sun than Mercury.
The intensity of the solar radiation that reaches the earth, is much less than the solar radiation that reaches
Mercury.

The Earth also has a filtering ionosphere and a thick atmosphere. The solar radiation and cosmic radiation
that reaches the surface of the Earth, is dramatically less than the total radiation reaching the surface of
Mercury.

Hence, this planet Earth must be seen as a partly closed system in regards to all forms of external radiation.
Where as the planet Mercury is a much more open system to radiation. To consider a celestial body as either
an open system, or a closed system, is not justified and a simplistic perception.

The earth is not particularly getting warmer and warmer with time. Therefore, all the energy that comes to the earth from the sun, on average leaves the earth again. The energy comes in in the form of light and even ultra violet frequency of light. It leaves the earth as lower frequency heat radiation, and because of this frequency shift in the energy leaving the earth, more entropy leaves the earth than comes to the earth from the sun. This allows the earth itself to maintain a somewhat stable level of entropy, and as a result we are all allowed to keep on living.

 

[klutedavid]

The earth is not particularly getting warmer and warmer with time. Therefore, all the energy that comes to the earth from the sun, on average leaves the earth again. The energy comes in in the form of light and even ultra violet frequency of light. It leaves the earth as lower frequency heat radiation, and because of this frequency shift in the energy leaving the earth, more entropy leaves the earth than comes to the earth from the sun. This allows the earth itself to maintain a somewhat stable level of entropy, and as a result we are all allowed to keep on living.

Hello Paul.

Thanks for your input.

How would anyone know Paul, whether the earth is warming or even cooling over vast eons of time?
We have no direct observations available from deep time, rather we only have available, speculative
claims based on numerous assumptions.

For example Eugene, is the time scale of the universe a linear quantity?

Do the rare snapshots of the distant past events in say the fossil record, really reveal
what actually was occurring in deep time?

I am aware that our planet is warming and has been warming at an accelerating rate.
There is no stasis of the earth's entropy, I reject the concept of any balance in the entropy
of the planet earth. The distant past reveals no observable stasis whatsoever, and the
promised future entropy will be off the scale.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Hello Paul.

Thanks for your input.

How would anyone know Paul, whether the earth is warming or even cooling over vast eons of time?
We have no direct observations available from deep time, rather we only have available, speculative
claims based on numerous assumptions.

For example Eugene, is the time scale of the universe a linear quantity?

Do the rare snapshots of the distant past events in say the fossil record, really reveal
what actually was occurring in deep time?

I am aware that our planet is warming and has been warming at an accelerating rate.
There is no stasis of the earth's entropy, I reject the concept of any balance in the entropy
of the planet earth. The distant past reveals no observable stasis whatsoever, and the
promised future entropy will be off the scale.

Oh c'mon, of course the earth's temperature varies . . . . but it is not consistently heating up and heating up. Which it would, if the extra entropy coming in from the sun were never discarded. The idea of a "balance" is useful, although over long periods of time the amount of that balance will vary, of course.

Over vast eons of time, we have lots of sources of knowledge about the heat state of the earth. The mere fact that we have ancient fossils indicates a temperature consistent with carbon based organic life, for example. Liquid water, you know.

Your question about the "time scale" of the universe . . . if we measure a second as being the the time needed for a cesium atom to perform 9,192,631,770 complete oscillations . . . that definition can be consistently used all the way back to the big bang and we could call that scale "linear". We could then measure everything else that happens in relation to that scale. Of course, we finite brained people generally think linear scales are too vast for practical use and we switch to things like logarithmic scales just to make things tractable.

But why would we think the universe has a "scale" intrinsic to itself that is either linear or non linear? Aren't scales imposed on things by us humans as an aid to our understanding?

 

[ViaCrucis]

While it doesn't get us back terribly far into the geological past, ice core samples are good examples of how we can observe shifts and changes of climate, etc.

http://climatechange.umaine.edu/icecores/IceCore/Ice_Core_101.html

-CryptoLutheran