Where did the first cell come from?

[juvenissun]

It is clearly science fiction at this point. I just wonder why they feel a need to call the multiverse theory science.

No. I rather say it is a "possibility".

 

[Assyrian]

I think so, when we start to ask: why 48.3°C ?

So, nothing to do with the bond energy that is the same in every sodium thiosulphate crystal?

 

[juvenissun]

So, nothing to do with the bond energy that is the same in every sodium thiosulphate crystal?

I mean that we can calculate the melting point of any substance based on some measured data. But I don't know if we can theoretically calculate the melting point of anything from scratch, which is probably some theoretical value of nuclear energy? (no idea on how to call them).

Com'n, from origin point of view, everything is designed.

 

[Assyrian]

You would need to know the bond energies in the crystal and energies between ions in the melted form, not just adjacent ions but more distant ones too. So horrifically impractical. But I think you are on the right track. It is not that God monitors each sodium thiosulphate crystal and zaps it when it reaches 48.3°C, but that foreordained the chemistry of sodium thiosulphate when he created designing a universe where sodium, oxygen and sulphur would be forged in the heart of stars. Same as he foreordained life when he designed a universe where three helium atoms would merge and form carbon.

 

[shernren]

You would need to know the bond energies in the crystal and energies between ions in the melted form, not just adjacent ions but more distant ones too. So horrifically impractical. But I think you are on the right track. It is not that God monitors each sodium thiosulphate crystal and zaps it when it reaches 48.3°C, but that foreordained the chemistry of sodium thiosulphate when he created designing a universe where sodium, oxygen and sulphur would be forged in the heart of stars. Same as he foreordained life when he designed a universe where three helium atoms would merge and form carbon.

Madelung constant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Assyrian]

That answers the question for the crystal thanks. But wouldn't that just tell you the boiling point, when all the bonds are broken rather than the melting point?

 

[juvenissun]

You would need to know the bond energies in the crystal and energies between ions in the melted form, not just adjacent ions but more distant ones too. So horrifically impractical. But I think you are on the right track. It is not that God monitors each sodium thiosulphate crystal and zaps it when it reaches 48.3°C, but that foreordained the chemistry of sodium thiosulphate when he created designing a universe where sodium, oxygen and sulphur would be forged in the heart of stars. Same as he foreordained life when he designed a universe where three helium atoms would merge and form carbon.

 

[NGC 6712]

If so, is that 0.05 AU small enough to change everything? Why do you say this kind of knowledge is lie?

------

Side point: what would that 0.05 AU different save the earth from becoming another Venus? You must know something I don't.

Because the inference in the videos I see (or internet posts) tries to imply far smaller changes would be problematic. I have seen Creationists state a 1 mile change would be a disaster. 0.05 AU is about 5 million miles - and as I said that is being quite conservative.

And remember this habitable zone would change over time dependent upon the suns luminosity and the earths atmospheric makeup.

 

[juvenissun]

Because the inference in the videos I see (or internet posts) tries to imply far smaller changes would be problematic. I have seen Creationists state a 1 mile change would be a disaster. 0.05 AU is about 5 million miles - and as I said that is being quite conservative.

And remember this habitable zone would change over time dependent upon the suns luminosity and the earths atmospheric makeup.

I think it was said to express the idea. Nevertheless, I also wonder if that 1 mile difference really means nothing. I would expect some critical change might happen. It might not be as harmless as you think. A LOT parameters of the earth will probably be different if the distance is 1 mile closer or farther from the sun.

 

[NGC 6712]

A LOT parameters of the earth will probably be different if the distance is 1 mile closer or farther from the sun.

Are you joking with that comment? Utterly negligible - a thousand mile change would be negligible never mind one mile. What exactly are the parameters you have in mind? Remember the difference between aphelion and perihelion is about a 5 million km difference. So what parameters are fluctuating wildly due to the existing effects of the Earth's eccentricity?

 

[juvenissun]

Are you joking with that comment? Utterly negligible - a thousand mile change would be negligible never mind one mile. What exactly are the parameters you have in mind? Remember the difference between aphelion and perihelion is about a 5 million km difference. So what parameters are fluctuating wildly due to the existing effects of the Earth's eccentricity?

OK, you gave me challenging question and I don't think I can give any positive answer. But I certainly can ask questions:

Let's think about the earth-moon relationship. Would one mile smaller or larger on the diameter of earth orbit affect the gravity relationship among the sun-earth-moon? I believe it probably will make a tiny bit difference. Then let the difference continue to run for a long period of time, I doubt the earth-moon relationship would even be similar to what they are now. If the moon's orbit is changing, then everything on the earth would be changed together.

Yes, 1 mile difference is small, but the difference should "exist". Then let the time work on the small difference and makes it bigger and bigger. I guess the rate of change could even outpace the rate of evolution. If evolution failed, then what would left?

 

[Assyrian]

The moon's orbit is changing. It has been gradually moving away from the earth over billions of years.

 

[juvenissun]

The moon's orbit is changing. It has been gradually moving away from the earth over billions of years.

That is my argument. The earth changed with the moon's orbit change. If the moon changed in a different way, then the earth will become a different earth.

 

[Assyrian]

That is my argument. The earth changed with the moon's orbit change. If the moon changed in a different way, then the earth will become a different earth.

Don't know why you are saying the moons orbit would be different if we were a mile closer to the sun, but are you saying life on earth would be different, like stepping on a Devonian worm and the earth ending up being ruled by trilobites or intellectual velociraptors? Or are you saying conditions on earth would have been so different life could not have evolved or survived? Because that is what goldilocks is about, it not about different, but being able to support life.

 

[juvenissun]

Don't know why you are saying the moons orbit would be different if we were a mile closer to the sun, but are you saying life on earth would be different, like stepping on a Devonian worm and the earth ending up being ruled by trilobites or intellectual velociraptors? Or are you saying conditions on earth would have been so different life could not have evolved or survived? Because that is what goldilocks is about, it not about different, but being able to support life.

Mars could be a good example. Life was possible on Mars, was it?

If the current process of the earth in the solar system continued, would the earth become inhabitable before the sun runs out? If not, then the condition of the earth must be a special one.

It is not impossible that the 1 mile difference at the beginning would upset the balance.

 

[Smidlee]

The moon's orbit is changing. It has been gradually moving away from the earth over billions of years.

If you apply the science idea "the present is the key to the past" then the moon would be touching the earth 1.5 billion years ago.

Mars could be a good example. Life was possible on Mars, was it?

If the current process of the earth in the solar system continued, would the earth become inhabitable before the sun runs out? If not, then the condition of the earth must be a special one.

It is not impossible that the 1 mile difference at the beginning would upset the balance.

Life on Mars is still in the science fiction phase. Abiogenesis research is doing so badly they need to have life start somewhere else besides Earth.

I'm sure the earth orbit is not a perfect circle as even the sun suppose to wobble by the pull of planets so I seriosusly doubt a mile would make any difference. Now the moon touching the Earth 1.5 billions year ago would be a serious problem.

 

[Assyrian]

Mars could be a good example. Life was possible on Mars, was it?

If the current process of the earth in the solar system continued, would the earth become inhabitable before the sun runs out? If not, then the condition of the earth must be a special one.

It is not impossible that the 1 mile difference at the beginning would upset the balance.

The earth will not be suitable for life when the sun expands into a red giant, it was almost unsuitable when it turned snowball. Venus might have been suitable for life in the past, and mars might have been too. So it is not so much exact distance as window of opportunity that opens up with changing composition of gases and the sun gradually warming. A mile closer and we could have started that bit earlier, a mile further away and we would have had to wait until the sun warmed up that bit more.

 

[Assyrian]

If you apply the science idea "the present is the key to the past" then the moon would be touching the earth 1.5 billion years ago.

Not if you apply it properly. It isn't a case of find out how fast the moon is receding and run that back a few billion years. The moon is attracted to the earth by gravity, if the moon is moving further away there must be forces at work causing that and we need to understand those forces to understand what happened in the past. The forces are caused by the earth rotating faster than the moon orbits, as the earth rotates it pulls the tides ahead of the moon, which in turn pull the moon forward making it go faster and into a higher orbit. The same force causes a drag on the earth's rotation making the day longer.

Go back to when the moon formed. If the moon was formed inside the geosynchronous orbit distance*, the moon would orbit faster than the earth rotates, tides would lag behind the moon so the pull would be in the opposite direction slowing the moon down and dragging it to earth. If it formed in geosynchronous orbit the tide would be very high because the moon would be much closer but they would just bulge where they were. There would be nothing to pull them forward because the moon would be stuck above one place on earth. The moon would stay at the same distance. Just outside geosynchronous orbit and while the tides are very high, the difference in speed between the earth's rotation and the moon's orbit would mean the moon's recession rate would be infinitesimal, very slowly increasing as the moon got further and further out.

So if you wind the system back The further back in time, the nearer you go to geosynchronous orbit, the slower you are approaching it. Keep going back the slower you get, never getting to geosynchronous.

*a closer geosynchronous orbit than now because the earth was rotating faster.

 

[gluadys]

I'm sure the earth orbit is not a perfect circle as even the sun suppose to wobble by the pull of planets so I seriosusly doubt a mile would make any difference.

The idea that celestial bodies move in perfect circles derives from Aristotle who held that since heaven is a place of perfection, all heavenly motions express that perfection by moving in perfect circles.

That's why medieval astronomers kept adding epicycles to the assumed circular orbits of planets to account for motions that didn't fit.

It was Kepler (1571-1630) who realized that the observed motions of the planets meant they were moving in ellipses, not circles. The sun is positioned at one focus of the planetary elliptical orbit.

It amazes me that people can still be unaware of such long-established basic astronomical principles.



And, of course, you are right that one mile would not make much difference. As pointed out earlier there is well over a million or two miles difference in the distance from earth to sun every year at different points of its orbit.

 

[Smidlee]

Not if you apply it properly. It isn't a case of find out how fast the moon is receding and run that back a few billion years. The moon is attracted to the earth by gravity, if the moon is moving further away there must be forces at work causing that and we need to understand those forces to understand what happened in the past. The forces are caused by the earth rotating faster than the moon orbits, as the earth rotates it pulls the tides ahead of the moon, which in turn pull the moon forward making it go faster and into a higher orbit. The same force causes a drag on the earth's rotation making the day longer.

Go back to when the moon formed. If the moon was formed inside the geosynchronous orbit distance*, the moon would orbit faster than the earth rotates, tides would lag behind the moon so the pull would be in the opposite direction slowing the moon down and dragging it to earth. If it formed in geosynchronous orbit the tide would be very high because the moon would be much closer but they would just bulge where they were. There would be nothing to pull them forward because the moon would be stuck above one place on earth. The moon would stay at the same distance. Just outside geosynchronous orbit and while the tides are very high, the difference in speed between the earth's rotation and the moon's orbit would mean the moon's recession rate would be infinitesimal, very slowly increasing as the moon got further and further out.

So if you wind the system back The further back in time, the nearer you go to geosynchronous orbit, the slower you are approaching it. Keep going back the slower you get, never getting to geosynchronous.

*a closer geosynchronous orbit than now because the earth was rotating faster.

There are many factors that would determine the exact distance of earth and moon ( like for example the location of the continents and depth of the continental shelves in the past) which is why I use "the present in the key to the past." (not that I'm a believer of this assumption) Of course evolutionist dogmatically states the moon has orbit the earth 4.5 billions years so they made their assumption fit the math just like they do with dark matter and dark energy.

Of course evolutionist now have more serious problems with their theory of the origins of the moon.