Results 1 to 1 of 1

Thread: The Universe, is it Alive? How About Earth?

  1. #1 The Universe, is it Alive? How About Earth? 
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2010

    This is a better image of an x-ray image taken of our universe.

    Notice how the neurons bear resemblance to star clusters. The only real difference is the neurons ability to transfer information, the the much higher temperature of star clusters. However if we were the scaled down to the size of a neuron, I'd imagine star clusters would be proportionally hot. Also; it is possible for light to transfer information, it happens when you turn on the television with a remote. Since this is highly theoretical ill leave it open to debate, but could the universe were a brain cell of a larger organism?

    Then look at the similarities between earths mantle and cell structure.

    ( Cell
    ( Earth

    Both have a nucleus at the heart. One being a molten core, the other a membrane. However when you think of the properties of a membrane, being the thermal hot-spot of the cell it would appear molten to a microcosmic organism of same proportion.

    Then think of the properties of a planet, planets respond to change we have recently been seeing with climate change. Also, if hit by an extraterrestrial object such as a meteor, it has defenses and reacts in some fashion to the impact. If a the chemical composition of a planet changes, through chemical reactions such as combustion through burning of fossil fuel , chaotic climate follows. Planets can replicate in their own way just like all life. When a star goes supernovae it breaks down nearby matter to it's natural state. This makes nebula, which form new stars which support planet formation. Is that not replication?

    Inside the cell diagram you must also notice mitochondria, lysosomes,and other micro organisms. We have never been proportionally deep into the crust of the earth to possibly disprove such phenomena could exists in some fashion in the mantle. Look at what life does to an ecosystem, biodiversity makes a planet more stably active. When species go extinct rapidly this stability has been known to drop. Ice ages following many extinction periods appear to be a hibernation recovery state.

    When one burns down a forest, several succession periods follow. First herbs and grass grow, then shrubbery, next short trees, and finally large trees. This is because quick developing organisms steal nutrients early on but as the larger plant life grows and blocks off photosynthesis and takes over in the end. Same with living organisms: producers, herbivores, consumers, secondary consumers, decomposers being the trend for basic ecosystem succession. Perhaps all evolution on Earth had a predictable succession, its relationships would stretch far. Sentient life arriving only with sufficient biodiversity for it to be good for survival to be intelligent: intelligence allowing elephants to live to pass on knowledge of watering hole locations, for a monkey to learn which berries are safe to consume. Society only forms with sufficient communication skills. It is impossible to think with continued evolution, sentient beings would not be inevitable; like a niche waiting to be filled.

    In this case sentient life is inevitable after huge periods of time of life adapting to a habitable planet, as eventually understanding the complexity of the planet itself is the pinnacle to evolution. This allows organisms to adapt not just physically but culturally, based on the geographic conditions and internal/external factors. Emotions developing as communication becomes important, not showing consciousness but an ability to express it to others. Interactions between people leads to a political evolution until there is cultural unity. The end result of course being either a civilization that spreads throughout the universe causing unnatural chemical change almost like a cancer spreading through the universe, or a civilization that spreads and terraform planets acting as a protein replenishing ecosystems. Microcosms/Macrocosms identical concepts seem to be everywhere when you view the world on different scale, if not exactly the same then adapted to it's environment.

    My hypothesis is that the universe itself could be living, and the Earth itself could be living. That the creation of universes is a predicable aspect. That the microcosm mocks the macrocosm in slightly adapted ways. Other instances include the way the atomic model almost mirrors star systems. What if the electron isn't the planet though in this system. That would explain why electrons move in a cloud as they originate from the nucleus. But then what, light maybe dark matter?

    Maybe there is no such thing as "non-living." Maybe non-living is just a piece of a transcendent organism such as Earth or the Universe. Again this is just a hypothesis of mine, and is highly theoretical by what we know no. But I'd like it to develop, please offer criticism to specifics rather then calling the whole thing lies. For I think we can all say it is the best scientifically supported origin theory and even leaves room for a higher being a.k.a God for any creationists.

    If you would like a more formal hypothesis to compare this too, look up Deep Ecology. They share some similarities.

    Reply With Quote  


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