Notices
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Universe Physics System Flaw

  1. #1 Universe Physics System Flaw 
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    No enemy to kill.
    No "Devil" to destroy.
    Just a flaw to fix.

    This is a missing viewpoint/paradigm in all Religions, Sciences, Phylosophies and even Literature and Hollywood movies.

    http://www.anewlightinphysics.com/se...cs_System_flaw

    I would like he opinion of people in this forum about this.
    Particularly if anyone know a reference or link with some kind of similar approach.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Universe Physics System Flaw 
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    No enemy to kill.
    No "Devil" to destroy.
    Just a flaw to fix.

    This is a missing viewpoint/paradigm in all Religions, Sciences, Phylosophies and even Literature and Hollywood movies.

    http://www.geocities.com/anewlightin...cs_System_flaw

    I would like he opinion of people in this forum about this.
    Particularly if anyone know a reference or link with some kind of similar approach.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Okay, I think I got it...

    You're arguing for design. Yes? No?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    You're arguing for design. Yes? No?
    I think Science should not discard plainly the possibility of the intervention at some level of some kind of "superior" intelligences.
    I think that evolution with adaptation of species is right but also with some kind of intelligent design together (they are not excluding).
    But the main subject is not about creationism/evolution debate. The main subject is the viewpoint that differently from Religions that usually states that the Universe is perfect and we humans are the unperfect and guilty for a "bad" World the possibility that something could have gone wrong in the Universe creation and we humans could help someway to make a "fix".
    Isn't it an interesting viewpoint?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Universe Physics System Flaw 
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    No enemy to kill.
    No "Devil" to destroy.
    Just a flaw to fix.

    This is a missing viewpoint/paradigm in all Religions, Sciences, Phylosophies and even Literature and Hollywood movies.

    http://www.geocities.com/anewlightin...cs_System_flaw

    I would like he opinion of people in this forum about this.
    Particularly if anyone know a reference or link with some kind of similar approach.
    The same post as in the Physics section. Still trash!

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/Unive...law-19358t.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    The same post as in the Physics section.
    It's a subject that needs the opinion of people of different areas of knowledge/thinking/beliefs.

    Still trash!
    May be not for others...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    You're arguing for design. Yes? No?
    I think Science should not discard plainly the possibility of the intervention at some level of some kind of "superior" intelligences.
    I think that evolution with adaptation of species is right but also with some kind of intelligent design together (they are not excluding).
    But the main subject is not about creationism/evolution debate. The main subject is the viewpoint that differently from Religions that usually states that the Universe is perfect and we humans are the unperfect and guilty for a "bad" World the possibility that something could have gone wrong in the Universe creation and we humans could help someway to make a "fix".
    Isn't it an interesting viewpoint?
    you're right. its called "breeding".
    for 10 000 years humans have purpose-bred cows to produce as much milk as possible.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    I can't figure out what you're on about. You certainly don't seem to have a clear hypothesis to present to us. Moving to pseudo for now. If you can be a bit more clear about your point and perhaps back it up with evidence then I'll consider moving it back. If not, this is probably bound for the trash.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,376
    martillo,

    I noticed your cross-posted in several subforums. Please do not since this is grounds for having your posting privileges suspended. In the future, please post pseudoscience in the appropriate subforum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    I can't figure out what you're on about. You certainly don't seem to have a clear hypothesis to present to us. Moving to pseudo for now. If you can be a bit more clear about your point and perhaps back it up with evidence then I'll consider moving it back. If not, this is probably bound for the trash.
    I think the subject is presented clear enough. Don't confuse conscise, precise and simple presentation with unclear. If you don't understand and no one else in this forum also don't understand or say nothing it is better to throw it to trash.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    I can't figure out what you're on about. You certainly don't seem to have a clear hypothesis to present to us. Moving to pseudo for now. If you can be a bit more clear about your point and perhaps back it up with evidence then I'll consider moving it back. If not, this is probably bound for the trash.
    I think the subject is presented clear enough. Don't confuse conscise, precise and simple presentation with unclear. If you don't understand and no one else in this forum also don't understand or say nothing it is better to throw it to trash.
    What you've presented appears to be rather vague conjecture. You suggest that the universe may be in some manner flawed. To make that case you compare it to a conjectural universe. I'm not sure what such an assumption adds to our understanding of the universe, not how we could ever test the hypothesis, if that is what we would call it. So really you need to do two things. Provide a concise hypothesis, and provide a means to test it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    I don't understand why the same subject cannot be teated in different forums. Is something that needs the different opinions and different point of view of people with different knowledge/thinking/beliefs. Usually people visit few sub-forums only, those related to the subjects they are considering because usually don't have all the time to stay in the forum seeing all forums.
    Also note that it is not spamming since the subject appeared in very little sub-forums, those where could be people interested in.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    What you've presented appears to be rather vague conjecture. You suggest that the universe may be in some manner flawed. To make that case you compare it to a conjectural universe. I'm not sure what such an assumption adds to our understanding of the universe, not how we could ever test the hypothesis, if that is what we would call it. So really you need to do two things. Provide a concise hypothesis, and provide a means to test it.
    It is already presented the main hypothesis as:
    "From my point of view the Physics System of the Universe seems to have some flaw.

    Some physical parameters could have a wrong real running value, some physical things could not be exactly the way they should be and the Universe could be in a not ideal state. Nature could be different.

    For example too energetic photons are present which can "break" organic molecules causing mutations, cancer, cells' deterioration, aging and death. Note that atoms can accumulate the energy of successive small photons and spontaneously emit a big photon."

    Evidence?
    "Evidence is found in the amount of information about the harmful ultra-violet "light" effects." (mutations, cancer, cells' deterioration, aging and death).

    Tests?
    I don't need to be tested because all the effects of "ultra-violet light" photons have aleady been tested for many years and there's a lot of information about in the internet.

    It is something that just need to be realized about. The fact that in the contrary of both Science religion say ("the Universe was created perfectly and who came to "putrify" it is the human being", Nature is perfect and who came to pollute it is the human being with his unreponsible behavior, etc, etc) the Universe could not be perfect, something could have gone wrong in its creation, particularly the Physics of the Universe could have some flaw, particularly some physical parameters couls have a wrong real running value. To "figure it out" we only need to imagine a little (and I think that the human mind is more powerfull in simulation that any computer with its called imagination) on how life could be in the abscence of any too big photons with energy above that of the blue color of light and so there would be no organic molecule deteriorated "naturally".

    Isn't all that enough for you to consider the subject with enough reason and relevance to be considered in the appropiated forums?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Okay, let me elaborate on why I think this is trash.

    Your hypothesis and arguments are as solid and concise as an eel is easy to catch. What does it mean, "something in the universe might be flawed, in some sense, somehow .. . could be". This is just as vague as it can be. What exactly is flawed? Why do you think, something is flawed? Flawed from what perspective? What is bad for one species is just perfect for another. Are you imposing human welfare as an evaluation scheme to decide, what is flawed and what is not? What if I'd say, the universe is blind? It is neither flawed nor perfect. It just is. Everything is just a consequence of universal laws. If they were any different, the consequences would be as well. This is the foundation of what we call evolution. There is no goal or beneficiary of the foundation or the evolution of the universe. And evolution does not produce perfect results. This process produces and sustains entities that have properties allowing them to survive.

    Another point: Science does not simply disregard the possibility of an intelligent designer, divine intervention are some obscure higher sentient being. Science does/should not include ANY unproven or unprovable assumptions when drawing conclusions about the laws of nature. If it does, the result is already biased by the assumption and thus spoiled. If any, science uses working hypotheses that are still a matter of research and yet to be corroborated by evidence.

    Your example of UV light clearly demonstrates that you are watching the situation only from one single perspective. Why is UV light harmful? Why is this an example of a flawed universe? Yes, it can hurt us. But most of it is filtered by the earth's atmosphere anyway. But we are destroying it. So, we are flawed, aren't we. But without mutation, we would never have been evolved in the first place. So, is it good or bad? And even if the human race would become extinct because of this. Would that mean that nature is flawed? There are many more examples in the whole universe like this. This is also, why people have asked for detailed explanations of your views and evidence for them to support them. Also this example demonstrates that it is much more appropriate to argue that nature just is and not to impose a human evaluation scheme on it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    Self defeating argument

    If you are flawed, how would you know that your capacity to recognize flaws is not flawed?
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    Fine.

    Thank you all for your opinions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    Fine.

    Thank you all for your opinions.
    No offence but you're putting this stuff up for real criticism. This isn't even a fraction of what a scientist has to face when presenting a new idea. Take it on the chin, or don't put yourself out there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    From other Forum:

    John Galt Posted: Yesterday at 7:06 PM Report this post Quote


    Martillo,
    let's start at the beginning. It appears to me that your primary claim - the physics of the universe is flawed - can only be true if the universe was designed. Is it your opinion that the universe was designed? Your linked essay seems to indicate you do believe this, but because English is not your native language it is not clear.

    Thank you.
    JG


    martillo Posted: Yesterday at 11:39 PM Report this post Quote


    QUOTE
    let's start at the beginning. It appears to me that your primary claim - the physics of the universe is flawed - can only be true if the universe was designed. Is it your opinion that the universe was designed? Your linked essay seems to indicate you do believe this, but because English is not your native language it is not clear.


    Yes I believe in some intelligent design (although I don't know exactly how that begun) but the intelligences which I think developed the Universe no way matches with the concept of "Gods" in Religion and in Phylosophy because in both is considered totally knowgeadble and totally powerfull entities. They are capable of doing everything and even go against the Laws of Physics sometimes and also capable to determine everything that could happen to anyone of us at any moment and at any place! Even in the dictionary is hold someway this concept of "Gods" and there is a main problem. I think was Descartes who was asked if he believed in "God" and he asked back to define to him what would be understood by "God" and then he would tell if he would believe or not.
    I believe in some "Primordial Intelligences" specifying the Physics Laws of the Universe to create an ideal Universe with ideal Worlds with ideal beings to live an ideal life following a main principle "The purpose of the existence is to enjoy life".
    Unfortunatelly something haven't gone wrong since the begining and life could only grow under very "hard" (harmfull) conditions and in a non ideal way. Actually we are living some kind of Hell (with some things we could enjoy of course but at the end a Hell) with very harmfull radiation present. Any atom can absorb several small photons and spontaneously emit a big photons times to times breaking some organic molecule of our bodies! (even our own atoms of our own molecules can do that).
    I identify the problem in the Physics of the Universe particularly in the real running value of some parameter(s) (the specifications should be right but they would be different from the real values).

    That's what makes sense to me even with the lack of all the proofs. And so it's my faith. I have faith but not religion. There's no religion that satisfies my faith.

    I think is an original very different point of view that makes many things have sense.
    As I said this viewpoint/paradigm is not expressed in current religions, Phylosophies, scientific approach and not even in literature and movies. I don't understand why it is ausent. I mean that something could be wrong in the Universe, something could have gone wrong in its creation and we could could help detecting, analyzing, finding ways to correct/fix it finally and make possible a new much more "pleasant" World and life.



    John Galt Posted: Today at 6:35 AM Report this post Quote



    Thank you for your reply. I have comments and questions in three areas.

    First, a minor point. You have spoken several times about small photons and big photons. I hope you are aware that all photons are the same 'size'. I imagine you mean that the energy of photons can be different. Is that the case?

    Second, as others have pointed out, mutations generated by radiation have likely been partly responsible for evolution. If you argue that these are bad, are you also arguing that evolution is bad?

    Thirdly, you are quite honest in stating you believe this hypothesis based on faith not facts. What observations/studies/research might be made to find facts that would support your belief?


    Thank you for asking a good question and I will show you something really good to think about.


    martillo Posted: Today at 9:08 AM Report this post Quote



    QUOTE
    First, a minor point. You have spoken several times about small photons and big photons. I hope you are aware that all photons are the same 'size'. I imagine you mean that the energy of photons can be different. Is that the case?



    Well, actually I'm talking about photons of different energies but they also have different sizes. Unexpectedly more energetic photons are smaller in size. To understand this you would have a "long" way studying my site... (not so easy).


    QUOTE
    Second, as others have pointed out, mutations generated by radiation have likely been partly responsible for evolution. If you argue that these are bad, are you also arguing that evolution is bad?


    No, evolution is not bad, is natural and necessary. I think in two kinds of evolution: "horizontal evolution" and "vertical evolution". To survive under changing enviromental conditions "horizontal evolution" happens, to develop complex beings starting from simple ones "vertical evolution" happens.
    Of course the harmfull radiation of "too big photons" had a big impact in the evolution of all the beings in our World and with the Darwininan "natural selection" mechanism taking place but I believe that not only that mechanism was and is present. Actually the two kinds of evolutions would happen anyway in the abscence of the "too big photons" for life to be developed in dynamical Worlds.


    QUOTE
    Thirdly, you are quite honest in stating you believe this hypothesis based on faith not facts. What observations/studies/research might be made to find facts that would support your belief?


    Thank you for asking a good question and I will show you something really good to think about.

    The central point is that too energetic photons (with energies above that of the deep blue color of light) can break organic molecules particularly those that compose living beings organisms what can cause undesirable mutations, all types of cancer, aging and death. Note that I subtly include aging. Yes I'm considering that aging actually happens just due to the "too big photons" present. I mean if they would not exist "natural aging" would not exist and death would be rare (may be by accidents only) and rare and very special would be the borning of a new being in the World (not like now that for example womans came pregnant even don't wanting to).
    Yes I'm talking about possible "ethernal youth" but not with some miraculous "saint grial" or "source of youth". I'm talking about a change in the Physics of the Universe. I'm talking about a totally different kind of existence and life.
    Now coming back to your question: "What observations/studies/research might be made to find facts that would support your belief?"
    The fact that too energetic photons do break organic molecules is already known and we can easily find information on the web just searching for ultra-violet or even more energetic radiation effects. It is known that they can even produce DNA mutations. May be further studies are needed to realize that many other essential molecules of cells are affected by ultra-violet radiation causing "cell deterioration" (I mean malfunction). I have already heard on TV that one of the causes of aging being considered by some scientists is that DNA "deteriorate" through time while cells reproduce and I follow this line of reasoning but going further and looking for a possible cause of that deterioration. I consider that the presence of the "too big photons" is the real cause. But not only DNA deterioration in cells' reproduction is the cause of aging. The too energetic photons also affect directly many parts of the cells causing their malfunction.
    The other line of research I think would be needed is to verify that too energetic photons (above deep blue color) are produced spontaneously by any atom (organisms' atoms and environment's atoms) under normal conditions without any external source of them (in the abscenece of external radiation). I mean even in a submarine under thje deep sea we would find those photons (may be just as some "background radiation noise").
    Unfortunatelly what cannot be verified experimentally is how life could be in the abscence of the too energetic photons. Wecannot construct a lab where they would not be present because as I say they can come from any environment and from inside any organism.
    I think that just logic and some imagination can do the rest.

    Thank for your important questions.
    Please consider on thing: I'm not infallible (by the way I make mistakes everyday...) and adjustments could be necessary on what I think, say and write.

    You know religions state The Universe and Nature is perfect created by a perfect "God" and that we are guilty of everything wrong happening to us. Current Science someway agrees with this point of view saying the Universe, Nature and the Physics laws are perfect the way they are.
    I take a more positive and productive position thinking that the Universe could not be perfect, life could not be perfect this way and that something could be done to change everything just working and researching in the right direction.
    We humans cannot change the Physics Laws but "Primordial Intelligences" that could be called "Gods" could. For Science to have a right approach it must not discard the intervention of some kind of "superior intelligences" in the Universe particularly capable of make changes in the Physics Laws.
    Reply With Quote  
     

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