Thread: The Organic Cosmos

Einstein's "unified field theory" says the same physical laws govern both the microcosm and the macrocosm. If so, then stars are gigantic atoms and atoms are tiny suns, and our own Sun literally gave birth to the Earth; how else to explain that both the Sun and the Earth are electro-magnetic dynamos; and how else to explain the distance between a planet and a sun is relatively similar to the distance between a nuclius and its particle? Further, I suggest our Universe will not expand forever, but reach a point at which it will reverse and implode, like the pulsars we see in what I believe are the farthest reaches of detectable space.

Note that within an atom the classical picture of a body orbiting another body breaks down and quantum effects become significant. We cannot tell the exact position, momentum or energy of any particle within the atom; we can only derive probability values. This is very different to a planetary system, or any classical system for that matter.

Originally Posted by ecopoet

how else to explain the distance between a planet and a sun is relatively similar to the distance between a nuclius and its particle?

It isn't. Unless you want to present some evidence to back up that assertion?

Further, I suggest our Universe will not expand forever, but reach a point at which it will reverse and implode,

Evidence?

like the pulsars we see in what I believe are the farthest reaches of detectable space.

Pulsars are not that distant; e.g. PSR J2144-3933 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by ecopoet

Einstein's "unified field theory" says the same physical laws govern both the microcosm and the macrocosm. If so, then stars are gigantic atoms and atoms are tiny suns,

If that were a logical sequence then we could equally say that a hamburger was a herd of cows.

You should not confuse a poor analogy with any form of reality.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Note that within an atom the classical picture of a body orbiting another body breaks down and quantum effects become significant. We cannot tell the exact position, momentum or energy of any particle within the atom; we can only derive probability values. This is very different to a planetary system, or any classical system for that matter.

The apparent differences may be due to the position of the investigator. But to me, the basic similarities are profound.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by ecopoet

Einstein's "unified field theory" says the same physical laws govern both the microcosm and the macrocosm. If so, then stars are gigantic atoms and atoms are tiny suns,

If that were a logical sequence then we could equally say that a hamburger was a herd of cows.

You should not confuse a poor analogy with any form of reality.

But obviously a hamburger WAS a herd of cows, or a herd of pigs. So, what was the Cosmos originally? Where did, and where does the energy come from? Here on Earth we have the birth and death analogy and it makes sense to me that all existence operates organically.

Originally Posted by ecopoet

Here on Earth we have the birth and death analogy and it makes sense to me that all existence operates organically.

That's because you are a simple minded human. (Not you specifically: all human beings.) You are trying to simplify to the point of irrelevance.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by ecopoet

Here on Earth we have the birth and death analogy and it makes sense to me that all existence operates organically.

That's because you are a simple minded human. (Not you specifically: all human beings.) You are trying to simplify to the point of irrelevance.

We gather evidence to analyze it and try to gain an overview of reality, and to avoid getting swamped in details, we form images that relate to that evidence. We know the Earth is a living biosphere, and we know that all life is created by previously existing life, given birth in many fascinating ways. So how did the Cosmos give birth to life on Earth?

Life is an emergent property. The concatenation of natural laws and universal constants apparently creates a tendency for some systems to increase in complexity. Life is one consequence of that tendency.

I have to move this to Pseudo.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Life is an emergent property. The concatenation of natural laws and universal constants apparently creates a tendency for some systems to increase in complexity. Life is one consequence of that tendency.

That's fairly obvious. The question is why. Physical life tries to survive by evolving that increasing complexity to learn how to live longer by understanding the reality of its predicament. But the discovery of dark matter and dark energy shows that we cannot personally sense the whole of that realty, so I reason since everything is innately dual, that there is "negative space", the so-called "afterlife", which accounts for the dark energy and matter. Near death experiencers have been there and back.

Originally Posted by ecopoet

Physical life tries to survive by evolving that increasing complexity to learn how to live longer by understanding the reality of its predicament.

I know of no evidence to support this assertion. Can you provide any?

But the discovery of dark matter and dark energy shows that we cannot personally sense the whole of that realty,

It hardly took the 'discovery' of dark matter to establish this.

so I reason since everything is innately dual,

You are going to have to do some really hard work to convince me of that. Certainly your statement does not follow from your observations about dark matter and energy. Your subsequent comments about 'negative space' and equating it with the 'afterlife' are frankly infantile.

Near death experience is well explained by neurological mechanisms.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by ecopoet

Physical life tries to survive by evolving that increasing complexity to learn how to live longer by understanding the reality of its predicament.

I know of no evidence to support this assertion. Can you provide any?

But the discovery of dark matter and dark energy shows that we cannot personally sense the whole of that realty,

It hardly took the 'discovery' of dark matter to establish this.

so I reason since everything is innately dual,

You are going to have to do some really hard work to convince me of that. Certainly your statement does not follow from your observations about dark matter and energy. Your subsequent comments about 'negative space' and equating it with the 'afterlife' are frankly infantile.

Near death experience is well explained by neurological mechanisms.

I see no possibility of proving anything to your mechanistic view of existence, but it was fun to try. Goodbye.

Originally Posted by ecopoet

I see no possibility of proving anything to your mechanistic view of existence, but it was fun to try. Goodbye.

Maybe you will have better luck on the poetry forum.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by ecopoet

I see no possibility of proving anything to your mechanistic view of existence, but it was fun to try. Goodbye.

Maybe you will have better luck on the poetry forum.

...Touche'