Sunday Science
I LOVE stuff like this. I myself hold a “complimentary theory”, creationist evolution. Why else would there be so many different things, and similarly, why do some things that we find history of no longer exist? As well, there is no link BETWEEN us and neanderthal, we are the compromise between an exploration team who discovered sufficient dna similarities, and said neanderthal/erectus/que’ sera. There was creation, there was evolution, and there was external influence.
There are coincidences of time and there are dates that make us go “Hmmmmmmm”. This theory really makes me wonder. What DID happen way back then? Will we ever know if we don’t at least try to finger it out?
My brain hurts. Help me out here, people.
Interesting theory. Much more solid than the SUV theorem. A popular theory as to the demise of the dinosaur involves a comet or asteroid and this provides a possible source of this asteroid. Or am I reading too much into thise? Sory, but once I hit the vector analysis discussion I started having flashbacks and had to mix a stiff drink.
I have never been able to fuly resolve creation and my training as a geologist. Skipper, you are entirely correct: It does give one a headache. Where I have issue is with the “young earth” folks that insist that the earth is 4065 years old or something close to that and if you don’t agree with them, you are doubled minded and possesed by Lucifer. Fossils are a trick of the devil, etc. You probably know the meme as well as I. The fact is that we as puny humans can not fully understand either the mind of God nor the complexities of the earth. I have argued the the facts as I understand them about the K-T extinction; the sea level rises and falls of the Pliocene; the massive deserts of the Jurrassic etc. The standard response: If only Bush would sign the Koyoto Treaty. Idiots. All of them.
Let’s assume that the GoreBallWarming folks are not creationist. At least as a starting point. They assume that the earth began as a swirling ball of gasses with formed into a planet and the environmental conditions eventually developed to a point where life began. Life evolved through time from single celled organisms to humans (excepting Dennis Rodman and Paris Hilton). We humans have apparently messed with the earth and upset the delicate balance thereby creating global warming that threatens to doom us all. Assuming this is the case, should they be cheering the demise of humans so that evolution can more forward? If they really, really cared. And had the courage of their convictions to put the earth ahead of their own selfish needs. They would line up, drink the kool-aid, and show that cared more than the rest of us.
Posted by yatalli
05/14/2007 at 02:11 AM
Two things affect time - velocity and gravity. Science has proven time is relative. Thank you very much, Dr. Einstein. Velocity isn’t germane to this discussion but gravity may well be. Gravity effects time by slowing time (relatively speaking) as gravity increases. Example - the atomic clock in London ‘appears’ to run slower when viewed from the perspective of the atomic clock in Denver. Higher altitude = lower gravity. Example 2 - If the Skipper were watching me pedal a bike as I approached a black hole I would appear to pedal slower and slower as I got closer to the event horizon. Conversely, from my perspective, the Skipper would appear to move faster and faster the closer I moved to the black hole. (Note: physics predicts time would come to a halt and then begin to go backwards as I crossed the event horizon...relatively speaking...of course.)
The crux of my rambling - the Big Bang Theory states at one point there was nothing and then energy/matter exploded from a point source in time and space - something like a white hole. Physics allows for white holes, BTW, which is a black hole in reverse. As the universe expanded, the center of the universe would be denser than outlying regions. This means time in the center of the universe would move more slowly from the perspective of those same outlying regions. This could help explain why the universe is measured to be so old and the earth much younger. Sorry ‘yatalli’ but there is solid evidence for a young earth*. I’m not advocating that the young earth position is correct but the evidence supporting the position has not yet been proven wrong making it as valid a “theory” as the old earth position, which, along with evolution, is frequently touted as stone-cold fact rather than the theories it and evolution actually are. Young earth v old earth - frankly, I’m not sure where I stand. I know first hand that many scientists dismiss anything that smacks of religion so they don’t have to face an omnipotent God making their research less than objective, i.e. it cannot always be trusted. Their assumptions are often skewed making ‘garbage out’ a distinct possibility. Many other scientists lie outright to support their sacrosanct positions. Again, I know first hand. Caution should be the modus operandi.
Hi, Skipper. I thought I’d throw all this relativistic physics stuff into the mix to muddy the discussion even further. Glad to be of service.
*And don’t make me get on my carbon dating soap box…
A parting thought, if life is an accident and we are so unimportant, why does this rock called Earth seem to be planted in the center (relatively speaking) of the known universe? Mere chance? Or maybe a Creator wanted mankind to be able to study, explore and be awed by His creation? We would do well to give careful consideration to the scripture that states, “Only a fool says there is no God.”
A *very* interesting read is “The Case for A Creator”, by Lee Strobel (former atheist)
and also “Starlight and Time” by Dr. Russell Humphreys.Posted by Qwerty
05/14/2007 at 09:11 AM
I am sorry but I cannot buy into the “Earth began on January 1, 4004 BC” argument. Nowhere in the Bible does it give that date or any other. The date was supposedly arrived at by scholars who went through all of the “begats” in the first books of the Bible and calculated 30-40 years for each generation.
I also have a wee bit of a problem in believing in a Supreme Being who clocks in and out on a 24-hour cycle. Seems to me a “day” to God would be pretty close to infinity, say around 10 billion of our “years” at the least.
As Qwerty (and Einstein) stated, time is relative. There is the perspective of the spaceman watching us as he approaches a black hole and there is our perspective of him as he enters the event horizon beyond which “events” cease.
Then there is the third perspective (everything always comes in threes) of a Creator watching all this tomfoolery from outside the space-time continuum patiently waiting for us to grow up.
One of these days, we will know. And if not, we won’t care. But it is good brain exercise.
Ah well, late to the post…
The exploded planet hypothesis is far more interesting when combined with the expanding planets hypothesis and Le Sage gravity theory. Back in the 80’s a paleontologist noticed that enormous dinosaurs simply can not function in a 1.0 gravity field: the biomechanics don’t work. The only way this size animal made sense was if they experienced much less gravity, say, 0.5 G.That 0.5 G being impossible, and giant animals obviously possible, the whole cognitive dissonance thing was quietly dropped down the memory hole. Except, prior to the 20th century and Einsteinian physics there were a couple of theories that still today exist in the dark corners of sciences. The first is the explanding earth tectonics theory that purports to show that not only do the continents align along the Atlantic coasts, but they also align along the Pacific coasts. And the only possible way that works is if the planet was about half its current size some 180 to 200 million years ago. The reduction in mass led to that earth having about 0.5G. Coincidentally enabling giant animals like dinosaurs, enormous dragon flies etc.
This theory obviously doesn’t mix well with today’s physics as there is no explanation for how all that mass appeared, in the planets core rather than by surface accretion.
Another theory last seriously promoted back in the late 1800’s is Le Sage gravity. Le Sage roughly theorized that gravity didn’t suck, it pushed. While I don’t want to go into the theory, the consequences, as it is formulated today, are extreme. There is no big bang, there is no expanding universe, there is no “dark” matter or energy, faster than light speed is allowed, planets expand due to absorbed mass in their interiors over millions of years grow substantially.
The entire group of theories has substaintial evidence (e.g. the GPS system that is used today discards Einstein and confirms Le Sage) in support and a very good record of predictions (essentially, many discoveries were NASA and mainstream astrophysicists express surprise are confirmations of one or another of the theories). The down side is pretty much everything from global geology to Einstein relativity would have to be overthrown for any of these to gain acceptance.
I don’t see that happening, but, in the meanwhile it is interesting to follow and compare the two universal models’s predictions to the accumulating discoveries.
Posted by dibble
05/14/2007 at 07:47 PM
Now that is something that absolutely never occurred to me. The whole concept of dinosaur mass versus gravity. Now I have some real mental food to chew on. Suppose the explosion of Body C not only bathed Mars in water and matter but added to the mass of the third planet as well, increasing its size and the residue forming a moon in almost perfect orbit after tidal stress caused a breakup over time. The resulting catastrophe would account for 85% of lifeforms going away, the tectonic plates spreading and a number of other related things.
Then again, maybe Body C was Earth and Planet V was in our present orbit? Perhaps Mars was flung outward, absorbed very little life-sustaining material from the explosion and Earth was the major recipient. My head hurts.
Why is this a dormant area of science? The possibilities are mind-boggling and could be more easily researched with modern technology. It could also help us predict the next possible gas-giant collapse or solar system realignment that is not outside the realm of possibility.
There are times when I wish I could have been born a thousand years later to witness the unveiling of these secrets. Bummer.
As for gravity ... no one has yet offered an explanation that works. It just is. Somehow that piece of the puzzle is the key, I think. Therefore I am.
Le Sage - French for ‘the wise’ and my forefather’s name before it was changed when they came through Ellis Island many moons ago. Hmmmm...and all these years I thought my kin were just a bunch of Arkansas hillbillys. Heh.
Posted by Qwerty
05/15/2007 at 07:21 AM
Decades ago I read that conifers didn’t handle radiation very well, which puzzled me to no end since I made the assumption that billions of years ago that there was much more undecayed radioactive materials just lying about zapping everything and that conifers should be a rather radiation resistant species of tree. If you follow the fossil trail then conifers come out as some of the oldest plants in existence. Also, given the amount of lead just lying about where did it come from? Uranium decaying? Lots of questions about heavy metals and where they originated.
