A little theory I came up with about the world...

[Crucible]

I was not sure if this would belong here, but here it is. Now first lets put all beliefs aside for a moment while we ponder this. Did you ever wonder if the world recycles itself with life every once in a while? Couldn't it be possible that intelligent life once existed on this planet? I am thinking that we could eventually wipe ourselves out very easily. Now, wouldn't it be possible for evolution to work again and create man once more, or something similar? Science could be wrong about the age of the earth and sun. They could be thousands of times older for all we know. We have no definitive way of proving the age of the earth. It could be trillions or 100s of trillions of years old. If the world did end, there would still be some life left. That would mean evolution would have one hell of a jump start. There could be much much more history to this planet that we do not know about. It could even be possible that there are creatures out in space somewhere that began here.

[bradybaker]

Originally posted by Crucible Science could be wrong about the age of the earth and sun. They could be thousands of times older for all we know. We have no definitive way of proving the age of the earth. The universe is 13.7 billion years old. Give or take 2%. Your theory is an interesting one, but it's highly unlikely that it's happened on this planet, or anywhere in the universe for that matter.

[spoon]

Well, for the world recycling itself we already have evidence of that - the dinosaurs were pretty thoroughly recycled I'd say. But wether or not intelligent life existed on the planet before some recyling in the vague past is hard to say. I guess it depends on your definition of intelligent. If you just mean able to think like we do, have identity, etc, then I dont see why that couldnt have happened. Civilisations could have existed on earth and left very little impact, but not civilisations that got up to the industrial stage (or space like you said). To bring a civilisation past the industrial revolution and beyond to space exploration requires a huge expenditure of natural resources. Such a huge amount that it would: leave ample evidence and, use too much of them up. I remember hearing somewhere that if our civilisation was to be destroyed in a nuclear scenario, there would not be enough natural resources left to sustain the rise of civilsation back up to our former level again. But on another planet with an overabundance of natural resources, or that develops along a less-resource intensive line, I dont see why not. -spoon

[Crucible]

"The universe is 13.7 billion years old. Give or take 2%." So, where did you get that information from? Also, how do you know there are not objects beyond what our telescopes can see? The universe could go on infinitely for all we know. It would be impossible to know the age of the universe without knowing how large it is and what it consists of.

[Crucible]

Well, all of the resources used would become the mines we have today. It would even be possible to say that the mines we have today are from something like this that occured billions of years ago. New york city would make one hell of an iron mine in a few billion years if we all died tomorrow and earth was still around. Originally posted by spoon I remember hearing somewhere that if our civilisation was to be destroyed in a nuclear scenario, there would not be enough natural resources left to sustain the rise of civilsation back up to our former level again. -spoon

[docKnubis]

half life dating i answer all

[Kaniaz]

Originally posted by Crucible It would be impossible to know the age of the universe without knowing how large it is and what it consists of. I can't answer as to where he got the information from, but why does the size and what it consists of matter? If I wanted to calculate the age of my Aunt Betty, for example, it wouldn't matter if she was the size of jupiter and made out of baked beans.

[dreamtamer007]

Relativity is how we judge speed and distance. Knowing the relative size of our solar system compared to the milky way and so on we can see that the universe is expanding.In reverse order we can see that it was much smaller then it is currently. That of course does not account for the total size of the universe but it does look like we were much closer together (the stars and planets) at an earlier point in time. Looks like things were not quit the same at one time.

[Oneironaut Zero]

Thats to do with the big bang, theory, dreamtamer They believe that the universe started at a single point in time, and from that explosion, has been expanding ever since. For there to be billions upon billions of galaxies out there beyond this one, and the discovery of dinosaur fossils but no humanoid remains, I do doubt there would have been other intelligent life on this planet...but that is far from meaning that there isn't other, more advanced, civilizations in the universe, that we don't know about.

[dreamtamer007]

Originally posted by Oneironaut Thats to do with the big bang, theory, dreamtamer They believe that the universe started at a single point in time, and from that explosion, has been expanding ever since. For there to be billions upon billions of galaxies out there beyond this one, and the discovery of dinosaur fossils but no humanoid remains, I do doubt there would have been other intelligent life on this planet...but that is far from meaning that there isn't other, more advanced, civilizations in the universe, that we don't know about. Why does everybody automatically associate energy expanding with a big bag theory? Isn’t it possible that god created mater with a big poof? I think most of so-called scientists are narrow-minded. More then the religious people.

[Oneironaut Zero]

I dunno. I think the big bang theory is flawed. Part of it states that before the bang there was nothing. No time, no space, no energy, no God/Allah/Omnipresence (whatever), no anything, there was only...well nothing. And then BOOM there was a big explosion, and all the debris from this explosion became planets, and thus was the begining and blah blah... ..but what I don't get is...how can you get debris from Nothing? How can a planet be a giant ball of rock that broke off from a great big gigantic humungous peice of....nada? That, not even a scientist can explain. And even though it goes against every physical law scientists have ever boasted over, they say the big bang theory is Fact. ....anybody else have a hard time understanding that? Cause I sure as hell don't get it.

[spoon]

Originally posted by dreamtamer007 Why does everybody automatically associate energy expanding with a big bag theory? Isn’t it possible that god created mater with a big poof? I think most of so-called scientists are narrow-minded. More then the religious people. How is picking a naturalistic explenation for the beginning of the universe (big bang) that fits in with our current knowledge (something from nothing happens in quantum mechanics) more narrow minded than "goddidit"? If scientists are more narrow minded than religious people, thats only because religous people accept the supernatural as fact. -spoon

[dreamtamer007]

Originally posted by spoon How is picking a naturalistic explenation for the beginning of the universe (big bang) that fits in with our current knowledge (something from nothing happens in quantum mechanics) more narrow minded than \"goddidit\"? If scientists are more narrow minded than religious people, thats only because religous people accept the supernatural as fact. -spoon When you have a (big bang) explosion as it were, the material might continue to travel away from it self at a constant speed but it’s a known fact that the expansion of the stars is accelerating. Something other than a bag is going on.

[Oneironaut Zero]

Without having taken quantum dynamics, somebody's going to have to explain to me how every planet, planets that are hundreds of thousands of miles in diameter, can come from nothing. I just don't see it!

[Yume]

By example of Mars I don't think that a planet can take more than one duration of humans. I am not saying Mars ever had life, but if it did it cannot sustain anymore. I just see it as most logical with resource levels taken into consideration that most planets would only hold one duration of life. The Big Bang Theory is so flawwed I have gotten sick of debating it after 4 years of research. It almost seems irrelevant to this topic now.

[Alric]

There are always resources though. Since nothing leaves the planet everything stays here. It just gets moved around. You could nuke the entire plant, millions of years later all the plants and animals will grow back and be covering everything. The planet will even make new oil and stuff. Every thing is renewable if your going by millions of years instead of 100's.

[Crucible]

Okay, please stop arguing about the big bang theory. I don't know, nor does anyone else know, if it actually took place, so arguing over it is kind stupid. Just because you can see one part of the universe relative to another does not mean you know how large it is. This is especially the case since we cannot see infinitely into space with our technology. Until this is the case, the size is completely unknown. My own personal theory about it is that it would be impossible for it to NOT be infinite. If space is lack of matter, then what is lack of space AND matter? It is impossible, that is what it is. So dinosaur bones are old... All bones decay eventually without leaving a single trace. This is also the case for man made structures made out of any material. Since the age of the earth is based on theory, that means it could be incorrect. If this is the case, then the earth could be trillions of years old. That means life could have lived and died countless times from disasters. In an infinte universe there is infinite possibilty. That means all things occur, no matter how crazy it sounds. The earth alone would just be a much smaller scale of this.

[Crucible]

Originally posted by Yume By example of Mars I don't think that a planet can take more than one duration of humans. I am not saying Mars ever had life, but if it did it cannot sustain anymore. I just see it as most logical with resource levels taken into consideration that most planets would only hold one duration of life. The Big Bang Theory is so flawwed I have gotten sick of debating it after 4 years of research. It almost seems irrelevant to this topic now. Here is a little something that should disprove your first paragraph. Lets say that an object in space made almost entirely of ice hits mars. Lets also say that is it almost as large as the moon. Not only would this fill the planet with water, but it could also shift it into the perfect orbit as earth is now. Lets also say that life was contained in that object, or that we decided to plant life on there so it could grow in millions of years. Well, after the millions of years plants would have already covered the planet since it is rich in CO2. Animals would also eventually evolve and life would be on mars as it is here. Although this is unlikely, it is not impossible. In fact, it is even possible mars did have life at one point 100s of millions of years ago. Maybe due to disaster a civilization destroyed theirselves. All plants were killed off and mostly CO2 was left. Since mars is in almost a perfect orbit for life, it is very possible it was like earth at one time.

[Oneironaut Zero]

Okay, please stop arguing about the big bang theory. I don't know, nor does anyone else know, if it actually took place, so arguing over it is kind stupid.[/b] I don't see anybody arguing over the Big Bang theory. Not one person here has claimed it as truth, nor as anyone said it Wasn't truth. All we did were express our opinions on it, and I haven't seen anyone get combative over it. And yes, I said dinosaur bones are found and not human bones, but I also said that because of this it seems Unlikely To Me that humans came before that. But that is what I think about the subject. I didn't say Impossible. You can't be sure about something like that unless you were there to see it for yourself.

[bradybaker]

\"The universe is 13.7 billion years old. Give or take 2%.\" So, where did you get that information from? This information is based on measurements of the expansion of the universe using Type Ia supernovae, measurements of the lumpiness of the cosmic microwave background, and measurements of the correlation function of galaxies. It would be impossible to know the age of the universe without knowing how large it is and what it consists of. Untrue. half life dating i answer all Why did everyone choose to ignore this post? I think most of so-called scientists are narrow-minded. More then the religious people. That's quite the close-minded comment. ..but what I don't get is...how can you get debris from Nothing? How can a planet be a giant ball of rock that broke off from a great big gigantic humungous peice of....nada? That, not even a scientist can explain. And even though it goes against every physical law scientists have ever boasted over, they say the big bang theory is Fact. Things are popping into existence all the time. How is picking a naturalistic explenation for the beginning of the universe (big bang) that fits in with our current knowledge (something from nothing happens in quantum mechanics) more narrow minded than \"goddidit\"? If scientists are more narrow minded than religious people, thats only because religous people accept the supernatural as fact. Well said. When you have a (big bang) explosion as it were, the material might continue to travel away from it self at a constant speed but it’s a known fact that the expansion of the stars is accelerating. Something other than a bag is going on. That's where dark matter and dark energy come into play. somebody's going to have to explain to me how every planet, planets that are hundreds of thousands of miles in diameter, can come from nothing. I just don't see it! http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13747 The Big Bang Theory is so flawwed I have gotten sick of debating it after 4 years of research. It almost seems irrelevant to this topic now. It certainly is pointless, since you have NEVER presented a single shread of evidence to support your position. Quit categorically denying the Big Bang and make a case for yourself or quit posting in such discussions. Just because you can see one part of the universe relative to another does not mean you know how large it is. This is especially the case since we cannot see infinitely into space with our technology. Until this is the case, the size is completely unknown. OFF TOPIC: It's funny how thiests use this type of argument to poke holes in non-theistic theories but ignore it when it comes to justifying their own beliefs. PS. I'm not labelling you as a theist Crucible, the statement just happened to catch my eye. My own personal theory about it is that it would be impossible for it to NOT be infinite. If space is lack of matter, then what is lack of space AND matter? It is impossible, that is what it is. Ok, back on topic. Just because you can't comprehend 'nothing' does not mean that nothing cannot exist. Why should the structure and organization of the universe be confined to the limits of your understanding? We are fancy carbon molecules on a dirty rock in the middle of nowhere. Since the age of the earth is based on theory, that means it could be incorrect. If this is the case, then the earth could be trillions of years old. Since the law of gravity is based on theory, that means it could be incorrect. If this is the case, "gravity" could actually be the result of an entire race of invisible "gravity elves" that run around pulling everything down. Here's a question for all of you: Why do you assume that the universe had a 'beginning'?

[Oneironaut Zero]

Damn...how much more pompous can one person be? And to make sure I passed the test: -clears his throat- "Wow. That took a long time to read." Its interesting how a person so hell bent on being as condescending as possible ends up proving points made by others on the arguementive attitudes of human beings. I read the post, Brady, and again all I see are Theories. Nothing that constitues the "Science is right, and you're all retarded" attitude that you (so obviously self-entertainingly) put in your posts. And the "Gravity Elves" analogy was cute, but a little Dramatic. Simply because someone has reservations about believing Theories drawn up to describe something as indeterminable as the Creation of the Universe, you relate that to saying (so proudly sarcastic) that Gravity is based on theories, and if theories are flawed, then 'Gravity Elves might be to blame.' Lets get over ourselves, here. And telling Crucible: "Just because you can't comprehend 'nothing' does not mean that nothing cannot exist. Why should the structure and organization of the universe be confined to the limits of your understanding?" - Nice. Brady, if you're going to offer your opinion on a thread, lets do so in a fashion that doesn't advocate the personality of a child who's father was just insulted by another playmate, or perhaps you should follow the tail-end of the advice you so authoritively gave Yume. Someone as self-reflectingly versed in the ways of the universe should know that not everyone has the same mental histories as any given person on the planet. The fact that you know (or think you know) something that another person obviously (or in your opinion) does not, doesn't put you in any higher position than them. ...I'm sure you know this, but it would be nice to see your text display this basic level of self-awareness. Lets try to keep our discussions civil, people. But Brady, here is a question for you: So far, all I see are people questioning the present theories on the creation of the universe. My question is: Who on this thread implied that they assumed the universe HAD a begining....besides You when you told us that it was * Billion years old? Hmmmm.

[spoon]

Oooooookaaay. Flew off the handle a bit there mate. Just because brady responded to some points that you don't agree with, does that really justify that much ad hominem? Generally one directs statements at the what someone says, not the person themselves. But on to what you brought up: And the \"Gravity Elves\" analogy was cute, but a little Dramatic. Simply because someone has reservations about believing Theories drawn up to describe something as indeterminable as the Creation of the Universe, you relate that to saying (so proudly sarcastic) that Gravity is based on theories, and if theories are flawed, then 'Gravity Elves might be to blame.' Lets get over ourselves, here. [/b] Actually what was being discussed was the age of the earth, which is actually based on several solid scientific methods. Radiometric dating (half life dating that docthory mentioned) being an example. So yes, questioning the theory of the age of the earth is analogous to questioning the theory of gravity. Dont like it, provide evidence that it's not. And telling Crucible: \"Just because you can't comprehend 'nothing' does not mean that nothing cannot exist. Why should the structure and organization of the universe be confined to the limits of your understanding?\" - Nice. Brady, if you're going to offer your opinion on a thread, lets do so in a fashion that doesn't advocate the personality of a child who's father was just insulted by another playmate, or perhaps you should follow the tail-end of the advice you so authoritively gave Yume. [/b] And again, one big ad hominem. It's actually a valid point - just because someone, with inarguably finite human intelligence/knowledge (that not saying you're stupid cruicible, thats just saying that humans dont know everything), cannot comprehend \"nothing\" being anywhere in the universe does not mean nothing cant exist. And that advice to yume is deserved, read the thread brady linked to in his post. Lets try to keep our discussions civil, people.[/b] Before you post one big personal attack, just ask yourself if it's really deserved. That whole post could have been (and should still be) edited down to the last question. Notice how I didn't attack your person, just what you said? -spoon

[Kaniaz]

This thread seems really mild to me on the whole "personal attack" front, in fact i can't find any. So why are we crying about it.

[Oneironaut Zero]

I appreciate the point of view, spoon, but my intention wasn't to "attack his person" simply critiquing some of the attitude he seemed to show in his post. I know nothing of his Person, except for what I've seen in just a couple of posts. All I said (roughly) was that Brady's words were (in my opinion) pompous and condescending. His words in the thread. Not his overall character. For all I know, brady could be a very nice guy, but he didn't really show so in the few posts I've seen from him (Again, in my opinion.) My opinion on Brady's posts is as acceptable as your opinion on my opinion of Brady's posts. (Which has nothing to do with my view on Brady's points, many of them good, simply explaining why I thought Brady should have been a little less arrogant toward people who were simply stating what they thought about a theoretical event.) And I'm sorry if the Gravity Elves comment didn't beam with sarcasm to you. But the fact of the matter is that Just because someone questions a scientific theory, doesn't quite justify making the assumption that the person believes in the supernatural, or something as ridiculously on-the-spot as Gravity Elves. Perhaps they are simply in a state of ambivalence? Why not debate a topic by asking why a person believes what they believe? Instead of making snide little comments to trojan calling them naive and ignorant? Again, just something I saw as pompous and condescending, and wanted to point out. No love lost. If these were not Brady's intentions, then hell, by all means, I appologize for thinking so. If it Was his intention to be as pompous as he seemed (again, only in my opinion, I can't speak for anyone else) then I don't think my post was wrong in asking him to be a little more civil. Perhaps it could have been a little less direct, but the point still stands. --- I think thats fair, don't you? And w00t! My question toward Brady is still valid! No harm meant. Doubtfully any harm done. But thank you for bringing attention to it.

[bradybaker]

Originally posted by Oneironaut I read the post, Brady, and again all I see are Theories. Nothing that constitues the \"Science is right, and you're all retarded\" attitude that you (so obviously self-entertainingly) put in your posts You asked for an explanation. I presented one. Take it or leave it. Originally posted by Oneironaut Its interesting how a person so hell bent on being as condescending as possible Are you saying that the \"A Breif History of existence\" post is condescending? Darn it...I thought I did ok on that one... Originally posted by Oneironaut And the \"Gravity Elves\" analogy was cute, but a little Dramatic. Simply because someone has reservations about believing Theories drawn up to describe something as indeterminable as the Creation of the Universe, you relate that to saying (so proudly sarcastic) that Gravity is based on theories, and if theories are flawed, then 'Gravity Elves might be to blame.' Lets get over ourselves, here. You're critiquing the style and form of my post? Weird...let's stick to the issues ok? If you don't like my analogies and sarcasm, I don't apologize. Originally posted by Oneironaut And telling Crucible: \"Just because you can't comprehend 'nothing' does not mean that nothing cannot exist. Why should the structure and organization of the universe be confined to the limits of your understanding?\" - Nice. Brady, if you're going to offer your opinion on a thread, lets do so in a fashion that doesn't advocate the personality of a child who's father was just insulted by another playmate That wasn't meant to be a shot at Crucible, but I can see how it came off as one. It was meant to be a shot at the human mind itself, and it's tendency to put itself on a pedestal. Originally posted by Oneironaut+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Oneironaut)</div> perhaps you should follow the tail-end of the advice you so authoritively gave Yume.[/b] Perhaps, or perhaps you aren't grasping the full history of Yume's involvement in such discussions. <!--QuoteBegin-Oneironaut But Brady, here is a question for you: Very Happy So far, all I see are people questioning the present theories on the creation of the universe. My question is: Who on this thread implied that they assumed the universe HAD a begining....besides You when you told us that it was * Billion years old? My question was directed at the people who attack the Big Bang theory by saying "something cannot come from nothing". I wasn't implying that the universe has been in its present state forever, I was just trying to point out that an eternal universe (ie. the 'something can't come from nothing' argument) is not an argument against the Big Bang, as you should recall from the explanation of the Ekpyrotic scenario. Looking back, that was a rather odd question for me to ask...but I hadn't slept in like 34 hours at that point. So I apologize.