Aristotle on the Origin of Life

[Shad]

Good point. The definition to use in the year 4,000 will be the one to use in that year. It might be as different from our current definition as our current definition is different from Aristotle's definition.

The basic idea is wrong regardless of the time, definition, etc.

I don't know exactly what tests Aristotle did, but I'm confident they were considered valid at the time, just as we consider out tests valid today. What the standard will be in 2,000 years is anybody's guess, but it'll probably be a lot different.

He did no tests as his point was about origins of life. Our standards are well above "if wood burns it must have fire inside" and assertions from the bronze age. I am fairly certain the atomic table will not face anything similar to Aristotle's mistakes. After all we can and do test for and use the elements in our systems all the time. When was the last time someone used fire and earth to create a block of wood using Aristotle's idea?

 

[rrobs]

The basic idea is wrong regardless of the time, definition, etc.



He did no tests as his point was about origins of life. Our standards are well above "if wood burns it must have fire inside" and assertions from the bronze age. I am fairly certain the atomic table will not face anything similar to Aristotle's mistakes. After all we can and do test for and use the elements in our systems all the time. When was the last time someone used fire and earth to create a block of wood using Aristotle's idea?

I'm surprised at the number of folks here who don't see major changes in our model of reality 2,000 years from now. I guess it is a trait of people to think we have arrived. That's all I was wondering. Thanks for your answer.

 

[Shad]

I'm surprised at the number of folks here who don't see major changes in our model of reality 2,000 years from now.

I am comparing a major shift in which a whole system is replaced by another. I think there will be changes just not falsification of a whole system completely that is as major as elements and the atomic table.

I guess it is a trait of people to think we have arrived. That's all I was wondering. Thanks for your answer.

You are reading what you want into my post.

 

[rrobs]

You are reading what you want into my post.

Welcome to my world.

 

[Shad]

Welcome to my world.

Just seems like you are conflating a specific example of a specific scale with any change.

 

[rrobs]

Just seems like you are conflating a specific example of a specific scale with any change.

Sorry, but I have no idea what you are saying. Maybe I don't understand English.

 

[cladking]

Taking an unseen (and the weakest) "force", which no one can explain physically to describe planetary motions, isn´t physics but guessworks. When this idea ("law") furthermore demands another unseen force of "dark matter" in galaxies, it is wild speculations on the border line of meta-physics.

I hardly disagree. I guess I just missed your point.

It's true we don't understand gravity but "dark matter" is likely to end up just being another "constant". We might not really understand gravity after we discover in what equation the k belongs.

 

[columbus]

I spend my time researching the scriptures with the same precision used by science.

How is that possible?
I don't believe it is.

You might research your own opinions about Scripture. Your own opinions about which religious authorities have credibility. Which human tells you what you want to believe.
But you cannot possibly research Scripture. It's in a whole 'nother Magesteria.

There's no evidence available except what people you prefer to believe say. All you can research is your own preferences.
That's the difference between science and religion.

Scientists can investigate and express educated opinions about any scientific subject. If it makes sense to the scientific community as a whole, it'll get published in peer reviewed journals and everyone can weigh in on the subject. Pro, con, somewhat true but doesn't take this data into account, could be anything.

Religionists have a completely different way of believing. They start with a premise then ignore any data that doesn't support it. Muslims do it, Christians do it, Hindus do it, they all do it.

Try to find an Abrahamic scholar who can demonstrate that Hindu beliefs are wrong without assuming that Abrahamic Scripture is God Given.
You can't. Because there's no evidence that Abrahamic religionists know any more about God and the supernatural than Hindus. None whatsoever.

But they will tell you that they do because the Bible says so. And they just assume that you find the Bible authoritative.
Or else.

Tom

 

[rrobs]

How is that possible?
I don't believe it is.

You might research your own opinions about Scripture. Your own opinions about which religious authorities have credibility. Which human tells you what you want to believe.
But you cannot possibly research Scripture. It's in a whole 'nother Magesteria.

There's no evidence available except what people you prefer to believe say. All you can research is your own preferences.
That's the difference between science and religion.

Scientists can investigate and express educated opinions about any scientific subject. If it makes sense to the scientific community as a whole, it'll get published in peer reviewed journals and everyone can weigh in on the subject. Pro, con, somewhat true but doesn't take this data into account, could be anything.

Religionists have a completely different way of believing. They start with a premise then ignore any data that doesn't support it. Muslims do it, Christians do it, Hindus do it, they all do it.

Try to find an Abrahamic scholar who can demonstrate that Hindu beliefs are wrong without assuming that Abrahamic Scripture is God Given.
You can't. Because there's no evidence that Abrahamic religionists know any more about God and the supernatural than Hindus. None whatsoever.

But they will tell you that they do because the Bible says so. And they just assume that you find the Bible authoritative.
Or else.

Tom

Well, there is a very scientific method to scripture research. Just because you don't know it doesn't make it so.

 

[Native]

rrobs said: ↑
I spend my time researching the scriptures with the same precision used by science.

How is that possible?
I don't believe it is.

You haven´t spend much time researching Comparative Religion and Comparative Mythology, have you? Of course it is possible to do such a scriptual research.

 

[Native]

Do I expect that the basic Big Bang scenario will be overthrown? No. But I would not at all be surprised if it becomes a fairly small part of a much larger perspective. Sort of like what happened with our understanding of the solar system when we discovered the existence of our galaxy and others.

If you//science REALLY understod the Solar System in the Milky Way, the entire modern cosmology would brake down. Yes, we know where the Solar System in located in the Milky Way but just measuring this doesn´t explain anything about the Solar System. You have to make the formative connection between formation of the Milky Way and the Solar System before you can understand these issues.

Even the Nebular Hypothesis (or the Solar Nebular Disk Model (SNDM) and the formation of the Solar System is wrong in assuming a random cosmic cloud of gas and dust to "collapse in itself by gravity". Such an idea violates the laws of thermodynamics as discussed here:

Another explanation but "gravity" is needed to explain the very concept of "formation".

 

[Polymath257]

Even the Nebular Hypothesis (or the Solar Nebular Disk Model (SNDM) and the formation of the Solar System is wrong in assuming a random cosmic cloud of gas and dust to "collapse in itself by gravity". Such an idea violates the laws of thermodynamics as discussed here:
.

Funny that we actually see it happening in several nebula today (Orion nebula and the Eagle nebula. Have you seen the 'pillars of creation'?)

Pillars of Creation - Wikipedia

 

[Native]

Funny that we actually see it happening in several nebula today (Orion nebula and the Eagle nebula. Have you seen the 'pillars of creation'?)

Well, if you/"we"/science see such a thing happening via "gravitational collapse of gas and dust" despite the laws of thermodynamics, you/cosmological science need a new set of spectacles.
Did you even watch the video?

 

[Polymath257]

Well, if you/"we"/science see such a thing happening via "gravitational collapse of gas and dust" despite the laws of thermodynamics, you/cosmological science need a new set of spectacles.
Did you even watch the video?

Have you considered the idea that their model may be incomplete? A more thorough treatment of gravitational collapse and thermodynamics doesn't have this issue.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/704/2/1735/pdf
1987A&A...188...55T Page 55
Meteorites and the Early Solar System II nebular collapse&f=false

In particular, turbulence needs to be taken into account (which disperses entropy) as well as realizing that the collapse does not happen to the whole nebula (just the inner core), which allows the outer part to disperse entropy also.

And, again, actual observations trump theoretical calculations. We actually see such collapses happening today.

And that is enough to show the video you gave is wrong.

 

[Native]

Have you considered the idea that their model may be incomplete? A more thorough treatment of gravitational collapse and thermodynamics doesn't have this issue.

You obviously STILL haven´t watched the video . . . Laws of Thermodynamics applies everywhere. Twisting these laws doesn´t confirm anything else but the IDEA of gravitatonal collapse theory itself.

In particular, turbulence needs to be taken into account (which disperses entropy) as well as realizing that the collapse does not happen to the whole nebula (just the inner core), which allows the outer part to disperse entropy also.

"Just the inner core"??? How does gaseous and metallic "gravity" differ between the inner and outer core of gas and dust and what to collapse or not? Such a speculative, disconnected and selective "explanation" smells mostly of HINDSIGT BIAS.

And, again, actual observations trump theoretical calculations. We actually see such collapses happening today.

That was a novelty coming from somebody who loves and demands mathematical calculations You obviously just take established Laws and calculations of Thermodynamics as plain theories when these laws goes against your beloved "gravity collapse".

 

[gnostic]

And, again, actual observations trump theoretical calculations. We actually see such collapses happening today.

That was a novelty coming from somebody who loves and demands mathematical calculations You obviously just take established Laws of Thermodynamics as plain theories when these laws goes against your beloved "gravity collapse".

Actually, Native.

Maths and evidence should go hand-in-hand in science...ideally.

But where one conflicts with the other, then scientific observation and evidence will always take precedence over mere equations alone.

Maths alone don’t determine what is or isn’t science...you can only make such determination with verifiable evidence or verifiable observations.

Mathematical proofs, in the forms of equations, formulas or metrics/constants, only served as part of the hypothesis formulation. The hypothesis plus any predictions and any mathematical equations - must all be tested. And tests can only come from observation, evidence or experiments.

For instance, the expanding universe model of the 1920s (before it became known as the Big Bang cosmology in the late 40s), it was the predicted (eg 1925 by Robertson, 1927 by Lemaître) that universe was expanding, by viewing the spectrum of galaxies moving away or towards each other. The redshift was predicted (by wavelengths increase) for the expanding universe, and this predictions include a formula.

It was Edwin Hubble in 1929 that verified these predictions and the redshift formula. His observation and other observations since then, provided the evidence to support both Robertson’s and Lemaître’s proposals. So this took a matter of couple of years to verify.

It took a little longer to verify the predictions and maths of Alpher-Herman about the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), made in 1948.

CMBR was accidentally discovered in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, while they were setting up their radio telescope. Since then it have been independently verified by other radio telescopes, including the COBE, the more recent WMAP and Planck missions to map the universe for CMBR. 15 years for the first discovery to verify predictions and maths of Alpher and Herman’s joint papers.

Here is where maths and predictions worked together.

It didn’t work so well with Einstein’s own cosmological model in 1917 - the Static Universe model with his Cosmological Constant - or with maths of Fred Hoyle’s Steady State model.

At least, Einstein had the grace to admit his error. Hoyle was very adamant his hypothesis to his dying days, despite the evidence not favoring his explanation, his predictions and his maths.

Theoretical maths can be wrong, Native.

And it is a hell a lot better than your Stories of Creation along with your weird but imaginary Genesis flood occurring in the Milky Way, not on Earth itself.

 

[Polymath257]

You obviously STILL haven´t watched the video . . . Laws of Thermodynamics applies everywhere. Twisting these laws doesn´t confirm anything else but the IDEA of gravitatonal collapse theory itself.

Yes, thermodynamics applies everywhere. But you have to do it right. And it is very difficult to do it right. And, as I said if you use *both* gravity and thermodynamics appropriately, you do get theoretical results that agree with observations.

In particular, in this video, the speaker is assuming the gaseous cloud is uniform (when it clearly isn't). That affects his entropy calculations, his energy calculations, etc. When these are done *correctly*, his whole model collapses and the results reverse.

"Just the inner core"??? How does gaseous and metallic "gravity" differ between the inner and outer core of gas and dust and what to collapse or not? Such a speculative, disconnected and selective "explanation" smells mostly of HINDSIGT BIAS.

Nope, not at all. The collapse towards the center transfers heat and thereby entropy to the outer regions. The cloud is NOT uniform, as is modeled in the video. And that lack of uniformity, both in density and in temperature, affects the final result.

That was a novelty coming from somebody who loves and demands mathematical calculations You obviously just take established Laws of Thermodynamics as plain theories when these laws goes against your beloved "gravity collapse".

Mathematics is a *language*. Whether the descriptions are valid in the real world can only be determined by observation and testing. Simple minded models like those in the video tend to mislead more than they inform. This is especially true when dealing with the thermodynamics of gravity.

 

[Native]

Actually, Native.

Maths and evidence should go hand-in-hand in science...ideally.

But where one conflicts with the other, then scientific observation and evidence will always take precedence over mere equations alone.

Maths alone don’t determine what is or isn’t science...you can only make such determination with verifiable evidence or verifiable observations.

Thanks for your "interference"

It all depends on your "points of views" when it comes to understanding cosmos and things we cannot make experiments with, as "gravitational effects in cosmos". Up against thesse theoretical ideas, we all can make experiments with Thermodynamics and its affects on "gas and dust" and describe and explain these with with mathematical calculations.

Theoretical maths can be wrong, Native.

Yes, and depending of your cosmological points of views, it even can be quite idiotic

And it is a hell a lot better than your Stories of Creation along with your weird but imaginary Genesis flood occurring in the Milky Way, not on Earth itself.

I wouldn´t count on your judgement on these mythical/cosmological matters as you even don´t take mythical mentions of the Sun and Milky Way as other but your "Storyteller" fairy tales.

 

[Native]

Yes, thermodynamics applies everywhere. But you have to do it right. And it is very difficult to do it right. And, as I said if you use *both* gravity and thermodynamics appropriately, you do get theoretical results that agree with observations.

Of course you can and would when you conveniently can make imaginative calculations to fit all gravitational theories accordingly to your cosmic points of views. You get the calculations correct but misses the cosmological facts

Feel very welcome to make a "gravity and thermodynamical" experiment and calculus description of the gaseous atmosfære on the Earth where all gases are liftet above the "gravity influence from the Earth".

In particular, in this video, the speaker is assuming the gaseous cloud is uniform (when it clearly isn't).

Nope. He´s just assuming the PRINCIPLES of gas distribution and that a cosmic gaseus cloud cannot "do work on itself" and collapse. Which is obvious since gas naturally spreds out and fills the space.

Nope, not at all. The collapse towards the center transfers heat and thereby entropy to the outer regions. The cloud is NOT uniform, as is modeled in the video. And that lack of uniformity, both in density and in temperature, affects the final result.

I agree in the principle description of these motions - except it has NO connection with gravitational ideas at all. iI deals with an electromagnetic circuit of formation in a plasma cloud.

 

[Polymath257]

Of course you can and would when you conveniently can make imaginative calculations to fit all gravitational theories accordingly to your cosmic points of views. You get the calculations correct but misses the cosmological facts

Getting the calculations correct from a general theory *is* getting the 'cosmological facts'. There is nothing else required.

I'll tell you what. Get the calculations based on E&M to come out even close to correct and you have a discussion. The laws for E&M are well known (Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz force law). Give *any* model that predicts

1. The basic elliptical orbits of planets and comets
2. The deviations from those orbits that are currently explained by gravitational interactions between the planets.

If you can get *anything* that works remotely close, you have at least the beginnings of an argument. Otherwise, frankly, you don't.

Feel very welcome to make a "gravity and thermodynamical" experiment and calculus description of the gaseous atmosfære on the Earth where all gases are liftet above the "gravity influence from the Earth".

There is no such thing as 'above the gravity influence of the Earth' unless it is so far away only its internal gravity is relevant.

On the other hand, thermodynamics in a gravitational field is regularly done and used to understand the distribution of gases in the atmosphere.

Nope. He´s just assuming the PRINCIPLES of gas distribution and that a cosmic gaseous cloud cannot "do work on itself" and collapse. Which is obvious since gas naturally spreds out and fills the space.

No, he is using the equations for gravity that only apply for a uniform sphere. Second, he is misusing thermo in this context. For small amount of gas (like what you get in a lab), the self-gravity is minimal. For large clouds of gas, light years across, it is a major aspect of the dynamics.

I agree in the principle description of these motions - except it has NO connection with gravitational ideas at all. iI deals with an electromagnetic circuit of formation in a plasma cloud.

Well, it is the gravitational equations and the thermodynamic equations that are used to give the correct motion. That makes it a gravitational thing.