If you could travel at the speed of light...

[goingplacesanddoingstuff]

Life is easily defined as any self replicating chemistry that consumes energy.

Whether anyone believes which kind of chemistry could or could not exist is irrelevant; these are the criteria for life. This discussion, I fear, risks a dogmatic argument about the validity of abiogenesis. I will point out that it doesn’t matter whether life, as defined above, can or cannot spontaneously arise or not, it can still be defined easily.

We know what we to look for: Evidence of self-replicating chemistry with some sort of metabolism. We don’t need to go down the whole origin debate to agree that this is what should raise eyebrows if found.

 

[MolaKule]

I'm aware of that experiment, but what does it actually mean in terms of decay? That's what I'm interested in.
I never thought about this before, but this thread got me thinking about it for some reason. Perhaps it was answered somewhere, I should do some digging.

Looking at the entropy equations in biology, time is not seen, only exchanges of energy.

Does the biology of astronauts show an aging trend or a trend toward youth?

It appears to me entropy is ignorant of Special Relativity

 

[MolaKule]

Life is easily defined as any self replicating chemistry that consumes energy.

Life is also defined as

1. the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

...This discussion, I fear, risks a dogmatic argument about the validity of abiogenesis. I will point out that it doesn’t matter whether life, as defined above, can or cannot spontaneously arise or not, it can still be defined easily.

We know what we to look for: Evidence of self-replicating chemistry with some sort of metabolism. We don’t need to go down the whole origin debate to agree that this is what should raise eyebrows if found.

Agreed that life can be defined and observed, but one will notice that the definition is based upon the accumulation of observational and experimental evidence done by scientists on earth.

If origin of life concepts are not essential for defining life, then let's not go down that rabbit hole by mentioning them.

 

[MolaKule]

I also get the feeling some points reflect human egocentric thought, perhaps even narcissitic thought?

I disagree. A lot of thinking, I think, is simply realistic and earth-centric because it is here we conceptualize and formulate based on experiences and evidences obtained here on this planet.

To conceptualize and conjecture about other worlds and other civilizations is, I think, programmed into our DNA.

 

[JeffKeryk]

I disagree. A lot of thinking, I think, is simply realistic and earth-centric because it is here we conceptualize and formulate based on experiences and evidences obtained here on this planet.

To conceptualize and conjecture about other worlds and other civilizations is, I think, programmed into our DNA.

I am not sure curiosity of and search for extraterrestrial life is a function of our DNA, but is certainly a human trait.
Prehistoric man searched out others to improve his life and to carry on life; we are societal animals. Search continues.

Certainly we have obtained knowledge on this planet; it is the only place we have lived. We have to make sense and gain knowledge of earth; it is our home. That does not mean there are not other organizims in faraway places. In fact it may be considered as evidence of the possibility.

Today's JWST, Rubin Observatory, etc are expanding our understanding...

Man codifies his thoughts, history, etc. Perhaps one day, long after the human lifecycle is over, some outer space scientist will uncover and learn about our existence through our efforts.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[kschachn]

It's not the "perception" of time that is different in different reference frames - it is time it self. People on the international space station don't perceive a time difference at all, entirely because the difference is tiny, but atomics clocks on earth and on the ISS will actually count ticks differently relative to each other.

And it's not the traveler's perception that is different. For them they perceive everything as normal - which it is.

It all gets back to the fact that the speed of light is a constant, therefore in order for that to be true for all observers other things must change such as time and space.

 

[MolaKule]

Based on my readings of Physics and astronomy websites, Hubble, JWST, and Rubin:

1. We are seeing more and more galactic and stellar mass farther and farther out into space; what does this mean for the future of dark matter and energy and the cosmological constant?

2. we are seeing more and more comments about galactic and stellar objects to the effect that they shouldn't exist according to the hot BB model. The existence of Ring-Structure galaxies do not fit BB theory.

3. galactic color and structure; the big bang model says that the first galaxies created are the most distant ones. They are predicted to be blue in color, as they are said to contain a high proportion of young, hot, short-lived, high-mass stars. Distant galaxies are also predicted to have a lower metallicity and less well-formed structure. What is being observed are mature, well-formed "red" galaxies at great distances.

These new telescopes are raising more questions about the veracity of the current cosmological hypotheses than ever before.

 

[JeffKeryk]

These new telescopes are raising more questions about the veracity of the current cosmological hypotheses than ever before.

My sentiments, exactly. Everything we know is wrong. Or at least may be...

We live in uncharted, exciting times. The KIPAC public lectures are, IMO, not to be missed.

What is the Universe, according to NASA? Well, it's big.

 

[Number_35]

Dark matter was theorized to explain the lack of mass in the universe given observed gravitational effects.

Dr Cobb, my 1st-year physics prof, talked about the "missing mass of the universe", and the subsequent need for Black Holes.

Amazing stuff.

I wish I'd been smart enough to continue on in physics.

 

[levi]

Dr Cobb, my 1st-year physics prof, talked about the "missing mass of the universe", and the subsequent need for Black Holes.

Amazing stuff.

I wish I'd been smart enough to continue on in physics.

Well, if we are in a black hole as some conjecture, we are the missing mass. Cue the old Twilight Zone intro...

 

[JeffKeryk]

Dr Cobb, my 1st-year physics prof, talked about the "missing mass of the universe", and the subsequent need for Black Holes.

Amazing stuff.

I wish I'd been smart enough to continue on in physics.

You can learn anything you may be interested in nowadays, for free. Never been easier, as my friend @alarmguy tells us.

 

[MolaKule]

Dr Cobb, my 1st-year physics prof, talked about the "missing mass of the universe", and the subsequent need for Black Holes.

Let's ponder this:

Each time we develop or send up a new telescope with higher resolution and wider spectrum capture, we are seeing further and further out toward the edge of the universe, if there is one.

"...Both popular and professional research articles in cosmology often use the term "universe" to mean "observable universe".[<em><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed" title="Wikipedia:Citation needed"><span title="This claim needs references to reliable sources. (September 2015)">citation needed</span></a></em>] This can be justified on the grounds that we can never know anything by direct observation about any part of the universe that is causally disconnected from the Earth, although many credible theories require a total universe much larger than the observable universe.[<em><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed" title="Wikipedia:Citation needed"><span title="This claim needs references to reliable sources. (September 2015)">citation needed</span></a></em>] No evidence exists to suggest that the boundary of the observable universe constitutes a boundary on the universe as a whole, nor do any of the mainstream cosmological models propose that the universe has any physical boundary in the first place. However, some models propose it could be finite but unbounded,<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#cite_note-24"><span>[</span>note 3<span>]</span></a> like a higher-dimensional analogue of the 2D surface of a sphere that is finite in area but has no edge.

It is plausible that the galaxies within the observable universe represent only a minuscule fraction of the galaxies in the universe..." Wiki Observable Universe

Is mass really missing, or have we simply not taken into account the extra mass that is out there?

Previous universe mass estimates seem to be in error.

Amazing stuff.

I wish I'd been smart enough to continue on in physics.

There are many websites where you can continue your learning, such as https://phet.colorado.edu/ and there are many more.

 

[alarmguy]

You can learn anything you may be interested in nowadays, for free. Never been easier, as my friend @alarmguy tells us.

This was Saturday Sep 6th!!!
200 miles each way 6 hours round trip up much of the trip cruise set at 77MPH, left at 5:45 AM for a 5ish hour specific cancer conference given by Duke University Cancer Clinic. back home at 6Pm 400 miles, could have done it on one tank of my wife's 2025 equonix with about 60 miles remaining but opted to fill up 11 gallons so I wouldnt leave it empty. All on 3 hours and 47 minutes sleep the night before. Dont ask why so little, wasnt in the plans.

As far as I am concerned and I think you. The day you want to stop learning, heck, you might as well hang it up ...
I have a passion for so much and I figure too little time left on planet earth. Im focused on health at this time. Love learning about the cancer that affected me and for now is beat. However I continue to learn as it might come back some day but most important I may at some point seek a place where I can help others. I have enough knowledge to have creditable conversations and hope for people to seek out doctors and advice.
....
Some photos from yesterday. It was FANTASTIC and I will go again next year. All I can say is dont shy away from knowledge. I have more to say but that will be in my cancer thread soon. The is just an example, im retired now but I want to do so much.

BTW that DR Armstrong is the head of research for Duke University and he is one of three doctors who consulted my wife and I last Nov as far as options to treat. These doctors are so passionate about what they do... but that is another thread.
One of the guys at the podium is the head of everything and internationally recognized.

Like we say my friend ! "You can learn anything you may be interested in nowadays, for free" The internet is a great source if you properly seek the right verified sources. Though I paid for this below, the cost was extremely reasonable. PS if. you couldnt pay, you could still go, others chip in so they can offer it to everyone. 450 people attended, last year first year at Duke they have to expand to another facility this year to fit everyone and next year I guess another.

I have many photos but too involved and again, another thread. This is one example as it went into great detail

I cant reply in here, my post is based on learning. Not the proper thread other than, a comment on learning.