I'll preface what I'm about to say with the following disclaimer - I am not a scientist, I'm not particularly well educated and I'm not even a player in the field I intend to speak on. What I am, is a very intelligent person, possessed with an enormous amount of curiosity. Please consider the above when listening to what I have to say.
Neo-Darwinian theory essentially states that through random genetic mutation, new traits are sometimes developed which are beneficial to the mutant organism... and it has a better survivability rate, reproduces more... and the mutation gains dominance. For the purposes of discussing the idea I'm posting, I'd like to assume this is fact. For some this will be a big assumption, but I don't want to turn this into an Evolution vs. God thread.
There's another evolutionary theory that includes the above, but also states that all of these mutations should theoretically be able to be traced back to a single common ancestor. That is to say that there was one life form, that branched into different varieties and flavors due to environmental conditions, availability of foodstuffs, etc.
This latter point is often where the theory of evolution hits a big roadblock. Apparently no one has been able to suggest where that original life form came from. While the fact that we change to adapt to our environment over time is very difficult to dispute, saying that all the sudden one day something was alive and we all evolved from it borders on lunacy. At best it's simply bad science.
The idea I'd like to put forward is a thought that occurred to me on where that original life (or lives?) would've come from. My idea stems from two of my biggest interests, robotics and biology.
Virii are a commonly accepted, well known part of our lives, if you've ever been sick, gotten an infection, an ear ache you've encountered a large number of them yourself. It's assumed that they evolved along with every form of life on earth, since they infect everything from humans down to paramecium. They're everywhere. By number, they are the most common form of life on earth.
Are virii really alive though? This has been a topic of some debate for a very long time, and the best answer we can really give is... sort of. When not in proximity to a host, they are dormant... essentially just a complicated organic molecule. However, if you introduce them to a host organism a wealth of activity occurs and they seem very much alive. They set about consuming resources to replicate themselves.
I would argue that virii are the missing link between life, and unlife. I would argue that we exist, as the construction of virii, and allow them to continue to replicate and survive. From the virus' perspective, you and I are slave labor. Virii are quite a bit more clever than they seem.
So that being said, the natural reaction would be to say "Well you've simply replaced one problem with another, if virii produced the first simple life form(s) where did the virii come from?" Early virii learned to self assemble from amino acids and proteins in the primordial soup. The only evidence I have for this is here in a talk about robotics.
The inspiration for my idea comes right at the end. If the self assembling robots are given no reward for a specific achievement, the intrinsic reward is self replication. So not unlike the blue robots in the video, the first virus learned to self replicate from available parts, got good at it, made copies, and became the dominant form of life on the planet. It increased in complexity as it learned to fight off/out compete other self replicators... at some point the virii learned it was beneficial in some circumstances to work together to replicate (this is where I start to get shaky, please bear with :-)) so they formed more complex machines, which then instead of replicating individual virii... replicated each other.
One might then say, that you and I dear reader... are the most advanced form of virus there has ever been. The question I have for those better educated and more experienced than I am is, is this even plausible? possible? etc? Is it an idea of any merit whatsoever?
I've not seen this idea posted anywhere before, so I believe it's a unique and original thought. I often find myself coming up with theories on how things work, why they are the way they are, and occasionally seeing them proved right by science. Being a person who would like to learn absolutely everything knowable, I would love to be able to make some sort of contribution to science before I kick the bucket. I have high hopes that this idea will make some people think, spurn some ideas, and contribute to solving the largest riddle mankind has ever known.
Thank you for reading this far, I apologize for my skill (or lack there of) as a writer, as I said I'm not particularly well educated. Any constructive criticism is welcome, as long as it's on something that matters... not grammar or spelling. :-)
QUOTE
I'd like to assume this is fact.
No correct, therefore all subsequent assumptions are ill conceived
QUOTE (Zarkov+Jun 29 2008, 12:39 AM)
No correct, therefore all subsequent assumptions are ill conceived
Yeah, that's a good argument.
No one here is going to prove it for you...
Okay, you have a hypothesis. What does it predict? Can the prediction be tested?
QUOTE (Zarkov+Jun 29 2008, 12:39 AM)
No correct, therefore all subsequent assumptions are ill conceived
Ok, I'll take your tongue in cheek post with a grain of salt and actually answer it. It was my understanding that I was posting this idea to a forum of scientifically minded people, who have already done at least my basic level of research into the things that are discussed here. I did preface my OP by saying I am only an armchair scientist... the word naturalist may be a bit more apropot.
Apparently one of the lessons I need to learn is to not assume my audience has any sort of knowledge on what I'm talking about. So, for those among us living in ignorance:
Micro evolution happens as small changes over the course of generations, that are a benefit to the species or sect of the species. Due to this advantage the organism has a better chance to survive and reproduce, therefore passing on the mutation to it's off spring... continuing the cycle. This is called natural selection. The more fit to survive, naturally survive more, driving increased complexity due to environment.
For example there are many different breeds of horses, dogs, cats etc. who have developed traits that help them better survive their environment. Alaskan huskies have a thick coat of fur to help keep them warm, while your chiuaua has very short thin hair so it doesn't over heat in the desert sun. Reverse the environment of these two dogs, and their chances of survival will go down dramatically. These animals are all dogs, but they are sub-species who have evolved down different lines to better survive their environment. That's why though they look completely different, you can mate an alaskan huskie and a chiuaua. (As funny as the actual process would be, genetically it works)
I don't remember where I read this, I'll try to find the article when I have more time... there is a species of bird in the galapagos, who's food supply (a particular nut) went extinct. These birds would die out if unable to find a new food source. Now, there is another variety of nut these birds would be able to eat, but it has a much much harder shell. Some of the birds had shorter beaks, which could put more pressure on the nut, which would allow them to crack the harder shell... and have lunch. This species of bird now is entirely composed of those with shorter beaks, and it did not go extinct with it's food source. This bird evolved.
We can also un-naturally select various traits and encourage micro-evolution in various species... sometimes to mutual benefit, sometimes for our benefit alone and the detriment of the organism in question. Again I'll use examples we see all the time.
I love corn on the cob. It's tasty, it's easy to grow, and it's a great source of food, fuel, possibly plastics and a few other uses. Corn today doesn't even look similar to it's ancestor planted by the first agricultural. It contains alot more actual food stuffs than the corn of yore because farmers learned to save the best seeds for the next years planting season so they would have a better crop. Do this for about 12,000 years and suddenly corn has evolved to be much more useful to us. It's actually beneficial to the corn as well believe it or not, because the species has greater survivability and chance to reproduce as a domestic plant. Corn now rules huge expanses of land that would've been dominated by trees, weeds or other grasses if not for human intervention. It'd be fair I think to say that corn probably loves me back. :-)
Now to an example of non-beneficial un-natural selection, I would have you look at the miniature collie. They have been bred, in-bred, cross bred etc. so that they would involve specific traits we think are attractive. A particular fur type, head shape etc. (I know alot more about corn than about collies, so I'll ask to be forgiven MY ignorance here) This evolution toward cuteness has left this particular strain unable to survive on it's own. They don't see particularly well, they can't run awfully fast and they're not particularly bright. All things that for a carnivore, are a death sentance. However, they DO survive because we humans value cuteness.
So, with those few examples under my belt, rather than making assumptions... I will say the above is fact, and it is irrefutable. There are countless examples in the world around us, one need simply pay attention to see that they were there. Micro-evolution has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen.
Now that I've taken care of the nit pick, I would love to have someone comment on the actual NEW idea that I've posted here, rather than attacking fairly old, very very well established science. I'll ask the commenter to forgive me my rudeness in answering his post, but I see everything I've stated here as so blindingly obvious a child could understand it... and frankly I was a touch disappointed that the only real response to this thread was to rehash a very very old arguement.
Edit was for clarity. :-)
QUOTE (Tinyboss+Jun 29 2008, 05:48 PM)
Okay, you have a hypothesis. What does it predict? Can the prediction be tested?
Good question. It predicts that with the right combination of building blocks (organic molecules) and enough time self replicators will begin to emerge and grow in complexity. This should be a recreatable condition.
However, there are some very serious hurdles I would need to overcome were I to attempt to prove this myself, and as I mentioned... I'm not a scientist. I'm just a very very bright young man with what seems to be a good idea.
1 The issue of contamination is huge... one single virus entering the experiment would completely contaminate the experiment and make any data gained from it worthless. Ergo, I would need to have the clean room to end all clean rooms. I would have no idea where to even think about beginning to construct something like this, especially considering the amount of time it may take the experiment to run. To the best of my knowledge clean rooms filter things like dust and debris, certainly nothing smaller than a bacteria. How do I build, and start this experiment without contaminating it myself?
2 As eluded to, this isn't your average science experiment... this isn't even a long science experiment. This is a science experiment that I'm guessing would take generations. This is something we would set up... let it run, and check it every 100 years or so to see what's going on with it. Given the shifts in world stability, popular opinion and most importantly government funding... there's no way to ensure it would ever actually be completed. Unless some way could be found to accelerate the process, the chances of this experiment completing within my children's children's lifetimes are nil. It's difficult to accelerate a process that one doesn't understand/know is going to happen.
Thirdly, I have some concerns that just testing the results of this experiment on a regular basis would contaminate it. So it would exist in a constant state of proved and disproved... like schrodinger's cat... the virii both are and aren't self assembling. :-) So how would you test this thing without breaking it?
Lastly I would need to have some idea of what organic compounds were most likely to exist in sufficient concentration to interact at the time the first virii were formed, and knowing environmental factors (atmosphere content, availability of sunlight, temperature, weather patterns etc.) all information that I wouldn't even know where to guess. I simply don't have any knowledge on the subject. This issue isn't as big a deal... learning is something I excel at. If the information is available, I can find it and comprehend it.
To the gent who said "Nobody's going to prove it for you!" Tell that to Albert Eienstein. Yeah, I went there... balls the size of epcott baby boy. ;-) The fact of the matter is, someone is going to HAVE to prove this for me. If it's true, it will be proved so eventually, of that I have no doubt. Perhaps then, when the internet is a quaint piece of obsolecence someone will see here that I had this idea... and think me far far ahead of my time... and I'll be remembered in the annals of history as the primitive homo-sapien who solved the mystery of life thousands of years before his time... and was the laughing stock of his peers. ;-) I just want my little piece of infinance... that can't be too much to ask right?
Oh, and to those future readers of my rantings... glad you finally got around to testing this theory, thank you for proving me correct. If any revenue is generated from this knowledge please make sure some royalties are divided among my descenants. If currency is no longer used, at least give me some credit for the achievement. :-D
I'm not asking anyone here to prove or disprove my theory, as I indicated above I think with current technology and research direction of the species (we're hot for energy and physics right now) I guess what I'm asking is are there any obvious show stoppers that anyone here might see, or if anyone has had ideas that were similar to this one.
It just sortof hit me all at once, I said "Dear me that's simple, elegant and fairly straight forward" all hallmarks of good theory... and I thought it would be fun to get together with some fellow intellectuals and discuss my idea.
Also, if anyone has any ideas regarding the experimentation problems I listed above I'm all ears. If there's a way to test this that can be done before I die (within the next 50-60 years) I'd certainly die happy knowing I solved life's single greatest mystery... then I could move on to solving that whole God thing. ;-)
Edit - Oh, I left out the largest hurdle to overcome. This is research for knowledge sake... simply to find out the truth. Even if I were an accredited scientist with Dr. in front of my name and the whole nine, even if I knew exactly what organic compounds to mix and bake at 375 for 40 years, even if I could construct a fancy "primordial chamber" that plays "Saviour for a Day" by Live whenever it poops out a virus, and even if I could accelerate time within said chamber so I get my results next weekend... nobody funds pure research. :-(
Also edited to correct exhaustion. :-D
Good question. It predicts that with the right combination of building blocks (organic molecules) and enough time self replicators will begin to emerge and grow in complexity. This should be a recreatable condition.
However, there are some very serious hurdles I would need to overcome were I to attempt to prove this myself, and as I mentioned... I'm not a scientist. I'm just a very very bright young man with what seems to be a good idea.
1 The issue of contamination is huge... one single virus entering the experiment would completely contaminate the experiment and make any data gained from it worthless. Ergo, I would need to have the clean room to end all clean rooms. I would have no idea where to even think about beginning to construct something like this, especially considering the amount of time it may take the experiment to run. To the best of my knowledge clean rooms filter things like dust and debris, certainly nothing smaller than a bacteria. How do I build, and start this experiment without contaminating it myself?
2 As eluded to, this isn't your average science experiment... this isn't even a long science experiment. This is a science experiment that I'm guessing would take generations. This is something we would set up... let it run, and check it every 100 years or so to see what's going on with it. Given the shifts in world stability, popular opinion and most importantly government funding... there's no way to ensure it would ever actually be completed. Unless some way could be found to accelerate the process, the chances of this experiment completing within my children's children's lifetimes are nil. It's difficult to accelerate a process that one doesn't understand/know is going to happen.
Thirdly, I have some concerns that just testing the results of this experiment on a regular basis would contaminate it. So it would exist in a constant state of proved and disproved... like schrodinger's cat... the virii both are and aren't self assembling. :-) So how would you test this thing without breaking it?
Lastly I would need to have some idea of what organic compounds were most likely to exist in sufficient concentration to interact at the time the first virii were formed, and knowing environmental factors (atmosphere content, availability of sunlight, temperature, weather patterns etc.) all information that I wouldn't even know where to guess. I simply don't have any knowledge on the subject. This issue isn't as big a deal... learning is something I excel at. If the information is available, I can find it and comprehend it.
To the gent who said "Nobody's going to prove it for you!" Tell that to Albert Eienstein. Yeah, I went there... balls the size of epcott baby boy. ;-) The fact of the matter is, someone is going to HAVE to prove this for me. If it's true, it will be proved so eventually, of that I have no doubt. Perhaps then, when the internet is a quaint piece of obsolecence someone will see here that I had this idea... and think me far far ahead of my time... and I'll be remembered in the annals of history as the primitive homo-sapien who solved the mystery of life thousands of years before his time... and was the laughing stock of his peers. ;-) I just want my little piece of infinance... that can't be too much to ask right?
Oh, and to those future readers of my rantings... glad you finally got around to testing this theory, thank you for proving me correct. If any revenue is generated from this knowledge please make sure some royalties are divided among my descenants. If currency is no longer used, at least give me some credit for the achievement. :-D
I'm not asking anyone here to prove or disprove my theory, as I indicated above I think with current technology and research direction of the species (we're hot for energy and physics right now) I guess what I'm asking is are there any obvious show stoppers that anyone here might see, or if anyone has had ideas that were similar to this one.
It just sortof hit me all at once, I said "Dear me that's simple, elegant and fairly straight forward" all hallmarks of good theory... and I thought it would be fun to get together with some fellow intellectuals and discuss my idea.
Also, if anyone has any ideas regarding the experimentation problems I listed above I'm all ears. If there's a way to test this that can be done before I die (within the next 50-60 years) I'd certainly die happy knowing I solved life's single greatest mystery... then I could move on to solving that whole God thing. ;-)
Edit - Oh, I left out the largest hurdle to overcome. This is research for knowledge sake... simply to find out the truth. Even if I were an accredited scientist with Dr. in front of my name and the whole nine, even if I knew exactly what organic compounds to mix and bake at 375 for 40 years, even if I could construct a fancy "primordial chamber" that plays "Saviour for a Day" by Live whenever it poops out a virus, and even if I could accelerate time within said chamber so I get my results next weekend... nobody funds pure research. :-(
Also edited to correct exhaustion. :-D
Well, massive arrogance aside (the "send the money to my descendants" part was a good laugh, though), I have a pretty big problem with your theory. If I told you, "computer viruses constructed computers so they could replicate better," you'd probably laugh. But that's what your idea sounds like to me. How did the first viruses replicate without any living cells around to do the work for them?
QUOTE (pnelson419+Jun 29 2008, 10:36 PM)
Maybe this is relevant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis
I've seen the RNA theory, and I see that as one of the steps that my theory includes. Unfortunately for me, I don't know enough about molecular biology to speak in specifics. I just know something that sounds right to me when I hear it. :-) Thanks for that, that seems to lend this idea some gravity. The problem with the RNA theory is again it's incomplete. It addresses possibilities that very very early cellular life was based on RNA, but it has it's share of problems. The likelyhood of RNA spontaneously forming, getting wrapped up in a cell wall, with all the internal cell machinery springing up from nowhere... the idea is absurd. There have to be some steps missing between nothing, and RNA. I'm trying to make a guess as to what those steps could've been. I would imagine that the earliest virii would've been made up of something simpler even than RNA... or something different entirely... and it built RNA then DNA along the way.
In response to my arrogance, yes... yes I am. I prefer to think of it as being confident however, if someone can tell me I'm wrong and tell me why I'm overjoyed because I've LEARNED something from the encounter... and that is afterall my goal. It was mostly intended to add some levity, but also to make a point. This is a discussion forum and I had something that might be worth discussing, so to have a poster basicly tell me to go off myself was offensive. I was simply responding in kind. I stomp on the thought police whenever I get the chance. Prick us do we not bleed?
In response to your comparison between computer virii and the common house hold variety, I love that comparison because the behavior of the two life forms (wait for it ;-)) is very VERY similar. There is however one fundamental difference between them, computer virii aren't a physical object... they can't build anything. They're also not a naturally occuring phenominon. Much like the programs in "The Matrix" They do only what they are meant to do. No more, no less.
I'm waiting for someone to create a self mutating computer virus, capable of growing in complexity. I think it would have fascinating if not frightening implications for AI, but I'm wandering a bit, let me get back on course.
This planet has been ruled by several species other than man, and it will be ruled by others still. For us to assume we have any sort of permanence on this little ball of mud is foolishly optimistic. I firmly believe we are unwittingly creating our successor in our own image. The world will one day be ruled by artificial life. When we have created renewable energy, real AI and sufficiently advanced robotics... they'll over throw us, and kill us off.
That I think is a much better comparison between life as we know it and virii. They created us to serve them, but they did so a bit too well. Now we're able to make something like the AIDS virus a lap dog for all intents and purposes. Think I'm over stating my case? Go chat up magic johnson... that's right he's STILL not dead.
Virii are like little machines... inert unless they're "turned on" to run their program and copy themselves... so maybe this is their "plan" for their own advancement. We crank out more machines than we do babies. If this is a breeding war, machines certainly are winning. From simple single function devices... evolving toward self sustaining, self replicating, self intelligent, creative beings. Does that sound like another process you're familiar with?
We assume virii are unintelligent because they're so very very tiny, and very very simple. We're working right now on networked nanoscale devices, which have some intelligence. Very tiny, very simple machines that work together to intelligently perform a task. Survailence/early warning was the application I saw them being developed for, but there could be more use for them.
*sigh* This is all speculation and armchair science but I know I'm right, I just feel it... but I can't prove it. After re-reading this I sound like a paranoid schitzophrenic germ-o-phobe... but I assure you I'm not crazy. I just see the world differently I guess. I'm odd... very very odd... but I'll bet you'll never see your laptop/tv/toaster the same way again. ;-) Is it serving your needs? Or are you serving it's?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis
I've seen the RNA theory, and I see that as one of the steps that my theory includes. Unfortunately for me, I don't know enough about molecular biology to speak in specifics. I just know something that sounds right to me when I hear it. :-) Thanks for that, that seems to lend this idea some gravity. The problem with the RNA theory is again it's incomplete. It addresses possibilities that very very early cellular life was based on RNA, but it has it's share of problems. The likelyhood of RNA spontaneously forming, getting wrapped up in a cell wall, with all the internal cell machinery springing up from nowhere... the idea is absurd. There have to be some steps missing between nothing, and RNA. I'm trying to make a guess as to what those steps could've been. I would imagine that the earliest virii would've been made up of something simpler even than RNA... or something different entirely... and it built RNA then DNA along the way.
In response to my arrogance, yes... yes I am. I prefer to think of it as being confident however, if someone can tell me I'm wrong and tell me why I'm overjoyed because I've LEARNED something from the encounter... and that is afterall my goal. It was mostly intended to add some levity, but also to make a point. This is a discussion forum and I had something that might be worth discussing, so to have a poster basicly tell me to go off myself was offensive. I was simply responding in kind. I stomp on the thought police whenever I get the chance. Prick us do we not bleed?
In response to your comparison between computer virii and the common house hold variety, I love that comparison because the behavior of the two life forms (wait for it ;-)) is very VERY similar. There is however one fundamental difference between them, computer virii aren't a physical object... they can't build anything. They're also not a naturally occuring phenominon. Much like the programs in "The Matrix" They do only what they are meant to do. No more, no less.
I'm waiting for someone to create a self mutating computer virus, capable of growing in complexity. I think it would have fascinating if not frightening implications for AI, but I'm wandering a bit, let me get back on course.
This planet has been ruled by several species other than man, and it will be ruled by others still. For us to assume we have any sort of permanence on this little ball of mud is foolishly optimistic. I firmly believe we are unwittingly creating our successor in our own image. The world will one day be ruled by artificial life. When we have created renewable energy, real AI and sufficiently advanced robotics... they'll over throw us, and kill us off.
That I think is a much better comparison between life as we know it and virii. They created us to serve them, but they did so a bit too well. Now we're able to make something like the AIDS virus a lap dog for all intents and purposes. Think I'm over stating my case? Go chat up magic johnson... that's right he's STILL not dead.
Virii are like little machines... inert unless they're "turned on" to run their program and copy themselves... so maybe this is their "plan" for their own advancement. We crank out more machines than we do babies. If this is a breeding war, machines certainly are winning. From simple single function devices... evolving toward self sustaining, self replicating, self intelligent, creative beings. Does that sound like another process you're familiar with?
We assume virii are unintelligent because they're so very very tiny, and very very simple. We're working right now on networked nanoscale devices, which have some intelligence. Very tiny, very simple machines that work together to intelligently perform a task. Survailence/early warning was the application I saw them being developed for, but there could be more use for them.
*sigh* This is all speculation and armchair science but I know I'm right, I just feel it... but I can't prove it. After re-reading this I sound like a paranoid schitzophrenic germ-o-phobe... but I assure you I'm not crazy. I just see the world differently I guess. I'm odd... very very odd... but I'll bet you'll never see your laptop/tv/toaster the same way again. ;-) Is it serving your needs? Or are you serving it's?
The.Cheat,
Your idea is not new. It was considered but has fallen into disfavor. Viruses don't have the capability of making proteins because they lack ribosomes or transfer RNA. A virus is simply a protective shell containing information written in a language or code that the virus itself is incapable of understanding. It seems unlikely that an information storage system like DNA/RNA designed to store data about the structure of proteins would first arise in organisms completely incapable of making proteins.
Your idea is not new. It was considered but has fallen into disfavor. Viruses don't have the capability of making proteins because they lack ribosomes or transfer RNA. A virus is simply a protective shell containing information written in a language or code that the virus itself is incapable of understanding. It seems unlikely that an information storage system like DNA/RNA designed to store data about the structure of proteins would first arise in organisms completely incapable of making proteins.
The.Cheat
What do you consider a virus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus
A virus (from the Latin virus meaning "toxin" or "poison"), is a sub-microscopic infectious agent that is unable to grow or reproduce outside a host cell.
What do you consider a virus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus
A virus (from the Latin virus meaning "toxin" or "poison"), is a sub-microscopic infectious agent that is unable to grow or reproduce outside a host cell.
The.Cheat
Did you read this part
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus#Lifeform_debate
Virus self-assembly within host cells has implications for the study of the origin of life, as it lends credence to the hypothesis that life could have started as self-assembling organic molecules.
Though not actually viruses the same concept may have occurred
Did you read this part
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus#Lifeform_debate
Virus self-assembly within host cells has implications for the study of the origin of life, as it lends credence to the hypothesis that life could have started as self-assembling organic molecules.
Though not actually viruses the same concept may have occurred
And this relates to Relativity/Quantum Mechanics/New Theories in what way?
QUOTE (theory_of_nj+Jul 1 2008, 02:40 PM)
And this relates to Relativity/Quantum Mechanics/New Theories in what way?
It is possible the universe is a giant virus
It is possible the universe is a giant virus
In which state? 
QUOTE (pnelson419+Jul 1 2008, 11:13 PM)
It is possible the universe is a giant virus
That doesn't make any sense
That doesn't make any sense
QUOTE (theory_of_nj+Jul 2 2008, 03:59 PM)
That doesn't make any sense
No?
What doesn't make sense is the current notions applied to Big Bang Theory when it doesn't match what we observe.
This is how I imagine the universe to an outside observer
User posted image: <a target='_blank' href='http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj80/pnelson419/kal20020deconstructed20sphere.jpg'>http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj80/pnelson419/kal20020deconstructed20sphere.jpg</a>
If it looks like a duck an quacks like a duck
Image was taken from Here
No?
What doesn't make sense is the current notions applied to Big Bang Theory when it doesn't match what we observe.
This is how I imagine the universe to an outside observer
User posted image: <a target='_blank' href='http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj80/pnelson419/kal20020deconstructed20sphere.jpg'>http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj80/pnelson419/kal20020deconstructed20sphere.jpg</a>
If it looks like a duck an quacks like a duck
Image was taken from Here
QUOTE (pnelson419+Jul 2 2008, 12:00 PM)
User posted image: <a target='_blank' href='http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj80/pnelson419/kal20020deconstructed20sphere.jpg'
Pretty picture. What's all that black stuff around the outside?
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jul 2 2008, 07:04 PM)
Pretty picture. What's all that black stuff around the outside?
g.
Oh
That would be the infected host our universe/virus is assimilating into universes/viruses similar to our own
g.
Oh
That would be the infected host our universe/virus is assimilating into universes/viruses similar to our own
QUOTE (pnelson419+Jul 2 2008, 12:18 PM)
Oh
That would be the infected host our universe/virus is assimilating into universes/viruses similar to our own
Infected host! ~ What ever are you insinuating?
g.
That would be the infected host our universe/virus is assimilating into universes/viruses similar to our own
Infected host! ~ What ever are you insinuating?
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jul 2 2008, 07:38 PM)
Infected host! ~ What ever are you insinuating?
g.
I am insinuating nothing only proposing a theory based on what I understand about the dynamics of this universe and what I believe to be its primary purpose.
g.
I am insinuating nothing only proposing a theory based on what I understand about the dynamics of this universe and what I believe to be its primary purpose.
I messed up the image on my previous post
I will try again
This is how I imagine the universe to an outside observer
User posted image: http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj80/pnelson419/kal20020deconstructed20sphere.jpg
for some reason I am unable to add image directly to my post
I will try again
This is how I imagine the universe to an outside observer
User posted image: http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj80/pnelson419/kal20020deconstructed20sphere.jpg
for some reason I am unable to add image directly to my post
QUOTE (theory_of_nj+Jul 1 2008, 06:40 PM)
And this relates to Relativity/Quantum Mechanics/New Theories in what way?
I think this falls under the "New Theories" part. I'm not the brain police, if you don't like what you're reading you only have you to blame. Stop being a schmuck. :-D
I think this falls under the "New Theories" part. I'm not the brain police, if you don't like what you're reading you only have you to blame. Stop being a schmuck. :-D
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.