Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Theory of Aggregation


  • Please log in to reply
1 reply to this topic

#1 FrankM

FrankM

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 314 posts

Posted 13 December 2007 - 12:29 PM

When Darwin presented his theory of evolution, he and other scientists of his day did not know of the existence of atoms. They thought that the small constituent forms of matter were the individual chemical elements, and everything else was based upon combinations of these elements. Once it was determined that chemical elements themselves were made of groupings of very small things, atoms, and atoms themselves were made up of even smaller individual things, it should have crossed someones mind that things in the universe have a tendency to aggregate, to form ever more complex relationships depending upon conditions.

For Western science, the concept of what can be called the "Theory of Aggregation" began to take form around 1900 when it was postulated that every discrete chemical element was made up of an aggregation of smaller particles, which were identified as atoms. Once the atom theory was accepted, it was assumed everything in the physical world and universe were composed of combinations of atoms. Just a decade or so before this, electromagnetic waves were identified, and it was not known how they fit into the characteristics of the atom. When they first identified the major components of the atom they were unaware that these components parts were themselves made up of other "sub-particles". Currently, it is unknown how many more pieces go into the makings of sub-particles.

It should have been recognized by now that there is an aggregation process that allows "things" to come together, which created "aggregations" of what we call atomic sub-particles and then atomic particles. We know that the aggregation process led to what we call the neutral hydrogen atom, and that to all the other aggregations that we call atomic elements. The elements in turn aggregated to form a host of chemical compounds, and it is known that we can extend the aggregation process to produce chemical compounds in forms that do not occur naturally.

If one examines the Aggregation Process starting from what we know as the smallest known particles, it seems apparent that whatever is the true nature of the Universe, there is an absolute tendency to aggregate into more complex forms. We know that de-aggregation is a natural process and we know how to do some of this artificially, but we do not know to what level the disassociations can go or be forced.

Somewhere in higher levels of the aggregation process of chemical compounds it generated "composite chemical relationships" that could replicate themselves, which we refer to as biological life. There seems to be no end to the variety of possible replicating "composite chemical relationships", nor do we know whether there is a limit to the complexity of "composite chemical relationships". It is known that carbon based "composite chemical relationships" have a variety of replication codes based upon what have been identified as DNA. We also know that the disassociation process for biological entities reverts back to various chemical forms.

We do not know the starting point for the aggregation process and why it aggregates into more complex relationships. We do know that the aggregation process leads to aggregate forms that have various degrees of persistence.

I find it childish that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is still such a big deal when anyone with a basic science education knows the process is much more complex than that.

#2 Blake McFfarland

Blake McFfarland

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 14 January 2008 - 07:34 AM

I donot believe that all the options here have been explored. I would much rather have you elaborate on your meaning before I make random and feasibly incoherent assertions based off of your information.