Jump to content
Science Forums

JudgeDracoAmunRa

Members
  • Content Count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by JudgeDracoAmunRa

  1. First of all optical reflections do not reflect out to infinity, try the mirror thing and you will see that, there are no perfectly reflective surfaces, secondly your assertion that space can be reflected and that we will find a way to do so is nonsensical unless you can show space is something that can be reflected to begin with...

     

    Hey, what's your IQ then Mr Hello Low IQers? I'll tell you mine if you'll tell me yours! :o

  2. First of all optical reflections do not reflect out to infinity, try the mirror thing and you will see that, there are no perfectly reflective surfaces, secondly your assertion that space can be reflected and that we will find a way to do so is nonsensical unless you can show space is something that can be reflected to begin with...

     

    You've hit the nail on the head about the mirror thing. The reason why optical reflections do not (as yet) reflect out to infinity is because the reflective surfaces are not perfect. If you re-read my post, you'll see that I indicated the sphere had to be perfect or the reflection thing wouldn't work.

     

    As for the reflection of space, well, let's start with a simple concept then. Do you know what I mean by a "unity"?

     

    It's similar to a quantum: In physics, a quantum is the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction.

     

    So a unity is the smallest indivisible quantum that could ever exist. It can be thought of as a perfect sphere. It cannot be destroyed (because it is a "unity" it represents the mathematical concept called "1" - try dividing "1" by anything real and see how far you get).

     

    Show me you understand this much, and I'll take you a step further. :unsure:

  3. Criticisms? What you are asserting has no basis in reality what so ever, are you going to tell us about the evil Xenu that crashed space ships into volcanoes next?

     

    Actually, what I am asserting does have a basis in reality, so there. :P

     

    I have done enough research on this to know that I'm not barking up the wrong tree on this. :D

     

    Obviously, you don't know what I know. And if you keep that attitude up, you'll probably never know. :o

     

    One last thing to consider: you have absolutely no idea who I really am.

     

    I could be a specialist consultant to The Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics at Cornell University for all you know. :rolleyes:

     

    If you've got nothing constructive to say, please stay out of my thread.

  4. I have several difficulties with your thesis JudgeDraco. For example, you use the term biologically perfect.I am quite unaware of the use of this term within biology, certainly within the last fifty years. Organisms may have a good fit for their current environment, but one can always identify improvements that would increase that fitness. Now you may respond, exactly so - and Adam and Eve were created with all the appropriate improvements. However, even if we grant that was the case I do not think you can call that biological perfection.

     

    You seem to define biologically perfect, at least in part, as immune to death and disease. An organism that was immune to death would be a biological dead end. Environments change: even if these engineered humans were perfect for their current environment, environments change. The 'perfection' is lost. They become progressively less fit. Evolution of organisms that have the good sense to die some time after reproducing don't have that difficulty. (By the way - how will these bioengineers make humans immunde to death if they fall off a 200m cliff?)

     

    JMJones has pointed out the serious error in your use of the word devolution. Devolution is what the Scot's are trying to practice in the UK - it has no place in biology.

     

    Your idea is so-so as a science fiction plot (though it is rather cliched), but as science it fails every test. However, if you are a teenager, then I applaud your imagination, but suggest you learn a little more of the basics. Then your imaginative ideas may actually find some purchase within science.

     

    I take your point about my use of the word Devolution. I used it because it seemed to suggest the opposite of what evolution is about. I've suggested an alternative. What do you think? Got any suggestions yourself?

     

    What do I mean by biologically perfect? Simply this: that an organism's genome has reached a state of perfection that enables the organism's cells to replicate without any loss of information whatsoever. Our cells today lose information when they replicate. This is why our body ages, why are skin becomes non-elastic, why blood thins, why bones become brittle, why we become susceptible to diseases in old age that do not affect us when we're young.

     

    Biologically perfect organism would be immune to disease, but they would not be immune to death caused by extreme trauma to the body. Thanks for helping me see that.

     

    An organism immune to death would only be a biological dead-end if it could not reproduce. My theory acknowledges the fact that Adam and Eve could reproduce. Therefore, if the environment changed it would still be possible for the genome to mutate in the offspring, while still maintaining a state of biological perfection.

     

    Another idea that has occurred to me is that perhaps this genetic engineer, if he has the power to create a perfect organsim, may have the power to create a perfect environment. A bit like a gardener can create a perfect environment within a greenhouse in order for tomatoes to grow.

     

    Thanks for your input on this. It's been most helpful.

     

     

    Anybody got any other ideas, or comments, or criticisms? Your input would be appreciated.

  5. Evidence?

     

    There's no such thing as biological devolution. The concept implies that there is a preferred direction for evolution and that change is moving against that direction.

     

     

     

    1. Try to understand the terms you are using, otherwise you run the risk of promoting pseudoscience drivel.

    2. If you are going to post here, please look over our rules. Your unsupported and unverifiable fantasies do not constitute scientific discussion. If you wish to post fiction here, please do so outside of the science forums.

     

    I do understand the terms I'm using, I really do. I think it's you who does not understand these terms. Which is why you think my nonsense is pseudo-science.

     

    Would you prefer the term de-gene-ration?

     

    I have read the rules here, and I do understand that this forum is for scientific discussion. Here, I'm discussing a new idea: devolution (which term you don't like) or de-gene-ration (let's see what you have to say about that term).

     

    I have to say, did Darwin get the same reaction I'm getting from you when he presented his Theory Of Evolution to the Christian world in which he lived? I bet someone there told him he was spouting unsupported and unverifiable fantasies, and told him to take his fiction elsewhere.

     

    Has my idea upset you perhaps because it gives some weight to Intelligent Design?

  6. That is quite an assertion, you will need to provide some evidence of that, lack of belief in a god or gods is not religion....

     

    You're looking at this the wrong way round.

     

    You think atheism is a lack of belief in God. Actually, atheism is the belief that God does not exist. Therefore, atheists believe in not-God. All other believers believe in God. All believers are connected by what they believe about God. Belief in not-God is therefore a religion, just as belief in God is a religion.

     

    Not-God is the singularity I mentioned. The infinite set of concepts of God includes the concept of not-god.

     

    This may be a bit difficult to comprehend, because it uses some kind of weird logic not known to a lot of people.

  7. First: I will commend the author for creating the topic, then Ill declare myself to be opposing in some ways. In particular about the existence of God(s). They are ideal objects like points at infinity... Absolutes are introduced (i think) to make a theory complete... They dont exist but (somehow) they still should be there...wherever That "There" is to be found :)

    Last: The set of existing things is EXTENDED to a more troublesome second set containing also absolutes, as second order objects... etc ,IF i have the story right: Since the set of existing things itself seems to be a second order object.

     

    Actually, atheism was a part of the infinite set of concepts of God all along, so nothing actually got extended.

     

    What my proof actually does is resolve what seems to be an incongrous member of the infinite set of concepts of God by showing that the atheism-member never was incongruous at all - it was only perceived as being incongrous.. Remember on Sesame Street "One of these things is not like the other?" Well, actually, they're all the same. We just think one of them's different.

  8. Space moves?

    Supposing your definitions are valid, then tell this nonscientist (...eh... Philosophy and Logic aint sciences are they?) what it means that the space inside gets "reflected OUT"? At first sight it seems to me that all that might happen in this thought experiment is that space inside the sphere no longer will exist close to or at the coated surface.

     

    No, space doesn't move. It's a reflection.

     

    Space gets reflected out to infinity (i.e. into the surface of the spatial reflector) in the same way that light gets reflected out to infinity (i.e. into the surface of the optical reflector).

  9. Would you explain what you mean by the reflection of space? What fundamental particles or field are responsible for this reflection? Can you cite examples of space reflection that are currently known, either naturally, or through laboratory experiment?

     

    Certainly.

     

    Space can be reflected in the same way light can be reflected. Space is actually a material in the same way that light is a material. Optical-mirrors reflect light. Spatial-mirrors reflect space.

     

    The reflected space is a kind of dimension that inner-matter can pass through. This creates infinite inner-space contained within a finite sphere that exists in outer-sopace.

     

    I cant give any examples of spatial-reflection, because science doesn't know how to do that yet. But in time, science will figure it out.

     

    For the moment, I draw your attention to the phenomenon I mentioned in my OP: infinite optical reflection.

  10. Brainteaser For Maths Wizards

     

    This one's about set theory, and it's dedicated to that God delusion we know and love as Richard Dawkins.

     

     

    The thing about debating atheism versus theism is this: there is only one atheism. If God does not exist, no other argument follows as to which God does not exist.

     

    With theism, however, there is an argument that follows the simple premise that "God exists", which is "what is this God like"? The problem here is that there are no end of the possible conceptions of God.

     

    In set theory then, atheism is a singularity, while theism is not quite but almost infinite. Now if this set is not quite but almost infinite, how do you unify the set, thereby removing the odd-man-out and restoring the perfection of infinity?

     

    Here's the brainteaser, then: How do you go about unifying the set to turn the singularity (atheism) back into a religion?

     

    Reward for correct solution: you get the mathematical proof for God's existence!

  11. It's not possible to warp space. Space is uniform everywhere. See my post in the physics section on how to create an infinite space within a finite sphere.

     

    Following on from that, the spacebubble trapped within this sphere is the equivalent of an atom of matter, which is to say it is a unity of space. As an atom of matter is actually a unity of matter (or a matterbubble, as we like to call it), it cannot be warped at all. If it could be warped, then the matterbubble would collapse or, to put it another way, it would be destroyed. This is why matter itself cannot be warped, because if it could then matter could be destroyed. You guys now have an explanation for why matter cannot be destroyed.

     

    To put this mathematically, unity cannot be divided in any way at all.

  12. Here's how you contain infinity within a unity

     

     

    We're all familiar with the concept of optical reflection. When a beam of light hits a mirrored surface, it gets reflected right?. And we've all seen that crazy situation where, if you set up two mirrored surfaces facing each other, you can get them to reflect each other out to infinity.

     

    Well, here's a concept called spatial reflection. If you create a perfect hollow sphere - and it has to be perfect or this doesn't work - and coat the inner surface with a material that reflects space and nothing else, then the space contained within the sphere gets reflected out in all directions to infinity. In this way, just like light and optical reflectors traps a finite beam of light and reflects that beam of light out to infinity in both directions, space and spatial reflectors traps a finite space bubble within a sphere and reflects that space bubble out in all directions to infinity.

     

    If you have the technology to build such a sphere, and know how to coat it's inner surface with a spatially reflecting material, you can contain an infinite space bubble within a finite sphere.

     

    Of course, when you're inside the sphere, space appears to be infinite in all directions - and in fact it is. However, when you're outside the sphere, it's obvious the sphere is actually only the size of, say, a snooker ball.

     

    Are you science geeks sure you're not trapped within such a sphere?

  13. A Proposal For A New Theory Called Devolution

     

    I propose a new theory called Devolution which re-interprets scriptural accounts of the fall of man.

     

    Premise: We're Devolving Not Evolving.

     

     

    When the Creator (let`s call him C) - some kind of crazy extra-terrestrial super-science geek, maybe - genetically engineered Adam and Eve as part of some science project called The Eden Terraforming Project, they were biologically perfect. In terms of today`s scientific understanding, they both posessed an uncorrupted genome which made them immune to death and disease. If this genome had remained intact, all of Adam and Eve`s offspring would have inherited this perfect genome.

     

    However, this perfect genome became corrupted by the actions of C`s opposer (let`s call him Anti-C - the villain in our story). This corruption of the genome deprived Adam and Eve of their immunity to death and disease. Worse than that the genome now was unable to replicate itself properly. As the familly of man developed, each subsequent generation inherited an increasingly more corrupted version of the human genome. Life-spans grew shorter, immunity to disease declined, and because the corruption was affecting the function of brain and body tissue, mental illnesses began to appear along with various forms of cancer.

     

    Unfortunately, when Anti-C did whatever it was he did to corrupt the genome, he did exactly the same thing to the perfect genomes of all other biological beings. Hence, re-interpreting the scriptures: when the serpent "tempted" Eve, her "sin" caused her to "fall" and she took all of Creation along with her. This is why the naked body was found to be "good" in the sight of God, and explains why Adam and Even hid themselves from God's sight and asked God for clothes when they realised their bodies were no longer the perfect form C had given them.

     

    As can be seen from the above explanation, humans and all other biological species are not currently evolving - they`re actually devolving.

     

    Has anyone got any comments, suggestions, whatever?

×
×
  • Create New...