picture of the world, they represent us in the form of (as many believe) of proven certainties science is extremely pessimistic. First, we study humiliated. Even Freud said about the three blows, which met a man with her hand: Copernicus showed us that it does not inhabit any central point in the universe, Darwin we are next to the animal species inhabiting the Earth, and psychoanalysis, we are not even masters of ourselves - for our actions are hidden hidden powers of the subconscious. Building on Darwin's thought, however, to reach even more sad conclusion that our creation was not the goal, but only incidental and completely unintentional result of the ongoing processes in nature. Awareness of this theological bereavement is itself painful. She became even more painful, however, when shown that this rare freak of nature, which we are doomed to inevitable destruction. No species living on Earth did not exist eternally, everyone will sooner or later have to disappear - if lucky, giving at best the beginning of some other. In the consolation final of the twentieth century, which could be hope for the continuation of our genes in other creatures inhabiting the Earth, we have been received, because - as it turned out - sooner or later, our sun will turn into a red giant and burn our planet. Even a hypothetical flight into space will not ensure the immortality of life because - as he teaches the Big Bang theory - the same universe or collapses in the Great collapsing or vanish in the infinite void, making all life impossible. This cosmological pessimism is reinforced by the second law of thermodynamics, which was the logical conclusion seems to be the inevitability of Thermal Death of the Universe. All our efforts are so fruitless in the end, and although we believe that after our death, life will go on still, we can no longer believe that will last forever.
So science tells us essentially abandoning the faith in immortality, even within the meaning of this, as I spoke in my previous entry ?
The great Woody Allen film "Annie Hall," Alvy refuses a little homework, "because the universe, and so tends to destruction." This scene amuses us with his absurd, but what exactly is this absurd? Is not that common sense tells us not to treat seriously until the end of scientific concepts, which, after every few generations and so changed? Setpoint homework, is specific. And if Great Collapse or Death of Thermal, is really much more than fantasies of a handful of thinkers, that sooner or later will be forgotten or remembered as an example of another scientific mistake? I
in this entry in a few sentences to tell you about a bit more optimistic alternatives to the dominant model of the universe today and for the most common version of the theory of evolution.
begin with cosmology and the Big Bang theory, because probably no other than the discipline of science, cosmology there is such a great contrast between triumphalist propaganda, which can be found in popular publications, and increasingly growing among professionals, no longer much doubt that even the conviction that the dominant model is simply false. The Big Bang theory, from its inception has been criticized by the most eminent physicists, astronomers and cosmologists, including the largest of the British astrophysicists - Professor Sir Fred Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbidge by a professor and his wife, Professor Margaret Burbidge, by world-renowned Hindu professor of astrophysics - Jayanta Vishnu Narlikara by one of the largest U.S. physicists and astrophysicists - Professor John Archibald Wheeler, and Nobel Prize winner in physics, a Swede - Hannes Alfvén. It was also criticized, even by Albert Einstein and Edwin Hubble, and so considered by scholars to be the popular opinion of its contributors. Today, to appear more and more recent observational data of its supporters camp is shrinking faster and faster. An analysis of distant space slowly emerges a completely different picture of the universe. It is a universe which at any scale on fractal and asymmetric structure, where each hierarchy is a hierarchy of higher order and where a huge, perhaps even dominant role played by the electromagnetic interaction, rather than gravity. The universe, as we believe that it is infinite in time and space. A year ago on another blog I made a few entries about the weaknesses of the Big Bang theory and several alternative concepts (refer interested ) - I hope some time back there. By the way I recommend to all the online book Ratcliffe'a Hilton, "The Virtue of Heresy" and author's website, which can be a starting point for exploring cosmological puzzles and new ideas. Now I'll just add that the model of an infinite fractal universe not only creates an alternative to the Big Bang, "save us" before the Great Depression or Great Emptiness, but also "protects" the universe from cosmological Thermal Death - asymmetric structure of the higher orders will always allow the persistence of structures of lower orders. When the cosmological hierarchy ladder is infinite, chaos will always be a loser with a higher degree of order.
premier critics of big-bang theory Sir Fred Hoyle, however, was not only the cosmologist and astrophysicist, but also co-founder of the modern version of the concept of panspermia, ie a scientific alternative to the dominant neo-Darwinism in modern biology. This concept - well-popularized by the portal Briga Klyce'a www.panspermia.org response is the third in an ongoing dispute between the years neodarwinistami and creationists. Although the spores of living space in antiquity had already said Anaxagoras (he is the creator of the term panspermia - "all-nasienność"), in the nineteenth century, was proclaimed by many scholars (Jöns Jakob Berzelius, Hermann von Helmholtz, and Lord Kelvin), and at the beginning of the twentieth century it developed Svante Arrhenius Swedish chemist, a modern version of it appeared only in the late 70's, and its creators were primarily Hindu astrobiologist Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe and Fred Hoyle. The group of followers and popularizers should also have another Nobel Prize winner - American biochemist Kary Mullis, a world-renowned British astrophysicist and Bill Napier (who died a few years ago) was an English biochemist and Nobel laureate Francis Crick. Panspermia proponents rightly rejected (as unscientific) views of creationists attacking neo-Darwinism by showing the total improbability of the emergence and evolution of a life the current forms in less than four billion years. Compare the probability of the first cell of inanimate matter in less than two hundred million years old (it is known that so much time has passed since the Earth's surface to cool the first appearance of unicellular organisms), the probability that during a sand storm in the desert with the wind sand grains niesionych was able to Jumbo Jet flight (on-board computers and navigation devices.) Not the place to cite specific calculations, and repeating the other arguments against the official version of the theory of evolution. I will say in a nutshell, what mechanisms were cause that on Earth there is life, which are then in a few billion years have adopted the forms that we observe today. Well, proponents of panspermia recognize that the spores of life (cells, viruses, DNA strands) are ubiquitous in the cosmos. As soon as our planet cool down enough that it has ceased to sterilize everything on it settled down, life on Earth appeared and immediately began to develop. Evolution, however, could not take place so quickly, if there was no mechanism called horizontal gene transfer. Falling to Earth, for they carried viruses (And possibly still carry) finished higher genetic material, a fully developed life forms and "wszczepiały" go to the organisms already present on Earth. This mechanism could take the evolution of "only" 3.5 billion years. Note that the same mechanism of horizontal gene transfer is rejected by mainstream biology. Until recently, but no one believed that living organisms are able to withstand space travel. Today we know that this is possible. It is thought that viruses carried by particles of space rock may persist even many millions of years. Proponents stress the theory of panspermia comets huge role in the emergence and spread of life in space. Comets, most of which comes from the fringes of the solar system (Oort cloud - about 0.6-1.6 light years from the Sun) function space switches. They acquire biological material derived from the distant cosmos and the move toward the Sun, throwing it in the vicinity (in the interiors of rocky debris). Spores of life on the periphery of the solar system hit the micronized particles of dust, which left the other planetary systems. The extent to which the sun gravitationally attracted so small molecules, however, is less than the force with which the solar wind pushes them, because without the help of comets that could not reach the inner regions of our solar system. Comets also play a decisive role in the transmission of spores into the wide space of life appearing on Earth. Shards of comet hitting the planet stand out from the vast amount of material in the form of small debris begins to circulate in space, where it is no longer protected by the Earth's atmosphere. Crumbs are then bombarded by comets miniature breakdown products, resulting in their further fragmentation until the size of a few microns, allowing the solar wind that pushed were incurred to the distant stars. Each such molecule can be a refuge of viruses or other microorganisms. It is estimated that this mechanism makes that every year 10 tons of earth wybitego once the material leaves the solar system.
criticize neo theory of panspermia, as - first - does not resolve the main mystery of "where did the life", after Second, as unnecessary, because if we observe the presence of life on Earth, it is sufficient proof that this "amazing coincidence", which was his creation has nevertheless taken place.
The first of these arguments can be rebutted in two ways - firstly, we can assume eternity of life, in a similar way, as the matter is eternal (nobody asks us to explain how she took the matter). I like this explanation, however, is both. Life beyond Earth was simply more time and more space to be able to born - since the cosmic journey of microorganisms is possible, is to insist that life arose on Earth is just a totemic superstition. Just as in the cosmogonic myths of primitive societies as seen from the village a large stone was the point of intersection Axis Mundi, the birthplace of the god, a mythical place of struggle, a place that gave birth to every existence, just as today's neo insist that the life-giving universe axes intersect at Earth. The pseudoockhamowski
neodarwinistów argument (the absence of sufficient reasons for the adoption of the concept of panspermia) Here is the easiest way to counter with their own weapons. Richard Dawkins in his "Climbing Mount Improbable" proves that in comparison with the theory of evolution, creationist theory is just totally unbelievable. However, juxtaposed with the concept of neo-Darwinism spores of living space turns out to be just another summit improbability. With two explanations of the same phenomenon, one of which involves the occurrence of an incredible amount of wonderful coincidences be wise to choose one that can do without these cases.
panspermia theory and concept having no boundaries in time and space, fractal universe bring back our education received by the nineteenth and twentieth century immortality. Infinite Space gives a sense of freedom, which in a finite universe would never be complete. Theories are so optimistic that meet our basic longing. Allow you to believe again that our life is part of the infinitely great adventure, not a ridiculous mistake.
0 comments:
Post a Comment