DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 3060--------------------------------------------------
Re: Human Life is Fragile but EVERY Life is Valuable
By: AGelbert Date: May 1, 2015, 8:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Palloy said,
[quote]I recommend you totally abandon your faith in the non-3-D
universe, because it will never yield any uncontestable
assertions, and you will be going round in circles for ever, but
that is up to you.[/quote]
The generalization that my world view will never yield any
uncontestable assertions is not accurate. I am alive. I should
not be. My rib cage rotated about 10 to 15 degrees. My head was
slammed back and forth against the right front side of a car
windshield and the left driver's side window so hard, and so
many times in a 15 second crash sequence at about 140 mph, that
I would feel the pain on the left side of my head while my eyes
registered my head on the right side of the passenger
compartment. I should be dead. The doctor wanted to do an
exploratory. Ask UB what THAT entails. They don't do that on
people that make sh it up. I am living proof that miracles
occur. No question about it.
Your definition of "going around in circles" is at odds with
mine. Your assertion that my view necessarily negates belief in
SOME empirical evidence is false. As much as you want to believe
that, I do not live in la-la land.
You are the one who flat refuses to include immeasurable, but
documented, spontaneous healing in your world view. And I know
why. You see, you may not have pondered this, but I have. IF the
ONLY WAY our biochemical machinery can be repaired is by obeying
the laws of thermodynamics while remaining within the tight life
range of oxygenation and homeostatic requirements in temperature
ranges, pH and so on, it is IMPOSSIBLE to be spontaneously
healed.
Yet, it happens. In the 3D part of our universe, these events
are not reproducible on demand but, nevertheless, their
occurrence is empirically documented. This is a conundrum for
materialist atheists. This requires that they adopt the position
that, "therefore, what we THOUGHT was healing a person when we
gave them this medicine or that therapy is not accurate". But
they won't do that. They instead adopt the position that it's a
random event of ZERO importance to their world view. When
challenged they suggest the believer go back to reading entrails
or shaking sticks at the sick. I am not proposing that. Aspirin
really does help with headaches. ;D
IF Your world view really did require irrefutable evidence
before you accepted something as real, you would not accept much
of what you now accept ON FAITH, as real. Mine assumes
irrefutability is a pipe dream. IOW, you are the one doomed to
run around in tautological circles. You are the one limiting the
boundary of your thoughts to an arbitrary standard of proof.
For example, if you saw a flying saucer, you would immediately
get out your light speed limit assumptions and claim, "well, I'm
seeing things" or "That could NOT have come from another star
system so it must be some high tech toy the military has cooked
up to scare the rubes with".
You have, Palloy, all sorts of road blocks to accepting the
possibility of what is real and what is not because of a self
imposed construct of reality. And a lot of what you believe, you
cannot prove anyway. Yet you fancy that you've got reality
nailed down and are keenly aware of when something cannot be
part of it. That is a pipe dream.
But thanks for politely trying your best to enlighten me. Others
might ask me to walk off a tall building since it's all "mind
over matter" or whatever.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp<br
/> I disagree with your world view but know you mean well. [img
width=60
height=50]
HTML http://us.cdn2.123rf.com/168nwm/lenm/lenm1201/lenm120100200/12107060-illustration-of-a-smiley-giving-a-thumbs-up.jpg[/img]
#Post#: 3062--------------------------------------------------
Re: Human Life is Fragile but EVERY Life is Valuable
By: AGelbert Date: May 2, 2015, 3:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Palloy link=topic=2932.msg74348#msg74348
date=1430530191]
[quote]I'll be watching it from Box Seats on the Other
Side.[/quote]
Most email applications have a Send Later function, which
typically leaves the message in your Outbox until the next
automatic Send/Receive. Thunderbird also has the add-on called,
surprisingly enough, SendLater, which allows you to choose a
date-time for the message to be sent. Thus if you are going to
commit suicide, you can leave your goodbye email until some time
after the event, to prevent interference. You have to leave
your computer on, obviously.
I can't find an add-on for emailing from the Other Side, but if
we get an email from dr.hunter.s.doom@theotherside.com I'm sure
we will all work it out.
[/quote]
[quote author=Uncle Bob link=topic=2932.msg74356#msg74356
date=1430555885]
Palloy,
u may be trying to help, but u r not helping here.
[/quote]
[quote author=agelbert link=topic=2932.msg74381#msg74381
date=1430596007]
RE,
I understand Palloy is just trying to help, but I agree with UB.
Sure, we are all gonna die someday. If you want to get
mathematically predictive about it and project a date, Palloy is
the go to guy. But I have actually pondered that as well. ;D I
even have a final countdown going. :evil4:
There is a free widget that I have on my desktop called
FreeCoundownTimer
HTML http://free-countdown-timer.com/.
HTML http://free-countdown-timer.com/.
After you set the time, date
and sound for each timer, you can use a text field to write a
note to yourself as a reminder about the timer's purpose.
Free Countdown Timer offers a number of convenience features:
The timer wakes up your system from a Sleep mode.
[i]The timer will automatically turn up the volume
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-028.gif[/i]<br
/>if you have it on mute by accident, and set a predefined volum
e
level.
It rings bells, sounds a siren or tweets bird sounds (whatever
your choice to remind you of that a date has arrived).
How many days, hours, minutes and seconds are left for all the
dates are displayed any time you click on it. I use it for the
dates of summer, fall, autumn, winter and the 2,140 days or so
left in my prison sentence on planet earth :icon_mrgreen:.
My math is, unfortunately, not based on any revelations from
upstairs ;D. I am rather boring and hard boiled empirical about
some things, after all. I mean, you don't have experience flying
airplanes and controlling air traffic because you did these
things with a crystal ball :icon_mrgreen:.
What I did was study deaths and disease in my family.
Specifically, when and why did my grandparents on both sides,
and my parents, die.
I even filled out a "When are you gonna die" thing on the web by
entering how many years I had smoked and other stuff the bean
counter actuarial folks use to jack up life insurance premiums
:evil4:. Of course, heaven forbid that these objective folks
would game the data to make it look like you would DIE SOONER
than they think so they can jack up the rates. No sir, no
conflict of interest THERE, is there Palloy? After all, their
data sets are from "reputable" sources...
But I digress. The actuarial folks claimed I have about 6 years
left. SO, understanding where THEY are coming from, I figure I
have a few years MORE than that. And yeah, these SAME folks that
claim you have a foot in the grave and another on a banana peel
are the ones who turn around and trumpet how "modern'
civilization (HELLO FOSSIL FUELS!) and medicine has "increased"
our life expectancy. Of course, there is no cognitive dissonant
mindfuck contradiction there, RIGHT?
Whoops, I digressed again. Mea culpa.
One of my grandmothers died from cancer around the age of 50.
The other one (on my dad's side) died at 85. One of my
grandfathers died at 67 of cancer (on my dad's side) and the
other one died at 75. Atherosclerocis and assorted dementia
complications offed the ones that didn't die of cancer. My mom
died at 75 from cancer (ALL the cancers for all the above cancer
victims were different cancers.). My old man died at 95.
Palloy could have great fun crunching those numbers but I keep
it simple. Life expectancy in general, as has been PROVEN
EMPIRICALLY, is a function how old you are at the time you
crunch the numbers. Nevertheless, I KNOW that I have now
outlived one grandmother and one grandfather on different sides.
The next target is age 75. My dad is an outlier in the cohort
that I consider of little importance to my math because his
personality was that of a reptile. His world view enabled him to
not worry or be bothered by absolutely anything or anybody. I've
never been like that. I think people like him are those that
have contributed MOST to our dystopia. Yet I accept the FACT
that those people generally live longer because they are
untroubled by the pain of their fellow earthlings, humans or
otherwise.
After all this uncredentialed "math" on my part, I have
formulated the hypothesis that I will die within a year or two
of 75. So, I set my timer to that and click on it every now and
then. Have a nice day.
[img width=640
height=340]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-020515153146.png[/img]
[/quote]
[quote author=Palloy link=topic=2932.msg74350#msg74350
date=1430531712]
[quote]IF the ONLY WAY our biochemical machinery can be repaired
is by obeying the laws of thermodynamics while remaining within
the tight life range of oxygenation and homeostatic requirements
in temperature ranges, pH and so on, it is IMPOSSIBLE to be
spontaneously healed. Yet, it happens. [/quote]
That is a small step of progress.
If (strictly for the sake of the argument) I concede that
spontaneous healing does happen, then how much more of an
explanation for it do you have, over what I have? I don't want
to put words in your mouth, but isn't your explanation that "it
is done by some unknowable, invisible entity, for whom breaking
the Laws of Thermodynamics is no problem", while my explanation
is "I can't explain it" ?
How much more do you know than I do? It seems like your
explanation doesn't have any more explanatory power than mine.
It doesn't tell you that there is life after death, for
instance.
[/quote]
There you go again. Your explanation is not simply that "You
can't explain it". That is not an explanation, is it? That is an
unsubstantiated claim that your world view will EVENTUALLY
explain it. You flat refuse to question the basic tenets of your
world view even though the empirical data out there contradicts
it. Since when do you HAVE TO believe in something because no
other "suitable explanation" (see ONLY physical matter and
energy cause and effect is the only thing "permitted".)?
That is not an objective position. If the data does not fit the
hypothesis, the hypothesis is supposed to be rejected, whether
you have a new one or not.
RE, for example, actually has presented his conditions for
accepting that J.C. exists. It has been tongue in cheek but at
least he DID say that, if J.C. shows up at his place with some
free Samuel Adams, then RE would revise his hypothesis, so to
speak.
This is where I am going with this, Palloy. I DO want to talk
about spontaneous healings. I DO want to present the empirical
evidence. I DO want it clearly stated that the occurrence of
spontaneous healing is NOT superstition and MUST BE accepted as
part of our reality by any objective person, be they an atheist
or not. As long as we split hairs about the frequency of the
occurrence, the lack of explanations and so on, the ISSUE of the
REALITY of their occurrence is placed on the back burner.
Spontaneous healing is a FRONT BURNER issue for those that claim
it is IMPOSSIBLE.
As to life after death, of course spontaneous healing does not
prove that exists. Even out of body experiences would only prove
that life OUTSIDE THE BODY is possible, not that life after
death exists. We may have some faculty within the
electromagnetic spectrum that allows us to "radio" our 5 senses
a certain distance from the body. There are serious medical
studies (many by the military, by the way) trying to figure out
how that works.
Life after death is one subject; spontaneous healing is another.
That's what we are after on thread, is it not?
And I do agree that many people receive spontaneous healing
because of their OWN faith in their OWN power to heal without
the aid or existence of a supreme being directing the show.
Knarf could probably provide you with lots of evidence of faith
healing power that can't be measured empirically. UB has
documented some of those occurrences. He has spoken about them
in the past. UB is a medical doctor. He does not do bullshit or
fairy tales. I'm sure he can tell us stuff (that I am certain he
can prove without a shadow of a doubt, by the way) that could
make our hair stand on end!
Question: Would you consider modifying your view of reality if
RE was spontaneously healed according to your strict
requirements (x-rays and so on) that proved the laws of physical
biochemistry in regard to tissue healing were violated and no
medical science, therapy was responsible?
#Post#: 3067--------------------------------------------------
Re: Human Life is Fragile but EVERY Life is Valuable
By: AGelbert Date: May 2, 2015, 6:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Palloy link=topic=2932.msg74386#msg74386
date=1430601586]
HTML http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VcrNn8AiWMc/Tq2CavD4Y1I/AAAAAAAABCs/iv07lVmamsE/s1600/Someone+is+wrong+on+internet.png
After my last stroke the doctor was urging me to follow his
advice to take three pills, three times a day for the rest of my
life, so we got into a discussion about life expectancy. He had
access to a web app for doctors, which took the obvious stroke
factors, age, sex, lifestyle factors, medications and so on, and
came up with a prediction for percentage chance of surviving 5
years, with and without the medications.
A typical doctor, talking down to his ignorant patient, he
clearly didn't realise he was talking to a
mathematician/demographer who had started their working life at
the Census Office. I pointed out that as a 62 year old with a
family history of heart problems, my chances of surviving
another 5 years were not all that high anyway, and certainly not
the 100% he was implying by not mentioning it at all. As a
smoker, I wasn't like my cohort, who probably would have been
smoking for 40+ years, since I had given up for 25 years in that
time and that had mostly reset the clock on that. And as
someone who made the conscious decision at 30 to live in a clean
air and clean water environment, with regular exercise and low
stress lifestyle ... Anyway I managed to get him to agree that
my chances had magically improved from 16% to 30%, and he didn't
have data on factors that I felt improved my chances further.
So how does anyone assess what 30% chance of surviving 5 years,
as opposed to 40%, really means? The short answer is, you
can't. What actually happens to you, as opposed to the
statistically average cohort member, is stochastic - dependent
on so many immeasurable variables that it is effectively random.
Best just take it one day at a time, and enjoy it as much as you
can.[/quote]
Agreed. You can't. And you can't because it is involves too many
variables for accurate prediction. Yogi Berra — 'It's tough to
make predictions, especially about the future.'
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp<br
/>
But to address your exchange with the doctor, let us discuss a
phenomenon that psychology (based entirely on your world view
that we live in a random universe) calls, "The Illusion of
Control". They call it that because stuff happens that isn't
reproducible on demand and appears (i.e. "illusion"
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp)<br
/>to violate the "rules" of this universe, therefore, it MUST be
a
random event. I disagree, but let's see where they go with this.
It's a tricky subject because there ARE people that fall into
the magical thinking trap from an actual illusion of control.
One size fits all is not the way to approach this but the
psychology folks try to do just that. They take blatant examples
of people believing baloney and equate them to actual,
empirically documented examples of the power of people to
overcome negative cause and effect, particularly in the health
care area.
[img width=640
height=280]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-260415172247.png[/img]
Here are some bonafide examples of "Illusion of Control" from
the article:
[quote]The ‘illusion of control’ is this: people tend to
overestimate their perceived control over events in their lives.
It’s well documented and has been tested over-and-over in lots
of different studies over four decades.
Here’s an example: you choose an apple which tastes delicious.
You assume you are very skilled at choosing apples (when in fact
the whole batch happens to be good today).
Another: you enter the lottery and win millions. You assume that
this is (partly) a result of how good your lucky numbers are (in
fact lotteries are totally random so you can’t influence them
with the numbers you choose. Although most of us know and accept
this, we still harbour an inkling that maybe it does matter
which numbers we choose).
Sometimes this illusion manifests as magical thinking. In one
study participants watched another person try to shoot a
miniature basketball through a hoop (Pronin et al., 2006). When
participants willed the player to make the shot, and they did,
they felt it was partly down to them, even though they couldn’t
possibly be having any effect.
It’s like pedestrians in New York who still press the button to
get the lights to change, despite the fact they do nothing.
Since the late 80s all the traffic signals have been controlled
by computer, but the city won’t pay to have the buttons removed.
It’s probably just as well: they help boost people’s illusion of
control. We feel better when we can do something that feels like
it might have an effect (even if it doesn’t).
[/quote]
So it is clear that they poo poo ANY concept or idea that
involves mind over matter. HOW, for example, does "feeling
better" about some power we don't have "help"?
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/237.gif
But then they show conclusive evidence that something is going
on that they cannot explain randomly! Yet they try hard to shove
it into their cause and effect Procrustean Bed.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183312.bmp
[quote]... studies find that hospital patients who are able to
administer their own painkillers typically give themselves lower
doses than those who have them prescribed by doctors, but they
experience no more pain (Egan, 1990: What does it mean to a
patient to be “in control”).[/quote]
LESS PAIN is clearly NOT an illusion. But they don't want to go
there, do they? ;)
So, they surround the above with clever (and unscientific)
disclaimers:
[quote]A beneficial illusion?
It’s sometimes argued that the illusion of control is beneficial
because it can encourage people to take responsibility. It’s
like when a person is diagnosed with an illness; they want to
take control through starting medication or changing their diet
or other aspect of their lifestyle.
[/quote]
Notice the subtext. That is, it is allegedly IMPOSSIBLE for ANY
thought process coming from the FAITH of a sick person to heal a
sick person. Those taking less pain pills were, IOW, DELUDING
themselves (SEE cause and effect Procrustean Bed straight
jacket).
Nevertheless, since there IS (though not predictable or easily
measurable) an irrefutable cause and effect relationship between
what people believe and the outcome of life events, as
psychological studies have born out, these psychologists now
want to go in the OTHER direction!
HTML http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif
No, they don't want to question their world view; they want to
change the term "Illusion of Control" to "Illusion of
Futility"! [img width=100
height=60]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/245.gif[/img]
[quote]Illusion of futility
So far, so orthodox. What’s fascinating is the idea that the
illusion of control itself may be an illusion, or at least only
part of the story.
What if the illusion of having control depends heavily on how
much control we actually have? After all, we’re not always
totally out-of-the-loop like the experiments above suggest.
Sometimes we have a lot of control over the outcomes in our
life.
This has been recently tested out in a series of experiments by
Gino et al. (2011). What they found was that the illusion of
control flips around when control over a situation is really
high. When participants in their studies actually had plenty of
control, suddenly they were more likely to underestimate it.
This is a pretty serious challenge to the illusion of control.
If backed up by other studies, it reverses the idea that the
illusion of control is usually beneficial. Now we’re in a world
where sometimes the illusion is keeping us back.
For example, applying for more jobs increases the chance of
getting one, exercise does make you more healthy, buying a new
car does make you poorer. All these are areas in which we have
high levels of control but which we may well be assuming we
don’t.
This effect will have to be renamed the illusion of futility. In
other words: when you have high control, you underestimate how
much what you do really matters.
HTML http://www.spring.org.uk/2013/02/the-illusion-of-control-are-there-benefits-to-being-self-deluded.php
HTML http://www.spring.org.uk/2013/02/the-illusion-of-control-are-there-benefits-to-being-self-deluded.php[/quote]
The "loop" is a fascinating scientific term, is it not? I think
Cheney authored the "Theory of the Loop" sometime ago. I am
anxious to hear how the psychologists define the "Loop".
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp<br
/>
#Post#: 3068--------------------------------------------------
Re: Human Life is Fragile but EVERY Life is Valuable
By: AGelbert Date: May 2, 2015, 6:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Palloy link=topic=2932.msg74401#msg74401
date=1430606342]
[quote]Question: Would you consider modifying your view of
reality if RE was spontaneously healed according to your strict
requirements (x-rays and so on) that proved the laws of physical
biochemistry in regard to tissue healing were violated and no
medical science, therapy was responsible? [/quote]
I am dissatisfied with the "I can't explain it" answer as well.
That's why I maintain my scepticism that miraculous events
really are as described. I don't doubt your sincerity, but it
cannot be as you describe it. The Laws of Thermodynamics cannot
be broken, not in any universe, how ever many dimensions it has.
Universes would fall apart if the LoTs didn't apply everywhere
all the time.
"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence" and it is
up to the claimant to substantiate the claims. Once you admit
that the LoTs would have to have been broken, you have to make
out a strong case for something even more complex than the
entire body of Physics.
I hesitate to delve into particle physics (because it can really
only be described in complex mathematical language, not
English), but the Standard Model was conceived circa 1960, and
it predicted that some hitherto unknown sub-atomic "particles"
(that are not particles in the English sense) must exist. Since
then the Top Quark, the Tau Neutrino and the Higgs Boson have
been discovered. Note that belief in the Standard Model is by
Deduction, not Faith. It is dubbed "the theory of almost
everything" because it cannot yet reconcile Quantum Mechanics
with Einsteinian Gravity, but no nuclear scientist doubts that
the LoTs will still be there when the Theory of Everything is
finally nutted out.
[/quote]
That's an interesting point of view considering that particle
physics does accept spooky action at a distance as an (as yet)
unexplainable fact that DOES NOT use any energy whatsoever to
accomplish that task. The entire world of physics was forced to
adopt the multiverse theory (TOTALLY lacking ANY scientific
evidence WHATSOEVER) because the incredibly exquisite fine
tuning of this universe argues for a creator. Just the charges
of hydrogen and oxygen that make water, if they were slightly
different (in either direction in either atom) would prevent the
existence of life as we know it. But, by the same token, you can
argue that there is more evidence for a creator super being than
there is for miraculous healing, simply because the creator set
all these finely tuned rules up in the first place (i.e. no
miracles are allegedly necessary with such fine tuning).
I would say, sure, but miracles are documented. Also, I can get
you a physicist that WILL talk in your math language to explain
why there is no conflict with the violation of the rules of
thermodynamics observed in spontaneous healing with the latest
knowledge of the physical universe's most fundamental units.
Of course that physicist (he is not alone in that, by the way -
there's a large group of them questioning the theory of
evolution based on mathematical probabilities and the exquisite
fine tuning of the universe) is a Christian. But not all of them
are. Some of them are atheists. They just do the math, all of
it.
[quote author=Uncle Bob link=topic=2932.msg74406#msg74406
date=1430609820]
[quote author=Palloy link=topic=2932.msg74401#msg74401
date=1430606342]
[quote]Question: Would you consider modifying your view of
reality if RE was spontaneously healed according to your strict
requirements (x-rays and so on) that proved the laws of physical
biochemistry in regard to tissue healing were violated and no
medical science, therapy was responsible? [/quote]
I am dissatisfied with the "I can't explain it" answer as well.
That's why I maintain my scepticism that miraculous events
really are as described. I don't doubt your sincerity, but it
cannot be as you describe it. The Laws of Thermodynamics cannot
be broken, not in any universe, how ever many dimensions it has.
Universes would fall apart if the LoTs didn't apply everywhere
all the time.
"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence" and it is
up to the claimant to substantiate the claims. Once you admit
that the LoTs would have to have been broken, you have to make
out a strong case for something even more complex than the
entire body of Physics.
I hesitate to delve into particle physics (because it can really
only be described in complex mathematical language, not
English), but the Standard Model was conceived circa 1960, and
it predicted that some hitherto unknown sub-atomic "particles"
(that are not particles in the English sense) must exist. Since
then the Top Quark, the Tau Neutrino and the Higgs Boson have
been discovered. Note that belief in the Standard Model is by
Deduction, not Faith. It is dubbed "the theory of almost
everything" because it cannot yet reconcile Quantum Mechanics
with Einsteinian Gravity, but no nuclear scientist doubts that
the LoTs will still be there when the Theory of Everything is
finally nutted out.
[/quote]
Emotion, thought, matter in that order palloy. You are like
someone studying a cake and describing all its physical
properties according to a table of elements, but because u have
not been to a bakery or seen a supermarket where the ingredients
came from do not want to acknowledge the processes of baking and
shopping contributing to the end product. You acknowledge there
is particle physics, Which it is common knowledge shows physical
matter is simply vibrating in and out of existence. That is only
one end of the frequency spectrum and the end result of others.
Compute these math; search under user RE for the keywords 'seeu
on the other side' and 'going to the great beyond' BEFORE the
onset of his condition. Now he is talking about getting
insurance sorted to get surgery, which is why I dont think your
focussing on dying as an inevitability here helps matters.
Traditional Aborigines will get sick and die in a few days if
they believe a medicine man is "singing" them or pointed a bone
at them, they will also get better as soon as they hear the
medicine man stopped. You could dispute pointing a bone or
singing a song can kill you just like you can dispute your life
insurance risk factors for about how long you should live and
both times what you believe, in other words have faith in has an
effect.
[/quote]
HTML http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/2thumbs.gif
#Post#: 3071--------------------------------------------------
Re: Human Life is Fragile but EVERY Life is Valuable
By: AGelbert Date: May 3, 2015, 3:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Womb milk nourishes human embryo during first weeks of pregnancy
18:25 01 May 2015 by Andy Coghlan
Call it the milk of life – not breast milk, but womb milk. For
the first 11 weeks of pregnancy, before the mother's
nutrient-rich blood supply is plumbed in, all the materials and
energy for building a baby are supplied by secretions from
glands in the uterus lining.
For the first time, researchers have worked out in detail how
nutrients make their way from these glands into the developing
embryo. "It's like a rapidly growing building site," says John
Aplin of the University of Manchester, UK.
During pregnancy, the lining of the uterus behaves quite
differently to normal: the glands start storing large amounts of
glucose as glycogen, which is then secreted to nourish the
embryo during its first 11 weeks.
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-030515155952.jpeg[/img]
After this time, the mother's blood supply delivered via the
umbilical cord takes over and the "womb-milk" secretions dry up.
But how the glycogen and other materials for baby-building were
transported to the embryo and placenta was a mystery until now.
Vital nutrients
To investigate, Aplin and his colleagues examined womb, placenta
and embryonic tissue donated by women who had chosen to
terminate their pregnancies. The samples came from all stages of
early pregnancy, so the researchers were able to analyse how
they changed over time.
By using a staining dye, they were able to see wherever glycogen
was present in the tissues. They found that it was abundant in
the recesses of the womb lining, where it is broken down into
smaller molecules. These molecules then diffuse into a cavity
just outside the placenta, known as the intervillous space. From
there, they are absorbed into the placenta.
"Once the sugar is there, some is used straight away as energy
to help the embryo grow, and the rest is reconverted to the
storage molecule, glycogen," says Aplin.
The team also tracked the transport of substances called
glycoproteins. These are vital for growth because as well as
containing sugar fragments, they contain protein that can be
broken down into amino acids – the building blocks from which
tissue is assembled.
Precarious state
Aplin says that in the first crucial weeks, womb milk is the
embryo's only source of nourishment. This is no accident: at the
beginning of a pregnancy, the placenta is much larger than the
growing embryo, so the pressure of arterial blood would likely
dislodge the embryo from the wall of the uterus. Only by 11
weeks or so is it big enough to withstand and accept its
mother's blood.
Next, Aplin and his colleagues hope to investigate how a
mother's diet and other factors, such as smoking, affect the
build-up of glycogen in the womb lining. "It could be that these
trigger settings in the embryo that affect the risk of obesity
or diabetes in life," he says.
"The first few weeks of pregnancy is a critical phase for
embryonic development," says Graham Burton of the University of
Cambridge, whose team discovered in 2002 that the uterus lining
– not the mother's blood – nourishes the embryo.
"Our understanding has been revolutionised over the past decade
by the discovery that nutrients are supplied by these glands in
the uterus lining during the first trimester – the so-called
'uterine milk'," Burton says.
The latest research adds new insights into the enzymes that help
deliver glucose across cell membranes to the embryo and
placenta, he adds.
Journal reference: Placenta, DOI: 10.1016/j.placenta.2015.01.002
HTML http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27460-womb-milk-nourishes-human-embryo-during-first-weeks-of-pregnancy.html#.VUZzBWctHm4
Agelbert NOTE: So, the FACT that what goes on in the first 11
weeks to keep the fetus alive is NOT an accident, but a very
deliberate REQUIREMENT involving placental growth biochemical
math, means, uh, WHAT, exactly?
I did a term paper on what that means in zoology before all the
above was known. The point I made to the class, a point that had
the female pre-med students squirming ;D, is that BOTH the
fetus AND the placenta are NOT part of the female bearing the
new life form. In fact, the new life form is a type of parasite.
HTML http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif
WHY? Because, even in 1986, it had been clearly established, by
studies of pregnant mammals (of several species, not just
humans), that the pulmonary (gas exchange), hepatic nutrient
uptake and renal waste disposal functions of the placental fetal
life support system WILL successfully attack the host pregnant
female for the benefit of the embryo.
IOW, bone loss and malnutrition effects will manifest in the
pregnant female long before the fetus is affected simply because
the placental machinery (tiny fingers in the in va gin ated
arterial blood vessels surrounding the uterus) gets whatever it
needs, even to the point of demineralizing host bones.
It's ALL business. That business is the clear priority of the
placenta to keep the fetus alive and growing over the health of
the host. It is the placenta, not the pregnant females'
endocrine system, that sends the biochemical signals to get her
mammary glands to produce milk at a certain point in the
pregnancy. It is the placenta that keeps the pregnant female's
immune system from attacking the "parasite" feeding off of her
by some clever biochemical tricks to fool the host into thinking
the fetus is not a separate entity.
The critter in there is NOT a part of the female host FROM THE
START. It is HUMAN and it is separate and it has a placental
space suit to take care of BUSINESS. The host CAN, of course,
kill the tiny human with modern technology. The fetus is a
parasite and will tax the health of the host if said host cannot
get proper nutrition. In fact, there are many species of mammals
that cannot get pregnant UNLESS they have a certain level of
nutrition. I'm sure TPTB are working on applying that to the
"useless eater" humans out there ;). But there is NO WAY
anybody can claim scientifically that the fetus is a "part" of
the body of the host.
The above new scientific discovery just underlines the fact
that, ALREADY in the first 11 weeks, the human embryo/fetus is
an individual, separate from the mother.
#Post#: 3072--------------------------------------------------
Re: Human Life is Fragile but EVERY Life is Valuable
By: AGelbert Date: May 3, 2015, 5:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Palloy link=topic=2932.msg74417#msg74417
date=1430619299]
[quote][quote]... dependent on so many immeasurable variables
that it is effectively random.[/quote]
... let us discuss a phenomenon that psychology (based entirely
on your world view that we live in a random universe)[/quote]
Whoa - you have turned "effectively random" (for one person)
into "a random universe". That is the exact opposite of what I
believe, and I'm pretty sure you know that. You would also know
(about me) that I would have little truck with what
psychologists say.
[quote]they want to change the term "Illusion of Control" to
"Illusion of Futility"! [/quote]
That isn't what they say at all - "the illusion of control
itself may be an illusion, or at least only part of the story".
They are saying if you have little control, you feel like you
have more, and if you have lots of control, you feel like you
have less. You do them an injustice by laughing at them for
something they didn't say. If it mattered, I would look at the
experiments they performed, and how many people actually fitted
their profile - I doubt it would be 100%, or anything like it.
But when it gets translated in English simple enough for the
average reader, all that statistical doubt gets lost.
When doctors over-prescribe pain killers, it is likely because
too much won't hurt, while too little will (and might also cause
themselves to be dragged out of bed in the middle of the night
to re-prescribe). Everybody responds differently to
pain-killers, and the patient is the best arbiter, not the
doctor. So no need to invoke the Illusion of Control, or faith,
there.
[quote]That's an interesting point of view considering that
particle physics does accept spooky action at a distance as an
(as yet) unexplainable fact that DOES NOT use any energy
whatsoever to accomplish that task. The entire world of physics
was forced to adopt the multiverse theory (TOTALLY lacking ANY
scientific evidence WHATSOEVER) because the incredibly exquisite
fine tuning of this universe argues for a creator.[/quote]
That's a complete misunderstanding on multiple fronts. Do you
seriously think the term "spooky action" popped out of a
mathematical equation? Out of ALL sub-atomic physicists trying
to feel their way through a difficult problem, SOME have
suggested way-out theories, but the rest just smile politely and
carry on with their own theories.
Compare that with when Einstein postulated the the universe
wasn't 3-D (like Newton said), but 4-D with the 3 Length
dimensions plus Time, adjusted to make it also a Length
dimension by multiplying it by a speed "c" (Time x (Length/Time)
= Length). The outcome of such a universe is that nothing go
faster than that speed c, and that a key axiom, that Mass is
constant, that was so obvious that Newton never even mentioned
it, is wrong! A mind-blowingly different theory, but quickly
accepted by all who could understand it. If Newton had kept up
with things from the other side, he would have agreed too.
There is no "exquisite fine-tuning" of fundamental constants.
They are what they are, that's all, and that makes the universe
like it is (and thank goodness for that). It doesn't "argue for
a creator", there is no argument there at all.
[/quote]
So, the true (see arrogance, hubris, stubbornness and appalling
ignorance piled on top) Palloy emerges.
Absolutely every discussion with you devolves into hairsplitting
BULLSHIT posed BY YOU to AVOID the overall poverty of your logic
and the paucity of your "evidence" for BELIEVING the fairy tales
you have been brainwashed with.
Not only do you have ZERO interest in logical debate, despite
your disingenuous appearance of a willingness to do so, when you
can't "make your points", you stoop to ridicule, appeals to
authority and nuanced ad hominem typical of university prof
snark.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/www_MyEmoticons_com__burp.gif
[center]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-030515143436.png[/center]
A day in the life of Palloy and MattS when they discover one of
their own credentialed poobahs does not tow the "RELIGION of
evolution" line or the "LIFELESS particle physics and RANDOM
(but oh, so luckily fine tuned because one of the zillions of
multiverses HAD to be! LOL!) UNIVERSE" line or the "BELIEF in
the power of mind over matter is SILLY" line (and so on).
#Post#: 3073--------------------------------------------------
Re: Human Life is Fragile but EVERY Life is Valuable
By: AGelbert Date: May 3, 2015, 5:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Palloy said,
[quote]There is no "exquisite fine-tuning" of fundamental
constants. They are what they are, that's all, and that makes
the universe like it is (and thank goodness for that). It
doesn't "argue for a creator", there is no argument there at
all.[/quote]
[quote]
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense
interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has
monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology,
and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in
nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so
overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
(2)[/quote]
[quote]
George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning
occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible.
Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it
very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a
stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)[/quote]
[quote]
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful
evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It
seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make
the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".
(4)[/quote]
[quote]
Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product
of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a
purpose". (5)[/quote]
[quote]
Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I
find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos.
There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a
mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why
there is something instead of nothing." (6)[/quote]
[quote]John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by
astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of
creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most
exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It
is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was
created for man to live in." (7)[/quote]
[quote]
George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence,
the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency -
or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that
suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific
proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who
stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our
benefit?" (8)[/quote]
[quote]Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a
universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible
inference from the present state of scientific theory."
(9)[/quote]
[quote]Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads
us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of
nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide
exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which
has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."
(10)[/quote]
[quote]Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say
the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by
chance." (11)[/quote]
Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and
beauty of the universe and the [quote]strange coincidences of
nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from
science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only
wish they would admit it." (12)[/quote]
[quote]
Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order
displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world
calls for the divine." (13)[/quote]
[quote]Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the
scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the
story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of
ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls
himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of
theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
(14)[/quote]
[quote]Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall…
be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it
is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to
that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for
then we would know the mind of God." (15)[/quote]
[quote]
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began
my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a
convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that
one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the
central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true,
that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of
physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these
conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of
physics." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to
Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics of
ChristianityThe Physics of Christianity.[/quote]
[quote]
Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature
is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God
created it."(17)[/quote]
[quote]
Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of
the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated
and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima
facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance
that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires
only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views,
incline toward the teleological or design argument."
(18)[/quote]
[quote]Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of
universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of
the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common
wisdom'." (21)[/quote]
Palloy, you do not have the remotest idea of what you are
talking about.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gen152.gif
#Post#: 3075--------------------------------------------------
Re: Human Life is Fragile but EVERY Life is Valuable
By: AGelbert Date: May 3, 2015, 6:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life?
By Anil Ananthaswamy on Wed, 07 Mar 2012
SNIPPET:
[quote]The laws of physics and the values of physical constants
seem, as Goldilocks said, “just right.” If even one of a host of
physical properties of the universe had been different, stars,
planets, and galaxies would never have formed. Life would have
been all but impossible.
Take, for instance, the neutron. It is 1.00137841870 times
heavier than the proton, which is what allows it to decay into a
proton, electron and neutrino—a process that determined the
relative abundances of hydrogen and helium after the big bang
and gave us a universe dominated by hydrogen. If the
neutron-to-proton mass ratio were even slightly different, we
would be living in a very different universe: one, perhaps, with
far too much helium, in which stars would have burned out too
quickly for life to evolve, or one in which protons decayed into
neutrons rather than the other way around, leaving the universe
without atoms. So, in fact, we wouldn’t be living here at all—we
wouldn’t exist.
Examples of such “fine-tuning” abound. Tweak the charge on an
electron, for instance, or change the strength of the
gravitational force or the strong nuclear force just a smidgen,
and the universe would look very different, and likely be
lifeless. The challenge for physicists is explaining why such
physical parameters are what they are.
This challenge became even tougher in the late 1990s when
astronomers discovered dark energy, the little-understood energy
thought to be driving the accelerating expansion of our
universe. All attempts to use known laws of physics to calculate
the expected value of this energy lead to answers that are 10120
times too high, causing some to label it the worst prediction in
physics.
“The great mystery is not why there is dark energy. The great
mystery is why there is so little of it,” said Leonard Susskind
of Stanford University, at a 2007 meeting of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science. “The fact that we
are just on the knife edge of existence, [that] if dark energy
were very much bigger we wouldn’t be here, that’s the mystery.”
Even a slightly larger value of dark energy would have caused
spacetime to expand so fast that galaxies wouldn’t have formed.
That night in Hawaii, Faber declared that there were only two
possible explanations for fine-tuning. “One is that there is a
God and that God made it that way,” she said. But for Faber, an
atheist, divine intervention is not the answer.
“The only other approach that makes any sense [img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png[/img]<br
/>is to argue that there really is an infinite, or a very big,
ensemble of universes out there and we are in one,” she
said.[/quote]
HTML http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/03/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/
Agelbert NOTE: AND, the "sense" they are making about "an
infinite, or a very big, ensemble of universes" is TOTALLY
LACKING IN ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOVER except the Excedrin headaches
atheists get from where the ACTUAL EVIDENCE of FINE TUNING
POINTS TO. ;D
#Post#: 3076--------------------------------------------------
Re: Human Life is Fragile but EVERY Life is Valuable
By: AGelbert Date: May 3, 2015, 7:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]...[color=blue] physicists were left to explain the
startling fact that the positive and negative contributions to
the cosmological constant cancel to 120-digit accuracy, yet fail
to cancel beginning at the 121st digit. :o
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp<br
/>
Curiously, this observation is in accord with a prediction made
by Nobel laureate and physicist Steven Weinberg in 1987, who
argued from basic principles that the cosmological constant must
be zero to within one part in roughly 10120 (and yet be
nonzero), or else the universe either would have dispersed too
fast for stars and galaxies to have formed, or else would have
recollapsed upon itself long ago.
The Anthropic Principle
In short, numerous features of our universe seem fantastically
fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent life. While some
physicists still hold out for a "natural" explanation, many
others are now coming to grips with the notion that our universe
is profoundly unnatural, with no good explanation other than the
Anthropic Principle—the universe is in this exceedingly
improbable state, because if it weren't, we wouldn't be here to
discuss the fact.
They further note that the prevailing "eternal inflation" big
bang scenario suggests that our universe is just one pocket in a
continuously bifurcating multiverse.
Inflation cosmology, by the way, got a significant experimental
boost with the March 17, 2014 announcement that astronomers had
discovered gravitational waves, signatures of the big bang
inflation, in data collected from telescopes based at the South
Pole.
In a similar vein, string theory, the current best candidate for
a "theory of everything," predicts an enormous ensemble,
numbering 10 to the power 500 by one accounting, of parallel
universes. Thus in such a large or even infinite ensemble, we
should not be surprised to find ourselves in an exceedingly
fine-tuned universe. ::)
But to many scientists, such reasoning is anathema to
traditional empirical science.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
Lee
Smolin wrote in his 2006 book The Trouble with Physics:
We physicists need to confront the crisis facing us. A
scientific theory [the multiverse/ Anthropic Principle/ string
theory paradigm] that makes no predictions and therefore is not
subject to experiment can never fail, but such a theory can
never succeed either, as long as science stands for knowledge
gained from rational argument borne out by evidence.
And even the proponents of such views have some explaining to
do. For example, if there are truly infinitely many pocket
universes like ours, as physicists argue is the case, how can
one possibly define a "probability measure" on such an ensemble?
In other words, what does it mean to talk of the "probability"
of our universe existing in its observed state?
[/color][/quote]
HTML http://phys.org/news/2014-04-science-philosophy-collide-fine-tuned-universe.html
Agelbert NOTE: In a less erudite manner, but using exactly the
same logic and facts that science has at its disposal, I have
made the same arguments to Palloy, all of which he flat refuses
to accept as even valid "arguments", never mind the multiplicity
of physicists and astronomers that have made them.
He has no argument, so he cleverly pretends I'm the one without
one. [img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-291014182422.png[/img]<br
/>That's a tired fallacious debating technique.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp
Klas konchen, gaspadine. (excuse my lousy Russian for
"gentleman, class dismissed." 8)).
#Post#: 3077--------------------------------------------------
Re: Human Life is Fragile but EVERY Life is Valuable
By: AGelbert Date: May 3, 2015, 8:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Why the Universe Is the Way It Is
Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe
For physical life to be possible in the universe, several
characteristics must take on specific
values, and these are listed below. In the case of several of
these characteristics, and given the intricacy of their
interrelationships, the indication of divine “fine-tuning” seems
compelling.
1. Strong nuclear force constant
2. Weak nuclear force constant
3. Gravitational force constant
4. Electromagnetic force constant
5. Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational
force constant
6. Ratio of proton to electron mass
7. Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
8. Ratio of proton to electron charge
9. Expansion rate of the universe
10. Mass density of the universe
11. Baryon (proton and neutron) density of the universe
12. Space energy or dark energy density of the universe
13. Ratio of space energy density to mass density
14. Entropy level of the universe
15. Velocity of light
16. Age of the universe
17. Uniformity of radiation
18. Homogeneity of the universe
19. Average distance between galaxies
20. Average distance between galaxy clusters
21. Average distance between stars
22. Average size and distribution of galaxy clusters
23. density of giant galaxies during early cosmic history
24. Electromagnetic fine structure constant
25. Gravitational fine-structure constant
26. Decay rate of protons
27. Ground state energy level for helium-4
Part 1. Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe 2
28. Carbon-12 to oxygen-16 nuclear energy level ratio
29. Decay rate for beryllium-8
30. Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
31. Initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons
32. Polarity of the water molecule
33. Epoch for peak in the number of hypernova eruptions
34. Numbers and different kinds of hypernova eruptions
35. Epoch for peak in the number of type I supernova eruptions
36. Numbers and different kinds of type I supernova eruptions
37. Epoch for peak in the number of type II supernova eruptions
38. Numbers and different kinds of type II supernova eruptions
39. Epoch for white dwarf binaries
40. Density of white dwarf binaries
41. Ratio of exotic matter to ordinary matter
42. Number of effective dimensions in the early universe
43. Number of effective dimensions in the present universe
44. Mass values for the active neutrinos
45. Number of different species of active neutrinos
46. Number of active neutrinos in the universe
47. Mass value for the sterile neutrino
48. Number of sterile neutrinos in the universe
49. Decay rates of exotic mass particles
50. Magnitude of the temperature ripples in cosmic background
radiation
51. Size of the relativistic dilation factor
52. Magnitude of the Heisenberg uncertainty
53. Quantity of gas deposited into the deep intergalactic medium
by the first supernovae
54. Positive nature of cosmic pressures
55. Positive nature of cosmic energy densities
56. Density of quasars during early cosmic history
57. Decay rate of cold dark matter particles
58. Relative abundances of different exotic mass particles
59. Degree to which exotic matter self interacts
60. Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars)
begin to form
61. Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars)
cease to form
62. Number density of metal-free pop III stars
63. Average mass of metal-free pop III stars
64. Epoch for the formation of the first galaxies
65. Epoch for the formation of the first quasars
Part 1. Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe 3
66. Amount, rate, and epoch of decay of embedded defects
67. Ratio of warm exotic matter density to cold exotic matter
density
68. Ratio of hot exotic matter density to cold exotic matter
density
69. Level of quantization of the cosmic spacetime fabric
70. Flatness of universe’s geometry
71. Average rate of increase in galaxy sizes
72. Change in average rate of increase in galaxy sizes
throughout cosmic history
73. Constancy of dark energy factors
74. Epoch for star formation peak
75. Location of exotic matter relative to ordinary matter
76. Strength of primordial cosmic magnetic field
77. Level of primordial magnetohydrodynamic turbulence
78. Level of charge-parity violation
79. Number of galaxies in the observable universe
80. Polarization level of the cosmic background radiation
81. Date for completion of second reionization event of the
universe
82. Date of subsidence of gamma-ray burst production
83. Relative density of intermediate mass stars in the early
history of the universe
84. Water’s temperature of maximum density
85. Water’s heat of fusion
86. Water’s heat of vaporization
87. Number density of clumpuscules (dense clouds of cold
molecular hydrogen gas) in the universe
88. Average mass of clumpuscules in the universe
89. Location of clumpuscules in the universe
90. Dioxygen’s kinetic oxidation rate of organic molecules
91. Level of paramagnetic behavior in dioxygen
92. Density of ultra-dwarf galaxies (or supermassive globular
clusters) in the middle-aged universe
93. Degree of space-time warping and twisting by general
relativistic factors
94. Percentage of the initial mass function of the universe made
up of intermediate mass stars
95. Strength of the cosmic primordial magnetic field
96. Capacity of liquid water to form large-cluster anions
97. Ratio of baryons in galaxies to baryons between galaxies
98. Ratio of baryons in galaxy clusters to baryons in between
galaxy clusters
99. Rate at which the triple-alpha process (combining of three
helium nuclei to make one carbon
nucleus) runs inside the nuclear furnaces of stars
100. Quantity of molecular hydrogen formed by the supernova
eruptions of population III stars
101. Epoch for the formation of the first population II (second
generation) stars
102. Percentage of the universe’s baryons that are processed by
the first stars (population III stars)
Part 1. Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe 4
103. Ratio of ultra-dwarf galaxies to larger galaxies
104. Constancy of the fine structure constants
105. Constancy of the velocity of light
106. Constancy of the magnetic permeability of free space
107. Constancy of the electron-to-proton mass ratio
108. Constancy of the gravitational constant
109. Smoothness of the quantum foam of cosmic space
110. Constancy of dark energy over cosmic history
111. Mean temperature of exotic matter
112. Minimum stable mass of exotic matter clumps
113. Degree of Lorentz symmetry or integrity of Lorentz
invariantce or level of symmetry of spacetime
114. Nature of cosmic defects
115. Number density of cosmic defects
116. Average size of the largest cosmic structures in the
universe
117. Quantity of three-hydrogen molecules formed by the
hypernova eruptions of population III stars
118. Maximum size of an indigenous moon orbiting a planet
119. Rate of growth in the average size of galaxies during the
first five billion years of cosmic history
120. Density of dwarf dark matter halos in the present-day
universe
121. Metallicity enrichment of intergalactic space by dwarf
galaxies
122. Average star formation rate throughout cosmic history for
dwarf galaxies
123. Epoch of rapid decline in the cosmic star formation rate
124. Quantity of heavy elements infused into the intergalactic
medium by dwarf galaxies during the first
two billion years of cosmic history
125. Quantity of heavy elements infused into the intergalactic
medium by galactic superwinds during the
first three billion years of cosmic history
126. Average size of cosmic voids
127. Number of cosmic voids per unit of cosmic space
128. Percentage of the universe’s baryons that reside in the
warm-hot intergalactic medium
129. Halo occupation distribution (number of galaxies per unit
of dark matter halo virial mass)
130. Timing of the peak supernova eruption rate for population
III stars (the universe’s first stars)
131. Ratio of the number density of dark matter subhalos to the
number density dark matter halos in the
present era universe
132. Quantity of diffuse, large-grained intergalactic dust
133. Radiometric decay rate for nickel-78
134. Ratio of baryonic matter to exotic matter in dwarf galaxies
135. Ratio of baryons in the intergalactic medium relative to
baryons in the circumgalactic media
136. Level of short-range interactions between protons and
exotic dark matter particles
137. Intergalactic photon density (or optical depth of the
universe)
138. High spin to low spin transition pressure for Fe++
Part 1. Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe 5
139. Average quantity of gas infused into the universe’s first
star clusters
140. degree of suppression of dwarf galaxy formation by cosmic
reionization
HTML http://www.iloveatheists.com/top_100/challenge_category/Creation/challenge_answer/289
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page