Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


MarkE last won the day on May 18 2018

MarkE had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

10 Neutral

About MarkE

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Genetics, evolution, astronomy and logic

Recent Profile Visitors

2742 profile views
  1. So when it's said that fungi colonised the land before plants, it's meant that they were able to do this as symbionts of green algae?
  2. From the same link in that description I've provided. So green algae were the first to colonise land, and fungi along with them as symbionts? I've always interpreted this development of algae colonising the land synonymous to evolving from algae first into moss (which is why lichens show morphological similarities with mosses), but I guess there was a period that green algae could survive on land without having to evolve into moss first?
  3. First the non-vascular bryophytes (mosses, liverworts, hornworts) during the Ordovician period (which started around 490 million years ago) that evolved from green algae. Mosses lack true leaves, true roots and vascular tissue. It therefore can’t conduct sugar or water through the plant, only diffusion and osmosis. Then came the vascular seedless plants (ferns, horsetails, clubmosses) during the Devonian period (which started around 420 million years ago). A fern is vascular, but still contains spores, just like moss, and thus a swimming flagellated sperm cells. The oldest-known vascular plants have been identified in deposits from the Devonian. One of the richest sources of information is the Rhynie chert, a sedimentary rock deposit found in Rhynie, Scotland. A rich diversity of fungi (that often live together with plants, or algae such as lichens) is also known from the Rhynie chert. (By the way, when the haploid spore germinates it generates a multicellular gametophyte by mitosis. Male gametophyte = anther (tip of stamen), female gametophyte = ovary. Both produces gametes. The sporophyte stage (growing phase, the non sexual part) is barely noticeable in these lower plants, or ‘spore plants’. In seedless vascular plants the diploid sporophyte became the dominant phase of the lifecycle.) Gymnosperms (from cycads to ginkgos to conifers), dominated the landscape in the early Triassic (about 250 million years ago) and middle Jurassic. Angiosperms (flowering plants) surpassed gymnosperms by the middle of the Cretaceous (about 100 million years ago. The same genes that are responsible for flower development in Amborella (ancient, basal angiosperm) are the same genes that are responsible for the male cones of the gymnosperms, so it seems that the flower developed from the male cone). - - - What I don't quite understand myself is how "Fungi probably colonized the land during the Cambrian, over 500 million years ago, (Taylor & Osborn, 1996". That would mean before the Ordovician period, and thus before plants came onto land. But how could they have survived without their counterpart symbiont to deliver them glucose? Maybe you (or somebody else) can help me with this question? Thanks.
  4. I've found an old topic on this forum regarding this subject, maybe you'd like to read that discussion? I'm a fan of this hypothesis by the way, how about you?
  5. I'm interested in who supports this idea, and who doesn't, and why. Do we have more arguments in favour of this hypothesis than arguments against it?
  6. Thanks! These papers are too mathematical for me, but I appreciate your references to them anyway. So even though it can be modeled this way, it doesn't necessarily have to tell us anything about reality?
  7. Who supports the idea that a positron is simply an electron going the other direction in time? According to this PBS Space Time video (at 5:50 minutes), “antimatter is time reversed matter”. Does everybody here unanimously agree with that? Why (not)?
  8. Thanks! Interesting thoughts. If answer A is indeed more plausible than answer B, I think I'll have to rearrange my brain a little bit. That's going to be a tough job, but I'll try.
  9. I’d like to visualise what I’m talking about. First there's the observable Universe, which is where we are. Next, it's possible that even more galaxies lie beyond the observable Universe (and perhaps even more Universes in one giant multiverse). Note that this belt is obviously not to scale, because we don’t know how far this region stretches. My question is: what do we find at the region of the question mark (meaning beyond the boundary of (all) Universe(s))? A) If your answer is “On the question mark we'll find even more galaxies” then my question is "What lies beyond them?". There has to be a last galaxy, or at least a last particle, because the Universe contains an amount of particles, instead of an infinite uncountable quantity, because that doesn’t make any real sense (only in mathematics). B) If your answer is “On the question mark we'll find nothing at all”, then what can you tell me about these last galaxies/particles at the far end of the belt with more galaxies (the boundary before the question mark)? How do these particles inwards/outwards behave? C) If your answer is neither A or B, then what could be an alternative explanation? If all of this has nothing at all to do with dark energy whatsoever (which is why this topic was started in the first place), my question is: What do you think is the most plausible explanation for dark energy? Bonus points to anyone who attempts to visualise his explanation as well .
  10. You’re saying that this hypothetical boundary/edge would be behind an event horizon (just like a BH). The process of anything falling through such a horizon is not a reversible process, and that it should radiate heat (just like Hawking radiation). Therefore “the universe would have to be really, really hot, and continuously heating up further”. Is that the right conclusion to make? If I understand you correctly, what you’re concluding is that this lost energy has to be accounted for. Well, why do cosmologists never take living organisms in account? We’re definitely adding something to the Universe, since we are changing our composition (evolving) and thus become more organised, and apply more order (reverse entropy), and according to some interpretations of quantum mechanics it's nonlocal, meaning the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently of the state of others, even when the particles are separated by a large distance. A quantum state must be described for the system as a whole. In the case of consciousness, David Bohm pointed toward evidence presented by Karl Pribram that memories may be enfolded within every region of the brain rather than being localised (for example in particular regions of the brain, cells, or atoms). So how do we, living organisms, fit in? Why would you conclude "this is not what we observe", and thereby ignore yourself when describing the workings of the Universe? Could you explain a bit further please why this would be the case? That's not my quote, this was my quote: What we do observe is that galaxies that at twice as far away from us have redshifts that are also twice as large. Does this mean that the Hubble distance will increase forever, without any limit? Do we really have to use maths to describe how strongly something is attracted by something else? Also on Earth? You can't explain observations of movements of particles just by maths alone. Where is the force that lifts your finger to type the words on your keyboard coming from? That's also an attractive force, isn't it? We're not objects following simple rules of attraction set by the laws of nature that we've discovered. Not that those laws are wrong, but being human is very different from inorganic matter. So if you were referring only to inorganic matter, than you're absolutely right, but I really think you're thinking too mechanical and scientifically about humans. It depends on what your definition of "infinite" means. What does an infinite Universe mean in the first place? How is it infinite? Were you referring to the mathematical definition of "infinite"? Because I'm a supporter of the notion that the Universe came from nothing, since I don't believe in free energy, which has always existed, and without any input was already present. And because of that, you'd expect to find that initial state at the far end of the Universe (meaning the beginning of the Universe). Why do living organisms die? Because no matter how you handle or conserve the energy that you possess, you will eventually return to that initial state. On another level, that same rule applies in a physical sense, because all energy will also, quite literally, return to where it came from, if no force is acted upon it (by living organisms). A static Universe therefore can’t be right (and has been ruled out) because that would mean free energy. But a Universe with energy not being attracted back, to disappear into mass, would also mean a Universe with free energy, and if there’s one thing I don’t believe, it’s free energy. So in some way, all living things are kind of “virtual” (referring to how virtual particles behave) since we exist for a small period of time, and then die, but before that, we’re able to reproduce ourselves to postpone our fate. The event horizon is a stronger gravitational part of a black hole, so gravity could be much stronger on short distances (not 4πr2 (3 dimensions), like the inverse square law of light, but 2πr (2 dimensions). Compared to the other three forces, the force of gravity gets much stronger at smaller distance scales and higher energies. I'm not sure if that pattern continues all the way down (since quantum gravity hasn't been figured out yet), but the force of gravity should overwhelm the other forces at that scale.
  11. No I’m saying the exact opposite, if you’re closer to it, you’ll be attracted more strongly, which could explain dark energy (just like a gravitational field of a BH is much stronger when you’re closer to it). Numbers aren’t real, I’ve said that already in another topic. Numbers are invented by humans. Proportions are real (like the Fibonacci sequence), not numbers. You can’t describe reality using only maths. Maths isn’t science, it’s a tool for science. Again, it’s the exact opposite. I don’t think there’s “something” beyond the Universe (because when I’m talking about this term “something” I’m referring to matter or energy, Standard Model stuff), but even the absence of both matter or energy, “nothing” may still exert a gravitational force instead of being inert. We’ve also had this discussion (why a black hole’s gravity can’t be caused by mass of Standard Model matter), so let’s not discuss that again. My point is that, what resides inside a black hole might be of the same nature as this black edge. Does it make mathematical sense that there is something rather then nothing? Zero should remain zero (and no mathematical equation will ever change a 0 into a 1), so scientifically speaking, we can’t have a Universe filled with energy in the first place (since you always need a source of energy to create anything). Therefore we’re forced to think beyond mainstream physics, and therefore, even though you’re absolutely right by making that statement, I’m not limiting myself by the notion that it doesn't make physical or mathematical sense. You’re referring to the Einstein equations, but quantum physics is true only for the quantum world, Newtonian physics is true only for our everyday lives on Earth, and Einsteins GR is true on even larger scales. But all three have their limitations, so it’s quite possible that Einstein’s GR has it’s limitations as well on even larger scales, for instance when describing the behaviour of dark energy. So to refer to Einstein equations on one scale/level, in order to rule out my statement about another level, is like referring Newtonian physics when trying to explain something like the strong force. Again, you’re absolutely right, the law is correct, but on different levels there seem to be different laws, and dark energy might be part of such a different level. This boundary/edge is not a thing, not made of stuff, but it’s a region that might be described with the same behaviour as a black hole. So indeed, there’s nothing (not "something", meaning no matter/energy) beyond the Universe, but that doesn’t mean it’s inert towards matter/energy. In fact, it might be the most attractive force of all. Perhaps it could even describe dark energy without the need of anything new/exotic. To explain dark energy without adding a new form of energy. And to explain how a Universe could have come from nothing. I really think we’re not talking about the same thing here. You have way more expertise, so I wouldn’t dare to question these kinds of insights of yours. I just think we’re not talking about the same thing here (probably because I’m not explaining it at your level of understanding). Sorry, I'm trying my best!
  12. We already know that the first statement is true, the Universe started about 14 billion years ago. Therefore the second statement can't be true. Do you agree?
  13. @Mordred You're mentioning the CMBR, but this a smal anisotropy, suggesting that galaxies are indeed attracted to the edge of the Universe equally in all directions, exactly what you would expect if the gravitational attraction of an edge behaves like a black hole. Why do you think that, to make statements about what's beyond the Universe, we need to only look at our observable Universe? The Universe wouldn't be able to keep on expanding if it's already infinite. Take something like expanding metal, like a cube of aluminium. It has a surface area which forms a border for the matter contained inside. So the Universe must have, far far away from where we are, a border for all the matter and energy it contains. Why? Simply because if the Universe has no border, then what lies beyond all the matter in the Universe? Nothing? Well, than that’s the border I’m talking about. That's deductive reasoning, rather than reasoning only by means of empirical observations. How could there be no border/edge? The question is how matter and energy behaves close to that border, and how it is attracted or repulsed by it. So why would anyone introduce a new kind of energy, instead of assuming that it behaves like all other large-scale cosmic attractive forces: SMBHs? Since gravity is the smallest force in the small quantum microcosm, but the largest force in the macrocosm, it seems plausible that in even larger scales gravity should be an even more and more attractive force, that's why I'm considering a black edge (meaning a border/edge that has an attractive force just like a BH), explaining why we're being ripped a part more strongly every day, because all galaxies are moving towards it (we call dark "energy"). Is this answering your questioning about the interaction of the radiation from within the Universe with the edge, @studiot? Astronomers have observed about 1,000 galaxies with redshifts larger than 1.5. That is, they have observed about 1,000 objects receding from us faster than the speed of light, because the Hubble distance is not a constant, it's in fact increasing (infinitely?). The radiation of the cosmic microwave background has traveled even farther and has a redshift of about 1,000. When the hot plasma of the early universe emitted the radiation we now see, it was receding from our location at about 50 times the speed of light. Do I understand this? No I don't. Do you? My main point remains that the Universe has to have a border or edge somehow. Because if not, then what lies beyond the matter and energy of our Universe?
  14. Could you explain your question a bit further please? Why should this be the case? A black hole doesn't seem to have a preferred direction of attraction towards celestial bodies, so why would a black edge have a stronger gravitationally attraction in one particular direction of the Universe (causing this anisotropy)?
  15. 1) Just like the black hole information paradox, radiation becomes mass, "information" gets lost. 2) It will become more massive, not unlike the increasing Schwarzschild radius of a black hole. But if something like Hawking radiation would also occur is of course beyond my scope, but I assume that mass can be conversed into radiation to balance this natural process out. The famous "inflating balloon" analogy would be inside out by the way (instead of all galaxies in the Universe being located on an actual surface). I guess you don't support any modified gravity theories?
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.