Welcome to Theories Demystified, where we make complex theories easy to understand! Our goal is to take challenging and often intimidating theories and explain them in a clear and concise way, so that anyone can learn and appreciate the wonders of science and mathematics. Join us as we demystify the world's most fascinating and mind-bending concepts.
You do realize the spontaneous generation Pasteur debunked was referring to fully formed multi-cellular organisms? People thought flies just appeared from meat, which is what was arguing against. Even apart from his experiments, this would violate the law of conservation of mass and energy. Abiogenesis is a 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 different idea and comparing it to the idea of spontaneous generation is a strawman of the highest order. We know that organic molecules self assemble, we have proved this in labs. If you don't trust the scientists being honest, fine, but we have literally found organic molecules in space. The current best evidence suggests that the earliest abiogenesis could have occurred was approximately 200 million years after the Earth was cool enough to be habitable. Something you'll notice about Pasteur's experiment is that he did not, in fact, leave the broth out for 200 million years (plus it might not have had all the molecules necessary for abiogenesis). Now I hear you saying, "why don't we see abiogenesis happen all the time? After all, we have a ton of organic molecules necessary." The reason why this doesn't happen is because there is so much life on earth, that the organic material required will be consumed before it can self assemble into life. Even if it did, the organism would get eaten before it has any amount of time to adapt to its environment. This wouldn't have been a problem 3.5 - 4 billion years ago, because there was no life to do this, and once there was life, it was so primitive and limited in number that there was still ample opportunity for another abiogenesis event to occur. I don't know if the creator of this video is disingenuous, or just ignorant, but I'm getting the feeling that its the former. Please do more research and use better arguments next time you make a video. And stop making strawmen, it's not cool. Videos like this are why science communication is hard, and you are making the problem worse. I'm going to check out your channel, and I 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 hope I don't see more blatant misinformation there, because this video alone is incredibly damning.
Sadly this model doesn't work. These models were used alot back in the 1900s and the Hawking Penrose singularity theorems tended to put a death to these oscillating models. This is because what the singularity theorem of Penrose showed was that a universe that is in gravitational self collapse will go down to a singularity if this then happens time and space will simple come to an end its physically impossible for anything to pass through a singularity to re-expand and start a new universe again due to singularity theorems so the model is physically impossible. A second problem with this model is when we begin to look at the 2nd law of thermodynamics Entropy. If the universe did oscillate like that then Entropy would be preserved from cycle to cycle basically meaning that this law would continue to increase in the universe. This has a peculiar effect of then making each oscillation have a larger radius and a longer expansion time so it would just get bigger and bigger and bigger what that means if you trace the cycles back in time they get smaller until you come to an absolute beginning of the universe which debunks oscillating on a infinite scale so the model proposed has an infinite future but a finite past.
Creations in the Book of Genesis are processes, and our Heavenly Father's time is different from us. Einstein was inspired by the idea that time is relative in Jewish culture.
You are familiar with Michelson's experiments. (1881) and its improvements for the discovery of gravitational waves (2015). And that's only 50%. It is possible to continue this experience; Use "two non-circular spools of fiber from the gyroscope." This is how the speed of a car is measured in a straight line (the movements of the satellites are not recorded) I can share ideas for a joint invention.
Nam mô cao đài tiên ông đại bồ tát ma ha tát thường hằng Nam mô cao đài tiên ông đại bồ tát ma ha tát thường hằng Nam mô cao đài tiên ông đại bồ tát ma ha tát thường hằng
It's becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with only primary consciousness will probably have to come first. What I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990's and 2000's. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I've encountered is anywhere near as convincing. I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there's lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order. My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar's lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman's roadmap to a conscious machine is at arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461
The only problem is we have no evidence that gravity will ever crunch us back in, as attractive as it seems, the closer theory to me seems to be CCC by Roger Penrose
Premordial or probiotic soups of single organic molecules can never produce a fully functional RNA or autocatalyst mechanism naturally, no matter how many times they were to strike by lightnings. Even if RNA were really produced they won't survive long enough for further development into a single cell organisme.
Pretty sure there's tons of papers and experiments that demonstrate how ribozymes would have formed there with their auto catalytic properties. Besides over the course of 500 million years it's pretty likely that a protocell would have formed
We simply just don't know how the universe was created nor what existence even really is. Absolutely 'nothing' nonexistence to 'something' is a head scratcher for sure. Love the guesswork though! God's, Big Bangs ect.
einstine was an idiot any one that tries to understand the meaning of life through mathamatics is an idiot the only book that tells you the truth is the bible .
einstine was an idiot any one that tries to understand the meaning of life through mathamatics is an idiot the only book that tells you the truth is the bible .
