Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI
SpaceKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Space Forum / Astronomy / September 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Can there be life on Sun?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Sanny - 06 Aug 2008 16:38 GMT
No, Never as it is too hot....

I am interested in some Life form not made of Organic matter but
something else.

If someone says can there be life under Ocean. ignorant will say
anyone who drowns in Ocean dies So no one can live under ocean. But we
know fishes live under water with Gills instead of lungs.

Life can take many shapes and sizes. It can be as small as an ant and
as Big as an Elephant.

Life can be fast as a bird or slow as a tree.

Life is everywhere whether grass, air, inside our Body and can take
any shape and be made of anything one can think of.

There are many elements on the Sun in liquid state. Say molten iron on
the sun works like water on earth.

And the Life uses molter iron as its drink. and the food is the heat
ernergy on tthe Sun.

We see a lot of movement on the surface of Sun may be it is a Big
ocean of Plasma and many creatures live under that hot plasma.

Bye
Sanny
Skybuck Flying - 06 Aug 2008 16:40 GMT
Yes,

That's were the aliens are hiding in our own sun... so we will never find
them ;)

Bye,
 Skybuck =D
Sanny - 06 Aug 2008 16:45 GMT
> Yes,
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Bye,
>   Skybuck =D

Only when someone jumps into a Ocean with Oxygen tank can see the
beautiful fishes under the sea.

But how can man Jump into the Sun's molyten plasma. We need something
that can withstand that temperature and we can use submarines and dive
into the Suns surface and take video of creatures living in the hot
Plasma Ocean on the Sun.

Bye
Sanny
Saul Levy - 06 Aug 2008 20:42 GMT
I can sit in my living room and see beautiful fishes swimming about,
Sanny!  lmao!  On TV!  lmao!

Saul Levy

>> Yes,
>>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>Bye
>Sanny
Orval Fairbairn - 06 Aug 2008 20:04 GMT
> Yes,
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Bye,
>   Skybuck =D

Their women must look really HOT! ;>)

Signature

Remove _'s  from email address to talk to me.

Saul Levy - 06 Aug 2008 20:40 GMT
Yes, we will!  lmao!

As soon as BradBoi visits Venus to get ready for it, he'll visit the
Sun looking for aliens there.

BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Saul Levy

>Yes,
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Bye,
>  Skybuck =D
Martin Hogbin - 20 Aug 2008 18:19 GMT
> Yes,
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Bye,
>   Skybuck =D

We could always go and have a look - at night.

Martin Hogbin
Saul Levy - 20 Aug 2008 22:26 GMT
Or just turn your back on the Sun.  Instant NIGHT!  lmao!

Saul Levy

>> Yes,
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>Martin Hogbin
Sanny - 06 Aug 2008 16:52 GMT
> There are many elements on the Sun in liquid state. Say molten iron on
> the sun works like water on earth.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> We see a lot of movement on the surface of Sun may be it is a Big
> ocean of Plasma and many creatures live under that hot plasma.

Just like we cannot survive in -100^ C Because all water in our body
will turn into ice and blood will become solid.

Those living on the sun cannot survive at temperature on earth. So how
can we contact them. If we touch them we will die as they will be
100,000,000 ^ C and if they come near us we will start burning.

Bye
Sanny
Saul Levy - 06 Aug 2008 20:44 GMT
How far into the Sun do you have to swim to reach a temp. of
100,000,000 degrees, Sanny?

You've been reading too much science FICTION!

Actually, no where in the Sun does it reach that temperature.

Saul Levy

>> There are many elements on the Sun in liquid state. Say molten iron on
>> the sun works like water on earth.
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>Bye
>Sanny
G=EMC^2 Glazier - 09 Aug 2008 14:55 GMT
Cactus saul  Sun core Temp is about 28,000,000 F   Bert
Jeff▲Relf - 10 Aug 2008 04:57 GMT
Life as we know it, indeed .. as we  Define  it ..
requires a super-narrow temperature range.

OldCoot is wrong, nothing stops entropy's eternal march.
At cosmic scales ( giga parsecs ) the gravitational field,
( a.k.a. spacetime, 4-D ), forever diminishes as entropy accrues.

As 3-D space accrues and the cosmos cools, “ life ” adapts.
“ life ” is 3-D motion, a notion .. nature is 4-D static, motionless.
Saul Levy - 11 Aug 2008 23:48 GMT
I know, BEERTbrain, but Sanny doesn't.  lmao!

Saul Levy

>Cactus saul  Sun core Temp is about 28,000,000 F   Bert
zanthius.dxun@gmail.com - 06 Aug 2008 18:14 GMT
> No, Never as it is too hot....

Too hot for organic life perhaps, but there could be other types of
life.

Perhaps the sun itself has a consciousness, and then the sun itself
would be a type of life.
Saul Levy - 06 Aug 2008 20:45 GMT
I'm so sure you could find pretend atheists there!  lmao!

Saul Levy

>> No, Never as it is too hot....
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Perhaps the sun itself has a consciousness, and then the sun itself
>would be a type of life.
Starman - 06 Aug 2008 23:07 GMT
Yeah but isn't our definition of life that it is organic
so what other kind of life should that posible be?

>> No, Never as it is too hot....
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Perhaps the sun itself has a consciousness, and then the sun itself
> would be a type of life.
Androcles - 07 Aug 2008 00:50 GMT
| Yeah but isn't our definition of life that it is organic

OUR definition is NOT your definition.
I happen to know the electrical sockets in my home are alive.
Anthony Buckland - 07 Aug 2008 03:23 GMT
> | Yeah but isn't our definition of life that it is organic
>
> OUR definition is NOT your definition.
> I happen to know the electrical sockets in my home are alive.

Okay, but don't try to kill them by stabbing them with a sharp
knife.

Back to life.  Is it organized, self-reproducing, and metabolic
(in some sense)?  To make it interesting, is it mutable without
necessarily dying?
Androcles - 07 Aug 2008 22:28 GMT
| > | Yeah but isn't our definition of life that it is organic
| >
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
| (in some sense)?  To make it interesting, is it mutable without
| necessarily dying?

Organized... does that mean arranged in some sort of order, as in
organizing a piss-up in a brewery, or does it mean having lungs,
heart, liver etc...?
Self-reproducing...if you have a vasectomy invest in Xerox.
Metabolic -
1 a: the sum of the processes in the buildup and destruction of protoplasm;
specifically : the chemical changes in living cells by which energy is
provided for vital processes and activities and new material is assimilated
b: the sum of the processes by which a particular substance is handled in
the living body

If life is metabolic and metabolism is change in the living then we have a
circular definition.

Mutable without dying.
Now we come to individuals which die and species which do not.

Is larval stage to adult in insect metamorphosis mutable?
In particular, do caterpillars die?

It amuses me that the anti-evolution brigade where a species
changes to adapt to its environment (as man and dog have done)
find that idea preposterous, yet insects can do it within the
life span of the individual.

Machine automata are a simple form of life.
 http://www.ibiblio.org/lifepatterns/

At what level of complexity do we say a chemical reaction is "life",
and does it need to be chemical?

Are viruses alive?  Are bacteria alive?

And I don't care about your answer since it would only be opinion.
henisdov@netvision.net.il - 09 Aug 2008 10:01 GMT
> || "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
>
> And I don't care about your answer since it would only be opinion.

Are Viruses "Alive"?

alive = organism:

arth's organisms: temporary self-replicable constrained-energy genetic
systems that support and maintain Earth's biosphere by maintenance of
genes.

Every "self-replicable" genetic system has a unique package of
essentials for replication...and viruses are not different in this
respect than other organisms.

Dov Henis

PS: 21st Century Life Comprehension

1. Definitions Of Earth Life, Organism, Gene, Genome And Cellular
Organisms.

Earth Life: 1. a format of temporarily constrained energy, retained in
temporary constrained genetic energy packages in forms of genes,
genomes and organisms 2. a real virtual affair that pops in and out of
existence in its matrix, which is the energy constrained in Earth's
biosphere.

Earth organism: a temporary self-replicable constrained-energy genetic
system that supports and maintains Earth's biosphere by maintenance of
genes.

Gene: a primal Earth's organism.

Genome: a multigenes organism consisting of a cooperative commune of
its member genes.

Cellular organisms: mono- or multi-celled earth organisms.

2. Update of life sciences conceptions is now feasible and urgently
desirable

- Earth's biosphere phenomenon is a distant relative of black holes, a
form of constrained
 energy pocket.

- First were independent individual genes, Earth's primal organisms.

- Genes aggregated cooperatively into genomes, multigenes organisms,
with genomes' organs.

- Simultaneously or consequently genomes evolved protective and
functional membranes, organs.

- Then followed cellular organisms, with a variety of outer-cell
membranes shapes and
 functionalities.

3. Nature, Origin, Function And Purpose Of Life

Nature of Earth life: a replicating construction temporarily
constraining and maintaining energy.

Origin of Earth life: serendipitous energy-induced formation of
Earth's primal organisms, individual independent genes.

Nature of Earth's organisms: temporary self-replicable constrained-
energy genetic systems that support and maintain Earth's biosphere by
maintenance of genes.

Function of Earth life: uphold and maintain as much constrained energy
as possible by upholding and maintaining Earth's biosphere.

The purpose of OUR life and its promotion is ours to choose and set.
It derives solely from our cognition.

Dov Henis

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q--?cq=1
Androcles - 09 Aug 2008 11:50 GMT
On 7 ??????, 23:28, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> "Anthony Buckland" <anthonybucklandnos...@telus.net> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 51 lines]
>
> And I don't care about your answer since it would only be opinion.

Are Viruses "Alive"?

alive = organism:

arth's organisms: temporary self-replicable constrained-energy genetic
systems that support and maintain Earth's biosphere by maintenance of
genes.
============================================

Read the thread title and then ask yourself if "arth" is the Sun.
And I don't care about your answer since it would only be opinion.
Jeff▲Relf - 13 Sep 2008 02:54 GMT
Justintruth - 14 Sep 2008 22:42 GMT
http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?rid=22222&fid=513
Starman - 09 Aug 2008 08:47 GMT
No you mean YOUR definition of life is not the same as OURS

> | Yeah but isn't our definition of life that it is organic
>
> OUR definition is NOT your definition.
> I happen to know the electrical sockets in my home are alive.
Androcles - 09 Aug 2008 11:46 GMT
| No you mean YOUR definition of life is not the same as OURS

I mean YOUR definition of life is not the same as other people's, as
some have written to show you. They have their own definitions.
You are the kind of idiot that supports a football team and if it
wins you say "WE won", but if it loses then it was the referee's
fault, yet you are not even a player.
OUR definition is NOT your definition. WE do not agree with YOU,
even if your buddy does.

| > | Yeah but isn't our definition of life that it is organic
| >
| > OUR definition is NOT your definition.
| > I happen to know the electrical sockets in my home are alive.
Starman - 11 Aug 2008 00:05 GMT
You don't get it, it's you that is the laughing stock, nobody sane will support
your definition of life except
the ususal nuts in here, so once again the REAL and NORMAL world do not support
your CYBERWORLD fantasy

> | No you mean YOUR definition of life is not the same as OURS
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> | > OUR definition is NOT your definition.
> | > I happen to know the electrical sockets in my home are alive.
Androcles - 11 Aug 2008 00:13 GMT
See Tom Davidson's argument (tadchem's), top-posting fuckhead.

YOUR definition of life is not the same as other people's, as
some have written to show you. They have their own definitions.
You are the kind of idiot that supports a football team and if it
wins you say "WE won", but if it loses then it was the referee's
fault, yet you are not even a player.
OUR definition is NOT your definition. WE do not agree with YOU,
even if your best buddy does.

| You don't get it, it's you that is the laughing stock, nobody sane will support
| your definition of life except
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
| > | > OUR definition is NOT your definition.
| > | > I happen to know the electrical sockets in my home are alive.
Starman - 11 Aug 2008 01:18 GMT
You clearly don't have a LIFE

and did you just top-post calling me a top-posting fuckhead

and it only seems that it's your best buddy who has another definition of life
than OURS

so i really don't care if you and your football buddy don't agree with US

> See Tom Davidson's argument (tadchem's), top-posting fuckhead.
>
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> | > | > OUR definition is NOT your definition.
> | > | > I happen to know the electrical sockets in my home are alive.
Androcles - 11 Aug 2008 02:28 GMT
f.ck off, cretin, but first see Tom Davidson's argument (tadchem's),
top-posting fuckhead.
YOUR definition of life is not the same as other people's, as
some have written to show you. They have their own definitions.
You are the kind of idiot that supports a football team and if it
wins you say "WE won", but if it loses then it was the referee's
fault, yet you are not even a player.
OUR definition is NOT your definition. WE do not agree with YOU,
even if your best buddy does.

| You clearly don't have a LIFE
|
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
| > | > | > OUR definition is NOT your definition.
| > | > | > I happen to know the electrical sockets in my home are alive.
Starman - 12 Aug 2008 23:43 GMT
What is it with you and your stupid football, who gives a f.ck about what you
think, the rest of the world do not agree with you

you clearly don't have a mind of your own, you quote the same stupid  argument 3
times, and you TOPPOST your self you stupid

lamebrain prick !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you can have your own fantasy definition of life, but it do not change facts of
what can be defined as life, so it really dosen't matter
what you say, it has no value

you are the kind of person who thinks you speak on behalf of everybody if you
find just 1 person who will agree with you

i guess you must be very young since you do not comprehend very much, and you
have a hard time reason with reality
my guess would be that you are 13-14 years old, so don't give up yet you will
gradually learn more when you become adult

> f.ck off, cretin, but first see Tom Davidson's argument (tadchem's),
> top-posting fuckhead.
[quoted text clipped - 49 lines]
> | > | > | > OUR definition is NOT your definition.
> | > | > | > I happen to know the electrical sockets in my home are alive.
Androcles - 12 Aug 2008 23:56 GMT
What is it with you and your stupid life on the Sun, who gives a f.ck about
what you
think, the rest of the world do not agree with you.

f.ck off, I'm done with you.

******************plonk*****************

| What is it with you and your stupid football, who gives a f.ck about what you
| think, the rest of the world do not agree with you
Starman - 13 Aug 2008 00:18 GMT
One more nobrain silenced :-D

grow up and try to learn before you argue with adults again!!

'

> What is it with you and your stupid life on the Sun, who gives a f.ck about
> what you
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> you
> | think, the rest of the world do not agree with you
zanthius.dxun@gmail.com - 09 Aug 2008 10:12 GMT
> Yeah but isn't our definition of life that it is organic
> so what other kind of life should that posible be?

I define life as that which has a consciousness.
Landy - 09 Aug 2008 10:55 GMT
>> Yeah but isn't our definition of life that it is organic
>> so what other kind of life should that posible be?
>
> I define life as that which has a consciousness.

So only humans are life in your book?
Zanthius - 09 Aug 2008 13:04 GMT
> > I define life as that which has a consciousness.
>
> So only humans are life in your book?

No. I am almost completely certain that all animals with a neocortex
have a consciousness, and I am quite certain that organic lifeforms
without the neocortex have some kind of a consciousness, although I
think they are less conscious than organic lifeforms with the
neocortex.
Landy - 10 Aug 2008 00:40 GMT
>> > I define life as that which has a consciousness.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> think they are less conscious than organic lifeforms with the
> neocortex.

Yeah right.  So plants are right out of contention then.........
zanthius.dxun@gmail.com - 10 Aug 2008 09:54 GMT
> Yeah right.  So plants are right out of contention then.........

I think it is possible that plants have some kind of a consciousness,
although I don't think they are nearly as conscious as animals with
the neocortex.

If a bacteria doesn't have any consciousness, then it is merely a self-
replicating machine, not life.
Landy - 11 Aug 2008 11:10 GMT
>> Yeah right. So plants are right out of contention then.........
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> If a bacteria doesn't have any consciousness, then it is merely a self-
> replicating machine, not life.

Kook-a-doodle-doo!
Zanthius - 12 Aug 2008 13:07 GMT
> Kook-a-doodle-doo!

Would you consider a bacteria without any consciousness to be life,
while considering a non organic entity with a consciousness not to be
life? That would be a pretty biased view of life.
Justintruth - 12 Aug 2008 18:56 GMT
> > Kook-a-doodle-doo!
>
> Would you consider a bacteria without any consciousness to be life,
> while considering a non organic entity with a consciousness not to be
> life? That would be a pretty biased view of life.
Justintruth - 12 Aug 2008 19:46 GMT
> > Kook-a-doodle-doo!
>
> Would you consider a bacteria without any consciousness to be life,
> while considering a non organic entity with a consciousness not to be
> life? That would be a pretty biased view of life.

It is a contingent fact, not logically necessary but factually true
that all consciousness "like mine" is associated with a structure that
stores information - i.e. it is associated with some form of nervous
system.

How is this established? I become aware of my own consciousness and my
own body and what it means. For example I am aware of what I am
feeling when I cry, what I am feeling when I am hungry and what it
feels like to eat, to move my hand etc etc. Then, by analogy, I become
aware that there are others around that do the same. In fact the faces
of people give me communication of the state of their consciousness,
not directly but through the medium of their physical expression.
There is a kind of language that is trans species.  I can tell when my
mother is angry and when she is pleased etc. by looking at her face
and listening to the tone of her voice. I can also tell, but not as
well, when a dog snarls that it is not pleased. The details of the
process are not really relevant only that it occurs.

Now we know that a bacteria has a structure and that the information
in its DNA is transcribed over generations, mutated etc. So bacteria
store and retain information and pass it on. But can I communicate
with them?

The question is how far do we take the analogy before it becomes
false? To what extent do we claim that information content in bacteria
imply a consciousness?

I think that the simple level of concern I have when my appendix is
removed or even my arm vs the concern I would  have if my brain were
removed or my endocrine system tampered with gives me the answer. If
my arm were removed and placed on one gurney and the rest of me on the
second I would definitely say that I was on the second gurney. In fact
if my head were placed on one and my body on another and I had to
choose the choice would be obvious. Cryogenics preservation companies
even have "discount" storage for "just the head" for people who hope
to be "revived" in the future. So based on that I would say that
bacteria while still being alive are not conscious and killing one
does not seem to me to be to kill another being. Not so with higher
level animals with nervous systems. Much harder to draw the line there
and to draw it between us and other primates? Very doubtful to me.
However, all of this is by analogy with my own experience not by
logical conclusion but as a fact of experience that I make the
connection. So I can imagine the breakdown of my body and the world
into swirling masses of color with no spatial depth and sounds with no
material origins telepathy going on with others but factually I do not
find that situation to be occurring. Instead I find remarkable
consistency in my experience with object models and with communication
only from organisms having nervous systems.

The only possible exception to this is religious experience in which
messages are received not from a material being in space and time but
there are question on the nature of meaning that need be addressed
there.

So a bacteria is life but the level of its organization does not
sustain the analogy that it is conscious.

I once did an experiment with an ant in which I tried to communicate
with it. I found that by placing my hand around it and blocking its
path at first it just kept moving normally but as I persisted and
became more intrusive there suddenly was a great increase in activity
and the ant tried basically to get away from me. There was a distinct
moment when it, again by analogy with my own experience, seemed to
become suddenly conscious of me as a threat. No amount of gentleness
could I then generate that would relieve it and make it calm down.
Only by removing my self from interaction would its "fear?" subside.
Based on this observation I believe that ants are conscious. Similar
experience can be carried out on bacteria with opposite conclusion.
Justintruth - 12 Aug 2008 19:46 GMT
> > Kook-a-doodle-doo!
>
> Would you consider a bacteria without any consciousness to be life,
> while considering a non organic entity with a consciousness not to be
> life? That would be a pretty biased view of life.

> > Kook-a-doodle-doo!
>
> Would you consider a bacteria without any consciousness to be life,
> while considering a non organic entity with a consciousness not to be
> life? That would be a pretty biased view of life.

It is a contingent fact, not logically necessary but factually true
that all consciousness "like mine" is associated with a structure that
stores information - i.e. it is associated with some form of nervous
system.

How is this established? I become aware of my own consciousness and my
own body and what it means. For example I am aware of what I am
feeling when I cry, what I am feeling when I am hungry and what it
feels like to eat, to move my hand etc etc. Then, by analogy, I become
aware that there are others around that do the same. In fact the faces
of people give me communication of the state of their consciousness,
not directly but through the medium of their physical expression.
There is a kind of language that is trans species.  I can tell when my
mother is angry and when she is pleased etc. by looking at her face
and listening to the tone of her voice. I can also tell, but not as
well, when a dog snarls that it is not pleased. The details of the
process are not really relevant only that it occurs.

Now we know that a bacteria has a structure and that the information
in its DNA is transcribed over generations, mutated etc. So bacteria
store and retain information and pass it on. But can I communicate
with them?

The question is how far do we take the analogy before it becomes
false? To what extent do we claim that information content in bacteria
imply a consciousness?

I think that the simple level of concern I have when my appendix is
removed or even my arm vs the concern I would  have if my brain were
removed or my endocrine system tampered with gives me the answer. If
my arm were removed and placed on one gurney and the rest of me on the
second I would definitely say that I was on the second gurney. In fact
if my head were placed on one and my body on another and I had to
choose the choice would be obvious. Cryogenics preservation companies
even have "discount" storage for "just the head" for people who hope
to be "revived" in the future. So based on that I would say that
bacteria while still being alive are not conscious and killing one
does not seem to me to be to kill another being. Not so with higher
level animals with nervous systems. Much harder to draw the line there
and to draw it between us and other primates? Very doubtful to me.
However, all of this is by analogy with my own experience not by
logical conclusion but as a fact of experience that I make the
connection. So I can imagine the breakdown of my body and the world
into swirling masses of color with no spatial depth and sounds with no
material origins telepathy going on with others but factually I do not
find that situation to be occurring. Instead I find remarkable
consistency in my experience with object models and with communication
only from organisms having nervous systems.

The only possible exception to this is religious experience in which
messages are received not from a material being in space and time but
there are question on the nature of meaning that need be addressed
there.

So a bacteria is life but the level of its organization does not
sustain the analogy that it is conscious.

I once did an experiment with an ant in which I tried to communicate
with it. I found that by placing my hand around it and blocking its
path at first it just kept moving normally but as I persisted and
became more intrusive there suddenly was a great increase in activity
and the ant tried basically to get away from me. There was a distinct
moment when it, again by analogy with my own experience, seemed to
become suddenly conscious of me as a threat. No amount of gentleness
could I then generate that would relieve it and make it calm down.
Only by removing my self from interaction would its "fear?" subside.
Based on this observation I believe that ants are conscious. Similar
experience can be carried out on bacteria with opposite conclusion.
Zanthius - 13 Aug 2008 10:56 GMT
> I once did an experiment with an ant in which I tried to communicate
> with it. I found that by placing my hand around it and blocking its
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Based on this observation I believe that ants are conscious. Similar
> experience can be carried out on bacteria with opposite conclusion.

There is a huge difference between ants and bacterias. Ants are
multicellular eucaryotic organisms, while bacterias are unicellular
procaryotic organisms. I think an ant is much more similar to you
genetically, than to a bacteria.

However, it wouldn't be much difficult to construct a computer program
which would react in the same way as you described the ant reacting.
Would you consider that computer program to be conscious?
Justintruth - 13 Aug 2008 21:28 GMT
> > I once did an experiment with an ant in which I tried to communicate
> > with it. I found that by placing my hand around it and blocking its
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> which would react in the same way as you described the ant reacting.
> Would you consider that computer program to be conscious?

First I don't think that a computer program means something that is
conscious. But then neither do I think a brain means something that is
conscious. But we have to ask the question when does consciousness
occur? Certainly it seems to occur with neurology but what about
neurology causes it? I think that it is possible that should one have
a sufficiently complex computer program running that consciousness
might then occur. It would not be the program running but something
would have occurred and a self conscious individual might occur. This
would be an existential occurrence not an essential one.
Landy - 12 Aug 2008 22:19 GMT
>> Kook-a-doodle-doo!
>
> Would you consider a bacteria without any consciousness to be life,
Yes

> while considering a non organic entity with a consciousness not to be
> life?
No

> That would be a pretty biased view of life.

They are both life.
Jeff▲Relf - 24 Aug 2008 13:35 GMT
“ Consciousness ” is subjective.
A plant does what it has to do ( just as I do what I have to do );
but, when I don't care its objectives, I say it's not conscious.

The only objective view is this:
“ Nothing is acausal; randomness is merely notional.
 The cosmos ‘ just is ’, 4-D static, 4-D motionless, choiceless. ”.
 
P.S. it's possible to be too awake, too active for my own good.
zanthius.dxun@gmail.com - 24 Aug 2008 14:03 GMT
> P.S. it's possible to be too awake, too active for my own good.

I think it is a little more complicated than that. If you are too
awake and feel bad about it, it is probably because you are lacking
certain neurotransmitters to balance the neurotransmitters causing
your awakeness.

If you have too much of a neurotransmitter that stimulates awakeness,
then you need more of a neurotransmitter which stimulates calmness, in
order to be in balance.
Jeff▲Relf - 24 Aug 2008 14:21 GMT
I wrote: “ It's possible to be too awake, too active for my own good. ”
and you replied:
“ I think it is a little more complicated than that.

 If you are too awake and feel bad about it,
 it is probably because you are lacking certain neurotransmitters
 to balance the neurotransmitters causing your awakeness.

 If you have too much of a neurotransmitter that stimulates awakeness,
 then you need more of a neurotransmitter which stimulates calmness,
 in order to be in balance. ”.
 
Are you claiming: “ Drugs obviate the need for sleep. ” ?
zanthius.dxun@gmail.com - 24 Aug 2008 14:46 GMT
> Are you claiming: “ Drugs obviate the need for sleep. ” ?

I thought you meant being too awake, as in having been drinking a
little too much coffee, not as being awake for a too long period of
time.

One of the purposes by sleeping might be to recharge the amount of
neurotransmitter you spent while being awake, but another purpose is
to process the information you accumulated while being awake, and I
don't think drugs can obviate the need to process your unconsciousness.
Jeff▲Relf - 24 Aug 2008 15:13 GMT
I asked if you thought: “ Drugs obviate the need for sleep. ”
and you replied:
“ I thought you meant being too awake,
 as in having been drinking a little too much coffee,
 not as being awake for a too long period of time.

 One of the purposes by sleeping might be to
 recharge the amount of neurotransmitter you spent while being awake,
 
 but another purpose is to process
 the information you accumulated while being awake, and I don't think
 drugs can obviate the need to process your unconsciousness. ”.

OK, I agree with that,
but “ how awake I should be ” depends on my objectives.

Like most computer programmers, I keep long days when in hot pursuit;
in fact, my “ day ” ( sleep plus waking ) is never 24 hours long.

Sometimes my days are 30 hours long, but usually they're ~24.5 hours;
i.e. I wake up later each day, sometimes much later.
Saul Levy - 26 Aug 2008 01:53 GMT
Are you having a case of diarrhea lately, Jeff?  lmao!

You do go on and on and on.

Saul Levy

On 24 Aug 2008 13:21:17 GMT, Jeff?Relf <Jeff_Relf@Seattle.Invalid>
wrote:

>I wrote: “ It's possible to be too awake, too active for my own good. ”
>and you replied:
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>  
>Are you claiming: “ Drugs obviate the need for sleep. ” ?
Jeff▲Relf - 26 Aug 2008 03:23 GMT
I'm not writing too much, you're reading too much.
No one but you tends to read everything I write.

If you could master a newsreader like mine ( X.EXE ),
you'd never see more than the 33 most recent posts of any one author,
and you could drop me into a list of “ Muffled ” nyms.

When a nym is “ Muffled ”:

 All but “ his replies to you and/or his 3 most recent posts ”
 are automatically marked as “ Visited ” ( a.k.a. “ Read ” ),
 making it easy to skip most of what he writes.
Saul Levy - 26 Aug 2008 12:26 GMT
Are you clear, Jeff?  lmfjao!

L. Ron Hubbard rides again!  lmao!

Saul Levy

>On 24 Aug, 14:35, Jeff?Relf <Jeff_R...@Seattle.Invalid> wrote:
>> P.S. it's possible to be too awake, too active for my own good.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>then you need more of a neurotransmitter which stimulates calmness, in
>order to be in balance.
mike3 - 09 Aug 2008 09:10 GMT
On Aug 6, 11:14 am, zanthius.d...@gmail.com wrote:
> > No, Never as it is too hot....
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Perhaps the sun itself has a consciousness, and then the sun itself
> would be a type of life.

So what definition involves "consciousness" as part of "life"? A
bacterium
is alive but not conscious.
zanthius.dxun@gmail.com - 09 Aug 2008 10:16 GMT
> So what definition involves "consciousness" as part of "life"? A
> bacterium is alive but not conscious.

How do you know that a bacteria hasn't some kind of consciousness?

I don't consider anything to be "alive" unless it has a consciousness.
mike3 - 13 Aug 2008 21:36 GMT
On Aug 9, 3:16 am, zanthius.d...@gmail.com wrote:

> > So what definition involves "consciousness" as part of "life"? A
> > bacterium is alive but not conscious.
>
> How do you know that a bacteria hasn't some kind of consciousness?
>
> I don't consider anything to be "alive" unless it has a consciousness.

What do you define as a "consciousness", then? Once that is provided
perhaps a meaningful discussion of whether a bacterium has
consciousness
would be possible. A bacterium certainly lacks the complexity of a
human,
for example, so my definition of "consciousness" may not agree with
yours
(that it is like what a human has.).
Saul Levy - 06 Aug 2008 20:39 GMT
If it can't have sex, then it isn't life, Sanny!  lmao!  There are
many things which no matter how you combine them won't form a living
thing.

No sex leads to EXTINCTION!

There is NO LIQUID ON THE SUN!  Repeat 1 million times:  The Sun is
all gas!  A bit above 212 degrees F. there is NO life.  Can asbestos
think?  I don't think (!) so.  Reread what I wrote about intelligent
red clams on Mars.  lmao!

Your views on life are about as well-informed as your views on the
Sun.

Do you dream this sh.t up in your sleep?

Saul Levy

>No, Never as it is too hot....
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>Bye
>Sanny
hhc314@yahoo.com - 06 Aug 2008 21:39 GMT
> No, Never as it is too hot....
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> Bye
> Sanny

Hey Sanny,my uncle Don claimed to have been born on the Sun, but
unfortunately the authorities did no belive this, when they closed
down his still and took him away to the 'rest home'.

Harry C.
Mark Earnest - 06 Aug 2008 21:48 GMT
> No, Never as it is too hot....
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> anyone who drowns in Ocean dies So no one can live under ocean. But we
> know fishes live under water with Gills instead of lungs.

And that is just how ignorant people are when they say life cannot be on
Mars, or Venus, or Saturn, or Pluto...or the Moon...or yes, even the Sun.

As was said on Jurassic Park, "Life will find a way."
Saul Levy - 06 Aug 2008 23:56 GMT
It's pouring rain, Mark!  Does that help?  lmao!

Saul Levy

>> No, Never as it is too hot....
>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>As was said on Jurassic Park, "Life will find a way."
tadchem - 06 Aug 2008 21:49 GMT
> No, Never as it is too hot....
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> Bye
> Sanny

"Life" implies organization - reduction of entropy.  All life forms of
whatever nature may be described as more organized arrangements of the
substance of their environment.

When the environment is one of matter found in the periodic table of
the elements, "life" must be composed of *organized* forms of that
matter.

To organize matter found in the periodic table, two or more atoms must
be attached to each other.

The state of MAXIMUM entropy (i.e. the absence of all possible life)
is one in which no two atoms are connected together even momentarily.
It is a state in which each atom goes its own way without regard for
anything any other individual atom may be doing.

The sun is composed of, among other things, helium.  Helium has an
ionization energy of about 24.5 electron-volts.  This is the highest
ionization energy of any element that can be placed on the periodic
table.

This means that there is a temperature above which the thermal
agitation is sufficient to ionized even helium atoms.  IIRC, this
temperature is about 3800° - 4500° K.

Because it has the highest ionization energy of all possible chemical
elements, when helium is ionized, everything else is also ionized.
Electrons have been removed and all that remains is positively charged
ions drifting aimlessly in a sea of hot electrons.

Positive ions cannot form bonds to each other.  They cannot form
organized structures.  Molecules of any kind cannot exist in a helium
plasma.

The temperature of the photosphere (the visible "surface" of the sun)
averages about 5800° K
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosphere

The sun is simply too hot for ANY organized chemical structures to
form.

The most "organized" structures that can form in the sun are purely
physical and temporary 'structures' called convection cells:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection_cell
which last only a few minutes, and are no more alive than similar
convection cells here on earth (called "thunderstorms").

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Sanny - 07 Aug 2008 06:06 GMT
> Because it has the highest ionization energy of all possible chemical
> elements, when helium is ionized, everything else is also ionized.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> organized structures.  Molecules of any kind cannot exist in a helium
> plasma.

May be Molecular bonds are not possible but Nuclear Bonds are possible
at that temperature.

Instead of Molecules the Life would be made of Nuclear Bonds may be.

Bye
Sanny
Justintruth - 06 Aug 2008 22:01 GMT
With respect to organic life like carbon based life on earth no... but
you don't mean that... you mean can there be other things...

One of the mysteries of life is that it seems to occur whenever there
is an information accumulation or in other words whenever there is an
ongoing decrease in entropy. In fact, one may posit a ongoing decrease
in entropy as a defining characteristic of life. That is why there is
interest with respect to computers as to whether they are alive
because they in fact can store information. We know that our brains
store information and we know we are alive so we can make the working
assumption that any ongoing ability to store of information will
result in some life form. This is an hypothesis not a statement of
fact. In a sense our lives are as a result of the sun loosing a little
of what it would need to support life and giving that to us. That is
why most life on the earth is dependent on a food chain that
terminates with light from the sun.

So your question becomes, could there be something on the sun that
could store information.

The answer lies, in my mind in the second law of thermodynamics. Life
on earth is dependent on energy from the sun because it then breaks
the isolation of the system and allows the buildup of information.
Without that you can't build information and given our working
characteristic of life you can't have it.

So there are two possibilities. One that an external energy source is
providing energy to the sun and that will allow the organization of
some form of matter or else that there is some zone on the sun that is
different from some other zone and that is receiving energy from and
internal transfer.

My understanding is that the sun is broadcasting energy and there are
no non-negligible external sources of energy. That would mean the sun
as a whole cannot be a brain.

The next question is whether part of the sun could. The problem there,
is to find some subset of the sun that is capable of storing
information in an ongoing fashion.

There does not appear to be states available in any of the physical
processes. In fact all of the models that I am aware of, I am not a
solar scientist but have only a layman's grasp of the sun, still all
of the models have the physics represented by statistical equilibrium
rather than a buildup of information.

So the real trick is to find some physical states that could be
organized in the physics of the sun. I am afraid I know of none. The
information in our brains appears to be stored in mechanical
structures requiring matter organized in the solid state. In other
words it is the arrangement of atoms into structures that appears to
be where the information is stored. This structuring is inherent in
the process of information storage. There are no such solid structures
in the sun as the heat would destroy them.

So in a sense the answer is simply that the sun, due to its
temperature, is far too fluid a place to have life. There are no
physical states that can receive and store information.

The one other possibility is that the sun, as it is part of larger
structures, could be like an atom is in a body, a piece of a much
larger sized brain. Unfortunately it doesn't look that way to me. When
we look at large scale formations in the universe it does not seem to
be organized into a computer-like structure. In fact it appears to be
more like dust than a structure.

So every way I can think of saying yes to the answer seems to have a
road block.

The only possibility left would be for the sun to support life without
corresponding physical organization. There is no current theory that
rejects that as an option but there is a problem with that. The
problem is that it could not communicate with us through our senses as
that would mean that the sun was somehow organizing and it is not. So
if there is life in the sun we won't be able to know it unless it
turns out there is non-physical communication.

If there is that communication, then there can be life in the sun that
is not associated with the physics of the sun but only associated with
its location. If you believe that consciousness requires the physical
arrangement of some matter, that life is inherently corporal, then
this is impossible. In any case I know of no one who has communication
from beings living in the sun and sense the burden of proof would be
on those that conclude that there is life there, then I conclude,
absent that proof there is no life there.

So again I keep coming up with the no answer.

Too bad. It would be neat.

> No, Never as it is too hot....
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> Bye
> Sanny
curmudgeon - 06 Aug 2008 22:12 GMT
NO the Suns gasses are way to Hot to Burn.
But they do make the Loudest Noises of anything in our Solar System.

*curmudgeon*
"The best read illiterate in the country"
Uncle Al - 06 Aug 2008 22:57 GMT
> No, Never as it is too hot....
[snip rest of crap]

At night, forever running before the terminator.

> Sanny

An example of ruptured Sannytation.

Signature

Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Mark Earnest - 07 Aug 2008 03:18 GMT
> No, Never as it is too hot....

Life is on the Sun right now even as we speak...

...for the simple reason that we are talking about it.

How for heaven's sake can one talk about nothing?
tadchem - 07 Aug 2008 10:42 GMT
> > No, Never as it is too hot....
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> How for heaven's sake can one talk about nothing?

You haven't heard Barack speaking yet, have you?

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
mike3 - 13 Aug 2008 21:40 GMT
> > "Sanny" <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> You haven't heard Barack speaking yet, have you?

Heh. We've got 2 empty suits up there, and one or the
other is going to replace that plant (weed) we have in the
White House right now.
Saul Levy - 10 Aug 2008 18:08 GMT
Every time you open your mouth, Mark, nothing good comes out!  lmao!

Saul Levy

>> No, Never as it is too hot....
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>How for heaven's sake can one talk about nothing?
Mark Earnest - 10 Aug 2008 21:05 GMT
> Every time you open your mouth, Mark, nothing good comes out!  lmao!

Then what, precisely, are you laughing at?
You are either made happy by what I wrote, or you wish to prey
on the disabled.

Which is it?

> Saul Levy
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>>
>>How for heaven's sake can one talk about nothing?
Saul Levy - 13 Aug 2008 10:50 GMT
Exactly, Mark, I am laughing AT you!  lmao!

Yes, you are disabled!

Saul Levy

>> Every time you open your mouth, Mark, nothing good comes out!  lmao!
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>> Saul Levy
Tom Potter - 07 Aug 2008 06:54 GMT
I understand that the Israeli Space Agency plans
a manned landing on the Sun.

To avoid the heat,
they plan to land at night.

( And leave before sunrise. )

They used General Relativity to plan the trip.

Signature

Tom Potter

http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Uncle Ben - 09 Aug 2008 12:30 GMT
> No, Never as it is too hot....
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> Bye
> Sanny

There aren't even liquids on the Sun.  At its temperature, everything
is a gas.  Can you imagine life in gaseous form?

Uncle Ben
Wordsmith - 09 Aug 2008 18:37 GMT
> No, Never as it is too hot....
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> Bye
> Sanny

If life existed on or in the sun, it'd probably be some type of
gaseous
plasma critter, nothing like anything on this planet.

W : )
Edward Green - 10 Aug 2008 12:48 GMT
> No, Never as it is too hot....
>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> We see a lot of movement on the surface of Sun may be it is a Big
> ocean of Plasma and many creatures live under that hot plasma.

One can abstract away the chemistry of terrestrial life, or indeed any
chemistry at all.  But one cannot abstract away, as far as I can tell,
the element of structure.  So your question would seem to be: "Can
matter under the conditions of the surface or interior of the sun
support complex structures persistent enough to allow the kinds of
behaviors we might recognize as a life "?

My first reaction is “no”, but I don’t know enough to give a better
answer.  The structural substrate of life need not have the same
scales of length and time as life forms we are familiar with.  There
is a lot of elbow room in the Sun!  There might be “microbes”
kilometers across.

Given some kind of substrate, that is.  At least the Sun is far from
dead in the colloquial sense that it is turbulently active: it’s not a
featureless glowing ball of gas.    It seems to have weather, and
quite a lot of it!  But can this turbulence support structures that
mimic the role of molecules in life on Earth?  I don’t know.
Sanny - 10 Aug 2008 17:46 GMT
> One can abstract away the chemistry of terrestrial life, or indeed any
> chemistry at all.  But one cannot abstract away, as far as I can tell,
> the element of structure.  So your question would seem to be: "Can
> matter under the conditions of the surface or interior of the sun
> support complex structures persistent enough to allow the kinds of
> behaviors we might recognize as a life "?

Life on Sun need not eat anything it can get energy from the sun's
heat

> My first reaction is “no”, but I don’t know enough to give a better
> answer.  The structural substrate of life need not have the same
> scales of length and time as life forms we are familiar with.  There
> is a lot of elbow room in the Sun!  There might be “microbes”
> kilometers across.

We often think life with age of 1 month - 100 years.

What about life form that live for only 1 second. There can be a life
which has a lifetime of just 1 sec.

Or may be some Living giant which lives for million years. and for him
1 year = 1 second. So we are unable to detect its movements.

Bye
Sanny
Edward Green - 10 Aug 2008 19:00 GMT
> > One can abstract away the chemistry of terrestrial life, or indeed any
> > chemistry at all.  But one cannot abstract away, as far as I can tell,
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Life onSunneed not eat anything it can get energy from thesun's
> heat

Technical point: what life needs is not energy, but "free energy",
which is roughly, the ability to do work.  But no problem.  There is
plenty of free energy available in and near the sun for the same
reason there is plenty of free energy available on the Earth --
because the (hot) sun is radiating into (cold) space.

> > My first reaction is “no”, but I don’t know enough to give a better
> > answer.  The structural substrate of life need not have the same
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Or may be some Living giant which lives for million years. and for him
> 1 year = 1 second. So we are unable to detect its movements.

All true.  We would be unable to communicate with life that lived on a
time scale wildly outside ours.
Justintruth - 11 Aug 2008 23:29 GMT
> Technical point: what life needs is not energy, but "free energy",
> which is roughly, the ability to do work.  But no problem.  There is
> plenty of free energy available in and near the sun for the same
> reason there is plenty of free energy available on the Earth --
> because the (hot) sun is radiating into (cold) space.

Another technical point: What life needs free energy for is to reduce
entropy and produce information. I don't know of any way to store
information in the material states of the sun. So...

Conjecture: Life needs to arrange matter into structures that create
consciousness and represent information external to the structure
internal to it.

Conclusion: There is no life on the sun.

Why: Because the temperature is too high to maintain material
structures.

Possible and unlikely exception: If life is indeed "caused" in the
material sense by some kind of arrangement of particles then, it is
possible but highly unlikely that the sun or a part of the sun could
achieve such an organized state spontaneously in a chance coincidence
and for that time such and arrangement would be technically alive.
This would be a failure of the second law of thermodynamics but is
technically possible and highly unlikely.
Edward Green - 12 Aug 2008 00:28 GMT
> > Technical point: what life needs is not energy, but "free energy",
> > which is roughly, the ability to do work.  But no problem.  There is
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> entropy and produce information. I don't know of any way to store
> information in the material states of the sun. So...

Nor do I, but I can't rule out the possibility either.

Structure, or information, as you put it, need not be limited to
stable arrangements of matter; I can neither rule out nor rule in
possible stable structures in the states of matter and energy found in
the sun.  I don't believe you can either, except by bald assertion.
The constituents of structure might be persistent field and flow
patterns.

Here is an example of an unlikely but persistent structure: the
magneto generative core of the Earth.  A front running hypothesis is
that the molten iron has in effect boot-strapped itself into a self-
exciting generator, parasitic on whatever effect allows the core to
continue circulating instead of running down -- nuclear?  Tidal
effects?

Ok... one single planetary core sized structure is not going to allow
the evolution of life, but what if similar smaller regions could
persist in the hot plasma in the sun -- as I already mentioned, we at
least have abundant free energy available to drive steady state non-
equilibrium processes. You have a lot of room, and you have a lot of
time: but I don't know if you could create structures of sufficient
persistence and complexity to create what we might recognize as
"life".

Purest idle speculation, I readily admit.

> Conjecture: Life needs to arrange matter into structures that create
> consciousness and represent information external to the structure
> internal to it.

Somebody has already mentioned that this definition is unduly
restrictive, as it puts plants and fungi right out of the picture.

> Conclusion: There is no life on the sun.
>
> Why: Because the temperature is too high to maintain material
> structures.

You may simply be insufficiently imaginative: the information need not
be encoded in cold matter.
Zanthius - 12 Aug 2008 13:37 GMT
> You may simply be insufficiently imaginative: the information need not
> be encoded in cold matter.

Your consciousness is not cold matter. Your consciousness is an
emergent field of brain waves generated by the combined neural
activity of all the neurons in your head.

Your consciousness is never turned off during your life. When you are
sleeping you are merely reducing the oscillation frequency of your
consciousness, you are never turning it off.

If information is stored it the field of your consciousness, then all
of your memories might be erased, if you somehow managed to completely
turn off your consciousness, much like the information stored in the
RAM of your computer would be erased if you just turned off your
computer.
Sanny - 14 Aug 2008 09:54 GMT
> > You may simply be insufficiently imaginative: the information need not
> > be encoded in cold matter.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> sleeping you are merely reducing the oscillation frequency of your
> consciousness, you are never turning it off.

Does plant have neural network or any consciousness? Still we call
them Life?

So there can be a life which is just floating and controlled by
magnetic fields on Sun.

We all know plasma can be controlled by magnetic field. So may be life
on Sun uses Magnetic field to move plasma Just like we use solid
movements using Bones.

Bye
Sanny
Zanthius - 14 Aug 2008 10:13 GMT
> We all know plasma can be controlled by magnetic field. So may be life
> on Sun uses Magnetic field to move plasma Just like we use solid
> movements using Bones.

I think it is highly probable that the sun and other stars are
somewhat alive. Would be an awful waste of space to create so many
beautiful stars, unless they are somewhat alive.

I don't think the earth is at the center of the universe. I think the
universe if full of life.
Sam Wormley - 14 Aug 2008 17:59 GMT
>> We all know plasma can be controlled by magnetic field. So may be life
>> on Sun uses Magnetic field to move plasma Just like we use solid
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> I don't think the earth is at the center of the universe. I think the
> universe if full of life.

  No Center
    http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
    http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

  Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
    http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
    http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
    http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

  WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
    http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

  WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
    http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
Benj - 14 Aug 2008 20:09 GMT
>    No Center
>      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>    WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
>      http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

Thanks Sam!

Your "references" constitute the finest proof so far that I've ever
seen that cosmology is the world's largest load of rubbish!

Right. Every point of the universe is it's "center" even those at the
"edge".  And it's because our theories are only valid for the part of
the universe we "see". The part that we don't see (and haven't the
slightest clue about) is what makes the whole theory valid. You know
where the universe was once a "point" but now that point "expanded"
such that it isn't any "center". The Galaxies don't expand they just
get farther apart.  But they all stay the same and are just as much
part of the "invisible" universe.  And you guys have the nerve to
laugh at the other people who believe "God" made it all.

Hey, I've got an "invisible" force coming out of my a.s making a
noise!  I think I'll call it "cosmology"!  Maybe if I light it with a
lighter it will give me a "Big Bang"!
Y - 14 Aug 2008 20:20 GMT
Regarding life. . .

In the 4th dimension, all life on Earth would be strewn together as an
indistinguishable singular object.  The Earth itself would be a donut
around the sun, the sun and earth both of which, strewn again to
whatever coughed it up inthe first place. Like Peter Cooks Guiness
world record snot stream.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A8lm3CHe4k
Zanthius - 14 Aug 2008 21:06 GMT
>    No Center
>      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>    WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
>      http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

In what way is this related to the discussion about if life can exist
in plasma?
Sam Wormley - 15 Aug 2008 06:16 GMT
>>    No Center
>>      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> In what way is this related to the discussion about if life can exist
> in plasma?

  Read the linked material and find out.
Zanthius - 15 Aug 2008 08:34 GMT
> Read the linked material and find out.

I am not going to read through a lot of information about the big bang
theory which I am already aware about.

If you have any information explicitly about why life can or cannot
exist in plasma, then please show me directly to it.
Sam Wormley - 15 Aug 2008 17:52 GMT
>>  Read the linked material and find out.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> If you have any information explicitly about why life can or cannot
> exist in plasma, then please show me directly to it.

  It might help to define what you consider life to be....
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions
Zanthius - 15 Aug 2008 18:31 GMT
>    It might help to define what you consider life to be....
>      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions

I think anything that has a consciousness should be considered life,
don't you?
Antares 531 - 15 Aug 2008 18:38 GMT
>>    It might help to define what you consider life to be....
>>      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions
>
>I think anything that has a consciousness should be considered life,
>don't you?

This is true, but it is not complete. Plants don't have a
consciousness, but they are definitely a form of life. The two most
general qualifications are;

Reacts to a stimulus

Reproduces
Sam Wormley - 15 Aug 2008 18:48 GMT
>>    It might help to define what you consider life to be....
>>      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions
>
> I think anything that has a consciousness should be considered life,
> don't you?

  Can rocks have consciousness?
  Can graphite have consciousness?

  Electrolysis of water is the decomposition of water (H2O) into
  oxygen (O2) and hydrogen gas (H2) due to an electric current being
  passed through the water. Would the oxygen gas have consciousness?
  Would the hydrogen gas have consciousness?

  OK--Your question, can plasma have consciousness?

  Most people associate consciousness with life and most
  people define life similarly to concepts listed at
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions

  So my question is... what is necessary, in your opinion, for
  some entity to possess consciousness?
Zanthius - 16 Aug 2008 08:55 GMT
>    So my question is... what is necessary, in your opinion, for
>    some entity to possess consciousness?

Anything capable of generating something similar to your brainwave
field should have a consciousness.
Sam Wormley - 16 Aug 2008 15:26 GMT
>>    So my question is... what is necessary, in your opinion, for
>>    some entity to possess consciousness?
>
> Anything capable of generating something similar to your brainwave
> field should have a consciousness.

  In other words, neuron activity!
George Hammond - 16 Aug 2008 18:48 GMT
>>>    So my question is... what is necessary, in your opinion, for
>>>    some entity to possess consciousness?
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>   In other words, neuron activity!

[Hammond]
  Plants do not have neurons however plant cells do have
microtubule meshes the same as animal cells.
  Microtubules have been substantially implicated in human
consciousness (Penrose, Hameroff) as a "subconscious
computer".  Therefore  it is not beyond the realm of
possibility that plants DO have some kind of a low level
"consciousness" related in principle to human consciousness.
  Ergo, they probably do have a "god phenomena" and an
"eternal life phenomena" similar in kind if not degree just
as the animals do.
=====================================
    SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
  mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
     GOD=G_uv   (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================
Painius - 17 Aug 2008 00:25 GMT
> . . .
> =====================================
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
> ==================