Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19
5119 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2086


  Reply # 1624664 6-Sep-2016 15:37
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

I stand corrected. Apparently human evolution is considered to have begun about 6 million years ago. I thought it was more recent.

 

 

How do you define human?  Very subjective. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 





Mike

Glurp
8262 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3796

Subscriber

  Reply # 1624674 6-Sep-2016 15:46
Send private message

For the purpose of this specific topic, I subjectively define it as the evolutionary line that is considered to have led to modern mankind. I am well aware that any definition is arbitrary to a degree and I'm sure we could start all the way back from the first bacterium or anything in-between, but 6 million years ago seems to be generally agreed  as the branch on the tree of life that led to us. That works for me.

 

  





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 




13430 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2428

Trusted

  Reply # 1624720 6-Sep-2016 17:16
Send private message

Looks like 15 million years ago. Biological life started about 4.1 billion years ago

 

 

 

 

 

 

Family

 

Hominidae

 

Great apes: humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans—the hominids

 

15

 

 

 

Subfamily

 

Homininae

 

Humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas (the African apes)

 

8

 

 

 

Tribe

 

Hominini

 

Genera HomoPan, and the Australopithecines

 

5.8

 

 

 

Subtribe

 

Hominina

 

Genus Homo and close human relatives and ancestors after splitting from Pan—the hominins

 

2.5

 

 

 

Genus

 

Homo

 

Humans

 

2.5

 

 

 

Species

 

(Archaic) Homo sapiens

 

Neanderthals

 

0.5

 

 

 

Subspecies

 

Homo sapiens sapiens

 

Anatomically modern humans

 

0.2

 

 

 


353 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 74

Subscriber

  Reply # 1624984 7-Sep-2016 10:50
Send private message

It's hard to understand how everything in the universe started from a dot.

 

Even harder than that, modern physics theory tells us that it didn't even start from a dot - it started from NOTHING. That's really something!





McLean

Glurp
8262 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3796

Subscriber

  Reply # 1624989 7-Sep-2016 11:21
Send private message

No-one really understands it, not the experts and certainly not anyone here. Through the Wormhole just did an episode on nothingness and I have seen a couple other documentaries recently that suggest that space is not empty, but filled with fundamental particles or other forms of energy, so nothing is not really nothing and I suppose that means something can emerge from it. A lot of it is just semantics and how we define things within the limits of our comprehension. What we think of as nothing may not be nothing at all. At least, I think so.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


7396 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3863


  Reply # 1625006 7-Sep-2016 11:48
Send private message

The zero energy universe hypothesis is (IMO) the most ideologically pure, as it doesn't need to consider a "before" or "creator", leaving only the problem defining how a quantum fluctuation could happen before spacetime existed. That becomes a philosophical question, as if it didn't happen there'd be no possibility of anything observing it, so it's consistent with the anthropic principle - that it happened so that it could be observed to have happened.  It even allows for the strong anthropic principle - that it happened specifically in the way that it did, so that you (and I) would be created.  That doesn't preclude the possibility of a god - but makes the concept of a paternalistic god seem very unlikely.  When you're feeling insignificant and mortal, just think that you won't cease to exist in expanding spacetime, only at the point in time that you observe as "now".


Mad Scientist
19013 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2469

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1625007 7-Sep-2016 11:49
Send private message

mclean:

 

It's hard to understand how everything in the universe started from a dot.

 

Even harder than that, modern physics theory tells us that it didn't even start from a dot - it started from NOTHING. That's really something!

 

 

That's not surprising. We can't even understand our own brain. In fact no one even knows why we sleep.


2853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 798

Subscriber

  Reply # 1625024 7-Sep-2016 12:44
Send private message

mclean:

 

It's hard to understand how everything in the universe started from a dot.

 

Even harder than that, modern physics theory tells us that it didn't even start from a dot - it started from NOTHING. That's really something!

 

 

Ah - it started from Seinfeld!


1224 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 123


  Reply # 1625235 7-Sep-2016 19:11
Send private message

mclean:

It's hard to understand how everything in the universe started from a dot.


Even harder than that, modern physics theory tells us that it didn't even start from a dot - it started from NOTHING. That's really something!


I don't think there is a theory of the start of the universe yet. Relativity doesn't go back that far in time. And I think the quantum stuff has a few gaps still.

The field theory for general relativity (as I understand it) says that the universe has an internal pressure pushing out which is what is causing it to expand. As far as I can see that holds true when time (t) is > 0. It probably also holds true when t=0 but that's quantum I guess.




Software Engineer

 


31 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 5

Subscriber

  Reply # 1625637 8-Sep-2016 13:17
Send private message

MikeAqua:

How do you treat infinity in arithmetic?


Infinity - Infinity = what


Are two separate infinities the same size?


Can you even have two separate infinities? One infinity should spatially preclude a 2nd infinity existing?


Or can infinities nest like Russian dolls?


After all everything should fit in an infinity?



Hi,

If you are interested in bending your mind, you might want to investigate transfinite arithmetic. It's a whole bunch of fun, if you like that sort of thing.

Have you realised that when you count from 0 to 1 you have just encompassed an infinity of real numbers? And we can map each countable integer into the range from 0 to 1 inclusive. It's full of cool concepts like that

Cheers

31 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 5

Subscriber

  Reply # 1625657 8-Sep-2016 13:28
Send private message

TwoSeven:
mclean:

It's hard to understand how everything in the universe started from a dot.


Even harder than that, modern physics theory tells us that it didn't even start from a dot - it started from NOTHING. That's really something!


I don't think there is a theory of the start of the universe yet. Relativity doesn't go back that far in time. And I think the quantum stuff has a few gaps still.

The field theory for general relativity (as I understand it) says that the universe has an internal pressure pushing out which is what is causing it to expand. As far as I can see that holds true when time (t) is > 0. It probably also holds true when t=0 but that's quantum I guess.


There is a very good book called The First Three Minutes which gives a good explanation of the current theories about the big bang, inflation and so on. Written at a lay level , but some quite deep concepts. It's nice because they caught explains the current thinking and points out the difficulties for each along the way..

I would be interested in understanding the comment about field theory and general relativity. I have been away from theoretical physics for some time, and was not aware that there was such a thing. Any references?

Cheers

1739 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 349

Trusted

  Reply # 1630769 15-Sep-2016 11:10
Send private message

Ok, I'll admit it, I am fascinated by the Universe smile.

 

But I've skipped over most of the thread as the Big Bang stuff, string theory and infinite universi strains my brain.

 

Though I do enjoy The Big Bang Theory on TV, does that also count ? That doesn't strain the brain too much..

 

This is awesome:

 

A billion stars of the Milky Way captured in space map of night sky

 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/space/news/article.cfm?c_id=325&objectid=11710104

 

Have also been following the Electron rocket story - I'll be keen for a road trip to Mahia when this all starts up.

 

I also have APOD ( Astronomy pic of the day) running on two of my PC's, and also on my S5.

 

 





My thoughts are no longer my own and is probably representative of our media-controlled government


7396 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3863


  Reply # 1650764 13-Oct-2016 23:28
Send private message

Here's something new and reasonably interesting - at least worthy of further investigation:

 

Original paper:

 

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1610/1610.03031.pdf

 

Very cautious comment from SETI:

 

https://seti.berkeley.edu/bl_sdss_seti_2016.pdf

 

 

 

 


7396 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3863


  Reply # 1656226 22-Oct-2016 16:50
Send private message

Perhaps the rate of expansion of the universe isn't accelerating:

 

 The ‘standard’ model of cosmology is founded on the basis that the expansion rate of the universe is accelerating at present — as was inferred originally from the Hubble diagram of Type Ia supernovae. There exists now a much bigger database of supernovae so we can perform rigorous statistical tests to check whether these ‘standardisable candles’ indeed indicate cosmic acceleration. Taking account of the empirical procedure by which corrections are made to their absolute magnitudes to allow for the varying shape of the light curve and extinction by dust, we find, rather surprisingly, that the data are still quite consistent with a constant rate of expansion.

 

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep35596

 

There has been speculation that there were flaws in the standard candle model for type 1a supernovae:

 

https://science.slashdot.org/story/15/04/12/037220/supernovae-may-not-be-standard-candles-is-dark-energy-all-wrong


Mad Scientist
19013 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2469

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1656236 22-Oct-2016 17:21
Send private message

Fred99:

 

Perhaps the rate of expansion of the universe isn't accelerating:

 

 The ‘standard’ model of cosmology is founded on the basis that the expansion rate of the universe is accelerating at present — as was inferred originally from the Hubble diagram of Type Ia supernovae. There exists now a much bigger database of supernovae so we can perform rigorous statistical tests to check whether these ‘standardisable candles’ indeed indicate cosmic acceleration. Taking account of the empirical procedure by which corrections are made to their absolute magnitudes to allow for the varying shape of the light curve and extinction by dust, we find, rather surprisingly, that the data are still quite consistent with a constant rate of expansion.

 

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep35596

 

There has been speculation that there were flaws in the standard candle model for type 1a supernovae:

 

https://science.slashdot.org/story/15/04/12/037220/supernovae-may-not-be-standard-candles-is-dark-energy-all-wrong

 

 

The science of scientists are so flawed they can't even tell if butter or margarine is good or bad, yet people have complete faith in their hypothesis of the beginning of time and what T-rex looked like.


1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.