[Newfie]

VT,

Or to put it another way “shit happens”.

Not disparaging your ideas. We always come back to some black hole of knowledge.

As far as we know, maybe, everything started from the Big Bang. What created the Big Bang?

It’s too much like asking “Who created God?” to not draw comparisons.

At some point the “scientific theories” fall short or simply defy human understanding. I lost it in doing eigen vectors and comprehending 13 dimensional matricies.

So here’s a wacko contemplation of mine. Most of our 4 fundamental forces seem to have opposing components, positive and negative. Gravity excepted. Of our 4 dimensions x/y/z/time, only time is unidirectional. But maybe time and gravity are locally visible manifestations of one another, the underlying force being something that exists in more than the normal dimensions we can detect?

A 3 wine glass explanation is that gravity pulls everything together while time pushes everything apart. We try to measure the expansion of the universe and find it accelerating, and lament it’s countered by gravity. But the expansion only happens with a time coordinate. So I wonder is there is not some tie between gravity and time we are not fully appreciating?

Well, that went waaaay off topic. My apologies, we will now return to your regular programming.

[vtsnowedin]

Newfie:

My apologies

Accepted.
Have another glass. The night is young.

[EnergyUnlimited]

And I thought it was love and sex that got us here.

You have an uphill struggle with no prospect of success while attempting to explain origins of life on purely materialistic grounds with randomness and vast numbers of trials as the only resource available.

But that appears to be the only valid explanation that exists.

It is not an explanation because it is supported by nothing and also in breach of laws conserving information in physics.
Life of course exists but we don't know why?

Life is basically processing of an information (coded in DNA/RNA for the forms we know).
Emergence of life out of unliving matter would call for said information to appear out of nowhere.
That would be contrary to few most sacred cows in physics.
It can be proven that information appearing out of nowhere is an equivalent of breach of energy conservation laws.
Total content of information in Universe is constant, very much like content of mass/energy.

information is not energy and the amount of it is not constant.

You really need to learn more of physics before pursuing this nonsense any further.
Here you have a relevant lecture from Stanford University, lengthy but informative:
http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses/s ... /lecture-1
Also some current conundrums in modern physics related to hypothetical breach of conservation of information:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hol ... on_paradox
And classical Maxwell's Demon related reasoning in physics demonstrating that non-conservation of information causes non-conservation of energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon
Physics is more interesting than many people suspect.

Refer to Unitarity Principle if in doubt.
So where this information about workings of living organisms was before RNA/DNA existed?
How it got loaded into those molecules?
Etc...

You must go back to random events over a billion years with several theories from lighting strikes on a primordial ocean to thermal vents on the sea floor with or without an ice sheet above etc. One I dismiss is that fragments from some other planet with life on it seeded earth. That just moves the question to how it got started on the source planet without any available evidence to study it.
The least probable theory is that God on the third day created plant life and on the forth and fifth days added fishes and land animals.
But believe what you will there is no way to go back and observe what actually happened.

Information cannot "emerge" out of randomness. Neither it can be destroyed. Scrambled and made exceedingly difficult to retrieve - yes, but not destroyed.
Processed or copied - yes, but not created.
Claiming to the contrary is a plain nonsense.
It would be a breach of laws of physics.
Unitarity Principle would be in line, conservation of energy would be in line etc.

Regarding your primordial soup around thermal vents - no experimental evidence at all that life was created this way. Shaking bags of screws and other chunks of metal and plastic doesn't make a car, regardless how long you shake.
Ever thought how chiral organic compounds have emerged first?
Do you even know what chirality is?

And no, you don't need biblical Gods and crucified Jews imposting them to demonstrate that naive materialistic view is plain stupid.
Information related to workings of life had to be there for as long as Universe we know exists.
But what this information exactly is, what is an exact nature of it, how it found its way into Universe or how it have appeared at exact beginning of it is a mystery.

[dohboi]

(Sheesh, and I'm the one that has been accused of being off topic for bringing up Trump's insane and dangerous response to covid once or twice!! )

My best high school buddies went on to become astro-physicists and mathematicians, so we had quite a few pretty high level (for teens, and probably for most adults) discussions about the current trends in physics. I kept up with some of these issues beyond high school, but not as much recently.

Anyway, I certainly have no doubt that physics is quite interesting, though the far reaches sometimes get beyond what is provable. (What's happening with 'string theory' these days?)

And yes, I had to look up chirality, but when I did, it jogged memories of my organic chem classes in college. As I recall, I was the only one in my study group who could easily conceptualize these 3-d issues (stereochemistry).

(I would be in favor of moving this whole conversation elsewhere, though, scintillating as it may be.)

[EnergyUnlimited]

(Sheesh, and I'm the one that has been accused of being off topic for bringing up Trump's insane and dangerous response to covid once or twice!! )

My best high school buddies went on to become astro-physicists and mathematicians, so we had quite a few pretty high level (for teens, and probably for most adults) discussions about the current trends in physics. I kept up with some of these issues beyond high school, but not as much recently.

Anyway, I certainly have no doubt that physics is quite interesting, though the far reaches sometimes get beyond what is provable. (What's happening with 'string theory' these days?)

(I would be in favor of moving this whole conversation elsewhere, though, scintillating as it may be.)

It is an interesting subject and VTS is a pain in the buttock, but if he wish to discuss it in intelligent manner, rather than making few statements of the simplicito I am open to assist him.
But he needs to review relevant mainstream science before pontificating further his case.
If he simply denies existence of this science without producing arguments (as he often does in other situations), then he must be left in his own world with it.

Regarding insistence that string theory and SUSY related to it must be true - it is no longer a scientific pursuit but career and status preservation exercise.
Some people undoubtedly very bright are too proud to admit that they were wrong.
Multiverse on the other hand is just a religion/metaphysics and cosmic inflation is a hypothesis with rather shaky evidence (and no, CMB does not make a trick). Not falsified yet but in deep trouble.
Peter Voit has something to say about it:
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/
Here also is one exceedingly clever woman well versed in physics (Sabine Hossenfelder) and her blog:
https://backreaction.blogspot.com/

Re chirality:
I was designing and executing synthesis of novel chiral compounds for my living but a subject is vast, also from philosophical point of view and exceedingly important when dealing with origins of life.

[vtsnowedin]

It is an interesting subject and VTS is a pain in the buttock,

Said the kettle to the pot.

It is not an explanation because it is supported by nothing and also in breach of laws conserving information in physics.

It is supported by the fossil record that clearly shows life began at a point in time and began quite simply and evolved over billions of years. Today we expect our scientists to develop a vaccine in a few months to a couple of years. Imagine a lab that takes a billion years to get an experiment right. And the formula for that vaccine will be new information that did not exist before and no amount of energy being applied could have created without experimental trial and error. Lose the formula and that information is gone as if it never existed. Imagine the amount of information lost each generation before the advent of writing. Each persons knowledge was wiped clean upon their deaths except what could be taught to children and grandchildren before you died. So the two greatest advancements in our history are writing and then printing, one to record our successes and the other to spread the word of same to the world.
I find it ironic that while arguing science over religion I am being called a GOP science denier for mentioning snow in late April in Vermont. To call into question the validity of one experiment or theory is not to deny all science just the one theory. If theories were not questioned and tested it would not be science.
There that is my first cup of the day view.

[jedrider]

A 3 wine glass explanation is that gravity pulls everything together while time pushes everything apart. We try to measure the expansion of the universe and find it accelerating, and lament it’s countered by gravity. But the expansion only happens with a time coordinate. So I wonder is there is not some tie between gravity and time we are not fully appreciating?

Dirac also thought so, just based upon two ratios being similar in size.

Paul Dirac on Dimensionless Physical Constants and "Large Number Hypothesis"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o8mUyq_Wwg

But, I usually stop at two glasses of wine.

[Newfie]

JD,

Thanks, I’ll try to watch that. Slow connection means. Often can not stream.

[dissident]

Understanding life is dependent on understanding organic chemistry. It is clear that RNA and DNA are a class of "anti-entropic" chemical reaction products where simpler organic precursors assemble into more complex and functional products. It is the actual evolution of this part of organic chemistry that is interesting. Self-replicating molecules appeared before any life. Whether a substrate played a role is not clear but would be likely since it would increase the probability of the chemical system evolution in the right direction. So hydrothermal vents playing a role is not "zero evidence" hypothesis. A catalytic environment provided by the surface of complex mineral solids would be a cheat on the time needed to sample enough of the reaction phase space to find the Gibbs free energy minimum that gives rise to self-replicating molecules.

The second stage is how these self-replicating molecules transitioned into life. This is another evolutionary processes. But it is also microphysical. A cell looks in many ways like a liquid aerosol particle with dissolved hydrophilic organics and a shell of hydrophobic organics. So it is plausible that self-replicating molecules evolved in an environment that looked like a cell for millions of years. Evolution inside mixed organic aerosol particles makes sense since that would be a sheltered environment compared to being dissolved in sea water. It would also be a confined environment promoting the recycling of chemical products.

Again hydrothermal vents are possible zones with sustained "aquasol" production (the physical properties of such particles would be the same as the air borne variety). Vents are sources of organic molecules and not just inorganic mineral solutes.

Anyway, life of some form is basically inevitable on any planet that has any chemical resemblance to Earth and there are vast numbers of such planets and even moons. It would not be a surprise if fossil life was found on Mars since it had oceans in the past.

[EnergyUnlimited]

It is not an explanation because it is supported by nothing and also in breach of laws conserving information in physics.

It is supported by the fossil record that clearly shows life began at a point in time and began quite simply and evolved over billions of years. Today we expect our scientists to develop a vaccine in a few months to a couple of years. Imagine a lab that takes a billion years to get an experiment right. And the formula for that vaccine will be new information that did not exist before and no amount of energy being applied could have created without experimental trial and error.

Physics approaches such issue differently than you suggest.
If lets say vaccine is developed, it implies that information how to get around this task already exists in Nature.
The job of researchers involved is to retrieve it and act upon it.
There is no creation of information upon any scientific discovery.
Information is simply retrieved from Nature.

Lose the formula and that information is gone as if it never existed. Imagine the amount of information lost each generation before the advent of writing. Each persons knowledge was wiped clean upon their deaths except what could be taught to children and grandchildren before you died. So the two greatest advancements in our history are writing and then printing, one to record our successes and the other to spread the word of same to the world.

Every mainstream physicist will assert that information content of the book is not lost upon burning said book.
He will assert that the information within it is scrambled and recovery might be incredibly difficult but not impossible as long as energy required to retrieve it is available.
He will say that exceedingly detailed analysis of falme spectrum and properties and trajectories of molecules and atoms froduced by burning will indeed make such a task feasible, resources given.
It may be impractical but still possible.

I find it ironic that while arguing science over religion I am being called a GOP science denier for mentioning snow in late April in Vermont. To call into question the validity of one experiment or theory is not to deny all science just the one theory. If theories were not questioned and tested it would not be science.
There that is my first cup of the day view.

In general scientific theory is always a model of certain scope of application.
It can be falsified but never proven as "true".
Karl Popper was working on it:
https://explorable.com/falsifiability
So if you come with proposal which is not open to attempts to falsify it, then your theory is not scientific.
https://explorable.com/falsifiability
Hence Multiverses and similar theories are not scientific, just a mixture of metaphysics with modern incarnations of religion.

[EnergyUnlimited]

Understanding life is dependent on understanding organic chemistry. It is clear that RNA and DNA are a class of "anti-entropic" chemical reaction products where simpler organic precursors assemble into more complex and functional products. It is the actual evolution of this part of organic chemistry that is interesting. Self-replicating molecules appeared before any life. Whether a substrate played a role is not clear but would be likely since it would increase the probability of the chemical system evolution in the right direction. So hydrothermal vents playing a role is not "zero evidence" hypothesis. A catalytic environment provided by the surface of complex mineral solids would be a cheat on the time needed to sample enough of the reaction phase space to find the Gibbs free energy minimum that gives rise to self-replicating molecules.

For all these wonders to proceed, there must be an information in Nature already present, how to proceed with a task.
In absence of this information evolution would not proceed.
Without this information which can be retrieved somehow from Nature evolution is a meaningless concept.
You will also find number of stages in evolution of life where something known as irreducible complexity is present.
Photosynthesis is a good example.
It requires about 100 different enzymes working in concerted fashion to proceed.
There are no "simpler versions" of photosynthesis, regardless of few variants currently known.
Take away or sufficiently alter one of these 100 enzymes or genes responsible for their production or other genes and fragments of DNA regulating expression of putative coding genes and process no longer works.
So getting there by evolution of simpler variants is simply not plausible.
No one up to date have come with credible evidence to the contrary and many tried.
You need all 100 of these very specific enzymes and cooperating genetic machinery to run photosynthesis but all of them separately are completely useless.
Do you see a problem here?

Anyway, life of some form is basically inevitable on any planet that has any chemical resemblance to Earth and there are vast numbers of such planets and even moons. It would not be a surprise if fossil life was found on Mars since it had oceans in the past.

This is a statement of faith supported well... by nothing.
An attempt to plot a curve base on a single data point.

Also - in addition to hydrothermal vents there is a multitude of other proposals, how life have emerged.
If for example cosmic panspermia is correct, then life might be relatively common in Universe.

[dissident]

You are spewing theoretical masturbation. For example, in organic chemical oxidation there is no pure entropic cascade for hydrocarbons into CO2 and H2O. In fact, there are thousands of daughter products which can exhibit very complex moiety characteristics. And those daughter products can keep on generating even more complex compounds. There is a whole spectrum of functionalization reactions in addition to de-functionalization reactions. Auto-oxidation of isoprene generates molecules with substantially higher molecular weights.

The implicit assumption you are pimping is that organic chemistry is too simple to explain DNA. This is outright BS since DNA and cellular respiration are exactly organic chemistry. Not some deus ex machina construct. Your dismissal of hydrothermal vents shows you have no understanding of the processes involved. You may as well claim that life is like finding a clock on beach and there must be a "maker". Well, genius, the maker is organic chemistry and microphysics.

[EnergyUnlimited]

For example, in organic chemical oxidation there is no pure entropic cascade for hydrocarbons into CO2 and H2O. In fact, there are thousands of daughter products which can exhibit very complex moiety characteristics. And those daughter products can keep on generating even more complex compounds. There is a whole spectrum of functionalization reactions in addition to de-functionalization reactions. Auto-oxidation of isoprene generates molecules with substantially higher molecular weights.

All this is true and yet not relevant to our discussion.
BTW, there are limits of this complexity or otherwise final pathway to CO2 would not occur.

The implicit assumption you are pimping is that organic chemistry is too simple to explain DNA. This is outright BS since DNA and cellular respiration are exactly organic chemistry. Not some deus ex machina construct. Your dismissal of hydrothermal vents shows you have no understanding of the processes involved. You may as well claim that life is like finding a clock on beach and there must be a "maker". Well, genius, the maker is organic chemistry and microphysics.

You are confusing distinct chemical transformations with retrieving of information required to implement useful sequences of these chemical transformations in practical setup like living organism.
And no, I do not have problems with organic chemistry.
While in the trade I was designing and running countless synthetic organic chemistry processes in pharma and from my earlier years I have research publications with a Nobel Prize winner (Prof. John F. Stoddart).
Further - these publications are dealing with self assembly of complex organic structures, with molecular switches etc.

It is precisely your lack of understanding of organic chemistry what is sending you on a wild goose chases.

[vtsnowedin]

Physics approaches such issue differently than you suggest.
If lets say vaccine is developed, it implies that information how to get around this task already exists in Nature.
The job of researchers involved is to retrieve it and act upon it.
There is no creation of information upon any scientific discovery.
Information is simply retrieved from Nature.

You are combining facts with information. The facts do not change, but when humans find the facts and how to use them they gain that "New" information. If they do not write down that information the information can be lost but the facts remain to be rediscovered again or perhaps hundreds of times until someone writes it down (or enters it into a computer today). Burning a book would only destroy the information contained if it was the only copy of the book or the source notes for that book. Think of Leonardo Da Vinci's note books. What a loss of information if they had been destroyed as there were no copies elsewhere.

In general scientific theory is always a model of certain scope of application.
It can be falsified but never proven as "true".
.

[/quote]
There are many theories that have been proven to be true. The acceleration due to gravity on earth, the speed of light, the reaction of sulfuric acid,+ Nitric acid +glycerine to a shock wave.

[EnergyUnlimited]

You are combining facts with information. The facts do not change, but when humans find the facts and how to use them they gain that "New" information.

That is lay man's interpretation.
For physicists content of information in Universe is constant or time invariant if you prefer.
Look, this information conservation issues are of very profound consequences for development of modern physics.
There must be a lot of desperation out there if concepts like holograhic principle are seriously considered.
Most likely another wild goose chase with the brightest people on Earth having a run but who knows?

Burning a book would only destroy the information contained if it was the only copy of the book or the source notes for that book. Think of Leonardo Da Vinci's note books. What a loss of information if they had been destroyed as there were no copies elsewhere.

Information can be copied for example in copies of book or copies of DNA.
Nevertheless even if the last book of any author is burned physics in principle allows to retrieve information contained in it.
Technicalities would be extraordinarily difficult, well beyond our current engineering capabilities, but in principle it is possible.

There are many theories that have been proven to be true. The acceleration due to gravity on earth, the speed of light, the reaction of sulfuric acid,+ Nitric acid +glycerine to a shock wave.

You don't understand basic concepts of scientific method.
We are dealing with *models* which are only approximations.
They are exceedingly good approximations but not more than that.
I will go through your examples:

1. Gravity on Earth is not a theory.
Basically we have 2 connected working theories dealing with gravity.
Newtonian theory of gravity - suitable for low energy realm.
General Relativity suitable for low and higher energy realms.

Newtonian theory was falsified first time by observation of peculiarities of Mercury orbit which could only be explained by GR.
We also know that GR must be falsified in vicinity of events horizons (BH fireball paradox) and even more so closely to central objects present there because it is resulting in infinities - implausible.

So there must be a more general model of gravity theory - known as quantum gravity.
Sadly no one have presented any equations let alone experimental protocols testing its viability.

2. Speed of light.
Again - as measured it is a fact, not a theory.
I have never heard nor any physicist have heard about "theory of speed of light" - such animal does not exist.
Speed of light (c) is related to properties of vacuum, its electric (ε) and magnetic (μ) permeability.

So we can proudly say that c=1/sqrt [μ(0)ε(0)]

Fact, not theory

3. Your final example, eg production and subsequent explosion of nitroglycerine are processes, not theories. These processes are well explained by quantum mechanics dealing with interactions of atoms and also thermodynamics dealing with flows of energy and entropy.

So you even cannot give an example of theory, let alone discussing it.

Basically there are 4 established theories in physics.

1. General Relativity dealing with gravity
2. Quantum Mechanics dealing with interactions of matter and radiation.
3. Standard Model dealing with properties of subatomic particles
4. Thermodynamics dealing with flows and conservation of energy, entropy and information.

Anything what science deals with currently can be derived out of these 4 basic theories as one of special examples.
Sometimes electromagnetism with Maxwell and Dirac equations is added as "fifth theory" but closer look easily reveals that it is a special example of QM with a tint of SM.
Of these 4 theories 3 are to a higher or lower degree troubled and are already to a degree falsified or are known to be incomplete.
So GR falls apart in vicinity of extremely dense objects by producing nonsensical outcomes (infinities), QM and precisely its emanation known as Quantum Field Theory fails miserably if applied to explain so called Zero Point vacuum energy by getting results 120 orders of magnitude higher than observable value and Standard Model is full of assumptions drawn out of hat (or out of ass if you prefer).

But Thermodynamics holds strong (minus so called entropy gaps related to expanding, gravitationally unbound Universe what prevents true thermodynamic equilibrium to be reached between distant regions even after infinite time but these are fortunately of no serious consequence to integrity of this theory).
Of course Big Rip could get rid of these entropy gaps but at the horrendous price to integrity of our understanding of other parts of physics (and also physical integrity of our Universe) but who knows?

[jedrider]

You are spewing theoretical masturbation.

or mental maturbation.

I never quite understood information conservation as regards physics. I'm a complete blank on that.

In general scientific theory is always a model of certain scope of application.
It can be falsified but never proven as "true".

That'a a red herring. There are NO proofs in physics. That only exists in mathematics.
There are many hugely successful theories in physics that we take as true, not proven, but true, as in "true". Do I need to explain that further?
Yes, they can be 'falsified' completely or partially. but all they represent doesn't just go away. The data is still there.

Given energy, it appears complexity can be created. What more would you need to know to understand that life was created out of laws of physics? Is complexity information? It would seem so, but I don't see any conservation law there.

[EnergyUnlimited]

I never quite understood information conservation as regards physics. I'm a complete blank on that.

Not all is lost.
http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses/s ... /lecture-1

In general scientific theory is always a model of certain scope of application.
It can be falsified but never proven as "true".

That'a a red herring. There are NO proofs in physics.

So you agree with me.
Or not?

There are many hugely successful theories in physics that we take as true, not proven, but true, as in "true". Do I need to explain that further?
Yes, they can be 'falsified' completely or partially. but all they represent doesn't just go away. The data is still there.

These are models with certain scopes of application.
Working adequately up to certain boundaries.
Also - these "many" theories you mention are special cases of basic 4 which I have listed in my previous post.
I challenge you to give an example of one which is not.

Given energy, it appears complexity can be created. What more would you need to know to understand that life was created out of laws of physics? Is complexity information? It would seem so, but I don't see any conservation law there.

Complexity alone is insufficient for life to proceed. Ability of system to process information is critical.

[vtsnowedin]

You are combining facts with information. The facts do not change, but when humans find the facts and how to use them they gain that "New" information.

That is lay man's interpretation.
For physicists content of information in Universe is constant or time invariant if you prefer.
Look, this information conservation issues are of very profound consequences for development of modern physics.
There must be a lot of desperation out there if concepts like holograhic principle are seriously considered.
Most likely another wild goose chase with the brightest people on Earth having a run but who knows?

Burning a book would only destroy the information contained if it was the only copy of the book or the source notes for that book. Think of Leonardo Da Vinci's note books. What a loss of information if they had been destroyed as there were no copies elsewhere.

Information can be copied for example in copies of book or copies of DNA.
Nevertheless even if the last book of any author is burned physics in principle allows to retrieve information contained in it.
Technicalities would be extraordinarily difficult, well beyond our current engineering capabilities, but in principle it is possible.

There are many theories that have been proven to be true. The acceleration due to gravity on earth, the speed of light, the reaction of sulfuric acid,+ Nitric acid +glycerine to a shock wave.

You don't understand basic concepts of scientific method.
We are dealing with *models* which are only approximations.
They are exceedingly good approximations but not more than that.
I will go through your examples:

1. Gravity on Earth is not a theory.
Basically we have 2 connected working theories dealing with gravity.
Newtonian theory of gravity - suitable for low energy realm.
General Relativity suitable for low and higher energy realms.

Newtonian theory was falsified first time by observation of peculiarities of Mercury orbit which could only be explained by GR.
We also know that GR must be falsified in vicinity of events horizons (BH fireball paradox) and even more so closely to central objects present there because it is resulting in infinities - implausible.

So there must be a more general model of gravity theory - known as quantum gravity.
Sadly no one have presented any equations let alone experimental protocols testing its viability.

2. Speed of light.
Again - as measured it is a fact, not a theory.
I have never heard nor any physicist have heard about "theory of speed of light" - such animal does not exist.
Speed of light (c) is related to properties of vacuum, its electric (ε) and magnetic (μ) permeability.

So we can proudly say that c=1/sqrt [μ(0)ε(0)]

Fact, not theory

3. Your final example, eg production and subsequent explosion of nitroglycerine are processes, not theories. These processes are well explained by quantum mechanics dealing with interactions of atoms and also thermodynamics dealing with flows of energy and entropy.

So you even cannot give an example of theory, let alone discussing it.

Basically there are 4 established theories in physics.

1. General Relativity dealing with gravity
2. Quantum Mechanics dealing with interactions of matter and radiation.
3. Standard Model dealing with properties of subatomic particles
4. Thermodynamics dealing with flows and conservation of energy, entropy and information.

Anything what science deals with currently can be derived out of these 4 basic theories as one of special examples.
Sometimes electromagnetism with Maxwell and Dirac equations is added as "fifth theory" but closer look easily reveals that it is a special example of QM with a tint of SM.
Of these 4 theories 3 are to a higher or lower degree troubled and are already to a degree falsified or are known to be incomplete.
So GR falls apart in vicinity of extremely dense objects by producing nonsensical outcomes (infinities), QM and precisely its emanation known as Quantum Field Theory fails miserably if applied to explain so called Zero Point vacuum energy by getting results 120 orders of magnitude higher than observable value and Standard Model is full of assumptions drawn out of hat (or out of ass if you prefer).

But Thermodynamics holds strong (minus so called entropy gaps related to expanding, gravitationally unbound Universe what prevents true thermodynamic equilibrium to be reached between distant regions even after infinite time but these are fortunately of no serious consequence to integrity of this theory).
Of course Big Rip could get rid of these entropy gaps but at the horrendous price to integrity of our understanding of other parts of physics (and also physical integrity of our Universe) but who knows?

How about the theory that the earth revolves around the sun and is not flat? Lots of "scientists disputed that one for decades. You physicists arguing about the origins of life which is a matter of organic chemistry and geology and not physics just proves that a thousand of you could not pour piss out of a boot with the instructions printed on the heel.

[EnergyUnlimited]

How about the theory that the earth revolves around the sun and is not flat? Lots of "scientists disputed that one for decades. You physicists arguing about the origins of life which is a matter of organic chemistry and geology and not physics just proves that a thousand of you could not pour piss out of a boot with the instructions printed on the heel.

So you have answered yourself.
Geocentricism of the past is falsified and now we have better models.

Organic chemistry is only a tool to run life, the tool which allows to process information critical for life to exist.
There might be other tools than organic chemistry which are working to the same ends but we are at the moment aware of none.
However origins of this information and its very nature are still remaining to be mystery.
Also at this point I must stress that information by itself is an immaterial entity, cannot be seen, weighed or touched, It has a basic unit called bit and very much like matter/energy or electric charge it is subjected to conservation laws.

It may be difficult for you to contemplate this fact but organic chemistry or geology can indeed be reduced to physics.
Everything what organic chemistry deal with, with absolutely no exception, can be explained on the grounds of quantum mechanics and classical thermodynamics.
To deal with geology you also need to to add considerations related to gravity.

[REAL Green]

It may be difficult for you to contemplate this fact but organic chemistry or geology can indeed be reduced to physics. Everything what organic chemistry deal with, with absolutely no exception, can be explained on the grounds of quantum mechanics and classical thermodynamics. To deal with geology you also need to to add considerations related to gravity.

I am not a scientist but find science and mathematics fascinating. Last night I was reading about Tracy-Widom distribution. This caught my eye:
“Universality is “an intriguing mystery…Why do certain laws seem to emerge from complex systems, he asked, “almost regardless of the underlying mechanisms driving those systems at the microscopic level?” https://www.quantamagazine.org/beyond-t ... -20141015/
When it comes to a complete life it is better if science keeps to itself and spirituality to itself. A separation is in order reflecting human duality. The ego and the sacred can produce demons and in some ways science and spirituality is similar to this human condition. Most people here realized how screwed up religion is but often many don't also see what science has done to humans and the planet. In fact, the damage science has done can be in some ways compared to what religion once did. Religion still does damage but to a lesser extent because science has tamed religion’s efforts at explaining the scientific. Science is the problem now.

Science has become a religion and that is why it is failing us. An organic planetary based spirituality is needed now grounded in science. This would be one that includes science and rejects science denial but also respects the metaphysical aspects of reality science cannot explain. IOW when science develops its own spirituality it is as bad as religion pretending to be science. Religion needs to focus on community and not act like scientist justifying community but science needs to stop dissecting community because values are destroyed. Humans must reject an unrestrained thirst for knowledge without bounds and this is the problem today. It may be this spirituality is only as simple as a check valve for our thirst for knowledge. Too often spirituality divulges into the noise of the complex and complicated and is lost. We already have a wealth of comparative spirituality to draw on and appreciate. The one missing ingredient is a check value to science and an acceptance of science wrapped up in one. It may be fate and humanly impossible with the check value being the universal itself. Intelligence cannot be controlled accept by its own demise.

Physics is seeking the deepest realities of life like singularity. Spirituality is needed to say no somewhere in this process. It needs to be a gatekeeper or a part of our brain is out of control. A spiritual reflection says humans can’t handle unrestrained science. This is clearly evident with humans today from Bio labs and factory farms to highly volatile organic compounds. The whole discussion of a 100% renewable world is another. Cover the world in pannels and turbines is absurd. Humans are out of control because of the quest for knowledge without limits. Spirituality is the limit mechanism and it is out of service at the moment. Scientist will often blame human problems on the lack of knowledge and this is true too but degree is important to that topic. Unrestrained procreation because of human emotion is a simple fact but a techno modern world of vast systems going automated is quite another. Science is vital to a point. Life will stop this thirst for knowledge without limits on its own because that is what a higher power does. Real spirituality seeks to respect the higher power. The higher power maintains balance and harmony by nature of its design. No way of knowing the higher power but that does not mean it should not be respected or the consequences are horrendous. Science can’t explain this because it breaks apart things in study instead of beholding all at once. Nothing can behold all at once and if it could it would stop in paralysis.