Could life have started in a lump of ice?

Nov 05, 2008

The universe is full of water, mostly in the form of very cold ice films deposited on interstellar dust particles, but until recently little was known about the detailed small scale structure. Now the latest quick freezing techniques coupled with sophisticated scanning electron microscopy techniques, are allowing physicists to create ice films in cold conditions similar to outer space and observe the detailed molecular organisation, yielding clues to fundamental questions including possibly the origin of life. Researchers have been surprised by some of the results, not least by the sheer beauty of some of the images created, according to Julyan Cartwright, a specialist in ice structures at the Andalusian Institute for Earth Sciences (IACT) of the Spanish Research Council (CSIC) and the University of Granada in Spain.

Recent discoveries about the structure of ice films in astrophysical conditions at the mesoscale, which is the size just above the molecular level, were discussed at a recent workshop organised by the European Science Foundation (ESF) and co-chaired by Cartwright alongside C. Ignacio Sainz-Diaz, also from the IACT. As Cartwright noted, many of the discoveries about ice structures at low temperatures were made possible by earlier research into industrial applications involving deposits of thin films upon an underlying substrate (ie the surface, such as a rock, to which the film is attached), such as manufacture of ceramics and semiconductors. In turn the study of ice films could lead to insights of value in such industrial applications.

But the ESF workshop's main focus was on ice in space, usually formed at temperatures far lower than even the coldest places on earth, between 3 and 90 degrees above absolute zero (3-90K). Most of the ice is on dust grains because there are so many of them, but some ice is on larger bodies such as asteroids, comets, cold moons or planets, and occasionally planets capable of supporting life such as Earth. At low temperatures, ice can form different structures at the mesoscale than under terrestrial conditions, and in some cases can be amorphous in form, that is like a glass with the molecules in effect frozen in space, rather than as crystals. For ice to be amorphous, water has to be cooled to its glass transition temperature of about 130 K without ice crystals having formed first. To do this in the laboratory requires rapid cooling, which Cartwright and colleagues achieved in their work with a helium "cold finger" incorporated in a scanning electron microscope to take the images.

As Cartwright observed, ice can exist in a combination of crystalline and amorphous forms, in other words as a mixture of order and disorder, with many variants depending on the temperature at which freezing actually occurred. In his latest work, Cartwright and colleagues have shown that ice at the mesoscale comprises all sorts of different characteristic shapes associated with the temperature and pressure of freezing, also depending on the surface properties of the substrate. For example when formed on a titanium substrate at the very low temperature of 6K, ice has a characteristic cauliflower structure.

Most intriguingly, ice under certain conditions produces biomimetic forms, meaning that they appear life like, with shapes like palm leaves or worms, or even at a smaller scale like bacteria. This led Cartwright to point out that researchers should not assume that lifelike forms in objects obtained from space, like Mars rock, is evidence that life actually existed there. "If one goes to another planet and sees small wormlike or palm like structures, one should not immediately call a press conference announcing alien life has been found," said Cartwright.

On the other hand the existence of lifelike biomimetic structures in ice suggests that nature may well have copied physics. It is even possible that while ice is too cold to support most life as we know it, it may have provided a suitable internal environment for prebiotic life to have emerged.

"It is clear that biology does use physics," said Cartwright. "Indeed, how could it not do? So we shouldn't be surprised to see that sometimes biological structures clearly make use of simple physical principles. Then, going back in time, it seems reasonable to posit that when life first emerged, it would have been using as a container something much simpler than today's cell membrane, probably some sort of simple vesicle of the sort found in soap bubbles. This sort of vesicle can be found in abiotic systems today, both in hot conditions, in the chemistry associated with 'black smokers' on the sea floor, which is currently favoured as a possible origin of life, but also in the chemistry of sea ice."

This is an intriguing idea that will be explored further in projects spawned by the ESF workshop. This may provide a new twist to the idea that life arrived from space. It may be that the precursors of life came from space, but that the actual carbon based biochemistry of all organisms on Earth evolved on this planet.

Source: European Science Foundation

Explore further: New multiscale model unifies physical laws of water flow to span all scales

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

A comprehensive study of ice

Jun 19, 2012

A group composed of 17 scientists from 11 different countries has published the most comprehensive study ever done on ice in the world. The study addresses the most important contemporary issues in a field ...

Recommended for you

Atom probe assisted dating of oldest piece of earth

3 hours ago

(Phys.org) —It's a scientific axiom: big claims require extra-solid evidence. So there were skeptics in 2001 when University of Wisconsin-Madison geoscience professor John Valley dated an ancient crystal ...

Could 'Jedi Putter' be the force golfers need?

Apr 18, 2014

Putting is arguably the most important skill in golf; in fact, it's been described as a game within a game. Now a team of Rice engineering students has devised a training putter that offers golfers audio, ...

Better thermal-imaging lens from waste sulfur

Apr 17, 2014

Sulfur left over from refining fossil fuels can be transformed into cheap, lightweight, plastic lenses for infrared devices, including night-vision goggles, a University of Arizona-led international team ...

User comments : 152

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

earls
2.8 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2008
I would think ice would be paralyzing to any formation, organization or movement of primordial life.

I find his statement/warning that the ice can form biological patterns and not every preserved pattern may have been evidence of life much more groundbreaking.
velvetpink
1.4 / 5 (7) Nov 05, 2008
There is no line between dead and alive so potentially life could start anywhere.
velvetpink
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 05, 2008
Living matter is made by dead matter.So there is no living matter.
velvetpink
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 05, 2008
Man we can call whatever a live but from the universal point of view there is no dead or alive man. If you think there is man and that matters anyhow than man you are on a wrong way man.
velvetpink
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2008
And thats why we don't get it man. Cause we think we are alive. Cause when you think so, your style of thinking is very different man. But when you proclaim yourself as a dead matter man, you get another dimension into your thinking bubble man.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (7) Nov 05, 2008
Man because you are in the universe not universe in you. Thats why it matters. And observable reality is just a part of the universe. You are saying like you are so powerful that you can develop a meaning to the universe man. If universe doesnt have a meaning man then of course there is no meaning. But its true that you can find meanings and defined things from your perspective. But if so its only your perspective and nobody elses. And if so can you connect that kind of code in your brain with the universal meaning?Man sorry but you can not. True that its a part of the universal meaning but if there is no meaning then its just a part of the universe and not a part of the universal meaning. I mean cant you really get t? All you are able to do is to puzzle entropy into forms that your body allows you. Thats all. And thats a live. But from that point of view everything is alive also. Cause its mass if you defined mass who is giving you a chance to do so. Don't you get it? When you read this i bet you see words and meanings. But what i see man are particles which i am able to puzzle into 'words'. Man.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (7) Nov 05, 2008
And if there was a bigbang man your way of life already started before the bigbang man.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2008
And if you think man that universe is dead and you are alive man you will never find the universal theory. I mean if you dont get this man you dont get anything. Or lets tell like this. To be alive you need something dead around you. And if so its only you 'alive' who can define meanings to anything of you and dead part. So tell me man how can a dead thing around you develop any meanings if its not alive?
velvetpink
1 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2008
So what i think the best we can do is to explode the whole universe. Then no doubt universe will get a meaning. But only if someone in the next formed universe will figure that out man.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (7) Nov 05, 2008
Man because you are in the universe not universe in you. because you are in the universe not universe in you
How did you come into it? By AWT the distant quasars are forming the outer surface of Universe, CMB is Hawking radiation of outer surface of Universe, and so on. Inside of infinitelly nested system of density fluctuations here's no inside or outside from sufficiently distant perspective.

Feynman: "There's plenty of room at the bottom"
Zephir: "Everything is relative, this rule is no exception."


Man more than half of those words you are saying here have no meaning man.And if you think you understand them man you are blind.So more of them you combine man there will be even more no meaning. Universal theory is so simple man that there must be no more than five words in there man. And your AWT man has so many words man that with its entropy could explode the whole universe man.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (8) Nov 05, 2008
"The oily dropplets above described can concume the surfactant molecules, but they cannot rid of them. So that their "metabolism" will stop less or more latelly with no mercy."

But so what man. You could describing this forever man. This and that and this and that. But it doesnt matter man. None cares except you man. Not even fucking animals man. Actually its you who are denying philosophy but at the same time its only you who are doing a philosophy man cause 'god' gave you human harddisk-expresing connection. Man do you get it? Im not saying there is no universal theory. Im just saying that a definition of your point of view is not the one required to maybe understand an universal theory if its somewhere. Thats all man. And if you dont understand the basic relation between the universal point of view and your 'humanly alive' pointo of view then you will never realize it.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (8) Nov 05, 2008
The problem of yours is, vague thinking will always lead to vague conclusions - so you can fall easilly into belief, the whole Universe is behaving exactly like you. I'm calling it an internal (self-referencing) perspective, which leads into tautologies undeniably.


Man but its you who is trying to play god not me man. Im just trying to be the universe. So to project that into our case. You are trying to convince me so hard that i have a fucking meaning. And lets say if you would then yes you would become god. But man its me who knows there is no god so i wont give you that medal man.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (7) Nov 05, 2008
Maybe its not only definitions and answers man. What if questions are not right man?What if there is no such thing as question man? What if question has no meaning from the universal point of view? What would you ask 'the universal theory if she was a man' if questions dont have a meaning man? Can you draw that picture in your mind which im talking about man? If you cant man then there is no way you ccould draw yourself an universal theory man.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (7) Nov 05, 2008
more than half of those words you are saying here have no meaning
Prove it. My dog can say the very same about whatever, what I'll tell him. He isn't even able to understood a meaning of trivial Pythagoras formula. Should it serve as an evidence, the Pythagoras formula has no meaning? Of course not.

So we should always distinguish the situations, when information has no meaning from objective reasons - or just because the listener is too silly to comprehend it.

Without it I can say easily, the claim "what you are saying here have no meaning" can be interpeted as "I'm to stupid to understand the meaning of it"...


Man i think you just prove my point. You should see by now that I have nothing to prove btw. And what means prove btw? Is prove just prove or is there again a parade of words to define prove? And then again parades of words to define that parade?
velvetpink
1 / 5 (7) Nov 05, 2008
And stop talking about we man. Not only that you dont know us, you dont even know yourself man. I mean man, why dont you relax and close your eyes and then think about nothing and then tell me something i havent heard yet man? Maybe just two letters man? To me man, you will make more sense.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (7) Nov 05, 2008
If you want a proof man go take a look into your dogs eyes man. If im wrong man he will say a word man. And i bet all i have man that your dog is brighter than you man. But i agree that you are smarter man. And thats where your prove come from man. Your smartness. But no one cares man. Even your body man.
velvetpink
1.9 / 5 (7) Nov 05, 2008
Why not, but prove it. Prove it. Prove it...

Every claim without proof is just a tautology without true value. Just an existence of implication (a causality gradient, which defines the time arrow) is what gives an temporal character to your claim. The claim without reasoning is just an chaotic babling. This is simply the way, by which Aether is working. The chaotic motion of molecules inside of gas is invisible for us. Only the places, where the motion of molecules is organized into gradient are part of observable reality.

So at the moment, when you'll not include the words like "BECAUSE" into your claims, the true value of such claims cannot be tested and reproduced by others and as such they've no true value at all, being untestable in real time.

The predicate logic is based on implications. Try to learn always support your claims by some relevant evidence or implication, which supports your claim.


And man you are talking like we already realized the universal theory man. I mean do you ever actually read what you type?
velvetpink
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2008
i bet all i have man that your dog is brighter than you man.
Why not. Just prove it...;-)


I dont need to man. Im dead. Dead things dont need to prove anything to be dead. But as long as you dont prove me that i have a meaning that long man there will be no meaning. And man your dog is dead also, but he might move.
velvetpink
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2008
..do you ever actually read what you type?
How is it relevant to subject? If you see some logical inconsistency in my claims, just to show us by the same way, like me.


It is man. And i already told you. Cause you read what you type and i adore what i type. It was a tricky question man. But of course, you didnt get it.
velvetpink
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 05, 2008
And there is no subjects in here man. Only objects. I mean you really dont get it that the prove you want from me is actually you?
velvetpink
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 05, 2008
Whatever you type man is my proof man. So simple. And of course if you dont have a point of view that i have man you just cant get it. And thats the case between us man.And you call yourself alive. Yea maybe in the next universe.Hm, now i also think man that you scientist are even more stupid than religionists.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2008
Man our duologue is a proof. Its just you too blind to see it. And of course you are too blind to see it. You should know that by now that god havent install you all the necessary particles to realize the universe. And yes my friend that duologue we have here is by now the only universal theory. I know it hurts. My dead body also.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2008
Whatever you type man is my proof man. So simple
Why not. Why? Can you prove it?

Maybe it's simple, so we should expect a simple proof. Without it it's just another tautology.


Cant you see that all you can do is puzzle entropy? And wasnt it you who defined the entropy? And cant you see that you just cant stop to puzzle that entropy? How come is it you then to ask me to prove you stupidity? Its not me who is defining that means puzzling entropy. Its you. So youll need to puzzle my proof yourself. And hey blind man. Thats exactly hat you are doing. Cheers.May i still help you somehow?
velvetpink
1 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2008
Man ive been gone through your words again man. I mean its funny.I mean if you cant see that you dont know what youre talking about then man you should really leave science forever man. And no offense man, but your way is just not the way to go.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2008
Jesus man. A parade of puzzled entropy again. Do you ever stop? Or is it just humans who are alive like you are? Is that alive? Puzzling something till you die and then something else puzzle you?
velvetpink
1 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2008
Its also funny that closer you are the more insanely stupid you are going. Thats really a funny universal thing about the humans. But hey the more you know the bigger the entropy in your harddisk and now you fill your computer harddrive my friend. It will collapse.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2008
And to answer the question of the article.Yes life could have started anywhere.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2008
And thats why i want to go to mars. Cause no one on this planet get it anyway. Damn not even partly.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2008
Man again you are saying life, evolve, vaccum, inside, reasons, simply, biased, differ, easily, electron, men, women, and so on man. Man none of those words you understand. And you are forming me puzzles with them. Jesus man of course no way I could universally answer any of your questions man.

"claiming, the living matter doesn't differ from dead one" thats not a claim. Its you whos claiming that it does differ! I mean cant you really see a pattern of your own false thinking?
velvetpink
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2008
By AWT no stance has universal validity. From inner perspective everything is relative, while from outer perspective everything is absolute. Unfortunatelly our Universe doesn't exhibit one of these perspectives exclusivelly. As I explained already, inside of nested Aether foam the inner and outer perspectives are in Maldacena duality because of omnidirectional energy spreading in many nested dimensions.

It means, an Universe is uncertain, but just up to certain limit, due the limited speed of information spreading. After all, this is why we can observe some reality at all.


Man i really wish i could help you. Its obvious that your brain is AWT. Dont worry you are universal and very intresting. But the puzzles that comes out of your AWT man gives no meaning to anything on this planet man.
velvetpink
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2008
Just a tip man. Mirrors make wonders. In the spectrum of brightness. Good night.
bmcghie
5 / 5 (4) Nov 05, 2008
I get the feeling one of the two of you was stoned out of his mind.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 06, 2008
You see man people are always full of complexes man. No doubt that if everyone was stoned, that would be a progress.Even in science.
AxlJones
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 06, 2008
I smell some acid coming from velvet :o
velvetpink
1 / 5 (5) Nov 06, 2008
Looks like you scientists have big issues with drugs hehe.This is funny. But hey at least my puzzles make sense. And no i dont do drugs im just that bright. I see everything, even your foolish thinking.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 06, 2008
And then you will realize like in 2273 that there is no meaning of the universe hehe so funny i already know that in 2008. Maybe someone will get a nobel prize cause he will be a 'scientist'.But hey my friends you dont need to be a scientist to realize that. All you need is an IQ of somewhere 5. But yes today no one on this planet has an IQ anymore.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 06, 2008
And to reveal you a little secret. Ive stop talking with the humans for 10 years. Damn humans if you only knew what ive seen.If you knew i think you would all go numb by now.Cheers.
velvetpink
1.3 / 5 (4) Nov 06, 2008
And yes, also drugs are a part of the universe. Therefor a part of the universal theory. And if they can influence your brain maybe they might be important.
GIR
5 / 5 (1) Nov 06, 2008
Should we go to Mars together?..;-)


Yes
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 06, 2008
No man!I dont wanna hear about AWT on mars no more man! I just wanna live the universal theory on the red planet man!
Noumenon
4 / 5 (4) Nov 06, 2008
pink,
The amount of sense you make is inversely proportionate to the number of posts you make.

Your not saying anything of substance,... if you are a joke, great we got it,... lets move on already! If not, then it appears the asylum has purchased a computer.
A_Paradox
1 / 5 (1) Nov 07, 2008
I think maybe the different structures of ices is not so relevant as the different ways that water molecules bunch up at different pressures and temperatures. Something started replicating eons ago and I tend to think it was soon after the ocean stopped boiling and probably at the bottom of the ocean - or deeper down in the new crust beside the spreading centres.

Ice from space would evaporate in the upper atmosphere.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Nov 07, 2008
Right who am I to question valvetpink, while valvetpink questions all the cosmologists?

A universal theory is possible as long as it involves the observer's a-priori conceptual framework, .. as long as it's about phenomenon.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Nov 07, 2008
Just remember as you type on your dad's computer,... that the core component of this machine, the transister, requires qm to understand it's operation, and this understanding applies not just to this phenomenon, but to all matter, it is universal.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2008
I never said its not possible. What i said is that your point of view and your scientific attitude is or might be a blind road toward the universal theory. If im mistaken then youll sure prove me wrong. But by now you didnt so im waiting.And im not questioning anyone.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2008
And i dont think you well understand a term universal theory. Cause if you would you would already know that there is no universal theory. But yes it is possible. Something, not necessarily universal theory. And if you think you know more than me to judge my posts then i dont know man. You are hopeless.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2008
And i dont know why such a negative response toward my expressions. I came here to share my thoughts that ive been developing for fucking 10 years of insanity. I mean you should be grateful that im willing to share them with you. And you never know maybe one day i will babble out a sentence that will matter for something. Exploring universal theory is a fucking teamwork and not some egoistical road to pride and glory. So i tell you it is possible that we havent realize it yet cause we fucked up the planet instead of living in a paradise. It is possible and i bet we would have something more interesting by now than a cern collider.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2008
And lets take a look at the hawkings book a brief theory of time. At the beginning he is stating that we dont know what we have upon our heads. And at the end of the book he is concluding that maybe we will never realize. So? What is then book about? How can be book about something we dont know? And i believe there are other books just the same, just not stating the thing at the beginning and concluding the thing at the end. And when i take a look at the world i see that stupid things always win. And they win cause they boost entropy more. So? Maybe a stupid thing boosted the entropy at the begging of 'our universe'?
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2008
And thats exactly your problem.Cause you scientist dont believe in stupid things. You have barriers in your head that denies you to at least try to observe things from the other point of view. And but of course you are denying all point of views with which you are not familiar or about which you have noting to tell about. But hey thats exactly where the progress is hiding his ass. Its true that you are universal but your point of view is definitely not.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2008
And no im not typing on my dads computer. You see its so easy to be wrong.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2008
And i have another tip for you. Try to read sartres nausea someday.Maybe youll discover another dimension of your thinking bubble.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2008
So? What is then book about?


And let me answer myself.The book is about stephen hawking.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Nov 07, 2008
Lol, well those posts were more coherent and you used the word "man" only once. Is it your contention then that it is impossible even in principal to construct a consistent and universal theory? This would only be a model of reality compatible with our mental functioning and not a reproduction of reality it self,.. that's way a universal theory is possible although not existent yet.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Nov 07, 2008
And i have another tip for you. Try to read sartres nausea someday.Maybe youll discover another dimension of your thinking bubble.

Try reading the philosophy of the scientific method and knowledge, starting with Descartes, Liebniz, Hobbes, Lock, and especially Hume and Kant, .. you may like them more than the positivists.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Nov 07, 2008
So? What is then book about?


And let me answer myself.The book is about stephen hawking.

I've read that one some time ago,.. I don't recall what his point was, but I doubt that he said not possible in principal,... as I said everything within the relm of human interaction can be modeled intellectually and consistently within that scope, otherwise it would not be accessable to begin with.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2008
Man was just a test man of how your scientific brain reacts man on a different word puzzles man. And please dont ask me questions i dont yet know what i know.Gotta go now will be back later.Stay well.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2008
sartre is existentialist. and nothing positive in there;) and i think i have read enough.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Nov 07, 2008
,... for example in QM we model using probability distributions because this is what appears to us,... reality in and of itself, noumenal reality, his hidden from us because the mechanics of our minds are limited in it's methodology,... the form underwhich we understand reality is limited,... time, cause and effect, space,..(god, I hope I'm not competing with you)
Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Nov 07, 2008
sartre is existentialist. and nothing positive in there;) and i think i have read enough.

I realize that , but you seem to not care for the positivists attitude, so maybe Kant would be more rational on the subject of epistemology than Sartre.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2008
you know whats the problem man. look. the more things you define the more questions you get. and you can question something only when something is defined. and what if your defining is wrong from the universal point of view? that automaticly implicates that you questions are wrong from the universal point of view in a term of meaning. that means what you are actually doing is exploring and defining universe from your point of view and not realizing universe from universal point of view. so the more you define the harder you puzzle things together universally. or lets ask do you think universal theory is universe plus something or just universe?
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2008
i mean if it is just universe then there is no universal theory. but if there is universe plus something is it right to call it universal theory?no. its something else. and thats exactly what you scientists are looking for. i also am looking for this. but im trying to picture it with feelings and not matematical models as they are obviously just the universe.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2008
Or lets say one and uno gives the same meaning to something else. But those two objects are different from the universal point of view. So how is it possible that two different objects projects the same meaning to something else? That means meaning just occurs in your head while it 'transfers' from one object to another where those two object never universally poses that meaning. So what that means?
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2008
That means that if your road is right then different objects can poses same meanings. If so there is no way you will ever develop an universal theory. And if you are wrong that means there is no meanings. And that means there is no universal theory. I mean things arent that simple as they seem. So on your road best you can do is define your observable human threshold from your point of view. And if so you will never come out of the bubble. You wont even universally understand the bubble.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2008
But those two objects are different from the universal point of view.


And if they are not different from the universal point of view. Then i dont know.Lets just say whatever.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2008
Thats why the UFT is maybe not that stupid because it has no meaning but still produces the universe. While your theories have no meaning and doesnt produce the universe.Hehe just kidding. Or not.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2008
Or you say something like one plus one is two. I mean is two really the same as one plus one? In matematics yes. But nowhere else my friends. So there is no matematics in universal theory. And if parts equals the whole do you really think it makes sense to explore the parts while they equals the whole? I dont know. I mean if its the same why exploring the same things then? I mean why exploring the parts of the universe if you already have the universe? If you cant go with your mind 'around' the universe there is no way you will ever type out the universal theory.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2008
Which universal question are u trying to answer that that same answer will reflect the universal theory? I would love to hear that question. I mean i pay you 10 million dollars for that question.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2008
Right now to me looks like there is no one even interested in the universal theory. But anyway its okay cause thats what you should be. An animal.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2008
An in the other article they are searching for dimensions. I mean i cannot believe it really. Let me help you. There is as many dimensions as you will define to fit your universal model or a part of it or your definition of something else. I mean you still believe that you can universally discover an universal dimension? There is no such universal thing as dimensions so all of you who have anything to do with dimensions in your theory are riding a blind horse. I mean looks like only the bible can help you out of your problems scientists.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2008
And thats why i can universally proclaim me as the brightest human on this planet. I realized, that with the less code(words, letters, numbers, particles, whatever) i operate in a relation with the universal theory the more my inner feeling is there. And what you claim is that humans are the most intelligent objects on the planet.Yes they are. But that intelligence is just a measurement of own hell. And yes we will kill everything, even each other. If brain were that big as the universe my friends, there would be no universe.

Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 07, 2008
pink, posting in this area should be reserved for comments related directly to the article,.. start a thread over at the physX forums.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2008
No worries. I have just finished my enterprise.;)And btw which area?Byebye.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2008
comments related directly to the article


And thanks for proving my point!
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Nov 07, 2008
go to www.physforum.com

You can start a topic or comment on existing ones.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2008
Unfortunately, PhysOrg Forum is currently closed for maintenance?
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2008
Man why is it that everywhere i come they try to manipulate in me that feeling of a bubble?
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2008
I prepared something for you to demonstrate you something so you might easier picture the whole thing. This is especially for you who believe in numbers anyhow and also use numbers anyhow. But as we universally know by now numbers are the same as words so it applies also to those who use words in your 'codes' so the purpose is to demonstrate you with words and numbers cause with words you are familiar with so here we go.

http://i19.photob...vel1.jpg
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2008
It would be nice if anyone knows if that could be enough for a nobel prize? Or maybe I have to contribute more to the universal theory?
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2008
And im sorry my english is bad as its not my first language but as i told you there will be no english language in the universal theory so thats why i didnt use english language. Its just something but since you understand our common point of view needs no 'thinking narrow blindness' defined language.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2008
And what i think as the brightness human on earth i think we just made a really fascinating progress in our scientific enterprises. Maybe we have something to celebrate or maybe we just not.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2008
And if you have asked me earlier my friends, maybe today would be in 1703.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2008
And there are also two IQ's. One is humanly defined IQ and the other is universal IQ. To go to level 2 with your human body you need somewhere around 5 units of that universal IQ.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2008
So where are you universal scientists and why not here? If you know the second brightest human on earth or if is it you please come here and tell me how you understand the universal enterprise.Dont be shy and hide in a hole now, its not a shame if you fail so much, together we will definitely accomplish our universal mission.
magpies
1 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2008
I just said the universal thoery
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2008
You think you have control!
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2008
And yes you just babbled a part of the universal theory!
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2008
But the more you believe in what you just said the closer NOT you are! This is amazing!
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2008
You see man, there is so many universal meanings and you dont need any bossons, a cerns, or whatevers man!You dont even need whatever man!But you still see!Everything man!Point of view is all that matters man!And if you believe in yourself too much man then you can only see yourself man!
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2008
And as a human being you have a tiny chance that one day you might be ready for a level 2 man!
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2008
But before i start that class man i have to save the planet!Man!Save the planet!
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2008
And to fit in topic a bit just for you man!I dont care where life started i only care that it will never end!
jeffsaunders
5 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2008
velvetpink do you realize that at the rate you are going you will probably fill the universe with your posts.

What's more I don't think many of your contributions actually relate to the topic that initiated your contributions.

Furthermore, I am not sure anybody could read all of your comments posted above and be sane to start with. There is just so many comments and so much life to live that it is a contradiction.

Most people have something useful to say sometimes, and I am sure you are no exception but if you could just control yourself a little bit the rest of us just might be able to find out what that is.

I may well agree with you on a lot of points - but I am not sure if I want to immerse myself in your entire argument presented above, I just don't think I will live that long.

And Alizee should have had more sense than to debate with you here or you should have had more sense than to debate with him. One of you should have had more sense at least.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2008
And you guys still have problems with defining relation between mechanics and relativity?Or something like that?Move on already!You dont need any mechanics or relativity!Oh or maybe you need them for mechanics and relativity!But definitely not for the universal theory!Hehe. Wtf is a mechanics and relativity anyway?Still the same as it was?
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2008
velvetpink do you realize that at the rate you are going you will probably fill the universe with your posts.

What's more I don't think many of your contributions actually relate to the topic that initiated your contributions.

Furthermore, I am not sure anybody could read all of your comments posted above and be sane to start with. There is just so many comments and so much life to live that it is a contradiction.

Most people have something useful to say sometimes, and I am sure you are no exception but if you could just control yourself a little bit the rest of us just might be able to find out what that is.

I may well agree with you on a lot of points - but I am not sure if I want to immerse myself in your entire argument presented above, I just don't think I will live that long.

And Alizee should have had more sense than to debate with you here or you should have had more sense than to debate with him. One of you should have had more sense at least.


Man. If i could i would help you. But its obvious that i cant.And why care for number of posts or comments?I am a scientist man. I dont count.And you man?You still see no sense? Man looking at those things up here, i see more sense the whole universe thing. But im sorry for you!I mean you see i told you that words arent enough!And no one believe me!
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2008
And with rating me no matter how much man you are just proving my point!Maybe someone someday will get it what im saying so i like to be written somewhere public so you dont need to be ascientist!You never really know!And then you will be reading about me in a newspaper!Your whole town will!And im sorry!And you cannot agree with me on any point unless you are me!
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2008
And the only thing that universally matters in here or anywhere on this planet is in here!In here man!Could you believe it if i told you earlier that it will be like this?No way man!You couldnt even dream about it! 'Level 1' and his 'magpies case'!
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2008
"if you could just control yourself a little bit"

Man!If i do that i would kill the universal thoery forever man!
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2008
Maybe tomorrow everyone will wanted to be a velvet pink man!Haha man!Imagine that man!How would you find me?To reveal you a level two man!Haha.And man!Did you know that the universal theory is faster than the light man??
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2008
I bet you didnt!No one did man!Haha. But i do man! And im not winning yet man!Maybe i dont even wanna win man!Imagine that man!What if i dont wanna win man!Then you yeah man will be soon to old man!
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2008
You see man!Teamwork is always required no matter how stupid participants are!If you want a progress! But as i see in you humans progress is not for you beings anyway!For what you are only good is called a development my friends!Thats what you believe in!
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2008
And one more life tip humans!Choose any drug you like just dont take money and alcohol!Of course only if you want your brain to survive!
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2008
Cause money and alcohol are the biggest killer drugs on this planet!Thats why they are legalized!Cause those who lead us have big brain!And thanks god that i was so fast! Right in time before they would become the universal theory!I was just too fast to believe in!But no matter what here we are! In a brand new universal day. Now you can start counting how many days we will survive. And that will equal infinity. Byebye.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2008
And on this planet you really never can get rid of attackers!You see even some humans evolute into attackers with numbers!What a miracle we live in!This is just fascinating!Good night!
magpies
1 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2008
Dude I wana take on the world today! I know I'll win! Does the world?
Damon_Hastings
5 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2008
Welcome to PhysOrg.com, or as I like to call it, the Alizee and velvetpink comedy hour! (Or day. Or millenium.)

Don't you guys have anything else to do??
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2008
Hey my friend!Dont you have anything better to say??If you dont my friend then it could be millenium! And no my friend i dont have anything better to do than i just did.I mean all my life ive been wating for this my friend. And your code my friend fit in just perfectly!
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2008
And all you who dont have an universally constructive answer to my enterprise and obviously dont understand what i said up here!I have a question for you so you might gain some universal IQ!What is 'closer' to the universal point of view:what you see or what you know??
And this is insanity opera my friend not even close to a comedy!Comedy is for blind people anyway.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2008
Where are all the nobel winners now and all the glorious scientists??Are they too 'high' to show up with an unknown loser on the internet?? I would love to hear their explanation of my Level 1 and the magpies case!Haha!Or maybe they already know they doesnt need an explanation as they are universally correct??Haha.Sorry but haha is also a type of a feeling in insanity opera spectrum so no offense never meant to hurt you with haha!
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2008
'Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.'
And man! You should understand that by now!Do you still believe in a famous formula E=mxc??Its true!Its famous!And nothing more than that!Haha.Damn that guy was brilliant with a great planetary IQ. But hey haha he had no universal IQ!
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2008
And hey let me help you a bit so that you wont spend hard working money on your meaningless enterprises!Yes there is a black matter, there are bossons and there was a big bang!But dont you make mistake again!Its just so what!And a hint:You dont need any money to be an universal scientist!Except for a food!Of course if you live on this planet!
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2008
And now lets wait together for 'rating number attackers' to strike again!What a lovely experiment!
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2008
"you gotta stop thinking about what you know.you should start thinking about what you dont know" And hey scientists remember when i said that??Haha what an universal beauty!And now take a look at your million pages of codes haha! No way god would be able to translate your code into an any kind of universal meaning!Except equating it with human stupidity!He is lazy btw!And his brain aint that big as yours!
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2008
velvetpink do you realize that at the rate you are going you will probably fill the universe with your posts.

Hehe!And you will fill the planet with your definition code!
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2008
Guy, please, just stop posting until the physorg forum is back up! No one knows what your saying, you are not presenting yourself in any coherent manner,... maybe its the language barrier, but in any case, that is the reason the only attention your getting is in regard to the volume on non-sense your posting, and not in relation to your ideas. I even tried to engage you to understand you, but you choose not to reply.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2008
"No one knows what your saying" Hm.How can you be so sure about no one? And if there really is no one my friend, then you have no future.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2008
And what really is a comedy haha is that you doctors of non sense are calling my universal sense a non sense.This is the best. I mean i am god for now.No doubt.And you scientists keep competing with the bible.Thats actually what you are doing.In and out of a bubble.Mr.Velvet Pink.
Noumenon
4 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2008
"And if there really is no one my friend, then you have no future."

See, again that didn't make any sense. What does my future to do with the fact that no one knows what your saying in your posts.

One would have to quit their job to read all of the posts you made above, and yet still not know what your point is.

I will ask again, what is the core idea you are trying to convey? Start a thread once physOrg forums are back up.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2008
"And if there really is no one my friend, then you have no future."

See, again that didn't make any sense. What does my future to do with the fact that no one knows what your saying.


A lot. I mean if you dont understand that then i dont know. There is no words to further explain this. Sorry.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2008
.. and when someone asked you a specific question, you bail out of the conversion,...
Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2008
,....
Is it your contention then that it is impossible even in principal to construct a consistent and universal theory?


Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2008
bla bla bla,...There is no words to further explain this. Sorry.


Are you kidding me,.. does this mean no more posts on whatever subject it is you're posting on? Somehow I doubt it.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2008
"what is the core idea you are trying to convey?"

That all of you who are exploring the universe aka looking for an universal theory are riding a blind horse on a blind road. Also whether you are talking about any kind of existence your code doesnt make any sense except for its own purpose. Thats a fact not idea. And what i tried to present you is 'the intro' of the universal theory. But its obvious that you didnt understand it, cause it might be a little to late for all of you to ever come back where you were. You know, while i was doing a research and stop talking with humans and just observing them for 7,5 years i realize one interesting thing. The more they are talking the more stupid and blind they are. It can all be seen in the eyes if you really know how to look at those eyes. And the only possible conclusion was, the more code you offer them->more stupid and blind. And thats where you are going. Now you know what does your future to do with the fact that no one knows what im saying.There are two different processes possible with your thinking bubble my friend. One is using brain and the other one is understanding brain. No one seems to understand his brain to me and i havent meet anyone by now.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2008
.. and when someone asked you a specific question, you bail out of the conversion,...


No not true.Everything is explained so no further answers are needed as they just boost the entropy of the class.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2008
,....
Is it your contention then that it is impossible even in principal to construct a consistent and universal theory?




No for me. But as it looks like its yes for you. And thats what you dont get it. Im not dealing with a blind planetary theory as you do. Im dealing with the universally constructed universal theory. And i presented you 'the intro point and a case' how to transfer your thinking bubble brain toward that point of view.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2008
bla bla bla,...There is no words to further explain this. Sorry.


Are you kidding me,.. does this mean no more posts on whatever subject it is you're posting on? Somehow I doubt it.


And codes like that my friend just prove my point.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2008
"even in principal to construct a consistent and universal theory"

And to help you again with your thinking-language-expression relation, there is no like in principal or whatever universal theory. There is just the universal theory.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2008
And you still strictly believe in what you are typing, wording, saying, puzzling. Are you really sure you tried to understand me? Maybe you should go back to magpies case and stay there till you get it.And if you wont get it then studying the universal theory is just not for you.
GIR
5 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2008
The more they are talking the more stupid and blind they are.


This applies to your posts.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2008
The more they are talking the more stupid and blind they are.


This applies to your posts.


Yes. You are right. But you should know by now that i dont wanna talk, and its only you who make me talk. You gave me the codes remember? Anyway my friend, I made such conclusions when i was 2 years old.How old are you anyway?
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2008
And you see my friends thats why you are human animals and me just me.There is a big difference in species.You cant conquer your own head while im conquering the universe. This is just a little more than amazing.
GIR
5 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2008
You gave me the codes remember?


What?

I made such conclusions when i was 2 years old.How old are you anyway?


If you were able to make "such conclusions" at 2 then my age is irrelevant. I assure you I am older than 2.

I "dont wanna talk" anymore either. I think I'll act on that impulse. Have fun with your monologue.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2008
And no!You arent even animals anymore. You have become the robots. Almighty robots with quadra core and no IQ. And thats your final stage of evolution.Congratulations.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2008


What?



Do you remember where did you get that 'What?'?
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2008
Answer my god damn f question! Do you f remember where did you get that f 'What?'?!
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2008
THANK YOU.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2008
"what is the core idea you are trying to convey?"


That all of you who are exploring the universe aka looking for an universal theory are riding a blind horse on a blind road.


O.K., now why would that be the case, why is the pursuit of a consistent knowledge of the physical world a blind road?

Instead of just stating this over and over, man, can you show with rational principals that this is a dead horse to begin with?
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2008
If you would understand what i said you wouldnt ask that anymore. And please translate your sentences.I am not sure whether i understand your babble.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2008
"what is the core idea you are trying to convey?"


That all of you who are exploring the universe aka looking for an universal theory are riding a blind horse on a blind road.


O.K., now why would that be the case, why is the pursuit of a consistent knowledge of the physical world a blind road?

Instead of just stating this over and over, man, can you show with rational principals that this is a dead horse to begin with?


And where did you get that from?All those words of no universal meanings?
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2008
http://i19.photob...vel1.jpg

Again just for you my friend.You see where you are?On the left with a brain damage defining everything and trying to manipulate with nonsense all the existence with your threshold brainwash radio. Thats where you are. And if you take a look on the right side my friend there is me. And you and your failures are nothing more than universal facts to me. So?You still wanna babble you code?
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2008
And answer my question if you remember where did you get that from?!You see?!Thats what matters to my point of view and not what you TELL ME!Thats universal that you dont f remember and not wtf you are saying!
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2008
And can you see on the left my friend why there is no universal progress in universal theory science?
thales
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2008
This has gone far enough. Are there no moderators?
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2008
And yes my friend what you are looking for is a theory that could be universal, but my friend good luck with that, what im looking for is universe's theory.His or hers or whatevers man.But you fail man!Already at the beginning man!
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2008
This has gone far enough. Are there no moderators?


Why?I mean wtf you care anyway??Dont you have anything better to do then to read this article?And dont you have anything better to say than what you just babbled? And to far??How can you go too far in the science??Oh you just proved why you are on the left side of the paragraph!Thanks. And you would just trash such a beautiful conversation?Man buy new human brain!And truth always hurts my friend!
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2008
Rating number attackers haha!Damn humans you have become robotic viruses yourself!And thanks for proving my experiment over and over again!
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2008
If they would trash this phenomenon my friend it would be the biggest mistake in a human history man!Haha.And you already tought you rule the universe?!Haha!Yea you rule big time but only your own destruction!Haha!
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2008
And back to article a bit!
"It is clear that biology does use physics," said Cartwright. "Indeed, how could it not do?"But of course! Maybe also physics is just a part of biology??You see thats a case of a very progressive thinking.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2008
Hey!And what is physics anyway? Isnt it just some unknown particles puzzled together? Like everything else?Except the universal theory?
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2008
Hey!And what is physics anyway? Isnt it just some unknown particles puzzled together? Like everything else?Except the universal theory?


And where did i get that from??You told me!Haha!You gave me those codes i just had to combine them a little bit different!Haha!More universally!And i bet you still dont know where did you get yours!Hehe.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2008
And i smell a potential out there!!Hardly waiting to meet you all one day!I just saw a flash of brightness in front of my perception!Thank you to show up!You are our only hope!Nice to meet you and thank us all!At the very end we would either way all be the same!But on one scenario we would be virusal robots, while on the other we would remain original and pure universal humans!
Noumenon
4 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2008
This has gone far enough. Are there no moderators?


Unfortunately the moderators are either non-existent or are incompetent. The PhysOrg forum was allowed to be flooded with porn spam for weeks on end with zero response from them. :(
Ethelred
not rated yet Nov 26, 2008
I just found this thread. My its a mess.

Is that VelvetPinkTroll's intent? To drive out the interesting with its Dennis Hopper 1960's inspired (if inspired is a word that applies to trolls)brain damaged drivel.

Did anyone else notice that its straight out of the stream of unconsciousness dialog Dennis had in Apocalypse Now?

Go watch a new movie PinkTroll. Learn some new dialog. Even Dennis can't figure out why he is still alive. I suspect your his equivalent of The Picture of Dorian Grey.

More news stories

Atom probe assisted dating of oldest piece of earth

(Phys.org) —It's a scientific axiom: big claims require extra-solid evidence. So there were skeptics in 2001 when University of Wisconsin-Madison geoscience professor John Valley dated an ancient crystal ...