Primordial ooze

[Patientman]

Define: Primordial ooze.

Is it similar to something else that is undefinable? Like Dark Matter and shouldn’t Dark Matter and Primordial ooze be listed as a “Theories.”

[ikanreed]

Patientman wrote: Define: Primordial ooze.

Is it similar to something else that is undefinable? Like Dark Matter and shouldn’t Dark Matter and Primordial ooze be listed as a “Theories.”

A solution of water, hydrogen, methane, and ammonia in a lifeless environment at temperatures where liquid water and water vapor both form. Details of likely concentrations were determined with the miller-urey experiment, and some basic examination of carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxgen levels on modern earth.

Secondarily, I don’t think you know what a scientific theory is. A theory is the highest level of acceptance an idea in the scientific method can have. A theory is a fundamental tool of interpretation backed with several well-validated hypotheses.

[vansig]

miller-urey experiment however did not include anything close to a complete list of elements. conspicuously missing are phosphorus, magnesium, calcium, and many others.

[ikanreed]

vansig wrote: miller-urey experiment however did not include anything close to a complete list of elements. conspicuously missing are phosphorus, magnesium, calcium, and many others.

Well, yeah, and examinations of the results have suggested that the mixtures they used were probably a bit rich, and since follow-up experiments take decades, it’ll be a while before we can get things precisely estimated. So I don’t mean to over-assert the value of that particular experiment, just that “primordial ooze is undefinable” is a thing a crazy(or uninformed) person would say.

edit: off topic, but I really must know what the spectrograph you’ve got there is sampled from.

[Patientman]

Patientman wrote: Define: Primordial ooze.

Is it similar to something else that is undefinable? Like Dark Matter and shouldn’t Dark Matter and Primordial ooze be listed as a “Theories.”

I wrote before I thought.
I was interested in the thoughts of what “main stream science” thinks was the consistency of space before their Big Bang. Dark Matter? Was everything Dark Matter, similar to a pool of oil ooze and bang, a bubble of space and the Universe appeared? I still don’t get, how a single item in an empty space or whatever, suddenly it decided to exploded? How did it get there?

Secondly, the titles of various references for the BB, are incorrectly titled across the web. Wikipedia has it titled it as “Big Bang.” It should have the word, “Theory” after the title, because that is exactly the correct title. The question then follows, if other “Theories” such as Dark Matter are not labelled as such, what are they. It is similar to writing an equation and not completing it correctly. English has standards also.

[Breakable]

Patientman, this is not a very good explanation, but think about this:the entropy of empty space is extremely low.

[Patientman]

Like infinite.

[Breakable]

The entropy of empty space is actually extremely small because you cant rearrange it any other way. The next step is singularity which is a point in space, which also has a low entropy.

[Author]

Posts