Does Einstein's Theory of Relativity Suggestively Prove Life, Other Than Human Life, Exists?

[Dryson]

Einstein's theories have been proven correct time and time again. Based on his theory of relativity life other than human life and the animal species on Earth will exist elsewhere in the Universe.

Based on the Rodinia Model of continental drift at one time the Earth's land masses were closer together. Relativity would suggest that the Goldilocks Zone of the Universe first started creating life would have also have been much closer together, allowing life to merge together to create many different species of life. As the Universe cooled from the Big Bang that caused space time to be more fluidic similar to a hot lava flow carrying planets with life forming on them the continents of early life forming in the Universe were spread across the Universe. Once space time cooled the early masses of life created in the Universe were separated in the same manner that the continents of Earth were once closer together and then separated the early masses of life on Earth in different continents. The masses of life on Earth like the masses of life in the Universe would both be separated by vast oceans, one ocean being water the other ocean being space time.

There would have to be a point in the history of the Universe that like the continents of Earth that matter would have been closer together that would then have drifted apart like the continents of Earth whose movement around the planet is determined by tectonic plate shifting similar to space time causing the movement of the continents of the Universe.

http://www.earth.northwestern.edu/people/seth/Export/midcontinent/rodinia.pdf

 

[PurpleBuddha]

Relativity is not a theory about exobiology and says nothing at all about Goldilocks zones, nor does it predict life will exist elsewhere in the universe. It looks like the only way you linked this to relativity at all is the fact that the universe is expanding outward from an initial singularity.

 

[Relayer1]

And anyway, the period when the matter created in the big bang was relatively closely packed was quite a while before conditions became condusive for the the creation of life !

 

[Kor]

These threads are.... um, interesting.

Kor

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

It's unlikely that life could exist until several billion years after the BB as there would have been an insufficient quantity of available heavy elements, which are forged in stars and in supernova explosions -- the BB only resulted in hydrogen, helium, and tiny amounts of lithium and beryllium. It's possible that we are among the "First Ones". Cthulhu, Lorien, and the Photino Birds might disagree...

The observable universe was smaller earlier on, of course, and the galaxies were closer together but interstellar distances were likely much the same as today. Panspermia cannot be discounted as we know that some meteorites originate from mars, for example.

"Continental drift" is an obsolete term -- "plate tectonics" is commonly used nowadays. There are believed to be cycles of supercontinent building, with Rodinia and Pangaea being the most recent examples. A supercontinent forms about every 400 million years. Plate tectonics is believed to have started at about 1.4 billion years after the Earth formed. Until plate movement started, the original shield continents, which now form the cores of the present continents, are believed to have formed above rising mantle plumes.

But, as @PurpleBuddha stated, neither the special or general theories of relativity have anything to say about how life arises in the Universe. Einstein even rejected the notion that the Universe could be expanding, which he famously referred to as his biggest blunder although his fudge factor (the Cosmological Constant) does appear to have some role to play as dark energy.

 

[psCargile]

Brian Greene writes some easy to understand books on cosmology that are worth reading.

 

[Dryson]

According to NASA Earth resides in the 8% of total planets of the Universe that are capable of sustaining life on them.

This means that 92% of the planets with the ability to support life such as humanity and the animals of Earth have yet to form.
I didn't say Einsteins theories have anything to do with the way life is created.

The idea was a thought of relative associations.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Well, that's certainly a novel interpretation of a fact, supposedly stated by NASA, for which you have not provided a link.

 

[scotthm]

This means that 92% of the planets with the ability to support life such as humanity and the animals of Earth have yet to form.

100% of planets that don't exist have no ability for anything.

---------------

 

[Satyrical]

Don't worry, I don't like taking my meds either.

 

[PurpleBuddha]

I didn't say Einsteins theories have anything to do with the way life is created.

Yes, you did. You posed the question as the title of the thread and then said this:

Based on his theory of relativity life other than human life and the animal species on Earth will exist elsewhere in the Universe.

Relativity would suggest that the Goldilocks Zone of the Universe first started creating life would have also have been much closer together, allowing life to merge together to create many different species of life. As the Universe cooled from the Big Bang that caused space time to be more fluidic similar to a hot lava flow...

 

[Dryson]

I was looking through this article and came across bug #11 that is a spider but looks like an ant.
http://animalmozo.com/2016/06/13/23-freaky-spiders-that-would-shock-even-a-bug-exterminator/11/

This is an image of normal ant.
http://myrmecos.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/camponotus.jpg

Two very different species of insects that cannot breed but look similar, how it is possible?
What is more interesting is that if you apply this type of philosophical thinking to the Universe of one humanoid species being present on Earth and on humanoid species being present on another planet where both look nearly the same but would not be able to breed would the ant and spider similarity basically prove that other sentient life forms in the Universe similar to humans would also exist?

Just like the ant and the spider from two completely different worlds yet they look alike. Would humans have the same counter part in another region of the galaxy?

 

[Dryson]

Well, that's certainly a novel interpretation of a fact, supposedly stated by NASA, for which you have not provided a link.

I can't find the article but I know it was on Space.com's website about a year or six months ago.

 

[Metryq]

A cheap knock-off of a popular consumer electronic device and its authentic role model look very nearly alike, but they cannot breed because they are worlds apart. But philosophically, Einstein's quantum phlogiston proves that hunched-over hominids must exist all across the universe because of dinosaur caves.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Two very different species of insects that cannot breed but look similar, how it is possible?

Spiders are arachnids, not insects. Sometimes life is shaped by environment niches or so that totally unrelated (nonmonophyletic) species can look very similar (convergent evolution).

 

[scotthm]

would the ant and spider similarity basically prove that other sentient life forms in the Universe similar to humans would also exist?

No.
---------------

 

[Metryq]

would the ant and spider similarity basically prove that other sentient life forms in the Universe similar to humans would also exist?

All it "proves" is that dissimilar creatures with a very similar appearance exist on this planet.

Maybe Einstein has dropped out of your argument by now, but be clear about one thing: math is not "Truth." It is formalized logic for building models. If the model happens to dovetail with the real world, it may give us insight to things that have not been observed yet. But nothing derived from such a model "proves" anything. It is not evidence or fact. We will always have to go directly to the horse to count his teeth.

"Statistical likelihood" of other life and civilizations is speculation, nothing more. All we have is this planet, and some information about the others in this Solar system (and some of that information is contentious). The Drake equation is not evidence and it's not even good statistics until we visit a few extrasolar planets.

 

[Dryson]

A chicken is a bird but cannot make Toucan. The same type of species but the DNA is incompatible for reproduction. Yet two dogs will always be able to mate. But two cats, a lion and a Siamese will never be able to mate.

If math is not Truth like you say then being able to travel faster than the speed of light is possible.

I was regarding Einsteins theories more as a base of philosophy and was not intended to be mathematical. Based on statistics however the same process that started life for humans on Earth will have started in a similar manner as the Universe expanded outwards. At some point there was an interaction that took place around the Big Bang that caused life to start.

Such an expanding interaction would have taken the building blocks of life to different regions of the Universe that then slowly formed into life. Its relative that since we exist others will exist but might be similar to the bird and cats where humans are like the dogs.

 

[Jedi Marso]

How life started on Earth is likely to have everything to do with the chemical reactions caused by the Earth's interactions with the sun, the formation of sugar molecules and amino acids and so on, and nothing to do directly with the expansion of the universe. Space-time expansion in and of itself does not create conditions conducive to forming life- that would seem to happen on a much more local scale. For life as we know it here, you have have a planet the proper distance from its primary to allow for liquid water and all the other chemical processes to happen from which life occurs.

As for consciousness and sentience, don't ask me. That becomes the realm of theology as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

A chicken is a bird but cannot make Toucan. The same type of species but the DNA is incompatible for reproduction. Yet two dogs will always be able to mate. But two cats, a lion and a Siamese will never be able to mate.
...
Such an expanding interaction would have taken the building blocks of life to different regions of the Universe that then slowly formed into life. Its relative that since we exist others will exist but might be similar to the bird and cats where humans are like the dogs.

That way lies anarchy:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies