Life is at the center of everything

[Angrboda]

It also occurs to me that if we're going to use the size of the thing from which a human develops, we should also use the size of the thing from which the universe develops. Since this is considered to be less than the planck length, a human egg is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times larger than what is midpoint between the egg of the universe and the planck length.

[Heywood]

You're essentially just repeating the same thing and not giving anyone any reason to think this is significant. Saying there is only one midpoint means nothing, because there is also only one point that is exactly 13/27 from the bottom of the scale. Every point is unique, and by not clarifying how this has any significance beyond human brains might find it interesting, you seem to be simply making an appeal to emotion

And what percentage of life falls onto that midpoint? It appears as if rasetsu was right and you're committing a Texas sharp-shooter fallacy.

My personal opinion is that there is nothing significant or special about being in the center cosmologically speaking. However some people do hold that place to be special. It's a subjective thing.

If you argue that being at the center holds no significance, I don't have a beef with you. If you argue that life isn't at the center cosmologically speaking, I do have a beef with you.

The planck length and the observable universe, in my opinion, make the most sense for boundaries of a cosmological scale. Life falls right in the center of that scale.

---

It also occurs to me that if we're going to use the size of the thing from which a human develops, we should also use the size of the thing from which the universe develops. Since this is considered to be less than the planck length, a human egg is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times larger than what is midpoint between the egg of the universe and the planck length.

The bolded claim cannot be substantiated by science. The problem is our physics breaks down before we can model the actual bang of the big bang. Big bang theory only describes the aftermath of the bang. It doesn't say what banged, why it banged, how big the thing that banged was etc.

We know that at one time the universe was smaller than an atom...our physics takes us back that far. We don't know that it was ever smaller than a planck length.

[Angrboda]

It also occurs to me that if we're going to use the size of the thing from which a human develops, we should also use the size of the thing from which the universe develops. Since this is considered to be less than the planck length, a human egg is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times larger than what is midpoint between the egg of the universe and the planck length.

The bolded claim cannot be substantiated by science. The problem is our physics breaks down before we can model the actual bang of the big bang. Big bang theory only describes the aftermath of the bang. It doesn't say what banged, why it banged, how big the thing that banged was etc.

We know that at one time the universe was smaller than an atom...our physics takes us back that far. We don't know that it was ever smaller than a planck length.

That doesn't change my point any.

[Heywood]

The bolded claim cannot be substantiated by science. The problem is our physics breaks down before we can model the actual bang of the big bang. Big bang theory only describes the aftermath of the bang. It doesn't say what banged, why it banged, how big the thing that banged was etc.

We know that at one time the universe was smaller than an atom...our physics takes us back that far. We don't know that it was ever smaller than a planck length.

That doesn't change my point any.

You have no logical justification what so ever to choose that point for your boundary other than your own unsubstantiated speculation that the universe was at one time smaller than a Planck length.

On the other hand the planck length and the observable universe are really the only logical choices for boundaries of a cosmological scale. Something the size of the planck length is smallest thing that you could in theory observe, the observable universe is the largest thing that in theory that you could observe.

[Bucky Ball]

Life falls right in the center of that scale.

No it doesn't. Post the details of your computations.
Just more proof you have no clue either what the Planck length actually is, or how large the universe is.
You like to say that word, (Planck)as it makes you seem all "sciency". In fact you can't even tell us when in the biological process, gametes become a "human", yet you said (on TTA) that abortion is your #1 priority.
One woud think you might actually KNOW something about a subject that you *claim* to be concerned about.
By all means, keep making a fool of yourself.

[The_Thinking_Theist]

Get Girly on this...

[Alex K]

Life falls right in the center of that scale.

No it doesn't. Post the details of your computations.
Just more proof you have no clue either what the Planck length actually is, or how large the universe is.
You like to say that word, (Planck)as it makes you seem all "sciency". In fact you can't even tell us when in the biological process, gametes become a "human", yet you said (on TTA) that abortion is your #1 priority.
One woud think you might actually KNOW something about a subject that you *claim* to be concerned about.
By all means, keep making a fool of yourself.

I agree that the claim that all this means anything is debateable, but ...what???

The computation goes thusly: observable universe: 1e27 meters,
planck length 1e-35 meters, the midpoint is 1e-4 meters, or a tenth mm. That is kind of close to the size of simple or single celled organisms. Give and take an order of magnitude depending on how you define the planck scale. Of course this number changes with the age of the universe...

[Heywood]

I agree that the claim that all this means anything is debateable, but ...what???

The computation goes thusly: observable universe: 1e27 meters,
planck length 1e-35 meters, the midpoint is 1e-4 meters, or a tenth mm. That is kind of close to the size of simple or single celled organisms. Give and take an order of magnitude depending on how you define the planck scale. Of course this number changes with the age of the universe...

A theist might tell you it means science is showing that humanity is at the center of Gods creation.

[Angrboda]

That doesn't change my point any.

You have no logical justification what so ever to choose that point for your boundary other than your own unsubstantiated speculation that the universe was at one time smaller than a Planck length.

If you're going to choose the beginning of the life cycle of a human as a data point, it only makes sense to choose the beginning of the life cycle of the universe as the other data point. It's called being consistent. Instead, you choose an arbitrary time during the life of the universe, and an arbitrary time during the life of a human, and an arbitrary scale to measure it on. Therefore, your result is simply arbitrary; it means nothing because you've chosen the values without rhyme or reason.

[Heywood]

If you're going to choose the beginning of the life cycle of a human as a data point, it only makes sense to choose the beginning of the life cycle of the universe as the other data point. It's called being consistent. Instead, you choose an arbitrary time during the life of the universe, and an arbitrary time during the life of a human, and an arbitrary scale to measure it on. Therefore, your result is simply arbitrary; it means nothing because you've chosen the values without rhyme or reason.

A logarithmic scale is the scale of choice by the scientific community when comparing a broad spectrum of sizes. I wouldn't call it an arbitrary choice as you suggest. Default choice of the scientific community would be more appropriate.

If you would like to use the "beginning of the life cycle of the universe" as one end of your scale instead of the planck length you will need to invent a new physics which has more explanatory power than general relativity and quantum mechanics. The planck length is as close to the "beginning of the life cycle of the universe" as we can currently get.