4 ms·

You're presuming the speed of light is the hard limit. Whereas we know for a fact faster movement is possible - the space-time itself was expanding faster.

Cozumel 9y ago
^This. The universe expanded faster than light, that's why we still can't see everything, so saying things like 'the communication speed is too slow to permit evolution' is just wrong, it also doesn't take into account things like time doesn't actually exist, it's just a biological construct. The whole article is predicated upon a bunch of faulty assumptions, it's like it was written by a simple minded child.
andars 9y ago
You have some misunderstandings about the expansion of the universe. I would recommend reading http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2015/10/13/the-universe-never-expands-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/ http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2015/10/13/the-univ...
- jerf 9y ago
  In addition to that, positing a 'life form' that exists in the presence of space continuously and literally pulling it apart doesn't seem likely to be a net positive for our galaxy-sized life form.
- olegkikin 9y ago
  No, it's you who gets incorrect information from some random blogs. The size of the observable universe: ~93 billion light-years Time since the big bang: ~13.7 billion years. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/104-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/expansion-of-the-universe/616-is-the-universe-expanding-faster-than-the-speed-of-light-intermediate http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/104-the-universe/c... https://phys.org/news/2015-02-fast-universe.html https://phys.org/news/2015-02-fast-universe.html
  - andars 9y ago
    The author of that random blog is Sean Carroll, professor of physics at Caltech specializing in cosmology and GR. That doesn't mean he must be right, but I feel pretty comfortable citing him.
    - olegkikin 9y ago
      Well, I hope you're comfortable with dividing 93 by 13.7.

Cozumel 9y ago

^This. The universe expanded faster than light, that's why we still can't see everything, so saying things like 'the communication speed is too slow to permit evolution' is just wrong, it also doesn't take into account things like time doesn't actually exist, it's just a biological construct. The whole article is predicated upon a bunch of faulty assumptions, it's like it was written by a simple minded child.

andars 9y ago

You have some misunderstandings about the expansion of the universe. I would recommend reading http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2015/10/13/the-universe-never-expands-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/ http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2015/10/13/the-univ...

jerf 9y ago
In addition to that, positing a 'life form' that exists in the presence of space continuously and literally pulling it apart doesn't seem likely to be a net positive for our galaxy-sized life form.
olegkikin 9y ago
No, it's you who gets incorrect information from some random blogs. The size of the observable universe: ~93 billion light-years Time since the big bang: ~13.7 billion years. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/104-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/expansion-of-the-universe/616-is-the-universe-expanding-faster-than-the-speed-of-light-intermediate http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/104-the-universe/c... https://phys.org/news/2015-02-fast-universe.html https://phys.org/news/2015-02-fast-universe.html
- andars 9y ago
  The author of that random blog is Sean Carroll, professor of physics at Caltech specializing in cosmology and GR. That doesn't mean he must be right, but I feel pretty comfortable citing him.
  - olegkikin 9y ago
    Well, I hope you're comfortable with dividing 93 by 13.7.