Og

I'm not sure what you mean here. Change in time? What equations are you talking about? The changing behavior of time is an observed phenomena that was predicted by Einstein when he saw no reference frame expressed maxwell's equations for electromagnetic radiation. He then did some simple geometry with the assumption of a constant speed of light in all reference frames irrespective of relative velocity. The result was the time dilation factor of special relativity and translated to mass increase proportional to velocity and e=mc^2.

It's not anything about "the way we use them"... These are all observed effects.


I'm willing to converse, but only if people are willing to be as open minded and rational as I am willing to be.

Certainly. I don't claim that we know everything. I'm just saying that (at the big bang) it doesn't appear that causality works like it does here in our low energy inertial reference frame on earth. There is ALWAYS uncertainty in our depth of understanding... This is necessarily part of the scientific approach and the fundamental difference between that and a faith based approach.


Equations are just ways of relating observations to one another. It's a formalized logical language that is designed to facilitate the logical reasoning process that we use to comprehend all things.

Again, I don't know what equations you're referring to. Equations are just like words. They are descriptive. I could, for example, say "the divergence of the magnetic field is 5" and you would have an equation. But this does not match with magnetic fields we see in nature (divergence is zero).

There is only observation. Data is all we have. Inspiration and intuition are null words. They are the product of cross correlated observations producing new perspectives on existing concepts.

I don't really get into this crazy theoretical crap. It tends to make no testable predictions (i.e. like string theory). I'm more of an engineer than a theoretical physicist. That kind of non-testable stuff doesn't really interest me. So, I really don't know much about it.

As for brains being something that you "come up with," did M theory come up with cell phones or hurricanes or modern PCs or proteins? Each one of these objects behaves exactly like the human brain... The only difference is an order of magnitude or so of complexity.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

AB517

[quote=Og;20201]
I put these ideas to close to each other. “M” theory and these gentlemen’s studies are two different areas of studies.

Back to the topic:

Notion of “Before the big bang” and “it did not start by itself”

We reviewed the notion of time dilation in Einstein’s equations. What this did for us is to show us that time is just another coordinate in space time. In effect it puts time, to steal an engineering term, as a “secondary force”.

The primary object of this discussion thus becomes the “frame of reference”. I do not think there is a need to discuss them in detail here, If you are not familiar with the in and outs of them reserve your comments until you know them. The idea that because our universe does not exist means no frame exist any where “else” is an egocentric point of view.

There are many very smart people, in fact some of the smartest people in the world working in the area of physics that understand these frames. They are using the very best science has to offer them. The particle accelerators and instruments of astronomy all are being turned to study the fabric and laws of the universe.

Although there are not any uses for these latest discoveries today in no way suggest that there never will be a use. The natural progression is from pure science with no application, usually a set of equations, to something the average high school student wants for Christmas.

I like these discussions because I do really need to look at how I might be wrong. Based on the above, a reasonable, open minded person can see that that these statements have some merit.

We can, because of the uncertainty introduced into the mathematical equations being used today, discuss notions out side of every day experience as long we stay rooted in science, observation, and logic.

Are we ready to address the next set of my arguments?

Og

Whatcha got?

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

AB517

Now for the next of my statements:

I see life:
A collection of atoms that began to replicate. This is not simple replication of a few molecules. Maybe something started it.

DNA:
I see as a running program, solving and mutating to reach something …. To evolve.



This is tricky to for me to explain. When I say simple here I do not mean small. I understand that if the conditions are right any mired of chemical reactions are possible. These conditions drive the chemical reaction to an equilibrium point. If the conditions change slow enough then the equilibrium points will change and the reactions can continue.

At what point did the conditions stop being the driving force to equilibrium? Was replaced with the need to self replicate? I see that equilibrium must be maintained in order of a biochemical “robot” to maintain operating; this is a set of physical laws that can not be changed. When the conditions change the organism (set of chemical reactions) now tries to change with it. They work together here in a feed back system.

I also time as a factor. Earth forming around 4.5 billion years ago. Life started rather quickly. Ok; maybe from space. What about the Cretaceous explosion? In a very short amount of time the diversity of life exploded; not to mention the speed of recovery of the C-T and Permian extinction events.

Before I had my experience I actually used the accelerating universe to state that as matter slows down the chemical reactions speed up as described in Einstein’s equations. The clock ticked faster so to speak. But I don’t the math well enough to address this further.

I see that civilizations need some type of energy source to advance. If the sun’s energy had not been stored we do not have the advancements we have today. I see us as a life form that survives in a rather low energy environment. In affect, if the energy did not “freeze” into hydrogen and helium then it could not be released into the universe.

I left out many explanations due to reading time and I assume you know the science behind what I say.

I really look forward to reading your responses. Please, rip away, but could you reframe from using words like stupid, gibberish, and the like. I am sensitive as you know.