Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,576 Year: 4,833/9,624 Month: 181/427 Week: 94/85 Day: 1/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Starlight and Time---question that must be answered
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 61 of 84 (24060)
11-24-2002 2:04 PM


Humphrey's concepts have shown up in a new topic, in which someone suggested that Moose track down the older topic which covered the material.
Humphreys has shown up in a number of topics, but this one seems to be the main one.
I'm also moving this topic from "The Great Debate" forum to the "Cosmology" forum.
Adminnemooseus
ps: That new topic can be found at
EvC Forum: la brea tar pits/ humphreys
------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-24-2002]

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5111 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 62 of 84 (26443)
12-12-2002 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lbhandli
01-29-2002 7:28 PM


I actually think it will come from software metrics coordinated with morphometrics but my reasoning here is as convoluted as I get and that often sounds less than perfect pitch to some so let me just start out with the requirement I make for myself that this 5th dimension needs to be visualizable and make that the goal of computers and biology with regard to physics. I do not know how vectors and tensors for invarints work in this "theory". Use of Catatstrophe Theory for assitance in data display may proove helpful.
The neat idea is that on Humphries position it can be claimed that Science gave Humanity a FLAT UNIVERSE and never leared from Colombus. It may be that only genetically engineered life will be able to travel around the universe (beyond the horizon and back) before We manage to understand by god of place that would be priveldged up to the time we do or NEVER DO understand this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lbhandli, posted 01-29-2002 7:28 PM lbhandli has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by forgiven, posted 12-21-2002 9:56 AM Brad McFall has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 84 (27589)
12-21-2002 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Brad McFall
12-12-2002 4:29 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Brad McFall:
I actually think it will come from software metrics coordinated with morphometrics but my reasoning here is as convoluted as I get and that often sounds less than perfect pitch to some so let me just start out with the requirement I make for myself that this 5th dimension needs to be visualizable and make that the goal of computers and biology with regard to physics. I do not know how vectors and tensors for invarints work in this "theory". Use of Catatstrophe Theory for assitance in data display may proove helpful.
The neat idea is that on Humphries position it can be claimed that Science gave Humanity a FLAT UNIVERSE and never leared from Colombus. It may be that only genetically engineered life will be able to travel around the universe (beyond the horizon and back) before We manage to understand by god of place that would be priveldged up to the time we do or NEVER DO understand this.

i'm bumping this cause the subject interests me and i hope those in the know will continue to post any new developments on both sides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Brad McFall, posted 12-12-2002 4:29 PM Brad McFall has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Mike Holland, posted 12-21-2002 7:47 PM forgiven has not replied

  
Mike Holland
Member (Idle past 561 days)
Posts: 179
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 64 of 84 (27610)
12-21-2002 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by forgiven
12-21-2002 9:56 AM


I have studied Humphries' theory, with many laughs, and feel that I can contribute something to the discussion. But when I try to sort my own ideas out, I come across a few dilemmas.
I have myself used the analogy of an expanding balloon to describe expansion without a centre. But there seems to be only 10% of the required mass to close space. Even inventing 'dark matter' to account for the motion of stars in galaxies does not add enough mass.
So all the evidence to date indicates that the universe is not closed, and is either flat or hyperbolic. So much for the balloon analogy.
Assuming that the redshift-velocity-recession interpretation is correct, we then have two possibilities. Either the universe is finite in an infinite space, in which case it has a centre, as supposed by Humphries, or else we have an infinite universe in an infinite space, and the expansion is purely a local phenomenon (local to the immediate 12 billion light years).
In the first case, with a centre, there would be a general gravitational force pulling towards the centre. There would be a gravitational potential caused by the mutual attraction of all the galaxies, just as in the 'closed' universe model, but this force would be an additional feature of a finite universe, just as Humphries claims. Assuming a relatively uniform distribution of matter, the force would increase as one moves out from the centre, and would be zero at the centre. The force would reach a maximum at the outer reaches of the universe, and then fall off exponentially.
If the universe was small and dense enough (very early stage in it's evolution), then it would be contained within its Schwartzchild limit, and an event horizon would surround it.
At this point the theory collapses. Russian cosmologist Igor Novikov has shown that a white hole would rapidly convert into a black hole. Nothing escapes an event horizon, and the universe would collapse into a singularity. I do not accept Humphries' claim that the collapse could 'bounce back' when it reaches his timeless zone. Within the event horizon time points to the centre, and there is only one way to go. There is no other future.
Anyway, time is frozen at the event horizon, so matter could not pass out through it (from an outside point of view).
To put another nail in Humphries' coffin, when the early universe expands to the point where the maximum gravitational field (the outer limit of the universe) reaches the event horizon (assuming this is all possible, contra to Relativity theory), the conditions for the formation of an event horizon disappear. The event horizon would not contract, it would cease to exist. The only way around this is to assume an extremely non-uniform distribution of matter, with the universe much denser at the centre. No observations support this.
Yet another nail - the event horizon would disappear very early in the evolution of the universe - certainly within 10 million years, and not within the last 6000 years (I have done the calculations, and can produce them if required).
I guess I have demolished the expanding finite universe in an infinite space model, so that leaves the infinite universe with local expansion, and the closed universe - if only we could find that missing matter. The closed universe, of course, has a gravitational potential (which causes/is caused by the space curvature), but no net gravitational field and hence no event horizon.
Well, are you all going to shoot me down, or applaud? (not just ignore, I hope).
Mike Holland
NB. One way out of these dilemmas is to reject the Hubble interpretation of redshifts, and follow the lead of Halton Arp. But that would have to be in another forum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by forgiven, posted 12-21-2002 9:56 AM forgiven has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Brad McFall, posted 12-22-2002 12:30 AM Mike Holland has not replied
 Message 66 by Brad McFall, posted 12-22-2002 12:35 AM Mike Holland has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5111 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 65 of 84 (27621)
12-22-2002 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Mike Holland
12-21-2002 7:47 PM


Originally posted by Mike Holland:
I have studied Humphries' theory, with many laughs, and feel that I can contribute something to the discussion. But when I try to sort my own ideas out, I come across a few dilemmas.
I have myself used the analogy of an expanding balloon to describe expansion without a centre. But there seems to be only 10% of the required mass to close space.
.
Does this closure posses any dualism or bipolarity or is it simply that the space this 10% makes up is unoriented?
Originally posted by Mike Holland
Even inventing 'dark matter' to account for the motion of stars in galaxies does not add enough mass.
So all the evidence to date indicates that the universe is not closed, and is either flat or hyperbolic. So much for the balloon analogy.
Is it not that it relys on the "basic principles" still applying?? What if only special relativity applied and a more Lornezian view of a declination from Maxwell's sphere and not Einstein's ridid body (i.e. no prelimiary material division in logic of clocks and rods as exists in the difference of software and hardware)??
What if biology changes the calcuation by REDUCTION of universaility representations summed across every baramin per equivlant computational sophistication that need not follow the stictures of Einstein with respect to but to "embedded" matter? (that the calcuation and not the inertia is in question??)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Mike Holland, posted 12-21-2002 7:47 PM Mike Holland has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5111 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 66 of 84 (27622)
12-22-2002 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Mike Holland
12-21-2002 7:47 PM


Contra, my guess is that time is NOT "frozen" at any event horizon but only the ability of us to travel to this spice ice and that perhaps genetically self reproducing artifical life or a machine may be able to get in and out of WHERE this region is in our skies but to continue to think it as an isotropic ideological belief does not assist in seperating the visualization of a 4-D space-time from a 5-D all that can be numbered ordertype of all 4-D homogenities that while likely not existing on the scale of the universe could on the scale of application of cellular automata (with a catastrophe set tiling connecting the not ideology of the cosmology).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Mike Holland, posted 12-21-2002 7:47 PM Mike Holland has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Mike Holland, posted 12-22-2002 5:52 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Mike Holland
Member (Idle past 561 days)
Posts: 179
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 67 of 84 (27672)
12-22-2002 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Brad McFall
12-22-2002 12:35 AM


Sorry, Brad, but you have too many 'what if's. What if there are fairies at the bottom of the garden? You need theories backed up by evidence. Einstein's is the best one going, and has not failed any of the tests yet. No-one has come up with an alternative.
I love science-fiction and fantasy, and wish we could find a way around the light barrier to visit the stars, but so far all the evidence is against it. Pity.
But you can pass through an event horizon - but only one way. But you must leave my universe to do it!
The moment you move relative to me, or occupy a place with a different gravitational potential, we are no longer in the same frame of reference, and your Time is not the same as my Time. As you move towards an event horizon, your clock slows down in my time frame, while mine speeds up in yours. I see you slow down, and never get there - until my clock reads 'infinity'. You see me speed up, and the whole outside universe speeds up and becomes blue-shifted. Just before you get there, the whole outside universe completes its evolution, suffers a heat death (if that is what the far future holds)and finishes in blackness. You have now left my universe - at the far end of time. You are in a different universe, which has no contact with mine, but only for a few seconds as you collapse into the centre of the singularity at the speed of light.
So, whether time at the event horizon is frozen or not depends on one's point of view. From the point of view of our universe, it is! You can only prove different by leaving our universe. Unless someone proves that General Relativity is wrong.
Some Theories-of-Everything propose 10 or 11 dimensions - much worse that your 4-D or 5-D, but the extra dimensions are all folded up very small, and cannot get you around the Relativity restrictions. Worm-holes? I dunno, but as a science-fiction fan, I can dream too. But matter flying out of an event horizon? Naahhhh! In your dreams, Humphries!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Brad McFall, posted 12-22-2002 12:35 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Brad McFall, posted 12-22-2002 5:58 PM Mike Holland has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5111 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 68 of 84 (27673)
12-22-2002 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Mike Holland
12-22-2002 5:52 PM


I do not, you simply do not know how to think like me. Sorry mabye better luck next time

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Mike Holland, posted 12-22-2002 5:52 PM Mike Holland has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Mike Holland, posted 12-22-2002 7:59 PM Brad McFall has replied
 Message 73 by Brad McFall, posted 12-22-2002 11:54 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 84 (27678)
12-22-2002 6:41 PM


6000 year old rock. The constant belligerence of these judeo-christian whatevers is a clear indication of the narrowmindedness of this debate. The attempt to validify of the 6000 year old rock statement is comparable to an attempt to conclude that God is an egg by using the shape of the earth as evidence.
Please put your flawed and biased arguments on the backburner. The only honest form of belief is foundationalist empiricism.

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by forgiven, posted 12-22-2002 7:22 PM Gzus has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 84 (27681)
12-22-2002 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Gzus
12-22-2002 6:41 PM


foundational empiricism... The constant belligerence of these foundational empiricist whatevers is a clear indication of the narrowmindedness of this debate. The attempt to validify of the foundationalist empiricism statement is comparable to an attempt to conclude that God is an egg by using the shape of the earth as evidence.
anyone can assert anything they wish while demeaning the thoughts of any number of people... are your arguments flawed, are they biased?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Gzus, posted 12-22-2002 6:41 PM Gzus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Brad McFall, posted 12-24-2002 11:13 PM forgiven has not replied

  
Mike Holland
Member (Idle past 561 days)
Posts: 179
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 71 of 84 (27688)
12-22-2002 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Brad McFall
12-22-2002 5:58 PM


No, Brad, I do not think like you. Judging to other responses to your posts, I don't think anyone does. Have you discussed this with your analyst?
I tried to continue the discussion on an issue where I thought we were talking the same language, the possibility of passing matter through an event horizon, but I don't seem to have made any contact with your thoughts.
Better luck next time? Why should I want 'luck' in my attempt to communicate with you, when you make no attempt to respond?
I find your posts fascinating and entertaining, but mostly incomprehensible. I guess I have to post comments for other readers, and ignore your babblings.
May the force be with you.
Mike.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Brad McFall, posted 12-22-2002 5:58 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Brad McFall, posted 12-22-2002 11:27 PM Mike Holland has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5111 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 72 of 84 (27701)
12-22-2002 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Mike Holland
12-22-2002 7:59 PM


I was sitting down to dinner and had not time or rather no composed time to respond to you then. The point is that you a-coming as this p2nd post shows are able to think for yourself but if you expect me to be able to reduce to one post years of posting and some indeed very real interaction after you missed the ability to criticize Humphreys by denying Einstein and not Humphreys it leaves me much with only responding in the negative for which I believe what I and you and I were talking about refers as per what I said to Einsteins "I shall not consider here how the concepts of the three-dimensional and the Euclidean nautre of space can be traced back to relatively primative experiences."(in RELATIVITY AND THE PROBLEM OF SPACE).
pOSTINg on the web always works more smoothly when people continue to stay connected. Every time someone trys to refer to "mental" issues with me turns me off and it takes extra effort on my part to will to post that way again. You risk me not repsonding by writing that way. I am not GOD.
The difficulty in possibly mis mass calculations (and unlike you I have just now begun to read this cosmology stuff (and found out I BSM disagree with the guy Einstein)) is (and here I will likely loose you again so you best wait in that case till I am finished reading Einstein and have moved on for a more palatable summary that is not being written at the keyboard) that with evolutionary decption especially in non-human...experinences...
As to what is happening from reading some cosmology is that I believe that it may be that it is not possible for humans ever to cross this "event" horizon (NO MATTER WHAT IT IS) but that self-relicating biology might. These kinds of thoughts are so far out to the tune of a sound in science fiction that if you are at the place of trying to percieve any one who understands me it is best not to engage my thoughts on things that indeed might never happen and rather stay with standards such as biogeography. (even here i recently failed in being fair on NO ANSWERS IN GENESIS and I am tired of taking time to bring people up to speed who are confident that they do not have an interest in what I say; those who express some interest without judging however I am not inclined this way towards at all.)
I doubt that the whole of the science of cosmology is correct in the same sense that I suspect that Bohr's version if wholly inadequate. Again Physics is not something I have spent much time with so best you NOT do as had in same time happended on NO ANSWERS for there seems to be a deeper problem you are avoiding. That what I say are "babblings" is a miscaracturization that permits a little less guilt but wrong nonetheless.
The perception that I am some super smart alec is way off from my off web personality but this is not an impression I actively try to shake.
Originally posted by Mike Holland:
I tried to continue the discussion on an issue where I thought we were talking the same language, the possibility of passing matter through an event horizon,
The truth of my ability to answer in this interest is whooly if indeed I can (or can not) expand Wolfram's notion of computational equivalence to a non-phenotype/geneotype mutation without zero population genetics that finds phenomenologically the axis of Humprhyes in no differnt symetrical relation (to any physicality) to Wrights in the shifting balance theory IN THE ABSENCE OF ADATPATION. That overdetermines the sufficency but the necessity is so strict that you asked me to do something I could not (calucluate in the perpetual Galelio utility THE INTERNAL to a the centric inertial sorts alone) while I had not introduced my own thoughts on topology into this thread on cosmology. I was trying to understand how to visualize the extra SPACE dimension and not the all effects of event horizons and as my comments to TB on time differential indicated I had said nothing of the red shift per say.
You may be correct that there is not enough mass to make a not full of matter universe but unless you can manage all the above words and NOT say this is an analyst's material I am sorry you are too premature to get the appearence of age from me. I do not know if that is the correct creationist response. If I had already the answer to this do you think I would be posting here at Percy's C/E stop?
Look answer me this or go on to others. Do you have any conceptual location for absolute space and time. Humphreys made the distinction between the countable starts and the infinity of GOD. So if not even this remained for you but finding me entertaining or interesting then ideed you did miss connecting with me but not of any fault of my own (and if I may speak for the man upstairs-- Him n-either)
I think the whole field of space exploration biology is actually the subject of passing matter through an event horzion but I could be wrong and this is only about black (and white)holes. I am just not schooled enough in cosmology to respond any more intelligently for you at this time. What I had suggested however still stands and I know WOlfram would in fact disagree as to the computuational reduction I imply in this series of attempts to seperate a reproductive arithemetic increase in overlap from any emprical geometry that Einstein or his cosmological descendents could produce engineerable. There are undoubtedly multiviews in cosmology (just like in evolutionary theory) that already think they have answered or at least catagorized the kinds of answers to these kinds of questions. When I have doubt it ususally turns up a reading.
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-22-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Mike Holland, posted 12-22-2002 7:59 PM Mike Holland has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5111 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 73 of 84 (27703)
12-22-2002 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Brad McFall
12-22-2002 5:58 PM


TIME could be "frozen" at this event ((holes into each other (topology)) but what I suggested was that biological (DNA) reproduction(time) may not. You(Holland) decided this was a different language. This has to be the same science.
And this may be possible WIHOUT GR geing "wrong". My version is very sketchy that attempts to integrate Wolfram 'nodes' into a catastrophe set that finds MASS on the shape locations of these sets BY two limiting processes MATERIALLY. That I have not shown. Also GR could be no more useful to me. I need to acutally do a BEUATIFUL MIND remanian etc first and as I said...(but did you know there is NO notion of time for a cell without reference to Cell Cycles(materialism)?)
In fact our disconnect could have come from you being MORE reductionist than I need to be to get my point beyond Wolfram. I am not investigating every copernican or evolutionary view(s) but only those I feel I can turn striaght.
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-23-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Brad McFall, posted 12-22-2002 5:58 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5111 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 74 of 84 (27818)
12-24-2002 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by forgiven
12-22-2002 7:22 PM


Let us not assume any two statements but rather than an egg stick strictly with Newton's Principia and the "GOD" of the general sholium and asking of a seed instead if it falls in Newtonian lines to the earth or the sun and having begun to answer this question asses indeed if this is rather also something being approached a priori. For if it is not, one ageing rock quantity willnot be foundation enough.
If you think that is writ to confuse it is only becasue we do not(yet) know each other on a first name basis. There is nothing "narrow" in constricting to talk about what can be answered.Furthermore in terms of mock talk I do not see how staying with Issac of the past forces the empircism into a straightjacket. Calculation is not computation and because it may take away reason to "compute" this this does not mean we are machines even if my brother can calculate better than me. Look, you may disgree with Wolfram that much complex(ity) in life is built of simple programs and I certianly tend to but really one can hide just about any philosophy in a foundational empricism. If Humphreys model is better than this will not be the point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by forgiven, posted 12-22-2002 7:22 PM forgiven has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Aryeh Shavit, posted 12-25-2002 2:40 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Aryeh Shavit
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 84 (27825)
12-25-2002 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Brad McFall
12-24-2002 11:13 PM


Hi all,
Dr. Russell Humphreys’ book has been out for some 8 years, if I am not quite mistaken.
I wonder what has been the reaction of the academic world till now. I am aware only of the comments by Samuel N. Corner and Don N. Page as well as Dr. Hugh Ross. All those comments were highly unfavorable of Russell Humphreys’ book.
I wonder if there were any other academic comments on the book? I have an impression that the book caused some struggle between the Old Earth and Young Earth creationists but the majority of physicists and astronomers didn’t even notice it. Is this impression correct?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Brad McFall, posted 12-24-2002 11:13 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Brad McFall, posted 12-29-2002 10:17 PM Aryeh Shavit has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024