Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,102 Year: 5,359/9,624 Month: 384/323 Week: 24/204 Day: 0/24 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Starlight and Time---question that must be answered
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5141 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

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5141 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 5141 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

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5141 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

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5141 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 5141 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 5141 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

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5141 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 80 of 84 (28083)
12-29-2002 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Aryeh Shavit
12-25-2002 2:40 AM


A, I havent tried to research this but when "Mere Creation" came out, I bought it and tried to read Ross himself but unlike my experience with Humphreys this was *not* the same pleasent experience. If ICR backs up some creationist then I have in these cases never been dissatisfied when I finally get/got around to putting my mind to the thoughts within the "promotion". I was also not satisfied with the way that I heard Ross come across the "air-waves" from Janet Partial's American Station on Earth but then that was before I compared Janet to the BAD GIRLS of the Bible (to whom I jocularly refer GOOD DAY LIVE Dorthoy and ZoloffCanadaGirl-Jill (both claimed "Catholic") which came on at the same time recently.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Aryeh Shavit, posted 12-25-2002 2:40 AM Aryeh Shavit has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Aryeh Shavit, posted 12-30-2002 2:41 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5141 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 82 of 84 (28200)
12-31-2002 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Aryeh Shavit
12-30-2002 2:41 AM


Look I am not about to answer this question. I was in the top of my public school, taught evolution by my grandfather who had a genetics PHD, collected the most extensive data on herps in a particular county in the US, wrote an essay on environemetalism and got accedpted into Cornell University, achieved a 4.07 average when we were all told to expect a C but as soon I starte to write what I thought as opposed to what was being told to me I was sent to a mental hospital. I did not have a breakdown I only likely spent more time thinking about the subject than the people I was in contact with.
Cornell Scientists rejected me WHEH the only religious thing I was doing was going to Church ON THE SECULAR CAMPUS to take a break from studying on Sundays and sometimes I did NOT worship so that I could keep up with the problem sets. It doesnt matter if they think it is fiction, for they think I am too. And as for Asimov, both my brother and I read popular science as teems but it was he and not me that made any collection of this author. I nver found any interest in him and that was when I in all ways disposed to disblieve in any creation.
You may be statisfied that this elite ivy group rejects some things but in my case they thew what? -- the baby (me whining) out with the bath water (a polluted Hudson). I live(d) in NJ.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Aryeh Shavit, posted 12-30-2002 2:41 AM Aryeh Shavit has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Mike Holland, posted 12-31-2002 9:52 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5141 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 84 of 84 (28246)
01-01-2003 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Mike Holland
12-31-2002 9:52 PM


rIGHT YOU ARE, and Admoose thought he might have me censored for responding this way. I gave the copy of Starlight and Time to my Brother for Christmass, he looked it over once and I doubt he will ever get to the video, So unless I do a lot more work with it too I will also, ditto.
For sys ad- if this kind of post is too cluttering delete it and I will not post this kind of closure response again. Thanks Brad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Mike Holland, posted 12-31-2002 9:52 PM Mike Holland has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024