Here is an argument for mini ones. See if it makes sense: http://hiup.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/AIP_CP_SProton_Haramein.pdf

Why can't there be multiple big bangs and still have an eternal universe. What is up with all these time stops right here, or before time began nonsense? I think, even though I have no answers, that any view or scheme, if the negative connotation be pardoned, that any view should exist without sharp edges to its realm of applicability. Any theory which says, all is fine until this one tiny point, or that there is a break in a timeline, just sits unnaturally no matter how well it works with small successes. It is like we are faced by the quantum problem, whether there is a discrete small limit, is only because all of our large scale dynamics known to date have breaks on a cosmic scale. I mean, just take Lee's grandfather pregnancy clause, and if one says that is true, there must have been more than one big bang, more than one birth of galaxies, and then note the current deficiency in classical gr on the cosmological scale, that is, that it is compatible with a single creation point, the way points forward is that to a type of dynamics which allows a succession of cosmic-scale events, which still preserves unity of a world picture. Perhaps the dynamics would offer new interpretations of the great experimental success of qm in its domain. History has shown that whether or not most scientists wish to see it as such, that interpretation of experiment is really quite a subject task. Sure, they present such facts as are called natural, but the way they are related to other concepts is entirely human thought based. So their meaning is already a vague form of subjective experience of the scientist as he is reading the results of the field work. Why not do so more straight forwardly, if it is going down any-who? So many very smart, genius minds have been trying to get the qm view in a good interpretation, but leave it and it will be explained by some deeper theory. I think the greatest limitation put on sciences progress right now is that the big bang theories rely on many assumptions and initial conditions. So cut the initial and try to understand what one thing wen to another, not some glorious, part the clouds and have one perfect blast settle all the business for all time to come. So in a sense, maybe THE big bang is a myth, and all the rest that goes with it (it does sound rather theological, doesn't it?) but to discard big bangs is to rash a discard of a very beautiful idea. It may be smoothed over, and lack some of the religious potency revolving around the idea, if the big bang was seen as more of an event in some succession based on deeper laws, than some singular happening of unknown origin and the only one of its kind. Such dynamics need have a way to account for a cause of the big bang, and also a way to trace back, through the use of evidence, how many more expansion events have happened to date.

Well, I just feel that there is an energy that sorta starts clinging to the cells, but that the cells don't really have a sentient existence, in the slightest sense, until about 40 days. But science today is concerned with only the physical. So you could only talk about DNA and nutrients, but sometimes even deprived mothers will birth a healthy babe, and I think it is because there was a certain energy which just superseded the deficiencies, that liked that bundle of cells for some tendency in the nature of the energy itself. DNA is passed down, know doubt about how cells divide and use DNA as a instruction set- that is physical biology. But I am saying that there is something beyond the physical, that is not in our science, even though it is likely scientific in reasoning. It is sort of how relativity is a physical theory, but that we have all this dark stuff around. Maybe it is just a word for saying we really have no idea, but there is this deficit. So just as i imagine that a broad theory which includes some weird dynamics, some nothingness and creation events, will need to be proposed, and as a soliloquy to this idea, there would be room for a type of non physical attachment of energy which changes how the new organism will start to add resources to itself. So it is bogus because I can't really explain it, so what good are the thoughts? But I don't rule out that such explanations are able to be conveyed, and if science is adjustable enough, will someday be incorporated into it, if physics really does want to be the king of studies, the deepest level that the limits of the mind can go to.

I'm convinced cancer is in our DNA.
There's a professor called David Lane who is studying it now.
I'm not saying our DNA carries cancer, but I think some peoples DNA is open to cancer more than others.

Slightly off topic but there you go

Any references brah?

“Gravitation is not responsible for people falling in love.”
—Albert Einstein --- To Fred Wall, 1933. AEA 31–845

I sometimes wonder if spirituality is a type of science that will eventually get absorbed into mainstream physics. But either way, love is just a made up, human thing.

Why do these things keep popping up? What is it in human nature, or what is it in society, that still lets these outcroppings spring up, in the learned circles in all places? From my own talks with people, racism is less tense with common people, but now these high docs. and all seem to be contorting their faces again whenever they see an apparent difference. If they had true eyes, they would not see this as anything other than different suitability, or small perks.

There are probably more species that we will ever know about that are being wiped out by our lifestyle than the exterminations numbered that are attributed to us. I mean, to a certain extent, every time we use mouthwash and wash our face, there are millions of little deaths, so part of life is always at the expense of another, but there out to be a conscious limit.

Has helped me

Isha Yoga

I mean, 9.6 billion pop. by 2050, and people are just starting families without out heading that number. It is like, oh, that is a problem, but it's a prediction, so it will happen no matter what i do.

First, i would say try to have kids for the world and not personal reasons. If you can become sensitive enough to know whether a kid is needed in the world, and not just to fix up your psychological case in the marriage or whatnot, that would be ideal. It should be a blessing to have a kid that will help out the world, not burden it and fail to fix what you messed up in your life anyway.

Second, no killing or anything need happen, just convince one generation not to have kids somehow. The world would go on, and the population would be lower. I think reasonable goals that i have heard are 3-4 billion by 2050, a reduction.

No need to tamper with the genetics, just change the attitude about getting pregnant. Who knows what will happen if human gmo's start going around. Maybe they could eat that rubbish! lol

Has anyone heard of Nassim Haramein and his Schwarzchild proton? Is is that a particle is a mini black hole rotating around. He also thinks that there is a black hole at the center of the earth and the sun. It sounds kind of odd, but how often has the world view switched in the past when what we think the earth is in relation to the cosmos or solar system is involved?

No, the info doesn't come from the cells, they are meaningless ingredients. But as this is a science forum, I will not speak further about the matter.

I guess it works for things like famine too. When the body is famished, it shuts down some normal metabolism and converts food o sugar and fat for more available use. So kids born through mothers during a farm crop plague or drought have obesity and blood sugar problems, and it goes at least 3-4 generations down. Some think it goes even more precise than that- that the moment of conception is very vulnerable for the new cells, that they will be effected by environmental factors in the immediate area as well. I So, petri dish reproduction is thought t be risky because the cell is exposed to the environment more than without a third party delivery system.

Here is a novel that very well may be tltr, but as I wrote it, what the heck:
Information is noted in Susskind’s hint as decreasing when velocity is increased, and as a body or entity approaches the speed of light, its mass increases. So around a mass in an ordinary ‘sitting’ fashion, there will be less information when gravitation potential increases. So I agree with your info-as-potential def. I can’t say if physics should or ever will deal with nothingness, in the sense of being outside a bound, and not still in an unoccupied space time. I think at some point it might have to drop notions of space-time, but that the space will go first. All this time is just an illusion offers itself well to a certain type of comfortable philosophy, but it hasn’t really taken physics anywhere. If time is nothing, why bother trying to figure out how it works. But weighing the psychology behind different approaches is not the point. It has been pursued by many scientists, and one of them, Lee Smolin, is now leaning the other way, that time is of a fundamental substance, and space needs to be dropped. So physics may swing life away on that for a few decades,, if his thinking catches on. So ultimately that might even be dropped. Now, sure, any field is a something, but I don’t about the future, and all the old saws seem worn out, at least in how they are put to use.

My thoughts trace information as being defined more concretely as what can be communicated with so much energy as a medium. So, like data is written onto a cd, it is stored on the behavior of energy itself. If there were trends developed for how much is communicated between two points that showed a shifting value, and then also the energy was accounted for, not only could there be a unit of data per available energy for transmission of sorts, but also one might be able to find instances when communication is enhanced or deterred. It may be folly to consider an analogy, but perhaps it could be said that resistance of metal purity in wire, or influences of temperature could be identified which affect transmission efficiency. So here, instead of those, it would be things like speed or mass in an area which limit how much information can be written of the medium of energy itself.

And dude man, about the organizing events, give a break about late night mind doodling! Maybe I shouldn’t have mentioned such thoughts on here. But It is what I saw, what I felt, and I don’t really care about it being right compared to definitions or how information is currently used in physics. It was driven by just a want to understand life more. It very well may be that I have no idea what information is, and am just using the wrong world, but besides very dry entropy statements, I haven’t really understood satisfactory what info is. Shannon is tight, yeah? succinct and simple. He had straight forward ways of handling his business, and it definitely helped out many companies that decided to use his work in one way or another! And the Greeks are great, don’t get me wrong, but instead of relying on their might (hasn’t it already carried enough weight?) we need to be more like the Greeks ourselves, we need to be our own crafters of logic and reason appropriate for today’s pursuits. If my reasoning doesn’t make sense to you, or even to myself, what is the concern of either? I hope that if this is the case, it will be shed like all of those other parts of Greece that were taken to the tombs.

Onto number Two. What do you call intelligence? I asked myself this for almost two years now, well, after a friend put it to me. Not having a good answer, I took the question as my own. I have had many definitions that seemed workable, but they always were dropped as inadequate within a few weeks. The only thing I’ve started to think is that it is just the natural tendency to resolve oppositions by making some difference. This can be all creation. A rock is always trying to get to its lowest point, of minimizing the diff. in potential of where it is and the set point of where it would be at more ease. It is just that it has a very single minded approach to arguing its case. It says I know where I have to go to feel like I’ve reached my place in this vast cosmos (see, rocks have a lot of time to just take these thing in and incorporate it into their language), and it is down that will be most direct. So it will never compromise and kick it a little sideways. This is a lot like some married people! They only difference that I see using this type of smarts is that a human being has legs and a will which let him do this resolving work more quickly. Our mind and senses let one pick a better method than that straight to the destination business. Even the cosmos can be taken as a sort of solving of disparity between matter-energy and space-time, both functions to eliminate the outstanding potential of either. So when those 180,000 years were passed, at certain points human beings become more capable of do this resolution work.

Say for whatever reason, they had to move to a different location and pass through a prehistoric border patrol zone. Since they didn’t always carry around portable information representations, like our id cards serve for today, customs was always suspicious. What could be in that skin, where did this fellow come from, where is he going. And since leaving your id at home was a reasonable excuse back then, because if you had one, it was likely in some memorial or monument, or even rock that had your identity in it as some ancestral bonding, and also because all the running around they had to do just to survive, the appointments took forever. When people moved to a new land to find their place, it really was a long and tough adventure. Now days, if you have a little money, you can go anywhere, and what may have taken tens of thousands of years before can be done in a few months today, as far as relocation goes.

I talked about travel, but the point is that humans now can do the work that it took a thousand to do, because he now has some big machine he created. People back then were more like rocks, maybe not in the sense of being dumb brain size wise or structurally, but in the sense that they couldn’t do much in the way of moving things along. I would venture saying that humans have taken on a capacity to have an affect which is seen in the environment they create, that succeeds what the body can handle. That is what all this destroying the world business is about. We may damage it, but that is not the concern of most activists, I would guess about 70-80% of so involved people. The major worry is that earth will become inhospitable for us because of what we do to it. We are and will continue wiping out a lot of life forms besides humans if the disaster occurs, but life on earth will continue even if humans and some fauna do not. Evolution isn’t meant here as size of brains or something, which are getting smaller today anyhow.

This is a very good documentary which supports the we ****ed them to death statement: http://t.co/HdbITKXSRe
But really I was drawn into talking about Homo sapiens evolving when I meant that from a monkey to a human being, there has been mental evolution, but not body evolution. So if your point was to try to get me to wind myself on a different, more irrelevant, statement, you did very well. If it is me who ranted for some half-conscious reason, then that’s what you get for providing information about Homo sapiens to spring of off!
But, uh, to rephrase my question, is there and way to make us less like monkeys and more like whatever else the future will hold? Now put intelligence developing aside, just physical evolution yo. I’ve never ruled out the idea of a superior intelligence roaming the land before maths or anything was invented, and before there was a need for such, but still and intellect containing many of the now unsolved mysteries.

Yeah Buddy, spot on!

Well, the first cell isn't really about evolution. It is about origins and not the development of the physical. So I wouldn't call the start of life as we define it, as moving and reproducing matter, but the panspermia idea seems neat. Wiki it. Or pull a combo move with the life-surviving-impact idea and the other which is that there were stellar winds- do you know that there is a thing called a cosmic wind of energy and particles that is blowing out there on big scales- well anyway, that this wind aligns certain chemical components into the pre-curses for organ matter. So here one could have the cosmic wind pollinating hydrogen rocks, by shifting some material building blocks for life around, and then have the seed impact some dirt and get to work. I mean, maybe there are some jumps and tricks along the way, but that is the best basic idea my mind offers.

I was just thinking that there needs to be a way to speed up body evolution for humans. I mean, being honest, chin down, and definitely how people act from the waist down, not much has changed in the last leg of time. It is like our mind and intelligence took leaps and bounds, the kind that still puzzle people who look at our evolution, but that the body was slower. So what we have in society is a bunch of people who have great potential (the brain is what makes life tick and fun) but who feel scared and limited, and then withdraw into the ways of the body, which is sorta like having to stay with the old folks for a while and having to use a computer that needs updates. Either you wait and do nothing for hours or a day, or you work as is and get so aggravated by the limitations of the technology because you know you could do so much more if you had your macbook pro or gamer. Well, the mind is like a taste of that super speed, but so much suffering, as my thoughts see it, comes from being limited by a retarded body. Not in the sense that it is not miraculous and sophisticated, but in the way of being up to speed with out brains and intelligence. So it is like, how to humans evolve further, what can be done?

I often wonder if evolution is grinding to a complete stop because everyone survives now. There are no longer 5-6 deaths common for one mother, no more 'it was a weak baby.' That was just part of life, but now everybody freaks out about it. Do any of yo ever think about how there are so many people around today that just wouldn't of made it back 1,000 years ago, or even 100? I know I have thought this, as I am one of them... I am not saying that people should be killed, but there must be some way to help evolution take place, for those born and not yet born. I think Einstein said imagination is what leads evolution, and having more around couldn't hurt, unless imagination becomes overactive and fairies and dragons evolve from butterfly and snakes again!

Panspermia might not have proof, but if you want my guess, and a guess only, life started in deep space when information itself began to organize in such a way that anything which we call creation could be conceived of. I view everything as living, even rocks and what not. Rocks will always try to resolve their work, they are always at least trying to get to their destination. Without a mind or limbs, they just sit on the surface, but they def. put out effort. Humans too try to go to were their potential is fulfilled, it is just that since we are so much more capable, we think it separates us. We get a fast hair attitude towards the turtle and start wasting time. How was the last million, or 200,000 thousand years spent, the second being when we had fairly similar voice boxes? It was just wasted, running around trying to survive. But now days, when everyone can survive no problemo! the lot of us stresses like it is the only thing life is about. Survival, through relationships or bringing home the bacon, is still what our bodies tell us to do. But when we think, when anyone uses their mind for an instant, they can know there is unused potential in a human being, more than what is needed for finding shelter, food, and a continuance of line. Humans are trapped in a mix-match of evolutionary development, and it has been on my mind, here and there, for at least the last half-year. Any thoughts?

Further reading, about the same material: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/science/space/detection-of-waves-in-space-buttresses-landmark-theory-of-big-bang.html?_r=0
It has a nice, cute little story line as well.

That paper at least points to the need to think about the largest of scales when looking at some very big mysteries. I think Lee Smolin would approve of the statement that the current terrestrial experiments are too limited in scope to be applied to the world at large.

I think as the world population becomes more conscious that the need for religion will continue to decrease.

There is no getting cancer, everyone who is alive already has it. It is just when it grows uncontollaby or migrates from one location to another that it is considered active and a problem. It is sort of like those scavenger ants. If they just chilled and took up a single corner, som part of a tree trunk, and lived there sustainably, they wouldn't be a major pest at all, just an unpleasant location to lean for a rest! But it is that they ravage pne site of all it's normal life functioning and move onto the next that makes them a real issue. If cancer is mitigated by being universally common, then the real threat lies in it's over active expansion and consumption, and what drives industrial nations more and more is what makes good fuel for cancer, namely fats and sugars combined. It is not a particular product of food item, it is a general mode of consumption that leads to this disease, and premature aging too.

I don't think that this is a real imagine that hasn't been enhanced. I am more into a natural fit froma n active lifstyle than any product of exercises at a gym.