I try to trust everyone with all matters. If the world wants to do one over on me, so be it. But no one is out to get me, and i don't think that nature is mean or kind by itself.

Speaking loosely, Einstein's Relativity theories did did grant perspective equal viewing rights, and is the difference between gravity and acceleration. Has anybody said otherwise and had any luck with experimental results?

I am seeing a lay out of never repeating choices that culminate into a history afterwards when one thinks about it, but where one event leads to the next, but not exactly and determined. I add that those choices are already set in stone somehow, in such a way that the free will which picks this way or that for no apparently clear rhyme or reason can be known ahead of time. It is the only thing that I know of that limits those infinite regresses of I thought this just to think of this, and know from that to this and so on. Idk, I feel like it all goes down according to some plan, but one that lets bumps and illogical connections interfer with how it plays out.

This topic I would have anyways with myself, and I post for myself so I go twice over what I encounter, so why not post it? And I think Ein said something like 'I have put a watch at every point in relative space, but do not have more than one in my own home.' So I guess his poorness or lack or luxury made him more sure in your sense.

*Momentary success carries more power of conviction for most people than reflections on principle.

So many people are deterred by their very own sense of winning off the bat, and they don't look at long term principles when searching?

Odd, but I heard that the do explode eventually, it is just that it takes longer than our universe has been around, or the 14 billion that is popularized as a ball park figure. So that can be interpreted as BH processes were going on before the Big Bang. That settles that it is not so simple as a onetime startup. But I agree that your modest view is the only one that can be put forth with integrity at this time. Thanks for bringing that point to a brighter light, Moe!

I think that the term black hole was coined by John A. Wheeler, who worked on continuing Ein’s work and is known for his x without the x statements. He noticed that the objects would not be seen when he was in meetings discussing the extreme of Gr physics. He needed a quick jargon word for his concept to communicate it clearly, and to do this, the black hole one was invented. It simply meant at that time that the objects would not be seen by direct stellar observation, and not all of the jazz that has been tacked on later since then.

I think also that having a boundary in a theory is really just a weird notion, I mean why would there be such a stopping point in the universe. As I see it, there would have to be a way of looking that has energy or light or info- all of the mass-energy ingredients, exist in such a way so that these blocks just need not exist. Perhaps a black hole is simply a point where energy behaves differently than what is normally so. I think what is called for is an information physics, you know, getting the decoding of that wacky info around BH’s down. Whether light or bodies get in or pierce a horizon, the question still remains as to why data and materials do condense around these points. What is the relevant dynamics? Those are what are begging to be found.

Twice now, but it just isn't sticking. I could make my own view, one flawed and likely wrong, but trying to wrap my head around his is just too much for me. It seems like a good trend to make an infinite time span, and wouldn't it be odd if some basic equations like the mass-energy equivalence still covered phenomenon well? Say, for example, that the uni. really is getting heavier, but that the speed of light is slowing down to compensate. You could imagine a particle or beam expelled from a moving body, or even a still source, and think, well, just measure its speed right, I mean if it is radiation. But it is sorta like how in shape dynamics, the size of the ruler with which to compare also shrinks or expands from diff. regions as you move it to try to gauge. So here, the signal itself would be subject to a sort of red or blue shift, more like an expansion shift, and would run at the same speed rate and energy as the surroundings. Perhaps then, an acceleration would show streaks in a sequence that could have information regarding how massive a unit of mass is compared to a speeding up body today, if one can pardon the hypothetical nature of such thinking. If it is born cold, there must have been a long time for subtle effects to have been acquired and also built up. These still pass the minds of physicists uncaught, and it may always remain that way. But there is the hope that science will expand to take in new facts and new facets of scientific thinking. There is still something hanging in the air in my thinking about how the expansion is not but a apparent affect. Your man seemed to suggest this, but whether or not it is his exact version, I do deem such an attitude regarding it as needed at this time. One big bang only is not likely, from reading that bit, but the expansion and other large, universal traits just have to be known!

Why the dis on the lentils? I had some just this evening . This conversation devolved into a religious/creator and natural process debate. It had its interesting points, that is not doubted! Yet I think it stands in good reason to 'front face' the idea that scientists shouldn't believe anything, not even impecable logic or the Newtonian paradigm baised scientific method, and neither should spiritual seekers. Both start off with saying I Don't Know to the big questions and then go from there. Maybe it is a very good case and point to say that religious ideas held by a social power stalled out scientific development through the dark ages to its end sometime shortly after Newton died. But there are many kinds of dogma, and it can pervade even scientific thinking in the blink of an eye. To caution against this, one might view the nearly 400 years past as an experiment in how to do science. Was it successful? I'd say not in the way I'd define it. With work and patience and a peak of an creative edge, there is no failure, but only a path to walk. So drop any ideas of doing science like it was done in Newton's days, or proving a Creator did it all entirely. . While history has a surpising relevancy in scientific thought today, whatever new consesus is reached about these types of questions will certainly be a page turn.

I am a ball,
World, will you drop me?
I am not afraid to fall,
Whirl and twist indefinitely.

Your embracing strings sweetly cry,
a web weaved so supple yet delicately,
of crosses envisioned, and one overlapped why,
The world is a covering of I and you.

But don't take too dearly,
any darling of the heart,
Let the dated pit drop nearly,
Reassuring death weighing a rested gut.

Rise, without yeast,
clearing furrows of the opaque soul.
It once shimmered to the very least,
grand upset to my dampening viewing.

No longer seen,
am I tucked away?
Far gone beyond the dreamy stars,
That keep my sight to only what seems,
Shielded lids, how oft they dream,
nil to rehearse, still drafting the play.

I wonder if I could have been different,
The chorus offers a synched no,
I would yell If I had any air left,
But my anger, my angst, all must go.

I like when the stage drops out,
and I land in the lively mud,
crusty, lovely, lonely and falling up,
Striving for a love bomb, let hate be a dud.

Continuing show,
like Broadway make your sweep,
The globe and its panels combine,
for a drama tragedy completed with long weep.

Does the universe have humor, a sense of what is funny or not?When I think about what is funny, it is first a mental activity, something that just doesn't line up perfectly, but outside of strict logic delivers a certain punch. I think humor lets in a deeper understanding that that allowed by the mind alone. It kind of opens up different types of thinking and looking at the world. It has a physical sense too, in that the motion of the body is integral to the emotion, and all of that stemming from the funny thoughts. There has to be a mind to make or get a funny. The mind is part of the universe, so I can say for certain only that small localized portions of the universe have a sense of humor. But the brain and body of a human is just a certain arrangement or configuration of basic parts found all over, such as atoms and electricity, fats... A joke to us is what makes a laugh occur, but that same type of stimulus could be applied to another state or some alien body, or a rock even, and while it may not register it as something that would also be found if stimulated by a comic, it could perhaps sort the energy in some way. That is the extent to which I find that the universe has a sense of humor. It pairs notions or ideas in odd or strangely alarming ways, just think about all of those tragic coincidenses or a playpuss and a grin comes to the face. But nature might just smile differently, and have a silent form of laughter. It might not even need to joke, but I don't see why it wouldn't!

The backround radiation is just something that people don't know what to do with. It came in the construction kit without any mentions in the instructions or a ready function, like an extra screw.

not cool!

I like to eat dinners in the dark and watch out of a window sometimes. It is not depressing though.

I wonder if they have a head or tail one way in particular. Being aligned could give more blood flow to the muscles contracting to defecate. Then, such a tendecy would have a muscle sensation that the dog could pick up on with practice. This could be entirely wrong, but that is the kicker of any scientific process!

Izzy, jeesh! You know something, when people have elevated levels or iron in their circulating blood, or even to a lesser extent all blood, the earth's field or magnetic potential does pull on it. It doesn't matter so much when one is standing or sitting nearly straight, but if one is lying down north-south, blood can be drawn and pool in the head or feet. If one is sensitive and has a weak constitution, the extra blood surging the brain tissue can keep the thoughts rolling when trying to fall asleep. If you're old and faulty, it could cause night time hemorage. So here we have dogs and animals doing things that must humans have forgotten how to do. See, even dogs forget when around there masters, so far removed from our natural state modern man has come to be. Forget might not be the right word for either here. It is more an ignoring and pushing aside of motivation to act out by those nearest us. It is a waste of money if one doesn't care about small wonders which can be amusing or learning opportunities. If you want to talk about a waste, think about tax dollars poorly spent on military defense or intelligence agencies, so they could read this post about dog dung if they wanted to.

I think we haven't cured cancer because we keep sowing the seeds of disease- a polluted and heavily toxic environmental cocktail of stressors and a poor diet.

Okay, so I don't think that the Big Bang Theory, or whatever you want to call it, can be debunked as it is ill defined and more of a catch all phrase for an event before the expansion that is known of today. I started out with this post thinking that one could argue one or many big bang events, but now see that it is a sort of misnomer. Whatever you want to call the period that observations lead back to, I do not see a sharp begining or anything other than some happening that is performed according to a comprhensive physics. As simply as a stone throw or bounce is described by current physics, so too even the massive scales. Yet is an extremely ambitious word, but I agree readily with the first part- I do not know how it went down.

Vanaheim: Nice summary of arguments and following conclusion.

Limbs, of tubular structure,
Green, nimble and searching,
Curves around a body, where,
probings nulled a bending least resistance.

Tiny arms. reaching out and about,
noting past, tangling with the now,
Here moving; a sweet spot for future,
The transition zone of seed-sowing creation.

Fingering tindrils, how oft lay,
Way to the side, tilted,
groping dark up a slope,
seeking soft crevice, a mineral deep throat.

Plant stuffs closes its eyes too,
a hinted, tinged, midnight cerulean blue,
Of chemicals back-traced before an Eve,
and before wolf ever worshipped moon.

Half-completed genetic code,
the future lines sequence the rest,
Plants had a running start,
Left early. Id, we walked right,
With two different directions...
Who'd agree to reff. the fight?

Open brain/closed mind dichotomy,
Maybe Thoreau was on to something,
I've never had the mind to quote,
So just reflect on embryology.

Eons of evolution, packed into,
nine months, plus a God, Oh!
a few moments sets a human process,
Of end, almost nothing is known.


One sided? the brain split twain,
but even two processor cores,
or billions, do little more,
than open or shut sexual gates.

Maybe it's bad evolution,
--God just didn't care,
about lacking a doorknob,
on the threshold of consciousness.
But broader perspectives of plants and animals,
leaves nothing in man, no 'I' to scare.

Sweet emptiness, a thirst rather fills,
Trickles so soft, all gently down low,
Off side of barreled moon glow,
Stored for draught, that of souls' sap.

Venture forth, onward! dear brotherly,
evolutionary tracts. Find simplicity,
quality, fervor and tact,
But what-where-whenever,
Never look back.

I'm not sure, i don't know what you can do. Maybe you can fly or build a rocket. But if you compare a normal guy to a buddha or enlightened person in any age, you won't get much further than inadequacies. The buddhas idea of an end goal might be less than what is currently possible, less than what the times allow for today. By saying that people can do less than a religious genuis already puts them under the bar and on the same scale. Today people can likely do more, go farther, than was possible back then when the guy did his practice. And about reality, there is very little evidence for it. Senses provide immediate information, but that is filtered through the brain first, so that the image made from the senses is really quite the distortion. The mind has to play connect the dots, so to speak. If a person can go beyond this limitation, then they may have grounds for saying something is a reality. But as far as i am concerned, it is one that is quite far removed from the everyday transactions of touch and feelings.

These are intersting points. It is important to say one's way of viewing the world when claims are made about that world. I think it must be something of a given by now that all ideas, physics concepts and mathematical models, are free creations of the human mind. If you've read the back story of modern science, of Relativity and Quantum theories, this is more easily noticed. The world isn't made of math, and the concepts and theories themselves aren't the constitutes of the universe, they just happen to get damn close to describing it sometimes, like a tight glove fitting a hand. Alternatively, however, that there is an actual arrangment behind the appearances is an intuition that is needed much currently. So it is a type of back and forth, give and take between belief in the power of ideas to describe nature, and the nature that is revealed as fact. As the view gets closer to an ultimate world system, i think that belief will diminush for the most part. If you really get something, what need is there for belief? This is why i don't think that many religious practices are inneffective or don't work, but that at the same time will be replaced with a religious feeling that does not use a belief system.

This topic could really go in the science and philosophy forum. I don't see any paranormal mentioned.