Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

songjoong df: on 12/27/17 at 6:52am UTC, wrote cara menjadi reseller qnc jelly gamat Cara Menjadi Agen Qnc Jelly Gamat ...

Steve Dufourny: on 3/23/09 at 10:58am UTC, wrote Sorry ,a little error of"submit your post" When I was 16 years old ,I read...

Steve Dufourny: on 3/23/09 at 10:51am UTC, wrote Dear Georgina, No ,sorry ,the evolution time is important ,you know I an...

Georgina Parry: on 3/23/09 at 10:26am UTC, wrote Steve, and then what? "Perfection" in all of nature is always transitory...

Steve Dufourny: on 3/22/09 at 9:06am UTC, wrote Dear Georgina, I agree with some ideas ,like all is inufied and in...

Georgina Parry: on 3/16/09 at 21:48pm UTC, wrote Continuous motion and change are the very essences of everything. Kinetic,...

Steve Dufourny: on 3/16/09 at 10:07am UTC, wrote Hi to all , Dear Jason, Nice to know you . I think the spirituality is...

Georgina Parry: on 3/9/09 at 23:45pm UTC, wrote If I raise an object over my head its potential energy is increased as well...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

isabell ella: "If you are facing Cash app related problems and want to get support..." in Cosmic Dawn, Parallel...

Georgina Woodward: "Quite right Lorraine, ( to be clear perhaps I should have said..." in Cosmological Koans

Lorraine Ford: "Honestly Georgina, Wake up! Change of number is NOT energy." in Cosmological Koans

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Michael Hussey: "https://www.google.com" in New Nuclear "Magic...

Michael Hussey: "it is really difficult to understand what is all about all the things..." in New Nuclear "Magic...

Stefan Weckbach: "I have a problem with the notion of time in the multiverse scenario that..." in First Things First: The...

Roger Granet: "By the way, this post was from Roger." in First Things First: The...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi BLOGS
July 18, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Breaking the Law [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Blogger William Orem wrote on Jan. 14, 2009 @ 16:37 GMT


It’s a commonplace in popular science to note that at the moment of the Big Bang the “laws of physics break down.” By this is generally meant the inability of GR to model what happens in a cosmos so small that quantum rules apply: the famously elusive theory of quantum gravity. I’m interested, though, in the more fundamental question of certain “breaking points” in nature and...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Jan. 14, 2009 @ 18:44 GMT
William you say: As time began with the first 10-43 sec, there was, by definition, nothing “before” this period.

Idea of beginning is manmade. According to my research there was no beginning at all. Universe was never created, universe is a self renewing system in a permanent dynamic equilibrium, see

-Sorli A. Dynamic Equilibrium of The Atemporal Universe (2008)

http://www.chronos.msu.ru/discussions/sorli_dynamic.ht
ml



-Sorli A. The Theory of Atemporality http://www.fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/THE_THEORY_OF_ATE
MOPORALITY.pdf (2008)

yours amrit

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eric S. wrote on Jan. 16, 2009 @ 17:56 GMT
Your suggestion that fundamental laws/constants might have "existed" before there were opportunities for them to demonstrate themselves empirically makes about as much sense as the alternative.

Frankly, isn't there something "oddly platonic" about the notion that all the constants become "randomized" with each singularity? It raises the questions: Randomized how? According to what rules? What are the acceptable ranges that different constants can be randomized within? Are the absolute number of constants/dimensions/fundamental particles/fundamental forces/etc fixed, or is that randomized as well? To say "they are always randomized" implies at least one Platonic "law", and possibly a rich tapestry of rules governing such a randomization.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 16, 2009 @ 22:11 GMT
I dislike science fiction. When I measured little bangs (arc ignitions) with time resolution of a few Giga samples per second, voltage was always increasingly rising, reaching a climax and then declining with decreasing steepness.

The presented fiction omits a possible gradual rise. It rather reminds me of god who suddenly switched on light and created Adam and from Adam's rib Eve after he made heaven and earth.

Given, red shift indicates a possible big bang; it certainly does not exclude the possibility of precesses before or parallel to it.

What about putative mathematical reasons, I would like to remind of confusion concerning the lower limit for time in case of Laplace transform, cf. Aseltine Transform Method in Linear System Analysis, Mc-Graw Hill 1958, p.27 3-6: Troubles at the origin and also comments by Terhardt.

Se also my comment on Zeh's recent blog concerning superluminal tunneling.

How expensive would a successor of LHC be? Do we need it as a boost for our misguided economy? Tev/c^2 sounds huge.

Are there really singularities in reality? So far, I understand them as mere approximative and simplifying ideal models which can be removed by means of mathematical operations that change the point of view.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ryan Westafer wrote on Jan. 21, 2009 @ 06:53 GMT
Dear William Orem,

Your acknowledgment of this possibility is exciting: "Even if there was a pre-Bang phase to the universe, no data about it can be gleaned now." Yes, black holes (white holes?) have been proposed as boundary(ies) of our universe, and by Hawking's information and disinformation as mutual entropy over a time-channel, we have a circular closed system for which the dominant/external parameter is the cosmological arrow. It's not too far-fetched, right?

You seem to acknowledge Peter Lynds's viewpoint (and the mathematical universe / string theory viewpoint) that all things are cyclical at some scale. I suggest this is the only true "conservation" of energy; constants are linearizations only valid for some neighborhood. We continue to accept the great-circle illusion of a flat Earth- but now extended to the entire universe. Oh, and let's not forget Fourier's success in representing constant and discontinuous functions with sinusoids!

Isn't this the question we ask when confronted with the cosmological constant, expanding/contracting, etc? Is the universe open or closed? The Mobius strip and Klein bottle are perfect examples hinting at satisfactory answers: a closed AND open universe. Still some regions could be more closed (matter-like) and others more open (space-like). Again, we have a duality- and we feel like this equivocation can only "end" in tautology. Ah, but does that rule it out? Such things are difficult to prove or disprove.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident..." It's paradoxical yet elegant and functional.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


atomiton1 wrote on Jan. 25, 2009 @ 22:45 GMT
Let me shine some light on this. The universe was created from nothing, and therfore must be composed of nothing. Email atomiton1@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Feb. 1, 2009 @ 13:58 GMT
There are two ways of looking at what happens to a cosmology with a Compton wavelength and horizon. Once the horizon has inflated beyond the Compton wavelength fields in the cosmology can't be described by an S matrix in a complete manner. The S matrix tells us that the coupling between fields becomes zero when they are infinitely separated. Yet with the occurrence of an event horizon fields can be separated by a finite distance with noncausal connections. The cosmological event horizon is a Rindler-like horizon, and fields in a a certain locality are not able to causally communicate beyond it, even if they can receive information further out.

This breakdown is seen in the need to describe quantum fields according to unitarily inequivalent groups. These Bogoliubov transformations then thermalize quantum fields across event horizons. This loss of unitarity is what generated the controversy over the loss of quantum information.

If quantum information is preserved there must then be some fine grained structure which underlies the nonunitary Bogoliubov maps between quantum groups. I have been working on how this might be due to associator maps. In an elementary description a quantum group is a braid operation, such as a link between two elements *---*. These elements "*" might be fields in a chain or polytope with some S matrix description. However, there may also be associator maps between 3 or more elements. These maps are nonunitary with A:G ---> G'. So for elements g and g' in G and G' Ag = g' and so g^{-1}Ag = g^{-1}g. This will preserve quantum information, but not in a unitary format. The right hand side g^{-1}g is an overlap between unitarily inequivalent quantum groups.

In a course grained setting the error induced defines an energy functions &E = |E_g' - E_g| which enters into a Boltzmann e^{-&E/kT}. So underlying time and unitarity there might exist a spin network of fields (quivers) which are timeless.

Lawrence B. Crowell

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Feb. 1, 2009 @ 15:06 GMT
Lawrence it is great for me to read here word "timeless", my whole life I work on the thesis that some quantum phenomena are timeless, see more on file attached

attachments: Immediate_Timeless_Transfer_of_Energy_and_Information_Sorli__2009.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Feb. 1, 2009 @ 16:49 GMT
The so called reduction of states in quantum mechanics does not really communicate information. State reduction is really a sort of destructive teleportation. To teleport states you need to communicate a classical signal. A measurement couples the wave function of a system with a vast reservoir of states, and the entanglement phase of the system is lost to this environment.

There are two types of relationship systems in the universe. The first are geometrical, such as relativity, where in that case the time parameter which has the most direct physical meaning is proper time. Corrdinate times are freely chosen by the analyst and are similar to a gauge choice of potentials in electromagnetism. Quantum mechanics is the other relationship system, which fundamentally is nongeometrical. However, quantum waves have a representation in space and time, which are coordinate based. The wave equations are similarly based on coordinates, with the time evolution similarly defined. So there are fundamental differences between what is meant by time in QM and GR.

Quantum states are unitary with respect to internal symmetry transformations, which can in a covariant sense act as a generator of coordinate transformations. The momentum p ---> p + iA, which for a wave y = e^{ipx} the action of the momentum operator shifts x to x + delta x. So internal coordinate maps can transform external coordinates. These external coordinates in general relativity are no more concrete than the internal ones in QM.

Lawrence B. Crowell

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Feb. 1, 2009 @ 19:50 GMT
Patterns replicate because identical causes yield identical effects. This would suggest that rather than a platonic realm of laws, they are as emergent as the level of complexity they describe.

Ryan,

"Isn't this the question we ask when confronted with the cosmological constant, expanding/contracting, etc? Is the universe open or closed? The Mobius strip and Klein bottle are perfect examples hinting at satisfactory answers: a closed AND open universe. Still some regions could be more closed (matter-like) and others more open (space-like). Again, we have a duality- and we feel like this equivocation can only "end" in tautology. Ah, but does that rule it out? Such things are difficult to prove or disprove. "

The closed, matter-like geometries contract, while the open, space-like geometries expand. Could this relationship be two sides of some fundamental cycle, where through other dimensions, if not simply through radiation, what is falling into gravitational wells emerges across the space between them? This would explain how other galaxies are redshifted directly away from our position, without putting us at the center of the universe. It would also explain redshift as the observation of a cosmological constant that served to balance gravity. Since this is an expansion of the geometry of space, rather than an expanding singular universe, the redshift would be compounded, creating the impression that the rate of recession increases with distance, rather than a Big Bang model, where the early rapid expansion is considered a consequence of the initial singularity. Since this would be a cosmological constant, dark energy wouldn't be necessary to further explain the constant expansion that remains when the effects of the singularity were supposed to fade. This would also mean the universe is ageless and the observed effects don't have to be defined within the time constraints of BBT.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


atomiton1 wrote on Feb. 2, 2009 @ 04:44 GMT
When I said the universe was made of nothing. I was stressing another idea. Following the law of Inertia. time would differ between planets and distance from the sun (very long theory to explain). In any case, time, or our preception of it. Would change in different locations of our galaxy. Say, time would appear to be moving slower the closer you get to the sun. That of course doesnt say much,but it explains alot.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sarah wrote on Mar. 4, 2009 @ 13:05 GMT
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

Sarah

http://www.craigslistdecoded.info

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ryan Westafer wrote on Mar. 5, 2009 @ 17:05 GMT
John (Merryman),

Thanks for engaging in dialogue! It's nice to find a poster who engages in dialogue. :-) It's communication, not just exposition.

First, belaboring the point on patterns: does nonlocality hinder the statement that "identical causes yield identical effects?" There may exist ambiguities in how we define the boundary between cause and effect - for instance, a hot...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Mar. 5, 2009 @ 19:05 GMT
(Hopefully this doesn't double post)

Ryan,

I'll have to think through what you've said a lot more, but a few thoughts.

On a personal note, I have the minor advantage of being an amateur, so my livelihood doesn't depend on who I irritate or please, so my range of speculation is only limited by my own definite mental limits, which are also something of an advantage, since it...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 5, 2009 @ 21:36 GMT
Ryan asked? Why does the energy of a photon correspond to rest mass?

This is a fairly fundamental question.

According to the Prime Quaternion model the rest mass of matter is due primarily to motion of all matter along the 4th dimension. That is why it is so large in value. When matter ceases to exist because it is reduced to sub atomic particles, the continuous motion along the 4th dimension also ceases. The energy due to motion along the 4th dimension is released as kinetic energy of particles observed in 3D vector space.

Light must also keep pace with that motion if it is to remain visible within 3D vector space. If it raced ahead or fell behind the "moving slice" of space that is the objective universe it would not be visible within 3D vector space.

This may or may not be an acceptable answer in your opinion. However you did ask the question.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 6, 2009 @ 04:25 GMT
Above should have read rest mass energy.

I agree that electromagnetic radiation radiates out across 3D space but it also travels along the 4th dimension.It is taught that electromagnetic radiation consists of 2 transverse waves at 90 degrees to each other. To fit with this explanation it could still be explained as two waves the "electro" part radiating through 3D vector space at the speed of light, and the "magnetic" part travelling along the 4th dimension. So the 2 components of the waves are at 90 degrees to each other. It is essential that the light travels along the 4th dimension keeping pace with the universe.Otherwise we would no longer be able to see it.So the electromagnetic radiation has a 4 dimensional existance.

We can not see the movement of the magnetic part travelling directly along the 4th dimension but do observe the light spreading out across 3D vector space. It is the speed limit set by motion along the 4th dimension that sets the speed limit for radiation across 3D vector space.

Just as a neurotransmitter chemical travels across a synaptic gap to transmit a nervous impulse so electromagnetic radiation crosses the gap between objective and subjective reality. Electomagnetic radiation is intercepted and processed to form a subjective reality. The electromagnetic radiation is spreading out across 3D vector space so it is to be expected that a subjective reality of the universe formed from it would also seem to be spreading out. However the objective material universe is travelling along the 4th dimension from exterior to the interior of the hypersphere, from higher to lower potential energy. This means that it is coming together as potential energy is converted to mass energy in matter and structure is formed.

The electromagnetic image of the universe is expanding, the subjective reality of the universe that has been formed from it shows expansion. The objective material universe is not expanding.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Mar. 6, 2009 @ 22:16 GMT
Georgina,

"The electromagnetic image of the universe is expanding, the subjective reality of the universe that has been formed from it shows expansion. The objective material universe is not expanding."

A thought; Maybe it's the other way around and it is our subjective three dimensional material reality that's contracting, so that it appears the electromagnetic image of the universe is expanding. Remember Einstein calculated gravity would cause space to contract to a point and added the cosmological constant to balance it. All this three d space is, is a perception of reality that is constantly falling into the past, like parallel lines converging at the horizon. Meanwhile the radiation seems to be rushing into the future, but it carries the present along with it. Maybe it's both, past contracting and future expanding in some larger equilibrium. Time is a rope woven of threads fraying from the past and everything is recycled.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 6, 2009 @ 23:29 GMT
Gravity will appear to cause the contraction of the universe. Gravity arises from that contraction, or rather the motion of all matter from the exterior to the interior of the hypersphere, or from higher to lower potential energy. It is all the same thing expressed different ways.

This effect is felt within the gravitational field because the interior of a mass is ahead of the exterior along the 4th dimension and this extends to the gravitational field.

The closer a body is to a mass the more afore it is along the 4th dimension.



This difference of positions along the 4th dimension can be described as distortion of space. Ie. how it is stretched in the 4th dimension when 3D space is flattened to 2 dimensions so that it can be visualised. The higher the local distortion of space due to gravity, the slower time appears to pass. This was originally predicted by Einstein and this effect has been confirmed by experiment. Because the 4th dimension has been considered the time dimension it is necessarily the case that time dilation appears to occur.

In objective reality though there is no time, just space so gravitational time dilation is a subjective reality, although it arises from analysis of an underlying effect within the 4 spatio-energetic dimensions.



I have separated out historical time (Ht) from subjective time(t) although it is of course another subjective reality. They are very different concepts.I also try to avoid using the terms past, present and future whenever possible, as they are problematic terms.

The flexible mind is able to see things in many different ways and from those possibilities, preferences of interpretation and expression can be selected. Each mind will make it own choices.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Goergina parry wrote on Mar. 6, 2009 @ 23:42 GMT
Please see above post

I said "The closer a body is to a mass the more afore it is along the 4th dimension." That wasn't very well expressed.

Perhaps I should have said "gravitationally attracting mass".

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Mar. 7, 2009 @ 10:56 GMT
Georgina,

"The electromagnetic image of the universe is expanding, the subjective reality of the universe that has been formed from it shows expansion."

"Gravity will appear to cause the contraction of the universe."

Does it seem likely there is a cycle imbedded in there? Radiation expands. Mass contracts.

Dimensions are a subjective, reductionist modeling of space. Objectively up/down, left/right, front/back, past/future are meaningless, because it takes a subjective point of reference to define them.

As energy moves around in this convective cycle of radiant expansion and gravitational collapse, it creates and dissolves configurations of structure and information, so as energy goes from one configuration to the next, these frames go from potential to actual to replaced. Thus our concept of past, present and future. Though energy goes from past to future, the information goes future to past. Tomorrow becomes yesterday, as the earth rotates. So form, be it stars, people or institutions, anything which has a beginning and end, goes from being in the future, to being in the past, as they go from beginning to end. As the energy builds them up, then expands away again as they dissolve. Like the energy of the sun departs from today and goes on to tomorrow.

So both the radiant expansion/gravitational collapse and the opposing directions of time for energy and information are different perceptions of the same cycle.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 7, 2009 @ 13:26 GMT
Its rather late here. I will have to have a look at your post again in the morning. However...it sounds nice but....

Matter and structure is formed as the atoms travel from the exterior to the interior of the hypersphere. According to the Prime Quaternion model this is the orientation of the 4th dimension. If this is called time, which I do not agree with, this translates as matter is formed from the past to the future. That is straight forward enough. However today will be in the past tomorrow. What is in the future appears to be travelling to the past, as you said. So this confuses matters. That is why I do not like using the terms past, present and future. It is muddling a (subjective) historical model of time with what occurs in subjective experience and objective reality.

Electromagnetic energy has to keep pace with the motion of the universe along the 4th dimension or it will cease to be visible. So it is also travelling from exterior to interior of the hypersphere. If calling the 4th dimension time, this would translate once again as from past to future.It travels along the 4th dimension and across 3D space. The expansion of the electromagnetic radiation that is observed is out across 3D space.

If a description of objective reality is the aim, past, present and future should not be used. Firstly,in my opinion, time is not a part of objective reality and secondly they are ambiguous and problematic terms.

Also if you have done away with all dimensions as "subjective reductionist modelling" it is no longer possible to say in which direction anything is travelling including towards past or future.It is only possible to say that there is motion within the hypersphere.

The universe is coming together by moving along the 4th dimension, not by direct contraction in 3D space, so it is not obvious.(If you must consider this as time, then it is falling into the future.) There is an asymmetry here, which is essential for the universe to work. Potential energy is converted to mass energy and kinetic energy. However ultimately the universe is recycled.All matter will be reduced back to sub atomic particles and energy and new universes are formed. So ultimately balance is preserved.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Mar. 7, 2009 @ 16:11 GMT
Georgina,

"That is why I do not like using the terms past, present and future. It is muddling a (subjective) historical model of time with what occurs in subjective experience and objective reality."

Exactly. Time is an emergent description of this activity, like temperature. Yet what would subjective reality be without the effect of temperature? It would be as featureless as it would be without time.

"Also if you have done away with all dimensions as "subjective reductionist modelling" it is no longer possible to say in which direction anything is travelling including towards past or future.It is only possible to say that there is motion within the hypersphere."

Which is to say that direction is emergent as well. How can you have motion, let alone direction, if it isn't relative to some larger subjective frame?

Why does it have to be moving along this fourth dimension, if the very fact of subjective motion in a larger equilibrium is creating the series of events? Then you have the energy that simply exists and it doesn't get smeared along this fourth dimension.

"All matter will be reduced back to sub atomic particles and energy and new universes are formed. So ultimately balance is preserved."

In that reduction, information is lost, i.e. fades into that subjective term "past."

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 7, 2009 @ 20:02 GMT
To be honest I do not know why the outer region of the hypersphere has higher potential energy than the interior. However this must be the case for the universe to be animate rather than static. I suspect it is to do with the geometry of a hypersphere itself and how it effects 3D space within it.

There is a geometric entity that is eternal.Within that there is flow and fluctuation of energy. The flow and fluctuation of energy forms and describes matter and its motion. (Loss of potential energy causes matter to come together in 4D space. Matter can be described in terms of energy fluctuations and, kinetic energy and changes in potential energy can be used to describe motion of matter in 3D vector space.)

You may dislike the use of dimensions. However energy can not be described without either change in position over time or change in position along vector and scalar spatial dimensions.Without dimensions to facilitate comprehension of the motion of energy, the concept of energy in motion ceases to even have meaning.

The most important motion of all is that of all matter of the universe along the 4th dimension. It can still be described with reference to the hypersphere so long as you permit the concept of outer and inner. This will of course be an objective relative position since it is not possible to have subjective awareness of where in the hypersphere one is located. Unless one has already accepted that there is motion from outer to inner region, in which case it is known that there has been motion away from the most outer regions.

Time is an emergent phenomenon.We agree.

I do not know if your aim is to show that ultimately all description is inadequate.I accept that already. Objective reality itself can not be described because to describe it creates a subjective reality, which is not actually the reality under consideration. The description does however allow the mind to connect and interact with the concept of objective reality (rather than the reality itself).As I have said before this is the realm of theoretical speculation, religion and philosophy not science.The description of objective reality that the mind chooses will determine the persons subjective interaction with the concept of objective reality. That is a choice based either on mathematical speculation, philosophy or religion. The scientific method does not work here.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Mar. 7, 2009 @ 23:04 GMT
I know why time travel is impossible. The particles or string if you prefer only exist in the present. I prefer to describe the present as a Scharzchilde radius or 1/2 Planck radius extending into the past and future. Which ever thickness it actaully is, causality is enforced (probably enforced).

If it were possible to describe the flow of time as a potential energy gradient in the direction of the future, for the whole universe, then it would, in principle, be possible to create a localized field to change the direction of the slope. The generator on board this "time machine" would experience a "force" back in time. But here is the kicker. Outside of the present, there are infinite energy potential walls that extend forever in both directions. There are no particles to exist beyond the present; no grandfather to shoot, and no lottery numbers to write down.

If you don't believe me, go ahead! Someone build a time machine and see what happens. But don't turn off your field generator or you won't come back! You're particles will arive in the future or the past, and they will be damped out by the infinite potential energy walls. You, your rest energy and all of your information will be long, forever.

By the way, if any of you would enjoy some pleasureable reading of some hypothetical physics, you are welcome to visit my blog at:

http://ufo-technology.blogspot.com/

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 8, 2009 @ 01:19 GMT
As I have said before past, present and future are problematic terms. You are trying to describe, it seems to me, the objective present for an individual particle or position in 4D space. (Universal time will be made from a sequence of "time slices", each slice made from the the composite of objective present time for every position in 3D vector space.)

In objective reality there is no time, so the above explanation aims to bridge objective reality and subjective interpretation. Since I can not dissuade you from using time altogether.

The objective present of an individual particle is very different from the subjective present moment experienced. The subjective present is a composite made from electromagnetic radiation and other input that has taken various lengths of time to reach the observer.

You appear to be jumping from an explanation of objective behaviour at the quantum scale to talking of macroscopic subjective experiences.

My advice would be to very carefully define how you are using the terms past, present and future every time you use them, and be sure that the 3 different concepts I.e. historical time, subjective time and universal time are not muddled together, if you can not avoid using them altogether.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Mar. 8, 2009 @ 04:15 GMT
Georgina,

I don't dislike dimensions, anymore than time, temperature, ice cream or chairs. I simply see them as emergent description, rather than Platonic ideal geometry.

"However energy can not be described without either change in position over time or change in position along vector and scalar spatial dimensions.Without dimensions to facilitate comprehension of the motion of energy, the concept of energy in motion ceases to even have meaning."

This is true. The question is whether there is an "eternal geometry" or it is an emergent description. The four dimensional frame is fundamental to our conceptual understanding of reality, but that is because it originates from our perspective as a point of reference in a larger field. So we have front/back, left/right, up/down, past/future. Consider the theory of relativity and how complex it becomes to relate the motion of only two points of view moving relative to one another and how spatial and temporal measurements are distorted. Now consider relating large numbers of points of reference moving about and consider how infinitely complex that is! There is no simple four dimensional reality! That is just the classical coordinate frame for one point.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Mar. 8, 2009 @ 05:45 GMT
I think the physics and the mathematics are hiding a deeper fundamental about the universe. The conservation laws of the universe block us from every attempt to get something for nothing. I can't trick the universe into giving me any extra energy, charge, spin, etc. According to Hawkins, information is another conserved quantity.

Maybe the "objective" reality is conservation. The mathematics is certainly built that way. What ever we measure as subjective reality, or experience or remember, the universe isn't fooled when we try to violate its conservation laws. At the end of the day, all quantum interactions, all mechanisms and transactions must be accounted for.

One thing that this means is that universes cost (not money) but energy. You can't have an endless supply of identical universes without the energy to pay for them. That's why I confine particles to the present.

I think the only problem with understanding the past, present and future is we want the ideas that we like, but we don't have the currency of the conserved quantities to pay for it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 8, 2009 @ 07:14 GMT
John,

As I have said, a model or descri[tion will always be just that. To function in the world we need models of all kinds as a means of dealing with what would otherwisw be overwhelming complexity and information overload. If the model works it is useful and fit for its purpose. If it does not work then it is not particularly useful. Current scientific models do not answer the fundamental questions and can not explain aspects of quantum behaviour. As well as a whole list of other shortcomings that I will not list for the sake of brevity.

Objective reality is unknowable, its true nature can be debated endlessly.Which I do not wish to do as I have a life to live.

Jason,

Current models of how the universe works may not have the energy required for endless parallel universes but the Prime Quaternion model explains that each universe is ultimately recycled when the centre of the hypersphere is reached. So the energy that has gone into building the matter and structure is released back to the outer regions of the hypersphere so the cycle of universe building may begin again.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Mar. 8, 2009 @ 09:48 GMT
Jason,

Well stated. Since the energy is conserved, the idea of the universe running down is meaningless. It does mean it is infinite and not a closed set though, as a closed universe would be subject to entropy and the lost energy would have to be conserved by an ever larger set, but if the universe is infinite, than energy radiated away is replaced by absorbed energy.

Georgina,

So the interior and exterior of the hypersphere are the parameters of the cycle?

Actually you don't need the Big bang model to describe it. If radiant energy effectively expands and isn't just a bunch of singular photons, than the redshift is a consequence of this expansion and the photon is the first stage of the collapse.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Mar. 8, 2009 @ 10:57 GMT
John,

There was always something that bothered me about thermodyanics and entropy. It was like the universe would enentually devolve into piles of useless garbage (that's not a technical assessment). But that's what would happen if you couldn't drive your chemical reactions because Gibb's Free energy wasn't available.

I'm going back over what I know about entropy, information entropy, etc.

The universe and whatever was or wasn't here before the BigBang is supposed to be self recycling. Universes don't dry up and blow away. Something is missing from the Universal entropy cycle. What feeds on entropy and expels order?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Mar. 8, 2009 @ 12:34 GMT
In principle, I think that there is an entropy cycle. But I think the processes are fractal in nature and eventually become inaccessible with the tools of reasoning, physics and mathematics.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 8, 2009 @ 14:51 GMT
Hi all ,

I like this thread ,it's so relevant ,I see foundamental questions ,the entropy ,the secrets behind our Math/phys Walls .

It's so difficult to encircle these links and the interactions of balance between math Univ and Phys Univ,we are so young ,our knowledges are so limited at this moment ,but the reality shows us the truth ,the harmony ,the universality ,the balance ,....Our Universe is in building and there is an ultim aim ,the perfect Universal ,sphere ,I don't see an other reality ,the expansion and the contraction are relative perception.

I think one thing ,it exists different phases in the building ,after an expansion +acceleration,a contraction in spheric logic+deceleration ,in fact a time space code in each Utilmate particles and a specific position in the rotation universal movment .

About entropy ,it's fantastic ,all is linked ,math and phys with its balance ,and there is a paradox ,with the energy ,if we imagine the differents interations before this ultimate particle ,we accumulate more energy ,but this maximum is non possible to add ,but when we see with relativity and our lake of universal knowledge ,this maximum is impossible to calculate .

I d like insert in this thread ,a question about the mass and the increasing of mass in the logic of spherization building,if our Universe is in a building ,a contraction towards a stability with a specific volume after the coded dynamic.Perhazps some particles are in waiting(wait),thus without any mass ,thus energy (but potential energy???link entropy ,math and phys world???),thus any motion but a time space code activation or a complementarity code ,I speazk about this perception because about Dark E and dark matter ,a link is possible in this logic of building ,this logic of polarizations .

Let's imagine our Universe in this spherization logic ,in fact ultimate coded spheres who build a spheic universe in a perfect harmony .

I admit many parameters can be insert in my theory ,this ultimate particle always .But so far of us ,I think the relativity is important for rational applications,we can see what our eyes can see ,but the mind extrapolation can elaborate a foundamental spheric method,in resume what is our rule of catalyst .How imagine the future connections of ours Universes ,the life is universal ,the spherization too ,let's imagine the ultim connectibility with all spheroidal galaxies with stars and planets ,all turns and all are in building ,but the perception is difficult ...in all case many secrets and properties are still to discover and it's fascinating this universal link in harmony ,so much secrets to discover ....

Thanks all for your ideas ,extrapolations,comments,works,researchs ,discussions,we are all linked since the physical begining.The sharing of knowledges is essential to evolve more quickly .

Kinds Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 9, 2009 @ 00:19 GMT
John,

I still think the model that Jason and yourself are discussing, where all of the energy is just balanced between absorption and radiation lacks a driving force for creation and development of structure. From atoms to dust and gas clouds to planets and stars to spiral galaxies. Not to mention all of the diversity of structure formed along the way.

Just as a potential difference is needed in an electric circuit for electricity to flow and do work, so a difference in potential energy is needed to cause the flow of matter along the 4th dimension and in the process bring matter together to create the universe. According to the Prime Quaternion model there is a potential difference along the scalar dimension that enables this work to be done.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Mar. 9, 2009 @ 00:33 GMT
Jason,

The Big Bang Theory does pose a massive question as to where that low entropy, high energy initial state originally came from. I first began to question this theory many years ago, upon learning that for the universe to be as stable as it is, the overall expansion and the combined force of gravitational collapse had to be close to balance. My natural impulse was to see two sides of a cycle, not simply providential coincidence. The idea the universe is expanding was initially based on redshift and the theory was subsequently supported by the discovery of a proposed residual radiation, the CMBR.

If you analyze the further development of this model from a psychological perspective, the tendency to fit contrary facts, such as those which required Inflation, as well as evidence of structures potentially older than the proposed age of the universe and discrepancies in redshift between related objects, into the model by whatever method is required, rather use them as an opportunity to test the model, reveals inevitable issues about the necessarily collective nature of modern science and the resulting political impulse to support prevailing wisdom, not question it. Scientists like to think they are above such impulses, but so does everyone else. The irony is that this very tendency to think we cannot be collectively fooled, because of the swarm nature of our perspective, only blinds us to the times when we are fooled. The collapsing market economy provides ample evidence of that.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Mar. 9, 2009 @ 01:23 GMT
Georgina,

Obviously your question poses issues I cannot definitively answer, but than I'm not claiming anything more than trying to pose efficient more solutions to the evidence than the current theoretical collage. The amount of information is too monumental to list, let alone incorporate.

What I did propose is that the amount of energy relative to space is unstable. That the level of the CMBR is effectively the stable energy level of space and above that it tends to collapse, but this eventually results in heat and explosive pressure, which radiates it back out again. Another issue is the ways this energy and space effectively define each other, so that as energy collapses, it effectively curls up space and when it breaks down and radiates, this space expands back out. So then the expansion is a kinetic function of space as energy in a unitary whole, while the collapse defines structure, mass, the ordering of space, its discrete atomization and creation of potential. To tie this further into a full description of the infinite complexity of reality, think of it in terms of a convective cycle and the ways in which this not only defines weather and geology, but much of biological activity, from the expansion of youth and decline of age, to economic and political cycles, where elements under pressure push outward, while those cooled off settle back down. With one side defined by its energy and the other by its structure. Then the endless combinations, such as using excessive energy to propel discrete objects up and out.

Think of both trees and lightning bolts as exchanges of energy between the fields of sky and ground. Reality is better understood in terms of relationships rather than objects, because that gives us a small feel for the whole, rather than the lists of distinctions.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 9, 2009 @ 05:25 GMT
John,

I can't agree with everything you say above but I think I understand the gist of your post. Yes, ultimately everything is interrelated.

Cycles alone are not enough though, you have to then think 4 spatio-energetic dimensions, vortices and perspective in relation to cycles.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Mar. 9, 2009 @ 09:53 GMT
Georgina,

I have been using the concept of vortices as the dynamic curling of spatial dimensionality. Think strings and their internal dimensions and external vibrations.

While dimensions are conceptually necessary, I do think they pose a facial objectivity to what is profoundly subjective.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 9, 2009 @ 19:19 GMT
John,

I can only see a description of continual motion with your explanation not a driving force for increase of mass and complexity. How does your description account for gravity? Can it explain quantum strangeness as well observations at the macroscopic scale? Does it explain why relativity is observed? Is it able to give an explanation for how positive and negative charges are formed ? Can it explain why a constant speed of light is observed? Can it be used to explain why a quasar can appear much older than the galaxy from which it has been expelled and to which it still has a connection? A complete list is not necessary here as you can understand what I am saying.

If you can in fact answer all of the fundamental questions with your explanation, as well as unite macroscopic and quantum behaviours with one simple explanation and much more besides, as the Prime Quaternion model can, I will then consider whether or not we are both blind men feeling the same elephant from our own direction. In the meantime I will not be letting go of the beast that I have, to the best of my current knowledge, firmly in my grasp.

I welcome constructive criticism of my reasoning. However if an alternative model is used for that argument, it must be able to do as much or more in order to invalidate the proposed Prime Quaternion model or highlight some fatal error in reasoning or construction that I have not yet come to realise.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 9, 2009 @ 19:26 GMT
Dear all ,

First of all ,sorry for my poor english .

I read your papers with interest, I hope that I do not disturb anybody with my theory .I think that the spiritual side of our Universe is essential to encircle the evolution of this Universe.

It is impossible to encircle the entropy otherwise than by a spirituality and an imaginative extrapolation of the mathematical unlimitedness behind the limits of our spheric physical Universe.

The ultimate entropy is everywhere in all things ,in all polarizations,in all particles just before the wall mathematic ,in fact in all ,in the ultimate quantum particle ,in all centers and their codes,but too at the end of the physical building.

A very important point of vue is our relative perception,it's impossible to imagine this ultim connectibility and when .On the other side ,our rule is not to understand that now but our rule in universalityu is to act by adapted sciences for human and global priorities.

To be or not to be ....

The spherization Theory is a link between all things in the quantum world to Univese.in resume small coded spheres and their fields which build spheroidal systems in Time towards the perfect harmony .It's evident and all is linked ,unified by this harmonious logic of building ,the spherization.

On Earth our rule is to harmonize systems and optimize interactions ,improve what we can .The universality ,the humanism are foundamentals ,all is linked since the big polarization 13.7 billions years ago ??? I insist on that ,the complementarity is better than individualism ,like some silly human inventions like money ,borders ,economy,weapons...dedicated to disappear in Time and Space ,the global system is not harmonious on Earth and it's time to act in universality ,the spherization it's that too ,math phys chim biol.....all is linked and there is an ultim aim .The entropy ,it's that ,

The spirituality is a reality, on the other hand the fate, the chaos are not fundamentals.

When we speak of entropy, it is necessary to encircle the global nature and thus the link between the physical world and the unknew mathematical world .

In fact everything possesses the same energy quantity, it is rather paradoxical, and nevertheless it is so.

Let us take the interactions of the elementary particles and their strengths, the energy will increase more we shall go towards this ultimate particle, to understand the entropy, it is to encircle the link phys/ math To understand the spherization it is rather spiritual but fundamental also.

Dear Georgina ,

you say : each universe is ultimately recycled when the centre of the hypersphere is reached, I don't agree ,there is one Universal future sphere ,galaxies too shall be spheres in the structure .

One Universe with billions futures spherical galaxies .

It could be interesting to speak about the differents phases of the building ,acceleration ,deceleration towards the stability or the contraction......

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Mar. 9, 2009 @ 20:57 GMT
Georgina,

That's quite a list! I'm not going to presume to explain every aspect of physical phenomena. I'm not that egotistical. I simply have had basic conceptual questions with the Big Bang model of the universe and in my attempts to find answers, find as much ambiguous speculation as solid conclusions. You are certainly welcome to hold on to logic that you find satisfactory. Some of it...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Mar. 9, 2009 @ 21:04 GMT
Steve,

I'm glad that you reaffirmed the spiritual in all of this. In trying to understand the secrets of the universe, I find that physics/mathematics (as much fun as they are) are becoming too cumbersome to work with.

There are mechanisms and there are conservations laws. But whether or not they will always interface with our scientific tools is becoming unclear.

The things we can't measure, we extapolite from the last place where we could make measurements (which is the Standard Model, mathematics, QM, Relativity, Platonian Abstracts, etc.) That is a perfectly reasonable expectation.

But what if the universe is ultimately beyond those things? As quirky as this sounds, I have found that my delight in the paranormal has helped me understand physics by asking questions that point out the limitations of the physics.

Just playing with the ideas of superluminal travel has shown me things about physics and space-time that I would never have understood otherwise (such as the inefficiency of action/reation methods of acceleration).

Energy (kinetic and potential) I think are universal. conservation laws and mechanisms I think are universal. Space and time? I'm no so sure. Information, bits to quantum bits to who knows what? I'm not sure if information can be relied upon to be discrete. Thermodyamics which is driven in the direction of disorder? While it's true for mechanical systems, who can guarantee that there aren't self organizing mechanisms with a net decrease in entropy.

I plan to finish up some work and then power down the huge cerebral reactor between my ears for a few days. Have fun.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 9, 2009 @ 21:10 GMT
Steve,

recycling is a vital part of the process that releases energy so that the process of growth, development and reinvention can continue eternally. I agree that all matter is coming together. It even may ultimately form one mega galaxy comprising all of the matter of the universe. This may even continue to contract perhaps even forming one body of mass.

However there must either be a new big bang, matter disintegrated and energy released through 3D vector space, because critical mass has been reached and no further contraction is possible or the matter passes through the centre of the hypersphere and is torn apart as it moves back to the exterior of the hypersphere along the 4th dimension.

I do not know enough about 4 dimensional geometry to know if the second scenario is possible mathematically. If it is it would be my preference. It would then show some correspondence to the existing most accepted model of universe formation, in which the universe arises from a singularity. The centre of the hypersphere would be that singularity.

If at any time the universal motion that is bringing matter together ceases, the universe ceases to function. The forces drawing matter together stops and rather than being perfect galaxies, as in your vision, they will disintegrate.

There may be a developmental stage that fulfils your personal vision of universal perfection, but it is a stage in each universes journey of development. One universe dies but a new one is born or there is constant recycling and rejuvenation and the journey to perfection is endless.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 9, 2009 @ 23:19 GMT
Re. Problematic relative age of ejected quasar and parent galaxy.

According to the Prime quaternion model there are 4 spatio-energetic dimensions 3 vector 1 scalar. The 4th dimension can thus be considered not only as a scalar spatial dimension but as an energetic dimension, along which potential energy is measured.

The universe going from higher to lower potential energy along this dimension. As all matter continuously takes up its most afore ward position along this dimension. I.e. loosing potential energy at every opportunity. This can be observed in the manifestation of gravity.

The age discrepancy observed with regard to the problematic quasar and parent galaxy can be understood when it is recognised that it is not age that determines the position of the quasar in 3D space but potential energy.

Just as an electron can be moved to a higher orbital by the disturbance of a photon. Making an instantaneous jump directly along the 4th dimension as potential energy is gained, to take up a new position in 3D vector space.

So the ejection of a quasar from a galaxy changes the potential energy of the quasar equating to a significant aft ward change in position along the 4th dimension. Having been moved aft along the 4th dimension, its 3D spatial position reflects its altered potential energy relative to parent galaxy. This will make it appear older than its parent, if position in space is equated directly with age, rather than potential energy.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 9, 2009 @ 23:45 GMT
If I raise an object over my head its potential energy is increased as well as it having moved further away from me spatially. This is the inter-relatioship of the 4th dimension and the 3 vector dimensions, not time.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 16, 2009 @ 10:07 GMT
Hi to all ,

Dear Jason,

Nice to know you .

I think the spirituality is foundamental to encircle these polarizations in Time Space ,the complexity and increasing of mass give us the link between the unknew and our physical reality and its dynamics .What is this entity ,what is this secret ,what is this builder ,many questions and imaginations by human species ,so many...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 16, 2009 @ 21:48 GMT
Continuous motion and change are the very essences of everything. Kinetic, mass and potential energy are equivalent to change in position in 4D space. Everything moves, changes and evolves. That is nature. To cease to move, grow or evolve is death and the end of everything. Motion along the 4th dimension gives rise to gravity. Without gravity the planets and stars would not continue in their paths. There is no optimum form, just developmental stages.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 22, 2009 @ 09:06 GMT
Dear Georgina,

I agree with some ideas ,like all is inufied and in complementarity towards the evolution.

The gravity is so important for me ,there are so many kinds of gravity in its centers .The centers notion is important in a global point of vue ,an universal point of vue .

Our universal dynamic is incredible and coded .It's a reality when we see our environment and its laws .

The sphere and the spherization are foundamentals and all is in this logic like an ultim balance .

There is indeed an optimum form ,it's logic ,foundamental and rational ,it's the evolution and its complexificaion towards harmony and connectibility .

You know ,I don't say my theory and its conclusions like that ,since many years ,I class and study the links between all sciences .My spherization theory is arrived in my mind 4 years ago after years of researchs and links .

Really I don't see an other logic ,our evolution is fascinating ,there is an aim for Universe ,a fantastic building ,a fantastic polarization ,a fantastic complexification ,a fantastic spherization .

The life is universal and created in our Universe everywhere in systems like planets ant its parameters to create life .(let's look our evolution on Earth after accretion ,3 billions years ago the hydrodphere has created the first amino acids ,our atmosphere was without O2 but had some inorganic matters ,for exemple you take in proportion some H2 CH4 NH3 HCN H2O H2C2 + ENERGY(UV,electricity...)Do you know the Oparine experiment about the creation of nuclei acids with a protein and a phosporylase +ADP.....All this dynamic shows us the spherization , a specific code to create amino acids (arginin,pyridin....),the base of life ,glucose too ribose.....

Let's look all our systems around us ,and let's make the links between .

Our Universe evolve ,spherisize,complexificate itself ,polarize itself ....towards a beautiful future .

There is in this logic ,this universal logic a specific ultim form in correlation with spherization and evolution and optimization .It's our reality and its foundamentals .

sincerelly

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 23, 2009 @ 10:26 GMT
Steve,

and then what? "Perfection" in all of nature is always transitory but constantly replaced by the new.If you base your cosmic view on observation of nature you must follow that to its logical conclusion. If there is no more growth and development there must be decay or destruction.

Or do you suggest that there is an adult life span for the perfected universe, after which it may be replaced? Or do you suggest that this perfected state should be eternal?

Also why is this state more perfect than the original state. There is a Buddhist saying that "No thing is always better than any thing." In which case your perfected universe is as far from perfect as you can get.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 23, 2009 @ 10:51 GMT
Dear Georgina,

No ,sorry ,the evolution time is important ,you know I an passionated by nature ,I am a horticultor too .

Sorry but the relativity in an evolution point of vue is as that ,towards harmony and not destruction .

Optimization ,complementarity ,harmonization.....it's our universal logic .

You know since many years I class animals ,vegetals,minerals .......all in fact .

All is eternal in correlation with the mathematic world ,the spiritual unknew,and our Universe is in building towards perfect harmony with increase of mass anc complexification.

When you see our evolution ,you can see the evolution and its improvements .

The actual state is going to the harmony in Time Space coded polarizations .

I

About Buddhism,I like Siddartha Gottama ,do you know the book of Herman Hesse "Siddartha" but I am not buddist lol ,When I had 16 years ,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 23, 2009 @ 10:58 GMT
Sorry ,a little error of"submit your post"

When I was 16 years old ,I read Bibble ,Coran ,Talmud ,...Victor Hugo ,Voltaire ,Balzac ....many writers ...philosphy .....

but it's an other story ....

The spirituality is the best friend for sciences .

About the ideal form ,dear Georgina we are very far ....the time of evolution always ,we must consider our past and extrapolate our future and improve our present ,it's simple in fact .The complexity returns to simplicity .

Yes we are in evolution towards perfection ...we are builders ,catalysts ....all is linked since the begining .

Our rule ,to be or not to be .....

sincerely

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


songjoong sdfsd df wrote on Dec. 27, 2017 @ 06:52 GMT
cara menjadi reseller qnc jelly gamat

Cara Menjadi Agen Qnc Jelly Gamat

manfaat qnc jelly gamat

Obat Tradisional Kista Nabothian Tanpa Operasi

cara menjadi agen qnc jelly gamat

cara menjadi reseller qnc jelly gamat

cara mengobati gondongan pada anak

cara mengobati kanker nasofaring secara alami

obat pembersih sisa janin setelah keguguran

cara mengobati kanker pankreas secara tradisional

obat tradisional benjolan di leher sebelah kanan

obat tradisional tipes untuk orang dewasa

obat tradisional untuk menghentikan haid berkepanjangan

Obat Tradisional Pembekuan Darah Di Otak

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.