Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Except light doesn't always travel in straight lines and can also bend.
I can't see how this follows. What are you basing this on.
So what do you think about the Eucharistic Miracles of Buenos Aires?
How do you explain the White Blood Cells there?
Doctor Robert Lawrence when he was examining the tissue said that it was infiltrating of white blood cells. Robert Lawrence was interviewed by Ron Tesoriero in his documentary on YouTube and in the picture I give youSorry, I was busy. So much to do. So little time.
Again... sorry, but you're going to have to be more specific. Which reference to white blood cells are we talking about? Zugibe's, Linoli's, Lawrence's, Walker's? And can you document these claims somewhere other than in statements by Dr. Castanon or in Youtube! videos.
Hopefully you'll understand my reticence, because if I allow just any old statement off of the internet or Youtube! to be used as evidence then I'm in a no win situation. Because on the internet hyperbole, misrepresentation, and outright lies are just about impossible to refute.
So can you be more specific please?
I can start a conversation with you if you want.Mi dispiace ero occupato. Così tanto da fare. Così poco tempo.
Ancora una volta... scusa, ma dovrai essere più specifico. Di quale riferimento ai globuli bianchi stiamo parlando? Di Zugibe, di Linoli, di Lawrence, di Walker? E puoi documentare queste affermazioni altrove che nelle dichiarazioni del Dr. Castanon o su Youtube! video.
Spero che comprenderete la mia reticenza, perché se permetto basta una qualsiasi vecchia affermazione presa da Internet o da Youtube! da usare come prova, allora mi trovo in una situazione senza vittoria. Perché su Internet le iperboli, le false dichiarazioni e le vere e proprie bugie sono praticamente impossibili da confutare.
Quindi puoi essere più specifico, per favore?
i) Time is operationally defined and therefore the concept generates abundantly consistent objective evidence. Science's time is therefore objectively real.The point was 'Time' is a human made concept, an abstract idea about time. The abstract idea itself is not an objectively real thing and therefor cannot be verified scientifically. So human ideas about what time represents, what it is are not the objective truth independent of humans.
The way the nature of time is established in science, is not the same as the way some monk dreams up. The stark dissimilarites in those respective methods distinguishes 'objectivity' from your 'Monkly understanding'.Therefore how western science understands 'time' is no more correct as far as what the nature of 'time' ultimately is than how an indigenous peoples or Monks in the mountains may understand what 'time' is.
Thats the point, its circular reasoning. Its true because we say its true. But in reality humans don't agree what time is or represents. There are many ideas about what time represents in the world. Some natives have no idea of westernised concept of time. They have no clocks.
Time is more about experiences or symbols and places. There are no schedules, time restraints ect. They may bring up spirits from the past to alter their future ect. Who says they are wrong. They have sucessfully lived this way for millenia, more time than westernised science has existed.
The best way to understand time is through the only way we can know time which is our conscious experience of time. Now it seems strange to me that when trying to understand 'time' that we devise some 3rd party measure beyond our experience rather than actually using the experience itself for what it is warts and all.
Because there are spectulative ideas within experience doesn't mean there are no valid experiences we can draw upon which may give us a deeper insight into what time is, how it effects us, how we actually live it out rather than trying to rationalize it by some quantified assumption about what time is.
Why is my quote in Italian? Anyway, I'd need confirmation of that claim.Of course the sample was the same. Doctor Castanon and Ron Tesoriero did a very good job of chain of custody.
Perché la mia citazione è in italiano? Anyway, I'd need confirmation of that claim.
Yet didn't you present a paper arguing that it may be slightly curved to counter the anomelies with the CMB.In a flat spacetime photons only travel in straight lines. More generally they follow geodesics of the curved spacetime. Feynman's analysis still applies.
Yet didn't you present a paper arguing that it may be slightly curved to counter the anomelies with the CMB.
Well, since I was clearly talking about distance back in post 419, I don't know how you concluded that I was talking about an actual foot.lol sorry, I really thought you meant a literal foot. So yes we can't put 'inches' in a test tube. Thats the point, its a human concept to break the world up into segments as a measure. We actually changed the measure from 'inches' to metric many years ago. If inches were a set reality in space and time how is it we just changed the way we measured things.
Indigenous peoples don't use centimetre or kilometre. They measure the world in landmarks and symbolic representations.
And just how a foot (as in twelve inches, to clarify) is a measure of distance, a second is a measure of time. Again, if you are going to claim that time isn't real, then distance isn't real, and our universe is therefore dimensionless. Do you want to make that argument?But 'the actual distance' is just one aspect of understanding the space between two objects. Its not the only way to understand distance. THis is the point I was trying to make as far as what is reality, what is fundemental reality. Is it the quantified world we measure by devising some method of measurement according to a set of certain criteria we may assume about the world.
Or is there more to it like how we actually experience distance and time, space and time. In fact QM may even point to the possibility of breaching time as we know it such as with time travel or entanglement where information can be transfered in an instant, at the same time without any actual traversing across space and time.
No, it is not just "made up," because it is based on an objectively true fact about our planet. Magnetic north is where the axis of our planet's magnetic field passes through the surface of the Earth in the northern hemisphere.No I am saying the idea of north besides magnetic north which is different because its based on the electromagnetic field. But the idea of north, south, east and west and longtitude and latitude are just a made up grid reference.
They could have put south as north or east as west and still would have a similar point ref just the other way around. We could divide the earth up with other grids however humans choose depending on what 'humans' decide they want to measure will influence how they see the world.
But they can correct for these things and determine what the other person is experiencing.Yes but the point was who is what is the correct time between them at the point in which they are asked at the same time. They will all say different times. So at any specific point in time we would have to say that5 there can be many 'times' on a clock that are correct at the same time in the overall or global sense.
Even though we can check each time and verify it with local settings in the global sense which is more fundemental n single 'time' is correct. I think this relates to Wigners Friend experiement that found there is no objective reality because fundementally two people can have a different objective reality at the same time.
And there COULD BE a universe where you have evidence for your claims instead of hypotheticals for which you provide zero evidence, but it ain't this universe.The point is there could be different universe that keep getting birthed and rebirthed in a multiverse. Ours may come to an end while another different one may pop up with similar physics some time or could have completely different physics and space and time. Ours is not so special within a multiverse of unlimited variations.
So what?The Janus Point is just the latest in a line of ideas like the Multiverse, Big Bounce ect to try and explain how our universe came to be. So none can really be verified scientifically but they are based on the data.
The problem is as the article says "physics breaks down at the singularity, leading to a mix of speculations on what little we can tease out of the physics that still makes sense". So the science is taking us back to a point where it cannot apply and yet it leaves unexplained what happens up to that point.
Therefore because the physics breaks down whatever idea is going to explain things is going to be counter intuitive because it requires new physics, new dimensions that don't conform to what we understand through time and space.
"...as a result of quantum foam."This is a bit similar to the other ones and in fact they are all pretty much the same in proposing some universe before our universe meaning our universe was not the beginning but a carryover from another universe or event such as a Big Crunch that created another singularity or like Bubble universes as a result of quantum foam.
The point is if our universe is the result of a multiverse or a rebirthed universe then the universe before ours also contains space and time but not necessarily the same. But still having time in its own way to be able to start and end and then be rebirthed ad infinitum.
You do know that "spatial" and "temporal" are very different things, right? Infinite in space does not equate to infinite in time.The point is if our universe is infinite then what does that do to time.
But this all depends on you being able to show that the laws of nature in this other universe allow for something that we would call the past, present, and future.I guess thats what we came up with to help understand the experience of past, present and future.
An interesting thing is that the past as memories can become the present. You can relive that experience like it becomes your new past experience that replaces the original one, or changes how you percieve the past.
That seems to suggest that we can measure time gone by through years which is one way to understand time as far as volume is concerned. But we can also understand time through conscious experience. A past event can be transported to the future at an instant making it real again for the present.
This seems to mean in some ways 'time' is non local. It is not restricted to measures in set quantities that flow in one direction from past to present. Our conscious experience is not restricted by the measure of time and space in the classical sense.
Yes the space between objects is real but the measuring idea that humans come up with be it inches, metres or cubits is not. It may be measured in metres in one culture, feet in another and some other method in other cultures like symbols ie (it takes 3 setting suns to reach the destination).Well, since I was clearly talking about distance back in post 419, I don't know how you concluded that I was talking about an actual foot.
But my point remains. If time is not real because we can't put it into a test tube (as per your argument in post 400, then neither is distance. Yet I'm sure you'll agree that there is some distance between you and me.
Your missing the point. Its not that there is some space between things or that theres an interval between evens happening. Its that the measure for this is a human idea. It can be different according to the culture or the location you are in.And just how a foot (as in twelve inches, to clarify) is a measure of distance, a second is a measure of time. Again, if you are going to claim that time isn't real, then distance isn't real, and our universe is therefore dimensionless. Do you want to make that argument?
And what if we were on another planet.No, it is not just "made up," because it is based on an objectively true fact about our planet. Magnetic north is where the axis of our planet's magnetic field passes through the surface of the Earth in the northern hemisphere.
Thats the point, the other person is having a different experience of time at that specific moment. We can know that it may be 5 pm at a single point but be be not quite 5 pm for someone travelling at supersonic speed for the same point. Time slows down at speed and will come to a complete stop as we reach the speed of light.But they can correct for these things and determine what the other person is experiencing.
The point is this is what the physics predicts, the same physics we use on planet earth, the same physics used for the BB and inflation theory.And there COULD BE a universe where you have evidence for your claims instead of hypotheticals for which you provide zero evidence, but it ain't this universe.
It does belong to our universe, well is associated with the birth of our universe. Its the physics of trying to work out how the theory of the BB and inflation came about. Trying to work out the physics for how inflation happened which is after the BB.So what?
Inventing something which doesn't break down at the Big Bang doesn't mean squat if you can't show that it applies to our universe.
Of course, this is a well known idea that stems from QM. Wheeler came up with the term, the same Wheeler who proposes 'it from bit' and the Participatory universe where observers create reality. Quantum foam are virtual particles and a predicted outcome that empty space isn't really empty. Empty space is bubbling with tiny subatomic particles appearing and disappearing. The same idea that is used for bubble and multi universes."...as a result of quantum foam."
Do you even know what that means, or are you just repeating buzzwords?
I would have thought infinite space goes hand in hand with infinite time. Space will keep going and a particle moving through that space will keep going.You do know that "spatial" and "temporal" are very different things, right? Infinite in space does not equate to infinite in time.
We don't need to prove that there are other universes with different physics by going there. Its possible within our own physics, the theorectical maths. Like I said Inflation theory predicts a multiverse and a multiverse contains many varying universes with varying physical constants.But this all depends on you being able to show that the laws of nature in this other universe allow for something that we would call the past, present, and future.
But, boy, I tell you, I'd love to see this.
Please, show us how you determine the laws of nature for a universe that is not ours.
Yes the space between objects is real but the measuring idea that humans come up with be it inches, metres or cubits is not. It may be measured in metres in one culture, feet in another and some other method in other cultures like symbols ie (it takes 3 setting suns to reach the destination).
The usefulness of the concept of Earth's true magnetic north is extensively evidenced. It is therefore held as being objectively real (ie: demonstrable) in the context of this planet. Science makes it a property of the testable model, (ie: the object), it calls 'planet Earth'.stevevw said:And what if we were on another planet.Kylie said:No, it is not just "made up," because it is based on an objectively true fact about our planet. Magnetic north is where the axis of our planet's magnetic field passes through the surface of the Earth in the northern hemisphere.
So you think you can use the laws of nature of our universe to determine the laws of nature of a completely separate universe.We don't need to prove that there are other universes with different physics by going there. Its possible within our own physics, the theorectical maths. Like I said Inflation theory predicts a multiverse and a multiverse contains many varying universes with varying physical constants.
It is important to state from the start that the existence (or not) of the multiverse is a consequence of our present understanding of the fundamental laws of physics—it didn't come from the minds of whimsical physicists reading too many sci-fi books.
The multiverse: How we're tackling the challenges facing the theory
The idea of a multiverse consisting of "parallel universes" is a popular science fiction trope, recently explored in the Oscar-winning movie "Everything Everywhere All At Once." However, it is within the realm of scientific possibility.phys.org
So we agree. Distance (a dimension in our universe) is real. So tell me, why should we not also consider that time (also a dimension in our universe) is also real?Yes the space between objects is real but the measuring idea that humans come up with be it inches, metres or cubits is not. It may be measured in metres in one culture, feet in another and some other method in other cultures like symbols ie (it takes 3 setting suns to reach the destination).
No. Just no.Your missing the point. Its not that there is some space between things or that theres an interval between evens happening. Its that the measure for this is a human idea. It can be different according to the culture or the location you are in.
If that has a magnetic field, then we can use that to determine magnetic north. If it does not have a magnetic field, then there is no magnetic north. However, we can use the axis of rotation of the planet to find true north.And what if we were on another planet.
How can you claim that time is subjective and then base your argument on two different experiences at the same specific moment? The same specific moment can't exist if time is subjective as you say. Your argument does not work.Thats the point, the other person is having a different experience of time at that specific moment. We can know that it may be 5 pm at a single point but be be not quite 5 pm for someone travelling at supersonic speed for the same point. Time slows down at speed and will come to a complete stop as we reach the speed of light.
You have made the claim, but you have not shown a shred of evidence. All available scientific information shows that the laws of physics that you claim to be using break down and become meaningless at the Big Bang.The point is this is what the physics predicts, the same physics we use on planet earth, the same physics used for the BB and inflation theory.
So let me get this straight...It does belong to our universe, well is associated with the birth of our universe. Its the physics of trying to work out how the theory of the BB and inflation came about. Trying to work out the physics for how inflation happened which is after the BB.
Just a moment ago, you were saying that the physics predicts time before the Big Bang, now you say physics breaks down at the Big Bang. Make up your mind please.Our physics breaks down at this point and thats why for example a multiverse is proposed because one of the outcomes of inflation is a multiverse and one of the outcomes of a multiverse is that physical constants will be different in different universes.
If the physics is different, how do you know there's even time at all?That means in the greater scheme of things if theres different physics then theres different representations of what time is. In fact even time within inflation was different as the the physics breaks down and inflrmation travels faster than the speed of light.
I'm sure you can find any number of websites that will tell you that. I see nothing that indicates you have an understanding of what it means.Of course, this is a well known idea that stems from QM. Wheeler came up with the term, the same Wheeler who proposes 'it from bit' and the Participatory universe where observers create reality. Quantum foam are virtual particles and a predicted outcome that empty space isn't really empty. Empty space is bubbling with tiny subatomic particles appearing and disappearing. The same idea that is used for bubble and multi universes.
So just your armchair scientist assumptions then?I would have thought infinite space goes hand in hand with infinite time. Space will keep going and a particle moving through that space will keep going.
And how does that involve time travel? Joining two different points in space is not the same as two different points in time.What about 'worm holes' where something can travel between one point in the universe to another by cutting out the time to travel that distance. Instead of taking 1,000's of years it may only take minutes. Worm holes was also coined by John Wheeler and are predicted by the math.
Source please.QM also predicts time travel so how does this fit with the classical understanding of time. It points to time being more fluid than how we think of time in the macro world.
Like I said its based on our current theory of physics for 'our universe and not other universes' and what we observe today which predicts a multiverse. If our current theories of inflation and the CMB and QM are right then we also have to accept the logical predictions based on those ideas which includes a multiverse.So you think you can use the laws of nature of our universe to determine the laws of nature of a completely separate universe.
How about you look at Elon Musk and use him to determine how a shoemaker in India lives, huh?
I am not saying the experience of time or distance is not real. We can experience ourselves moving through the objective world. I am saying the many different ideas by cultures to interpret those experiences are subjective which shows we don't really understand its nature, what time really represents in a universal sense. If anything the many different human made ideas about time tells us its more fluid than any idea that tries to quantify time according to one specific concept.So we agree. Distance (a dimension in our universe) is real. So tell me, why should we not also consider that time (also a dimension in our universe) is also real?
What do you mean. So who is correct, the Western idea of time or the Indigenous understanding. Are you saying Indigenous people or any other cultures experience of time is wrong compared to the West.No. Just no.
All these measures, feet, meters, cubics are quantified measures, breaking up the world into incriment measures. But not all cultures measure time in quantified incriments. They have more transcedent beliefs about what the west calls time. Its more symbolic and spiritual and is not limited by quantified incriments and there is many variations of how the experience of time is expressed by cultures within the transcendent and qualititative understandings of tense, past tense and future tense.Distance is not subjective simply because there are different units of measurement. The distance between my front door and the shop down the street is the same, regardless of whether you measure it in feet or meters. There are clear equations to allow for a conversion between different measuring systems.
Some planets have completely different or even opposite magnetic poles, some have several or they are contually changing. Ours could flip at some point and then magnetic north would be in the opposite position.If that has a magnetic field, then we can use that to determine magnetic north. If it does not have a magnetic field, then there is no magnetic north. However, we can use the axis of rotation of the planet to find true north.
Say for example if a person was flying in a supersonic jet and passed over the same point as someone on the ground and they compared the time. The person above in the jet would experience time slower than the person on the ground. If they compared the time they would have two different times.How can you claim that time is subjective and then base your argument on two different experiences at the same specific moment? The same specific moment can't exist if time is subjective as you say. Your argument does not work.
I'm talking about after the BB when Inflation happened which is based on quantum physics. The same physics predicts multiverses. If there are no multiverses then there is no inflation theory. What happened to time between the BB and inflation or even during inflation when things travelled faster than the speed of light. What happens to time at the edge of our existing universe that is said to be travelling faster than the speed of light.You have made the claim, but you have not shown a shred of evidence. All available scientific information shows that the laws of physics that you claim to be using break down and become meaningless at the Big Bang.
No its based on existing physics. It predicts a multiverse. If you want to dispute that then you need to take it up with all the scientists who support Inflation theory. Who support interpretations of QM such as the Many worlds interpretation which is the preferred interpretation by most mainstream physicists.So let me get this straight...
You claim that an entirely different universe is associated with our universe? How do they interact then? Youi make grandiose claims, but offer no supporting arguments. Just more claims.
It is because the physics breaks down at the BB that other universes are proposed. QM breaks down classical physics. The BB and Inflation theory are based on quantum physics. So it is proposed that our universe was birthed through quantum fluctuations which is based on our current understanding of QM and the cosmos.Just a moment ago, you were saying that the physics predicts time before the Big Bang, now you say physics breaks down at the Big Bang. Make up your mind please.
There may not be time in some universes or time may flow differently, maybe slower, faster or in the opposite direction. This is based on QM especially the Many Worlds or Paralelle Uinverse theory.If the physics is different, how do you know there's even time at all?
Its basic quantum physics. Its not some crazy persons idea, its verified science. QM is one of the most supported theories in science. The idea that particles can be waves or particles, Quantum superposition, uncertainty principle, Virtual particle, the Casimir effect and entanglement.I'm sure you can find any number of websites that will tell you that. I see nothing that indicates you have an understanding of what it means.
No these are mainstream scientific assumptions and theories. I am just repeating what mainstream science says.So just your armchair scientist assumptions then?
Instead of taking 1,000 years to get from point to point in classical spacetime information could travel between these two points in minutes or in some cases with quantum entanglement send information instantly. Thats a breach of time (how long it takes for something to travel between two points in space. It would breach the speed of light for one.And how does that involve time travel? Joining two different points in space is not the same as two different points in time.
The point of saying time may exist before the BB was to show that 'Time' as we understand it is not necessarily what 'time' represents fundementally. We just happen to give it a quantified interpretation to help us navigate our plane of reference as we are physical beings. But as I have shown 'time' can be more fluid fundementally.And in any case, the two different points are within the same universe. Even if wormholes do exist in reality, that doesn't prove that time existed before the Big Bang.
Quantum mechanics of time travelSource please.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?