Elad

On 5/16/2023 at 1:47 AM, VinnieK said:

Tried to buy ETH with my Krung Thai and TTB visa cards and were both rejected 

There is sufficient money and not expired 

Any idea why?

(On metamask and trustwallet platforms)

If you have a wise account you can order the virtual or physical card which moonpay accepts. I have used it many times on trust wallet.

On 9/5/2023 at 9:52 AM, fredwiggy said:

I have researched most everything about the big bang theory and what many scientists have said.

Then you will know that the Big Bang theory is not about how the universe started, its about how the universe evolved from a time when all the matter and energy was already present about 13.8 billion years ago. There is no scientific theory on how the universe was created and any physicist will say "we don't know".

On 3/24/2023 at 1:56 AM, Sunmaster said:

>>>repost<<<

 

I imagine a rotating disc, the "disc of creation". As we know, the edges of the disc will rotate much faster than the center. The closer we get to the center, the lower the speed. Imagining the center being close to infinite (say

1×10−a gazillion), makes time at that point close to zero (timeless/NOW). 

I also imagine there to be a slope, with the highest point in the center. That way, the center has a 360 degree view of the whole disc at all times. The closer you get to the edge, the less of the disc is visible to the observer.
 

An observer on the edge of the disc will experience time very differently from an observer on other points of the disc, closer to the center. For the observer on the edge, time seems to be linear, with a past, a present and a future, but for the observer closer to the center, those 3 points are observable and coexist all at the same time. 

This model explains the paradox Tippaporn was talking about. Time exists, is relative to the distance from the center, becomes less binding the closer we get to the center, and ceases to exist at the center.

So, where is God in this model? "God" is the center of the "disc of creation", all seeing, all knowing, timeless. But God is also the disc itself. There is nothing in creation that is not God. 

I like this scientific side to ya Sunmaster, keep it up ????

A rotating solid disc like that is quite complicated, there's a lot of forces going on including accelerations and its not easy to explain. However, it seems a little backwards to me because time slows down with increasing radius so I would put CC at infinity where time comes to a stop on your diagram. At the center time should be flowing faster ???? 

On 3/24/2023 at 2:20 PM, Acharn said:

I don't know what the current consensus of astronomers is for the "end" of the universe. I gather they don't expect a real ending, just that eventually entropy is maximized everywhere and things just sit there with the universe expanding forever. Myself, I believe it will all contract to create a new monoblock and a new Big Bang, but I gather most astronomers believe there is not enough mass (I think they include "dark matter" and "dark energy") in the universe to bring about a contraction.

To determine how the universe evolves in terms of the expansion/contraction, we need to know the energy density values for radiation, matter and dark energy. All current models show that the universe is dominated by dark energy and that the universe will continue in its accelerated expansion forever. See below

Radiation (blue) was dominant in the very early universe, to then cross over to a matter (red) dominated universe, this actually slowed the expansion until around 4 billion years ago when dark energy (green) takes over. Notice how the dark energy density remains constant throughout, while matter and radiation dilute as the universe gets bigger. Also note that the matter density (red) includes dark matter + normal matter. 

On 3/20/2023 at 7:22 PM, Tippaporn said:

In your example you are using a friend who is receiving audio information from you, which would be slower than light.  Sound travels at a much slower speed than light.  Whilst technically correct . . . it takes time to receive communication, regardless, there is no such time lapse for you as you think the thought that you are then conveying to another.  So your thoughts are happening in the now.  And while, yes, it takes time to receive communication from another once that communication is received then the reception of is happening for the friend in his now.

If you were communicating via email, or a physical letter, then of course it takes time for the communication to be received by the recipient.  You, though, are typing the email or writing the letter in your now.  Once the communication is received then the recipient is reading it in his now.

Again, experience happens in the now moment point.  Never in the past or future.  The past is only the perception of experience moving in linear fashion from moment to moment.  If you have any other explanations which would contradict that and prove it to be wrong then I'm more than willing to hear and consider it.

If you're interested in learning more then read Seth's many explanations regarding time, what it is and our experience of it - how and why we experience it as such.  This he explains in great detail as time is an integral part of our physical experience.  As is space.  Both must be well understood for what they are in order for other information to make sense.  In the meanwhile you can't honestly claim Seth is wrong since 1) if you haven't read his explanations it would then be impossible to say he's wrong since you don't know what he's saying and 2) you can make the assumption that your ideas are correct but the possibility exists that they are not.  Once you become aware of Seth's ideas then you may well indeed find your ideas to be incorrect.  Perhaps not.  But it may well be a fatal error to dismiss that very real possibility.

For myself I don't care which answer is correct or incorrect but I will choose the one which is correct.  I will not, though, defend an idea which is incorrect for the sole reason of wanting to be right in what I believe to be true.  I make this point not to accuse you of trying to attempt to defend an incorrect idea.  But to simply make you aware that this is a pitfall which many unwittingly fall into.  One always needs to ask themselves whether this may be the case during an exchange of ideas.  For if one is arguing not for truth but merely to be right then one is only fooling themselves.  And if one is seeking true knowledge it will never, ever happen if one is not brutally honest with one's self.

I was being generous using light cause it gets even worse for sound ????

Since we're on the subject of seeing events I just want you to know that in physics there's a difference between 'seeing' and 'observing'. Seeing an event (like we just discussed) is when the light from that event reaches your eyes or scientific instrument, whereas observing an event is the exact time and place the event happened. So for example if I see the explosion of a distant star tonight that was 10 lightyears away, then I would report the time of the explosion as ten years ago.

In special relativity we are only interested in observing events NOT seeing events, so when we assign coordinates to events its when and where those events actually occurred in a particular reference frame. Just wanted to make that clear since its very important in understanding how time works in relativity.

There's a common misconception in SR which is 'moving clocks tick slowly' and although its true that you will observe a moving clock to run more slowly than your own, there's actually more to it than that and the relativity of simultaneity shows us that its time itself that changes from one frame to another where observers take different paths through spacetime.

 I'll try to explain using two reference frames. Imagine yourself (Tippaporn) on Earth and me (Elad) travelling at some speed V relative to you. Since speed is relative then I could say that I'm at rest, and you, on Earth, is travelling at speed V, it makes no difference in relativity. Due to this symmetry not only will you observe my clock running slow, but I will also observe your clock to be running slow, sounds like a paradox but its not when you take the relativity of simultaneity into account.

If you observe and assign coordinates to two events that occur simultaneous but at different locations in your frame, and remember this is observing so those events really do happen at the same time in your reference frame. Then in my frame, I will observe the same two events at different times lets say two seconds between each event. How can this be because if time was just slowing down then the two Events would still be simultaneous in any frame. Time changes on different paths through spacetime.

In SR when we do the transformations of coordinates from one reference frame to another, the math shows us that the time coordinate depends on the space coordinates, and space depends on time, there's a mixing of space and time into one spacetime and this is how the universe seems to work. The condition of two events being simultaneous is a relative one not an absolute one.

I'm finding it very hard getting this across, and I'm not the best science communicator ????but I hope it helps you to understand that time is not absolute, it make no sense to say "I wonder what aliens are doing right now in the Andromeda galaxy" because our now is not the same as theirs, if they exist.

I would've liked to add some 2D spacetime diagrams to illustrate better how it works but I'm not sure you'd appreciate them.

Instead of searching the thread would it be possible to send me a link on Seth's definition of time, I'd like to have a look at it.

On 3/21/2023 at 4:03 PM, Sunmaster said:

@Elad

Have you thought about the questions I asked? 

I might respond to one or two of them but don't expect much from it because you already know I'm a bit of a materialist ????

I need to clear a few things up with @Tippaporn first with regard to time. 

Bear with me please because I'm not always at my laptop and I hate using the mobile.

15 hours ago, save the frogs said:

I think at least one of the regular posters on here has been very critical of scientists as it pertains to anything spiritual.

But knock yourself out!

Its just a common joke among scientists. Of course physics works, you only have to look at all the technology around you to know that.

5 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

No,,never heard.

Some cosmologists think that we live on the surface of a 3-sphere. A 2-sphere is like the Earth which is spherical, has a 2D surface, and has no beginning and no end. A 3-sphere, is a sphere with a 3 dimensional surface that has no beginning and no end, so if you traveled in a straight line for many billions of light years then you'd end up in the same place you started. Sounds plausible but I have problems visualizing it. And it solves the problem of where does the universe end, like the surface of the Earth it never ends.    

3 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Eureka! We have discovered new dimensions!

 

New dimensions = more fake channelers and fake scientists giving fake information about what's in those dimensions

New dimensions = more confusion

New dimensions = more information that nobody knows what to do with

 

Maybe just apply simple principles to your life instead of getting obsessed with woo-woo stuff? 

"My religion is kindness." -- The Dalai Lama

 

No one is claiming to be a scientist here but even if they were, so what, scientists aren't special people they get things wrong all the time, especially the physicists. Have you ever heard that saying:

If it smells, its chemistry

If it wriggles, its biology

If it doesn't work, its physics ????

27 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

You say "some people think". What do you think? 

I don't really like to speculate but it wouldn't surprise me if there were extra dimensions.

Have you ever heard of a 3-sphere?

7 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I don't know the background of this theory, so it's hard to wrap my head around this. Let's not make it too academic please. ????

I'm no Einstein trust me ???? but I have been studying physics part time for the last 9 years or so, I'm no expert but I dare say I know more than the average person when it comes to physics.

In Minkowski spacetime, the time axis becomes a length so its has the same units as the x,y,z, and when you measure the spacetime separation between events from any inertial reference frame its an invariant quantity.

Events with a positive >0 separation are time-like

Events with a zero (or null) separation are light-like

Events with a negative <0 separation are space-like.

I can't really go into it anymore without using some math ????   

2 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I'm not familiar with this theory. 

How do you know that the observer in 4D or higher would experience time as in 3D?

It's how we visualize it in Minkowski spacetime, if you look at the lightcone above, all events within the lightcone are time-like and can be causally connected, events that occur on the edge of the lightcone are light-like which could be connected by light signal. Events that occur outside the lightcone are space-like and these events cannot be causally connected. This is all part of special relativity.

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

To try to answer that, we have to make sure we agree on the definition of "higher dimensions", so there can't be any misunderstandings later.

It's hard to visualize any higher dimensions, but some people think the universe is expanding into another dimension. Whats your definition? 

53 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Not if you mean this "Lightcone" which also has other options!

Yes, that is a 3D lightcone 1 time and two space. For a 4D lightcone those cones would become spheres. When I look at my friend, Im looking slightly into the past lightcone. What other options does it have?

11 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

What you have not considered yet, logically deduced from the fact that you have not addressed this very crucial point, is my statement that you, and we, are always in the NOW.  We are never outside of it.  Our experience is always in the present moment.  Our experience doesn't occur in the past, nor does it occur in the future.  Our experience occurs only in the present moment.  That fact must be accounted for, included in any equation which attempts to define and explain the reality of time.

We are actually always looking into our past lightcone. If you are talking to a friend who is stood 1 m away from you, then it takes light about 2 nano seconds to reach your eyes and then your brain has to process that information, so in that sense, everything you do in your life what you think is the now, is actually slightly in the past. 

20 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

The relativity of simultaneity seems to be a condition unique to the physical/material universe or 3D (4D if you count time). The timelessness Tippaporn is talking about(Ithink), becomes plausible when talking about higher dimensions (5D+). 

In essence, the relativity of simultaneity is bound to 3D and doesn't apply to 5D+.

 

In that sense, you may be both right.

In relativity we use a 4D spacetime manifold, which seems to be the universe we live in. Observers won't agree on the times and lengths between events but they will all agree that two events have an invariant spacetime separation.

You can actually apply extra spatial dimensions in relativity and it doesn't make any difference it just makes the math harder, Leonard Susskind does just that in some of his lectures on relativity.

If you or Tippaporn have a personal theory of time then the relativity of simultaneity shouldn't be used as an example for it. 

It's nice to think about higher dimensions but how do you know they exist? 

14 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Now you may consider simultaneous time to be a contradiction to your experience.  And it is.  What needs to be understood is that it's only a seeming contradiction that's forced to appear so because you are immersed in a reality in which the experience of time exists for us as it does.  It should be understood that the key take away, or the key understanding to be had, is that time is only  . . . only . . . something that is experienced as such and such or so and so.  Seth explains what time is and why we experience it as we do . . . one moment following another with each passing moment seemingly fading into what we call the past . . . in great detail.  He also explains why we do not perceive the future, despite the fact that the future exists now.

He goes much further to explain the relationships and interactions between our perceived past, present and future.  He describes in great detail why and how our experience of time is what it is.  The fact that our very biology is geared towards the experience of one moment forever following another moment.

Now he also points out a fascinating fact.   A fact which you can easily verify yourself.  Despite the "fact" that per our experience there exists past, present and future our experience is always in the present moment and never outside of it.  We find that we are always operating in what Seth calls the spacious now.  There is nothing other than NOW.  Time is in the truest sense, therefore, an illusion.

I'm afraid you and Seth are just wrong about time. Time is real, its relative and there is no absolute time in the universe, the notion of NOW universally doesn't exist. Time being relative has been verified experimentally with atomic clocks on satellites orbiting the Earth. For satellites in orbit there's two factors of time dilation going on, gravitational time dilation where clocks in a weaker gravitational field tick more rapidly, and there's time dilation due to special relativity where moving clocks tick more slowly.

For satellites in a low Earth orbit where the orbital speed is higher then the effects of special relativity dominates and the clocks on board tick more slowly relative to Earth based clocks. For satellites in a high Earth orbit (like our GPS at 20,000 km above the Earth's surface) where orbital speeds are much slower, then the gravitational time dilation dominates and those clocks tick faster than the Earth based clocks. In fact there exist an orbit where both effects of time dilation cancel each other out which is about 1.5 Earth radii or 3,200 km above the surface, and clocks there keep in sync with Earth clocks.

If time was just an illusion as you say, then why do we have to correct for these effects on our GPS because if we didn't make these corrections, then the errors in positions of GPS receivers would accumulate at the rate of tens of km per day. The fact that we have to make these corrections verifies that time is real.

And BTW its not just the clocks that are ticking more slowly/rapidly, if a human was in the same reference frame as the clock then their heartbeat, metabolism and any biological processes slow down or speed up relative to someone on Earth. These effects are very small for Earth orbits but when speeds are close to the speed of light or gravity is very strong then the effects are significant. 

I noticed you were using relativity of simultaneity in relation to events within our past and future light-cones. Did you know that relativity of simultaneity is specific to space-like separated events (i.e. events that are not causally connected and not within our past and future light-cone) where two space-like events are simultaneous in one frame of reference, are not in other frames. In fact the ordering of events can be reversed for space-like events, if event 1 precedes event 2 in one frame, then there will exist a frame where event 2 precedes event 1.

No paradoxes involved here because the events are not causally connected.

For time-like separated events (i.e. events that are causally connected and therefore within your past and future light-cone) then the ordering of events cannot be reversed nor can they be simultaneous no matter what the reference frame. For time-like separated events the causal event always precedes effect.

@Tippaporn you should take some time to study special relativity, to where you can read Minkowski  spacetime diagrams, use the Lorentz transformations and understand the relativity of simultaneity, then come back here and tell us if you think time is real. ????    

5 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Even funnier is the irony of quoting "Einstein" to make a point, when it is well known that Einstein himself, although he didn't use the word "God", believed in a cohesive, intelligent force that governs the universe. 

I think you're wrong there Sunmaster. Einstein was an atheist, he did use the word god very loosely for things we don't understand, Stephen Hawking did the same and he was an atheist. I don't know why religious people quote Einstein, why not quote Isaac Newton he was religious and so believed in a personal god, he was also smarter than Einstein IMO.   

On 9/19/2022 at 1:34 PM, Tippaporn said:

When the original life form made it's first jump what was it to?  And what was it's next jump?  And so on.  If you can't  get that specific then how about a jump from one species to the creation of an entirely new species?  Since there's no fossil records to show this definitive transmutation could you at least illustrate the metamorphosis?

In evolution there are no sudden jumps from one species to another, its a gradual process of small incremental steps over thousands and millions of years. There never was a first of any species, just like there never was a first human. There was never a moment where a Homo erectus mother gave birth to a Homo sapien child, it doesn't work like that. It's analogous to how a human grows old from a baby to child, adult to middle aged or middle aged to an old man, There's never a moment, you don't go to bed a middle aged man then wake up in the morning an old man, but if you wait a sufficient number of years you become old. That's how evolution works but now we are talking about thousands and millions of years and it's very hard to grasp those time scales. 

Blimey whats happened to this thread. It used to be quite interesting, but now, just reading some of these posts is like pulling teeth.

It seems we have religious fundamentalists in here, and you cannot debate a fundamentalist. Why? because evidence means absolutely nothing to them, no matter how much you put on the table.

An example would be the American young Earth creationist Kurt Wise who has a PhD in Geology from Harvard university. Kurt Wise said:

" I am a young age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise

You can't do anything with a mind like that, and a mind like that is a disgrace to the human race.

7 hours ago, AsianAtHeart said:

But isn't that basically the point of the Big Bang theory?

 

I do, certainly, agree with you that nature testifies of the existence of God.  To take the Big Bang as an example, it is supposed to have been a huge explosion, and the matter that ejected from this explosion is said to have formed all of the known stars, planets, and galaxies.  Judging by the rate of supposed expansion of the universe, the effects of the alleged Big Bang are still seen.

 

But when was the last time you saw an explosion produce objects that twirled in circular motions?  Every explosion I've ever seen caused the ejecta to emerge in straight lines--straight out from the center of the explosion.  The only reason for anything to be deflected from that line would be the resistance of some other mass--but the universe, prior to the Big Bang, is said to have been an empty vacuum of space, so there could have been no mass out there! 

You've probably been watching too many popular science programs on discovery. The big bang wasn't an explosion within space, it was the beginning of space and time itself. A regular explosion within space has a center, whereas the universe has no definite central location, in fact the center of the universe is everywhere, the big bang happened everywhere. If you measure the expansion of the universe from Earth or from a Galaxy a billion light years away, the expansion is always centered on you. Also, the big bang theory is not a theory of how the universe started, its a theory of how the it evolved from a time after t = 0 and all the matter/energy within the universe is already there, it doesn't say anything about how the matter/energy got there.

The reason we see order in universe is due to the constants of nature being fixed, and as far as we know they do not change with time. When the laws are fixed systems become in equilibrium. Take the stars for example they are in equilibrium, the outward pressure from fusion is exactly balanced by gravity trying to crush the star inwards. If the gravitational constant was not fixed and changed just slightly, then the stars would either implode or blow themselves apart, the universe would be chaotic and life as we know it would not exist.   

I'm pretty sure that you can not extend a visit visa or turn it into a settlement visa, so your girlfriend will have to go back to Thailand before the visa expires. When she returns to Thailand she can apply for settlement, however, for a spouse settlement you will need to get married. I do believe there is a fiance settlement visa which gives you six months to marry in the UK, then you get an extension for a further 2 years (she wont need to leave the UK). Another option would be to marry now and when she returns you can go straight for the spouse visa. Not sure if they still allow marriage on visit visas though. 

10 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

That's right. It may be correct, or it may not.
We can see/feel there is a force at work, but we don't know how it works exactly. Hence it's a theory, not a fact.

So we don't know how gravity works and yet we can send a telescope to a region of space (L2) millions of miles away, a place where we know the gravitational effects of the Sun and Earth cancel each other out. And this was done using Newton's Law's that are accurate to one part in 10 million. Einstein's theory is accurate to one part in 10^14, thats a 1 with 14 zeros. God must be hiding at the 14th decimal place. ????

On 5/27/2022 at 2:31 AM, Sunmaster said:

I just had a funny thought....One way to really shake things up in the old, ineffective belief systems, would be CONTACT with (advanced) ALIENS! ???? That would be interesting and fun to watch. Imagine a far more advanced civilization telling us that there is a Higher Power, that it's not found in books, but within us and accessible to everyone. That science and technology play an important part in life, but are not the answers to humankinds deepest questions. 
How many would actually change their minds? How many would rebel against it?  How would such a revelation change the dynamics of our society? 
Someone should make a movie of this. 555

If the aliens laid out undeniable evidence for the existence of a supernatural being, then I would throw my atheistic view of the universe out the window and become a believer, because its all about the evidence. On the other hand, if the aliens showed us that everything can be explained by nature, like how life and the universe started, how it will end, and how consciousness is all part of the physical. Would you be willing to give it all up? 

6 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

You don't go from
1+1=2
to
(z2+2zy√+y−1)2((1+y)(z+y√)−y√(z2+2zy√+y+1))21z+y√=(1−y)2−4y√(1−y)z+O(z2)((1−y)z−y√z2)2(1y√−zy+O(z2))=1−4y√1−yz+O(z2)z2(1−2y√1−yz+O(z2))1y√(1−zy√+O(z2))=1z2y√(1−zy√−2y√1−yz+O(z2))=1z2(1y√−1+yy(1−y)z+O(z2))
in a day.

Well I don't know what that is but its not calculus, if its supposed to be algebra then its very, very poorly written, its unreadable.