The Singularity of the Past

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,647
I'm a Muslim and proud a proud one at that. I do respect other religions and every one in it.
I believe in science. What science says now are things we know far longer than any of you.
I am some one who look into the stars and wonder what it would be like to travel through space and am always fascinated about the stars.

I never question what is left for us.
But for me, earth is where we belong. And it is where we all will die.
No question abt it.
There is no other planet inhabiting or planet migration.

For me science and faith are same. But not for you.

And who says we evolve. If evolution is possible than why did it stop at humans.

And I believe universe is created from nothing. Matter came from nothing. Which is the big bang sates.

And there was this big bang and everything sprung up from no where.
For you who do not believe in how that happened, think again.
I believe man can fly, I believe man can travel time. But not us and not in this life time.
May be some other time where anything is a wish away.
What do u think.
Who says it stopped? I've seen quite a few articles showing how the changes in humans are continuing. IMO this is one of the areas where religion is trying to dictate science and ignoring an ever growing body of evidence. I'd look them up and post them, but I suspect it is futile. Against faith no argument will work, just like the Earth being 65,000 years old. Those who look it is obvious, to those who won't it will never be.

Of course, this probably won't continue in humans in the old fashioned way. We now have the ability to change ourselves as we see fit.

As for not leaving this planet, that depends. We could if we chose. I think we will, but I also see short sighted politicians crippling the effort. We stopped using the shuttle before getting a replacement ready. It makes my teeth grind and my head ache.

In the end it comes back to evidence and observation. The effects of black holes have been observed, and they match theory. We even have distinct classes, some more theoretical than others. The ones we haven't seen well just have to wait and see, not finding them doesn't mean they don't exist.
 

sceadwian

Joined Jun 1, 2009
499
I think you might not understand the problems of language in a complex system.

Your mental framework right now chose Human to describe our species current state and the sum total of all the rest of your thoughts pertaining to it. This will not be identical to any other living human beings perception on this planet of the word human.

There are a nearly infinite number of feedback loops and this being a forum for one where there are hours or days delay in conceptual evolution there is no possibility of any actual understanding between us in thought processes.

In truth we can't even properly converse, so no argument can exist.

I think a large portion of the human community would if properly educated define the property of humanity as being the same as copiousness, which we great apes in our gloated mental capacities have laughable tried to equate to superiority. We're actually IN our own feedback loop. Typical human traits are nothing more than the right balance of feedback to prevent insanity and not relative behaviors that will kill us.

Our world is incredibly stable right now (just don't watch the news) for us to exist, or we WOULDN'T, to think that there is some indomitable human spirit which drives our evolution is sheer idiocy.

It is absolute unalterable fact that everything every human being on this planet right now knows loves cherishes and feels is absolute fact will in the overall scheme of time be different than our perception is currently.
 

Nanophotonics

Joined Apr 2, 2009
383
Nice post, I understand the complexity of language. And I believe it is a major cause of many conflicts on this planet. But we're digressing from the main topic.
 

sceadwian

Joined Jun 1, 2009
499
There is no main topic, there is a statement with opinion followed by conjecture followed by an unlimited comment period from every perspective.

Conflict only occurs with opposing views.

Could the opposing views in this thread please make themselves known with a single perhaps two sentence statement concerning their viewpoint, and then they and EVERYONE else shut up until those viewpoints are rectified? Perhaps with moderation.

If that could happen it would QUICKLY become known that there is nothing to actually discuss, there is not argument there is no conversation, just a lot of empty words in between each post.
 

Thread Starter

BestFriend

Joined Sep 22, 2010
31
I'm a Muslim and proud a proud one at that. I do respect other religions and every one in it.
I believe in science. What science says now are things we know far longer than any of you.
I am some one who look into the stars and wonder what it would be like to travel through space and am always fascinated about the stars.

I never question what is left for us.
But for me, earth is where we belong. And it is where we all will die.
No question abt it.
There is no other planet inhabiting or planet migration.

For me science and faith are same. But not for you.

And who says we evolve. If evolution is possible than why did it stop at humans.

And I believe universe is created from nothing. Matter came from nothing. Which is the big bang sates.

And there was this big bang and everything sprung up from no where.
For you who do not believe in how that happened, think again.
I believe man can fly, I believe man can travel time. But not us and not in this life time.
May be some other time where anything is a wish away.
What do u think.
/offtopic

Then that settles it. We share so many common grounds. I respect other religions as well even though I don't belong on any of them. And I interest myself in the three Abrahamic religions - Jewish, Christianity and Muslim. I also tend to focus on their similarities instead of their differences.

Anyway, regarding Darwin's theory of evolution, during his time, it was still a theory. So being a scientific theory means that it has not been proven yet, although some of his discoveries has very important technological applications in farming and breeding, his was a theory and not a scientific law.
 

Thread Starter

BestFriend

Joined Sep 22, 2010
31
You just about made me fall out of my chair laughing at that post, you really have no clue, you think there is any science in this thread at all?! Not one single macroscopic iota of it.
The scientific method is simple.
Posit a theory that is testable, test it and then analyze the data and see if any correlation can be made to the theory, or if (and this ALWAYS happens) the theory in fact needs to be revised and new experience performed.

I have not seen one single experiment suggested, no data of any kind, nothing but the hollow words of a panicked flock of conscious individuals increasing the noise floor of this forum. I've seen posts like this hundreds if not more times, none of them end, they just putter out as the posters lose the vitality to continue to respond to the inane text and utter lack of science.

Psycology isn't a hard science it doesn't work based on math, it is however heavily based on experimentation and results, and it's well developed, it's not for manipulation although that is possible (that's what shrinks are for) it's science is by large and far simply to understand the human mind itself, because our perceptions of what occurs around us is a distorted shadow at best of reality.

Actually, Psycology's findings has basis based on math and statistics.

I'll never change your opinion based on anything I've said, and I don't mean to even try, it does however make me sad that some human minds can be so fuddled that they aren't even aware of their manipulation of their own minds, and worse they have no conscious understanding of the human mind and how it works in the first place.
Alright, all sounds fair. hmmm... how do we test my theory? any suggestion? ok, here's mine: how about if we try to prove or disprove that the effects of singularity also exhibit itself outside of the black-hole but in a different manifestation?

Inside a black-hole, there is the effect of singularity where matter (outside of the hole) is pulled into the hole. Or inversely, pushed towards that single point.

Outside a black-hole, there is the effect of singularity where matter (outside of the past) is pulled into the past. Or inversely, pushed towards the future.

In both cases, we can't stop being pushed or pulled into that singularity. Now, how do we put this all in a mathematical equation where we can prove/disprove this? Honestly, like Einstein before he met Levi-Civita, I don't know how to formulate geodesics or tensor equation. Maybe some of you guys ride the horse of pure mathematics? Maybe we could use Einstein's field equation to create a singularity of time equation and see if it still respects the other laws of science?
 
Last edited:

sceadwian

Joined Jun 1, 2009
499
BestFriend, unfortunatly you just killed the thread right there with that statement as there is no way to practically prove that theory, unless you have some black holes chained up in a lab with billions of dollars in test equipment that I don't know about, or can teach yourself and everyone else here advanced calculus and bring us up to speed on the current mathematical models of blackholes, which by the way are still being developed.

There really is no possibility of useful discussion, you can banter back and forth using whatever words that your mind feels comfortable with in twisting this into a conversation that gives you the sensation of knowledge or discovery but this is not what's occuring, it's just a long winded use of time, if that's how you want to spend your time by all means but don't for a second thing that there's anything useful occurring.

Most of the threads I've seen of this nature occur on zero point energy forums or in reference to perpetual motion type devices, it's all a lot of fancy linguistic dancing nothing more. That being said the conversations if read between good duelers make for a good read =)
 

R!f@@

Joined Apr 2, 2009
9,751
I have a black hole in my pocket :D
Eats up my money quite fast.

I can prove that too, if you would lend me couple of thousand dollars. :p

We should all believe in what is common to all religions.
This is a good start and I welcome it
 
Last edited:

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,647
One of many lessons you will learn is one website makes a lousy reference, we have seen some major beauts over the years concerning pseudo science.

Given the arguments to date (I thought the relativity comment was funny) and obvious lack of basic understanding I'm not holding my breath. Instead of trying to tell people how it is (and trying to be an expert) I recommend lots and lots of reading, and some listening besides.

But you won't of course, so we'll just wait for the other stuff to come out.
 

Thread Starter

BestFriend

Joined Sep 22, 2010
31
One of many lessons you will learn is one website makes a lousy reference, we have seen some major beauts over the years concerning pseudo science.

Given the arguments to date (I thought the relativity comment was funny) and obvious lack of basic understanding I'm not holding my breath. Instead of trying to tell people how it is (and trying to be an expert) I recommend lots and lots of reading, and some listening besides.

But you won't of course, so we'll just wait for the other stuff to come out.
Well I will read, but looking at all your older reply in this topic - almost all contains no reference or whatsoever with reading materials. I mean, you can see that for yourself. And as I've said before, please don't make it personal and please keep it on topic. Pseudo science is different from observable science. And we can all agree that somehow, we are pushed towards the future. I mean, come on - OPEN YOUR EYES AND SEE IT.
 

sceadwian

Joined Jun 1, 2009
499
BestFriend... Human observation is a poor stance for scientific understanding, science is proving that more and more every moment. Psuedo science isn't ANYTHING, it's lunacy. There are people in asylums right now dead convinced on things they find obvious and the rest of the world must be off it's rocker for not noticing these things..

BestFriend said:
And we can all agree that somehow, we are pushed towards the future. I mean, come on - OPEN YOUR EYES AND SEE IT.
No we can't all agree, what you see as obvious I see as nothing more than a flaw in the human condition, when you get right down to it we are not part of the fundamental universe as a whole; we exist in a microcosm that comes about only because of the sheer complexity of the interactions in the fundamental universe as a whole, we are not and can never truly understand outside of mathmatics this fundamental Universe because we aren't part of it. Manipulation of quantum mechanics for computers is probably going to end up being pretty close to the limit of our ability to manipulate the universe.

Try reading Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos" sometime, very low on math very high on conceptual explanations on what current science knows about the fundamental universe, towards the end after string theory is covered loosely he gets a little bit into how mathmaticians are playing around with the equations more and more and some of the ways that it can be looked at hint that the entire known Universe that we are able to perceive and interact with is actually something akin to a hologram, basically our all matter energy and perceived order or caos is nothing more than a byproduct of the actual higher dimensional interactions of the fundamental Universe which we will never be part of.
 

R!f@@

Joined Apr 2, 2009
9,751
I have to disagree on that. We are a part of this universe. Of course this earth is nothing compared to the rest.
The Universe and everything is being made for one purpose and one purpose only.
This is something you all will find very hard to understand but for me it's crystal clear.
 

sceadwian

Joined Jun 1, 2009
499
We'll have to agree to disagree then Rifa, no way I'm gonna convert you from that standpoint, nor would I want to try, understanding is something that has to come from within one's own mind, personally I never close the door on my understanding and believe any one static viewpoint on reality is actually correct because it's like locking your mind in a little box, you miss so much of what other ideas are out there.

One thing I can say for certain is that if you think any one way is the only way you're dead wrong.
 

Thread Starter

BestFriend

Joined Sep 22, 2010
31
BestFriend... Human observation is a poor stance for scientific understanding, science is proving that more and more every moment. Psuedo science isn't ANYTHING, it's lunacy. There are people in asylums right now dead convinced on things they find obvious and the rest of the world must be off it's rocker for not noticing these things..



No we can't all agree, what you see as obvious I see as nothing more than a flaw in the human condition, when you get right down to it we are not part of the fundamental universe as a whole; we exist in a microcosm that comes about only because of the sheer complexity of the interactions in the fundamental universe as a whole, we are not and can never truly understand outside of mathmatics this fundamental Universe because we aren't part of it. Manipulation of quantum mechanics for computers is probably going to end up being pretty close to the limit of our ability to manipulate the universe.

Try reading Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos" sometime, very low on math very high on conceptual explanations on what current science knows about the fundamental universe, towards the end after string theory is covered loosely he gets a little bit into how mathmaticians are playing around with the equations more and more and some of the ways that it can be looked at hint that the entire known Universe that we are able to perceive and interact with is actually something akin to a hologram, basically our all matter energy and perceived order or caos is nothing more than a byproduct of the actual higher dimensional interactions of the fundamental Universe which we will never be part of.
Thanks for the reading. I'm certainly looking at it now. But as I've disclaimed in my original post, my theory is still a thought in progress.

Now, I think that my theory is compatible with Quantum mechanics. For those reading this post who are scratching their heads, here's a short introduction on the subject matter:

Link here

I'm just gonna pour my thoughts into the subject in some hopes that someone might understand them and discuss it with me.

At the center of the theory is the concept of a wavefunction ψ. It is a wave model of the probability of the position of a photon. Now, I think we can consider the calculation of probabilities as a function of time - wherein given all data, all possible position in space in the future, what is the chance that it will become the chosen (and become present).

Here's a graphical diagram:



The future consist of all possible points in the ψ function until it collapses into the present.
 
Last edited:

R!f@@

Joined Apr 2, 2009
9,751
I said one purpose. This does not apply to the way I see things and how I interact with them.
There are lot of ways to do one thing. A singularity could be nothing at all.
It's a word given to things that humans do not understand.
Everyone can explain what a singularity is. In simple terms it's a single point. One point where anything could happen and when you really think of it, nothing will happen.
Black holes are said to absorb light. They say this due to the fact that nothing is there to reflect light. Darkness travels at the speed of light.

Then there is dark matter. What the heck is that.

I close my eyes and I see dark and light matter every time.

You know scientist aren't always correct, and their theories are based on assumption and fancy words they come up with to things they cannot prove using their brain. They only apply logic. And logic is not everything. Logic is just a spec compared to the vast knowledge of the universe.

You cannot understand the universe no matter how hard u try by only applying what you believe.
You can say in future it could happen. But I'll say there is no such future that you hope to be.
 

Thread Starter

BestFriend

Joined Sep 22, 2010
31
I said one purpose. This does not apply to the way I see things and how I interact with them.
There are lot of ways to do one thing. A singularity could be nothing at all.
It's a word given to things that humans do not understand.
Everyone can explain what a singularity is. In simple terms it's a single point. One point where anything could happen and when you really think of it, nothing will happen.
Black holes are said to absorb light. They say this due to the fact that nothing is there to reflect light. Darkness travels at the speed of light.

Then there is dark matter. What the heck is that.

I close my eyes and I see dark and light matter every time.

You know scientist aren't always correct, and their theories are based on assumption and fancy words they come up with to things they cannot prove using their brain. They only apply logic. And logic is not everything. Logic is just a spec compared to the vast knowledge of the universe.

You cannot understand the universe no matter how hard u try by only applying what you believe.
You can say in future it could happen. But I'll say there is no such future that you hope to be.
The goal of this discussion has never been to try to understand the entirety of the universe. But instead, to try to answer the question: Why are we pushed towards the 'future'?

Now, there's a lot of questions left to be answered after that question, like: Why can't time stop? Why does the 'present' keeps 'moving'. Even before I finish uttering the words 'present', that word is already pointing back to the past. Why is that?

But we won't tackle these questions now. Only the first question - more specifically, the presence of a singularity to explain the phenomenon. So like any theories out there, it all starts by trying to come up with a good explanation to accurately predict the outcome before we even 'observe' or 'measure' the outcome.

Anyway, we're using different definition for these words. My definition of a singularity is a point where density is said to approach infinity.

I define darkness as simply the absence of light. It is not the negativity of light.

Yes, scientist aren't always correct. But we postpone our disbelief in order to expand what we know is correct. Similar to how religious leaders aren't always 'correct' in the context of the same definition used on the former sentence.

Anyway, could we kindly please stick to the topic?
 
Top