moth

"While you can" could be considered implicit in "to live". Life is a dangerous place.

Speaking as someone who has failed once or twice at many things in life, yet still survives, i can say failure just means i need a better plan.

The scene from trailer park boys reminded me of Douglas Hofstadter's strange loops.
People we see and think about have a representation in our minds, and those  representations can seem so real to us, that we imagine what they might say or do in a hypothetical situation. 
As if the representation  lives a life of its own in our heads. 

I think communication may be a basic part of consciousness and humor is like a universal language. 
 People may not agree a particular thing is funny, but almost everybody thinks something is funny. 

You probably don't have to have a sense of humor to be conscious, but it helps.

 In the tv series Trailer Park Boys Julian, the mastermind, is in jail and Ricky and Bubbles have the people in the park growing vegetables.
 Bubbles uses the veggies to make spaghetti sauce that he sells at the flea market.
 A guy who owns a chain of restaurants offers Bubbles a wad of cash for the recipe to his sauce. 
 Ricky says SELL but Bubbles says no, what would Julian do?
 Ricky answers "probably something stupid like supply the restaurant chain with the sauce".
 Bubbles says awesome idea and makes the deal and even more cash.
But Ricky is bummed. What's wrong, Bubbles asks? Ricky doesn't know if it was his great idea or Julians.
Don't you see sez Bubbles "it was Julians idea, but you came up with it.

14 minutes ago, scifimath said:

I don't think observation has a symbol

Maybe you can create one. Words are bastards. Once they leave your mind they feel no obligation to represent your thoughts to others.

The best language we know now when talking about the universe is math.

If you want to share your ideas with more clarity use mathematics.

But you seem to be unable to express it in a way that can be evaluated like the standard model.

There is no way to compare the results of your ideas with observation.

22 minutes ago, captcass said:

 I thought that was clear right from the git go. NO expansion! Instead, an eternally evolving spacetime (quantum) continuum in which observers perceive themselves to be evolving between 2 event horizons where time appears to stop.

Sounds like you've come to a conclusion and are trying to find evidence to defend it while ignoring any data that contradicts it. That's not science.

17 minutes ago, captcass said:

Yeah, well, "mainstream" is out of kilter since misinterpreting the shift.

Maybe try painting. 

The people here are trying to help you learn how to make a better argument that might help you persuade somebody who does have the equipment and skills to do this. 

2 hours ago, Wulphstein said:

Okay, I want to take entangled photons, p1 and p2.  I want to blueshift the p1 photons using centrifuges and redshift the p2 photons, just to see "how it behaves".  Don't ask me why I want to do it, because that would get us into metaphysics and we're not allowed to talk about that.

 

 Who is stopping you from doing this.

@Phi for all -

I started to post "consume transform excrete", which could include knowledge, but it seemed too generic.

A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants. Like Groucho Marx 

It's been many years since i read Homer, but poseiden tried to kill Odysseus several times.

As i said before it's irrelevant. the number of people who believe a statement is not evidence  of the truth of that statement. 

The Odyssey of homer (if i remember correctly), is full of that stuff.

It's pretty irrelevant anyway. the number of people who believe a statement is no evidence  of the truth of that statement. 

5 minutes ago, Wulphstein said:

Krishna, Odin, Zeus are not meeting anybody's spirit when they are at death's door.  

How do you know this.

The diagram might be interesting if you replaced the word god with a reasonable definition of god.

Without an indication of which god, or more likely which version of the christian god are you talking about,  it's pretty tired.

7 minutes ago, Wulphstein said:

The hypothesis that the universe was engineered has important ramifications beyond religion. It has implications to engineering and science. 

 

Could you tell me some of the implications?

If you want people to answer your questions it's only fair to answer questions asked of you too. 

Just now, Wulphstein said:

I don't think atheists have enough sense to realize that a God can come into existence more easily than a fine tuned universe.  That was my point. Having said that, the Creator, who is eternal,  proved his existence to me.

Lucky you, no need for faith.Are you saying the universe is more complex than god ? 

7 minutes ago, Wulphstein said:

God has always existed.  God is the engineer who designed and created the universe,  all life, and man. Does that make sense?

Not when you also say this:

 

 it was more reasonable to create an Infinite Intelligence

37 minutes ago, moth said:

I have proved that it was more reasonable to create an Infinite Intelligence to design a universe, then to do it by brute force using quantum foam, M theory, and no mechanisms.  I have proven there is a large pile of witness testimonial of God and Jesus (sometimes from Muslims).  I have done my part.  You are a moderator.  You can close the thread.

I quoted the text where you said god was created. I'm not sure how to 

46 minutes ago, Wulphstein said:

Evading what? If anything,  I thought I was being to hard on atheists.

Ah there it is: the part where you said you were being hard on athiests 

5 minutes ago, Wulphstein said:

 

5 minutes ago, Wulphstein said:

What?

 

Where you from?

5 hours ago, Wulphstein said:

I have proved that it was more reasonable to create an Infinite Intelligence to design a universe, then to do it by brute force using quantum foam, M theory, and no mechanisms.  I have proven there is a large pile of witness testimonial of God and Jesus (sometimes from Muslims).  I have done my part.  You are a moderator.  You can close the thread.

I thought you were being hard on god. I don't think i've ever heard a religious person say god was created by man to explain the universe.

3 minutes ago, captcass said:

Please provide real, logical answers to the questions I posed, not some completely irrational and unproven BS.

Are you saying your paper answers those questions?

17 minutes ago, captcass said:

I asked you several questions earlier:

"Singularity, infinitely accelerating expansion! REALLY? So many interesting questions both of those concepts raise, which can't be answered, and are therefore ignored by mutual agreement as per the Copenhagen convention.

What precedes a singularity if everything expands out at an infinitely accelerating expansion? A Big Crunch? Of what? Or is this just it in all of eternity? A 1 shot universe?

What is "outside" the "tiny" singularity? Certainly not space.....that would be part of the universe... How can something perceptually infinite appear to be so small? From what perspective would that be? Outside the singularity? Or from inside, so you would see a boundary? What is "outside" the boundary?

Where is it expanding into? Because it appears to be infinite it can just do that because infinite is infinite so you are really not adding anything?"

You have not answered 1.

These questions seem to be un-answerable because we can only know what is inside the universe after it exists.

The only other question i see is what could falsify the ideas in your paper and that is your responsibility.

You have the patience of a saint, Mordred

58 minutes ago, captcass said:

 

Metrics form the quadratic (tridratic, bidratic, monodratic, etc.,) equation that produces the tensors. They "set the stage", so-to-speak.

 

 

 

What is a tridratic equation?