Luc Turpin

Not sure that I understand your statement; can you substantiate?

So primed c cannot been seen as he has passed EH and faded away, while unprimed c has not passed EH and then can still be seen! correct? Or is this a too simplistic explanation? Got that

Much better visual comprehension now than before. It was generally what I thought. So unprimed c cannot been seen as he has passed EH and faded away, while unprimed c has not passed EH and then can still be seen! correct? Or is this a too simplistic explanation?

I was visually seeing it on the diagram, but cannot grasp the concept conceptually! Am-I asking a silly question if I ask if there is a difference in seing at EH as opposed to inside the BH?

Based on the diagram and reading, unprimed c will see primed c fade away and disappear as he gets closer and closer to EH. This is because light will emit ever more slowly, get dimmer until completely fading away as one reaches EH. Nothing comes out of a black hole, not even light. Correct? As for primed c seeing unprimed c falling through the horizon, I can only speculate that primed c will see the incoming light without impediment, but I am not so sure. Common logic tells me that if light fades away on one side, it should not be present on the other side. But this is of course a black hole, which abides by its own internal laws. So, space-time is inverted? space (down) becomes time (future)?

Will do!

The unprimed observer would also see the primed observer, but motionless as he has already fallen through the horizon! Correct? The opposite, I should have said, its the primed observer that sees the unprimed observer motionless as he has fallen through the horizon! correct? And the unprimed observer would also see the primed observer, but moving as he has not fallen through the horizon! Correct? Disregard the second post, I had it correct the first time.

Very good overall explanation I am still having difficulty with how so much complexity is able to be mostly driven by mechanistic processes. It seems as if machines would break down even before being able to play the survival of fittest game. In French, we would say, "le retour du balancier". (the return of the pendulum if this exists in English). I have questions to ask on this, but they might not belong in this thread, so I will let it go.

But CRISPR, Fanzors, polymerases and restriction enzymes are initially natural, not man-made mechanisms. If I am correct, it is after discovering these mechanisms in nature that they were then replicated by man and put to use. Therefore, if CRISPR, Fanzors and, I think, polymerases and restriction enzymes edit genes by natural means (not the human kind), which are then passed on to future generations; how could they then not affect evolution? Can you please expand as I still do not understand why something that edit's genes is not affecting evolution.

Need to absorb all of this! Thanks!

I was asking, because epigenetics was a gene transcription mechanism while CRISPR and Fanzors are gene editing mechanisms Why would it not be if it is a gene editing mechanism and genes are passed on to future generations?

Then, what does CRISPR and Fanzors gene-editing mechanisms do to the theory of evolution? Does it changes anything to our currrent understanding of how it works?

Evolution is about passing on genes to the next generation, and genes change by random mutations, with an intricate environmental interplay. However, do naturally occurring CRISPR and Fanzor gene-editing systems diminish randomness in evolution? Do they, as built-in mechanisms with at least virus countering intentions, increase systematicity in evolution? “CRISPR-Cas9 was adapted from a naturally occurring genome editing system that bacteria use as an immune defense. When infected with viruses, bacteria capture small pieces of the viruses' DNA and insert them into their own DNA in a particular pattern to create segments known as CRISPR arrays. The CRISPR arrays allow the bacteria to "remember" the viruses (or closely related ones). If the viruses attack again, the bacteria produce RNA segments from the CRISPR arrays that recognize and attach to specific regions of the viruses' DNA. The bacteria then use Cas9 or a similar enzyme to cut the DNA apart, which disables the virus.” https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/genomicresearch/genomeediting/https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/genomicresearch/genomeediting/ “A diverse set of species, from snails to algae to amoebas, make programmable DNA-cutting enzymes called Fanzors—and a new study from scientists at MIT's McGovern Institute for Brain Research has identified thousands of them. Fanzors are RNA-guided enzymes that can be programmed to cut DNA at specific sites, much like the bacterial enzymes that power the widely used gene-editing system known as CRISPR. The newly recognized diversity of natural Fanzor enzymes, reported Sept. 27 in the journal Science Advances, gives scientists an extensive set of programmable enzymes that might be adapted into new tools for research or medicine.” https://phys.org/news/2023-10-thousands-programmable-dna-cutters-algae-snails.html

I investigated the matter of time further and the prevailing consensus is that it began 10^-43 sec after the Big Bang, does exist and does not stop, even in a black hole. However, there are dissenting voices for all of these statements. Some make a case for something being there before the Big Bang, that time does not really exist and that it does stop at the center of a black hole. Let us be reminded that even in science that are no unshakeable truths. “At the very center of the black hole is where our understanding breaks down. Einstein's theory of gravity seems to predict that time itself is destroyed at the center of the hole: time comes to an abrupt end there. For this reason, a black hole is sometimes described as the "reverse of creation." But no one knows how or why time could come to an abrupt end, any more than we know how time was created in the first place. Einstein's theory of gravity no longer applies at these tiniest scales of distance, and new laws of nature must be found that describe what happens at the center of a black hole.” https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bh_whatare.htm#:~:text=From%20the%20viewpoint%20of%20an,trade%20places%20inside%20the%20hole

Thank for the precision. I have my answer, time always exists.

I should have said at the moment of the big bang instead of before. With the big-bounce theory (conformal cosmic cosmology) I believe that there is a before the big bang. The reason why I was inquiring about spacetime was to determine whether or not there existed conditions, even extreme ones, where time does not exist, which is the question raised for the tittle of this thread. Length came along for the ride as both space and time are intertwined. So, in your answer, time still exists, but is warped. So, time always exists. First line - Knew about time being maleable, but not length. I confess. Second line - well said Third line - was looking for conditions where time did not exists; it is always there, even in extreme conditions. Fourth line - as mentioned above, should have said at the big bang and not before it. I think that this makes a difference as we are talking about a singularity are we not? Well said also

Crude, but good one😆 Just before the big bang, falling into a black hole, does space-time ceases to exist?

Usually, when a split occurs, a link is provided to the new thread; I do not see one! Am-I looking in the wrong location? Got it! moved to cosmology!

So, both time and length are more malleable than what every day experience tells us. Also, length does not affect us as much as time; we are late for a meeting; we have a few years left to live, etc. I think that that is why, at least perceptually, we are more invested in time then length; unless you are a carpenter. On another matter and theoretically, if time stands still and length compresses (I guess) to a point of nothingness, do we come to a point where space-time ceases to exist? As in a singularity?

Time slows down upon closing in on the speed of light or getting closer to massive objects! Does that not make it a bit more elusive than length?

Help required! Can I determine the age of the Hercule-Corona Borealis Great Wall by its” light-year distance from us? I know that “light-year” measures distance, not time. However, it has that “year” component to it. So, if Hercule-Corona Borealis Great Wall is 10bn light-year away from us, does it mean that light took 10bn years to get to earth? Or is there something else like relativity and gravity to take into account! Hercule-Corona must be old, but how old in comparison to the age of the universe – 13.8bn years? If it is very old and thus created very early in time-universe then how did a superstructure like Hercule-Coronal get to 10bn light-years long by 7.2bn light-year wide in such a short period of time? It is the size that we currently see it, which is in fact 10bn years ago! Right? And in the early years of the universe, are we not supposed to only see relatively small-simple structures rather than large-complex ones?

If Wikipedia is accurate, the following cosmic megastructures are larger, in maximum dimension, than the ring-shaped cosmic megastructure: Hurcule-Corona Borealis Great Wall - 9.7bn light years (discovery - 2014) Griant GRB ring - 5.6bn light years (2015) Huge LQG - 4bn light years (2013) Giant Arc - 3.3bn light years (2012) U1.11 LQG - 2.5bn light years (2011) Clowes-Campusano LQG - 2bn light years (1991) Sloan Great Wall - 1.38bn light years (2003) South Pole Wall - 1.37bn light years (2020) I think that I am correct in my statement of larger objects than the ring-shaped cosmic megastructure! As for challenging existing theories of the universe, I will let the experts debate that one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_cosmic_structures

Thank you for the precision, I will abide. however, if I only bring up the non-material components of consciousness, am-i still able to participate in the discussion on other threads? Pardon the pun, but I will tread carefully. Correction , material components of consciousness only. for example, based on your comment, my first post would be off limit, but my second one might be a bit more valid if i only want an explanation of what is being said I would be asking question, not making comments

Can you expand on this idea? i have also argued that intelligence, a half brother of consciousness, was a great evolutionary advantage.

There are chemical-molecular theories of consciousness, but none so far are able to satisfactorily explain consciousness in all of its ramifications. That carbon is able of forming a vast number of compounds and is corelated with life on earth, does not change the fact that we do not know how matter, chemicals or the brain to that effect produces consciousness. In my opinion, replacing let’s say serotonin by carbon leaves us further behind in the debate over consciousness. If we are to pursue this discussion on a non-chemical basis, then it will have to occur elswhere than in the chemistry forum. Note: replace serotonin by neurotransmitters in the text.