tar

ut still, the question is "have you experienced something that science cannot explain?" And here, after JillSwift's added insight, the question is not if scientists, or our current accumulation of the facts, can explain it. The question is, "have you experienced something that science cannot explain?" And as such, any experience would have to fall into two basic catagories. Real and imagined. Considering as well, that elements of each, were involved in the experience. Unsticking the real from the imagined is not easy for a human, considering that most of our thoughts are occurring inside our brain, where, in a sense, everything is imagined, built upon analogues of the external world, gathered by our senses, and our subsequent fitting together of the constant inflow of images. Unsticking is hard, but not impossible. Hence with peer review, and experimentation, measurement, and repeatability, the facts can be separated from the falsehoods. The real can be separated from the imagined. And it follows, that if it is real, then it is true and can be explained by science, which only deals with that which is true. Hence one cannot have an experience which is not explainable by science. The experience could have been partially illusion, misinterpreted, misremembered, partially imagined, or the experiencer could have been "fooled" in a myriad of ways, but the real parts of it, are explainable by science. And since it is also true, that we as experiencers are subject to the limitations and characteristics of our senses and brain and emotions, then the imagined portion of the experience can be explained by truth, as well. Therefore reality and truth and science can be probably each be used interchangably, and the question becomes "have you ever experienced anything that wasn't true?" Or have you ever experienced anything that wasn't real?". Regards, TAR

JillSwift, "Science is a method - an epistemology. It is not the accumulated information." Thank you, for that insight. And your post. Very nice. It redirected my thinking a bit. I had been forming a false opinion of science, where I was drawing analogies between science and religion, viewing large bodies of accumulated information as dogmas, that scientists "believed" in. Falsely thinking that scientists were merely replacing the idea of God (or gods) with the belief in the objective view of "Science". Worshipping the atom, and math, so to speak. This I see now, is not the case. Science has more to do with entertaining ideas and models that fit the facts. Good ideas fit reality and are entertained and improved upon. Bad ideas, are quickly debunked and discarded, cause they just don't fit reality. And as you point out, even widely held ideas are modified and corrected to fit new information about the real world, as it becomes available. Where there is cognitive dissonace, efforts are made to identify the irregularity and make the tie-in, that fits all the facts, and relates the facts that appear to be in conflict. Reality can be surprising, fantastic, huge, tiny, fleetingly instantaneous, or immensely durable, but never wrong. And finding the truth, is what science does. Regards, TAR

Spyman, But, after a hundred seconds the ant is more than 100cm from your hand. After a billion seconds it will be much more than a billion cm from your hand. My question is not how long it would take the ant, at this point, to turn around and come back. My question pertains to the marks we made on the rubber band before we starting stretching it. After a billion seconds, the ant is at one of those marks, one of those regions in space. If we would take note of that mark, and repeat the experiment, this time placing a second ant at that mark, and point him/her/it toward our hand and begin the stretching again, the second ant would arrive at our hand, at exactly the same moment as the first ant reached the mark. Regards, TAR

dr.syntax, I have one. Although I probably don't qualify as a scientist. 18 years old, in Pennsylvanian farmland, living with my cousins, my female cousin was housesitting while the owners were away at a home a couple miles away. She came home a bit shaken, saying that while she was feeding the animals in the kitchen, she heard the piano playing in the livingroom, went in and saw no one there. She was alone (other than the animals) in the house. Over the next couple days, she returned with stories of furniture being moved, SEEING someone at the piano and got to the point were she was afraid to return again to the house alone. A number of us brave, scientific minded 18 year olds accompanied her to the house, a few of us waited by the car, as others escorted her into the house to take care of the animals. They came out with an urgent need to leave, we piled into the station wagon, and it failed to start. We noticed at that point a rag doll on the hood of the car. (A car I had been leaning against, talking to a companion, and smoking a cigarette, while they were inside.) We opened the hood, and found the distributor cap completely off the distributor, laying upside down on the engine. We reattached it, started the car and left down the long driveway. Standing next to the end of the driveway as we turned on to the road, was a man dressed all in white, with a white brimmed hat, like a southern gentleman. This was not normal. No one like that lived around there and it was not an area where strange pedestrians would be. And he did not give me the impression that he was normal, he gave me only the impression that he did not welcome our presence. In the following days, as we were trying to make sense of things and ascertain the identity of the man, an much earlier incident in a farmhouse a half a mile from our farm in the other direction came to light. A visitor, sleeping on the couch in the livingroom, woke in the early morning to see a man, dressed all in white, with a brimmed hat, walk down the stairs, silent, not responding to the visitor's "hello", through the kitchen, and out the back door, and across the field. (toward our farm.) When the visitor asked the owners about the man, they said "what man", the only bedroom upstairs, was theirs, and there had certainly been no man in there with them. Further inquiries were made, the owners of the house that my cousin was taking care of returned, and history was investigated and shared. Turned out a man, who dressed often, all in white, had once actually lived in the second farmhouse, and had latter moved to the house my cousin took care of, and had hung himself from the lamp post at the end of his driveway. Regards, TAR

Thread, Another aspect to human perception that we might want to inspect, is the importance of convention. What I mean, in reference to telepathy, is that there might be certain "abilities" that we have, that have been downplayed, purposefully, throughout our individual lives, and society's history, to enhance our social success, and our "sanity". When we walk, inadvertantly, in on someone dressing, we avert our eyes, turn around, close the door, and apologize. Perhaps, if there IS some real way that minds have, to communicate with each other, we have learned to avert our whatever, when appropriate. And it may be appropriate, to engage in such aversion, most of the time. After all, we know when not to listen to certain conversations, and we know when not to speak. If there is a real mechanism, that allows for communication between humans that is not audible or visible, it could well operate within some similar parameters as talking and signaling, in that mutual consent and common language have to be present. In communicating with speech, the one's mouth has to be opened and the other's ears. The sound waves have to be modulated in the right manner to form a language, words, that have an agreed upon, common meaning. Same with signals, the signs have to be made by the one, and properly interpreted by the other. When I was very young, I'm told I would talk jibberish to my older sister, which was perfectly understandable to her, and merely jibberish to everybody else. For instance, even later, at the age of 4, my word for "shovel" was "yadee" ('cause I had trouble pronouncing "sh".) (maybe a word I carried over from my earlier vocabulary.) Point being, that talking, though scientifically proven to be an actual form of human thought transferrence, only works when somebody is putting a thought into words, and somebody else is listening who understands the language. "Telepathy" if it exists as a real thing, could be subject to analogous barriers to communication that speech is subject to. The speaker can be silent, fibbing, whispering, shouting, talking jibberish, talking nonsense, misleading, relaying misinformation, joking, not being able to find the right words, talking in an unknown language, using specialized terminology or shorthand, to far away, muffled, or drowned out by other sounds. The listener could be deaf, not paying attention, listening to something else, unaware that they are being addressed, unknowledgable of the language being used, not familiar with the subject matter, not aware of the depth of meaning behind a word or reference, or simply not interested in hearing what the other has to say. And perhaps we have learned to discount certain perceptions as figments of our imagination, that don't conform with societal norms. Just a thought. Regards, TAR

Spyman, I just thought you knew the calculator wouldn't take us back to the last scattering, and you were giving me an idea of what kind of speeds away, and distances we were talking about at 400,000,000 years. Still learned some stuff, but don't really trust the calculator, cause I don't know if its talking about what I think its talking about. For instance. "Closest I can get with the calculator, are with Hubble=970 and z=1.7, that takes us back to the age of 1.0 billion years and the larges distance light was able to reach us from, at that time, was 0.42 billions lightyears." In a billion years, light can travel 1 billion light years, so why couldn't light from 1 billion lys away reach us? Can never figure out, which people are talking about...how far the object was...how far the image traveled...length measured Then...length measured Now...length measured in a variable fashion, taking into consideration that space was stretching as light was traveling through it...? In the reading and picture, model looking at, that I have been doing over my lifetime, and more intensely in the last month or two, I am never sure, what has been taken into account, what assumptions are being made, and what is left to figure out. A few of the big issues I have. People talk about the universe Now, as this web of interlaced clumps and strings and walls of galaxies stretching out forever in all directions. There is no perspective in the universe, that would see this picture, other than a human's mind's eye model. There is nothing "real" about this model. There is no impact, that a 13.73billion year old galaxy, 45 billion lys away, would have on us, now, and no place in the universe, where our galaxy, and that galaxy could be seen, both, as they are, today. The impact that that galaxy has on us today, is the photons and gravity that are reaching us today, from that region of space. What stage of development that region of space was at, and how long the light and gravity eminating from it, that are affecting our present, have traveled, are the important questions. The causal connection. The photons and the gravity that are striking our world, now, that is what we see, that is what we feel, that is what we observe, that is what is creating and affecting our reality. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, is talked about, as leftover heat from the big bang. It is understood, but not often mentioned that the regions of space eminating this radiation are the same regions of space that Now, in the minds eye model of the current universe, are housing 13.73billion year old Galaxies or strings of Galaxies, 45 billion light years away. The photons and gravity from those regions of space are only in reality, affecting our reality in one way, from one perspective. Our perspective, now. Not that models of the entire universe, at different stages of its development, can not be imagined. But that our real universe consists of all the photons and gravity, that are reaching us today. Other perspectives are imaginary in nature, and subject to imaginary errors, introduced when all the facts are not known or properly integrated into the picture. The truest picture is the one we (and our instruments) see and feel. It can not lie, it cannot be wrong, and it is sure to fit exactly with reality. I am often confused by pictures and models that are presented to me, because I do not know what has been assumed, what imagined perspective has been taken, what things have been enhanced, subtracted or added, or figured out for me in advance. For instance. Pictures of deep field objects are often colorized, using schemes to bring infrared or ultraviolet info into the visible spectrum. Pictures of deep field objects are often pieced together, over hours or days, one photon at a time. The resulting image is not a "real" image. That is to say, that you can not look at it, and draw useful conclusions from it, concerning the way those regions of space actually are affecting us, now. You have to be able to subtract everything that was added, add everything that was subtracted, slow down everything that was speeded up, and speed up everything that was slowed down, and comprehend and agree with all the assumptions that were made, to put the image together. And often in models and descriptions, a few dimensions have been manipulated in one manner or another, to make things easier to visualize, or to fit onto a two dimensional media. I am not complaining. I am not saying that the work already done for me in presenting pictures and models, is not welcomed. I am just mentioning why I am often confused, not knowing what has already been done, and is already known, and what is left to do, notice, fit together, and discover. Regards, TAR

Spyman, Thanks. I tried it. Got 3.66Billion lyrs. But am not clear on what that is telling me. Regards, TAR

Spyman, "The gravity wave that reached our area earlier, doesn't stick around any more than light does, it continues outward." Thanks for that. I think that was my problem, I had gravity sort of sticking around, or building up, or something. I am not quite sure, what I was doing, but I am more better now. Regards, TAR PS Thanks for helping me along. I still am adding things up and coming up a bit short or long, but nothing that probably won't work out when I see it right. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedSpyman, Need your help again. If the visible universe is figured to contain around 80 billion galaxies and it is a sphere that is 95 billion ly in diameter now, and was 84 million ly in diameter at the time of the last scattering, how do we visualize, from the minds eye, the matter of those 80 billion galaxies, in the 380,000 year old uninverse? I thought I might figure that early universe about 5,400 galaxies in diameter. (4/3 times pi times 2700 cubed=82,447,957,600.) However, dividing the diameter of that early universe (84million lys) by 5,400, I get regions of space containing a galaxy worth of matter, 15,555 ly wide. Meaning in my imagination, that the matter of the milkyway should have been causally connected by photons by year, lets say 396,000 or so with only 2,699 galaxies worth, to go, to the edge of the milkyway centered visible universe. Can I proceed in this manner? Regards, TAR

Swansont, "But what would this be, and how could we not notice? Interactions involve the exchange of energy, and the basis of all of the exchanges are atomic/molecular interactions." Gravaton frequency shift? Neutrino density variations? Tachyon intensity variation? Faint infrared echos? Who knows? (yet) How do women know when men are staring at their figure? Why do all heads turn when certain people walk into a room? Why do some people have a "commanding" presence? How do I know that Mooeypoo will accuse me of shifting the goal posts? (Other than, that I am.) Fact is, as an earlier post, (forgot whose,) pointed out, the skull is not isolated from the rest of reality. The brain is connected by nerves and vessels and structures to the rest of the body. The body is normally touching the ground, and can sense the vibration of an unseen passing truck. If its Wenesday at 6:30 there is a good chance its the garbage truck. Of the mass of photons that strike our body every second, we are accutely aware of those that strike our eyes, are focused by lenses on the back of our eyeballs where the frequencies of the photons cause certain cones to fire pulses and certain rods respond to the intensity or amount of photons. As a baby, seeing our first sights, the world actually appears upside down, backward, and we see two images of it, and its probably quite a blur of color and light. Eventually we learn to focus, to discern near from far, identify shapes and colors, learn, in combination with info from our inner ear, what is up and down. This attention we pay to, and the information we glean about the world from our eyes, does not stop photons from hitting the rest of our body, does not stop our hand from feeling infrared heat, or our back from getting sunburnt. Often in reading about telepathy, I see the term "tuning in" or read suggestions that emotions are easier to "transmit" than shapes. What, of the plethora of particles, vibrations, frequencies, and waves that reach a human, can a human focus on, to determine which and what is an indication of another human's effect on reality? What effects on reality does a human's emotions have, that is "louder" than the thought of a circle? Subtle subconcious differences in our environment can give us information we don't even realize we are getting. Pheromones in the air, upside down distorted reflections off the little bumps on the plastic ceiling tile covering the turned off fluoresent bulb fixture, the gurgling of a stomach 3 yards away, the slight sound of a heartbeat or a breath. Depends on what you are focused on, and how you have learned to interpret the patterns. I do not think that telepathy, as defined, is logical. As soon as telepathy claims to be capable of transmitting thoughts in some unreal, paranormal way, it goes the way of prayer, in being unreal, illogical, magical, and nothing more than imagination. It has repeatedly failed to prove itself as a real phenomena. However, there are many real ways, known, and yet to be discovered, that one human can know, or a least make a good guess, at what might be going on in another person's mind. After all, about a hundred percent of humans are actually human, endowed with the same set of bodily features, the same kind of brain, the same set of senses, and in many cases a similar set of stimuli, common history and symbol systems. Regards, TAR

String Junky, "It is my opinion that much of this desire for paranormal phenomena to exist and the idea of spiritual selves etc stems from a deep dissatisfaction with what we have, what we know and our impending mortality ie ...there's GOT to be more than this. They appear to be symptoms of over- imaginative desperation." I hold a similar opinion, but color it slightly with a few assumptions. One, that none of us humans are immune and some form of speculative imagination is bound to seep into the thinking of even the most "objective" among us. And two, that there is only one reality, that we all share, that fits together exactly right, with no exceptions. And three, each of us has a fantastically integrated ability to internalize the external reality we are part of, remember it, and imagine it, at all different scales, and from all different perspectives(even scales and perspectives that defy our actual ability to acheive such a perch in reality.) Regards, TAR

Spyman, "So even if gravity is able to traverse the early Universe when light is blocked by matter, when the path is cleared light will be able to race through space, side by side with the gravity wave that is emitted at the same time as the photons, and reach the finish togheter." Granted. This would have to occur. But I was trying to visualize the "event" as occuring in a particular "region" of space. The light and the gravity from the event would arrive here synchronized. We see the light image, and feel the gravitational image of the event, at the same time. But, although it makes no sense, the gravity from that "region" also reached the milky way region, earlier. In terms of causal connectivity, that is. So is there somehow a "double" image of gravity we could observe, and use to help determine the distances to events? Or conversely, do we "feel" the gravity from a distant region in space in a manner, that would not precisely coincide with the light image, in terms of distance, apparent size, and age? Not that some aspect of gravity does not arrive bringing information about the event, at the same time as the photon arrival, but that gravitational information about that region of space has been available, or is available, based on a different "starting point", which would place the importance, or gravitational effect of the mass of that region of space, (on the milky way region,) at a closer range, than the photon, graviton, image would report. Regards, TAR

Mooeypoo, I took a break from the forum. I was getting frustrated. We were not seeing eye to eye and although I appreciated your time, and learned from your posts, I didn't think you were seeing my points. And my defense was more philosophical than scientific, so I couldn't pursue my defense within the parameters of the board. So I decided to ban myself, before you had to. Regards, TAR

Spyman, Thanks for the response and the thoughts. Very nice. I took a little break from the forum to do some more reading, and try to get a better picture of where I am getting it wrong. I still do not see my mistake. Something doesn't add up in my model, but it doesn't seem to add up in the accepted model either. Perhaps you can help me sort it out. There seems to be several "starting" points we have to deal with. One is the "moment" of the big bang, when all the space and time and matter and energy, that ever has, or ever will directly effect our instruments or senses, began. Shortly after this moment, an exponential inflation of space occurred, moving regions of space far out of causual connection with each other. No gravity, or light could communicate the state of one region to a widely separated one. After this inflationary period however, a second starting point seems to be suggested, where antigravity was mostly cancelled out by gravity, leaving just some gravity around. At this "second starting point" gravity, whose influence moves at the speed of light, could begin to relink one region to another. Even though photons were still being scattered at this point, gravity, being something somehow related more to the mass of somethings, than the electromagnetic wave/particle nature of photons, did not have to wait for the last scattering to begin relinking regions. Then a "third starting pont" around 379,000 years after the first starting point, occurred at the "last scattering" when photons were free to travel. The region of space, that is now the milky way, was present in the universe, at each of these "starting points". At the moment gravity gained its footing, the amount of space, causually linked by gravity to the region of space that would become the milky way, could be thought of as zero, but the sphere of gravitational influence, would from that moment, expand at the speed of gravity. The "observable" universe, that is the regions of space whose gravity affects us, or, regions of space affected by our gravity, could be determined from that starting point. Likewise, at the moment of the last scattering, our Milky Way region of space, was causally connected to zero other regions by photons(light), but our region's photons began at that point to enlarge a sphere, at the speed of light, of our "visable" universe. Regions of space, coming into our view, because their photons had the time to reach us, where simultaneously receiving our first photons. We each "saw" each other, as 279,000 year old regions of space. Here is where our earlier (false result) excercise, of determining how long it would take photons to traverse a percentage of that earlier, smaller, but expanding, universe, comes into play. The false results of that excercise, indicated, that electromagnetic images of widely separated regions, could reach each other, after million or billions of years. What percentage of the universe could thusly be linked is obviously at question, depending upon the size of the universe at last scattering, and the rate of expansion, at that time. However, the important concept to me, is the fact that the arrival of the "image" denotes the actual causal connection. The photon from one region, has reached the other, and relayed the information of the "state" of that distant region of space (at the time the photon was released). If we "see" a region of space, then it must be causally linked to us. It's photons have reached us, and ours have reached it. If gravity causally linked us to that region, before light did, it seems to follow that that region's mass, the region associated with that visual image, should have been "felt" by our region of space, earlier than the arrival of the visual image. Meaning, for instance, that the gravitational image of that region of space, would not be the same apparent size, or the same calculated age, or the same calculated distance, as the photon image. So, in April we found a gamma ray burst at Z=8.2 (GRB 090423) figured to be an image from a 630 million year old universe, the light having taken over 13 billion years to get here. Yet we figure the background radiation to be the image of the surface of last scattering, at the limits of our observable, visible universe at Z=1000+ at the age of 379,000 years the light taking 13.73 billion years to get here. There seems to be a very large percentage of our visible universe left to be discovered. Those images between Z=8.2 and Z=1000. Images we would see as regions of space as they were between the age of 379,000 and 630,000,000. Regards, TAR

Last Post. This is obviously a waste of my time. And yours. Mooeypoo, We only have one reality. It all fits together, it all works. Same for any observer. If you have found a way to view reality objectively through math equations, and someone else has found a way to view reality objectively through the eyes of an imaginary being, it is still the same reality you both are viewing. And all those things which you both agree are real are real to me too. But you believe in super strings and nuetrinos and dark matter, and they believe in angels and spirits and cosmic energy. And I believe you both are trying to put words to stuff that is really apparently existing, and part of our reality. What of it is figurative or literal, matter or energy, now or then, cause or affect, connected or separate, is all a matter of the position of the observer, the sensitivity of their senses/equipment, and the direction they are pointing their attention. If we are building a consistent model of reality it has to have a place in it, for everything that is real. Regards, TAR

iNOW, "People who do think prayer works are deluded" Well probably so. But you are testing philosophy and religion with a scientific testing methodogy build to test the efficacy of drugs. Rather slip shod, if you ask me. Regards, TAR

Penrose's computational Turing machine approach, or Talbot's hologram approach. Which do you think is more likely to reflect the reality of the human mind? Regards, TAR

Mooeypoo, You are saying two different things here. Which points out one of the major flaws in the study that I read about, that showed there was no empirical evidence to say that prayer was effective. "You can't mix empirical data - and empirical scientific subjects, with their methodologies - with subjects that by definitions cannot be measured." So why did scientists even TRY and measure prayer? "Scientifically speaking, empirically tested reality shows that prayer is not effective." But you admit that empirically tested reality is not "all" of reality, and there are real things that are not readily measured by empirical methods. Hence the failure to be able to measure it, does not make it unreal, just makes the serious attempt to measure it, laughable. And the assumption that the findings say that prayer has been properly scientifically tested and therefore forced out of the realm of "real" things, and its efficacy dispoven, even more suspect. What about patterns and chaos, and life and love, and consciousness, and all sorts of things with emergent characteristics that resist empirical testing? Real or Magic? Regards, TAR

Spyman, Thanks again for helping me get the conventions straight. Some of my confusion has come from not properly parsing the meaning of then, and now, and currently and really, when the universe is talked about. And I still think, that I am not the only one that frame shifts when talking and thinking about the universe. For instance, if the universe started at a point, where time, space and matter and energy came into existance, and inflated, had the last scattering, expanded rapidly at first light, and have continued to expand to the present day universe, then ALL regions NOW, regardless of how far away they are, or how old they look to us, are, in the current universe, ALL 13.73 billion years old. This would be true even if some regions of space are outside of our "observable" universe. Those regions NOW, would be what ever 13.73 billion years of development made them. Is this a correct understanding of the conventional meaning of the universe now? Regards, TAR

Bombus, Thanks for the links. Especially the Talbot one with the hologram idea. Fits nicely with the ideas I've been entertaining about memory and human perception, which have their impact on both our perceptions and the actual reality we perceive. Mooeypoo, I suggest that science and human subjective experience are closely intertwined. And that the "objectivity" of science can only be obtained by the establishment of a common "mind" that can objectively view the world. This common mind, that humanity has constructed, maintained and referred to, throughout its history of religion, philosophy, politics, engineering, technology and science is real. But this common mind, or maybe even a reference to it, is in some ways as illusive and etherial as the idea of God or prayer. Not easily defined by science. Experiments to test it's singular existence as an entity would prove it false and non existant. Seems like magic, with no physical characterisitics, no way to disect it, and measure it, no formula to apply to it, no predictive model to construct. Yet it is real. We all know it, maybe by different names, and we all effect it and are affected by it. Regards, TAR

Spyman, I have played with that calculator a little. It doesn't go above redshift 6. I am interested in what the formulas say about regions of space we might 'see' at redshift 15. Also I am not 100% sure of what is meant by distance now and distance then. Are we talking about distance to the object or distance to the image, and does "now" mean when both regions of space, are 13.73 billion years old? And does "then" mean when both regions of space were (ie.) 6.7 billion years old? Regards, TAR

If I may butt in to offer a few thoughts. I think they may be valuable to the discussion, because 3 or 4 weeks ago, I posted some ideas on this board, that were soon moved to Peusdo Science and Speculation and I was disturbed, because I thought I had some insights into the nature of the universe, that would change scientist's view of what they were looking at, and spur a whole series of new discoveries. I thought I saw some logical inconsistencies in the current model. I still think I see some inconsistencies, but they are dwindling, and no doubt will continue to dwindle as I learn more, until I see NO inconsistencies and am in agreement with mainstream science, and would then know enough to form a hypothesis that would have a chance of actually being valuable in furthering human knowledge. So here are a few of the mistakes I made. One was a general overestimation of my own insights, and an underestimation of the insights of others (cosmologists for instance.) What I mean by that, is that if I could put two and two together, and be excited about the fact that I realized it COULDN'T be three, and COULDN'T be -16, I was overestimating my own insight in an objective comparison to the insights of those who have the insight that two and two would make four. Those people had already had the "couldn't be three" insight, and many subsequent insights that led them to the insight that two and two is four. My second mistake, was jumping to conclusions, without all the facts. I figured the answer was probably about half way between 3 and -16 and that would put it in the -9 or -10 region. How could mathematicians think it was 4? I am still seeing inconsistencies, but will not mention them here, this is the science section. I need to understand the facts first, before my speculations are anything but distractions from the truth. I mention this as a caution to certain others. Don't take your conclusions about the universe, based on your own mental model of the universe, as fact, until you have matched "all" the facts we know against your model, to see if it works. Many minds, as nimble as yours and nimbler, have been matching facts against model for many years, and all together have worked a model that fits what we know. Don't underestimate their insights, and don't overestimate your own. On this board the goal is to bring the insights of science to those who have yet to have them. If you would like to share half-baked insights of your own, I will see you in Psuedo Science, where I am sure to be, mucking about. Regards, TAR

Thankyou Spyman, That was instructive. I think I was moving the photon too far before I expanded the space, and I was not expanding the space fast enough. If the integral was smaller than a million years and you performed the same excercise (understanding its a false result since we evened out the rate) would the time the photon takes be longer with smaller integrals? Would the result be different if you expanded the space, and then moved the photon or moved the photon and then expanded the space? Or did your example simulate moving the photon effectively along with the expansion? Regards, TAR

Mooeypoo, Just lost a post I was working on. Can't reconstruct it. Sort of mental water under the bridge. Thanks for your post though, and yes, I see what you are saying. Regards, TAR

I am perplexed. If we figure the age of the universe, based upon the relationship of the observed bits of matter and energy in it, are we not accounting for all the energy and matter that there is? Does this not imply finiteness? That is, that there is a certain finite amount of space, expanding in a certain finite manner, carrying a certain finite amount of matter and energy with it? And if the whole universe was at one point very early in its history, causally linked, followed by a small period of drastic expansion, which inflated the whole universe so fast and much that regions were now no longer causally linked, followed by a period were gravity had regained its footing, followed by the last scattering after which photons were free to travel at light speed, we have postulated a very early causually unlinked universe (330,000 to 380,000 years old) which is huge, but only a percent of a percent as huge as it is now, with two very fast vehicles of causal connectivity, gravity and light, present, to begin reconnecting regions causually. Although now, light and gravity crawl along at the rate of around the order of .01 universe diameters per billion years, then they sped along at first, at a rate more on the order of 10 universe diameters per billion years. Seems to me that light and gravity would have been able to relink the entire universe casually before the continuing expansion could dwarf their rate. But I am perplexed. There is talk of an infinite universe, there is talk of the universe never being able to be causually linked. I don't get it. What am I missing? Regards, TAR

Mooeypoo, Speaking subjectively. When I am in possesion of an insight, or a fact, I can sometimes tell when somebody else is operating without that insight, because they utter things that would not fit together well if they too were in possesion of that insight or fact. It is a little more difficult to know what insights and facts others are in possession of that I have not yet had or found out about, and do not possess. Knowing that I know more than many, and less than many others, I am always eager to bring those lacking to the insights and knowledge I have obtained, and always eager to be led to the insights and knowledge I have yet to have and find. Again, subjectively speaking, I am constantly working on establishing a consistent worldview. I weed out the impossible in my own thinking, and constantly reevalute all the components, when new information or insights, new to me that is, come to light. It is important to me that my thinking is consistent with reality. This thread is about "magic or no", and my vote is no. Magic is NOT consistent with reality. If there is no mechanism, if there is no cause and effect, if it does not fit together with reality, then it is NOT real. Supernatural events, disqualify themselves by definition. Dreams are dreams until realized. Thoughts are thoughts until expressed, beliefs are beliefs until tested against reality, and there, their truth or falseness will show itself. If they fit, if they work all the time, then they have a good chance of being true. If they often don't test out, then they are probably false. The true things are real, the false things are just in our imagination where everything doesn't have to fit together, and certain aspects of reality can be ignored, if desired. The efficacy of prayer, has been disproved to the satisfaction of science. Understood. I read the study. I comprehend what it says and doesn't say about prayer. I "know" already that there is no magic, I have already come to the understanding that an Anthropomorphic God does not fit with what "we" know to be real. I know you can not talk to God and have him magically perform miracles for you. Understood. Agreed upon. Stipulated. But still things must fit. Clairvoyant prays. This is a fact. This is real. Clairvoant is not "really" talking to an Anthropomorpic God, it is scientifically impossible. So to who or what is the appeal being made? Oneself? One's subcounscious? One's congregation? The patient? The people that see you pray? The doctors? The nurses? The human spirit? And if any of the above hear the plea, are they not in a position to respond to the plea? Have they not the power to effect reality? Close the window to stop the draft, or open it to allow in fresh air, straighen out the kinked hose, take a collection for new hospital equipment, help your body fight the infliction, say a supportive word, make an extra visit, pay closer attention, build new hospitals, and find new medicines and procedures to help. I am not moving any goalposts, I am just noticing the mechanisms through which prayer actually does affect reality. And none of them are unscientific, and none of them are magic. Regards, TAR