jedaisoul

My thoughts are that those are strawman definitions that you made up. See Wikipedia: Nothing to do with "all religious values are nothing more than superstition". Just a belief that secular government should not be run according to religious beliefs. This does not deny God's existence. It just says, if God exists, then he is materially real. Don't you believe that God is materially real??? This means that if Christianity works for you, go with it. What is your beef??? It seems that you are either ignorant of the meanings of these terms, or choose to misrepresent them for some reason. Neither of which impresses. Did you not think to look up the definitions of these terms before giving us the benefit of your opinions? Obviously not.

The answer to all of these is intellectual honesty, and the focus on a fulfilling life. To you the choice is between hopelessness and hopefulness. To me it is between intellectual honesty and a false hope. I do not need false hope, I'm too busy living life. What is so wrong with your life that you feel the need of the hope of a glorious afterlife? Why would you want to bet your whole life on mere hope? I hope for your sake that you are right, but I seriously doubt that you are. Besides which, as has been pointed out by others, if the God of love DOES exist, I can't see that he would condemn me to eternal purgatory just because I did not believe in him in life. Do you want to believe in that sort of a God? I don't. And if he is a cruel heartless God, what's to say he isn't lying to you? We could all be heading to purgatory anyway, to feed his sick sense of humor. So it's heads I win, tails we are both in the same boat!

No. Every electron is identical to every other electron. Does that mean that there is only one electron in the universe? I think not.

Yes, I did not spot the significance of the last line of DH's post. But then again, I wonder whether the enquirer would have grasped the meaning of the formal proof given? My solution was less rigorous, but I hope more intelligible to a casual reader.

Surely, with constant acceleration, the maximum velocity is twice the average velocity (assuming you start at zero velocity)? It's a straight line graph of velocity against time. Or am I missing something? 989 / 27.009 = 36.6174 ft/sec ave. velocity So Max velocity = 36.6174 * 2 = 73.235 ft/sec. I'll let you do the conversion to mph.

Try MAGLEV on Wikipedia. You should find that interesting.

That does not explain why you expect the superimposition of the radially propagated waves exert a force on the two balls (attraction or otherwise). I would assume that the interaction takes place at a distance from the balls, at the point where the waves meet. How could that affect the balls? Another point, when I was at school (many years ago) water waves were used as an example of transverse motion. I.e. The water just goes up and down whilst the wave moves laterally across the surface. Hence there should be no lateral movement of the water, or anything on it. However, nowadays I'm not sure that is accurate. Water is essentially incompressible, so cannot act like a vertical spring, just moving up and down. Logically, there has to be a transverse element in the motion. I.e. as the wave front falls, the water is squished out sideways, and as it rises, the water is sucked in. So the water molecules may oscillate laterally about a central point, rather than vertically. This gives rise to the "undertow" in front of the wave, and the outflow behind it. You only have to watch what happens when the wave reaches the shore to see this in action. Trouble is, even in that case, there is still no sustained attractive force on the balls. They should each oscillate about a central position? P.S. By the way, as you probably know, there is no such force as "suction". I used the term colloqually. What I meant was "...and as it rises, the water is pushed back by the air pressure". Just to save misunderstanding... Thanks for clarifying. I can't be difinitive about the amplitude problem, but it would seem to me to be proportional to the circumference 2 * pi * r (or pi * d). I.e. As the circumference grows, the amplitude should fall proportionately, but I'm no expert.

I'm a little bemused: 1. Why would the superimposition of the radially propagated waves exert a force on the two balls (attraction or otherwise)? 2. How can there be an equation relating the radius of the propagating wave to its wavelength? The propagating wave is constantly moving, whilst its wavelength remains constant. Perhaps you meant a standing wave rather than a propagating one?

I have the following observations: You are creating a false dichotomy. Firstly, time undoubtedly exists as a concept, otherwise we could not discuss it. What you mean is, does time exist only as a concept? Your alternatives are not the only possible answers:Time does not have to exist as a form of energy to physically exist. Time (or, more accurately, the present) could exist as part of the framework in which physical objects exist. It seems to me to be impossible for physical objects (which are real) to exist in a framework that is not itself equally real. That does not necessarily mean that space and time (or spacetime) exist in the form that we conceive them. However, it suggests that there is something real that we are describing with these concepts. Or... We can conceptualise things other than physical entities that exist outside our concepts of them. These are abstract entities. These, potentially, come in two types:The relationship 1 + 1 = 2, and Pythagoras's theorem for example. These relationships are real because they are implicit in the objects and their relationships that are real. Note: I'm not suggesting that Pythagoras's theorem existed before he proposed it, but the relationship it describes has been implicit in real objects from the dawn of the universe. It is an important distinction to make. It can be claimed that there are abstract entities that are real in themselves, without necessarily being implicit in material objects. One example (which may not be a good one) is the numbers 1, 2, 3 etc. I suggest that the relationship 1 + 1 = 2 is real because it is implicit in real objects, but how can that relationship be real if the numbers 1 and 2 are not themselves real? I'm not sure this argument holds, but the possibility is there, and should be taken account of. So I would suggest that there are more options than the simple alternatives you gave...

I hoped you would not ask that! You'd need to ask someone who understands general relativity better than I do. I focus on the conceptual meaning of the theory. When it comes to the mathematical functions, I'm out of my depth.

Not according to Einstein. In addition to the quote given in the OP, Einstein made his views quite clear in the original paper on General Relativity: "Thus according to the general theory of relativity, gravitation occupies an exceptional position... since the ten functions representing the gravitational field at the same time define the metric properties of the space measured". A Einstein "The Foundation of the Genrall Theory of Relativity", Annalen der Physic, 49, 1916. Furthermore, chapter 14 of that paper specifically dealt with "The Field Equations of Gravitation in the Absence of Matter". It is quite clear that Einstein saw the gravitational field as existing in the absence of matter, as he even derived the field equations for it!

Does space exist without a gravitational field? Einstein says that: "There can be no space nor any part of space without gravitational potentials; for these confer upon space its metrical qualities, without which it cannot be imagined at all. The existence of the gravitational field is inseparably bound up with the existence of space." I'm not sure whether insane_alien is expressing his own views, but what he says does not correspond to Einstein's view. You have correctly interpreted what Einstein said. He believed that space did not exist, and that the "place" in which objects exist and events occur is defined by the gravitational field. Without the gravitational field there is no space, no vacuum, not even nothing. There is nowhere. See above...

Agreed. Shouldn't that be the field has properties? Einstein said: "Thus, according to the general theory of relativity, gravitation occupies an exceptional position... since the ten functions representing the gravitational field at the same time define the metrical properties of the space measured". A. Einstein, "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity", Annalen der Physic, 49, 1916. Also (when discussing the electromagnetic field) he said: "The field thus becomes an irreducible element of physical description, irreducible in the same sense as the concept of matter in the theory of Newton". A. Einstein, Appendix 5, "Relativity and the Problem of Space" from the 15th edition (in 1952) of "Relativity the Special and the General Theory".

I'm perhaps not the best person to answer, but here goes... The big bang theory tells us nothing about what existed before the big bang. We don't even know if time existed. So your question cannot be answered by modern physics, it's outside the scope. Also it is far from certain that there is such a thing as the "centre of mass of the universe". If I'm inaccurate in these comments, no doubt someone else will put you right...

If the "ether" of the general theory has no mechanical nor kinematic qualities, how would one set out to research it? It's an abstract framework that does not interact with reality, but defines how real things interact. The key word is abstract. It's just an idea, not a thing, but it is needed by GR to explain reality. If that sounds silly, bear in mind that the whole of relativity is based on the idea of frames of reference and how they affect reality. Frames of reference do not actually exist. They are abstract ideas that exist only in our minds. Yet in SR and GR they have properties. That's the trouble with letting mathematicians loose in physics. They blur the distinction between reality and concepts of it.

I don't think it is appropriate to present alternative theories in an answer to someone who is trying to understand the mainstream theory. Now I happen to think that the evidence for SR is open to different interpretations, but I just gave the best understanding that I have of the mainstream explanation. So it's not just a matter of whether your interpretation is correct, it is irrelevant in this thread.

There are plenty of people better equipped to answer these questions than I am, but here goes. I'm sure someone will correct me if necessary... In a sense, yes. Science generally attempts to describe WHAT happens, not WHY. Why is often a philosophic or theological question. Einstein's theories have moved on a lot from 1905 when he asserted that all frames of reference are equal. That was Special Relativity. There are two answers to your query in SR terms: Special relativity, as originally expressed, did not take acceleration into account, therefore it could not answer your query. It was, apparently, a paradox. However, it is not correct to say that SR cannot deal with accelerated frames. When you do take acceleration into account, the body that has undergone acceleration is the "moving" body. So not all frames of reference are equal. In 1916, Einstein's General Theory included gravity, and that changes the answers again. Firstly, it is often said that SR is just a special case of GR (in which the gravitational field is uniform). IMHO, this is not true. SR and GR have different conceptual frameworks. So SR is analogous (in it's conceptual framework) to the special case of GR. Analogous is not the same. In GR, the gravitational field is a physical entity. The interpretation of what that means vary. I would suggest that makes the gravitational field the de facto preferred frame of reference. Now I'm sure that idea will be hotly disputed, so I'll leave it there and let others take up the discussion. My main point is that the interpretation of the equality of fames of reference has changed...

I agree with you, a "rough and ready" practical compensation would suffice. Also, even with GR and SR compensation, the satelites' clocks need periodic correction. One factor I've not seen stated is the cumulative magnitudes of the "relativistic drift compensation" and the periodic corrections that are required anyway. I.e. Is the relativistic drift compensation actually significant?

I'd agree with you, but, as I understand it, that is not the mainstream view. I'm really seeking a mainstream answer to the question, but thanks for your comments.

No. According to Eiinstein, the time differences are due to differing frames of reference. Frames of reference may differ by relative veocity (Special Relativity) and/or gravitational potential (General Relativity). That's primarily due to SR (see above). Arguably there would be a GR component as well, but it would be very small. Not according to SR or GR. As above, none of this is true according to Einsteinian relativity. Also, if it were true, your qualification "even though the time change is insignificant" would be incorrect. If the time change were insignificant there would be no difference in the time. I think you meant "minute, but not insignificant". You've produced an interesting theory and I applaud you for that, but what is its purpose? Why do you think there is a need for a new theory? I'd briefly mention that I have proposed a theoretical model "simultaneity-time" which is, in some respects, similar to yours, but I'd suggest that you need to focus on the mainstream science first. There are excellent articles in Wikipedia that can help you to get a firmer grasp on Special and General Relativity. They can help you understand what SR and GR do, and do not, predict.

The real source of all the energy on the Earth is the sun. So how about gravitational lensing to focus more of the sun's energy on the Earth? All you need is a conveniently located black hole sitting between the sun and the Earth, orbitting the sun in step with the Earth. Should be simple really. Of course, that would give rise to Global Warming, which, as we all know, is a bad thing. Furthermore, it might even fry the earth's atmosphere. So perhaps we don't need more energy after all. We just need to make better use of the energy we've got!!!

I've had a look at Shore's piece on time machines, and although he discards three possible designs as impractical, it does seem that it is theoretically possible for a "time machine" to travel into the past. Only: 1. It cannot travel into it's own past (it's own back cone). 2. It cannot return to it's own present. Conclusion 1. seems convincing from his description, but conclusion 2 seems too heavily dependent on the mechanisms used to achieve the "rerturn" journey. If it is possible to travel to an "alternate" past, surely it should be possible to travel from that "present" to an alternate past, which happens to be in the original back cone? So although it is impossible to achieve in a single step, perhaps a two step process would be feasible? On the other hand, it's quite possible that I've not fully grasped the implications... Anyway, you have convinced me that it is not "clear with in GR if time travel is allowed or not". Can anyone else give reasons why they disagree with that view? I'd say probably yes to the first, and not sure to the second, but you'd really have to ask someone who knows a lot more about GR than I do.

When defining General Relativity, Einstein explicitly included the possibility, in principle, of travel in the time dimension. His words were “So there is nothing for it but to regard all imaginable systems of co-ordinates, on principle, as equally suitable for the description of nature”. Now, I know that nowadays, the scientific interpretation of “time travel” is restricted to different periods of time passing in different frames of reference. But is there an intrinsic reason for interpreting time travel in that way? If not, it would seem purely arbitrary.

My logic is not faulty (nor yours); we are starting from different assumptions. You are defining the universe coming into being as a change from non-existent to existent, which you regard as an effect. If that is correct, then of course you are right. But if, before the universe came into existence, there was nothing, there was nothing to change. So I would maintain that the coming into existence of the universe is not a "change" as such. Change began once the universe came into existence. Also, you are putting words in my mouth. I did not say that the universe "cannot have started". I say that its beginning was not necessarily caused by any prior entity or event. That is a very different claim. That was not a strawman, I did not attribute the "man in a monkey suit" to you. It was merely an example. But if you or others take it as a strawman, then I would apologise. That was not my intention. I have done. a) That is your interpretation of the conservation laws. I would suggest that: i. The law of conservation of matter is only an approximation. ii. The "mainstream" view is that the law of conservation of energy does not apply before the universe came into existence. The big bang theory does not define what (if anything) existed prior to the big bang, nor is it contingent on there being anything to cause it. b) I have acknowledged that there could be cause and effect in the coming into existence of the universe. I just don't think that it is the most likely explanation, and I have explained why. We are going round in circles here. You are using the term "real" in a different way than I am. I am defining "real" in what I understand to be the accepted scientific usage, i.e. it describes something that physically exists in the universe. As such laws and theories do not exist. They are mental abstractions that describe expected or observed behaviour of real entities. Thus the behaviour of objects that we attribute to "gravity" is real, and jumping off a cliff would likely be hazardous, but the law of gravity is just a codification of that behaviour pattern. I would suggest that you are equating abstract concepts to the physical behaviour they describe. There are two flaws in this statement: a) A prime number did not "become" prime. To become prime would suggest that at some prior time it was not prime. b) As with "laws of nature", it may be common parlance to speak of prime numbers as "existing", but scientifically speaking, they do not exist. Therefore, they cannot have "always existed". However, I would assure you that you are not alone in regarding abstract concepts as somehow "existing". No less a man that Carl Gustav Jung believed that archetypes actually existed. For example, he believed that there was an "archetypal" horse somewhere that defined "horseness". It is by comparing an actual horse to this archetype that we recognise it as a horse. That is not accepted today as being scientifically, or philosophically, valid. I hope that explains my thinking.

I'll come to my opinions on the original question, but first, an extract from the OP: "A robot cannot learn (they only respond in a preprogrammed way) and evolve due to the accumulation of 'learning' (DNA modifications or mutations -group knowledge)." I think this is not true. A robot can learn. What it cannot do (so far) is comprehend what it has learned. For example, it would be easy to program a small robot to travel in an arbitrary direction until it reaches an obstruction. Then stop and try moving in other directions. By recording how far it travelled and in which directions, it could generate a "map" of it's environment. Ultimately it would be able to move around without bumping in to the objects. That is, until one or more of the objects were moved. Then it could amend it's map to accommodate the change. As far as I'm aware, this is not only theoretically possible, it has already been done. So a robot could learn knowledge that was not pre-programmed into it. What has to be pre-programmed is the ability to learn. But does a robot comprehend what it learned? As far as we can tell, no, it does not. The use it makes of the learning also has to be pre-programmed, so that it does not require the robot to comprehend the knowledge in order to use it. As far as I'm aware no one has so far built a robot capable of comprehending knowledge. However, just because that may be true today, does not mean that it will always be so. ---------------------------------------- Now to the original question "Does life have purpose?". I think we can break this down into three questions: a) "Was life created with a purpose?" Believers in a creator God would say "yes", but I think that scientifically there is no reason to assume that. The probable answer is "no". b) "Has life acquired a purpose?" I think the answer to that is "yes". All life has acquired the purpose of continuing itself. This does not require a creator. It's just that lifeforms that do not have a method of reproduction die out. So those that can reproduce prevail. c) "Is there only one purpose for life?". Humans acquire many different reasons for living: pleasure, money, power, the creation or appreciation of art... The list is extensive, but, on the other hand, most can be equated with pleasure in one form or another. So does that mean that pleasure is the only purpose? I think that the answer is "no", for the simple reason that we've already stated a more fundamental purpose; the continuation of life itself.