Sorcerer

Genes have no desires. They just do. The selfish gene theory doesn't state "You" are operated by something outside your control. That is a very difficult question for psychology. But think about how much control "You" have over your pancreas for example, that part of you is controlled by a set of genes. You (the brain function which gives you self awareness) has desires though. The driving force of these desires are the reward and dissatisfaction mechanisms in your brain. These are built up by networks of neurons and neuro transmitters. All of which require a working community of genes. However we have feedback between the limbic system and our prefrontal cortex, which is built by yet more genes. And this allows us control of our desires. Computers reduce down to 1s and 0s. But are so much more. And a computers complexity pales in comparison to ours. Everything is made of something, knowing how things work doesn't change their function. You're still you, ignorant or otherwise.

Declan, is there any difference to the models from simply adding extra mass to BHS? If not, Occam can jump in here. How do you intend to fine tune your model so that it fits with observation. What reason would you give for this? Oh so you would instead assign a value for curvature. Rather than it looking graphically like the rubber sheet analogy.

Oh I wasn't going to. I was just conceptualizing. Yeah some kind of uniform point distribution which was skewed by its proximity to a SMBH EH. That's a scalar right? But my point was it seems Declan's idea is just a way of amplifying gravity produced by the special case of BHS and their EHS. It increases the curvature of the entire galaxy, and creates flat spots at the lagrange points between galaxies/SMBH, (or just equidistant points if that type of maths doesnt apply to galaxy/SMBH clusters)

Ajb thinking about the "flow" more carefully it just seemed to be essentially increased stretching/curvature towards and beyond the event hrizon. Since I only found this conceptually, that's identical to the black hole having some kind of extra mass. The only way there could be flow is from a source, the only source is the center (Lagrange?) point of the nearest black holes. This would be stretched thin to make up for the space curved tighter held beyond the event horizons. So it seems like an overly complex way of just adding mass to the black holes, in which case it'd be distributed in the wrong way, anyway, right?

It's funny Declan, I had a similar idea, it essentially tried to have the same effect, the black hole was the source of a modified gravity. My mechanism was gravitational waves exciting the vacuum and prolonging the existence of virtual particle pairs. Basically we don't need DM or MOND if there's a way for central black holes to spread their influence differently outward over the galaxy. Mind you, I just have concepts, at least you have some math. DM models have their merits too though, but good on you for trying.

Jumping in here without finishing the thread it could be conceptualized as space time (when thought of as explained) accumulating higher density on approach to the event horizon and aggregating behind it. From what I understand he's saying space time is effected by gravity at an event horizon (special case not sure why) just as particles are. So making it analogous to matter, the flow is simply the attraction of space time to the horizon and it's accumulation behind. However conceptually this means space time between galaxies would be stretched thin or ripped apart or being constantly created.

I read that one, it's good but no where near complete. For example, it is possible for a God to intervene in the universe and still be indistinguishable from our scientific evidence. One such way would be simply if every time there is intervention time and it's memory/records for us are changed too, so we're unaware. Another missed type is the simple pantheistic God, which is just the universe really, not necessarily universally conscious and impersonal. Then there's multitudes of adaptions on that. I'm asking as an ignostic because maybe someone can make the question make sense. To clarify, the pantheistic God I mention makes no sense to me as it is indistinguishable from the universe. As an analogy, calling an apple an flurgenblruster and then arguing about its properties outside of it being an apple, and worrying about the existence of a flurgenblruster, is just semantic masturbation. Either distinction is fine. There's a word in the dictionary "God". I'm looking for a better or cogent definition. Simulation is another possibility overlooked in the stickied post. And also a way that God could intervene without our knowledge. However it fails on infinite regress. Either we're a non simulated product of a physical universe or at some point a God is. Which makes that Gods God a simple pantheistic one. However it is possible that this is an argument I create from knowledge of this simulation and up one level it makes no sense. Interestingly (for me lol, I dunno about you, maybe I'm boring you), this is also where the traditional God of the Abraham religions fails to make sense, if God created our universe, what created God, why is it necessary to extend the level of creation up 1, but necessary to stop before 2, why even begin? Also if the Abraham God, created this universe like a simulation, it would be entirely possible for the Bible to be completely true (or even true as the fundamentalist creationist warp it), any conflict you want to bring up with empirical evidence from science can just be explained away by saying that is how the program is measured by us, but the program was written so that the events play out differently from what we can measure. The problem of infinite regress can be addressed from a thermodynamic stand point, taking heat as the energy which is needed to produce work and thus run the simulation, we would gradually decrease the systems within the system to a point which approaches absolute 0, even if the energy is used successively more efficiently allowing time to simulated at a rate which we within the simulation perceive as normal, but those outside perceive as slower. Calculating the series to infinity, ensures there is a point where the cannot be another simulation. So it should be a finite set. (correct me if I'm wrong, my physics and math are rather basic.) This is much like possible life continuing to survive in a universe approaching a heat death end point. But again this could just be an argument created by me from the constraints of my simulation, and has no merit the next level, or even any arbitrary levels up.

Can you clarify, are you saying if the 750GeV particle is a Higgs Boson, then it is possibly one half of the super symmetric pair, with the 125 GeV Higgs being the other? wiki is confusing me, are you saying it could be the Higgsino, or is it the "more than one Higgs field"?

I'm listening, please explain your God to me, you never know, you might convert me.

What would a 2nd Higgs mean, would it change much? Would two Higgs fields create two types of Mass? Could a heavier higgs particle imbue some particles in its field with more mass than a lighter one? You're still optimistic about SUSY Mordred? The article said this about it: That doesn't worry you? Could it be a fermion like the Majorana fermion then? Sorry I'll list my questions. 1. could you briefly describe in laymens terms the see saw mechanism and why a 2nd higgs will fine tune it? 2. Do any other bosons have fields which decay in to their respective particle of 2 seperate weights. What kind of field would a dual Higgs field create and how might that effect mass? 3. Are you still hopeful for SUSY even though there was lack of data confirming the existence of the Gluino? 4. Is the Majorana fermion a candidate? What would that mean? Come on, speculations are the fun part.

33Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come. 34It's like a man going away: He leaves his house and puts his servants in charge, each with their assigned task, and tells the one at the door to keep watch. 35"Therefore keep watch because you do not know when the owner of the house will come back--whether in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or at dawn. 36If he comes suddenly, do not let him find you sleeping. 37What I say to you, I say to everyone: 'Watch!'" I'm wondering if we'll even be at home lol.

The first point I'd make is that when they looked up and saw any light in the sky, they were all called "stars". You are correct they didn't know they were "huge balls of fire" (close enough, but seems you don't know what they are either ), but they also wouldn't have known what meteorites or comets or the other bright planets were too. Thus all the lights in the sky (excluding the sun and moon) would have been referred to as stars. Having said that, my interpretation of this is that sometime before this passage was written it had been observed by people a large meteorite entering the atmosphere. This would've been pretty damn scary, and if it impacted would've been impressively destructive. To see this would seem a lot like stars falling from the sky. Also as a meteor passed, there would be a very loud noise, this could explain the "shaken" description, alternatively the shock wave from impact would also shake the ground a lot, when the ground shakes and you look at the sky, the heavens appear to shake. Another possibility is just the tale try to reason how a star could fall from the sky, much like a fruit tree when shaken they could have hypothesised that if the heavens are shaken the stars will fall out of the sky. Since most people never get to see this, this fantastic eye witness account, which would terrify the observer and be a extremely terrifying mystery for early civilisation, it would propagate as a meme (in the cultural evolution sense). Sometime later, Matthew, (probably was Matthew, can't be sure), decided to use it as part of his writing. What better guess at prophecy for the future, than an event which happened but hasn't been seen generations, sometime in the past. It's bound to happen again, and when it does, those who read your words will think you're clarivoyant! So my points don't really argue against the overall statement. I agree the Bible isn't literal, or the word of God (whatever that is), I'm not really concerned with that, it's a non-question until you state it in an answerable way to me. I do however disagree though with your assertion that the word stars in this context only refers to actual stars. But what interests me more about the topic is how stories which may have been exchanged for hundreds or thousands of years can then be recorded as historical or prophetic and people see this first, instead of the deeper question, where did that story come from? I really only have stories to answer that story (I bet there's an impact crater or evidence of a significant airburst somewhere within trade/story telling distance of Matthew, within the previous few hundred... or stretching it a bit thousand years.)

I am one of those lesser people. Why am I lesser for it? It would be possible for us both to hold the same world view, differing solely on your belief in a God and my belief that it isn't even a question because the word God have no definition which is testable and its definition is variable. Two people could easily agree that "God" exists, yet both disagree unknowingly, even two Christians, while maybe agreeing on the Jesus incarnation of God, both have completely contradicting ideas of the God not sent to earth - I've asked about 100 Christians so far, "what is God", I've never got the same response and there's been very very few explanations I would call tangible, unfortunately the tangible ones are the easiest to dismiss. How can I be lesser for not believing in something, which people who believe in can't even agree on, it seems none of you are believing in the same thing, doesn't that mean only 1 of you can be "greater". I see things in the opposite, those who believe in God are normally lesser (than you could otherwise be, not lesser than me) for it because of all the religious baggage which constrains their ability to question their culture and change it if there is a better alternative. I admit there are a lot of theists out there who simply maintain a belief in God, while allowing redundant cultural ideas to be dismissed. However some of those theists also are lesser for it, that is because they support by proxy the type of theist I mentioned before. As I see it, the only way to not be lesser for your belief in God is if you support change which can lead to equality, peace and a continued improvement of Humanity, while also not allowing dogma to constrain change in cultural values. I allow for a belief in God, except it is unnecessary and surplus to my belief in the need for the continued improvement of Humanity. God, whatever that is to you, can exist, just don't let whatever that is get in the way of rational ideas which do good, because then you're doing harm by proxy, that would make you less. (you know it was very arrogant, and prideful (a sin apparently), to just say in the negative, that you are greater than me and all others who don't believe in (your) God)

I was on facebook and I read a post regarding the morality of premarital sex and how from some Christians' viewpoints it is regarded as immoral and their ironic use of shame to try to enforce their beliefs, it lead me to write this rather long reply in regards to how I think secular morality is superior to dogmatic religious morality. Feel free to criticise it. Some Christians think premarital sex is a sin. They base this off words written for the moral code of a society who lived over 2000 years ago. This was before people knew how reproduction worked and in a society where young females who got pregnant were dependent on the support of their husbands. During this time, premarital sex would almost definitely lead to pregnancy, because their moral code lacked incentive for the father to stay unless they were married, it would mean that mother and baby would come to harm or become a excessive burden on their small community. Now days with knowledge of how sex works, contraception available, social services in place to support single parents and child support enforceable on any parent who should share responsibility, the harm that premarital sex does is negligible. This is how I gauge my morals. I ask "how much harm does it cause", in this case I see very little potential harm, and I also see some benefits. I don't see how belittling those who have premarital sex would change anything for a Christian though, since they also think Jesus forgives every sin. I'm guessing it's because they can't stop themselves from demeaning each other for their supposed sins, which is ironic, considering that whole "what would Jesus do", thing. I often wonder about the huge mental conflict that Christians should have over responsibility and accountability for actions and personal improvement, when these are made redundant against unconditional forgiveness. What makes Christians feel the need to not do bad things and change themselves for the better, when there are no conditions for their Gods forgiveness? How can Christians be moral people with the unconditional love and forgiveness of God? This is even more perplexing when they are primarily coerced into acknowledging their actions and seeking this forgiveness by the fear of Hell,or the reward of Heaven. Surely to be moral we must hold ourselves to account for our actions and self improvement. The incentive should be altruistic, driven by the reward of benefiting Humanity in a mutual way. The positive and negative reinforcement of others in society and our own empathy and reason, should serve as direction to change, and forgiveness should be something we offer to ourselves and others when we accept they have acknowledged their wrong doing and show a desire to change. A divine moral code, divine forgiveness and heaven and hell are merely constructs for people who lack the rational ability to see that morality is stronger and more sensible when it is only applied to actions, and that those actions' morality should be defined by how much good or harm they cause. The Christian moral system is for those too narrow minded to see their society, and ultimately their world, as an extension of their self, via the environment. They fail to understand, that rather than a fictional God's word, (which is actually a collection of people's words), morality should be based around the premise that causing harm ultimately makes their society and their world worse, which makes it a worse place for them to live. Other than empathy, without this external world view, or without belief in a belief in a conditional system of divine punishment and reward, there is no incentive to be moral, because it isn't immediately obvious how it is in your best interest to be. Luckily as animals we have empathy hard wired, this probably prevented us destroying society when morality was based solely on not angering a God of which you could immediately ask forgiveness. A world which revolved around personal salvation, a world robbed of reason by keeping information and education as a monopoly controlled by the theocracy. A world which was sadly preferred over one that attempted to ensure everyone had the best possible world in which to live. The only world which was allowed to be suggested, because questioning it was enforceable by death. That world being, for Europe, the middle ages. And although the religion differs slightly, not so different from modern Islamic theocracy's governed by Sharia law. The Christian moral code is for those too narrow minded to see how taking personal and public accountability for one's own actions is successful in enabling people to make moral choices. By being open about our wrong choices we allow society to aid us in further choices and assist change by gaining access to education and social systems which encourage beneficial actions and discourage harmful ones. The Christian moral code instead encourages people to hide their actions in shame and confess them privately to an imaginary God. The Christian moral code fails to see that when someone thinks they have been forgiven by a fictional entity, really they are just pretending to forgive them self, and that instead true self forgiveness requires a deeper understanding of one's own actions, allowing them to be completely resolved. Christianity fails to see that asking for forgiveness without any desire to change, but only for the desire not to go to Hell, does very little to prevent further harmful actions and offers no real incentive not to repeat actions. Christianity limits peoples desire to want to constantly change by failing to give them the proper tools to do so, it provides a rigid moral code of little relevance to today and offers parables for advice which do not fit every situation or can be interpreted loosely giving vague advice. Christianity offers to remove an imaginary curse to people for simply acknowledging their bad action to an imaginary being. It fails to help people see a rational method to become a person who no longer does that action. This is because asking forgiveness from a fictional God involves only personal insight. Whereas a person confronting their victim, while asking them for forgiveness, allows multiple people to get involved. Having wrong actions acknowledged by society and allowing society to assist in personal change ensures that there are maximum resources and otherwise unavailable advice from those who may have more, or more diverse experiences. It enables others to support change, by both their encouragement of positive change and discouragement of slow progress in change. Having the added insight of other people's experience helps understanding of the reasons behind harmful choices, in understanding our actions and seeing how we were wrong, combined with the knowledge of our having changed so that those choices are no longer made, people are then able to completely forgive and get on with living a life made of better choices. This is why in my society there is a secular legal system, and we don't have a religious law system. This is why premarital sex isn't illegal. This is why our society isn't stuck between the feudal and industrial ages like the theocratic states who uphold a religious legal system. At some point our society decided Christians are stupid, let's make law about reason.

I was just reading this article: LHC sees hint of boson heavier than Higgs and while browsing stumbled on this article shortly afterwards: Recent study predicts that Higgs particles are much heavier than earlier observation . What's the likelihood that the possible particle is just a second Higgs? How does this effect the standard model. If it's not another Higgs, and is confirmed to exist, what are possible theoretical candidates which could account for the particle. If it's something completely new, what could it be and how could it effect our current models?

Thanks everyone. So it is untrue that LED lighting causes more copper to be used, because that copper is already in place? How does a PF less than 1 cause power to be wasted, if it remains in the line where does it go then? Is it lost as heat or does it leak through a larger EMF around the lines? Why does the PF need to be balanced locally, isn't the total networks average key. Aren't there industries with opposite requirements? I've never heard of power suppliers charging a premium based on PF here in New Zealand, I'll have to look into it. As for balancing my workplace's PF, there isn't many other demands. Off the top of my head we have computers, A/C, roller doors, lighting and a waterblaster which are used daily. Perhaps if we changed our fleet from diesel to EVs. But it seems years away.... hurry up humanity. Thinking about it, there is a key card system with magnetic locks on 2 doors too, that runs 24/7. Is that a point of balance?

I was reading through the wiki on LED lighting because my workplace is replacing many light bulbs in the warehouse and I was interested in how they could maximise capital while also reducing waste. Reading through the comparison charts, I came across this quote below it : I tried to wrap my head around the word explanation for the mathematics describing what PF is, but failed. However keeping in mind that my lack of understanding of the topic is a recognised bias, the prior paragraph appears to me to be false information. How does Cu usage increase, when the infrastructure is already in place? If not then the alternative is they mean Cu is depleted overtime from this effect, how can this be? I've been LED (pun intended) to believe Cu is unaffected (a catalyst?) by the flow of electric current, what mechanism would remove Cu, is it electroplated onto the lighting terminals? Although I recongnise "harmonics" as a genuine concept, it is also a red flag for bullshit in most pseudoscience. Can someone explain, "high harmonics". Are they singing a barber shop quartet on drugs? What is the quantifier used to give a value to lesser or greater harmonics?

Yeah but if they're indistinguishable what's the point in labelling them as such, does it simply fulfil the requirements for the standard model in which every particle must have a corresponding anti particle? Are there energies at which they become seperate and distinguishable? Can we reach these currently, are they likely to be ever within our reach, or are they purely hypothetical energies which are predicted only in the early universe? Your link regarding antiphotons is dead BTW Mordred If 2 photons could be isolated and forced to collide at high energies and produce a e/p pair must it be assumed one was anti and the other not? Even though which is which is unknown, or is the some symmetry in the produced pair which reverses depending on the direction to the collision of each photon, which would show us which is which? If we try this with instead 2 photons and they fail after repeated attempts at required energies to produce an e/p pair, does it then follow they must be both the same. Or is it as I said before, is it moot because they're indistinguishable? ____________________ Anyway back to the original topic Mordred, what I was getting at is that large scales which produce a uniform distribution are time dependent. A large area of space measured for a brief interval, is far less likely to be uniform than the same area over a large interval.

I thought photons were antiphotons, that's a trick question.

Fair enough, I briefly studied entropy, enthalpy and thermodynamics as it relates to physical biochemistry my final year of uni, however having not used it for so long, I remember very little. To your final question I would at a guesd answer infinite only if there was an increase gradually to it, because that would follow as the end value. If it was a sudden phase change however I would say it's undefined since it relies on the being no way to differentiate thus no point which its value can be measured against.

Doesn't FLRW still work, without the assumption of isotropy and homogeneity? If it is dependent on them, one isn't proof of the other, instead, if someone required isotropy and homogeneity, then there would be incentive to find evidence of it at all costs. Why is it only at the very largest of scales that any evidence appears? I suggest that because larger scales are representative of more positions of space within time, it is not in reality that smaller scales aren't homogeneous or isotropic, they are, but they must just be observed for an amount of time which is proportional to their size. Similarly, it isn't actually true the large scales are isotropic and homogeneous, large scales of space, independent of time, say the 3D slice of the greatest point in size of the universe (supposedly this moment) wouldn't show homogeneity and isotropy as would be expected, when compared to the homogeneous nature of all the moments in time that precede it, which when overlaid on each other, by the very nature of their change over time give a more even distribution, because the same amount of matter existing at more moments will be measured in more possibles places than that matter spread out over a large area but in a single moment alone. I think I initially began with a purely visual-spatial model in my mind in an attempt to cement the difference between a scale in space time and simply a scale in space. I have since began basing my assertions on the dynamic nature of space time vs the static nature of space without time. The limits of our observations aren't of consequence here, dynamic systems will naturally form a greater number of possible configurations and thus homogeneous and isotropic observations of large scales are primarily a consequence of the extent of the time dimension. The ratio of the size of space observed to how much time that space encompasses is proportional to its probability for being uniform (getting sick of homogeneous and isotropic, I'll use uniform from now on). Isn't it possible that thermodynamic's laws are a consequence of a forward time direction combined with an expanding space dimension. For instance entropy increases simply because the initial condition confined entropy to a minimum, and when those confines were loosened by a universe that expanded over time, the only direction is towards less order. Spaces expansion ensures that hot areas expand and thus cool, so the natural direction is from hot to cold and the natural direction of order is from order to disorder. So, that would suggest that a universe which expands over time is a requirement for the laws existence. It could be then that by requiring a large scale uniform universe for FLRW, and it's correlation to thermodynamic share a common prerequisite in that rather than being explanations of an expanding universe, and expanding universe explains why they exist. We are biased to measure things over the scale of that which is easiest to observe. We could attempt to measure what if any trend they'd show over only a moment of space, and how that would differ as the spatial scale increases. It would control for the time factor which by it's very nature ensures change and larger amounts of change increase the chances of more a more uniform universe. If we know by what ammount the uniform nature of the universe is influenced simply by an overlap in possible configurations of matter over multiple moments, it would allow us to create models of the universe which could be independent of scale, sucessfully modelling the quantum, to the entire universe, and even possibilities beyond. The problem with the CMB is that its current state is dependent of the universe at its release,yet it also has had the most ammount of time of any object in existence to travel free of interaction. The very first time it interacts is when we measure it, this is implied because if it was absorbed by something else and re-emitted, it would no longer be CMB. The universe when the CMB was released was vastly smaller than today, between the size it was then and the size it is now, the universe has provided the CMB with a huge number of ways it could possibly arrange itself and still continue on it's path to our observing it without interaction. Even with extreme precision of measurement, a uniform CMB isn't 100% conclusive evidence of the universe being uniform. Rather the uniformity of the CMB could be a consequence of its history, the first released source of energy with the greatest ammount of time which is shared in common, all existing without interaction from a small and hot universe which cooled as it expanded in vast comparitive proportion to the current universe. The CMB naturally arose from a uniform plasma which condensed and allowed it's release, the conditions at the beggining were but for, small differences, uniform, but it is over time that those differences have amplified into the disordered universe. The uniformity of the CMB, rather than being evidence of the large scale uniformity of the universe is rather evidence of the universe progressing for a uniform state and gradually becoming more and more structured. Again, it is the addition of time which masks this trend, when the distant pasts high order is added to the near futures disorder, and an average taken, it is mistaken for uniformity on a large scale, rather than a progression from past uniform to future structured. As you can see I've thought about that one before actually. It's not overlooked, it might be wrong? Maybe we're saying the same thing, but in different ways which seems like we're disagreeing. 2+2=4, but so does 1+3. A uniform universe which arises from an extrapolation back to a point is a necessity of said initial condition, it must have the greatest possible degree of being uniform. If it were disagreed that the universe was on a large scale uniform back when these predictions were made, how would it effected the prediction by changing the assumption to the universe arising as uniform, thus the scope of time and space and its nature uniform or not after nucleosynthesis is rendered moot. If the assumption they require to do so is false though, couldn't it mean that they are simply equations which have been altered from a better set of equations to compensate for a universe which is described as uniform, but yet isn't. How do the equations fare at making predictions over small scales? If the universe isn't actually uniform on large scales and our observation is actually an artifact of the passage of time and the permutations of matter positions having overlap with past permutations. Couldn't there be another set of equations which might also make predicitons, maybe more accurate ones, which match the evidence to even a closer degree of certainty? I recall Newtons equations are quite accurate at making predictions that match observations, but Einsteins are more accurate, why stop the progression? If the accuracy of our observations is biased by our interpretation of the data they give, because we must necessarily assume that they are uniform, for the predictions to match. If we remove that bias, and assume the universe isn't on the large scale uniform, how do the other possible interpretations of A. a non uniform universe on large scales or B. An initially uniform universe which tends towards less uniform and more structure over time. influence how the observations are interpreted, how in turn does that effect the accuracy of the predictions. We must be sure not the beg the question, prevent ourselves seeing other options and confuse our assumptions for the only possibility. I'll have a look at them later, going to help a friend move now...... JOY.... not. When I do look I'll continually be considering how it would be possible for the assumption of uniformity to be altered. I doubt my level of understanding will actually allow me to find it though. The idea that large scale uniform universe observations are an artefact of the nature of large scales necessarily including more time with space. Thus simply averaging the positions of matter over time, rather than and observing a progression from the most uniform to a steadily increasing complex, non uniform, structure, was free, but were any of those billions spent, ruling this simple concern out? Or was the necessity of the assumption of uniformity so crucial that, it was the only thing tested, the only thing which gave results to be interpreted and thus the only thing of which conclusions were made? How did they rule out the artefact of extended time averaging non uniform matter when viewed out of context of the moment, and in context of the continuous past? Yes but can't you fine tune models with extra parameters to get the results you desire. Where there any unexplained tweaks in this model? To what degree did it really model reality, when we barely know what 95% of all stuff is.

Taking all of these thoughts together, and looking at the cosmological principles assumption that the universe is homogeneous on large scales, brings that conclusion into question. How can we assume we have a complete picture of the universe on a large scale, when we actually have a continuous overlaid sequence of events showing only a small section of any one moment in time. We have no complete picture of the universe on a large scale which isn't biased by the scale of time extending further in comparison to the smaller time scales which are conditional for smaller spatial scales. This means we cannot compensate for the inevitable changes in position of objects over time, movement in time ensures that a comparison between a smaller more static picture of the universe will almost certainly be less homogeneous. It is my hypothesis therefore, that a dynamic picture of space and time, is statistically more likely to be homogeneous, than a static picture of a 3D moment of time, provided the 3D size is equivalent, the larger the scale of the picture proportionally the greater the observational artifact. Thus just as a comparison of a still moment of the solar system shows the planets dotted around with little ordered comparison between one another with respect to their orbits. Over a longer ammount of time however, say 165 year, every planet would have completed an orbit and the picture would be of a series of concentric rings encircling the sun. The moment of space evens itself out over time, because as it moves it covers a higher proportion of all possible positions. Currently we have the ability to observe is a picture of the universe which is "smeared out" over the course of all observable history. As an analogy let's compare our knowledge of the universe to observing a game of pool, if you were to take a long exposure picture of a long game of pool, this can be said to be analogous of our view of the universe back towards the CMB, (A more accurate analogy is a concentric series of rectangles from the center of the pool table at the beginning of the game, to the edge at the end, either way both show and hide information which likely, but the selective yet continuous nature of what we are able to see gives the illusion of homogeneity). What we really are looking at is a picture which only shows us the details of sequential moments, because the pool balls over the entire course of the game cover a larger area of the table than at any given moment. The long exposure picture will produce as an artifact a pattern of pool balls on the table which appears at large scales to be homogeneous, but in reality the largest observable scale is made of units which show a frame of the pool table at any given moment over the course of the game, and the largest scale is actually a complete video of the game. The long exposure, smears our sample out, which creates the illusion that it is a representation of the largest scale. When we compare the 3: 1. The long exposure : Our observable universe as a temporal picture receding into the past. This by its very nature selectively shows us a linear progression of time in a block form, obscuring the true nature of the universe. What should be shown is any moment in time, or the entirety of time. This being only a sample of the entirety of time, which we use to base our assumption of the universes homogeneity at large scales, is actually a misrepresentation, because the image show events which are separated in both time and space, just like the pool game long exposure this increases the apparent distribution of the balls (which represent matter) in uniformity, because it could be the way the information is shown causes the conclusion, we should get a larger more accurate sample, 2. The snap shot of a moment: This would be the 3D slice of the universe as it would appear in a present moment I talked of earlier. It would take 10 years to create a 10 light year radius picture and would by my estimation require massive amounts of data storage, or force the use of a low data point resolution. This hypothetical snap shot, would provide a better sample from which to conclude if the universe is homogenous or not, this is a large scale picture of the universe, if left to grow in detail for a few millenia, even though it would lack the scale in depth of time of our current map of the universe, it provides a full 3d view of a moment, which on our current map is simply a thin ring of sky, outside which are, sequentially, only slivers of a universe which existed before. If we created an image like this, it would enable us to compare it to our current map, and allow, with an accuracy proportional to the size of the snap shot, for us to control for any artifacts created by the inherent "smeared out" nature of the large scale image of the universe. Even if a map of this sort did show the need to question the cosmological principle, it would also be put in doubt because it would require a length of time equal in years to the size in light years of our current moments Hubble volume, which is greater than the age of the universe and could possibly, be cut short by a future end of the universe. 3. The full video. This would be a continuous series of snap shots run together, so we could explore a moment in time in 3D and also have the image of the following moment and the minor details of its changes, The frame rate would be determined by the resolution within each snap shot, which in turn would be dependent on our limit of the capacity to store information, Fortunately by synchronising the frame rate, with the resolution, we could create overlap between data sets, meaning only 2 extra data points would be needed per 3D slice of space. The frame rate, which is the distance in time between consecutive 3D maps of a moment and the resolution, which is the distance in time and space between data points of an individual 3D map would need to share the same value. For instance the a photo of the light ariving at a given location could be taken each night, 12 hourly, starting from t=0 0,0, building a 3D image with a resolution of 12 light hours, then the next frame of the video would begin at t=0hrs 0,0,0. and our second frame to be t=12hrs 0,0,0, then the first and 2nd frame only differ, by the addition of 1 frame and the subtraction of 1 frame. Choosing instead frame rates and resolutions which shared common factors or common denominators would also save on storage, however these would be less efficient, but yield a higher diversity of data points. However since the goal would be to determine the effect on how scale can effect homogeneity from way we currently map the sky, and our attempt is to control for the assumption that a still shot of the universe over an outwardly receding, contiguous space time, is representative of any given moment of space, then the best way to be sure would be to have as much unique data as possible, so in that case, it would be best to keep, the frame rate and resolution instead out of phase. A video showing the change over time between one 3D slice of time to the next, giving a complete 4D representation, can depending on its complexity, provide vastly more information, and a more detailed map in which large scales and small scales can be compared with more accuracy, which would allow the question of homogeneity to be answered. Taking a picture of all the past moments as they progress back in time, studying them for homogeneity at successively greater scales and then determining those scales, which are the largest are homogenous, needs to be ruled out as being an outcome which occurs simply because of the data which is used. Data which are also conveniently a linear (smoothed out), contiguous (by nature a smooth sample) representation of all causally linked past events up to the moment. Convieniently ignoring all other inhomogenous results at all the smaller sample sizes, and stating on large scales the universe is homogenous is counter intuitive, how can alot of uneven objects make a smooth object without very intricate fine tuning? The answer is that they don't, because the scales that are observed don't take into account that time causes change, where we see galaxy clusters and voids on a smaller scale OF TIME, at another point in time there may have been a cluster where the void was and a void where the cluster was. This is not a large scale measurement, the data points and spread throughout a causally connected 4D image, objects tend to move into places which have space for them to be, and spaces tend to be created when objects move. Homogeneity over space and time shouldn't be be any surprise at all, but it shouldn't be any great revelation either, because its a consequence of how we measure, not a measurement of what we're measuring. By simplifying the universe while ignoring the complexities only creates wrong ways of looking at things.

I'm aware, (or at least it's my layman's understanding), that there is no such thing as a universally agreed point in time known as the present between any number of independent observers. However, is it correct to say that any observer has a current point in space time, which could be marked as the present, by which the distance to all other points in space time could be measured against? Is this still allowed if the observer moves in space-time himself, or doesn't it matter since in the relativistic sense he isn't moving, but everything else is? If someone defined the point in space time as the present, being centered on the self, does that point then become the origin 0,0 which defines the coordinates of all other points? Does the size of the point, for example if we narrowed it to the eyes and brain, say 10cm3 define the resolution, accuracy and result of any conclusions drawn using it as 0.0? Does this mean that, being 35, a sphere of 35 light years exists around me at which point I can observe the universe relative to myself as it was at the moment of my birth? If I had an extremely powerful supercomputer and created a 3d model of the present moment from t=0 from when I begin observing and recorded the position of everything in the universe at a distance spherically recording the positions of everything as it expanded at the speed of light, and continued to do so for 10 years, could I create a 3d slice of my present moment 10 years ago? Is there any work where simulations are made which plot in 3d relative to the earth, the stars as the actually are at a given point in time. How much different would familiar sights, say for instance Orion, look if displayed as a relative spacial moment, rather than as we see it normally (space-time dependent). I hear it often said that if we look at stars 65 million light years, we are seeing them as they were during the final days of the dinosaurs. I always found it odd that people were highly impressed by this, as if we are looking at the same stars that the dinosaurs could see, because hasn't that region of space changed for 65 million years, while we can presently look at the slice of time from 65 MYA, it is impossible for us to observe any region of space unchanged which the dinosaurs also saw the same. ______________________________________________________________ Split this is you want - related to the cosmological principle. This all leads to the question, that if all of cosmology and the observations on which its conclusions are based is limited to only those parts of the past which we can observe, isn't it a massive assumption that the current state of the universe actually looks anything like we'd predict it to? Why do we have so much faith in the assumption our observations backwards through time are an accurate representation of the universe. Aren't we really drawing massive conclusions from a tiny fraction of existence. Isn't it like guessing the plot of a movie from a still frame, but one which is made up of a tiny slice of each of the movies frames all stuck together? I know it's all we've got, but do those who study this area acknowledge that the future almost certainly will reveal as new information arrives, from past moments, a picture of the universe which changes our current view. Why isn't it assumed that the information we have is incomplete and new information will very likely change the "facts", how can any hypothesis be tested in a meaningful way with a view of the universe distorted, as we look further out, in time towards the past, never giving any complete snap shot of any moment. For instance, Andromeda is 2.5 million light years away and we predict it merging with our galaxy in about 4 billion years, what certainty do we have that within the 2.5 million years between it's current state and our observed state of it, that there have been no major changes to its structure or course, from unseen (intergalactic black holes, intergalactic clumps of dark matter, for instance), or not yet observable/unpredicted sources. Since our prediction is based off information 2.5 million years old, isn't there an area of space 2.5 million light years around it which could contain objects which before then could interact, why do we have such certainty, to what level of detail have we searched this area? As a rough example, let's assume there was an object in line with us and Andromeda, but behind it by 1 million light years, so, 3.5 million light years away from us. That objects travelling towards it and us at 50% c, so it will reach it and effect Andromeda's course in 2 million years, altering the current model, and we won't even know it for another 500,000 years. Now I know that any visible object which is within any likely collision distance of Andromeda has probably been factored in to the models, but that was just an example. Let's assume we try to model the fate of a galaxy or a star several billion light years away, suddenly the possible number of visible objects within range of altering any models we construct increases (and also enables them to be travelling at more likely speeds). So as we increase in distance from the earth, the accuracy of any models of the fates of objects decreases, simply due to the increase in the number of possible objects which could potentially interact, which too if modeled have their own causality sphere in which there can be objects that might possibly interact, changing our predictions of the original interactions, and so on. We are only able to see slices of the present moment from here to 13,8 or so billion years ago, giving a smeared picture of the universe changing over time, while preventing us from directly observing, any entire 3D slice of the past. Rather every slice of the past is a ring and even a planck length is a moment different. It would only be possible to view a slice of the universe in an earth observers present if we began recording from now, storing a huge ammount of data, which at an estimate become unsustainable over a distance no where near close to the size of our current observable universe or require a resolution so great that it would produce an image of very little use at all. My estimate, and requirement for a limit on either the radius, or the resolution (effectively restricting the value of r), comes from the fact that the number of points and thus data in a sphere increases at the rate of 4/3πr3

It seems like the OP's post was exactly as his patent stated. Actually at this point, because I'm somewhat of a "profiler", I would say that the OP never filed any patent at all. He actually just came up with the idea recently and thought he'd run it by people on science forums to see if they could give him any prompts on improving it, perhaps giving him a design he could patent. The reason he says he did patent it and a year ago, is so that people don't "steal" his idea, and the year ago bit makes it harder to search.

Oh it's got no patent value, which I think it what he was hinting at. There's no way he'll make any money off it before the patent expires. I'm not even sure it was legal to issue the patent.