aguy2

This was an interesting paper. I have always found interesting that cells act as if they are miniature ocreans that seem motivated to maintain their integrity, and continue to be amazed how far down the chain of complexity 'motivation' or reactions that do a very good job of mimicking motivation go. aguy2

How can we presume that the past, present, and future lie along a single axis when all the information we have available to us comes exclusively from the past? Information can tell us how things were, not how things are, and certainly not how things are going to be. Admittedly, a lone, lineal, temporal dimension seems to be intuitively logical, but doesn't much of what little physics tells us about the temporal dimension(s) seem counter-intuitive? aguy2

padren, Here is a question for you. Why do we speak of our reality as being 4 dimensional when it seems that time has the dimensions of past, present, and future? aguy2

I agree.

So do I, but I prefer the term 'oscillating' in lieu of 'cyclical' and usually modify/limit the term 'universe' by refering to it as the 'observable universe'. aguy2

I am of the opinion that space could not have any pre-BB existence, but time may have. Can't we truthfully say that, " At the BB event the amount of space available to the universe was at a minimum and the amount of time the universe was going to have available to it was at maximum"? Couldn't we say, that at least on the cosmological scale, time and space could be related to each other in much the same way matter and energy are related to each other, in that the sum of time/space, like the sum of matter/energy is a constant? aguy2

Good point. Evoluntionists with a capital E seem to have a strong tendency to overstress the role of random mutation and underate the role of selection through the auspices of sexual preferences. Selection through sexual choice can be very specific and very rapid. In the 1400's 30% of europeans had 'round' skulls; by the 20th century 70% displayed the characteristic. aguy2

GreenDestiny: Very interesting. Axons forming antenna like structures on the surface of the human brain is new to me, but I have observed that the very versatile, magnetically active microtubules that form the endoskeleton of eucary cells resemble antenna and might triple for a computational devise. The only problem I have with the translation is the statement that, "the brain is only the executing organ". I don't see any necessity for an 'either or' condition. The central nervous system may prove not to be entirely a 'stand alone' entity, but neither I would think it is entirely 'outer directed'. aguy2

swansont et al: I found a website this afternoon that might be of interest. A model I have in mind would balance the 'picard horn' shape with an anti-matter funnel. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4879 aguy2

swansont: Thank you and martin for the sites on oscillating, 'bounce' models. I could not help but notice that the researcher still insists on an 'isometric' exspansion. As I understand it this could be due to the lack of a mathematical 'toolkit' to support anything but an isometric exspansion. A team at the U. of Penn. is supposed to be working on a toolkit that could support non-isometric exspansion. I would be willing to bet 'a dollar to a donut' that eventually we will be seeing models that postulate an 'inflationary epoch' in the form of matter and anti-matter 'jets' erupting from a pre-inflationary BB event that had a high degree of angular momentum. aguy2

If by 'trap' you mean to say that I have an agenda, well I guess you right. I am trying to establish that collectively none of us are much of an authority on the matter of 'time'. I am contending that we may have collectively made a basic mistake in thinking that the BB event marked the beginning of an accumulation of 'time'. Couldn't it be possible that like mass/energy, the sum of time/space might be a constant? Could we we say with a degree of accuracy that, "at the initiation of the BB event our universe had as little 'space' as it ever is going to have and as much 'time' as it will ever have"? aguy2

Does anyone agree or disagree with my contention that in regards to the passage of time all modern theoretical physics tells us is that it is dependent upon 'local' conditions? aguy2

When you say 'achieved' immortality, you seem to be making the implication that a state of 'relative immortality' would have evolved from the 'normal' state of 'internally programed absolute mortality'. What I have been trying to point out is that the evolutionary 'arrow' should have been from a state of 'relative immortality' to the presently universal state of 'internally programed absolute mortality'. Mortality should have evolved from immortality, but the record seems to indicate that multicelled organisms displayed the characteristics of absolute mortality from the 'get go'. aguy2

If the 'causal singularity' displayed a high degree of angular momentum, like most other singularities we've been detecting, the 'inflationary epoch' might have taken the form of two high speed 'jets'. One of these 'jets' or 'conic projections' being what we call the 'observable universe'. Apparently one of the reasons cosmologists had been insisting that the universe must be a 'isometric' expansion (the inflating balloon scenario) is that their mathematical 'toolkit' couldn't deal with anything else. Apparently mathematicians at Penn State are in the process of developing new tools to deal with non-isometric models. You could look at the model I proposed in the thread, "Is the Universe Collapsing". "ABOUT Physics" picked up and published a cruder version of this proposed model, so I would presume that it is not considered to be completely 'cranky'. aguy2

I usually refer to 'gravity' as 'gravitational effects'. (1) the issues between the 'relativistic' and the 'QM' veiws are unresolved, with the consequence being that we don't know yet what 'gravity' is, we only know what it seems to do. (2) I have an unsupported hunch that it may prove to be more than one phenomenon. Using a strictly semantic definition, one might be able to say that, "Gravitational effects are those 'effects' that seem to attract or draw inanimate (dead) objects together." Seeing as the major components of reality (time/space and matter/energy) are grouped together in pairs that seem to be two different 'expressions' of the same thing, if gravitational effects also had a partner that was a major component of reality, might not this be 'organizing effects' like those 'effects' associated with 'living' things? Semanticly 'gravity' is a 'serious' subject. It is that which is dragging me to my grave, you to yours, and quite possibly the universe to its, but seeing as that what distinguishes us from inanimate things may be its 'paired opposite' it would probably behove us 'not to let the gravity of the situation get us down' or to take this problematic conjecture to seriously. aguy2

If you are interested in the possible 'fractal' nature of the universe, here is a neat site: http://www.amherst.edu/~rlolder/menu.html I can't guaranty his mathematical extrapolations but the visuals are 'slick'. I have no idea how my 'signitature' popped up on your post. aguy2

A cruder version of the postulate I used to start this thread has been published by "ABOUT Physics". aguy2

Here are some neat time lapse Hubble videos of stars involved in the birthing process. The HH30 video is very visually similar to how I have postulated the early universe appeared in the ast./cos. forum's thread "Is the Universe Collapsing?". http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2000/32/video/ aguy2

I would tend to see this process of creating and spreading more complex atomic structures, coupled with the 'observational' evidence that the 'shock waves' propagated by many 'stellar deaths' directly leads to initiating the 'birth' processes of new stars, as indication that my 'signature' hypothesis that the universe is involved in a "staged" process of development might be descriptive of the actual situation we find our selves in. aguy2