[harmonygirl]

so photons demonstrate choice in terms of direction? Interesting. Pagan 3142, we don't know how black holes operate, so they could indeed be a link to another universe or other entity or direct fax line to God, who knows? I have been thinking about the idea that the universe is one giant soul, with existence as bits of the same soul. If that's the case, I have no idea what black holes would be. I agree that the universe may not work the way we think it should, because we are limited in our understanding. I don't think the question is can a fish understand english, I think it's can we understand a fish? I think we can know the grand design, as we are part of it, but the knowlege won't be left-brain, it will be wholistic and involve right brain as well (which is why my TOE is harmonic).
Michael, maybe the signal or messages do get through, but we haven't been able to detect them. Theoretically, they could change form but we just haven't reached the place where we are sophisticated enough to understand the change. Hmmm...kind of like death....

[apuasua]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick What would enable a photon to change course, a go into a reversal of time mode?any ideas.

Anti-photon? I am not sure about this, and also i dont know enough but i know that there are some conducting studies in CERN.

regards...

[pagan3142]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl so photons demonstrate choice in terms of direction? Interesting. Pagan 3142, we don't know how black holes operate, so they could indeed be a link to another universe or other entity or direct fax line to God, who knows? I have been thinking about the idea that the universe is one giant soul, with existence as bits of the same soul. If that's the case, I have no idea what black holes would be. I agree that the universe may not work the way we think it should, because we are limited in our understanding. I don't think the question is can a fish understand english, I think it's can we understand a fish? I think we can know the grand design, as we are part of it, but the knowlege won't be left-brain, it will be wholistic and involve right brain as well (which is why my TOE is harmonic). Michael, maybe the signal or messages do get through, but we haven't been able to detect them. Theoretically, they could change form but we just haven't reached the place where we are sophisticated enough to understand the change. Hmmm...kind of like death....

Holistic approach ?? see your view is narrowed already.you seem to approach this subject with precocieved ideas which i am trying to show you may not apply. you seem like a nice girl but thinking past these precocieved ideas will propably never lead you to the unltimate truth. whatever that may be, yours Steve

[harmonygirl]

Pagan 3142, explain how the wholistic approach (one of ultimate inclusiveness) is "narrow"? What makes you think I haven't found the ultimate truth?

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl Antonio, I thought that black holes could be inferred from the behaviour of light and other particles near and in it. The fact that the photon doesn't move but the universe does is interesting. I have been thinking about time and how motion may be necessary for it and wondering if motion is an illusion. Motion is only evident by our frame of reference. What if the photon example can be extrapolated?

I am inclined to agree,motion could very well be an elaborate illusion
and we are tricked by our senses thatit seems to exist!


kind regards michael.

[pagan3142]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl Pagan 3142, explain how the wholistic approach (one of ultimate inclusiveness) is "narrow"? What makes you think I haven't found the ultimate truth?

Dont get me wrong you may have, But if you are still searching and still asking, Perhaps this apprroach may work in conjunction wth others.
If the Universe is expanding then how come a photon still has the same mass (or any object) for that matter ?
and you know we can only relate to a fish not talk to it, yours with grace Steve

[harmonygirl]

Steve,
I agree "talking" is not entirely accurate, perhaps understanding fish consciousness would be better (albeit wordier!). I don't think that when you find the 'ultimate truth' that you stop asking questions. I think it just gives u a frame of reference. The photon has the same mass because of our frame of reference. Do you feel the earth spinning? I don't usually feel this because my frame of reference is immediate and not cosmic (although I am working to change that!). The wholistic way is inclusive of all, and that is why it is the way I chose.
Stay Glorious.

[michellemfry]

Originally Posted by pagan3142 If the Universe is expanding then how come a photon still has the same mass (or any object) for that matter ?

Or is it how come a photon has the same lack of mass in the face of all expansion that has ever been? Wouldn't the pressure to become part of the larger emerging space cause the photon to acquire mass rather than maintain a lack of mass? Or is the lack of mass found somewhere else, like our mysterious dark matter missing mass problem? Seriously, perhaps all the missing mass is what the photon would have had in some other universe had that universe actualized.
Before you reply me to shreds, it's just a thought. A different way to look at an old standard. I just see a whole lot of mass with no particle associated with it and a whole lot of particles with no mass associated with it. Separated at birth perhaps?
Ok, I'm braced for it now. Thank you Pagan for bringing this to my attention. It would at least make for good fiction, I think.

[pagan3142]

Originally Posted by michellemfry Or is it how come a photon has the same lack of mass in the face of all expansion that has ever been? Wouldn't the pressure to become part of the larger emerging space cause the photon to acquire mass rather than maintain a lack of mass? Or is the lack of mass found somewhere else, like our mysterious dark matter missing mass problem? Seriously, perhaps all the missing mass is what the photon would have had in some other universe had that universe actualized. Before you reply me to shreds, it's just a thought. A different way to look at an old standard. I just see a whole lot of mass with no particle associated with it and a whole lot of particles with no mass associated with it. Separated at birth perhaps? Ok, I'm braced for it now. Thank you Pagan for bringing this to my attention. It would at least make for good fiction, I think.

there is no such thing as matter everything is in a wave form then ?

[David Maes]

Sorry about these thoughts (just interested...)... am just questioning something... every criticism is welcome (just thinking about something) (more in a philosophical way...) (haven't had much time to think about lately; some questions are just popping up... can't resist to question this)

Some earlier I did a post where I claimed "in a closed system the amount of entropy seems to increase (or remain the same)" and "in an open system the amount of entropy seems to decrease (or remain the same)".

But I guess a 100% closed system does not exist; and also a 100% open system does not exist.

But what is 'evolution'?

Cells seem to have combined by evolution to organisms which are still evolving.

How do they evolve?
It happens because there is some kind of 'anomaly' in an animal (or plant). Most of these 'anomalies' will even make dying the relevant animal faster...
But sometimes there are anomalies which are just happen to be an advantage for the animal... so it's more haven 'success' and more chance to reproduce its own genes... this we could call a favourable anomaly... I think like this, evolution happens in a long term...

So I guess this gives what we call 'evolution' an explication in which it can happen in a causal way (this is what scientists like...)

For example: first there are only aparts cells... some of them have (by the reproduction) anomalies... favourable anomalies maybe make it better that they combine themselves to 'organisms' (just like we would combine what we do in an organisation to get more efficiency (I guess sometimes '1+1 = 3')...
(creating wholes...)

In this way it could give time a direction, but then in the direction of evolution...
and it could even be just a normal causal chain.

You could say chemical reactions just happen and by evolution, some particular kind of chemical reactions keep on happening more and more frequently because the circumstances of the environnement make this happening...? Then these are finally leading to our (macroscopic) world and the reality we all perceive...

The question is... why does this happen?

Because it seems that species which stop evolving become extinct. Why?
I guess the following is the reason...

Imagen one species which does not evolve in time; and all the other species in the environnement of this one species do evolve...
Then the other ones will become stronger and stronger... and the one species which does not evolve will experience more and more difficulty to survive relative to the other ones of its environnement.

So eventually everything keeps on evolving and evolving...
(You can also experience this in trade and industry... keep on evolving, cause I guess when all the others evolve and you don't, then you might get into trouble...)

So I guess the law of evolution has as much as right to exist as the second law of thermodynamics (entropy increases in the direction of time....)


In general I would think that there are two kind of systems...

'Embedded' systems and 'not embedded' systems...

An 'embedded' system resists changes and will try to close itself from the environnement...
A 'non-embedded' system shall very easily adapt itself to its environnement; so I guess it'll be 'open'...

I don't know, but I guess systems often seem to be 'open' in the beginning and 'close' themselves after a time... maybe it's because of the changing (and evolving) environnement...

But I guess I might look at these matters a bit to much in 'black and white' (a bit exaggerated... (which is one of my characteristics...sorry)

I guess a 100% open system is probably not a system anymore;
and also I guess a 100% closed systems (which does not really exist anyway) will experience entropy and will vanish because of its evolving environnement...

So I guess the truth might be somewhere in between...

The disadvantage of a system being closed might be that it deteriorates and is probably is submitted to the second law of thermodynamics (increase of entropy); it doesn't receive new information!
The disadvantage of a system being open might be that it's too unprotected against its (evolving) environnement.
Think of catching cold... when a system is too open it might not only receive 'information' which it needs to survive, but also the information it 'doesn't need' like a virus or 'a cold' for example...

(thinking of organisms being consisted of very little nanoscopic parallel nano'computers' with many processes at the same time; kind of like 'democracies'...)

(we all know what's the disadvantage of connecting to the net and receiving something like a 'Trojan Horse' for example...)
(on the other hand by connecting to the 'net' our 'computer' has the ability to receive 'information'!)

So it is my thought that a system has to be more in some kind of equilibrium or balance to be able to survive; then I'm thinking about a balance between 'openness' and 'closeness'... ((seems a bit like the 'ying-yang'-philosophy...))

Some times one would think that everything is some kind of balance...


But then... imagen that everything I'm saying here would be true...
then what would be the part of what we call 'time' in all of this??

On the one hand we seem to have a logical direction of time in a 'closed' system (with a tendency to chaos...);
but on the other hand we seem to have a direction of time in which systems seem to evolve and seem to possess a tendency to more and more complexity??

Then we also have expansion of the universe...
You could interprete it as increase of entropy...
Or maybe you can also think it's evolution... (i.e. the creation of more and more timespace...)??

Is what we call 'the universe' open or closed?? Maybe it is just semi-open and semi-closed or interacting with other universes...?

Anyhow... the laws of time and space seem to stop at the border of the universe...
I guess 'the universe' won't exist for ever...
But... is there just one??

Could there be some kind of competition between universes ("getting the most timespace??") (Sorry this sounds a bit ridiculous even for myself...)

OK, that's it... any criticism is welcome and will be received with pleasure and interest...

((ye never know; maybe might bring someone closer here; you never know; (no matter if it's wrong...)))

Sorry for the 'intervention' (just interested in your reactions...)...

Greetings,
David.