joigus

Good one! +1. True of all politicians. Only difference is who is more likely to get screwed.

Thanks, Sensei. Very interesting comments. +1. Yes, debris from supernova explosions that get ejected out of SN attraction "sphere". That makes a lot of sense. So do you suggest tracking BH as candidates for previously existing SN that gave rise to our solar system is (or could be) accomplished by some kind of signature method? If that's not what you're suggesting, can you think of ways that it could be done or is being done? Give you an example: Accretion disks of BH's having same isotopic signature than ours, therefore likely that we emerged from that particular BH? Also kinematics of "us" with respect with particular BH signaling more likely that we running away from them. Although if we came out with just escape velocity we would be considerably slowed down by now, so difficult to detect. Now that you mention Betelgeuse. I remember some 6 years ago going out late in the night to watch Orion in the small village where is was living. In the Summer in Spain it only comes out really very late (about 5AM). Once the police (the rural police is the "Guardia Civil") stopped me and asked me for ID. They asked what I was doing. I told them the truth: I was looking at the stars. But I didn't tell them that I was waiting for a supernova to go off, which is what I secretly was hoping for. They looked at me funny. But there were no more questions. 😌 PD: I have to read your wiki entry yet.

+1. This is a very interesting re-focusing of the question. Maybe the OP is interested in it? I don't think it can be done with our solar system because AFAIK remains of supernova explosions are seen as halos of dust (e.g., Crab Nebula). I surmise that our Solar System is much older than the Crab Nebula...

Totally concur with @Janus & @Endy0816. I'd like to know who said that too, @Strange. (+1)3 Let me offer you a complementary picture of why everything running away from one point doesn't work. If everything in the universe were running away from one point, we would look at the night sky and see something very special at that point. That would be the point we're running away from. Instead, what we see is a series of spherical layers older and older in every direction the farther away from us we look. Until we hit the very feeble, very dilute image of a primeval plasma state of the universe (this is called the surface of last scattering). A picture of the universe when it was opaque to radiation, because all the particles were ionized (plasma) so it didn't let radiation through. That's a picture of a pretty early universe. And it appears more or less the same in every direction. So, where is the original point? I hope that helps.

I think something that may help most people reading this post is to provide simple examples of what you mean just after you've introduced some of your definitions. Great philosophers (especially philosophers of science, like, e.g., Bertrand Russell) always set up explanatory examples after an abstract notion was introduced. Examples are like the "laboratory" of philosophy. Help your potential readers know that you mean business. On the whole, I don't think for a second that getting an idea of what a TOE will look like will be helped along by philosophical thinking alone. I'm pessimistic if you want.

Yes, but some are detrimental for the individual, while leaving the reproductive success of the species alone (those are the parasites that thrive); and others aren't. It is entirely possible. I just hope you're wrong, although it seems to be a well-informed guess. 😬

There are things the Bible doesn't say and almost everybody believes it does. There was no apple. It could have been a quince, or maybe a fig, as there were no apples back then in the Middle East. The Bible doesn't say it was an apple, actually. The Bible doesn't say Jonah was eaten by a whale either. The Bible doesn't say there was an angel at the Garden of Eden, but a cherub, which was a mythical animal represented very frequently in the gardens of palaces throughout the Middle East. The Hebrew Bible doesn't say that Mary was a virgin, but a "young woman." ------------------------------------------------ There are things the Bible says and few people know it does. The Bible talks about a pantheon of gods that are subservient to Yahweh. And names God both as Yahweh and El. Is it the same god? I'm not sure. Asherah, the wife of Yahweh, is also mentioned, but the interpretation was presumably changed, as it's mentioned as a synonym for "a stick" in very obscure passages, when she is known to have been a goddess, as archaeology has shown. The stick was one of the symbols of the goddess. Back to Adam and Eve: There's at least one thing the Bible says twice in different (incompatible) ways: Ezechiel 28. Two prophecies, one of them against the king of Tyre. There you can see that the king of Tyre is expelled from the Garden of Eden, on account of his sins. The cherub also appears. Very similar legend; two different narrative uses. Who was expelled from the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve or the king of Tyre? I'm not so sure. The authors of the Bible seem not to be either. Some scholars believe the Oracles against the king in Ezechiel 28 predate the Adam and Eve story in Genesis. ------------------------------------------------ There are things the Bible says that are taken from somewhere else: The Bible takes the story of Noah from The Epic of Gilgamesh, Utnapishtim , and adapts it to its own narrative needs. ------------------------------------------------ There are blatantly obvious things the Bible is silent about: Omri, big king of Samaria, was a very relevant character of the Assyrian domination period, but the Bible only mentions him in passing, as a baddie. The Bible also plays down the role of many other kings, like Manasseh, although he made Israel into an important olive oil factory and brought a period of peace, contrary to what Hezekiah, his father, did. ------------------------------------------------ And lastly, there are many things the Bible says that cannot be true. Josuah didn't conquer Jericho, as Kathleen Kenyon has proved. Jericho was uninhabited at the time. Plus the Egyptians were in control of Canaan and had the country strongly policed from Beit She'an. I don't believe God gave the law of gravity a suspension for some hours for the benefit of his people to the detriment of the Canaanites either. Plus the Canaanites and the Israelites were the same people: No difference in material culture or belief system, as Israel Finkelstein has shown. Abraham could not have possibly used camels. Camels were domesticated about 1000 years later.

Ok. It seems we disagree about this, even if only mildly. The arguments I've heard or read that have convinced me that some rituals and religious practices may have played a positive part in the remote past are those that contend that some kind of centralized authority, plus a set of rules to decide what to do could have been an efficient way for a group of people in which disagreement can easily emerge, to take a decision and stick to it. But things that stay with us don't have to be good. Parasitic entities have their own evolutionary "agenda." They grow and prosper among us. The only mistake they must avoid making is being so damaging to their host that they manage to extinguish it. Examples of it from biology are the common cold or the measles. Examples from the world of memes are faith-based religions and the Flat Earth Society.

If you allow me a to maintain my analogy a little longer; if the tumor is not malignant, it may just result in giving you an awesome tattoo that distinguishes you from the boring un-tattooed atheists. You are not enslaved and you keep your cool religious gear. What's not to like? I don't see mindfulness or the like as a variation; rather, as a much healthier substitute. But that's just how I view it.

I think religion is very much like a skin tumor. It's there for a reason different entirely from what humans need or wish. You get it or not more or less likely depending on your exposure to "the light" as much as on how strong your defense system is, and it can become just a quirk or turn into melanoma. But, as any other self-maintaining, replicating process in Nature, it couldn't care less about what you really want or need. It grows because it can. If you're lucky enough to weed it out, you can concentrate on the much more interesting problem of where it comes from and why it sticks in so many minds (some of them, curiously enough, anything but stupid,) or why it took the form it did in the particular part of the world where you were raised. Why the Bible took the form it did, I think can be understood largely in terms of history and archaeology.

Wrong forum, perhaps? 🤣

Very good summary. And very good point. +1

Maybe an interesting book (I haven't read but I've heard about) in that regard could be Misquoting Jesus. When you take a religion to a different geographical region there are bound to be changes. That's what happened to Christianism: Sabbath --> Sunday (Apollo's cult by Constantine required that change;) drop circumcision and kosher, etc. I'm sure the Zoroastrians who wrote the Vedas were forced to similar changes when they passed from places like Kazakhstan to northern India.

Interesting. +1 Does Yanchilin's theory predict deviations from GR?

There seems to be an insurmountable time gap with either John the Baptist or Jesus as possibilities. Lawrence Shiffman has argued very eloquently against that hypothesis IMO. His arguments rest on archaic Hebrew calligraphy, rather than 14C. He's convinced me, anyway, that it couldn't possibly have been anybody during the Roman invasion, but someone pre-dating that, during a Greek invasion scenario. Which makes it even more interesting along the lines that you're suggesting, because it would mean that religious leaders of small flocks fleeing Jerusalem's central authority and establishing a new brand of Judaism in the desert already was a relatively common phenomenon 100 years before. As you said: Leaders for time of hardship. This line of inquiry resonates with me, at least, because I think it's far more important to understand the appearance of religions based on the culture and the historical background than actually give a name or a biography, or finding the missing piece of the cross.

Agree. Spot-on observation too. +1. As the Dead Sea Scrools seem to reveal Christ-like figures were already starting to appear (the Teacher of Righteousness) near the Dead Sea already 100 years before Christianity. Those were definitely times of distress for the Jews too.

It has been pointed out by Daniel Dennett that oral traditions become relatively reliable in preserving the fidelity of the message once the priestly class becomes numerous enough, society is more stable, and the chants and recitations acquire a form similar to what multiplexing is in Von Neumann's architecture of modern computers. The Brahmins playing the role of the neuron or the integrated circuit element. The Vedas have been recited for millennia by many generations of Brahmin after the Arians settled in northern India and Pakistan. IMO this multiplexing, helped by social stability, must contribute to the stability of the message too --whatever the initial amount of nonsense or altered-sense "bits" is in the initial message. But neither form is immune to the possibility of further additions, re-editings, and the like. Interesting case in point, what @Eise mentions: The Bible. It is well known today that the virgin birth of Jesus from Mary is a translation mistake from Hebrew to Greek that got stuck on the Septuagint. After that, the mis-translation was propagated with a high degree of fidelity. (Remember: multi-plexing and relatively high social stability for the priestly class.) But mis-translation it was. "Almah," the word for "young woman" was translated as "parthenos" (Greek for "virgin"), while the Hebrew "betulah" (the real word for "virgin") appears nowhere in the original, as corroborated against the Dead Sea Scrolls by numerous scholars. But the origins of the Vedas are shrouded in mystery. We do know that this kind of culture came from a people in distress, coming from the Andronovo region and in migration, because the course of their main rivers had changed (the Greek-Russian archaeologist Viktor Sarianidi has made extensive excavations of the area.) That is the time when the oldest Vedas could have been more susceptible to change IMO. Following the Vedas we learn that they fought battles against the peoples already living in northern India and Pakistan. Did they lose some of their first documents and decide to re-write them in their minds or in texts? We don't know, or I don't know if we know.

If not word by word, this is exactly what I was going to say argument by argument, but in the last moment refrained from doing so. You got epsilon naught and mu naught completely wrong. They don't mean anything in and of themselves. One or the other can be re-absorbed in the system of electric units. The only thing that really has an invariant meaning is their product, \[\epsilon_{0}\mu_{0}=c^{-2}\] You really must go back to basics and learn EM. Pun unintended, but comes in handy.

Actually, \[\alpha\overset{{\scriptstyle \textrm{def}}}{=}\frac{e^{2}}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}\hbar c}\] is a definition, not an equation. Definitions are not equations. Before there was an h bar there was no alpha, and electric charge could not be expressed as a dimensionless number. In the CGS Lorentz-Heaviside system of electric units this is obvious, and it had the dimensions of M1/2L3/2T-1. You might as well "determine" pi from "your equation." You're going in circles. A minimum baggage of history of physics is necessary in order not to say nonsense. There's much more nonsense in what you say, but time is limited.

Yanchilin, Yanshmilin. Haven't we been over this before? c2 or phi. You need more variables!!!

Thank you. Well, I was just pointing out some mistyping. With a new theory, it's never just "a look." That's one problem. You must monitor the time you spend on ideas, own or from others. The premises alone tell me it's not gonna be worth my time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_(programming_language) There may be newer/better more mandatory things. It's been a while for me. From Strange's reply I guess my answer is pretty outdated.

Google search: Did you mean: "V. Yanchi In" "quantum theory of gravity" No results containing all your search terms were found. Your search - "V. Yanchinin" "quantum theory of gravity" - did not match any documents. Suggestions: Make sure that all words are spelled correctly. Try different keywords. Try more general keywords. Try fewer keywords.

My guess would be cerebrorum malleus.

Yes, that's true. It's a theorem. You can't argue with a theorem.