What are your basic fundamentals of belief

I fondly recall a science fiction novel where the great interplanetary ships started out in the lab as pufferfish. For the military version they kept the spines. :grimacing:

On my last desktop 'puter I had a screen saver of Vorlon ships zipping across the screen.

1 Like

I think you know what I mean. We can analyse all the components of a cell but making it live is another matter. Science can only breed from a living cell. It cannot create a living cell from scratch.

That one has escaped me. I also thought of “Tin Man” in TNG.

Richard

1 Like

Thinking a bit further, I do think it is entirely possible for scientists to build life from scratch. I don’t see any technical barriers that would prevent it.

As an example, scientists have made an entirely synthetic genome and in the process an entirely synthetic species.

In this case, they made a synthetic bacterial chromosome and injected it into a bacteria that had its own chromosome removed. So this was a case of putting a new genome into an already existing cell that had all of the necessary RNA and protein ready to go. However, all the things that cells are made of can be synthesized. The only thing preventing this is the sheer mountain of work it would require. It’s much easier to do what those scientists did, just synthesize the genome.

1 Like

If I hadn’t put my library into storage I could go up the stairs turn left, stop at the second bookshelf on the right, and find it on the second or third shelf down – which would help if my book boxes hadn’t gotten out of order when moving.
I think of all the trouble I could have saved myself if I’d known I was coming back to help take care of my dad and mom!

oh yes agreed he certainly was. good point.

Actually, the bible provides two lineages for Christ…both of them go back through the same tribe (because Joseph and Mary were actually from the same tribe…and lineage). This is why most Adventists dispute the claim that the two New Testament genealogies conflict…they do not in fact. We keep forgetting that whilst it wasn’t set in concrete, it was Jewish custom to marry within one’s own extended family (therefore often the same tribe). Christ’s lineage in both genealogies goes back through the lineage of the tribe of Judah…that’s the point.

(Joseph was from Judah, Marys father was Judah and her mother was probably tribe of Levi)

A side issue, but may be of interest to some…

the reason why Jesus did not come from the priesthood of Aaron was because Aaron was not a king. Melchizzadek was both a king and a priest. The earthly Sanctuary and the earthly priesthood is but a shadow of the heavenly. I find it interesting that the early church aimed to set itself up as a monarchy type ruler…clearly not what the bible ever intended for priests. I see what the earthly catholic church attempting to go against the very restriction by God in Genesis in that Eve was fooled into thinking she would become like God if she disobeyed and ate the forbidden fruit.

i haven’t time to explain this well, but i hope you guys get the gist of this…I think this is what the prophecy about the corruption of the church and the persecution of the saints in the book of Revelation relates to. The corrupt church attempts to take on the kingly priesthood of the order of Melchizzadek…Catholic priest becomes mediator between us and God…that is a role only Christ has the authority to fulfill. I find it very interesting that they also pray through the virgin mary…to my way of thinking this is because they are claiming a birth right to mediate directly to God rather than through Christ.

No we can’t. Life isn’t and never was ‘made to live’. Nothing creates a cell from scratch. Even God has required all the time we’ve had to come up with life as we know it. I think bringing order to chaos is all He has ever taken credit for , and for that we have to go back to when revelation was more than elaborating the full implication of the core document.

If you had said the far extremes of the universe I would have agreed with a response of “Correct!” With the way the universe is expanding that is a solid conclusion.

But to the far extreme of our galaxy? That is not inconceivable. To be sure, I would agree it is not likely. Many wonder if we will survive our own self-destructive behavior anywhere near long enough for far easier goals. But it is possible, even without the FTL fantasy some like to entertain.

Not until the Bishop of Rome got ambitious. From what we know the elders of each congregation functioned as a board operating on consensus, with one as moderator more than anything. Bishops didn’t start to take on monarchial aspects until churches grew enough to need actual administration, which actually happened well before persecution ended. But right from the start elders were ordained and performed unique functions including celebration of the Eucharist – though that was definitely not understood as later generations did, as though the elder/priest had any special power; the understanding was that he was there so Jesus’ words could be spoken again and His actions done again in accordance with “Do this”.
[My one big issue withe the Orthodox is that they have turned their buildings into mimics of the Jerusalem Temple, putting the altar in a “holy of holies” that only priests are supposed to enter – that is not at all what was going on when Jesus said, “Do this”!]

1 Like

I saw a new take on FTL: researchers were positive they had discovered evidence for parallel universes when gravity waves were detected coming “from nowhere”, i.e. radiating out from a point in space in this universe where there was nothing that could be detected (a prediction of one multiverse theory). After a huge program to investigate this they were both disappointed and excited about what they actually found: not a parallel universe but a parallel ‘space’ that was a part of this universe “like a rind on a melon – in five dimensions”. The excitement was because they’d figured out how to send something into that space and found it wasn’t like a rind on a melon at all because a rind wraps around the outside while this space seemed to “wrap around” the inside: it was connected to our space but all the dimensions were smaller, with a ratio of 1/ ((π^π)^π), making the distance in that universe to match a light year in this universe one part in 80,662.666 – so a light year could be travelled in under ten days!
I think this was a way of poking fun at scientists who think that sort of multiverse exists by saying even if we see the sort of gravity event that’s been predicted it doesn’t show a multiverse. :smiley:

1 Like

Sounds like great science fiction. I like science fiction.

But the simple fact is that FTL is incompatible with the known structure of space-time, basic special relativity. So as popular as this may be for grabbing people’s attention to get them to pay attention to science. It just doesn’t have any basis in reality.

Putting FTL on same footing as fantasies about parallel universes is justified, because it is amounts to that great of a change in reality.

Just saying this shows how little you understand. We can travel a distance of one light year in only one second. It take a huge amount of energy of course. Travel time isn’t the problem. The problem is how space-time causality is structured. FTL violates causality, reversing the order of cause and effect the same as time travel, with all the same logical inconsistencies. Thus traveling a light year in one second doesn’t change how time passes for everyone watching you. FTL would have you going backwards in time for some of those watching you.

Writing that shows you missed the point.

Only if you’re doing it in this universe – that’s not what the story was talking about.

Except no one could be watching.

It doesn’t matter if you are using it to travel between points in this universe. Whether you use another universe travel into the past or not, it is still time travel. Are you are talking about moving to another universe which doesn’t have such a space time structure precluding FTL and staying there instead? It didn’t seem so to me.

So you leave this universe and never come back? If you come back then yes they can be watching you leave one point in space and arrive in another point of space and then according to some watchers you would arrive at the destination before you left. Then they could use same travel method to stop you from leaving creating a time paradox.

The point is that the picture of the universe as a series of instantaneous snapshots is wrong. Simultaneity is relative and there is no universal rest frame to make one version of simultaneity the correct one.

1 Like

Just curios.

Are you saying that the speed of light is the ultimate speed possible? Why? What is there in time that precludes motion? Or is it the ability to perceive it? If something is FTL does that make it basically invisible while in motion? Surely the only reason something would look like it had appeared before it disappeared is because of the speed of light (vison) not the speed of the actual object? What constant or barrier limits motion?

perhaps I am missing something.

Richard

There is nothing stopping you from spending as much energy as you want to go faster and thus getting to your destination as fast as you would like. But the way space-time is structured, locally Minkowsky, means that other people will never see you going faster than the speed of light. Any faster then other people will see you getting to your destination before you left. That is just the way space and time are put together.

The issue is the relativity of simultaneity. There is no such thing as a single point in time happening at distant locations at the same time as something happening here. The idea of the universe being a series of instantaneous moments strung together is wrong – that is not how space and time are put together. It is a good approximation for something as small as the earth. But even something as far as the other planets this doesn’t work any more.

Nothing.
Nothing.

Thinking of the speed of light as a barrier is wrong.

Yes, but that also means there is a minimum amount of time passing for those left behind perceiving something different.

It is logically equivalent to traveling backwards in time.

The question of FTL is not about the traveler. We can already get to any where we would like as fast as we want. FTL is about the time passing for everyone else. And the point is that this reversal of time doesn’t happen because FTL is impossible.

Yes. Special relativity is difficult for non-physicists to understand.

4 Likes

Objects gain mass as they are accelerated. As you approach the speed of light that mass inches closer to being infinite, and reaches infinity at the speed of light. Obviously, you can’t accelerate something that heavy.

Time also slows relative to other frames of reference until it comes to a standstill at the speed of light. So you would be infinitely heavy and time would stop.

Some people think they can be clever and get around this barrier by bending spacetime itself. Theoretically, it could work. However, faster than light travel or communication creates problems for causality where cause always precedes effect. Faster than light travel is time travel in that it can produce time paradoxes. It would actually allow you to see an effect before the cause. Because of this, many physicists (e.g. Hawking) think that nature won’t allow causality to be broken, so some for of radiation will also be produced by bending spacetime which would destroy any information that was contained in the bent volume of spacetime.

To learn more about why FTL is time travel you can try out this resource (as a warning, it is a bit complex):

5 Likes

The problem with that explanation is that the traveler measures no such increase in mass and experiences no such difficulty in accelerating. This idea of increased mass is only a matter of adding an objects kinetic energy to their mass. It is helpful for some calculations but not much for understanding relativity.

(in the following c = velocity of light in a vacuum)
So mass energy is mass times c squared.
Kinetic energy is (gamma - 1) times mass times c squared.
mass energy plus kinetic energy is gamma times mass times c squared.
So someone had this idea of calling (gamma times mass) the relativistic mass… ok… but you are including the kinetic energy in the mass. So it is not what you usually mean by mass.

gamma, usually called the Lorentz contraction factor, is 1/sqrt(1- (velocity/c) squared). You can think of it as “warp speed,” since gamma=2 means you warp space making the distance to your destination half what it was (gamma = 2 is about 87% of the speed of light).

(skip-if-you-don’t-like-math font)

Same problem. Again the traveler experiences nothing different and the differences in clocks is really an apparent thing due to the relativity of simultaneity. It is because clocks synchronized in one inertial frame are not synchronized in another inertial frame. So when you measure this difference in “time passage” it is because you are reading the time off the clock close to you, in the other inertial frame, as you pass it. Though by apparent, I don’t mean the twin who travels isn’t younger than the one who stayed behind, when the traveler returns. I really just mean some caution is required in talking about time slowing down or speeding up. It’s all relative.

THUMBS UP on the rest of your post!

2 Likes

BTW, this is in contrast to quantum physics, which hard for the physicists to understand – perhaps even harder for them than for the non-physicist.

I will never forget a moment in a university quantum class, when the smartest student stood up and said, “that is impossible!”

2 Likes

In a physics course I took a student put up his hand for a question:

“Do you know where I can get a new brain? I think you just broke mine.”

The professor was (as usual) awesome: “Don’t worry, it’s only in shock; it will get better.”

1 Like

Non-physicists don’t try to understand quantum mechanics. They just see that it is weird and take that as a free pass to make stuff up.

1 Like