BLACK KNIGHT: All right; we'll call it a draw.
ARTHUR: Come, Patsy.
BLACK KNIGHT: Oh, oh, I see, running away then. You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!
Posted on 12/30/2009 1:32:39 PM PST by Colofornian
You need to read up on the history elsie.
Is that stating that " 'life' is part of the Einstein theory of realtivity."? Nope.
#199 - "Hmm, I gave you . . . and Einstein's equations. . . . You may want to start with Feyman's chapter on the Special Theory of Relativity.
I notice that you conveniently skipped Schrodingers equation reference, with the ... : ) And did you read Feynmans chapter on Relativity? My guess is you didn't. You should.
#204 - "What part of life is matter and energy don't you get?
The question still stands and makes no reference to Einstein either.
Son, you can easily go back, just as I did and see that my question was specifically asking for scientific references supporting your incorporation of 'life' into Einstein's theory. You are computer saavy enough.
Boy, you can easily go back and see that I was making the point that everything is a wave function. Cherry picking and leaving parts of quotes out doesn't help your case.
Just point out the differences at the wave function level between Life and/or Energy and/or matter and/or carbon chains and/or photons, etc. and I will be happy to give you references proving you wrong : ) Absolutely everything is a wave function.
BLACK KNIGHT: All right; we'll call it a draw.
ARTHUR: Come, Patsy.
BLACK KNIGHT: Oh, oh, I see, running away then. You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!
Is that stating that " 'life' is part of the Einstein theory of realtivity."? Nope.
Your reply clearly stated "light, life and matter are one and the same" which was "confirmed by Einstein" - Strike one
And did you read Feynmans chapter on Relativity
Feynmans' chapter was titled "Special Theory of Relativity", created by - Einstein. Strike two
The question still stands and makes no reference to Einstein either.
Have you forgot what the term "context" means, Foul tip
Oh, I see you conviently left off this one
#225 - (GZ)"I have only asked one question, not 20, and that is to point me to the scientific journals/articles/books that specifically link “life” to Einstein’s relativity equation."
(LG) "And I replied by asking you what is different in 'life' to make Einsteins equation not applicable to it? "
Probably the most damning one of all which totally sinks your claim, now found to be not only baseless, but intellectually dishonestly defended too. Strike 3.
Boy, you can easily go back and see that I was making the point that everything is a wave function. Cherry picking and leaving parts of quotes out doesn't help your case.
Oh, incase you forgot your challenge was your claim of life being a component in Eistein's relativity equations - Please leave the field with what little honor you can still muster.
Just point out the differences at the wave function level between Life and/or Energy and/or matter and/or carbon chains and/or photons, etc. and I will be happy to give you references proving you wrong : )
Still waiting for the references to show that life is a component of Einstein's laws of relativity and special relativity.
Absolutely everything is a wave function.
Brush up on your wave functions skippy - not applicable to anything larger than the smallest bacteria. You are dismissed for the day.
You’re just having fun now aren’t you...
Again.
Here
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/may/01-the-biocentric-universe-life-creates-time-space-cosmos
Enjoy
Great fodder for ID (are you a closet ID?), loaded with maybe’s, could, unproven theories, speculation, intuition. Light on hard facts you claim to exist, but that is par for your course. But regarding my specific, other than smoke and mirrors still doesn’t answer the specific question posted.
Okay :) Try this “The Road to Reality, by Roger Penrose”
Okay :) Try this “The Road to Reality, by Roger Penrose”
You are like Pee Wee Herman saying "I know you are but what am I"
If I was you boxing coach I would be throwing in the towel, Zilla is just using you as a punching bag now.
It isn't even funny any more.
Ok, its still a little funny...
Try not to bleed too much. 
Even more remarkable is that, though he makes no religious claims, he essentially endorses ID in another book of his-
"There is a certain sense in which I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance. Some people take the view that the universe is simply there and it runs along–it's a bit as though it just sort of computes, and we happen by accident to find ourselves in this thing. I don't think that's a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it, about its existence, which we have very little inkling of at the moment." (A Brief History of Time)
I guess that may answer another question - your inner ID is coming out. Celebrate it!
That was discredited. The wave function collapse is too fast.
I guess that may answer another question - your inner ID is coming out. Celebrate it!
Where do you get ID from the wave function collapse?
Ah, so your proponent on one hand is readily discredited on the other LOL, pragmatic aren't you. Wave function collapse - your god of life collapsed? But then the laws of physics STILL cannot explain the phenomemon of consciousness. So if your mathamatical/physics hero fails . . . . . .
Where do you get ID from the wave function collapse?
has nothing do with wave function collapse - if you bothered to read my post.
"There is a certain sense in which I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance. Some people take the view that the universe is simply there and it runs along–it's a bit as though it just sort of computes, and we happen by accident to find ourselves in this thing. I don't think that's a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it, about its existence, which we have very little inkling of at the moment." (A Brief History of Time)
Perhaps your reading comprehension is to blame for your confusion.
Continued in The Emperor's New Mind, Penrose calculated the probability. Including what he considered to be all variables required for human beings to exist and live on a planet such as ours, he computed the probability of our environment occurring among all the possible results of the Big Bang. He came up with number that has 1 followed by 10^123 zeros. He stated:
"This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10^123 successive 0's. Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. " (The Emperor's New Mind)
Its OK to express your inner ID here LG - you are among friends.
His early attempt was. That is why I guided you to a later attempt.
Wave function collapse - your god of life collapsed? But then the laws of physics STILL cannot explain the phenomemon of consciousness. So if your mathamatical/physics hero fails . . . . . .
I am not attempting to explain consciousness or life. That is your job. I am just answering your question to provide sources that equate life, matter and energy.
"It's not there just somehow by chance."
QM is both probabilistic and deterministic. Obviously you don't understand it very well.
Continued in The Emperor's New Mind,
I didn't source the Emporors New Mind. You did.
It is now up to you to differentiate between Life and Matter/energy.
He never liked to run up the score on an already whooped opponent...
Of course the opponent also was not usually some lunatic who won't admit being whooped and worse kept diggin their hole deeper and deeper...
Yet you cannot cite page number from that work that incorporates "life" as a variable within Einstein's equation.
"It's not there just somehow by chance."
QM is both probabilistic and deterministic. Obviously you don't understand it very well.
That reading comprehension thing again huh? The quote above is NOT mine, but that of Penrose. It is safe to assume that HIS understanding of QM exceeds your own - and since HE made that statement, he has solid reason for that statement.
It is now up to you to differentiate between Life and Matter/energy.
You still haven't provided adequate references to support your assertion yet. And you still haven't apologized for your earlier lying. So your credability on this issue is strained to say the least.
BTW, Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene fails to define life - even in your terms. Probably can chalk that up to not getting the memo eh?
I didn't source the Emporors New Mind. You did.
Yes I did, to allow lurkers to view other aspects of Penrose' works beside the distorted view of yours.
Now, please clean up your mess as you leave. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.