No it doesn't. Spacetime itself expands faster than light, but spacetime isn't actually an object the way galaxies, planets, etc. are. Galaxies, etc. travel in spacetime, but spacetime doesn't travel in anything. — Agustino

Space-time are defined differently in SR and GR.

Really, it is off no use. I provided the link which clearly states the contradiction. That you disagree with the link's description underscores my point. Are we to begin yet another neverending discussion on the meanings of SR and GR. They already exist by the thousands on the Internet. Another one would be superfluous.

Natural selection is simply the name for differential reproduction survival rates among a range of differences amongst a population. — schopenhauer1

This is an observation after the fact. It is not causal onto itself.

Literally, in your example, the observation of a mind is made the cause.

As I said, the sleight of hand gets more and more egregious as the story grows more complex, but the essential aspect of the trick is to slowly develop agreement between the storyteller and the listener that chemicals have the properties of mind. This is how magic works. The audience is slowly drawn into the trick.

The same is true in GR — Agustino

If you look at the link, you will observe that GR is used in the explanation for galaxies accelerating faster than light, even though SR denies the possibility.

I really try to refrain from arguing Relativity because unlike QM which is simply the Schrodinger equation, Relativity it's a mass of conflicting ideas which truly no one agrees on. Every single answer is different.

I have researched this type of question on physics forums and elsewhere. It does no good to ask you. You just get lots if different answers depending upon how I've views SR and GR sand how and when they can be used. As in the article that I linked to, explanations frivolously bounce from SR to GR back to SR as if the two can be used interchangeably. They cannot. In fact, GR directly contradicts SR as stated in the Wiki link I provided.

The standard cop out is with a wink and a smile, someone will proclaim that only the people understand GR. I actually think that is three too many. It is an error to assume science had it all worked out and laypersons simply don't understand it. On the contrary, it it the laypersons who usually unearthed all of the contradictions with simpler, straightforward questions. Beyond this, as in other link I offered, there is now an experimentally testable theory that the speed of light is variable. Always new things.

At end, one can spin their wheels forever in Relatively, or just move on and not bother with it. I just feel that it is an unsolvable riddle and eventually be overturned. Bergson's critique made 1000 years ago was spot on.

this problem you pose of why the mitochondria survived the engulfment of the cell without being destroyed or destroying it is simply natural selection. — schopenhauer1

This is where the sleight of hand occurs. Somehow, somewhere, something called natural selection emerges. It is not the end of the sleight of hand, but it permits others down the road. One by one, human traits (e.g. selection) are buried somewhere in the explanation. Where is this natural selection coming from? From around the cell? From within the cell. It's somewhere, it is guiding, and it's persistent, and it's repetitive. Very much like the mind.

It is absolutely mandatory that traits of the human mind are introduced in where explanation. The reason is because it actually is the mind that is doing it.

As the story builds, the introduction of mind traits becomes more and more egregious as you are highlighting in your discussion, but it is acceptable because we have already established that chemicals can be viewed as little minds.

SR and GR are not different...

This seems to be very pseudo-scientific right here. SR is a special case of GR, which occurs mainly when we're dealing with flat, non-curved space. — Agustino

I'm not going to get too much into the confused mess of GR and SR, because no one can provide good answers. Only three people understand Relativity and none agree.

The wonderful world of Relativity.

https://www.space.com/33306-how-does-the-universe-expand-faster-than-light.html

"The notion of the absolute speed limit comes from special relativity, but who ever said that special relativity should apply to things on the other side of the universe? That's the domain of a more general theory. A theory like…general relativity.

It's true that in special relativity, nothing can move faster than light. But special relativity is a local law of physics. Or in other words, it's a law of local physics. That means that you will never, ever watch a rocket ship blast by your face faster than the speed of light. Local motion, local laws.

But a galaxy on the far side of the universe? That's the domain of general relativity, and general relativity says: who cares! That galaxy can have any speed it wants, as long as it stays way far away, and not up next to your face."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

"Contrarily to velocity time dilation, in which both observers measure the other as aging slower (a reciprocal effect), gravitational time dilation is not reciprocal. This means that with gravitational time dilation both observers agree that the clock nearer the center of the gravitational field is slower in rate, and they agree on the ratio of the difference."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity

General Relativity

"The upshot of this is that free fall is inertial motion: an object in free fall is falling because that is how objects move when there is no force being exerted on them, instead of this being due to the force of gravity as is the case in classical mechanics.This is incompatible with classical mechanics and special relativity because in those theories inertially moving objects cannot accelerate with respect to each other, but objects in free fall do so. To resolve this difficulty Einstein first proposed that spacetime is curved. In 1915, he devised the Einstein field equations which relate the curvature of spacetime with the mass, energy, and any momentum within it."

If you spend some time investigating just some of the paradoxes and evidence offered for certain theories, it is indeed flimsy and the explanations offered would make a contortionist blush. It's all so awful, and in school they teach it with such reverence. Similarly, I am reading a newly published book, DNA Is Not Destiny", where the author, Steven Heine, rakes high schools and universities for their simplistic and false ways they teach generics. It's like "You can't handle the Truth!".

Early on, I learned that if there are paradoxes and a steady stream of inconsistencies, the theory is flat out wrong, and what is needed is a new way of looking at the problem. That is why Bohm's QM solution is so straightforward and brilliant in nature.

So it comes down to this. Relativity helps address some measurement problems, but no more. There are two definitions of time used in SR and GR and the theories inherently contradict each other and are internally inconsistent. So for developing an ontological theory of nature, they are useless and any attempt to use any aspect of Relatively in a metaphysical model, especially Time, will simply confuse and lead in the wrong direction.

If you are looking to spend time trying to unravel the Relativity mess and amuse yourself and others with all of its contractions, then you have hit the mother lode. If you want to get on with the business of understanding the nature of nature, then just forget it and all cosmology that depends upon it, and look for more fertile grounds. No time can be better spent than thoroughly understanding Bergson and Bohm (and Sheldrake, if you are biologically bent), and with this knowledge begin to construct an interesting metaphysics. You really don't need a better foundation. After that, study and art so that you can begin to see nature deeply as it is. Tai Chi would be equally useful. Mathematics is unnecessary, since no amount of mathematics can ever capture the richness of nature. It doesn't even scratch the surface. What you need is a super keen sense of observation and a well developed creative intuition.

So, putting our faith in uniformity is a bet, but why not? — T Clark

Because observations indicate that everything is continuously changing. Nothing is constant and this includes all of science.

"Scientists behind a theory that the speed of light is variable – and not constant as Einstein suggested – have produced a model with an exact figure on the spectral index, which they say is testable."

http://www.futuretimeline.net/blog/2016/11/29.htm#.WcM1TjYpBSA

Material arises exactly as explain in Bohm's quantum mechanics. The wave is real and it creates patterns that manifest as perceived particles. One only has to conceive of quanta as waves of consciousness. Immaterial yet real.

I listened to a similar analysis by Stephen Robbins, but he took a more straightforward approach. He simply demonstrated that the body that is considered in accelerated motion (e.g., the muon or twin) could just as well be considered at rest and the Earth observer accelerating. Thus why the dilation? Something is happening but SR and GR are contradicting each other.

Another point, developed in Canales book:

https://www.amazon.com/Physicist-Philosopher-Einstein-Bergson-Understanding/dp/0691173176

Time in SR is not time in GR, but explanations of Relativity paradoxes bounce back and forth as if they are. In GR there is this concept of space-time while SR uses time in the more traditional meaning found in Newton's equations.

The upshot is this. One can spend their life trying to iron out Relativity by trying to explain all of the paradoxes, as one forever tries to figure out solutions to Zeno's (nothing wrong with this), or one can use the paradoxes as a red flag that something is very wrong (Bohm's suggestion) and forget about it. I chose the latter and instead I am following the ontological path laid out by Bergson. The same with QM. Rather than deal with superposition and wave collapses, I just choose Bohm's quantum potential and non-locality. The two ontological paths actually come together quite nicely.

Thank you!

was right. Sleight of hand. — schopenhauer1

Whenever I'm told to read a physicalist paper on this topic, the only thing I look for is the phrase or word, (they are constantly changing) that slips mind into the thousands of words that surround it. Information, symbols, signs?? These are all a product of a mind! A computer doesn't contain information, it contains on/off switches designed by a mind. It is the mind that creates information from these on/off switches.

There is absolutely no way to get around it, somewhere, somehow, in any physicalist paper describing life, mind miraculously appears somewhere. The only way to avoid this miracle, is to make mind fundamental and irreducible. It may be hard for physicalists to swallow, but anyone who embraces their own mind readily accepts this. I have no problem recognizing my mind as me.

This is what I am arguing. How does it look now? Again if there was shrinkage of space around the galaxies the blue shift could be compensated for. — MikeL

Yes, under SR time and length are reciprocal. Contraction of length is ignored leading to all sorts of paradoxes. So many, that I simply game up on Relativity. It would be like spinning my wheels in Zeno's. None of it is real.

Here is an interesting statement:

https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/fr.sci.maths/Gy09OKYu3Ss

Rich, you're pretty up on your quantum mechanics and physics in general. Where is the flaw in the premise that the universe could be contracting, based on the red shift or anything else? — MikeL

Well, from the perspective of Special Relativity, how could anything bed contracting toward anything, since there is reciprocity between all frames of reference. There is no center! But then we switch to General Relativity which claims there are preferred frames of reference since one is supposedly accelerating while the other is not. Which one is accelerating?? So which SR or GR are we to believe if either? Can we use either for fundamental ontological knowledge, e.g. the universe is expanding. I don't think so. The theories contradict each other and cannot be brought under the umbrella of QM.

We certainly perceive changes in the Universe but everything about the standard scientific explanations, beginning with the Big Bang (the preferred center of the universe?) is flawed and can be questioned, so rather than try to solve the endless paradoxes (a twin paradox should not exist under SR, since both twins can be considered at rest relative to each other), I choose to ignore all of it, especially the notion of time and distance. I believe it is all wrong. I definitely don't take seriously the notion of faster than light galaxies.

Alternatively, ones can spend their life trying to solve all the paradoxes, and maybe have fun trying to come up with clever answers (which will necessarily contradict each other), but for me I rather pursue lines of thought that may prove more fruitful. My guess is that some point you'll also throw in the towel.

This is just one of many instances where General and Special Relativity behinds to contradict each other with impunity:

https://www.space.com/33306-how-does-the-universe-expand-faster-than-light.html

Be out consider this, according to Special, an observer in any frame of reference can be considered at rest relative to other bodies in motion. Thus, according to Relativity, they are both exceeding the speed of light and at rest. I wonder what that must feel like?

For these reasons and many more, Relativity should not and cannot be given ontological meaning. They should simply be treated as transformation equations. What is actually happening it's beyond the c scope of Relativity. Ontologically, Relativity is a mess of contradictions, which are simply permitted by those who wish to give it ontological meaning.

In regards to light:

1) There is no duality. It is a wave (a real wave as discussed a hologram) and what is perceived as a particle is simply a wave perturbation (De Broglie-Bohm). As an aside, De Broglie was an admire of Bergson.

2) Zajonc wrote an interesting book on light called "Catching the Light". Lots of interesting bits of information that he collected but no insightful conclusions.

3) Don't think of light as propagate propagating in distance. Rather, as with Bohm's quantum potential, it is the form that is changing (similar to the way perspective creates distance). Thus, the canvas isn't necessarily getting larger or smaller, but rather the forms on it are changing.

You have to look hard for the problems with Relativity (Robbins-Bergson are a good starting point), but the upshot is that ontologically it is a mess despite. It should be considered only as a mild extension of the Lorentz transformation equations, no more. I often wonder whether Einstein's wife, a highly skilled mathematician during a time when women had no future in science, did all of the heavy lifting, especially since Einstein gave her all if the Nobel money. For me, Einstein was a pop star. Very unimpressive when it came to philosophy. His stance on QM was way off the charts.

Right now I am still wondering how distant stars can be reflected on our retina and how the moon can be reflected on a lake.
I am completely unsatisfied with the theory of the duality of light and will continue my reflexions and modest experiments with photographic gear (professional lab gear to study light is simply out of my reach), and see where that gets me. — Hachem

Yes, I too have reflected on all this and have decided that the arts and holographic photography is the most useful direction to proceed. Science has to be turned on its head.

Bergson used photography as his model for explanation and Stephen Robbins reinterprets Bergson in a holographic setting. While Bergson modeled holography in his writings, it actually predates holography by many decades, so as with Da Vinci, he had a miraculous ability to See.

David Bohm describes in his essay on Creativity how paradoxes are resolved by flipping perspective. To solve these issues it is necessary to consider science moving 180 degrees in the opposite the direction of nature because it deals with matter not life. Bergson's critique of Relativity is brilliant beyond measure. Stephen Robbins covers it in one of his videos.

I confess that I find the fact that we can see across immense distances with a telescope as something that has not been fully analyzed in all its consequences — Hachem

The nature of perception, space, and duration must be reimagined in a completely new manner.

For example, perspective tells us what can be grasped and what cannot. By changing perspective, we are able to grasp. So if there field of action is holographic, the mind might not be "moving" but rather manipulating the perspective of the hologram. Understanding art and perspective provides some insight into this possibility. It may also be possible to better understand the nature of non-local action by flipping distance and reimagining it as perspective. It's a long shot, but nothing other than a complete 180 degree flip is going to provide insight into the nature of mind and perception.

So when he becomes instinctive due to his training he isn't actually making any decisions at all, his muscle memory has taken over and he just goes along with it ? — Andrew

Absolutely. Anyone who has studied sports or arts understands the notion of body (aka muscle) memory. Repetition trains the cells. It is very important in martial arts and health for that matter, which is the goal of ancient healing arts such as Tai Chi, Qigong, and Yoga.

A military person has training. Some prior to military training and some during military service. They train their body to react under different circumstances in order to survive. But then that circumstance arises that has high emotional content and intensity. It overrides. It forces a decision. Habitual cellular training is now undet control of the big mind. It it's sending Willful direction via the nervous system. It is telling the cells to move differently. A choice is being made!

I'm always looking for new ideas. Some of the best ideas I've heard have come from folks who have to observe nature closely in order to survive, e.g. those who love in the city streets. I am only interested in ideas. I can work out the details myself.

While your paper is tangential to my steam of philosophical inquiry, it reignited some questions on my mind concerning merging dream and wake states. It is very important but I'll have to show my mind to work on it in my dreams.

With all this I wouldnt think he has time to make a decision based on the emotional aspect. Make sense ? Thoughts — Andrew

Via some sort of training, most reactions have become "instinctual" or habitual. As I explained, cells have memory and learn to work together via the nervous system.

However, when allowed, the big mind, can intercede and force a different reaction that supercedes the cellular mind. For example, a pattern may be too run to cover, but it the big mind perceives a friend in Truckee, it will override the learned/habitual mind and go help the friend.

The only way to understand human behavior is by imagining layers of minds working together though the nervous system. One must jettison the idea that the brain is doing everything and reimagine it as atransmitting/receiving tool.

Any mathematical approach is necessarily going to lead to all kinds of paradoxes and contradictions because mathematics is symbolic and discontinuous. It cannot capture the nature of the universe. This is abundantly obvious to me. Even quantum, while providing some clue, because it is wave based, is incomplete because of mathematics.

The only way to understand nature is via direct observation and intuition based upon studying patterns. There is no shortcuts and requires an enormous amount of dedication (sorry, meditation or any other shortcuts fall far short). As I said, it requires a mind tremendously skilled in intuition and pattern recognition and thus takes a long time to acquire. Definitely not for everyone and only for the most dedicated. Bergson was too far ahead and his brilliant insights outside the envelope of understanding of almost everyone. Einstein's response to Bergson's critique was a good case in point.

Let me first state that I have of course no way of knowing whether the universe is really expanding or not. As it has been noted, the sole argument in favor of expansion is the color shift (red), and that is itself based on a theory that is accepted by everybody... except by me. But since I am, in academic terms, a nobody, don't let it deprive you of your sleep.

see also

https://philpapers.org/post/17834 — Hachem

The issues you bring up really require a new abstraction of the nature of perception and space. Instead of viewing space as "distance", one can totally disengage from this abstraction, and look upon space as "the ability to act upon" within a given duration. This, I believe, is what Bergson was working on, but it is so different from the way we are taught to perceive, it requires a total shift in the way we understand perception.

One way to begin this process of deliberation would be to try to merge the dream state with the awake state and declare each is exactly the same in regards to space and duration, that is solve the differences and similarities by treating them as one.

This approach requires tremendous dedication, and I may be too old to try it, but the only starting point that I know of is a total familiarity with Bergson and then take it from there.

BTW, there is an excellent chance you will not understand this but since you seem to be traveling in this direction, I decided to give it a try. It is only for the most dedicated, creative, and inquiring minds.

Dreams bring us into a different place where the mind can play with ideas outside of any constraints.

As Heraclitus said, in a snippet, in sleep, the souls play with other souls.

Bit rotten if it turns out that the process of our ultimate education inescapably requires that first we must endure malign experience! — Robert Lockhart

The level of harshness required to create change is in direct proportion to the sensitivity of the mind/body. A skilled sailor can feel the ocean conditions better than an unskilled one, this able to avoid harsh conditions better than an unskilled one.

Development of skill relates to the willingness to learn something new and developing sensitivity to what is new.

In regard to New Economic Serfdom: this is a direct result of a combination of central bank policies (private corporations controlled by the ultra-rich) that provides unlimited free money to large corporations, coupled with free trade policies that allowed corporations to break unions and utilize ultra-cheap labor anywhere in the world and supported by national governments. Personal financial policies as well as consequences of student loans are contributing factors to the New Serf Economies.

In regard to health: there is no problem if people eat healthy foods without chemicals, drink clean water, move frequently, and about creating unnecessary stress in their lives. Good advice for health is not easy to come by, but it is available. The body is very resilient, because it is intelligent and continuously adapting, but it cannot overcome and overabundance of junk foods or harmful drugs/chemicals. It will break if oversaturated with toxins.

It's much more difficult to create a middle class living nowadays than when I was growing up. I don't think it will get better much soon since historically this kind of wealth concentration we are experiencing everywhere in the world does not end comfortably.

Almost all decisions the mind makes are habitual in nature, eating, sleeping, walking driving, etc. There is no way we could exist with habits/patterns. These habits permeate the body as every cell of the body has its own intelligence and cooperates with other cells via the nervous system (including but not exclusively the brain) and are stored as body memory or sometimes called muscle memory.

At times, a choice is made that is not habitual in nature. The mind looks out and observes patterns and it looks in and feels memory. Emotions tend to give more intensity to particular past memories that may affect the choice, e.g. a hurtful, fearful, or loving past memory with a similar pattern that the mind is visualizing. In effect, emotions are memory intensifiers.

Based upon patterns perceived and felt, the mind makes choices. The memory patterns provide a guide but the mind makes the final choice. The brain/nervous system attempts to effect the nature of the choice. The brain makes no decisions, it simply receives and transmits. It is the mind that permeates the whole body, whatever it is feeling, that makes the choices, and you may be feeling some very definite whole body emotions.

According to the Global Oncology Trend Report, released Tuesday by the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics, global spending on cancer medications rose 10.3 percent in 2014 to $100 billion, up from $75 billion in 2010.May 5, 2015

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/05/05/global-cancer-spending-reaches-100b

ok. I'm good with that.

Ruminate.

Claiming that the laws are changing also requires evidence. — fdrake

I never said this. What I did say is that science is constantly changing which may be attributable to underlying universal evolution. Something to ruminate over. Really, take some time to think about it.

Just because there are current avenues for improvement or further research in a field doesn't make all the predictions of a field wrong. — fdrake

Never said this. It is possible that the cause of inaccuracies may be the evolution of the universe itself.

Quantum physics is fine For All Practical Purposes (FAPP) as are Newton's Laws where applicable. It doesn't mean that they aren't slowly evolving. Given that there is no evidence that the equations are precise and unchanging, it is a leap of faith to say otherwise.

Now really, this can't go much further. You want to believe in unchanging laws of nature, I am not hear to convince you otherwise. I am just saying there is no evidence. We all have a choice in what we believe and what we don't.

I need more definition of what these mean. It could be simple visual scanning systems or security systems which can be broadly classified as as can any computer system for that matter. With these kind of numbers my guess is they are including consumer predictive metrics. Who knows? Find me some breakdowns, because this is impossible to critique.

Anyway, at this point it is 12B which is practically nothing in a worldwide economy of $75 trillion.

No, we have evidence over a very long period of time. We, roughly, have a paradigm in physics called quantum mechanics which has been around for just under 100 years. — fdrake

100 years it's a very, very short period of time, and all quantum mechanics provides is a probabilistic equation as well as an Uncertainty Principle. This doesn't really give us much to roll with.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_cant_Schrodingers_equation_be_used_with_high_accuracy_for_atoms_that_are_different_from_hydrogen_atoms

However, I think there is good evidence that nature behaves in a roughly constant way over large time scales. — fdrake

We have evidence for only over a short period of time, and as Sheldrake relates, even a very short period may be too long.

When we discuss the nature of nature, I prefer evidence over stories. Stories tend to be biased toward pre-ordained goals. If nature is living, then everything is evolving. It's possible. Whether or not it is testable, I don't know, but we do know it's that scientific theories and experimental results are constantly changing.

Nothing I believe it's dogma. My beliefs are always changing because I seek change. I am certainly not going to entertain any dogmas of science.

I dealt with AI when it first came out, and while it was a great fundraiser back then (and still is to a certain extent), it performed so poorly commercially that it just lost its glitter. Even the stupid voice recognition systems barely work. Nowadays cures for cancer and cryotocurrency are top dogs, but "nano" still brings in the money. As a career move, go cryptocurrency.

There are all kinds of reasons people may provide assistance to other people. Sometimes it is just because they empathize and wish to help. For those who have empathy for others, they understand what I just said, but I am not saying categorically everyone had empathy nor am I saying that people assist only or even primarily for empathy. But I know that sometimes people help others simply because they care.

If you don't understand it, don't worry about it.

Why don't you ruminate over the Dogma: "The Laws of Nature are Fixed". Sometimes it is necessary to pause and ruminate.

Academic education is all about regurgitating for A's. Total waste of time. It should better be called Indoctrination. But whatever. That's life.