YouTube video: [link:www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu0GksWf5pI]David Sinclair - Cracking & reversing the aging clock - Science Unlimited 2019[link]

Old mice can be rejuvenated, without time reversal. Age as measured by several biological markers can be reversed while chronological age continues to increase. Chronological age is correlated with biological age. However, it is not clock time that determines biological age but effects upon material structure, affecting function. Passage of time continues whether a mouse is aging or growing younger.

Does anybody here think that the big bang is scientific proof that an anti-entropy force exists?

Hi Joe,

Is a belief in God justified? The very best that science can say is that (1) our universe is too fine tuned to be an accident, 1 part in 10^10^128 is identically zero. A universe that is fine tuned for stable chemistry is impossible by accident. Second, science cannot explain how a prokaryote can form, how life can start "by accident"; that is impossible as well. Third, science cannot explain consciousness, cannot duplicate it, and has a very terrible understanding of human nature when compared to how the Bible describes human nature.

Jason

Hi Georgina,

It would be amazing if science could crack the code on physical immortality for humans.

Jason

Hi Loraine,

I think free will is one of those paradoxes. You can either have free will, or you can control the consequences of your actions. You can't have both. As an example, you can commit the crime that would satisfy your desires, or you can control the consequences of your actions by controlling yourself, which feels like lack of freedom or lack of free will.

Jason

Steven Wolfram has shown, with his cellular automata, that highly complex patterns can sometimes develop from simple reiterative processes.

I don't think Steven Wolfram knows the difference between a pattern, and a process.

Look at ice crystals. All you have to do is remove heat from water or molten rock, and the atoms/molecules slow down into a lattice arrangement. That's easy.

But creating life is a process. It's more like a self assembly factory. Step 1: you need materials. You need about 120 elements called the periodic table. If your outcome if a periodic table of elements, then you need to get protons to fuse together (fusion). So you need a strong force to overcome the repulsion between two protons. It has to be stronger than the coulomb force, or the protons won't fuse into a nucleus. How are you going to make nuclei? You're going to use a nuclear furnace. If the strong force is too strong, then all the energy that is released during fusion will be given off during the big bang. You need these nuclear furnaces (called stars) to burn for billions of years. This is engineering!

Do atheists think that factories are accidents?

Joe,

I can make a very logical argument that life, biological cells, starting with a big bang, looks more like a factory, it looks like a set of processes that were carefully thought out before implemented.

You might question that God is a white man. In my opinion, I think God is a Jew! LOL

Jason,

You can only unnaturally make an infinite number of finite written arguments about any finite subject, visible or invisible, factual or fictional, you wish. But the only truth that has ever been proven was that there has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be ONE unified VISIBLE INFINITE surface ETERNALLY occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE type of finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Joe,

What you are saying sounds like mathematics. But mathematics doesn't make things exist.

What I'm saying is that biological existence looks like an end process of a factory. The big bang looks like the beginning process of a factory. Factories don't happen by accidental.

Jason,

Factory worker

Jason,

I post sensible comments. I do not provide audio files.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Joe Fisher,

I'm not sure reality is sensible. But the NDE/ghost stuff is more realistic than anything I've heard from theoreticians.

Jadon

There are two facts that have been established. First, the universe is Intelligently Designed by virtue of the physics constants being impossible to achieve by accident; odds of 1 in 10^10^148 are truly impossible. Second, God loves us. There are so many near death experiences where God, beings of light (angels?) have shown love to us; even when we've been bad. Modernists might question the whole "spare the rod, spoil the child" teaching, but an argument can be made that God follows that teaching whether we like it or not. The unavoidable truth and fact is that God loves us, even if God inspires fear in us. God is not required to live by our modern values.

The best that we human beings can ever hope to do is to use our free will to take care of one another, and make our outpost, out physical civilization as comfortable and safe for ourselves and our children, as best we can.

Dear Jason,

INFINITE Natural visible reality has to be ETERNAL. Although white male physicists and philosophers like to relentlessly publish supposedly finite information about invisible influences, they only prove how unnaturally ignorant they are.

Joe Fisher, Sensible Realist

I don't like to buy into the dogma of liberalism, white privilege and all that animosity towards men that is taught in our universities. I like to look at facts and data. The near death experience experiences are a collection of data that can help us understand how we are expected to live our lives.

I don't feel like it's my place to tell you how it says to live "your" life. I will only comment from my personal opinion, that those who are liberals have misunderstood the role of Christianity and religion. Religion is not about telling you or me or anyone that they should go out and kill other people or enslave them. Religion is about creating a community where you and I and other people can feel like they share a common heritage, a common set of values.

It really does look to me, and I might even make the argument as such, that we are souls who have (re)incarnated into this physical world that is built upon invisible quanta made of time-energy (action); that act like mathematics. But when we leave our body (possibly in death) our soul is freed to with God, in LOVE. The evidence of NDE's tells us, very consistently, that death is not what atheists and liberals think it is.

Jason

Theorists are obsessed with superstrings and blackholes. But reality offers quantum entanglement with no explanation of gravity. It's as if nature is telling us: Hey, why worry about strings when you have me to experiment on?

Physicists are skeptical of gravity manipulation. But consider a system of two quantum entangled photons. Newtonian gravity says that the force between two masses separated by distance r is given by F = GMm/r^2. How many steps would you have to glean to go from Newtonian gravity to gravity manipulation? I count 3 leaps of intuition.

1. The effective mass of a photon is m = hf/c^2. So two entangled photons do have mass, therefore, there is a tiny acceleration field between them.

2. Space does what mass tells it to according to the Einstein equations. However, that doesn't mean we can't manipulate the entanglement between two photons to get back something that looks like a gravity field.

3. We control the entangled photons p1 and p2. Photons can travel along a fiber optic cable. In theory, we could align the optical fiber along the radii of a spinning disk. Then, we could centrifuge the p1 photon along the blueshift direction and centrifuge the p2 photon along the redshift direction. It would be similar to storing gravitational potential energy between the two entangled photons.

Physicists are prepared to wait a thousand years for someone to prove this mathematically. But the experiment, while challenging and sophisticated, would be easier to perform.