Wednesday, February 6, 2019

Note on Aging

02-06-19 - I like to think that by being a #deepthinker I can come up with #unique thoughts. These thoughts are documented in my ebook now available on #Amazon. I found this thought, however, well documented by another writer - I would give him credit, but can't find him on the web anymore.

SEE EBOOK

#sqsy
sustainability


Posted in 2011 -->

I was listening to "Coast to Coast" with George Noory. It was mentioned that time seems to pass faster as we age. The guest, with his sophisticated nasal twang rambled on with a report of his pseudo-scientific philosophies that pretended not to ignore the question.

Many have noticed how relative time is (not in an Einsteinian Syntax). Everyone knows that "time flies when you are having fun".  And it goes even faster when we are sleep. On the other hand, it drags when we are bored.

I have never seen a scientific discussion of this phenomena.  It may be that we think about this as part of an overview of how we see reality and thus a question for psychologists or philosophers.

I think that this subject should be addressed by Biologists or Neuroscientists. With a little thought, however, a non-biologist like me can come up with a reasonable theory.

It is common knowledge that we slow down as we age. The clock tells me my daily walk (3 miles) takes me longer than it did ten years ago.

How does our Brain/Mind perceive Realty, which includes our perception of the passage of Time?

Without getting all philosophical on you, I don't think we can answer that question. But, I do think we can understand how an older, slower mind would perceive time as passing faster.

Suppose, a Grandfather and his Grandson look at the world and both, while blinking, think "what a beautiful day!". If it takes the Grandfather slightly longer to have this thought, will it affect his perception of the passage of time?

We can show that it would if we visualize a world where we think drastically slower as we age. Here, the Grandson would have "time for" thousands of thought per day, while the Grandfather would only have "time for" a few.

In this world, both Grandson and Grandfather would feel that it took little time to have the thought  "what a beautiful day!" - after all, how long can a thought take? But after only a few thoughts, the day would be over for Grand Dad - the days would fly by.

(If you liked this article, "Like" my Clients -  Like Tomsin Steel and our Other Clients )

Tuesday, February 5, 2019

Modifications to Book Like No Other - everything is connected

ProLogue -     (02-05-19) -

Introduction - (02-05-19) -

Chapter 01 -    (02-05-19) -

Chapter 02 -    (02-05-19) -

Chapter 03 -    (02-05-19) -

Chapter 04 -    (02-05-19) -

Chapter 05 -    (02-05-19) -

Chapter 06 -    (02-05-19) -

Chapter 07 -    (02-05-19) -

Chapter 08 -    (02-05-19) -

Chapter 09 -    (02-05-19) -

Chapter 10 -    (02-05-19) -

Chapter 11 -    (02-05-19) -

Chapter 12 - (Wood, Not Bubble)    (02-08-19) - It has always amazed me that most humans are so arrogant that they refuse to recognize the intelligence of the creatures around them - they say mankind is at the top of the evolutionary chain.

     In this Chapter, I have said "A cell is so large that, whether or not it lives in a man or a wood bee, it may well be able to support the chemical reactions needed, not just to make life possible, but to actually think. The power of neural networks made up of many cells tied together is close to infinite."

     I recently saw a video of a white blood cell called a neutrophil chasing a bacterium. The bacterium desperately tries to escape, while other bacteria calmly go about their business (I think one was trying to infect a red blood cell). It seems to me that all participants are aware of their surroundings and situation - to me, some kind of thinking is the most likely explanation.

     SEE -  https://www.minds.com/media/939977270095396864

OR GO TO MY PAGE ON (CLICK ON - FACEBOOK )

Chapter 13 -    (02-05-19) -

Chapter 14 -    (02-05-19) -

Epilogue     -    (02-05-19) - (addition 1  -->

According to the BBT, every particle in our universe, gazillions of them, are confined to this grain. Each particle could be the size of a BB, all compressed together. The pressure and temperature would be immense. If, as NNLT proposes, there is no minimum size, or it is a gazillion times smaller, each BB could be smaller than a speck of dust – with each speck tied to the timeless chromosome. Particles float in a vast, expanding space. Creatures like us could live there.

Both the BBT and NNLT address the Past and Future and get the same answers, but for different reasons. The BBT says there is a minimum time, Planck's time. Now lasts for a Planck's time. Before this Now, there was the Past. After this Now, the Future starts. BBT says we cannot see the Future – it may not even exist. NNLT says both Past and Future exist and agrees that we cannot see the Future. It is the existence of Now that is in question.

According to BBT, our grain of sand universe could not float past our face and settle on a yardstick – it is gone, in the past. According to NNLT, our grain could be anywhere and everywhere.

One of the universal laws of physics is that the speed of light is 186,282 miles per second. In terms of our yardstick, light can travel the length of about 327 million yardsticks each second. Very fast – but if our grain of sand universe tried to use our yardstick as a unit of length, as the BBT wants, the speed of light for our grain universe would be a gazillion times faster. While light takes billions of years to cross our universe, it would cross the grain of sand instantly. NNLT sees this as a problem and solves it by changing the yardstick. Light in the grain still transverses 327 million yardsticks in a second – but its yardsticks and seconds are not the same as ours – both are a gazillion times shorter.

The BBT says The Big Bang is in the past, long gone. For the NNLT, past and future are more nebulous. They depend on how you look at it. The Big Bang did not happen and Now may not exist. Before calculating the distance to where the BBT says the Big Bang should be, the NNLT asks if the measurements are in our yardsticks and years, the yardsticks and years of the universe when it was a grain of sand, or at some point in between. Thinking about this makes my head swim, but since I am the only NNLT expert, I would guess the NNLT would say the Big Bang occurred 10 – 12 billion of our years ago. A good mathematician or even someone who is not tired could come up with an equation.

Even for short distances, like for less than a few billion light years, the BBT and the NNLT do not view past and future in exactly the same way.

We have discussed two observers, one on earth and the other near Jupiter. If light takes an hour to travel this distance, each can only see the other as he was an hour ago. The “real” version of both is in the others' future. If these two observers each had a powerful telescope, they could watch the other living his past life. Why? Both observers are moving into the future at the same speed – the speed of light.

Both the BBT and the NNLT believe you cannot see the Future – the finite speed of light keeps you from seeing any future events. The NNLT can, however, give more detail (if part of this explanation is wrong, it doesn't invalidate NNLT).

ADDED 02-23-19 --


According to the NNLT, if you exist in this universe (which is determined by your connections to the timeless chromosome), the boundary between past and future is moving at the speed of light. One second after you experience now, you are experiencing a new now that is 186,282 miles away. The “old you” is too far away to be seen.

This “old you” is a light second away if we are thinking in three dimensions – the part of reality we can see. Actually, the gazillion particles in each of us could have a gazillion dimensions – each under the control of timeless genes. Perhaps some of these genes connect us to the past or the future.

The BBT and the NNLT think about our two observers, one near Jupiter, the other on Earth, differently. The BBT gives our earth bound friend special status – his Now is real. His special status has led to what we have called the “Twin Paradox”.

Suppose our two observers are twins. One is named Jason and he travels to Jupiter. The other, Ethan, remains on Earth.

Now let us change the story. Jason travels not to Jupiter, but to a distant star. For most of his journey there and back, he is traveling near the speed of light. According to Einstein and the BBT, Jason's time passes more slowly (although he is not aware of it). Ethan has his own time, passing at a different rate. Jason will find that when he returns to earth, he will be slightly older while his brother will be many years older. If Jason travels far enough and fast enough, he may return to Earth still young but find that eons have past here.

Einstein's theory is called the Theory of Relativity because time (and other things) are relative to the observer – to Ethan or Jason. Many experiments have confirmed the Theory of Relativity and the BBT believes it is true. The NNLT does not.

Experiments that confirm Einstein's Theory are conducted in an environment where time exists or is assumed to exist, namely, our universe. I would hope that experiments could be designed that are shielded from the effects of time, but it is more likely that the NNLT will find support from Astronomers observing galaxies at the edge of the observable universe.

ADDED 02-27-19

If we now return Jason to his place near Jupiter, we can continue to explore differences between the BBT and the NNLT.

The NNLT gives no special status to either Jason or Ethan. Jason cannot see Ethan's Now because it is in Jason's future. He can only see Ethan as he was more than an hour ago. Ethan cannot see Jason's Now because it is in Ethan's future. He can only see Jason as he was more than an hour ago.

The last paragraph is full of “time based expressions”, but that is not how the NNLT views the “Now”s of either Jason or Ethan.

One or more of a gazillion timeless properties may define the time direction of both Jason and Ethan. We can only see and interact with things in our world that have properties that are “close enough” to our properties. When Jason and Ethan are separated by one light hour, neither could ever stand next to the other and interact. If this could happen, however, Jason might sneeze “at the same time” that Ethan coughs. Just because the brothers are separated by a light hour does not mean they cannot sneeze and cough at the same time. The NNLT says each brother has his own Now, but these “Now”s are close enough that we view them as the same time – even though time does not exist.

The BBT views the Now of Ethan as special and as the only real Now. The NNLT views both Ethan's and Jason's Now as real. The BBT theory views any past Now, either remembered by a twin or viewed through a telescope by the other twin, as gone, dead, no longer in existence. The NNLT believes there are a gazillion “Now”s and each is just as real as any other. This has always been true and always will be true – unless a Now is more than several billion light years away. Then things get complicated.

We are talking about entities whose timeless properties are close enough that we might interact with them or, if not, at least they are close enough that we can imagine what they may be like. I can imagine a universe where the time direction is different, where things seem to move from the future to the past, where the future is remembered and the past discovered, where effect comes before cause. Beyond that, I cannot imagine how a society living there would function.

We can imagine standing beside our yardstick with its small grain of sand universe resting at one end. We can then ask if the BBT or the NNLT better describes the universe we see around us.

The BBT says the grain of sand universe can not be there, but if it were, it would be almost infinitely hot and dense – as well as, about 14 billions years in the past. Looking to the sky, we see galaxies moving away. The BBT tells us all of these galaxies originated at a common point. When we note that the far away galaxies are moving away faster than the nearer galaxies (our Science has discovered this fairly recently), BBT explains using exotic concepts like negative energy of space, dark energy, and dark matter. Maybe some other things, but I have tuned out. I am tired and my head is beginning to spin. I don't like for my head to spin. Anyway, BBT may have some valid points here. You decide.

Imagine that our yardstick is touching another yardstick just to its right, in fact, there is a long line of yardsticks laid out. There are enough yardsticks to cross the universe.

If you started walking, a mile later you would be passed 1,760 yardsticks. If you were in really good shape, you might continue walking until you had passed 327,360,000 yardsticks. If you then paused to rest, you could set up a telescope and look back and see the first yardstick with its grain of sand universe. Light could transverse the distance between you and that first yardstick in one second.




MORE TO COME

Saturday, January 26, 2013

The Dangers of Delegation - How to avoid Blah-Blah

I have never meet a successful person who can't delegate - yet this is not an art that is easily achieved. But my point here is not to tell you how to be a better delegator.

If you, like me, market a product or service that you really believe will help an organization, you need to convince the Top Guy.

I go to a number of networking functions and often meet local business leaders - they are always friendly and obviously competent. Sometimes they are interested in my services, sometime not (well, maybe they are not always competent).

If I strike an interest, their response, being good delegators, is that I should talk to "blah-blah", their Director of "blah-blah". To some, this would be a good thing, to me, it is not.

If I convince "blah-blah" (I will call him the delegatee from now on) that I have something to offer, we still have to convince Top Guy.

The delegatee is probably competent, but likely overworked. In my case, he may be responsible for setting up computer networks, evaluating and integrating software into his company, finding competent technicians, etc. In my area of expertise (search engine optimization), he has read a couple of studies and spent a few hours (at most) thinking about how it might apply to his company. Yet, he believes he has a full understanding of this field. The technical term I use to describe the delegatee is "hard sell".

I like to think I will talk with anyone - but with limited time available, I'd rather spend more time with "Top Guy" than with "Blah-Blah".

I've developed several strategies to accomplish this, but would welcome comments and suggestions.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Resolutions - Part 2

I am looking for good speakers for the Sales and Marketing Luncheon - what does this have to do with my New Years Resolution? Social Media and the Internet let us get the word out - whatever our message, we can compete with the biggest corporations, which I find exciting. Most people will ignore your message, a few may complement or buy from you, some may get nasty - one of my sub-resolutions is to try to develop a thicker skin.

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Resolutions

Happy New Year - Maybe you are more likely to keep your Resolutions if you blog them.

I resolve to try to use Social Networking more to promote our business services (and you should too).

First decide what unique or at least superior service you have to offer. Then tell the World and try to get them to listen (a hint about our service - our slogan is "Helping the World Find You").

If using Search Engines is part of your marketing plans (it should be), follow me on Twitter, my user name is now @searchhelpnow (https://twitter.com/searchhelpnow).

Sunday, November 11, 2012

Controversial Statements

Thought I'd make a couple of controversial statements and see how they are taken.

But first let me give you a link and tell you NOT to click on it --> Group Medical Insurance

Instead Google "Group Medical Insurance in Memphis" (I work in Memphis). The above link should be at or near the top of Google's generic unpaid listing.

FIRST CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENT:

People with something to sell don't need websites !

I have been designing and hosting websites since Al Gore invented the Internet - so even reading the above statement, much less writing it, makes me nervous.

Websites can, of course, be very beneficial. But they can cost sales. A visitor to your site has to see only one thing he doesn't like and you will never hear from him.

We have decided to develop one page "web ads" custom designed to be found on Google when a prospect is looking for a service or product and custom designed to get the prospect to contact the seller (in the above  case, an Insurance Agent).

SECOND CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENT:

Be willing to tell a prospect they shouldn't want what they say the want !

I am not sure about this one, but I started thinking about it after recently talking to a prospect. She said she wanted search to work with SIRI (Apple's Voice Recognition Search Software) - in the above case, you would say "Group Medical Insurance in Memphis" and SIRI would respond with her name and address.

I didn't have a good answer for her - I knew we could do it, but the real question was it worth the time and cost to her to do it. My initial reaction was "No". Later, after I thought about it, I was even more negative. A couple of many reasons - (1) Google's Android system has a similar product and they have a larger market share;  (2) I can see people using their phone to find a restaurant, not so much to find an insurance agent.

My point is everyone has limited funds for sales and marketing - you have to carefully choose where you invest those funds.