Royston

...assimilated into the 'all knowing' machine, it appeared I knew too much...so this explains my capture, I heard voices, when suddenly... Atomika, sorry, I missed the 15-25 rule

...flew to the nearest WPU terminal (world processing unit) the central self aware hub, where information was exchanged, filtered and refined. Sector 8C was particularly busy today, and as I was hastily ushered to the nearest cue, I felt a tap on my shoulder. Two burly, smartly dressed men grabbed me by the arms...then everything went black.

The problem is farfromright, is that I'm nowhere near (by any stretch of the imagination) a physics 'expert', I'm a newbie, and even I can tell you've stated nothing but hokey drivel. Note that all the people that actually do know what they're talking about, have pointed out the errors in your analogies, and conjectures (which is all they are) and you've twisted advice into slander and attacks...which unfortunately does provoke people to lose their patience. This IMO typifies crackpottery, you have utterly convinced yourself, you are the only one that truly understands energy, time and mass, yet you've demonstrated zero. Do yourself a favour, listen to people who really 'do' know what they're talking about, take their advice, and perhaps start a fresh. A true scientist is not bothered if their hypothesis comes crashing down about their feet, that's what falsification is all about, they're only interested in true progress...which in many cases means an entire lifes work has to be scrapped, but that's science, like it or not. I can't see you getting anywhere with your ideas, unless you start taking advice, and change your hypothesis (I use the term loosely) to fit the data that you've been presented with.

Glad to hear it, finally have it sitting next to me at my desk...the bookshop refused to unpack it last week, but I rushed back today in my lunchbreak, and grabbed the last copy...they only had 3 !?! I've never looked forward to reading a book so much, but that's clearly due to waiting more than anything. Just need to finish off Darwin's Watch (highly recommended) and then get stuck into Smolin's book at the weekend...woot ! EDIT: Martin, I'll post a summary of any additions e.g UK preface et.c, when I've had time to look, I'm quite bogged down with maths at the moment, but hopefully sometime in the next few days.

That was an illuminating read, thanks for the link...but I think you've misinterpreted the point of the paper. The article is stating that curvature is a product of gravity, and 'not' vice versa...that's the confusion, and why it wouldn't agree with the equivalence principle if gravity was a result of curvature. Very interesting all the same.

Ok, I had a very, very long day yestarday, so please ignore the above (wasn't thinking straight)...apart from the comment on curvature tensor.

Farfromright, Einstein used the Riemann curvature tensor which is non-euclidean . Could you cite where Einstein did not agree that GR equates to curvature of space, post GR. I also didn't say that mass 'creates' energy (that can be mis-interpreted) for objects in the vicinity, but obviously the closer a body gets, it's acceleration increases in this context...have you heard of Unruh's law, well temperature is proportional to acceleration... [math]T = a \left( \frac{h}{2\pi c}\right) [/math] Now...actually forget it, if you don't think gravity means curvature, then I'm wasting my time, good luck with whatever you're trying to prove.

There's a period called the inflation period proposed by Alan Guth...negative energy pressure, and IIRC may be tied in with the advent of the strong nuclear force. I believe this happend around 10-36s after the big bang. I don't have my course book at hand, so that could be wrong. It's speculation, as are most of the early epochs of the universe...and incredibly complicated, but here's a link in case you're interested. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation If there wasn't an accelerated inflation period, the horizon distance of the universe would be 10^50 times smaller...again IIRC, I'll come back to this when I have my books at hand, it's been a while since I've studied this area of physics.

Well, the big bang is just a name for the 'start' of the universe...and it was very different to how it is now. There are a number of scenarios of how the fundamental forces developed et.c but the big bang was prior to any of this, so I'd treat it as a beginning rather than a term that extends to how the universe is now.

Well, if you avoided every chemical that could 'possibly' cause cancer, you probably wouldn't leave your house, also take your doctors advice over anything you read on the internet, however credible it may be. The trouble with doing that, is you can display minor symptons that probably mean jack, and correlate them with something life threatening. I wonder how many patients do book appointments after reading something off the internet...I know this probably doesn't apply to you, so please don't think I'm having a go, but it's probably a point worth noting for anyone who looks for advice off the internet.

Very,very appealling. Don't forget the crackers EDIT: I forgot about music, as mentioned a couple of times...but that kinda goes without saying as far as I'm concerned.

Well you can get high frequency gamma rays, and low frequency radio waves, but they are the two extremes of the electromagnetic spectrum. In short, light gets refracted and also follows the curvature of space. Light propogates as waves, basically a photon is the point of the wave that's been isolated mathematically. I'm at work so I can't provide a full explanation. They certainly wouldn't stop, they'll carry on their merry way until absorbed by matter et.c I'm sure somebody will be able to provide a more detailed explanation...sorry, very busy at the moment.

Finally, I'm picking up my copy tomorrow...no idea why it's taken so long, this is a major bookstore. Also, this has 24 more pages than the edition available on Amazon, anyway I'm sure I won't put it down for the next couple of weeks, as well as finishing off Darwin's Watch...and I'm sure I'll be raising some points to discuss. I thought the book discussion forum was a really good idea, would be nice to get it under way.

So I take it anything we buy...say if I wanted to buy a house in the countryside, it won't go up in value? Anyway, I'd do that, have an adequate study (with sound proofing) nothing too extravagant, so I can carry on with my degree in peace. Then pick up, where I left off with my traveling...do that for a few years (on a shoestring) come back, study for my masters, perhaps further, then sit in my study writing theoretical papers, pipe in one hand, fine malt in the other...so I guess I'd have to write my articles using my feet, oh well. Then when I'm bored with that, go traveling again, or try and get a research job...be involved with a mission to investigate Enceladus or something similar, if I don't have what it takes, then go traveling.

There's no more energy in the future as there was in the past...so there would be no violation. EDIT: I see what you mean, but as the scenario is impossible i.e the person was already in the past (see yourdad's explanation), then there would be no exchange going on.

Oh, my bad...sorry I was being impatient. Thanks for approving

This isn't a complaint, but if somebody starts a thread on the book discussions, or news forum and it gets rejected, any chance of a PM please...explaining why. I wanted to discuss a book, but it clearly wasn't appropriate...I wasn't sure which mod to contact, not sure how it works, cheers Snail

With respect to the Earth, or with respect to life on Earth...the latter, not a lot, there's numerous ideas on abiogenesis, I'll try and find the thread where this was discussed. As to why...well you need water for life (full stop) and the earth was too hot over 4 billion years ago, it didn't even have a crust. This was the one I was thinking about...I think halfway through it talks about the various scenarios that could of kickstarted life on earth http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20128

Darwin's Watch - The Science of Discworld III...by Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart, Jack Cohen A little premature, as I only read the first chapter last night, but I'm hooked and hopefully (time permitting) I'll be finished next week. Probably a daft question, but has anyone read Darwin's Watch ? It's probably best I ask if anybody is willing to discuss any of the content, before I start posting, just so I know it's not falling on deaf ears, but just the first chapter raises some very important issues...presented in a very uncluttered and refreshing manner, with Pratchett's satirical humour to boot. I realize some of the subject matter could be considered delicate, so if anyone feels it's probably an inappropriate book to discuss, please shout. Here's the synopsis from Amazon, which may persuade some of you to grab a copy...

It wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference in a time travelling context, the fact your displacing time in the past is all you need worry about concerning the effect that would have on future events...that is of course if events are determined (which is still open to debate.) However, if there was communication between your past self and present self (somehow) now that 'would' be interesting...paradoxes aside.

Just follow the course your doctor has prescribed before ordering anything extra...out of interest, and obviously you don't need to answer, but do you suffer from any other symptoms such as anxiety, that causes your hyperhidrosis, or is this purely a physiological problem ?

Also yeast that's responsible for making bread rise, by releasing CO2 is a unicellular or single celled fungus...annoyingly all food groups that contain yeast can sometimes make me itch e.g bread, marmite and beer.

Now this is a freaky coincidence...and I know full well that my house-mate is unaware of this, hence I thought he should pose the question to you lot. A friend at work has just informed me, that they are actually asking for votes for a new 'Wonders of the World'...anyway please take a look at the link below. http://www.new7wonders.com/index.php EDIT: Perhaps for the sake of the thread, if anyone else is still interested, we should pick engineering feats of the last couple of decades...I think he was looking for more contemporary examples.

Der, I messed this sentence up in the heat of the moment...there should be an 'also, if' thrown in there. Obviously the amount of energy in a planet is not equivalent to it's attraction, that would be ridiculous, however mass does curve space towards its position (obviously)...which Farsight appears to ignore.

Well enjoy your holiday, but when you come back (if you must)...why does there need to be a change in C to explain curvature, that makes little or no sense...local gradient, with respect to what exactly. Mass and energy are interchangeable, you have a load of mass, it will create energy for any objects in the vicinity <shrug> and... Well that says it all quite frankly...you've failed to come up with anything convincing whatsoever, and you've resorted to 'just wait and see'...why does anyone have to wait, if you had anything substantial you'd be able to explain it now, and you've failed. I'm on the edge of my seat...