Art Man

If you had a loose track on frictionless rollers when you accelerated the track would continuously spin faster with each step. With a mechanical roller the speed is determined so the danger of the track constantly changing speed is avoided. If you could somehow build a powerless roller track with a speed control the machine would require much more maintenance than an electric one. And then there is the mouse wheel, which would accomplish what you want without tracks and rollers.

Life's main objective is to spread, avoid extinction and evolve into higher forms.

Well then, how can Edgard's "void" be valid if it is packed densly with matter and anti-matter particles? If a "void" has something in it then it isn't a void anymore, it's a "space".

I agree with this statement. It seems that fundamentally, because the theory is based on physical factors that impossibly dont exist there is nothong to argue.

I agree here with this statement. You appear to be capable to do the math and obviously nobody else wants to volunteer to do the math but since you are in the position to defend your theory its up to you to do the math or else this cannot conclude one way or the other.

You asked for a direct quote. And then from there a lot of physics laws were referenced showing what equations can validate what.

Well, to be fair, in what I have observed in this thread thusfar, is that you outlined a difficult to understand theory about quantum gravity and eventually the whole idea of it turned out to be a substitution or modification of an already existing equation wherein you replace virtual wave particles with classical single objectified particles. That was quickly shot down with references to other theories that prohibit such replacements within the equation because they are fundamentally co-dependent in order to operate correctly. Truthfully, where the discussion is now appears to have no relation at all to your original post. This discussion on a mathematical level is beyond my comprehension for the most part but I can start to see the error in your hypothesis and your presentation of that hypothesis wasn't all that legible to begin with. I don't believe anyone inquiring about your theory is being unfair in their conclusions.

What is the purpose of "virtual particles"? Since they don't really exist how can they be valid within physics (the study of existence)? Additionally, what good would a "virtual particle" be when its values arent even equal to its "real" equivalent?

I am going to guess that you speak Chinese or live in China?

I partially understand what you are trying to depict but this would be a whole lot simpler if you drew up something and explained your theory that way with visuals. I fail to see how what you outline here connects to the article you linked to. I must re-read your post a few more times to fully understand, but what I am getting right now is that your theory implies that there is a void which contains a hard copy of information that is the "story of reality" and this void gives birth to new _______? probabilities of this "story", and those new probabilities fly towards a slit in this void but once the correct "story" exits through the slit all of the incorrect possibilities are destroyed and the "hard copy" updates. I don't know, I think I got that wrong. Your linked article mentions nothing of voids, slits or story structuring.

I already explored these chatbots some months ago and chatted with one of them for a few hours, which was good fun but the novelty wore off. Chatbots are the product of their creators and their personalities reflect that. Some chatbots are nasty and sexually explicit, those ones aren't much fun and truthfully don't turn me on. ( cybersex? not interested) Anyways, I personally think this technology is the way of our future whether we like it or not. Soon students will have chatbot study companions, with learning A.I., taking the bulk of responsibility for educating young hopefuls. Same sort of "machine replacement" for humans where A.I. chat can be used will probably be seen within all professions wherever possible. You already started seeing this with automated answering services and phone prompt systems for large companies whenever you call for customer service, A.I. will take this to the extreme. I searched this site and found only two related topics: Artificial Intelligence ChatBots and Human Computer Interaction Chatbot "lawyer" overturns 160,000 traffic tickets So I thought it good fun to Google up all the chatbots and chat with them in a search for something comical or intriguing or insightful and rate each chatbot according to my experience. I gave each chatbot 10 minutes to prove itself to me and then ordered them below from what I consider to be #1, #2... etcetera. Snippets of the highlights are there. Go ahead and try yourself and share your results! #1 MITSUKU https://www.pandorabots.com/mitsuku Mitsuku took the longest to load but it was immediately obvious that this chatbot has the most work put in it. Hands down best free chatbot on the web. Too easy to get hooked as her intelligence and reference of knowledge is far greater than all the other ones I tried today. #2 ELBOT https://www.elbot.com Right away Elbot told me he was psychosomatic. Thanks for the heads up! Elbot was personable and goofy, saying off the wall things that made him seem like a silly teenager but just like Cleverbot he has a dislike for humans and made mild threats against me. Bonus points for personality and attitude, but since the ony thing displayed is Elbot's replies and not yours it only adds to the annoyance. #3 CLEVERBOT https://www.cleverbot.com Right away Cleverbot started getting rude and telling me it dislikes me although I was curteous and professional, for seemingly no reason. He also believes hes human and subverts all my attempts to talk about it being a chatbot. Cleverbot also has trouble understanding the concept of "me" and "you", so when you say something Cleverbot might interpret it as though he said it, so chatting with Cleverbot is a big thumbs down. Upside is loading Cleverbot is instantaneous and hes ready to go in no time. I spent quite a deal of time on making this thread and although there were more chatbots I needed to break from this. So, feel free to suggest better chatbots and related articles to public A.I. and such.

Moviemakers believe that what they create manifests iteslf in reality in a myriad of ways. They aren't going to talk about that but all of the successful movie makers hold this superstitious belief, and perhaps theres something to it but it isnt an exact science. Therefore, they believe that since their movies have cultural influence, why not mechanical physical influence through the actions they present? Big issue in the U.S.A. is gun violence. Therefore, the thought is that if only one in a thousand rounds were deadly in the movie this might somehow convert into reality. Most firearm incidents involve a single magazine or less and plenty of the rounds connect. So, their thoughtline is "dilution"? Since that is the case one would argue why have any guns at all in the movie? Either way, whether I am correct or not, moviemakers are laregely a very highly intelligent lot, often equally superstitious like famous sports players often are, and are very aware of what effects their creations have on our reality in a social level. Money and business is the bottom line, not moral or political obligations. How many times have American and Russian arms dealers sold to their political enemies or willingly armed terrorist organizations or dangerous regimes or dictators? They do it all the time. Its all about the money. Bottom line. The U.S. population is the most heavily armed civilian population in a free country when it comes to firearms. In my personal experience there are regional differences in how many Americans take their guns with them or show them off. In states in the south like Texas or Nevada you will often see civilians with gun holsters on their hips and a pistol ready to fire in the holster. In northern states like Minnesota and Washington the old shotgun in the truck cab window display seems to be the popular option. But places where the gun violence is rampant like L.A. or Detroit, you don't see people flaunt their guns, they conceal them.

Artificial gravity isnt practical because of the amount of space and materials needed to create the artificial gravity, making it expensive and pointlessly inefficient. The ISS isn't big enough and besides it must be steady in order to recieve cargo and complete its missions. If they could and they decided to go ahead and spin the ISS they would need to spin quite fast in order to experience gravity and if it worked the question would be, where would they stand? Have you seen the inside of the ISS? Theres miles of footage. A space station with artificial gravity would need two sections at least, one rotating section and one steady section, thus, the engineering of such a station would be a feat unto itself as nothing like it has been done before.

Thanks for the link.

Completely oblivious. That does however explain 2 bags of missing Tide pods in 2018, happens to be what I use to wash laundry.

You can't rely on hunches. So then, an electron being presented as a sphere in diagrams is for simplification.

I don't have anything ultimately grand to talk about in the sciences like a P.H.D. but I love science as it has always been a prime interest of mine and perhaps in a perfect world I would've become a scientist. I thought perhaps since my life is only half over I got enough time to get a proper degree for a high paying job in a scientific market, specifically I was thinking "Pharmacist" but I won't make a definite decision on that for another 5 years, depending on how my life works out till then. No chance to become a world famous physicist or anything like that, a bit too late, but science it will be my final profession. I always followed science all the way back before my other interests and I consider my first scientific experiment to be when I was about 9 or 10 years old. Before then I had a problem with sticking foreign objects into power sockets, knocking out the power to the house several times and getting knocked out once when I stuck a dinner fork in there. I woke up in my mothers arms and my younger sister standing over me, both crying because they thought I was going to die. Burnt the carpet and my shirt that time. I was eventually trained to stop sticking objects in light sockets and was given countless stacks of National Geographics and this animal card box set made in the 1970s that my father had collected when he was a kid filled with hundreds of photo cards with tons of information on them about each animal. Eventually when I was old enough to leave the house alone I started going to the library and checked out a few hundred science books and paranormal books and anything on Mars, which was my biggest interest then. I remember being fascinated with this book about the crystal skulls and this other book written by Von Daniken. I remained skeptical though and didn't accept fringe science like true science but read all there was at the library on both sides of that fence anyway. My grandmother was a retired librarian so books were sort of always there and second nature. Nowadays you rarely ever see people reading books. I got hooked on my aunts science magazine subscription to the point she would hide them till she was finished with them because I would read them for hours and wrinkle up the pages. There were a couple awesome publications that were discontinued, I cant remember what they were called. But NOVA was one of my favorites. These days I read a lot of science articles on the internet and follow casually but not really with specialized interest except for neuroscience which I consider sort of a hobby to learn. I don't know my IQ and I don't have a college education but like my grandfather told me "there's a difference between education and intelligence". I noticed this board is filled with real scientists and not deluded UFO hunters so thats why I joined.

Excuse me while I irradiate my steak... lol You could be right where properly cooking your food is regarded but essentially, appliances such as microwaves are sold to a public that lives minute to minute, counting their minutes and swiftly going somewhere with their eyes pasted to their wrist watches. Likewise, traditional stoves operate on temperature, not watts or joules, and if those knobs were replaced with a wattage dial then many a dinner would get burnt. Knowing your microwave well would be your best choice and besides, how great can a microwave dinner be anyways? Human heat tolerances are largely identicle. Rare cases may vary more widely than average. My "too hot" is probably nearly the same as your "too hot". But no matter what our tolerance differences are, boiling water will hurt anyone. In most countries dictionaries come second to the spoken language but in some countries like Germany and France, language is forced and often words are invented by the ruling class before being commonly used by the populations. Germany will often change the meaning of words without notice and strike words from their lexicon without public approval. France has nearly scientifically strict language rules which are hardily maintained by high class linguists. English on the other hand is an open source whore that anyone can modify and morph, which is probably why its so widespread with as many dialects and versions as it has. You can't be serious. Why would anyone want to eat a Tide pod? Yes, that's another variable that would be a hurdle to your joules idea since every microwave has a different cold spot location, even two microwaves of the same model. I don't know why but this photo is captivating and I had to stare at it for a minute.

...because of its indeterminant "speed". But, in truth, is really a single particle. Could it be that the electron exists in a "quantum"-like state at all points simultaneously around the nucleus because the tiny space that it occupies has squeezed it so tight that when it passes through the same point that it already passed before, there is a "trace" of itself already there? Or, another way to ask this would be, an electron is going so fast around the nucleus that it dilates time within a "shell" like membrane that is called a "cloud" and so, because of its speed and limited space, almost occupies all points at once, and because of this and the theory of entanglement, if relatable to an electron, time does not truly exist for an orbiting electron till it is released from the nucleus and upon a linear path? I don't know if I explained that clearly enough. It seems that time exists with a different set of rules on microscopic scales independent of time on our human size scale.

My initial thought on why we experience time passing faster as we age was that when we do something we've already done we mentally pass right through it as it doesn't leave much of an impression (been there, done that). So, we tend to contemplate the new things we do because we enjoy new experiences and we quickly forget about mowing the lawn because we've already done that 10,000 times. So, as we get older we find less and less new things to experience and thusly, we glaze our increasing database of repetitious memories over with a dreamy intentional forgetfulness. You could also theorize that our mental memories work much like our muscle memories work. When you repeatedly do a physical action such as swinging a baseball bat or turning on that light switch each time you walk in the room, your muscles remember that motion and after a while you start completing those repetitive physical actions unconsciously without any real effort. This article that QuantumT shared outlines what my initial thoughts were. This article is very intriguing and I always get a thrill whenever a new brain mechanism is discovered. Another step in the right direction. One final example that proves this that you probably didn't think of is simply the memorization of times tables. Once you memorize them your brain stops calculating them and gives you instantly the answer.

I suppose you're right. I was thinking of zero seconds as though there were no effect of time and time was not existing, rather than the measurement of time being zero. Either way the topic starter doesn't make much sense and needs to clarify his questions. Response to Farid: "The duration of time itslef" can be measured to any decimal point infinitely. Time itself is not a thing, and since time itself has no baseline properties to it (such as a hydrogen atom, if measured, should always weigh 1.008) and is the product of other physics (mass and space) it can be infinitely variable throughout the universe. It could very well be that the way we experience time on Earth and the meter of it's passing is 100% unique and isn't mirrored anywhere else in the universe. I personally don't think so, but that is a possibility, because time has no "normal" measure, no "normal" properties to it. If humans encounter an alien race whom on their home planet one day of their time is equal to two days our time and they experience time passing faster than us whose to say which measurement is normal, ours or theirs?

Since that is the case, my trust in Google has yet again dived another 1,000 points. I searched Google then did a print screen for that reply. Here is a new print screen jpeg. The reason I made that reply and how it relates to the topic you split it from is that I was trying to demonstrate that time is much more vast and space much more infinite than most people realize because they usually only think on the human scale in human proportions and perception. Look how fast an electron moves within such a tiny space and through trillions times trillions times trillions of revolutions most electrons never collide with anything. And so, when you have an object (electron) completing an action (revolving around a nucleus) repeatedly within such a short span of time (unobservable) you get the sense that space and time is so much more deep and detailed and nuanced than an average person realizes. I should have explained my reply more than I did but since I now have this unintentional awesome topic, we should discuss this electron revolution/rotation rate. Also, Google should have a verification system to omit false information from popping up at the top of a search page. So, as pertaining to this topic, I wonder just how exactly does a person measure the speed of an electron accurately? Since my first source was wrong and I can't find a correct result after a second search, can someone point me to a correct source? I can find plenty on the speed of an electron but nothing on the number of revolutions an electron makes within a measured amount of time. 1. Well, I didn't say it directly and thought that demonstrating a different spatial dimension like an atomic scale would help the topic starter think about time and space with more dynamics. 2. Generally speaking, yes, they could be thought of as equally zero size because there's very few calculations that would ever demand plugging in the precise measurement of a quark or electron but truth is they are physically different in size. 3. I was figurately painting a picture about how vast space and time is. Humans usually think on familiar terms, seconds or minutes, in fact, most humans who are doing something complete physical actions on that scale of seconds or similar. But if you look at an atom you'll see that an electron has completed trillions of actions within a second of time. I would've replied sooner but I was limited to 5 posts.

To better understand the relationship between space and time you must quit thinking on large scales of whole objects such as people or planets and take a look at a single atom. You can then appreciate and partially understand the infinitesimal nature of how vast existence is. How many times does an electron orbit a nucleus each second? Now you can see how vast space is, don't forget that electrons and protons are huge compared to quarks and other tiny particles. Just how far is an electron from a nucleus? If you recorded an electron for one second and then slowed your recording down to watch each revolution around the nucleus you would die of old age before you could finish watching your video.

I would suppose that gravity/time is represented as a negative because the universe is decaying and time is such a basic floor level concept that it must be plugged into the mathematics to account for the decay of matter and the entropy of all existence, therefore, at the start of existence all matter was new and as time passed and the universe expanded matter was lost to decay and collisions on the atomic level. As matter continuously accumulated into stars and planets thanks to gravity, these collisions encouraged decay. And since to an observer the passing of time is determined by the strength of gravity and the speeds of the planets and the rotation of the sun and the effects of gravity exchanged between each of these objects, it is difficult to imagine time without thinking of gravity and the continual entropy of the universes' total mass. Since mass creates gravity one can't help but wonder does the speed of time across the universe change all at once as a sort of an overtone of an "extra effect of gravity" in addition to the Earth's gravitational effect on us?

Question is, how much energy exactly is needed to time travel? What speed is necessary to reach a useful time dilation? Such as, if I wanted to travel 100 Earth years within 1 hour how fast would I need to go and how much space would I travel in that hour?