Meti

Yes, I made it myself; not quite from scratch. The "star-like" bright shape in the middle is based on a photograph I took; I then edited it in Photoshop to adjust the colors, brightness, and other elements. The "Rings" were rendered in Bryce 5, simple 3d; with a bright light in the middle to help establish the 2d photo as a 3d element in the finished piece. The shiny "sphere" effect was created in Photoshop, rather than in an actual 3d application. All of the individual components, including the text, were compiled in Photoshop. So, I guess you could say that I did make it from scratch.

How is this? Any more suggestions are welcome. If you need anything just ask - I'll try to do what I can.

Very true. Only my goal is not to solve any problems. As I said (I must have heared many replies that started out like this, because as I write I get that same sick feeling as I do when someone else is completely ignorant of what and honest person's true intentions were writes in a vain attempt to defend themselves), it is a form of entertainment. But, I do my best to ensure that when I take creative license, it damages the facts as little as possible (but a "little" damage to a fact may as well be complete mutilation); and I try to avoid it when I can. In this case, I made a judgment call, maybe it was wrong of me to do what I did (it probably was). BEC was created, it was shown that such a phase exists, and that is what I wrote. However, I also implied that absolute zero was reached, it may not have been written in so many words - a simple addition of a few letters would have spared me the guilt I feel; as I too criticize people for "altering" facts. I suppose I am a bit of a hypocrite, in that respect (maybe a few others). I also suppose, though, I just didn't see that my writing was typed with such gross negligence to the truth that it warranted such a harsh response, how ever much I deserved it. I'm just the kind of person that would rather give someone pointers that will aid them in preventing self-humiliation in the future than a brash response. Both ways have merit; and the evident passion you have for science is truly inspiring, and yet, is underappreciated in this, the age of voluntary ignorance. I am much more passive, and quiet (despite my long winded posts). True knowledge may prevail, one day; and if no one does anything about it, that is something we will never see.

What kind of a logo exactly? Did you have something in mind? Something like that? Details, please.

Right; although I present complex ideas in HTTW, it isn't meant to be taken as an entirely accurate summary of current science. I complete the idea that they did achieve absolute zero, but only because - for my purposes in HTTW - stating that forming a man-made true BEC is impossible (or nearly, however you wish) would be a bit of a drag. I am not trying to mislead anyone; this was not meant to be used as a reference for actual experts, but rather an interesting presentation of material that may interest a person with a more than casual interest. There are plenty of long-winded papers and books that present basically the same thing - but the average person does not read them. HTTW is merely there to satisfy the needs of a certain niche of people who are more capable than the average person, but without all the meaningless jargon so few understand (That is not to say that the terminology developed for these fantastic ideas are nothing more than meaningless jargon, this is written in the context of the average person, to the a.p. - it may as well be). It is a form of entertainment based on "reality" while incorporating fantastic ideas - giving the reader hope. I apologize if I misrepresented my writing.

You can do a simple Google search for "Agar Petri Dishes", and you will get what you need. They are simply Petri dishes with "food" for the bacteria evenly spread at the bottom. They are fairly cheap, and you can get them in bulk. So you really shouldn't worry about "contamination", being as they are prepared for you.

Well, I thought there was a bit off in that circumstance. I believe that when the plane carrying the two clocks moves in an eastward direction, it would be accelerating faster than the eastward rotation of the earth, moving faster relative to the earth's spin - and causing time to move slower. The inverse would be the reason for the time gain; the plane, traveling westward, in effect - slowing down relative to the earth - causing time to move faster. That should be correct, or - just about.

What you need to get is a Male to Male Mini-Jack Cable. They are quite cheap. Plug one end into your Headphone Jack and the other into your Mic Jack. You can then record the presentation by opening up Mic-Sound recording program, like the built in Windows Sound Recorder, but I usually use Ulead Video Studio. There are hundreds of programs that can record audio from the Mic Jack though. Just get the cable, the Software, Press Record, Then Play - and you're all good to go .

Way back in middle school, I waited till the last second to find a science experiment to conduct in front of the class; it took me so long to decide, I ended up demonstrating how Yeast feeds and grows off of sugar. It was awful. I used the wrong kind of Yeast, it was that live "active" stuff that is all mushy. Smells like rotting feet. I am so glad that was my last year at that school. Moral of the story: Don't, under any circumstance, procrastinate.

The basic idea is that the faster an object moves spatialy, the slower it moves in time (for more details read my other posts - or my blog: http://www.writingup.com/meti). When the clocks were compared after the flight, both times were different, but both were also correct. The clock on the plane moved spatially faster than the one on the ground, so it marked time more slowly. So, if the Ground Clock says 10:01, the Plane Clock would say something like 10:00. Both times would be correct to each of the clocks, respectivly. Keep in mind, the example of an "atomic" clock is used because, unless the clock were moving thousands of mph, the difference would be extremely small; and only "atomic" clocks would be able to detect this difference.

My, all of these fancy desktops are a bit overwhelming for me; I like to keep my workspace clean and simple:

How Stuff Works (.com) did an article not to long ago explaining (in great detail) how light sabers "work". Even an explanation of why their blades "stop", instead of going on, like a laser would. It seems, they say, that the "blade" is not a laser like so many think, but rather a type of "energy loop" - I believe, similar to an elongated arc-welder.

I've known about "Coast to Coast" for some time, if you visit their website, you will quickly see that the radio show is primarily about the "paranormal", aliens, ghosts, psychics, etc. I wouldn't give anything related to Coast to Coast any kind of credibility. (Not to speak in absolutes, mind you)

I may be wrong, just like anyone else; but, I think of there being (what I call) a "sub-space mesh". Imagine grid work in all three dimensions, existing "behind" all that exists. Gravity has a strong effect on this "mesh", as gravity distorts the mesh, so too does anything distort that travels the mesh; but the distortion is more noticeable in light because it is mass-less - easy to guide or alter its path. Whereas with anything with mass, although it is distorted, it is impossible to see or detect this distortion because nothing existing "on" the mesh can actually “see” its effects on anything with mass. The distortion that happens with light is not because gravity pulls on the light, so to speak, but the distortion of the "sub-space mesh" is so extreme (from the light's mass-less p.o.v), that the light simply follows the contours of the distortion of the mesh caused by gravity. If you want me to cite a specific source, I cannot. Just take what I say for what it is and see if it fits your beliefs and opinions. Hope this helps. ~Meti

There is a topic "Bendin the rules". My post contains an explanation and link that you may be interested in. Hope this helps. ~Meti

Although I have not used the term myself, in a series I'm writing on Time Travel, How Time Travel Works at http://www.writingup.com/meti, I do explain many different theories on manipulating Time to create the means of "traveling through time" (i.e. Time Travel). It is being posted part by part, when printed, it is about ten pages long - so, I felt the need to post it piece by piece instead of all at once. You may find it interesting as it uses terms that most everyone can understand. So give it a read, if you like it, check back for the rest on later dates. Keep in mind, this post is directed at everyone who may be interested, not just the topic creator. Hope this helps. ~Meti

What the author is trying to communicate is the idea that the faster something moves in the three spatial dimensions, the slower time passes from the perspective of an outside party (to better understand this idea, read the thread entitled "New Idea" - I believe my post explains why this occurs). So, to *you*, your clock is moving perfectly - since it is moving at your speed. The *other* person, however, is moving quickly relative to you - so, the reason his (or her) clock would be slow has nothing to do with the way light travels, but time. They are moving fast, so their clock marks time slowly, as time passes slowly at high speeds. So, while *your* clock actually says 10:01, and the *other* person's says (as *you* see it) 10:00. But, at the same moment, to the *other* person, *your* clock says 10:00; and their clock (to them) says 10:01. But from the point of view of a stationary third party, both clocks would read the exact same time: 10:00. To each of the moving people, the other person's clock is moving slowly. Since both people are moving, both people's clocks show time slowly to the other person. It can be said that each individual person's clock is moving correctly and slowly; it just depends on the point of view of the observer. That should just about cover it. I hope I made it clear; it is a rather difficult thing to comprehend since most people's minds are developed with a rigid structure of rules and ideas; making it difficult to understand such abstract and bizarre concepts. (btw, TEU is a wonderfully entertaining book, I hope you enjoy it) ~Meti

It is a very interesting idea, and I wish you luck in the future; but, really, to answer the question - one could only give an answer based on theory, while ignoring some of the things that make such an event an impossibility (eg. matter moving at the speed of light). But, at last, if one were to move at the speed of light, you would not "live" forever, and (from your point of view) time would not seem to pass at a normal rate. Also, if matter were to stop moving, time would not stop. These conclusions are based on a certain theory, (quickly): Matter (and what have you) has a universal velocity that is transferable from movement through time (the passing of an hour from your p.o.v.) to movement through spatial dimension (the movement of a car or a person walking), with a maximum value that nothing can exceed. So, when you reach the speed of light, the total of this "special velocity/energy" is transferred into spatial movement (your trip through the cosmos); and none is reserved for *your* movement through time. So, you would not even have a "point of view" because there is no "special v/e" left to give the electrical signals in your brain, let alone your body itself, the ability to move through time. As you said yourself, Time is the measured distance between two events, but without any temporal movement, one event cannot become another. You can also think of it this way, if all of the s v/e is given to your body, you can only move in one dimension - like light only moves in only one dimension at any given time, a straight line. Thusly (a word I made up btw - just saying that for all you grammar freaks ), if all of your movement is in a single direction, one dimension, then your body cannot move in any way (including all of the electrical impulses that make your body work) but a straight line. You would be frozen in time. When I said that you would "not live forever", I meant that, being frozen in time is not what I would call being alive, since you cannot perceive anything. Although you could slow down even a trillion years into the future and still be as you were when you had first reached the speed of light. In that sense, you could just about "live forever". For the last point, if you were to stop moving completely, in the three spatial dimensions, all of the s v/e would be entirely transferred into time - so, time would pass incredibly fast, meaning - you would die instantaneously (not that you could live through the process of actually slowing down). I hope I have answered your "wonder", and given you a bit of drive to help you in the coming years. (Sorry for the long post) ~Meti