elfin vampire

Very nicely presented topic posting. There is only one body of reference within the proto-universe during the BB: the universe itself. All existence is contained within that shell of space-time, regardless the point at which it is measured. When we find ourselves perplexed by the universe it is usually because our understanding of established physics is confused or incomplete. Let us remind ourselves that relativity (not to mention established physics) also states quite formally that all matter is comprised of electricity and gravitation, which is a dynamic provided by space-time. Thus as the universe expands, so too does the environment of matter: at the same rate.

Here's my speculation: In a closed environment such as this what you shall only witness is expansion/contraction within said environment. A tertiary factor must be introduced in order to achieve a third-degree reaction (water condensation). Try a decent pin prick somewhere on the upper bottle. You must've sealed the two necks beautifully with tape.

Odd. I thought it was rather simple, thus this has become my alternate contention. My precpice is as thus: A proposition of a theory. It's all hypothetical. Which upon correlative collaboration becomes a preposition to a Theorum. One must then find themselves as to herefore ammended preposition to a proposition and accepted by the scientific community as established however only corroberated corelatively so as to become established in physics. After observation in nature.

According to computer models based within established physics, early in the formation of the 'proto-Earth,' when the solar system was young a Mars-sized object smashed into it and this mantle ejecta formed the moon. Thus the Moon and the tides have been there as long as there have been oceans. I offer the following point scoring system for alternative theories. http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=31178#post31178

If time is just one of the several dimensions.. Another quote by Albert Einstein: "Time cannot exist without space." In order for time to stop, my dear man you must either: a) travel at c: the Speed of Light in vacuo b) remove all matter and mass from the universe c) stand within an area of such gravitational force that either a or b become utterly irrelevant. In around 1999 Sky and Space magazine announced that it had been discovered the rate of the expansion of the galaxies was increasing under a steady rate of acceleration. I'm uncertain, to be perfectly honest as to the implications upon the Hubble constant in calculating the distance of astronomical bodies such as quasars and other protogalaxies, however assume it is an exponential consideration which leaves proposed distance calculus unaltered. Oh, dimensions: 1. Length 2. Breadth 3. Depth 4. Circumference 5. Space-time ie. there are five which have thus far been established in physics. Universes within universes (ie. black hole universes and such), fall into category 4, a fairly recent addition and having been largely overlooked for much of the development of physics and geometry.

Oh you mean a neutral charge?

Hyperdrives. No doubt about it.

If you combine matter and anti-matter you get energy which should have no charge. Chargeless energy should still be able to make chargeless matter. We cannot correlate findings unless we work within established physics, whether or not it is incomplete or inaccurate (ref: Special Relativity explained through geometry). I am however most interested in your proposal. Do have anything of substance with which to present such a contention? Could you clarify "chargeless matter" (ie. electrically inert, etc.)? Can you present any findings which challenge that physical matter is most literally defined as 'electrodynamic bodies,' is there some kind of other physical matter which is somehow different to 'electromagnetic bodies' (ie. composed wholly of gravitation)? If not of 'electrodynamics' what then composes this matter of which you speak?

Problem Blike, is your reference to the term 'human life.' Aside from directly inferring an abortion issue, which is both moral and political and most certainly not science, the terminology itself is vague at best. How is 'human life' different to any other, sir? I contend that there is no difference whatsoever between 'human life' and that of bacteria or any other primordeal cell structures. The Ebola virus for example would appear to value its own existence quite highly indeed. Perhaps it even thinks about this in some manner which is unknown to us.

That article is such a shameless use of movie hype associated with the "The Matrix." It reminds me of bible-bashers running around claiming everything anyone could possibly be interested in is an example of their desire to become christians. Here is my response to this thread: Point score table for Pseudoscientists. 1. A -5 point starting credit. 2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false. 3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous. 4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent. 5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction. 6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment. 7. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards). 8. 5 points for each mention of "Einstein", "Hawking" or "Feynman". 9. 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). 10. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to university, as if this were evidence of sanity. 11. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. 12. 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen. 13. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory. 14. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at maths, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations". 15. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it. 16. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism". 17. 10 points for each favourable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). 18. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift". 19. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize. 20. 20 points for each favourable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). 21. 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact. 22. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories. 23. 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary". 24. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy". 25. 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his undergraduate physics textbooks.) 26. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate. 27. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilisation (without good evidence). 28. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, etc. 29. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike. 30. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on. 31. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasising about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.) 32. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

According to Relativity, yes time travel is possible. The Special Theory was a statement of an observation in nature and is thus self-evident. The General Theory was confirmed early in last century by the observation of distant starlight's distortion past the disc of the Sun during a total eclipse, precisely to prediction and quite differently to the institutional physics theorum of the time. Time travel is in fact evident within even the satellites orbiting our planet. The Global Positioning System had to be calibrated with Relativity as, travelling at thousands of miles per hour in orbit their internal clocks were in slight difference to those upon the ground. Under a Newtonian (ie. fixed points of reference, or traditional) system of reference the Global Positioning System would provide indications of a given body's location several kilometres distant to its actual position. (ref: One Universe, Neil deGrasse Tyson).

Quoted from Einstein's 1920 paper (http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html) entitled "General Relativity and the Ether," this is the conclusion paragraph: No it isn't, because it's not a plasma. I've just had this argument on another science forum. Yes it is. GR is dependant upon the "ether." The contemporary term, or description of "space-time" which has replaced "space" over the course of development in physics would be "plasma." Agreed that it may not be immediately prevailant as a plasma in the traditional sense of supposition of quantifiable mass within a "vacuum of space" however this is precisely the traditional perception of physics, which although as with Greek preposition is instrumental in learning is nevertheless precisely that which was developed, in a working sense by Relativity. As was arrived at upon the other (said) science forum, I am increasingly becoming disposed to in fact referring to the vacuo as "ether" however the practise I am certain, of referring to it as a plasma shall be continued by New Scientist journal and published astrophysicists therein.

How can chargeless particles have mass then? What makes you think any subatomic particles are chargeless. GR extripolates that matter is derived from electricity and gravitation provided by a dynamic of space-time. ..it still stands to reason that they do have mass no matter how it is derived. As such why would one not be able to view them? Because they are not however, physical matter itself.

2) If humans did not evolve indigenously to planet Earth, what kind of evolutionary process might we have enjoyed upon another planet? ie. archaeological evidence? fossilized bones and examples of primordeal tool usage? cave paintings? early civilizations? rich mythologies? impressive, ancient monuments? linear development of primordeal technologies? By what process could we have appeared upon another planet to have travelled from there to here? Once again, by observation of nature it is directly inferred that humans quantifiably evolved upon planet Earth. That the human of the planet's species does not appear indigenous to the common environment of other species by our produced associations is answerable in the term 'produced associations.' That which sets us apart is indigenous to ourselves and then we are indigenous to planet Earth as a species. 3) There are simply no inferrances of any non-indigenous involvement in any human monuments or artifacts. It is the argument itself which is non-indigenous to its environment. A UFO sighting is exactly that (re: the term). An unsubstantiated claim (re: alien autopsy) is also, exactly that.

You've hit at no less than three major subjects for scientific examination, Rasori, no wonder you're inspired. Roughly, you've postulated that: 1) humans have de-evolved anthropologically. 2) humans do not appear to be indigenous lifeforms to planet Earth. 3) the aforementioned postulations are supported (if not inferred) by physical observation, or in other words may be corroberated by remnant artifacts. Firstly allow me to provide my encouragement for an inquisitive mind. These subjects are interesting within certain contexts and yours allows for reasonable discussion. My scrutiny is naturally, impartial: 1) I think you've really hit on something here, I congratulate your courage and point your scrutiny towards sociology. Individual, democratic ideals exist in spite of, not because of human sociologies. The truth is, right from high school it's a smart idea to develope some kind of capacity for self defence. Odd, isn't it? Considering how few hours of your social life are spent solitarily. We're surrounded by our own species and yet present genuine immediate danger to ourselves (as a species). It is in fact necessary, by choice or conscription to intellectually de-evolve for survival purposes at around the evolution of youth-hood. You don't have to become a "meat-head," you can be a "philosopher" but make no mistake that de-evolve you shall and it is noteworthy that any conclusion will be victims. That our species has de-evolved anthropologically however would be an usupported statement. Paeleoanthropological evidence of ancient Egypt suggests, precisely as inferred that it was an early, complex culture which comprises a primordeal civilization in terms of technological, political and scientific understanding. However we can only interperet inferrances of ancient Egyptian sociology for observation. It is likely Egyptian sociology was seasonal to Pharaonic rule. It is likely that barter systems were prevailant (ie. including environments of human slavery). It is likely that a significant degree of patriotism existed (political and/or topographical). Its circa. 4,000 year archaeological history is more a segmented one, than an individually coherant nation. Ancient Olmec civilization (ref: South Americas), infers visitation by seafaring northern Europeans through the discovery of large, stone sculptures which have the appearance of caucasian features. An "adventurer" by the name of Thor Hyredahl exampled that coastal, papyrus vessels of the kind used in ancient Egypt could be used to travel vast ocean distances when he built and sailed one from northern Africa to Easter Island. He had neglected to build it of as sound engineering as those which were in fact used (he was working off a small model and reliefs found in Egyptian tombs), it had been subsequently discovered and he almost sank however, nevertheless made it to Easter Island in a papyrus-reed boat from northern Africa. Mayan civilization was far more avid in mathematical interperatation of astronomical observation than many ancient civilizations, whom perhaps concerned themselves with respectively: engineering, geometry, political and other sciences. Neolithic humans exampled artistic rendition and human burial from around 40,000 B.C. As far as we can tell by observation in nature, from this point we may begin to measure intelligent, human sociological presence and perhaps thus the environment for the formation of civilizations. There is nothing which demonstrates or infers anything other than an ultimately linear development of human anthropology, although in examining an inevitably rich history there are incontravertably impressive instance at many points.

2.7 Kelvin, for something which is supposed to be a vacuum is toasting. In fact, it's impossible. Moreover:

BTW that really is an exciting picture (of the silicon atom). Wow, we had it right.

Yes, I've read the article. http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/ 40/9/9/1/cernphysw2_11-00 My statement however still stands. Perhaps, it is true that I should cantilever my position for the appreciation of inspiring cinematography. It is certainly exciting however conciseness is also a responsibility of scientists I feel, to maintain an accurate environment for innovative theorists to evolve. Why not have 17 year old prodigies rather than treating them all like intellectual children? The older people would still maintain their position, except those whom have no foundation upon others in theirs. The idea of visually witnessing atoms via magnification, whilst exciting cannot be achieved because it is to witness something which does not exist. This is a fundamental. We study and may view the effects of atomic and subatomic forces. This may seem to be picking marrow from me however becomes very relevent when thinking in terms of pioneering astrophysics: to one's self. Certainly, referencing scientific research, science-journalists should continue to attempt to corroberate a physical nature to atoms for their audience. Certainly scientists should continue to corroberate the foundations of physics theorum through observation in nature, including those gained by irefutable inferrance. Nevertheless, at this time atoms are not in any way, shape or form physical objects: "just really, really small." They are a mechanic, invented by humans but yes it describes something very, very real. You just might need a cybernetic, video-card implant to see it even if it was ten feet on a side, that's all. Are subatomic particles teensy, little bits of matter? No. They derive mass wholly through the presence of an electrical charge.

lol. Physical matter is the product of a mathematical value generated by an electrical charge. The existence of atoms is what we call a "conceptualisation." It is how we ourselves interact with physical reality, intellectually. It is highly likely that the only place an atom exists visually is within an artistic rendition. It defines a consequence of physical reality rather than any kind of object within it. It's value is in dealing with inferrance and working, observable mechanics. At the point where tiny little bubbles of microelectricity can be actually seen, comprising physical reality one would be within the realm of electricity and magnetism, to reference Einstein. Mass generated by dynamic. ie. your "stream of photons" under postulated, limitless magnification would simply become "a measurable force," no teensy little objects in between. And what frame of reference does one use to measure something which is comprised of a force and thus does, yet also does not exist? Quanta.

"Discrete quantities of energy." Quanta. Integral to the basis of the conceptualisation is that tiny quantifications of electrical charge (ie. an electron, a photon) maintain a barely discernable however compositional amount of mass. These subatomic particles comprise atoms. Quantum mechanics describes the manner in which these particles interact, which is corroberative with observation in nature. An excellent example is the deciphering of the interior processes of stars. Predictions consistent with Quantum mechanics match spectral analysis of our sun and tell us what is happening subatomically, corroberatively with that which we observe. Quantum theory also assisted in providing a framework in which Special Relativity could be easily envisioned outside of the contemporary, popular physics theorum of the time with its inception of "light photons" as opposed to "radiation waveforms" still maintained within spheres of engineering today.

Once again to keep things memorably simple and easy both for me to keep track of and yourself to understand: Einstein's Special Relativity (published 1905 under the title: on the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies) Contemporary, Newtonian era physics theorum (ie. without Special Relativity), does not hold true with physical observation with relation to the relative motion of objects. Thus the frame of reference is inaccurate and time itself cannot be a universal constant. However the Speed of Light is an observed constant in nature. Hence the frame of referance for developed physics is altered to be relative to c: the Speed of Light in a vacuo. Naturally the implications to physics were far reaching. In 1915 Einstein published his General Theory of Relativity. This (was dependant upon and) described the contemporary properties of the ether/vacuo, in terms of gravitation and redefined Newton's postulative "space-time" conceptualisation, this definition of which with it is integral and includes the proposed envisionment of "curved space," of which you have read renditions above. In simple essence you could say there are the three dimensions of height, length and breadth and a fourth dimension which is combined space-time. There is no "empty space" as such cosmologically, it's a big plasma. And further that the concept of "time" is integral to that of "space" and vice versa. The implications to physics of this adjacent theory were also far reaching. Both compositions have been well established and heavily corroberated, however continue to become contraversial even today. I've been arguing (good naturedly) with some PhD/MSc's on it recently.

Hey gene *waves* On the Ether: However this appeared in a paper published by Einstein on May 5th 1920: Thus the Special Theory of Relativity, developed in the absence of the ether, subsequently again allowed the inferrance of its existence by experimentation and further, the General Theory of Relativity is dependant upon it. These days however it would, in my opinion be far more contemporary to refer to "space" (space-time, the vacuo), as a plasma. About the Theory of Relativity (SR/GR, short version): Special Relativity is about light. General Relativity is about gravitation. Either are absolutely integral among the foundations of modern physics, however still find themselves regularly within heated debate by and between scientists, hobbyists and pseudoscientists alike.