md65536

I would put it this way (though I may be wrong): An empty capillary has a certain potential (energy) for lifting a liquid. A saturated capillary has no additional potential. That potential might be for example "enough liquid to saturate the capillary, plus 20 drops". So 20 drops might drip from the capillary in what appears to be free energy, but it has used the potential energy of the empty capillary. I don't know exactly why a capillary can become over-saturated and allow drips in the first place. When it drips, you have gravity (or magnets) overcoming the force of the capillary action. That's fine... there's no law of physics broken. There may even be an "oscillation" in the system so that it overshoots equilibrium... but without energy input, it will certainly tend towards equilibrium. In other words, even after the drip, the capillary is still saturated and can't pull up more liquid. Another way to think about this is that if potential energy is used to get the liquid into the capillary, then it will take at least that much energy to get the liquid out. Falling (due to gravity or magnets) involves using potential energy. In the case of trees, energy (input) from the sun can be used to pull water out, allowing more water to be drawn up. In summary I'd say that the potential energy of the empty capillaries powers your device through for however long it drips, but that potential energy gets used up and the device stops. I think that if you want to build a true PMM (by the way, don't, cause it's a waste of time) then you'd be better off first proving that the laws of thermodynamics are wrong and then exploiting that, rather than trying to piece together things that are known to obey the laws of thermodynamics and somehow end up with an end result that doesn't. I think the siren lure of attempting PMMs is that the Rube Goldberg-style complexity of the combination of the machines' parts makes the simple reasoning behind their flaws harder to see. Edit: It's a pretty cool device, and an interesting puzzle, but the reasoning behind why all PMMs are impossible is really solid.

Over and over on these forums I'm seeing something I will call "Proof by 'I don't understand it'", which is that some theory doesn't make sense to me and therefore it must be wrong. Relativity, crop circles, 9/11... it all "can't be a certain way cause it's unimaginable." This is the same type of evidence used to support creationism. I would advise balance. It's not ideal to either accept something you don't understand and move past it while questioning nothing, or to reject something you don't understand and remain blocked by it. If you learn about all these things, you'll see why they're believed to be right, and then you can focus with a better understanding on fixing something you think is wrong. Unfortunately I don't know much about the topics you mentioned. I once read on wikipedia something about how thermodynamic systems can be described as having topology but no geometry. As usual, I can't seem to find the link, now. But I have a feeling that if you gained a thorough understanding of topology, you would be able to conceive of all the puzzling things you mentioned, without having to compare them to geometric analogies like a loaf of bread. That's not an answer, but I think it's a clue. In special relativity, there is nothing that says that extremely rapid acceleration is impossible. Say you are 1 lightyear away from Earth, and "instantly" accelerate to about 0.866c (gamma = 2). Then Earth is now 0.5 lightyears away from you. It hasn't "moved half a light year", but rather space in between you and Earth has contracted. Is that exactly the same principle as space inflating without anything moving faster than c?

I'm assuming this isn't a perpetual motion machine, but the question is "why isn't it?" I would guess either it would reach a state of equilibrium, or it would be using some small external energy input to remain perpetual (like evaporation or something). According to your diagram, it appears that everything "flows downhill" thus not requiring violation of the laws of thermodynamics, except for the capillary action part. A simpler "machine" using the same concept might involve a cloth hanging over the edge of a pot filled with water. Water "climbs" up the cloth and can saturate the part of the cloth hanging over the edge, and drip. Most of us have experienced this happening. If the drip is higher than the level of water in the pot, then the dripped water has gained some potential energy which can be extracted as you return the water to the pot. This also won't work as a perpetual motion machine, if for no other reason than that such things are impossible. I don't know much about capillary action but I think it's usually mistaken for "energy flowing uphill" in PMMs. I think in the case of a wet cloth, capillary action soaks up water and it becomes saturated, and it can drip. But then it reaches equilibrium. The water has "extracted energy" in a way, to be able to climb, and that energy is no longer available for more water to be lifted. Either through the changing shape of the cloth fibers as they soak up water (they don't return to their original shape after the drip), or the simple fact that the cloth now has water in it... it will reach a point where it cannot lift any more water. The "room for more water" left by the drip won't be replaced by more water due to capillary action. I think your machine suffers from the same problem, and will in fact reach equilibrium and stop dripping.

I'm speaking only of the singularity. Other masses would attract the rest of the black hole due to gravity, but the singularity would be "free" from the influence of even the rest of the black hole. In a sense, the black hole as a whole would have to go where the singularity goes. The singularity can "pull along" the rest of the BH's matter, but the rest of the BH can't change the velocity of the singularity. Except by modifying geodesics, as you also mention later in your post... When I speak of "size" i'm speaking of particles I guess, or more to the point I'm speaking of objects that can be treated as a whole with respect to the conjecture involving oscillating energy. The energy inside a black hole's singularity wouldn't oscillate in the area outside the singularity (I guess???); to the energy inside the singularity, it is confined to a single point. The energy has no size. Similarly, the size of an object like a table wouldn't make a difference, because the energy of its matter oscillates on the size scale of particles, not the table as a whole. This of course fits reality: Larger objects don't fall faster. However the conjecture does say that if energy oscillates through a bigger volume, the force of gravity on it will be larger. This suggests that larger particles have more mass. This also suggests that particles that are smaller due to length contraction should have less mass -- I think SR claims the opposite will happen?, so that might be proof that this conjecture is wrong? Yes, if something with zero size follows a geodesic, its path can still be controlled by curving the geodesic. However, even in that case it is not being accelerated... it is just acting on inertia. I don't really know what I'm talking about enough to express it clearly. As for location: The holographic principle suggests that every point on a black hole's event horizon maps to every point inside the black hole, and vice versa (someone correct me if that's wrong), so the energy entering a black hole may appear everywhere within the black hole... perhaps as vacuum energy, or quantum fluctuations or dark energy. As for time: ... Actually I can't conceive of the meaning of time for a singularity that exists for more than an instant as seen from outside the singularity. Perhaps similar to the holographic principle, energy that enters the singularity at any specific time outside the singularity, would map to all time inside the singularity??? I'm completely detached from reality on this idea, now, but I do like the idea that any energy that enters the singularity from outside, at any outside time, could show up inside as energy of the big bang, or in other words as energy that is there for all of known time within the singularity. I don't know though. This is beyond my ability to reason about it. I can't conceive of a mapping from external time to internal time. Time inside or outside of the singularity I would think is "non-existent" or something from the other's perspective. I prefer to think of it this way: All points in the universe are the location of the big bang. From any point's perspective, from the big bang until now, that point has remained stationary relative to itself. This makes sense when we consider the big bang to start with a singularity; all locations in the universe had the same location at the start. Also, from any point's perspective, the rest of the universe appears to be expanding outward from that point. So I would say that all points in the universe are its "center"??? (or something with the same "feel" as that but expressed more precisely), which at least is compatible with the holographic principle I think.

After reading some of these posts and related information on several of the internets, I think I have a comprehensive explanation of 9/11. 1. It was a training exercise. This much of it was planned and coordinated by multiple levels of government. Repeatedly, there are descriptions of different terrorist attack training exercises planned at the pentagon, in new york, etc. These are always treated as "coincidence", and something that lead to the confusion of the day, as various people were unsure about whether or not it was "real-world" or an exercise. A training exercise would necessarily require secrecy on all levels (if everyone knows what's coming, then what's the value in the exercise?), and would be a legitimate reason for secrecy and "A joining or acting together". It would be like a conspiracy without the criminal aspect of it. 2. Someone had secret motives to make the exercise into something more serious, involving citizens and real-world risk. The driving factor behind this may have been innocent (mistakes, misunderstandings, miscommunications), or cold-hearted (it may have been an exercise with real-world risk that wasn't expected to fail so spectacularly) or downright criminal (it may have been designed to fail as it did). The blame may lie with the pilots, possibly trained to enact a hijacking exercise, but using it as an act of sabotage and treason. The blame may lie with a small number of government officials, who secretly gave different orders to different organizations, so that they would treat it as a training exercise while other groups or individuals treated it as real-world. My first suspect is Dick Cheney. He had the motive to do this. There were plans or studies or whatever investigating the idea of creating a disaster in order to seize power or unite the country against some enemy (might be considered "manufactured disaster capitalism"). He had the right government connections, and secrecy, and all that... he had the means to do it. He had ties to businesses that benefited from 9/11 (Enron, Halliburton). His heart is a lump of black coal. One question is, if 9/11 was planned, then did it go according to plan? My instinct is that something(s) went wrong, and it was intended to be less damaging. Something like, "Let's get rid of these buildings my friends want disappeared, let's test our personel and our citizens, let's create a disaster and panic to let us seize power and go to war, all in one shot. The people will be evacuated and the demolition will be controlled, and there will be a minimal loss of life." But then I wonder, "how far would Cheney go to gain power?", and based on my extensive judgement of his character, I think that he'd have no trouble killing a lot of citizens in the name of creating a bigger disaster, the bigger the better. So, I think most of the planning of 9/11 involved training exercises, where the conspiracy required was just enough to "swap the blanks for real bullets". I think the secret aspects of this exercise were to test the following: - The government's ability to control information about the event. - The willingness of the people to unquestioningly cooperate with government in a crisis. Dick Cheney did 9/11. QED.

Yes, that sounds right. A geodesic appears straight from any point on the geodesic, and can appear curved from other locations. For example, if you were on a rocket heading toward a galaxy whose light is gravitationally lensed on its path to Earth, some remote observer might see that you appear to be curving. You would observe that you traveled in a straight line the entire trip. The destination galaxy would always appear directly in front of you (you'd never have to turn), and Earth would always appear directly straight behind you. An observer on Earth who is also on the same geodesic would also observe that you appeared to constantly move straight toward the galaxy. No, the conjecture is that energy (or particles) need size in order to be affected by gravity. Basically the energy needs to travel along different geodesics in order to accelerate. A black hole singularity in particular has no size, so accordingly it would not be affected by gravity (and may or may not be affected by the curvature of space caused by external mass -- this is where I'm confused though). I guess that when a singularity is formed, it basically "escapes" the influence of the universe. I guess it might continue traveling on the course it had when it formed, never accelerating. Now, to throw in even more confusing ideas: Imagine we consider the known universe to be a black hole according to any external observers. The conjecture suggests that we inside the black hole would not be influenced gravitationally by anything outside the universe, however, the "exo-universe" can still be gravitationally affected by our universe (a black hole to them). As for the two interacting, we could receive energy from outside, but no energy could escape our universe (except as Hawking radiation?). This is a far-fetched conjecture but I think it might be potentially relatable to our current understanding of the universe?

Yes, there's a problem with my reasoning but I'm not sure where. The relativeness of motion would suggest that if a black hole singularity can't move relative to us, then we can't move relative to it. Doesn't make sense. Let me try to rephrase my question. Light cannot escape a black hole because space around it is so severely warped that "straight lines" (geodesics) appear to external observers to curve back toward the black hole. My conjecture is that black hole singularities would not be affected (accelerated toward) external gravitational masses. If a singularity does not accelerate, then it should travel in a straight line. The singularity should travel along a geodesic. I guess I'm just confused about how to describe a black hole traveling through space that is so severely curved. It seems to me that the only place a singularity could move to (like its light), is back toward itself. Perhaps this is just me confusing relative motion and the "fabric" of spacetime, which to me is just a measurement. Perhaps what I'm saying is nothing more than "an object cannot move to any location relative to itself; it is always stationary relative to itself"... fairly vacuous. As an aside... I think of "gravitons" as an analogy or an effect of measurement rather than a fundamental physical reality, but... If light cannot escape a black hole, how do gravitons escape it? Wouldn't they travel along the same geodesics? Isn't gravity an effect of spacetime curvature? It's expressed as a force. Spacetime curvature can't be expressed as a force, can it? Hrm, I don't know where I read about the mass of a photon (somewhere on wikipedia), but I seem to have mixed up mass and maybe "relativistic mass" http://www.weburbia.com/physics/photon_mass.html. If a particle with mass is accelerated due to gravity (which is due to to spacetime curvature) then its path isn't a geodesic.

Citations: Destruction of evidence: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html Stifling of investigation, destruction of evidence, and coverup: http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission#Government_deception

Yes, of course it was suspicious, and it was by definition a conspiracy (it wasn't individuals acting alone). However: 1. The explanations given for what happened that day (the tower "pancaking" collapses, the vanishing of the "plane" that hit the pentagon, etc) are extremely dubious. 2. The US government stifled objective investigation of 9/11. They destroyed evidence and kept findings classified. So yes, there was also a government coverup. This doesn't prove there was government involvement of the planning of the attacks, or if the coverup was done to protect their interests (or even the interests of the people), or to hide negligence, or whatever... It just proves that the US government can cover up a major attack on one of its cities because the people (or majority) won't demand a full explanation.

I have a bunch of questions and ideas... please point out any statements that are false. Since reading of the concept in GR that gravitational attraction is a kind of inertia more than a force, I've been trying to build a conceivable understanding of it. Since then I've tried to "correct" anyone who speaks of light following a curved geodesic as if the light is being affected by gravity, as if gravity is "pulling on the light". I recently read in wikipedia that photons have mass, so does that mean they are affected by gravity? So I'm wrong??? But then I read here http://everything2.com/title/Geodesic that geodesics are paths of zero acceleration (in the case of light, this would only be a change of direction). This means light is not "pulled" by gravity, only that its path can be curved by mass. So I did some thought experimentation. Suppose you have some photons traveling along a geodesic (which is curved, by a large nearby mass, according to some remote observer). Suppose you have 2 mirrors at arbitrary positions along the path, which reflect the light back along the same geodesic. Then the light will continue on that path indefinitely. It will not accelerate towards the gravitational mass. However, I realized the same can be said about a ball or a planet: If it is bounced (perfectly with no energy loss, assume) off a mirror back from the direction it came, it will follow the same path it took to get to the mirror, even though it is being accelerated by gravity. Similarly, in a perfect orbit it will remain on the same path indefinitely. So this thought experiment says nothing about how light and matter are different when it comes to gravity. Here now is my speculative explanation of how gravity works without treating anything as a "force": Suppose again that you have photons traveling a single curved path near a gravitation mass, reflected between 2 mirrors. Now say that at one of the mirrors, you shift the photons one unit of length toward the gravitational mass as it's being reflected. It will follow a slightly different geodesic, one which seems "more curved" to a remote observer, because it is closer to the gravitational mass. So when the photons reach the other mirror, they will be more than 1 unit away from the original geodesic. Suppose at the second mirror you shift the photons one unit away from the gravitational mass, and then reflect them. The photons will now follow a geodesic somewhere in between the previous 2 geodesics it had followed. If you keep repeating this (shifting the photons 1 unit toward the mass at one mirror, and 1 unit away from the mass at the other mirror), then the photons will move toward the gravitational mass, even though no force has acted upon them -- other than the fact that something needs to shift them. But what if they were already shifting like that on their own?... Now instead of mirrors and shifting photons, imagine energy oscillating say in a circular or spherical path. This is how I imagine for example electrons around an atom. I assume that all matter can be described as energy (according to e=mc2) -- I saw a posting somewhere here that says that's an incorrect way to view it... is it? -- and that all energy travels at the speed of light, and also that all traveling energy follows the same geodesics that light does. So if matter is made up of energy oscillating in at least 2 dimensions (one of which is roughly parallel to the direction toward the gravitational mass and one which is roughly perpendicular), then you have energy that is constantly moving in slightly different geodesics, which cause it to move toward the gravitational mass, and as it gains momentum the constant movement toward the mass results in gravitational acceleration. Digression: Here is why I think that math is so fundamentally important. As a crackpot I might say "This completely explains gravity" and end there. That's the extent of my understanding and that's as far as it will ever go. But a vague idea that shows one mass will move toward another gravitational mass when treated as oscillating energy does not fully explain gravity. Gravity can be described with specific mathematical values, and if my theory can't match them, then my theory does not explain gravity. But another reason that math is important, is that there are lots of different ways to do the math. If I model this oscillating energy idea, there are many variables to work with. Does the size of the oscillation only work with a specific value? Does that correspond to existing measurements of particles? Does it work if the oscillation is treated as completely random in 3 dimensions? Or uniform oscillation in 2 dimensions? Finding ways to make the math work can tell you a LOT about the details of the idea. One day I might try to figure out the math involved with this idea. For now, I can't conceive of the math, and consequently I can't conceive of the possible related ideas that the math might suggest. Without math, all these ideas of how the oscillating energy might be more precisely described, are lost. Back to the speculation... This idea suggests that "size" is what lets a mass be accelerated in curved spacetime (IE accelerated by gravity). So this suggests that a black hole singularity is not affected (accelerated) by gravity. Does this relate to any other existing theories that you know of? I figured this means that singularities, like light, follow geodesics. A black hole can still be "steered" by external mass, because that external mass can define the curvature of geodesics. So I have this vague idea of 2 black holes on a collision course, would not so much "pull on each other", but rather curve space so that they end up headed straight for each other. BUT WAIT, i says to myself... If a black hole can travel along a geodesic, that means that there is a geodesic "pointed away from it." If that's the case, then light could travel along that geodesic and escape the black hole. This lead to the idea that black holes don't "move through space". Once you have a singularity, it is where it is. It could be treated as an absolute position in space, perhaps??? This doesn't really matter so much, because they can curve space around them, essentially devouring it or something, and 2 black holes can merge by shrinking the space between them to nothing. It's like a fat man at a table, too big to lean over and reach for another helping of turduckpizpizburgon (bacon stuffed in a burger stuffed in a pizza stuffed in another pizza stuffed in a duck stuffed in a turkey and then double deep-fried to perfection), but he can bring the food to him by pulling on the table cloth. I realize these ideas get confused and convoluted by the end. In the future I might try to explore this properly (with some math and maybe even some research of existing theory, who knows). Does anyone know of some related info or ideas or corrections? Thanks.

I agree. Another aspect is that often when individuals share their ideas with others, they feel that others don't "get" their ideas. Individuals outside of the mainstream are often unable to express their ideas clearly and understandably. Ideally an individual would work with others to educate their self on how to express the idea scientifically, while also sharing smaller parts of their idea to get help validating or developing the theory (rather than trying to convince others that the entire thing is correct). Instead what happens is the individual feels that their idea is more important than learning about existing stuff, so they focus on it while avoiding learning how it's been done before, AND they feel ostracized by those they shared their ideas with. So they want to work in isolation until they can present their idea in a way that will convincingly prove to others that they're right. That has been my experience as a crackpot, at least. Not all new and good ideas require difficult math or a thorough understanding of a field, but such ideas are probably exceedingly rare. There is a natural tendency, when working on a new idea, to assume that it's never been thought of and that it's immensely important. So crackpots "appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical importance". I think it's the same type of belief that a very rare situation applies to oneself, that many lottery players feel. Out of curiosity, have you calculated your crackpot index? http://math.ucr.edu/...z/crackpot.html "35. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on." Not that the index is authoritative, or that a high score means anything, but that's a lot of points you racked up right there! Sometimes crackpots are right. I find it valuable to try to avoid typical crackpot "mistakes" and other quirks that make it easier for others to not take you seriously. Historically, if the church would execute you for your ideas, you work on them in secret... which nowadays means hiding crackpot behavior.

"Forever" is entirely misleading, because it suggests a span of time, when the sum of time it takes to meet the infinite "requirements" is finite. It would be like saying that it would take an infinite amount of time to describe this part of the problem, when really you described it in a single sentence. But that's just semantics. The real answer to your question is... That's where the argument breaks down. Of course it's possible. There's not even a justification for why it might be considered impossible. With any movement, no matter how small, you would pass through an infinite number of "midpoints". This is related to the concept of there being no smallest positive non-zero number. Any real number can be divided into smaller numbers, just as (as you assumed) any distance can be divided into smaller distances with midpoints. The argument would be similar to saying "Any number is infinitely large," -- which is obviously not true -- "because it can be divided into an infinite number of smaller numbers" -- which is true.

This cartoon sums up my response: http://xkcd.com/638/ Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. -- Carl Sagan Personally, I don't think that humans are anywhere near the maximum on the scale of possible intelligence. But that also isn't evidence of anything. I essentially agree with you, that "until proven otherwise", there's no compelling reason to believe intelligent aliens exist -- or for that matter that they don't. I'd be surprised to find out either way, but I'd be disappointed to hear that we're the best and only representative of intelligent thought in the universe.

I would suggest researching different forms of meditation, especially the more physical ones. I'm too lazy to research it myself, but some ideas include Qi Gong, which has to do with mentally channeling energy through yourself in different ways; there's also those monks or whatever who meditate on body heat and as a test melt blocks of ice with their body heat; there's "energy healing" and the idea of energy points in the body that one can perceive, and stuff like that... A word of caution though... the mind is a powerful thing, and it can play tricks on us, and there are a lot of people who let themselves be consumed by some "belief" in one thing or another, which can become harmful if it overcomes one's ability to think rationally. In other words, there are a lot of seemingly crazy people involved in some of these things. Meditation itself isn't crazy though... it can be as simple as purposeful use of your mind. A lot of general meditation involves increasing self-awareness and perception of things we don't normally automatically perceive, and stuff like that, which may relate to your technique. Your technique sounds like "Mind over matter". I would suspect that the horizontal and vertical stripe system is something that is mentally conceived, cause I don't know of any anatomical feature that corresponds. That's okay though, because moods are also mental -- mostly mental, at least -- so it doesn't mean your technique is any less real. Look up various meditation techniques, and see if anything sounds close. Perhaps you could develop a new self-help kind of mental exercise, if you can explain the technique to people in steps that they can practice.

Oh I see. I was way off. Does this "leaving of a band" produce fairly uniform expansion in all directions, as we see today? I would expect the expanding and shrinking to be dependent on the shape of the spiral arms, and that the universe would shrink into and expand out of a similar long and narrow shape. If the "front" of our galaxy is heading out of a band and the back closer to the band and being pulled back, that would explain the expansion in forward and back directions, but what causes expansion in a sideways direction? Anyway vordhosbn's post (it violates causality) and swansont's post (it doesn't account for what Big Bang Theory and dark matter etc account for) do it for me. If your theory implies no big bang, how would you explain evidence of the big bang theory like CMB etc?

The words are right but the correct syllogism is: p->q ~q ~p It probably won't confuse anyone but me, but I didn't fully read your words and I was about to argue that you have the scientific method all wrong! I don't understand your reasoning for why the universe would begin to contract again. Are you familiar with the concept of escape velocity? Basically, if you have 2 masses moving apart at a fast enough speed, their gravitation attraction will slow their speed but not enough to overcome it completely. They may decelerate for eternity but never come to a stop (analogous to an infinite series of positive numbers that has a finite sum). I assume that most people don't get this idea. Does it apply to your reasoning? I've thought of the question of whether the universe is open (forever expanding) or closed (eventual big crunch) as a question of whether the Big Bang gave the component masses of the universe an escape velocity. But, with a universe that is expanding at a constant rate, or an accelerating rate, gravitation and escape velocity are not the main mechanism that applies. If the universe is expanding and accelerating outward at a fairly constant rate in all directions (Is it? I don't know), then some sort of uniform mass (a spherical "wall" beyond our range of observation) might account for this. Is this basically your idea? Or do I have it wrong? One way to work with this idea is to figure out how the wall may have got there (I can think of an easy way), and then figure where we (and everything we see) would be moving given the explanation of the hidden mass. Ideally you would model it. Is there a way to get the model's behavior to match what we observe today? That's not proof or anything but along the way you might find new paths of clues to follow. Anyway as for your original question (physics to show you're wrong), it's way over my head and maybe too broad. Addendum: I don't think this "spherical wall" idea matches what we observe today. If it were true, we should see greater acceleration toward the "near wall", but I think what we see is uniform rate of expansion in all directions. So then we'd need to be in the very center of the mass, and I can't account for that. Is there another way to have a distribution of mass that causes uniform gravitational attraction in all directions without requiring special circumstances for us?

Since it's only approximately a Fibonacci spiral I would guess that the spiral shape is not due to photoshopping (otherwise, why not make it more perfect?). In the bottom left corner of the largest box, a Fibonacci spiral would aim straight down and curve to the right rather than continue off to the left. Also, all the boxes should be square and none of them are very close. Without that, you don't get the proper ratios that make it a Fibonacci spiral. This is just a spiral. It's pretty cool though.

I'm going to go the opposite direction of Stephen Hawking and bet that by the end of this year, we will have a generally accepted theory that unifies relativity and quantum mechanics. I will also predict that there will be an explosion of related scientific discoveries over this year and the next few. In previous great years in the history science, there have always been few people working on the cutting edge of science, relative to the number of scientists working today, and the world took a long time to catch up. Today, there are so many brilliant minds who have a hundred years' worth of understanding of modern physics, who are ready for the next level of puzzles that will be unlocked when someone finds the missing piece to the current puzzle. There will be great excitement among scientists, which will attract further attention and excitement towards science in general. Theories related to a unified theory will force us to accept that "Everything we know about the universe from the largest scale to the smallest has changed", and this year will be seen as the end of the modern age of science and the start of the next age, with the very principles and methods of science undergoing an evolutionary transformation. This prediction is based on "hope" and wishful thinking, perhaps a bit of delusion, and maybe even a dash of secret information. Any takers? I will wager 400 quatloos. Edit: Okay I'm changing my bet to say that I was on crack, and on further thought perhaps I agree with Hawking, who expects only "a 'family of interconnected theories' might emerge, with each describing a certain reality under specific conditions." http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2010/09/hawking-mlodinow-no-theory-of_30.html Perhaps within a year or two, there will be evidence that various competing models are at the same time correct, and unreconcilable... That the reality of the universe is fundamentally different depending on how you observe it. A sort of complementarity principle for the universe as a whole. Would a discovery of something like this count as a ToE? It's kind of an anti-ToE. The pessimist in me now says that whatever is discovered, acceptance and continuation of the work will be as slow today as ever, and science itself will resist a "greatest year in the history of science", preferring to take a gradual, evolutionary pace. I guess my new bet is: "Something interesting will happen in 2011. Or perhaps nothing interesting at all will happen this year. One or the other though... I'm 95% sure!"

http://www.smbc-comi...=comics&id=1995 You can deal with equations. If you understand that gravitational force is proportional to mass and inversely proportional to distance squared, then the equation g = GM/r2 makes sense. If the equation doesn't make sense, you probably don't really understand that gravitational force is proportional to mass and inversely proportional to the square of distance. If you understand that the gravitation force on an object is the same as the sum of the force on all its constituent parts (or particles), then some equation involving integration should make sense. If you don't know integration, or don't understand how to manipulate simple equations, then you may understand something about gravity but may be unable to use that information to figure anything else out. To get back to the original topic, perhaps in 2 generations time there will be children's books that explain stuff about which we can only say "We don't really know" today. Today, there are many explanations of special relativity that don't use math, but use trains and rockets and light signals etc. These are great for providing a children's or layperson's understanding of the topic, but not a scientific understanding of it. On the original topic of this thread, the point is moot, because there is not yet a broad enough understanding of the topic to provide a children's level understanding of it. As a side note, in high school I found it puzzling why gravity should be proportional to 1/r2... why exactly 2? Now I have a (speculative, maybe "not quite science") answer, but it comes in the form of math. Also, asking and/or pondering "why" questions can lead to good science (possibly along a long and winding road), however in this case the answers are either speculation or misinformation.

Hawking's time travel is time dilation, where one observer experiences time at a slower rate than others (just as with the twin paradox). The Singularity you speak of is a predicted period in technological advancement where artificial intelligence is able to aid in technological innovation. The idea is that since they may be able to "improve themselves", then future iterations of AIs will be able to innovate better and faster, and through iteration will accelerate technological innovation beyond what is humanly possible, very rapidly. There is also the concept of a singularity eg. with black holes... a singularity is a mass with infinite density and thus takes up no space (a single point with no size). You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Gravity doesn't curve spacetime. Mass does. Saying "gravity curves spacetime" or pulls on it or whatever is like saying "Leaning in a car changes the car's direction when going around a corner". Mass curves spacetime. Gravity is an effect. Gravity doesn't curve spacetime. Mass does. Acceleration (aka change in velocity) around a corner changes the car's direction (aka velocity). The resulting leaning, just like gravitational attraction, is due to inertia. The force felt while leaning involves overcoming inertia to follow the path of the accelerating car. This is similar to the force felt when trying to overcome gravity. Leaning, like gravity, is an effect, not the cause. Gravity doesn't curve spacetime. Mass does. In summary, Gravity doesn't curve spacetime. Mass does.

"Explanations" that are neither backed up with math, nor predict observations that existing theories do not, might be considered crackpottery. This doesn't mean they're wrong. They may be simply incomplete, and not ready to be accepted by others. What I was referring to is another aspect of crackpottery seen in this thread, which is a tendency toward sweeping claims that what has been established is wrong. This can be good in moderation, because our existing understanding is always evolving and some of it is wrong. As you've said, claiming that something is wrong without understanding it is bad, and a poor understanding of established science is where most of the bad crackpots seem to fail. There's nothing inherently wrong with crackpot science, but crackpots have to follow the same rules as everybody else. As it is, the evidence is stacked in favor of what is already established. Crackpots must speak the language of what has been established to show that it is incorrect. New contending theories must be backed up with math and/or empirical observations, at least as much as the theories they intend to replace. What good is a theory that makes no new predictions about what is observable, and also can't be shown to be true or false or even consistent? What can it be used for? At best (as far as I can fathom) it can lead to a testable theory, or it can influence other testable theories. So it may warrant additional work, possibly involving others who also willingly believe that it is worth investing in. If others aren't interested and you don't have the evidence needed to convince them, arguing your side will get you nowhere. Clearly, anyone who agrees with you must be of a similar mindset and easily convinced. Either way, having to strongly argue your case without evidence is probably wasted effort.

I think time dilation, and the fact that different observers measure time differently, suggest that time doesn't quite "exist" ("To have actual being; be real") but is rather a fignewton of an observer's perception. One might say it only exists within the context of an observation, or even that it is illusory. Time can be separated into several concepts. One is the perception of durations, which I believe is entirely a product of perceptive. Another is chronology, or the ordering of events. Ignoring the measurement of durations between events, the chronological ordering of causally related events is absolute. I believe that the ordering of causally connected events (a "causal chronology") is a "real" aspect of the underlying nature of the universe, while the perception of time passing and the rate at which it appears to pass, is not.

Considering that you called a member of the staff "arrogant", I'm sure you'll be the first to know. My post is off-topic but this thread's a train-wreck! I have to take the side of "proper science" on this argument. I'm a crackpot scientist myself, but I've learned at least 2 things: 1. It's a waste of time to engage with argumentative crackpots. They typically refuse to acknowledge accepted understanding, so any attempt to help them be better informed will be brushed aside. 2. Math really is the key to go from idea to theory. An idea may be judged good or bad depending on opinion (the wilder the idea, the better it will seem to some and the worse to others). All of our wild ideas are typically vague, with parts that "make sense" but leave room for interpretation or simply let the details remain clouded in a mental fog. There are so many ways that the details can manifest, that it's unlikely to get them right via a guess based on common sense. So you take an idea, and you express it mathematically, and it lets you determine if your idea makes precise sense (whereas "word salad" can be shown neither true nor false because it's so vague). BUT BETTER YET, if the math doesn't work you can change it and fix it, and make it work, and in doing so that will give you the details needed to let you express the idea in words properly. Either by making the ideas precise, or by changing them completely, a good idea can become a good theory that may look nothing like the original idea. An idea in words may be good or bad, but the same idea in math can be right or wrong, and "good" doesn't always correspond directly with "right". An example is Mach's Principle, which "was a guiding factor in Einstein's development of the general theory of relativity," "but because the principle is so vague, many distinct statements can be (and have been) made which would qualify as a Mach principle, and some of these are false." Through words, Mach's principle doesn't tell you much about how the universe works. But Einstein did the math, and the math tells us how the idea works, and tells us so much more and in precise detail, than what Mach's principle says. Mach's principle on its own sounds like crackpot science. Yet it is a useful idea. I'm sure that Mach didn't have to fight with Einstein to prove his idea was right, and that if he had tried he wouldn't have been able to.

My other theory (the boring one) concludes that time is equivalent to distance. While working on it I ended up with 2 separate concepts of "present": One is "what we can observe right now" and the other is "what we can affect right now". Considering special relativity and c as the speed limit of information, each of these is "equidistant" from our accepted understanding of "present", in time relative to some given remote location. That is, for a moon that is one light second away, what we can observe is at least 1 second in the past and what we can affect (on the moon) is at least 1 second in the future. (My theory diverges on that explanation, by the way.) What I currently figure is that our perception of time can be described completely as something like, "there is a perceived duration between emitting information and receiving information, which is proportional to distance." Or perhaps more interestingly, "there is a perceived duration between cause and effect (or action and observation), that is proportional to distance between the two." I think maybe there is nothing that can be described as "time" which can't be expressed this way??? Anyway it's hard to describe in English without cyclical definitions and stuff. The theory seems to be perpetually 1 month away from being ready.

Cool! Do you need to get a Master's degree in Time to use it? Or do they just restrict it to those with Lord degrees?