between3and26characterslon

Because we can

A single (as in unmarried) woman goes to her mothers funeral, whilst there she gets talking to a man who she really likes. When she gets home she decides she really wnats to see him again but can't remember his name or number. Two days later she murders her sister. Why?

I took it as two points meaning more than one point ie any number of points you care to think of. So is it possible to exist in two places at the same time?

As all experiences happen in the brain is it sufficient to say that if a brain experiences something it has happened, if so then infinite speed is possible because I have experienced infinite speed. I'll explain. A long time ago I had some rye bread sitting on the side in the kitchen, unfortunately it had gotten a bit mouldy but as I was very hungry I ate it any way. Later that night I went to bed and had a very interesting dream. Anyway... In my 'dream' I was falling down a long tunnel, so long I couldn't see the end. As I fell I got faster and faster until I reached the speed of light. There was a big flash as I went through the light barrier and I enjoyed this feeling for a moment. Seriously, experiencing that accceleration for that amount of time and travelling at that speed was exhilarating. Over the next second or so I accelerated from the speed of light to infinitely fast, during this acceleration my field of vision expanded to include everything behind me as well as everything in front of me and before I knew it I no longer existed as a point moving along a trajectory but existed at every point along that trajectory simulataenously. The path I travelled took me back to the point I started so it was a big loop but I existed along the entire lenght of it. So in that respect there is infinite speed. And if anyone offers you mouldy rye bread, just say NO!

To be honest I don't observe that many.

Yeah, have fun

That is government, any way of organizing individuals into a decision making process is a government.

What if they're kittens, you'd irradiate cute little kittens, you bad!

That may be true but I'm not saying that everything disolves better in water, I'm saying that more things disolve in water and more can disolve before water becomes saturated (not in all cases but in general) Yes, point taken, but given how unlikely it is that we will in the foreseeable future make contact with alien life I think that non carbon based ETI is so unlikely that we should not devote too much time to it. We may look very similar as well, I wasn't so much suggesting physical appearance more that when we look deeper we will find similarities eg. scientific theories, politics, art, cultures etc... On the other hand given the number of different types of bacteria and the rate at which they reproduce and therefore mutate I think it still poses the biggest risk to both us and them. From our point of view it wouldn't have to affect us directly to be a problem, suppose all our wheat crops became infected or even worse something which affected pollinating insects. I think if we are talking about intelligent life which, through scientific understanding and political organisation, can build space ships that are capable of travelling the vast distances needed to reach alien life and communicate when they get there they really have to be carbon/water based. There are millions of species on earth and only one species (us) have developed to the point we're able to have this conversation. I don't think you'd get enough variety in non carbon/water based life to get that one species.

I don't quite know what you mean by "life dissolved in water", What I am saying is that water is the best carrier. A wider variety chemicals can dissolve in water than any other solvent and more of each of those chemicals w/w can disolve in water (on average). This makes water the best medium for supporting complex chemistry. The data you need to confirm that carbon based life is more likely can be found in a library, simply compare the amount of shelf space given to either organic or inorganic chemistry. Organic chemistry is vastly bigger than inorganic chemistry (which silicon is only a small part of). So when you consider that water and carbon are two of the most abundant chemicals in the universe (as DanielC said) and water provides a base for a lot of the complex carbon chemistry to take place you have all the data you need to make the assertion that carbon and water are more likely to give rise to alien life. (EDIT: whilst I was writing this you posted a reply, I think we are agreed here that water/carbon life is more likely but not the only possibility) I think that if we ever met an alien race we would be quite surprised at the similarities we share, physically, biologically, culturally, artistically, technologically, scientifically etc etc... The single biggest threat an alien race could bring to Earth is disease (bacteria and virusus) which is also the biggest threat we pose to them.

There's a lot of speculation here so I thought I'd chime in. There is a big difference between what's possible and what's likely. (especially if we are talking about aliens that visit Earth) It is possible that alien life could be silicon based for example, however it's more likely it will be carbon based. This is because organic chemistry is vast and I think you would need that level of diversity and complexity for life to form. This isn't a human construct, it is nature and one thing we assume is that the laws of nature (physics) are the same everywhere in the universe. So there is a greater chance that alien life will be carbon based. It is possible that alien life will use amonia instead of water for instance, but as far as I'm aware water is one of the best solvents around, more things dissolve in water and more of those things w/w dissolve in water making it more versatile (think what blood has to carry in it). Water might even be more common that ammonia seeing as commets are big lumps of ice and most of the planets in our solar system have water on them, but don't quote me on that. I think it's more likely then that alien life will need water. So although it doesn't preclude other possibilities I think it is far more likely that alien life will be carbon based and will use a water based solvent. As for technology and communication, if our assumption that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe is true then it is likely aliens will have discovered the same laws. They will understand mathematics, logic, analysis, binary etc... They will have built transmitters recievers, sensors, lasers, clocks, measuring rods etc... and other similar technologies. These things are not human concepts they are based on physical principles, it's how we use them that makes them human, they only become human when we turn them into ipods, TV's, DVD players, PS3's. So aliens may communicate by touch or smell or grafting DNA (carbon based) but they will most likely use EM transmission as well. If they're advanced enough to come visit us then they will have studied physics including the entire EM spectrum, they will have their version of radio telescopes, they will have studied the universe in x-ray, UV, microwave etc... Seti for example do not analyse the whole EM spectrum, they only look at a small part of it which they have decided is more likely to be sent by an alien species wanting to communicate. Aliens would recognise similar signals from us. What will they do when/if they get here. Base on what we know (us) it is more likely they will be carbon/water based life, they will be altruistic, they will have a history of science and discovery and will have developed technology. In order to do this they will need to be organised, they will need rules and laws, they will need to be civilised, they will need training and education, they will have their version of goverment and politics. And that might mean a tyrannical totalitarian autocratic disgrace like N.Korea, but lets face it N.Korea would never have developed technology on its own because to do that you need to be civilised and all the other things I mentioned. Any alien race like that would have half its population in gulags and the other half will be almost starving to death. They would never develop the means to get here. It's unlikely that we would be the first alien species they will have encountered, they would probably belong to or be policed be a body comprising all the 'worlds' they have relations with. If they were like N.Korea they would probably be under the eye of neighbouring societies and would not come all this way to kill us for fear of reprisals. Even if they are immensely intellectually superior to us they will still recognise our intelligence, would they destroy us? I don't think so. Would they rape our planet of its natural resources? Probably not, there are 7 other planets for them to choose from. They would most likely be as fascinated with us as we would be with them and they would probably want to trade. That's my opinion, like I said I'm not ruling out other possibilities just saying what I think is more likely.

Newton said, "If I have seen further than others it is because I have stood upon the shoulders of giants" he was saying that his theories were the logical consequence of existing theories. Einstein took two existing principles and united them, his theory was the logical consequence of the principle of relativity and the constant speed of light in vacuo. We understand what distance is and we understand what time is and from those two notions we can work out what speed is and therefore what the speed of light is. We know that all observers measure the SOL as c and because c is finite we can use Lorentz transformations to work out time dilation and length contraction. Again I'm not saying your theory is wrong, just that it doesn't follow from everything that has gone before it. If speed = distance/time and you're saying that information is transmitted and recieved instantly (as your theory describes) then we will have to redifine all previous physics to fit your theory? To give you an analogy, it seems to me like you've built a roof but you haven't got a house to put it on, yours is a top down approach rather that the building on foundations approach. You say that you don't know all the physics connected with relativity but you are sure your theory doesn't contradict relativity. Then you make 2 very bold claims which you assert you haven't proven yet. Then we come to Occam's razor, which side does your theory fall on? Sorry to sound so negative, I'm not trying to put you off, I'm trying to be constructive. Give you some food for thought.

No I'm not saying that there had to be space for the universe to expand into, I was saying exactly the opposite. Black holes exist in space and can have a huge radius whereas TBB had no space to exist in. This to me differentiates it from a black hole. Also when matter falls into a black hole its (the black hole's) energy increases but I'm not sure whether the energy of the universe is increasing. What I was getting at with your response is that on the one hand you are suggesting that anything that falls into a black hole is converted into 'pure energy' and on the other hand you're saying that a universe, which is made up of physical matter, could exist inside a black hole. You can't have it both ways, either matter is crushed into oblivion or it isn't.

Einstein's theory of relativity is based on well established and accepted laws of physics and is logically derived from those laws. It requires that the 'principle of relativity' is accepted and that the law of intertia is observed. It requires that Cartesean coordinate systems are used which observe the rules of Euclidian geometry which in turn give a physical meaning to distance and length. He also gives a definition of time and much more. Euclidian geometry gives us a definition of distance, Einstein gives us a definition of time and from that we can work out speed as distance over time. There are strong foundations upon which relativity is built. If you were to draw a Venn diagram of all the things that relativity is built on the the theory would be where they all overlap. I don't see this with your theory of TDR. That's not to say it's wrong, in fact it could well be right but it seems to be out there on its own and not built upon existing understanding of physics. It may not exclude or contradict existing laws but doesn't necessarily require them either thus making them redundant (in terms of your theory) and then you have to ask why have a theory that doesn't require certain laws of physics which you do require to interpret the theory in an everday sense.

I don't understand, are you saying that black holes contain universes (which themselves contain black holes which contain universes which contain black holes ad infinitum). Are you saying that equations and matter 'outside' our universe are different to equations and matter inside our universe which inturn are different to equations and matter inside black holes Or are you saying the laws of physics are the same inside a black hole as they are on the ouside?? What exactly do you mean by contact? As the electrons surrounding the atoms that make up one of the magnets come into close proximity to the electrons that surround the atoms that make up the other magnet they repel each other with an ever increasing force. Not matter how hard you press the magnets together they never touch. Not just magnets though, nothing ever 'touches' anything, your fingers are not touching the keys on your keyboard. Under the extreme gravition of a black hole electrons would be squeezed ever closer together but whether or not they touch I don't know. Then there is the force which is holding the electron itself together. Are mass and enrgy the same thing or are they just equivalent? Can you have gravity without mass? Are they converted into "pure gravitation"? Again you seem to be contradicting your self here. If graivity is so high within a black hole how can a universe exist inside it? Also if two black holes of similar size collide the each universe within those black holes will double in mass and energ. Anyway the OP asked a rather simply worded question and I gave a rather simply worded answer which suggested that crushing all the matter of the universe into a black hole is not a good analogy of the big bang and would lead to exactly the confusion that was evident in the original question.

I think your saying that particles are just force fields and force fields have no volume therefore particles have no volume and are pointlike. But if r=0 then 1/r^2 would be infinite. TBH though I'm not sure if that's what you were asking. Do you have a link to a reputable source where I can read an explanation of this? I'd be interested. I don't know how strong the force required to collapse a proton, for instance, is. I know gravity is a weak force and it increases as r gets smaller, I guess other forces involved behave in the same way. I don't know if a balance would be reached or if gravity would win out and collapse mater. What I was suggesting is that black holes have a size that's bigger than the universe was at the moment of creation, I've often heard of black holes described as being the mass of the sun but the size of a grapefruit. Maybe I was taking that to literally but I've always heard of black holes as having size. It seems to me that thinking of TBB as an exploding black hole (which seemed to be the OP's line of questioning) is confusing. http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8fI8wdvteU&feature=PlayList&p=9A8A80BC2834046A&index=0&playnext=1 Take out the spaces and copy and paste, then the second part of this episode should play automatically (it's a bit dumbed down for mainstream audiences but is still quite interesting) I'm not sure I did assume that. Matter outside of a black hole must have size/volume because of 1/r^2. Does matter inside a black hole have zero volume? Tricky, does space exist inside a black hole? I don't know.

Even though particles are described as point like it doesn't mean they have no volume, it's just a mathematical concept. If particles did have no volume then they would all be black holes due to the 1/r^2 nature of gravity. The black hole at the centre of our galaxy is something like a million miles in diameter, if you took all the mass in the universe and squeezed it into a black hole it would have a diameter of billions of miles. But the beggining of the universe was a singularity so how did it all fit in. It simply wasn't matter yet. After the big bang and after the inflationary period the universe had cooled enough for matter to start forming. The universe was pretty big by the time matter was being created.

I though teleportation already existed. No seriously! Not in a Star Trek kinda way more in an atomic quantum state kinda way. Here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3811785.stm

We all know the scenario of the twins paradox and your question has similarities. If one of the twins travels away from Earth at near the speed of light and travels 5 lightyears, turns around and travels 5 lightyears back at near the speed of light then he will only have aged 1 year whereas the stay at home twin will have aged 10 years. So does that mean the travelling twin covered a distance of 10 lightyears in just 1 year, ie. he went at 10 times the speed of light? Yes ...and no. From his perspective he will experience what he thinks is faster than light speed but, due to length contraction and time dilation he will still have measured the speed of light as constant inside his space ship. Also from the outside looking at his space ship we will see it going at not quite the speed of light. So the people on the train might think they are going faster than light whereas in actual fact they are not, they will count say 200 passes per second for 2 seconds but the people at the station will count 400 per hour because 2 of their seconds = 1 of our hours.

My understanding of relativity is somewhat different to yours. Einstein said, "That if we start with certain axioms then propositions are true if they can be logicaly derived in the recognised manner from those axioms. This then reduces to a question as to the truth of the axioms. This question is not only unanswerable but is entirely without meaning, we can not ask if it's true that only one line goes through two points. We can only say that Euclidian geometry deals with things called straight lines to each of which is ascribed the property of being uniquely determined by two points situated on it" There are very specific rules to follow in SR one of which is it only considers frames which are Cartesian coordinate systems based on Euclidean geometry, inertial, non rotational and in a state of uniform rectilinear translation. If frames have the properties described above then they will see each other as time dilated and length contracted. Read this though. http://www.einstein-...ights/dialectic However if frames start of as stationary then they do not meet the specific rules of relativity and if you change the axioms then you will have different propositions which are true. So if two frames are stationary relative to each other and one of them experiences a force (as per the law of inertia) it accelerates. It experiences time dilation due to acceleration (like you say). It now has a velocity which the other frame does not have (you can not accelerate A by applying a force to B ) In this situation one frame does have speed and the other does not. The one with speed will experience time at a slower rate than the stationay one and they will agree on this. If B is accelerated, and therefore has velocity then it will have to assign a (-)negative value to A's velocity in the Lorentz transformation when working out A's time, B will see A's time go faster. Watch this lecture, it's full of maths, you'll love it. The point of interest is between 1h 30min and 1h 40min http:// www. youtube. com/watch?v=BAurgxtOdxY (take out the spaces, I put them in cos this is only 1 of 8 vids and they're better to watch on youtube)

Ok but didn't the Hubble graph show the velocity of receding galaxies. Whether they are moving through space (no) or moving with expanding space (yes) the effect is the same; the distance between us and them increases. "Because expanding space stretches all light waves they propogate" I can see that makes sense, I'm not saying that space is not expanding. Really what I'm saying is the universe was expanding faster in the past than it is now. The problem I have with Hubble theory is, as I understand, 1) The Hubble constant isn't predicted from theory, it is chosen to fit observations. 2) That gallaxies are accelerating away from us. 2) There must be some sort of force causing this and it's called dark energy (though if gallaxies are not accelerating through space then do we need a force?) As you say I think that is the sticking point. Anyway, if my graph appears below the righthand side shows Hubble's graph of velocity plotted against distance and, if 1 lightyear away = 1 year ago, the lefthand side shows my graph of velocity plotted against time ago. You'll notice the dots representing galaxies are mirrored (as best as I could) does this not show the expansion slowing down with time. The further back in time you lokk the faster space was expanding??

Yep I understand that bit, that's Hubble's graph and the more distant the object the faster it's receding from us. But if 1 lightyear away = 1 year ago (as we have agreed) then on Hubble's graph just substitute on the x axis' lightyears away' for 'years ago'. This will show objects slowing down over time. Do you understand what I'm saying? (sorry if that sounds rude, but if I'm wrong you need to understand why I'm wrong so you can explain in a way I understand) I'm not saying that if you compare data from 50 years ago to data today you will see the same object slow down over that period. What I'm saying is the more distant an object is the further back in time we see it and the further back in time we look the faster objects were receding. Anyway you might be building a case "step by step" so I'll bite my tongue (or fingers in fact) for now.

On the notion that the speed of light is finite, it can not travel 2 lightyears in one year but it's not impossible for it to travel 1 lightyear in two years. But ok, if the light has taken 1 year to reach us we will see the object 1 lightyear away.

Yes they are in Galilean frames. They will continue with uniform rectilinear translation relative to each other. They will both see each other as time dilated by the same amount. Here you got it right. Now lets say they are stationary relative to each other ie they are not in uniform rectilinear translation relative to each other, they no longer have the special circumstances that constitute the 'special' part of special relativity. Special relativity shows you the consequences of following a very specific set of rules. One of the rules is only frames with uniform rectilinear translation relative to each other are considered. It simplifies motion and the 'mechanics' of space but if you change the rules from uniform rectilinear translation relative to each other to stationary relative to each other or one frame travelling faster than the other then you change the outcome. http://www.einstein-...ights/TwinsRoad http://www.einstein-...potlights/Twins http://www.einstein-...e_dilation_road If a force is applied to Betty then she IS accelerated and she IS moving faster than Al. They do not have the same relative velocity. That is what the law of inertia describes. She is now traveling faster than Al she will experience time slower than Al. If she wants to work out how Al's time changes with respect to hers she will have to give him a negative value for velocity in her equations. She will see his time going faster This is exactly what Leonard Susskind says in this lecture Time dilation doesn't happen only in the acceleration phase as it seems some people are suggesting. Acceleration causes them to be travelling at different speeds, that's why they show different times when one twin returns.

Does this apply to only photons which are reflected directly back on themselves or does it apply to all reflected photons. I'm wondering what happens inside a fibre optic cable for instance. There are transatlantic fibre optic cables, is there measurable red shift over this distance because that's a lot of reflections?