Zarnaxus

time moves slower the larger the gravitational field you are in. also, time moves slower the faster you are going. I believe that since your example is exaggerated, the person on the outside (farther away from the center of Earth's spin) is travelling faster than the person in the hole (closer to the center of the Earth's spin). From a certain perspective, the time would move slower for the person outside of the hole for the reason that person is moving faster.

I have also read that nature could have created three "generations" of particles. one being the normal stuff that we know so very well, the ... supersymmetric version of those elementary particles, and now, what is this third generation if there is one? is it antimatter?

I have heard that the higher vibration of superstings or something of the sort can cause normal matter and particles to become sparticles. right? I really dont have much of an idea on these strange particles. sprotons and... sneutrons (hahah)? And, is there a possibility that along with sparticles comes anti-sparticles as well? Explicame!

well, if we are on the topic of theoretical physics, we cant just say that the universe in infinite is size, when theoretically, it could be curved around itself. We could all be living a giant "hyperdonut". In this case, there definitely would be a finite size of the universe, there still would be no "endpoints", but it is still finite none-the-less, and you would not be able to fit an infinite amount of energy inside of it.

umm sorry, but could you explain the options 2 and 3 again? i am confused with the @s er i dunno. im confused when you say...@ once correctly ... palease?

IMPORTANT In the problem, the clocks tick at POSSIBLY different and incorrect rates. So, some clocks could tick at same as regular time, and clocks can tick at the same rate. I have to prove that i can throw out three of the five clocks to hear at least one chime per hour. SO, i have come to the conclusion that this is a probability problem since if you could choose the clocks, you could just choose to keep the one that ticks at same as regular time or a faster ticking clock (there has to be some or there wouldn't be two chimes per hour with all five). And that would mean that you could just get rid of four. we have to throw away AT LEAST three of the five clocks though, but still. this is probably a probabilty problem somewhat or somehow. i should use somekind of math or proof or justification to show my understanding. buuut, there could be two regular ticking clocks and three slow ticking clocks, and in this situation, i could end up throwing away both the regular ticking clocks and just have the slow ones. With just the slow ticking clocks there could be a situation (not likely) that they all chime together right before an hour is up in regular time. The next hour, they might not all chime! sooo, i have no idea what to do. Is there a percentage taking into consideration all variables that after taking away three clocks i'll still hear a chime per hour. im not at a very high level in my math skills. well, not yet...

Oh yeah.. fast.. i forgot.. i would think that this object's time would be faster or the same relative to any observer simply because no other observer would be able to move slower or be farther than a gravity field or well or.. whatever? Well, the only way i would think that time could move slower would be possibly in a negative gravity well (near negative mass), which is theoretical so you dont necessarily have to answer. but in this gravity, would time move faster than my first talked about item, even though you would have to fight to stay in it since it would repel you?

if you had particles in deep space at close to abslute zero as possibly a bose einstein condensate, would time be traveling as slow as time could pass... er would time be passing completely normal (how "normal" should be)? it is not next to any large gravitational fields and it is vitually motionless. would time there be actually slower than how i am experiencing time right now typing this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_confirmation look at the experimental confirmation section, where it describes the numurous tests confirming time dilation. (yes i did just state something obvious)

I will reread the problem and see if i might have missed something important, if i find anything i will post it tomorrow, the problem might allow for you to choose the clocks to throw away, it might also allow for clocks to run the same as a regular clock. This would change a lot of answers and are actually big parts of the question. I'll have to see to that, but it is getting late for me.... yup

Don't think that we dont know much about these particles. As far as i am concerned, we can see the shadows of protons and neutrons with super fancy devices. We (when i say we i mean... the scientific commutiy.. i think) can use a tunneling microscope to actually pick atoms up and manipulate them (this has been used to make the worlds smallest guitar SUPER small). We detect the particles that explode out of a collision in a particle accelerator and map them out on complicated computer programs. So talking specifically to Anilkumar, we know a whole lot more than just there activities in respect to electric fields. We know what particles are made of, their mass, their charge, their spin, their etc. Its all recorded in the Standard Model! http://www.oddmusic.com/gallery/om22000.html NANO GUITAR!!!! XD

ok, so now i have come to the conclusion that, since a clock that ticks faster than a regular clock will have to chime at least once per hour, i must prove that taking away three of the five clocks will leave at least one fast ticking clock? sooo, how would i prove that out of these five clocks there are....four fast ticking clocks?? (if i take away three random clocks, i still might take away 3 fast ticking clocks, but will have one left to keep the one chime per hour)

Yeah... thanks for that input. I have thought some about it and i came to the same conclusion. All of the clocks can't run fast, all of the clocks cant run slow, or a multiple, like you said, of these minutes would amount so that there is an hour in which no clocks chime. BAD. ... So, i think that there is only two possibiltis to get at least two chimes per hour fast, fast, slow, slow, slow (this is the way to get at least two chimes per hour using the most slows as possible) fast fast fast slow slow (this is the way to get at least two chimes per hour using the most fasts as possible) I now realize that there are at least one fast, and at least on slow in each situation. So, If i could get rid of all other clocks but a fast one and a slow one, would i get at least one chime per hour? Is my logic correct? please, someone smart... come to my rescue!

so if time travel is possible on day, not theoretical, then at one point already in time, there were time travelers even if they haven't been born yet to make that time travel, simply because they existed for that specific moment in time which cannot change. The problem is, i cant see how that would get started. The time travel would have to create a future in which the person in the time machine exists and is traveling back in time to the point in which he ... already traveled back in time... yeah, which might not be too hard to believe... it think. Its like a time loop i suppose. but how does the loop get started in the first place? Does the universe just initially realize that humanity is going to invent the time machine, and then include the time traveler in its next "snapshot"? This just seems like another paradox to me.

If you include darke energy, which aparently is what most of the universe is made up of, then your answer could be 72-73% (the predicted percentage of dark energy out of all matterenergy in the universe) buuutt,, if you include that matter itself is a form of energy, then you have 100% of the matterenergy of the universe including dark energy, dark matter, and regular ordinary matter and energy. This amount is unavailable at this time.... sorry. ask again when we have become a type 3 civilization.

I believe that it is saying that since the antineutron is electrically neutral, you would not be able to manipulate it with magnets, so therefore, it would be difficult to observe. It also would have a very short lifespan for observing it. One might have to resort to viewing the particles that the antineutron decay into, and realize that the particles formed the antineutron before it decayed. I dont believe that the same will apply for neutrons. Their lifespan is much longer than that of an antineutron, because they are relatively stable. Even though they are still neutral, there are ways to measure them, like using neutron walls. http://www.nscl.msu.edu/tech/devices/neutronwalls

at least one chime every hour with only two out of the five initial clocks

There are five clocks. Each one of them chime when it has made a full hour. They run at consistent rates but at different and incorrect rates. Each hour (according to an accurate clock) at least two clocks chime. How would i prove that i can throw away at least 3 of the 5 clocks and still end up hearing a chime at each true hour?

So, since we just can't really know how the time paradoxes work, is the hypothesis that traveling back in time will just open up a parallel universe where you will then preside the best explaination? or is there another easier way around the above stated problems with time travel?

buuut, if you were to live in a universe in which there just happened to be another imbalance of what we call matter and antimatter, and what we call antimatter ended being more abundant, then a being from that universe would refer to themselves as the matter, and we would be made of the antimatter. This means that what is anitmatter and what is matter would be completely relative to your matter-antimatter imbalance during your universes big bang. So, i believe that matter.. antimatters. yyeaaahhh.....

The real question is, does it matter or antimatter? haha

So, to clerify the answer to my original confusion, E=mc2 might not even be the correct equation in comparing energy to mass if you take momentum into consideration. The c2 is not actually a random large number in the corelation between mass and energy, but actually generates accurate results. We obtain this conclusion by viewing the meaning of energy and find that e= m a d? and that ad equals c2. So, proceeding forward on this topic, i am curious if you included some theoretical parts to this equation. I am aware that theoretical physics could allow the existence of negative and imaginary particles, creating negative and imaginary mass. So, completely theoretical, what is the equation that you could use to include these extra types of matter. A simple response, probably wrong, could be E = +or- imc2. Again, that is... not right probably, im just giving my own logical hypothesis. Is there an equation to show the correlation of any type of mass, be it theoretical or real, and energy considering momentum as well?

How do you know that the antimatter that we know as antimatter is not actually the regular matter and that regular matter, which we beleive we are made of, is not actually the antimatter as we know it. The question is, does the differentiation matter,, or antimatter?? teehee