TriggerGrinn

I don't follow.. It's posts like these that make you go huh!?

The question is a bit of an invalid question. First of all you have to try and find where the end is. Then you have to define what the end means. We are talking about location, and space-time. When you view distance objects, its possible you are viewing something behind you, or perpendicular to your forward (12 o'clock) observation. Next the distance also means time, so the long distance away is also many years away (ancient past). Yet, it is also your present moment, that you see, and the future. So in one relativistic context, its not the past. In another relativisitic context, it is the past. So as for the end of space. There isnt really any strait lines in space, and it is not certain you will arive at what you see. We can speculate and end, but if you were at that speculated end right now, you would most considerably be looking at the same question. It is so big that anything infront of you could actually be behind you (in extreme cases). As I said its all relative circumstance, and it really only begins when it reaches your mind.(but thats another topic) The question can not be asked with comman sense.. the universe doesnt work like comman sense.

He who accpets his stupidity finds much growth from his submission and obidience. Biologists developed theories that suggest their may have been a requirement for a lower gravity force in the time of which large bodied dinosaurs and other such creatures like the wolly mamoth and the giant sloth, and other legendary such creatures walked the planet. Their bones structure and suggested heart size gives strong evidence that without alternative bilogical systems like secondary hearts and the ability to breath in their bones and or have multiple stage lung systems like some birds today alot of complications would arise. Physics would suggest on the contrary that it would require a larger diameter prehistoric earth in order to develope a lower force of gravity. A scenario of which would require a hotter tempeature in the core of the earth and a thinner crust. Tests have shown that materials that heat up in free space expand dramatically, due to the fact that much of the bonding of materials is due to the chemical bonds which work in cooperation with the gravity force to hold things in a static form. With the heating of material the bonds weaken and the material expands, as it does gravity has less domination over the size of the liquid body that the earth once was, and still mostly is. The earth has actually infact shrunk in accordence to the theory at a rate which is difficult to put a date on. Expanding earth is the wrong term. Dynamic earth is well known. We just happen to live such a short period of time that it seems like a rediculous idea... But there is suggestive evidence that due to the large size of early life on the planet a lower gravity or larger earth, is a considerable postulate to consider. Also there are suggestive legends of large giants of men that walked the earth.. living long, long lives... All theories have been improved upon.. its stupidity to suggest speculation of current thesis's is stupidity.

Even so, the experiment is intended to represent that of a typical object traveling in space. One that sends out light from different locations just like the laser bouncing off of dust. If the laser is viewed to slow down.. then as such, objects we view are often as you coined, optical illusions.. this is if the logic holds true.

Is it true that in this thought experment where you shine a laser away from you in a huge dust chamber, as the laser increases distance, it will be observed to travel slower than C...? This being because the light you recieve comes from dust particles from certain locations, but as the laser trucks on, it takes greater and greater time for the light to reflect back and the laser will observe to slow down.. True?

But when you stop studying the details you return back to the oneness of things and that is unstudied living of the self. So it is a place.. but its not when you try to look where comes from other than yourself. Einstein said, I want to learn how god thinks the rest, its just details... He already answered his question.. everything is details.. to think like god thinks in the context of his proposal, is to just live happily, and know spirit is all that is and will be. Infinite possibility.

Okay let me add more to this. The universe is not a place nor a location. It is not a thing or a place. Think about how the universe can distort and change for one persons observation but not for another. Each observer forms a universe in their mind with a mental pattern. The universe itself eminates from a patternless source we know as quantum physics. At this level reason doesnt exist, it just becomes patterns in your mind when you try to understand it. It comes from Possibilites, but not absolutes. So the universe only begins from inside your mind, as you create patterns out of various smaller eminations of patterns. Each observer has their own universe. Yes the entire thing you see and experience is unique to yourself. You can see space shrink and time dilate, but I might not. So the universe and everything in it, all of space and time, is not a One object, its an independent creation formed in each observer. The only thing that is One about it is, that it all shares a possibility that eminates from the quantum realm. The most fundamental part of reality is your self, and your understanding of patterns eminating around you. The entire universe was given to you, and you alone, as it was given to me and me alone. For I did not create myself, nor did I come from a bacteria, I came from a womb. I am my cells, and my bacteria, I am my atoms and my molecules and DNA, I am my skin and me bones and my mind and my thoughts. I am thousand of levels and stages, but they all form me, a self...they are all true, but just different levels of truth, and the truth of all truths is that all truths are connected... and the this ultimate truth is a self, and how it percieves the world related to your wisdom on its designs. Gather this comprehension and you will understand that science will never lead you to the ulimate truth. It will only sepearte the oneness of things by exposing the details which lead to the loss of patterns, and tri (three) location relativistic reasoning (the loss of patterns) and know that the universe is not a place its a possibilty, One that you can never reach the end of. For light has already been all places and times.. it is the first and the last...you just access it from the state of matter, as it eminates out in patterns for the self to make reason of and sustain its multiple needs of multiple levels. So I stress again, its not one thing, this universe, its infinite things, infinite universes all blended into one, in the time scale that light came into being and the time that it leaves.

Research these 3 areas and you will find yourself a satisfactory answer. (i)The behavior and source of light (electromagnetic radiation) (ii)The behavior and source of matter or mass (quantum physics) (iii)The behavior and source of consciousness and/or self-awareness and the perceptions intwined with it. These are the 3 main catagories of existence in relation to observablilites that I have found. If there are others please mention. If not, seek in these to find your truth.

What is a bundle of energy without geometry..... is it a string? what really is a string? The strings we know that we can hold in our hand are made of mass and energy. I know they say it creates some accurate measurements.. but I am just skeptical that when you apply a geometry to ANYTHING you can find it creating accuracy. Or you can apply any kind of geometry to create some accurate results. Take a ball (sphere) for example. You can apply all kinds of geometry to it. Geomertry: Cone, helicoil, sphere, flat, cylender, toroid, Differential geometry, Topology and geometry, Axiomatic and open development. Anyway, I was working with a concept to transform angular momentum (circular) physics into square physics. I was postulate this is posible on one principle. The Energy it takes to turn a mass (of m) moving with a velocity (of v) 90 degrees is exactly equal to the energy required to stop the object. So by turning an object 90 degrees, Such as dropping a ball down a pipe with a quick turn at the bottom, a force is generated by the ball when it hits the bottom. But if we exclude friction we can say as long as the pipe does not move (distance) the energy of the ball will remain conserved relative to the frame of the pipe. So this means that all energy is relative to a square of its velocity. Let me further this postulate. A direct colision is also a "Square collision". Square on. ------>| That is, at perpendicular or 'right' angles. And I attemped to display a diagram of this. Could this geometry create accurate results? I prepose yes it could in some areas... And with a string, I am sure I could work out some incredible complex equation to explain the same event. I dont know for sure, its just my interpratation.

The same as we don't go backward in it. Time travels all directions at once (light) Time travels linearly (in the mind with thought)

I found some websites that have physics software. Where you can perform some of your experiments virtually. Intell software overview >>http://www.intel.com/cd/corporate/education/emea/eng/ireland/sitesupport/intel_education/news_archive/326592.htm main site >>>>>>>>>>http://www.skoool.ie physics related section >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.skoool.ie/homeworkzone_sc.asp?id=2651 I am sure there is physics tool sets you can buy online, that come in a box. Or software that can help out alot of stuff?

I have been looking around the internet for something that could display what pi variations look like on a sphere. Most specifically 4pi & 4pi^2 and 8pi & 8pi^2 One source produced these such images. (quantum aether dynamics) 4[math]\pi ^2[/math] I do not fully understand if this would be accurate. Can anyone help me out. Are these shapes added correct? Must the curvature remained fixed?

they use (math) (/math) here with [math] brackets [\math] so you said: [math]v=at/\sqrt{1+a^2t^2}[/math]

I've been working with geometric expressions of special relativity. In this process and version of illustration I have found some interesting conclusions and would like to recieve some peer input. Please note I am not arguing against relativity. I am just working with results aquired in this version of expression. If I may I would prefer to link the original thread for simplicity. Please respond on this thread. Animation example Work and conclusion example

Will you elaborate on what you are going to be doing precisely? GCSE physics: what does this stand for, and what level is this ? It might help us offer some ideas...