Marqq

OK, from what I understand, relativity does not EVER say travel backwards along a time continuum is caused by high speeds/inertial environs. From the model of time-dilation, the affected system is slowed (and ok, possibly reversed, but I doubt it), but this doesn't change its position in the time continuum. Wasn't Einstein's idea that any matter (I don't believe he spoke of other particles in this) would turn to pure energy upon reaching the speed of light? Tirgan-- you forgot your hyphen again... Everyone, his site is url eliminated by moderator

Time is change, as far as we've been able to observe. If a state (A) is changed to state (B), and later returns to a state equivalent to A (A2), has time moved backwards? What if the path (or sequence of change) from B to A2 was the perfect inverse of the path from A to B? Personally, I think not. I feel that even the terms 'time-dilation' and 'space-time' are overly ambiguous. Time is change, and slowing or reversing a change does not slow or move back the objective observer's wristwatch. If the universe were a DVD you were watching (objectively), rewinding it would not change the clock on your wall. Does this paragraph seem illogical? It should-- if time = change, and you add 5 to change, then subtract 5 from change, you have moved time forwards and backwards. There's ambiguity in my paragraph, because I used two definitions for 'time' based on from where the time is measured. Note that in the last sentence, if the universe were a clock (or other chronometer), then indeed, rewinding the DVD would reverse time (in the DVD). Relativity is a turd like that. Although I'm sure someone has come up with a different term already, I don't know it, so I'll separate the aforementioned temporal points of relativity as such: time = outside observer time, which measures non-dilated universal time; as though measuring from a completely closed system-- immune to any dilation or tampering tighm = time within a manipulated system; relative time to a specified observer thyme = oops...never mind Tighm is change, as far as we've been able to observe. If a state (A) is changed to state (B), and later returns to a state equivalent to A (A2), has time moved backwards? What if the path (or sequence of change) from B to A2 was the perfect inverse of the path from A to B? Personally, I think not. Time travel is constant and unidirectional. Tighm travel is an absolute possibility, though extremely difficult, as it involves reversing a system of forces twice (the second reversal is needed to set change back to a positive rate of change), and providing perfect outside influence on the system (returning whatever may have escaped the system over the course of initial tighm passage). Now to step a bit outside my comfort zone and allow for the possibility of perceived time-travel. Suppose all things in the universe contain all information about their past (and future), as though each entity could be expressed as one or more non-terminating, non-repeating decimal(s), with each digit signifying energy, x/y/z placement, direction, etc. at a given interval. (sorry for the run-on sentence) Then suppose that changing an earlier digit were possible, and that doing so would influence the following digits. With all things interacting as they do, adding new matter and energy (or transforming something already existing) could effectively change the past (in reality, though, it'd be changing the present to reflect a different past). I'm not explaining very well the model in my mind, and there would certainly be much more to it. The point is, with time manipulation of this sort, paradox could be avoided, because the present would be changed instantly, while the past would remain safely unchanged. I think you forgot your dash... I googled it and found you at url removed

First off, Inigo, nice name..and I've never met your father.......moving on: What if cars came with opaque sunblocks installed (like on airplanes)? It'd be a simple sliding piece of plastic manufactured to the perfect shape, and wouldn't necessarily take up much room. Naturally, they'd have to be white and kept reasonably clean to maximize efficiency. Tinting the inner surface black probably wouldn't hurt, either. I wonder, though, why every system must use so much outside energy to remove excessive energy (in the form of heat) from an area? Could we find a hyper-efficient way to collect and store heat energy? Couldn't we arrange materials of different caloric in such a way as to pull heat from one area and concentrate it in another (where the energy is put to use for more cooling efforts)? As far as the windshield issue, a metal blade is certainly not an option. Maybe it could be done with compressed steam jets? The logistics are a bit overwhelming, but with today's engineers, I suppose it's possible... But I'm a smoker, so my real hope is that such a thing could also be outfitted to work on the inside of a windshield. The film from smoke (and to a much lesser extent, condensation) is horribly difficult to remove while reaching around a steering wheel, and you just can't get a good angle to really scrub.

ok...my goof then...a mathematician I am not... Still, that would've been cool, right? So how about this: x = 1/9 = 0.111... x/10 = 1/90 = 0.0111... x - x/10 = 1/9 - 1/90 = 0.111... - 0.0111... = .1 .1x = 9/90 = .1 ya...well, I tried, and I'll keep trying, because of the fact that it doesn't transfer to other number systems with the same value. I think I'll never trust repeating decimals again... I'll still believe firmly that each value possible (all infinity of them) has only one numerical representation, barring significant digits. I kind of enjoy the fact that this number-system disparity points out that every value is an infinitely repeating decimal, and even an irrational number, when you consider real values of time and distance... I wonder how much better all this would work out if we didn't limit ourselves to working with one number system?

x = (1/9) 10x = 10(1/9) = 10/9 10x - x = 10/9 - 1/9 9x = 9/9 = 1 x = 1/9 I deny your reality! I get it, but wouldn't the aforementioned proof simply show that special rules must be applied to repeating decimals? I'd like to see how this would transfer to a base 9 system, where .1 = (in base 10) 1/9 ... It seems to me that any mathematical proof should be able to transfer to different number systems as such. Without such transferability, I'm going to have to say that 1/9 is one ninth of 1, and not one ninth of .999..., and that .999... does not equal 1. Also, x = 1/9 = .111... x2 = .0111... x2/x = .1 x = .1 ??? x = 1/9 == .1 9x = 1 == .9 I call fallacy! But I've got to ask, is there any real use for .999... being equal to 1 outside of estimations?

Hi there. I'm no physicist either (more of a philosopher), but I'll answer as best I can. One of the main parts of relativity is the concept of time-dilation. By itself, this would essentially stop time for you during assimilation into the black hole, because high gravity and high speed will slow the interaction of molecules, atoms, and even radioactive decay. Ignoring this, though, I'd imagine the increase of density in your body would be painful enough to notice. Still, I can't say whether the amount of time it takes for you to become a smudge is long enough for the pain signal to travel to your brain and be processed... Without ignoring time-dilation, though, your speed at the point where gravity starts 'shrinking' you would essentially halt your electrochemical interactions, effectively keeping you from experiencing anything at all. So, yes, relativity would stop you from knowing what was happening, but if you could experience it, it would suck. (It IS a black hole, after all)

Well, yeah. Without skepticism ([acr=also known as]a.k.a.[/acr] incredulity), we might still believe that the earth is the back of a giant turtle swimming through the sea, or other such silly notions. Humans have a long and sordid history of using pure fancy to explain how the world works. We all have some schema comprised of our observances (with a good dose of imagination) forming our basic understanding of reality. Many such explanations are obvious fantasy to us (turtle-shell earth, astrology, weather deities, god is a flying spaghetti-monster, etc.). The underlying fallacy in each of these theories is simply their overcomplexity; they are giant leaps which are assumed and explained retroactively from said leap, to link eventually to whatever is being explained. A, then what B? C, thus if A, B. My ideas are not like this model at all. I start with my most basic model of reality: [acr=reality]R[/acr] = [acr=substance]s+[/acr] && [acr=non-substance (vacuum)]s-[/acr]. Increasing amounts of substance in an area create exponentially increasing levels of outward pressure (the tendency to expand volume), but can never truly reach infinity unless the entire universe were contained in a finite area (or any amount of substance were forced to occupy a one-dimensional point or [acr=this may be the origin of string theory now that I think about it]two-dimensional line/string[/acr]). An infinite vacuum, on the other hand, could exist, theoretically. If such an infinite vacuum did exist, it's power would be infinite, drawing the entire universe into its one-dimensional volume instantaneously. Luckily, such an instance would require infinite power to create, so vacuum can only exist as a near-zero (but not zero) percentage of substance. From this framework, I constructed my tween theory. From my skepticism, I found my own answer. And I have no reservations about the possibility that my theory can't be experimentally proven, because I built it up logically from what cannot be denied. It's a sound argument, as far as I can tell, but feel free to put it to the test or to find a simpler alternative . Thank you for explaining that strings could have width greater than zero. I'm still not sure what to make of the rest of string theory, though. I'll certainly read more into it as well as pan theory. I would certainly define space (or the universe) as all volume within and beyond the matter we've thus far perceived. By definition, our universe includes 'all that is', or everything rolled into one. Even if no matter exists outside our visible world, it would have an infinite volume, like the space between matter within our world. It DOES exist, even only as vacuum. Further, would not that volume of pure vacuum pull violently at the edges of what we can see? Would it not spread the farthest reaches of our world drastically into the void? A tangible fabric to reality must exist, even beyond our small volume of perception, filling in the space between. and on that fabric, there must exist other clusters where matter has been forced into existence. In any case, whatever is beyond our perceptible space, it would invariably have some effect on what is perceptible. I hate to overuse ad absurdum, but imagine a time when it was believed that the earth had an edge, beyond which any travel would end in a very long fall... Knowing what exists beyond what we think we can travel, or what we think can affect us has definite value. In the case of this discussion, such theory could eventually lead to a means of broaching the apparent impossibility. Knowing what exists (or doesn't) out there could give vital clues to what exists in here. In the style of Pascal's wager, I argue: Learn everything! Learning something you'll never use has little disadvantage. Ignoring knowledge, and later finding a need for it, is disastrous.

Well, to start with, it's a lot less complicated. I realize that also means my idea is much less developed, but I believe that even upon development, it would end up far less complicated (and thus, in my opinion, more likely). I don't see any need for more than 3 dimensions (as is apparently required by the frightening mathematics involved with string theory), and I can't bring myself to accept that anything actually exists in 1, 2 or 4+ dimensions. The strings in string theory are said to be lines which, as far as I know, have no thickness, and occupy space only through exceptionally indescribable modes of vibration. These strings apparently have their own spacial dimensions, bending left and right forward and back, combining and dividing, all while only being singular universal building blocks. Even my VERY limited understanding of it seems overly complicated and fantastical to me. I wonder how a string, as described, can bend without joints? A singular point, however, needs not bend or stretch, and forms the most basic of building blocks (and, once again, the most likely). Such singular points are the centers of my tweens. Existing as fields of indeterminate size, tweens are (to me) the obvious immutable building blocks of existence. If strings exist, I'd posit that they're actually the borders where tween edges overlap...that would give them reason to bend, loop, join and divide; it would also explain their lack of thickness--they're just the intersection of planes. In essence, the difference in theories is only a disagreement of building blocks. I haven't developed the idea enough for any more comparison, but I only understand very little about string theory... Tween theory was originally only my way of alternately explaining the two-slit experiment...I mean really, a single electron going left, right, down the middle and nowhere all at once? Nah...it's just diffused due to speed, its energy and frequency spread over an area until reconstituted by an imbalance...

There's no way at all for space to end. The only evidence suggesting such is that what we can see appears to have an edge, beyond which nothing can be seen. If you consider the equivalent systems in scale (atoms, solar systems, galaxies..), you'll see clearly that such systems are all VERY far apart... Of all that we can perceive, what we're calling our 'universe' is really just the next step up; let's call it our 'galactic cluster'. It's a large expanse in which matter became initialized, but certainly not all there is to existence. Our big bang is just one of many sensible occurrences that induce the creation of matter. The only reason we can see nothing beyond that 'wall' is the distance, along with the state of the surrounding galactic clusters. I must point out here that I'm only a lay theorist, but guess what I've got: A Theory! Earlier in this thread, there was debate over the divisibility of quarks; to this I ask: remember that stuff about all matter (etc.) being energy waves?; How is a wave expressed, if not on smaller particles?... I'd suggest that all particles exist on some base particle, I call it the 'Tween'. I won't go into depth here, but I believe these 'tweens' are essentially the fabric of the universe, onto which everything we know is embossed, given a specific number of tweens to make it up, a system of frequencies, and as a function of the first, a range of possible energy levels (likely non-quantifiable). Essentially, there IS (in my opinion) an a-tom (uncuttable) particle, I just think it's a couple levels below the quark, and it's the ultimate, from which all things are made. The reason I call this the 'Tween' is that it would be what exists between all other particles, as well, filling in the void/vacuum. I believe that any true vacuum would be the greatest imbalance ever to exist in nature, and from the energy of even the smallest volume of one to be the cause of what's called a 'big bang'. Furthermore, I believe the only way to form even such a miniscule true vacuum, is for the vast fabric of tweens to be pulled in 4 directions (toward the corners of a tetrahedron) by other collapsing(or even growing) galactic clusters (or the popular term, universes--but this goes against the meaning of the word). OK, a couple notes on tweens: 1. They can overlap, thus filling in all space between their centers while themselves being round (presumably). 2. They're the cause of gravity. Latent energy from the disruption of their area (caused by the big bang, matter existing, and other such offenses) brings together tweens into what could be called 'graviton particles', though I think science has named them differently. Such particles are known to phase into and out of perceived existence, and repel one another due to equivalent frequency very strongly. When in proximity of normal matter, or tween constructs of higher energy levels, they appear to cease to exist, having had their energy (including movement energy) absorbed by the higher-threshold system, and ebb through and around space as normal tweens thereafter, until becoming energized again. Since these 'gravitons' are so easily absorbed by massive objects, and so repelled by one another, they form a never-ending flow towards massive objects, the end result of which is what we call gravity. (Does that follow? I think it does... Please feel free to point out any logical flaws there.) I've given a great deal of though to these theories, especially the existence of Tweens, so if you have any irrefutable corrections or counterarguments, please post them! I'm new here, but I bookmarked it, so I'll be checking back!