morgsboi

Yes it was a typo. Its 11 and Ive had a knackering day. And I do understand "energy thanks. Yes x + -x =0. My point is that "god" can neither be an x or a -x. And if "god" is a zero then "god" cannot exist. Not even as i. Yes, I do agree with that even though I am an atheist (open to opinion but not agnostic) but the laws of physics don't agree. Did you take in the "digging a hole" part?

Hmmm. Well Albert Einstein also concluded that E=MC^2. Energy is equal to mass (edit*times*edit) by the speed of light squared. What I mean by 10 and -10 is energy. You could measure this in joules, kilo-joules or any measurement you want. The number is not important as the importance is that both numbers are the same. Energy is everything in the universe. Everything. Even "a flying spaghetti monster" is mass which is energy. Edit* - Accidentally wrote divided as I have had a knackering day.

Have you never heard of a little thing called, oh I don't know...... relativity?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation Yes, I have only "heard" of the Philadelphia Experimen but I don't know what it is so I will look it up. But for every paradox there is a solution. As soon as we can travel through time, I think it will be the greatest scientific achievement in the history of mankind.

I think both our statements are fundamentally correct. For "If everything adds up to nothing, we don't need a God to create anything." its is simple. An equal amount of positive energy to negative energy must add up to zero. I can put it like this: Say there is 10 positive energy and -10 negative energy. It is simple, 10+-10=0. So if the everything adds up to nothing, then the universe is nothing and therefore there cannot be any god as except for positive energy and negative energy, nothing can upset the balance. In this case, God. And with tar's statement, it is fundamentally correct, so to answer your question;"What would this mean? Someone concious is also a "clockwork-machine" who governs the universe?". Yes.

But the laws of physics govern the universe. They can't be made, they can't be deleted and the can't be broken.

Scientists believe that the laws of physics were created in the big bang. But I think the are universal as I don't believe there is an end to the universe. You can't just hit a wall because the question would be, what is behind it. It can't be a sphere because the universe wouldn't be expanding, it would be pulled in by gravity. Try and picture in your head new laws of physics. Not something like opposites and switching them around but actually a new law of physics that doesn't exist. I believe the only outside dimension of the universe are decisions, natural events and so on. If you had seen the title of this but chose not to read it, from our view that would be a "parallel universe" but if it really happened and you chose not to read this it would be our universe through a different path. It exists but it does not exist, this is why I think that this could be the one possible dimension that doesn't fit in with the laws of physics.

For all energy there is negative energy. For example, if I dig a hole I will end up with the pile and the hole. The pile represents energy and mass and the hole represents negative energy. The equation is extremely simple. 1+-1 =0 If everything adds up to nothing, we don't need a God to create anything.

Ah, okay I understand now. I should have thought what happens to the energy a bit more. Thank you.

And what about when the heat is cooled?

What I mean by this is for example, our bodies. We have to use energy to spend it and that energy is used so it is gone. I don't see how it wouldn't make less energy in the entire universe??

We know that as well as energy we have negative energy which was created in the big bang. So for example your digging a hole in the ground. When you are digging, it the mass from in the ground will pile up while as you dig, the hole will loose mass as the pile gains mass. The principals of this give us [math]1[/math] which is the the universe (as we know from [math]E=MC^2[/math]. Now there must also be a hole which is [math]-1[/math] which can only be negative energy, as mass is energy. So if you add the two together it makes nothing. So the whole universe together must be nothing. But the thing is, energy is used and negative energy isn't so if the universe is loosing energy all the time whereas negative energy is not changing so the balance is upset so therefore when we say universe, we actually should mean negative universe as more of it is negative than positive.................. well, that's how I see it. Does it make sense? And if it does, can it explain anything? Contains an indirect reference from a section of "Into the Universe" by Prof. Stephen Hawking. (The digging a hole part.)

What I mean by irregular orbit is an orbit that is interrupted by a secondary source of motion such as an engine. So it would be controlled and as its so close to Earth it won't take much time to fix any problems. And according to Prof. Stephen Hawking, approaching the speed of light will make time travel slower, so you won't get younger as that would just be reversing time in a way but you wouldn't age as quickly as people on Earth.

This is a theory based on a theory. The theory it is based on is as you approach the speed of light, you will be traveling in time. My theory is a way to approach that kind of speed. The way of doing so is to use the gravitational pull of Earth to to speed something up. So if we had a probe or space-ship orbiting around the Earth and the Moon in an irregular orbit, a kind of version like that would be what I call, a catapult orbit. How this catapult orbit works is increasing the velocity by a certain percentage every full orbit. This happens by as the object in orbit, orbits around the Earth and Moon, it dips down further into the Earth in the stronger gravitational field. It would only dip at a slight angle to avoid it crashing down into the Earth. Now you might be thinking that it would actually take more velocity than gained, but remember its an irregular orbit so it would just simply slide out of the "circular orbit" and carry on, around the Moon and catapulting around the Earth again. I have taken into consideration, the Moon's orbit and how it won't stay in the same place but the principal still works. I'm no rocket scientist, so I don't know the mathematical formulas which means I can't prove it works but to help give an idea is a rough idea is a quick drawing I made on paint. (It isn't very good because it was hard to draw) Red is the orbit of the Moon. Green is a very rough idea of the irregular orbit. The dip at the left hand side of the Earth, is where the object in orbit slides out of the Earth's gravitational pull. What do you think?

Crappy little thought........ So Nicolaus Copernicus discovered that Earth rotates in orbit around the Sun in 1543. A year is the time it takes for the Earth to do a full rotate around the Sun. So how did anyone know about years before then. How could it be a measurement of time before it was discovered? People might say that they would know by the position of the sun in the sky, but how can there be any accurate way of knowing that?

But wouldn't it still change the frequency.

A laser is a device that emits light (electromagnetic radiation) through a process of optical amplification based on the stimulated emission of photons. (Wikipedia) Now a laser produces and emits a beam of light where all waves are in phase with each other and have the same frequency. If you shine a laser (keeping it still) at a moving object then it changes the frequency of the laser beam. So if you shine a laser at an angle with half of the beam on the moving object and the other half just continuing further would the brief split-second that the object is moving and part of the laser is on and part of it off, would that change the frequency of some of the waves causing the laser to act differently and not be a laser? If you don't understand ask me, and if this needs to be moved to speculations (not sure) then please could you do it yourself as I don't know how. Thank you.

Thank you. Sounds accurate to me and makes a lot of sense.

Yes, but where do the asteroids get there momentum?

Okay, there probably is a simple answer, but as we know the Earth orbits around the Sun. So, why does it orbit? I know it is partly because it is in the Sun's gravitational field but what gave it the momentum to start orbiting? When a satellite is launched, it needs some initial momentum to push the satellite around the Earth after it escapes the atmosphere. So is this proof that anything with an orbit has had some initial momentum at some point in time, proving the big bang?

Dynamic friction even exist on the galactic scale. The gravitational tug of passing planets is much the same as the electrostatic forces between passing atoms. The coherent motion of groups of planets will eventually degrade into the random motion of individual planets. Source: http://physics.info/friction/

http://worldaerodata.com/forum/read.php?5,493 Some bits, I added.

I thought about that, but it didn't say a name all it said was "future engineer".

It was only for the help of the topic, and I didn't claim it as my own.

What I meant was, observable time in the area where the light is slower.

Okay, lets look at this from a chemistry point of view. The actual maximum burning temperature of a Jet-A fuel (standard jet fuel type in U.S.) is 980 deg. Celsius. If you refer to the Iron-Iron Carbide phase diagram, the temperature at which steel changes from cementite and pearlite (strong phases of steel) to austenite (significantly less strong) is 702.5 deg. Celsius. Also, if a steel structure is exposed to a temperature just below or at the eutectic (702.5 deg.) for a period of time, martinsite is formed (very weak). All it would take is a few I-beams to lose their structural integrity before the "chain reaction" would start. People say that the heat from burning jet fuel cannot melt steel. It doesn't have to "melt" for it to become ineffective. Also, "very strong type of steel" is the most relative statement ever. The steel used in sky scrapers is a standard carbon steel, not heavily alloyed. In any case, the iron-iron carbide phase diagram describes all carbon steels very accurately. Also, when the buildings actually collapsed, all that potential energy was released into heat and sound, which is true for all destructive reactions. So it is kinda possible that after the buildings fell, the temperature of the rubble reached levels higher than any fire could produce. But.......... very unlikely as the building was designed to take the full force of any plane that hit it, and there were also bombs in the building, so I need to think it through a bit better. There are too many factors of it and every one has lots of different explanations. I think that it was collateral as there is lots and lots of evidence to show, you just need to have the right kind of mind too understand it.