Graviphoton

Lost me. It either is proven or it isn't. Saying it wasn't, and yet, not saying it wasn't non-proven, seems schizogeny to me. My policies, my way of thinking and conducting my work, has been very consistent. I certainly make a distinction between a computer or a troll, or a mere idiot wanting to come in, post one thing and never answer the post again. Therego, i have no reason to read the rules, because commonsense indicates proper behaviour, and how to conduct a conversation. Something which i haven't failed at so far, other than idiosyncracies.

Yeh. His book 'A Brief History of Time' has the speculation in it. He even qoutes the bet he made (forget the other scientists name now), unto which they argued right up till july in 2004, where Hawking retracted his statement, and lost the bet. In other words, i am 110% sure. Now, there must be a reason why physicists haven't thought of the postulation i have brought forth, or possibly have, which might be the case, because it seems so simple. There must be a reason why this idea hasn't caught on already... a fundamental reason which reduces this entire post as wrong. I wish i knew what it was.

DH is 100% correct. I would just be carefull about the last part. Black Holes can give off gravitational waves in the special circumstance of two black hole collisions.

Not proven from my behalf. BUT IT DOESN'T NOT MAKE IT proven. This is what you are getting mixed up. For instance, i know it has been proven that the electron must spin faster than light, in fact, all fermions need to spin faster than light. Want a reference? Can't give you one. Does this make it a non-proven fact... come on...

That things can move into black holes and enter other universes.

No. Suffice to say, i have not appealed to any authorative. I have simply qouted them. How is this such a bad thing? Are we sudden'y not allowed to qoute famous physicists?

An electron is real, but we cannot make any considerations on their positions in an atom, or otherwise, because it is useless. Bertrands arguement, was why the one-electron universe theory was proposed.

YouDad Simply studying Classical Physics, and Quantum Mechanics. My personal area of interest, as you will have guessed, is the theory of cognitive awareness. Mooey I can give references to a lot of things, but not everything. A lot of my knowledge is based upon an archive i have learned over the years. So forgive me if i cannot be at the beckoned call of providing sources. If my word in many cases are not good enough, then maybe my time here is wrong spent. Saying that, maybe i shouldn't spend time here at all.

Don't know. My name isn't Hawking. Sorry, that was cheaky. I mean, i haven't covered yet how to mathematically do this. But if Hawking says he can, he can. I am not going to argue with him. INow I did expand, to give you a reading source. If you mean, (Can I Expand This Mathematically Myself To Show You), the answer is no. Obviously.

Or maybe i am just sick of the fact i am trying to speculate in... oh, that's right, speculations section.

That's not fair. I am not preaching at all, and i am rapidly getting sick of speaking to you. This thread was in hope to get an intelligent discussion to a speculation i made. If this is so hard to fathom, do not reply. And i don't make up your mind for you. If i said Hawking retracted a statement, what is so devilish about that? Accept it, and stop throwing the toys out the play cot.

They are facts to me. Here, i look at the brain of a mouse. know the mouse doesn't have awareness, which would suggest a hightened sense of consciousness. But here we are. We know we have hightened sense of consciousenss, so its begs to reason that the atoms in our heads have reached a state of enlightenement when considering consciousness. No perhaps about it. Yes it is speculation. But from my opinion, we are the evidence to suggest this might be the case. Think of me as a Maverik in this sense.

They can support almost anything which is scientifically possible. Most of the theories we have concerning cosmology, use events we cannot see directly, morsed in imaginary time frames.

Well, you see, that's he rub isn't it. If i was in the company of other scientists, i would be able to get off with a lot of things i say, because i am a scientist myself, and the knowledge i have, (including most things i am asked for references to) are in fact mainstream science anyway. So my very presence here will continue to be drained because of a lack of knowledge on your behalf?

Sure, buy the book Black Holes and Baby Universes among other essays, By Stephen Hawking. and i qoute ''We can allow a photon to move faster-than-light for a very short period of time using the uncertainty principle.''

I never give up on my studies. I may give up with people though.

Too bad then.

Because nothing needed to be reviewed mooey. He simply retracted his statement. No worries.

Well, there are number of ways a thing can escape a black hole. One of them be can allow a photon to move at superlumnal speeds, for a short amount of time, according to the uncertainty principle. Another way, is where you started your journey. If you start your journey from inside the black hole, then you can leave the horizon, because there is a rule which states you cannot pass the same boundary twice. So if you started your journey from inside the black hole, you can leave without any worries. And ofcourse, normal tachyons, if they do exist, move fast enough so that the gravitational forces do not influence it on its path. They contain a negative mass, the stuff which you are talking about. And there is such a thing as negative mass. Each time the Casimir Effect is in operation within the vacuum, there is a very small amount of negative mass as the result.

Is it really necessery with absolutely everything i say? Its just that it gets tiresome from my behalf, when i want to just talk about the subjects without any other ditsraction. I understand i should have some references, and i will make a point with that. But no offense to mooey, but he's draining the utter crap out me. He quite literally wants a reference to nearly anything i say.

There isn't any references in this case. This is my own conclusions of what i see when i look at the mind and consciousness. I think our particles have reached a unique state. It must have. It goes to reason.

Well, i'm flawed then aren't I, because as we have seen, there is no current technology to prove this either way. So either i can't give my opinions, you give yours, there's nothing more than can be said.

''By whom? The way I understand it, this is a fantastic fantasy, not really supported by astronomers.'' Stephen Hawking was the one who postulated the travel. He held onto the idea as well for a while, until rigorous complaints pushed him to accept he made an error. The error, of course, which you found, was Hawkin retracting his statement that things can move out of this universe. I tackle the idea by saying that the information, original as it might be is lost, but can be replaced by an identical information from another universe. It is said that if you raise your right arm, in another universe, you raise your left arm, following the notation ab><ba. That's why it was also said, if a tachyon left the universe through a black hole, an antitacyon would be entering our universe. If we where the tachyon leaving, we might be lucky enough to see the antitachyon pass us by. ''Why do we need to look up the 2004 publication you are speaking of? Are we just supposed to trust your interpretation of it? We're not supposed to, not if we are to speak science.'' Stephen Hawking Looses Bet, New Sceintist, 2005 July

Farsight Do you even understand the complexities of physics without a non-classical model?? In your attempt to make things easier, you are making them much harder.

Fine. There is no more i can say about the subject then, since i am being soooooo unscientific. Jst for the record, I spoke to Dr. Alan Wolf ''I think we do. However, there are many who believe that we don't. The subject will be tested soon enough as AI devices improve. Best Wishes,'' My question was... ''Do we need to integrate non-classical physics in an attempt to create a model of consciousness?''