1veedo

I personally have disabled XWindows. If you install Linux, tell it not to install xwindows. Just a matter of preference of course...

I actually don't like rap that much either. MC Hawking is just hilarious though! Rammstein is a German singer. I don't think you can buy his stuff in the states but the band is my favorite. Rob Zombie, Three Days Grace, and some of Deftone's stuff. Every once in a while I listen to "modern" calsical music. Like the stuff on Kingdom Hearts or Pirates of the Caribbean.

MC Hawking -> **** the Creationists!

I'm pretty sure that God is equivalent to the square root of negative one

The idea is that two or more actions can constitute the present... If there is a pile of wood in your basement, there could be many ways for it to get there. Your parents could have carried it in. A helpful neighbor. Whatever. And then there could be many ways to get it there. Wheelbarrow, one-by-one, carry as many in each trip. Cary two in one hand and one in the other...you get the idea. The effect of any of the above combinations is the exact same. You get a pile of wood!

It's not like there is some sort of a "cosmic cache" anywhere. The past, just like the future is undetermined. The exact same principles of many worlds can be equally be applied and arrived at "many histories". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_histories

I think that, in quatum mechanics, eac instant in time is only a classical subcomponent of the total wavefunction of the universe. This would of course be directally connected to what we persieve as the past or what we would percieve as the future. All in all, such is entirelly static. Ie, there is not one path "in time" to take, but it all sums out to the static wave function. Remember, time always enters our experience as a scalar quantity. The real reason why time appears as a scalar quantity is that our equations of motion lie in the fact that no matter how many dimensions of time may exist, they have nothing to do with directions in space. f you really think about it, the past and future are merely illusions. There can be an infinite number of futures and an infinite number of pasts that could constitute the physical here and now. (Mathematically, the only thing preserved is the information of the current state which can correspond to a number of previous states.) And thus, with the conservation of information, the only actual physically real state is the "now." So anybody who thinks the future is ‘out there’ is only deluding themselves.

After we get a general opinion, we need to deleate this thread

Yeah, and this is also the reason why putting a ball under it would not make it bend the other directions: It would "pull down" in much the same way a ball on top would. This is why, I think, in relativity it is impossible to have anti gravity. Ok, I know. It's just an analogy, but still. I've never heard of an object the curvs space-time in the opposite way. Actually, all references to "curvature" all all in the same direction...

...So does that mean it's impossible? Or at least in relativity?

I don't think worm holes have to be connected to a white hole. I may be wrong, but I think that idea was just adopted because they needed a way to transport the matter...

I guess I read it someware... Everything looses energy to the expanding universe. This is evident in blackbody radiation. Reason benig wraped up in thermodynamics. As things get bigger, densiter gets less, and thus energy gets spread across over a larger area, etc.

Oh, now I remember where that theoretical evidence comes from. The singularity contains a finute amount of matter. Some really smart person made the model so that the universal parameters are conserved somehow.. though I don't know how, exactally I don't really don't know much abotu the theory but it is pretty cool. I suggest google.

I've never heard of a black hole imploding. Hawking radiation just persistently makes it smaller in mass. This may seem weird at first but black holes act just like atoms. If I remember correctly, black holes only cease to exist if one collides with another of opposite charge. I've explained the black hole universe theory in several threads and don't really fell like explaining it again so: The space-path histories [particle histories are paths in space-time] would converge to a point in universe A constituting a blackhole. The second these space-paths converge and intersect is when a big bang lights up in universe B with again, an intersection that relative to a us occurred in the past. In such an intersection, the spacetime paths always emerge from the intersection and gradually curve away from each other and would appear to constitute the beginning of spacetime. So at the center of every galaxy there is a seed for a new universe. This may answer why there are so many galaxies and not just a couple or even none in out universe. Just apply the standard principles of evolution and we've got ourselves a model that already has some theoretical evidence behind it [it is of course arguable that because it's a singularity then no data at all is conserved.]

I wonder how much the Atheist Center of India got. I received some e-mails from a couple atheistic organizations trying to raise money for relief in India but haven't heard how much they got yet. Humanists aid Tsunami victims

I would think antimatter would have antigravity...maybe. Hey, if there were antimatter clumps out there, it would stay away from our galaxy! Great way to find out if there are clumps of it as well. That would be pretty neat.

Forgot about that one 5614. It would be pretty interesting watching what would happen to a string that goes between +quanta and -quanta Too bad they retain their structure. That would've been a good way to test the theory.

Ok, this is actually a question. I'm not that big on string theory anymore, mainly because I don't think it's science, but this thought just struck me the other night. Strings are actually energy, in the form of branes. At absolute 0, all energy is lost. Would such constitute the disappearance of ordinary matter? Or what about the expanding universe? Strings loose their energy to the expansion. What happens if they lose to much energy? If they stop giving it away then expansion stops. But if they don't then matter, again, jsut simply disappears (dont forget abotu leptons and the like a well. Everything would actually cease to exist!).

The multiuniverse is just another interpretation of quantum theory. I kindof like Copenhagen better because it makes manyworlds seem superfluous. I did see one theory that completely did out with time by having multiple universes. It was a completely static multiuniverse and actually made alot of sense, did away with schondiers cat (that's definitely misspelled), and had an explanation for existence arising from absolutely nothing... Though I forget the name and my bookmarks didn't come over before I installed Fedora If I come across it again I'll post a link.

This has always puzzled me. Quarks come in fractions of 1/3 instead of -1 or +1 so it's hard to find one by itself. If one were to pull them apart, the energy put into fighting the string nuclear force would eventually cause it to 'snap.' The energy required to constitute such would have to be 2(E/cc) because the interaction creates two more quarks, I think? (weather or not the number is correct is kindof irrelevant) In the early universe, pairs of matter and antimatter would annihilate and give their energy in the form of photons. At the force splitting of the strong and electroweek, the symmetry was broken. For around every billion antimatter particles there was about billion and 1 matter particles. So for every ~billion photons there is one particle of matter. One electron for every proton because it's anti-partner acts in the same way quarks did. So what I want to know is why. It has to do with the fact the photons loose the potential to create new matter particles as their energy is lost to the expanding universe / there is not enough energy floating around to split quark pairs or triplets (which is why the forces split; they stopped acting independently of each other with photons). I know there is not a reason for the exact difference, but there has to be some uncertainty someware to create the asymmetry. Is it because at the force split, energy was given off in the form of photons to create quark pairs? (at whatever the number is) Or because of the energy giving off to the expanding universe used to constitute quark-anti-quark pairs in the form of photons are now lost? But neither takes into account electrons and I figure there would always be one electron per proton because of the explanation for the phenomena. Could it be that different amounts of energy are needed for leptons and quarks and the universe was cooling consistently for photons to do whatever they did for the same length of time at different energy levels?

Cool, thanks alot. For some reason it didnt require the other array() for my 2D one. $tt = array( 0 => array(0 => array(0, 0, 0), 1 => array(0, 0, 0), 2 => array(0, 0, 0)), 1 => array(0 => array(0, 0, 0), 1 => array(0, 0, 0), 2 => array(0, 0, 0)), 2 => array(0 => array(0, 0, 0), 1 => array(0, 0, 0), 2 => array(0, 0, 0))); I didn't realize I was starting on 1 until now.

I recommend buying the book by Brian Greene. The show can be summarized in like 5 ~ 10 pages and does, in fact, answer your question. The electro-week and gravitational forces split with a thermal fluctuation that caused 3 dimensions to becomes larger then the rest, on which matter/antimatter pairs would annihilate each other giving off energy in the form of photons. [ Because matter/antimatter wasn't evenly distributed, this caused the previous symmetry to be broken so about every billion antimatter partners would constitute a billion and 1 matter partners. (so for every billion photons there is one matter particle) ] Anyway, if one were to magnify an object, hypothetically according to string theory, one would find that this previously thought 3D object is actually an X dimensional object (depended on which model is correct). So it is actually possible to find a 2D object, but it would have to be observed at a distance, and would actually have 3 dimensions + however more there actually are, if any. The reason we don't see 2D objects, very often that is, is simply because 3 dimensions are much larger then the rest (mathematically, to observe a 2D object, it would correspond to this difference).

Quick question. I'm trying to make a 3D array in the sort of: array( 1 => (1, 1), 2 => (1, 1) ); type of way. I inductively assumed the following would work but I get a "parse error, unexpected T_DOUBLE_ARROW": <?php $tt = array( 1 => (1 => (0, 0, 0), 2 => (0, 0, 0), 3 => (0, 0, 0)), 2 => (1 => (0, 0, 0), 2 => (0, 0, 0), 3 => (0, 0, 0)), 3 => (1 => (0, 0, 0), 2 => (0, 0, 0), 3 => (0, 0, 0)) ); ?> So obviously the above is wrong but my good friend google doesn't seem to have a better way. So, anybody know how? (This is going to be my filing system for a new game I'm working on: [x][y][info])

I think it seems logical to say that nothing came first. Honestly, wouldn't one assume such? If you think about it, our universe is probably stable with a net charge of 0 which would constitute nothing. So I personally don't see anything wrong with our universe popping out of a state of nothing. However, the idea of the universe-from-nothing isn't anything new to me, and in fact I have bloged about my own little through at my website: http://1veedo.com/index.php?1veedo=blog ------------ The idea of a big bang caused by a singularity in another universe is much more interesting. The space-path histories would converge to a point in universe A constituting a blackhole. The second these space-paths converge and intersect is when a big bang lights up in universe B with again, an intersection that relative to a us occurred in the past. In such an intersection, the spacetime paths always emerge from the intersection and gradually curve away from each other and would appear to constitute the beginning of spacetime. So at the center of every galaxy there is a seed for a new universe. This may answer why there are so many galaxies and not just a couple or even none in out universe. Just apply the standard principles of evolution and we've got ourselves a model that already has some theoretical evidence behind it

Thanks 5614, I get it now!