A-wal

Lol. Point taken. (: I can write much better than that and it definitely needs a good tidy up. I'm honestly not just being lazy though. I wrote that a while ago and I know it covers pretty much everything so I posted it, but I haven't read it since it was written. I never do. That way I can keep coming up with new and better ways of describing it. If I read that now I wouldn't be happy with it and it would be taking a step backwards because I'd be pulled back into old thought processes that I've outgrown. I take it you mean positive and negative as in electro-magnetism and gravity? Yes, the two forces are in perfect balance to keep us and the Earth static relative to each other. The reason we can't feel gravity but we can feel the electro-magnetism (the feeling of our weight is actually caused by the upwards force that we feel pulling us down) is because it's all at our feet, while the force of gravity is nicely spread out almost evenly throughout our bodies. We can reduce the force we feel by spreading it out more. That's why is more comfortable to lay down than it is to stand up. No, it's constant in any inertial frame of reference. When an object accelerates there is a point behind that object called the Rindler horizon that marks the point that no signal could ever reach them as long as they continue to accelerate at at least the same rate. If they maintain a constant rate of acceleration then the Rindler horizon will stay a constant distance away from them. If they increase their rate of acceleration then the Rindler horizon starts catching up to them, remember it marks the point where no signal could reach them from further than this distance. As they increase their rate of acceleration at a constant rate the Rindler horizon gets closer to them at a slower and slower rate. It would take an infinite amount of acceleration for it to actually catch up to them. This is what I meant when I said that acceleration is the equivalent to velocity when moving relative to energy rather than mass, because it's exactly the same as when measuring relative velocity to another object accept that energy keeps a constant velocity relative to an object when it maintains constant acceleration and changing the rate of the acceleration when measuring velocity relative to energy is the equivalent of accelerating relative to mass. The Rindler horizon describes velocity relative to energy behind the accelerating object but the same is true in front of it. Light shining from in front the object would pull away at a constant rate if the objects acceleration were constant, and it would start to catch up to it's own light if it increased its acceleration, and at a slower and slower rate if it's rate of increase remains constant. What nobody for over a century has realised is that this process is also describing exactly how gravity works. It's describing exactly how the event horizon behaves when accelerating (free-falling) towards a black hole.

Are you three enjoying your trip to the twilight zone? (: It's so much simpler to use psychology to explain this. What could be providing the mechanism for these time warps/ripples/wormholes? Nice one. I didn't get that to start with. (:

Okay, maybe I've been a little too over defensive, but there have been some genuinely uncalled for cheap digs as well. Can we start again and I'll take the chip off my shoulder. Sorry Bignose. You were asking unanswerable questions but I shouldn'd have over reacted. No I'm saying they become consciousness when they interact with our brains, somehow. Maybe it emits a signal at just the right frequency to absorb them or something. You've answered your own question here. They pass straight through the Earth. LOL! (: I thought the speculations section would be a bit different. I didn't know anything about that.

Who said anything about conferences and journals? That's your life, not mine. Why is it such hard work talking to you people. It's like your from another bloody planet. You wouldn't stand a chance in the real world. It's just an idea and you pounced and went into one about how I have to give more precise predictions. What would this and that be, blah blah. How the hell should I know? How could anyone realistically answer the questions that you asked? Get a sodding grip! This was supposed to be a just light hearted thread about something that may or may not be true and you turned it into this. Can't you people just have a normal conversation? (: God/Satans gift, just because I speak my mind and give back twice what I get when someone makes a cheap dig for no good reason? I'm starting to think you've all got real self esteem issues looking at the way you all talk to each other. Keep that crap up with me and you'll see what I'm like when I'm not just playing. Yea that must look bad actually come to think of it, but I wrote that before he posted his reply and then edited it after. Which was proceed by yet another cheap dig about logical fallacies without elaborating on what exactly those fallacies are. Chill the smeg out is not abusive. This wasn't supposed to be a confrontational thread. I didn't turn it into this. I'm actually a nice person when I'm talking to other nice people.

The fact that I just showed you exactly where and how you were completely wrong about most of how even the accepted facts of relativity work, and the fact that I'm able to explain exactly how it works so easily and precisely, and the fact that I can remove the singularities and contradictions and provide a simpler explanation that solves the unanswered questions of relativity, and the fact that I've provided questions that general relativity just can't answer and I can, and the fact that I've proved that an event horizon is not equivalent to the Rindler horizon because the equivalent to that is the point where no signal can reach a free-faller and so the event horizon is purely the point marking the furthest point that any object could have gotten in the same way that the speed of light restricts how far an object can move relative to other objects when accelerating using energy instead of mass, and the fact that I can do it all using a single unified coordinate system that encompasses the entire manifold prove my status. It's okay to be cocky when you can back it up so I have every right to make that statement. Pretty soon the people here with the qualifications that you seem to hold in irrational high regard (you do realise that they're just pieces of paper that don't actually do anything right?) are going to start saying that I may have a point. You're still digging that hole. Every creationist and physicist should read that. (:

And a lot more intelligence. (;

(: How? I don't think you quite understand.

You're not going to be able to climb your way out of this hole. The herder you try, the deeper it's going to get. Yes it's a straight line. So you don't think there needs to be any gravity involved for an object to follow a straight line through curved space-time then? Of course you do! The electro-magnatism that's holding it together makes the whole object accelerate, or a planes engines wouldn't take the plane with them. (: Not at all. Light energy moves at a constant speed because velocity between masses is relative, but when objects do change their velocity relative to energy when they accelerate either using gravity or a normal acceleration, and it takes a greater amount of accelerating to close the gap the harder they accelerate. It would take an infinite amount of acceleration to catch up to it. Acceleration can in fact be difined as velocity relative to energy. You sorely need to know when you're beaten. If it's not an illusion how come an object can always accelerate away from a black hole from ANY other objects perspective? It's never too late. That's right, I have no education in physics but I understand relativity better than anyone. That really bothers you doesn't it?

What would that prove? I think you're the type of person this forum and world would be better off without, not me.

You again! I didn't realise you that you're a mod. Did you not read the bit about Mars? That's a prediction! It's just not a very precise one.

Chill the smeg out dude! (: You're taking this far too seriously. It's just an idea. You know, speculation. How could I even know the details for this? I'd just be pulling predictions out of thin air. I edited my last post to make it even more vague. There are very definite predictions in my other thread. You best one is the rope paradox. Besides, if it were to make the exact same prediction as general relativity then it would still kick its arse because it's so much simpler and it's self consistent. It explains more using less and it uses a well established model of acceleration to do it, one that actually makes sense.

Just a wild thought. I've noticed that people here seem very reluctant to engage in any kind of meaningful debate. It seems they'd much rather just post cheap undeserved digs for no reason. I don't take this idea particularly seriously, I just thought it was worth discussing. My last three topic titles all have ?s for a reason. They're just a bit of fun. This is the kind of stuff that belongs in the speculation section, or did I miss the point? This actually makes more sense to me than our brains being able to do what the do without any outside help, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's wrong. May I ask why you think it's a logical fallacy? Oh really? I thought that difference was marginal at best? There's no noticable change in the Earths temperature. It doesn't have to be IQ, that was just an example. It could be manifested as needing more sleep. Sleep is for our minds, not our bodies. We need to defrag, so maybe that takes a bit longer.

Is that the best you can can do? Seriously? This is too easy. You're not even putting up a fight. Are you trying to get me banned or are you really this st... Ah, you almost got me. Okay so you either think that an object doesn't need the force of gravity applied to it in order to be travelling though curved space-time or you think that it does have to feel at least some tidal force? YOU are incorrect! Tidal force is caused by different parts of the same object feeling different amounts of gravity. The feeling of acceleration using a different force is caused by the same thing. Again, YOU are incorrect! The constant speed of light doesn't apply when an object is accelerating, either through gravity or conventional acceleration. When using ordinary acceleration the speed of light slows down from the perspective of the accelerator. When measuring velocity relative to energy rather than matter you have to replace velocity with acceleration. If light were to move away from an object falling towards a black hole at its normal speed then the falling object would be able to see object closer to the black hole crossing the event horizon, and then if it were to accelerate away then it would have to see that object cross back through the event horizon to be outside the black hole again. Again, YOU are incorrect! I think you'll find that it's possible for an object falling towards a black hole to escape from the perspective of a more distant object no matter how long the more distant object waits, so again it is in fact YOU my friend and not me who's wrong. Loooserrr!!! (: TV shows was how it started, then books, then my own thoughts and ideas. I can back up everything I'm saying with next to no effort and all you can do is say no, no, no and no. That's not much of an argument is it? You'd make an absolutely useless lawyer.

Oh okay. (: Looks like I'm a bit late. Let's see if they say it's because it gets filed in our long term memories. Cheers for the link.

We all are. Everything we perceive is just an exrapolation created by our minds. Take that away and what's left?

Either the organic lump of mush inside our heads are somehow capable of producing consciousness on their own, or our brains are ariels that pick up some kind of signal (probably neutrinos from the sun) and turn them into thoughts (easily testable). I just think it's a bit more believable that our complex thought processes and perceptions need an external source of energy rather than being generated purely by a lump of organic mush inside our skulls, and it makes me feel more connected to the universe when I think about it which is always nice. We'll find out soon when people go to Mars and find that their IQs drops dramatically.

What would it feel like if something that's just happened were to get filed in our long term memory by mistake? If it's just happened then it's meant to be filed in our short term memory, but if it goes straight into our long term memory then it's going to feel like it's happened before.

Without life the universe wouldn't look, sound, feel, taste or smell like anything, so what would it be? Just an equation. For existence to exist it needs to be lived. I think it's fair to say that the universe can be described using mathematics alone. There's no reason to ask what gives form to those equations. We do that ourselves. We give it form and substance. Everything that we think of as real is purely a creation of our own minds. Whether we experience the same thing is something that we may never know. There are always multiple correct ways of looking at something. John Conways game of life shows that the rules needed to generate complex interactions can be extremely simple: . Imagine a computer simulation of a more complicated version of the game of life, keeping the basic square grid with just two states but with more in depth rules and covering more dimensions. Now imagine that we zoom out and observe genuine life within the simulation. Now we switch off the computer. That life doesn't just vanish from existence. It's just squares on a grid. What we would have done is created a window to something that we wouldn't normally be aware of. What we think of as reality simply isn't needed to create what we experience. It's an unnecessary step based on an assumption that there needs to be an underlying cause, but this is a never ending question because you can always ask; well, what caused that? The question becomes invalid when asked in the context of existence itself. It's like asking why 1+1=2. It just does. The mathematical interactions give rise to pure geometry, which I think is maybe the E8 described in Garret Lisis theory of everything (it's just so pretty): http://www.ted.com/talks/garrett_lisi_on_his_theory_of_everything.html. The properties of this shape are responsible for everything we experience and much more, in fact everything that can happen. The symmetry seems broken from our perspective because we have an extremely limited view of the overall structure. The senses are just labels that we attach to the mathematics around us that we're only partially aware of. Seeing is believing.

Hello. My name's Warren and I'm here to destroy the general theory of relativity.

There's an electro-magnetic field that stops atoms from coming into contact with each other. In normal circumstances the space between atoms is much greater than the atoms themselves. This holds up the planet. I think it's called electron degeneracy pressure, but that might be something else. Neutron stars are so heavy that this isn't enough to hold them up and they collapse until the neutrons (presumably called neutron degeneracy pressure) holds them up instead. A black hole happens when this is also not enough to hold it up and it collapses completely.

You should see my other ones.

Nope. It's exactly the same. An object that's following a straight path through curved space-time must also have a force applied to it, gravity! It's felt as tidal force. That's not true. You can set it up so that it precisely mimics tidal force simply by applying the same rules, as in gradually increasing the difference in acceleration at an ever increasing rate over the volume of the object. Oh no they don't. That would mean they would be able to see objects reaching the horizon from a distance. It's not an illusion any more than it's an illusion that an object in flat space-time is unable to accelerate up to the speed of light relative to any other object. No, not at all. Read the question again. If someone had never heard of general relativity but knew how special relativity works and were handed this and general relativity then it wouldn't be much of a contest. No, I would have absolutely no trouble at all doing that. If you'd understood what I've wrote then you'd see just how simple that would be to do. Such as? Deliberately taking something that someone has said out of context when it's not a joke is a sign of weakness and desperation! (: You idiot. You didn't understand hardly any of what I wrote did you? Do you actually know anything about relativity? If you do then read the questions again. Maybe it will click, but I'm not too hopeful to be honest. You only need to move at one Planck length per whatever unit of time you want to escape. I hate the term escape velocity. It's very misleading. What you need to do is overpower gravity, which is always possible to do using a finite amount of energy because there can't possibly be an infinite amount of gravity. That's exactly what it implies! How could it not? I really don't think that you're up to this to be honest. You're either not as clever as you think or you really enjoy being made to look stupid.

How many more times? THE MATHS IS IN THE SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY!!! All I'd be doing is taking from there and posting it here. I know that's exactly how most physicists do things and then claim that somehow makes them experts but I'm not a physicist, thankfully. I can think for myself! Oh and I was perfectly clear. If you really didn't get what I meant then you have a problem.

They've locked your thread so I'll post it here. You've misunderstood. Humans developed to become the dominant species on the planet through the process of natural selection because any individuals with a genetic mutation that happened to be advantageous were more likely to survive long enough to reproduce and pass that advantage on to the next generation, where as those individuals who possessed a genetic mutation that was a disadvantage were less likely to survive long enough to pass on that genetic flaw. It's very simple. Please answer these questions: 1. Do you believe that Noah was able to fit two of every strain of every land animal on the planet into one boat and provide them all with food and drinking water until the water level went back down? Do you believe that bats are a type of bird? Do you think it's acceptable to kill someone just because they don't believe in what you believe in? Do you think it's okay for people to sell their daughters into sex slavery? If you think the answer to those questions is no then how do you know which parts of the bible are right and which are wrong? If the answer to any of these questions is yes then how are you able to take yourself seriously and look at yourself in the mirror? 2. What makes your particular brand of religion better or more likely to be true than any other? 3. If you were born somewhere else where Christianity wasn't the main religion do you really think you'd still be a Christian? 4. Who created your god. If you think that your god is eternal then why do you think that the universe needs a creator? 5. Why would your god need to judge people? It should already know exactly what everyone's going to do before they're even born! If not then it's not all powerful is it? 6. How do Christians claim that their god is all about love when it sends people to hell for not believing in it but forgives paedophiles, rapists and murderers? 7. How do you explain the fact that the more intelligent a person is (particularly those with good reasoning and critical thinking skills), the less likely they are to believe in a god? 8. Do you think that your god will be more impressed with people who's main motivation is to get into heaven than it is with people who don't need an incentive to do the right thing? 9. If you'd never heard of any religions and were handed evolution along side creationism as potential candidates to describe how the complexity of life arose then which one would think is the most probable for providing an accurate description? Be honest!