Baby Astronaut

I think moving yourself to a weaker gravity system than our entire planetary, solar, and galaxy's combined reference frames would to do the trick. In other words, move to a system whose cumulative velocities are much slower than ours. Make sense? For example, we're going at the speed of human + Earth's orbit around sun + sun's orbit around galaxy + galaxy's orbit around Virgo supercluster, - (minus) the canceled-out speeds from any opposing directions. In a star within the great voids you can probably find a slow enough system. I doubt those are moving very quickly. But I'm guessing entirely, based on the logic this star would have nothing to orbit around. It's very possible my whole idea is flawed.

Well, I'm fluent in most incorrectly-worded terminology But really, I had the same thought before, realizing you couldn't move slower than a person who's just standing there. And I'm pretty sure "moving negatively" is close to how I originally pictured a solution to it. That's when the idea of gravity tug-along difference hit me.

There might not be a way to "slow down" because gravity would keep you going at the minimal speed even against an immobile person. And I'm not sure if you can force yourself to slow down in the same reference frame of our planetary system. *If* you could press a button and external gravity would instantly stop affecting your body, then the Earth would smash into you or whisk away from you at tremendous speed. NowThatWeKnow also mentioned traveling backwards in time, yet I'm fairly certain the OP didn't ask this. He probably meant just slowing down. That's it. And would doing so make time go faster. It's the reverse of speeding up, and time would move slower.

I wondered the same thing once. If you can somehow ignore the effects of your frame's gravity, I'd say yeah, time would "speed up" for you because now everyone is going faster than you. However, once you jump back into the galaxy's frame, it'd be a long ways to catch up with them and you'd have to go near light speed to do it, so now time would be slower and because of this you might arrive at the same age regardless -- unless my calculations are totally screwy

I agree. No one's done rigorous testing to see if indeed different variables would result in "no universe". There might be another factor at work, besides. There is a lot we don't know yet, only the variables we've managed to draw predictive power from. I happen to think the multiple universes explanation isn't the best argument.

Peron, I see where you're going, and truly math and physics are different -- one uses the other as its central tool, but not vice versa. Yet they are intimately linked. It's sometimes easier/faster to have observational evidence and tests, but you do need math to verify what you're seeing. And often, we can't even observe something -- thus we need math to figure that kind of stuff out. But not only does math supply us with accurate predictions, it constantly surprises us with unexpected predictions, which lead to discoveries we might not stumble upon through normal observation. http://www.pdasupport.com/PDAencyclopediaGPS.htm

Or a new acronym for devices that catch the girls red-handed. Female Air Rectally Tossed (FART)

Hilbig said the fish landed safely and appeared to be in good condition. "They were very happy, I think they want to have another flight," he said. lol

I'm not really expecting answers to the question. They're just links to open up discussion. You made a good point, but the video clearly shows the emissions and it doesn't seem there'd be a problem of anyone bumping into things.

Yeah, calculations of gravity stretch to infinity. Although I didn't imagine gravity as a space "filler" in the same manner as particles. What kind of horrible things?

Would be cool if you could have glasses which let you see the greenhouse gases as they're released. And in other news (while on the topic of seeing the normally unseen) Google has added an "Ocean Bottom" viewer to its Google Earth app. (Wonder if one day it'll let us see the huge garbage trail encircling a huge swath of the ocean and making contributions to our dinner plates?)

(Oh my gawd she is really cute) If I did that experiment using a much deeper layer of starch/water fluid, how messy would it be to slap a fork against it really hard (as like in the vid)? Think it'll go under the liquid or even splash it around?

How is it that subatomic particles which continually pop in and out of existence don't end up blocking photons that journey millions of light years through space? Photons also have to contend with space dust, plasma and whatnot, for that matter.* *pun

Airbrush, subatomic particles are still popping in and out of existence in all of space. At least according to calculations.

If you take the blue pill, what's to prevent you (due to memory loss) from seeking out the red pill again? "we don't know enough about other life in the Universe to talk about it." The statement above is valid. You're forgetting (maybe you took the blue pill) how science works. We all have our ideas on aliens. Many scientists do too. However, they only view/discuss science as things which have been tested or proven by scientific methods. It doesn't matter if everyone witnessed it or has photos -- if it hasn't been run through a lab and/or observed with extensive notes and verified the same way by others, it's not science. Hence why you need to dispute this on a philosophy board or alien discussion forum. It's nothing personal against you, it's not a conspiracy, it doesn't matter if you were right, it's an honest attempt to keep science clean of "pollution" for lack of a better word. The evidence people have asked for is the type others can perform tests with, verify, document, sometimes indirectly with other methods of testing, and get the same exact results. Impossible with government cover ups -- if there is one. But that discussion isn't a scientific one. Thus your dilemma.

That is freaking hilarious.

Yeah. Generally, the ones who accuse liberalism of doing big government are themselves as guilty of it, if not more so. They often attempt to shrink only the parts of government not benefitting their ideology and party -- which just so *happens* to shrink the opposition party. Thus the accusers seek to replace their opposition, to fill the empty seats left by them. And in the end government wouldn't shrink. As for the other part, do terrorists hate *our* freedoms, or.....the freedoms of a select minority of politicians/industry who stealthily abuse our government's resources for harmful "pet interests" abroad? (These guys would benefit from shrinking a government for the people, and by the people -- or at least that aspect of it)

My thought: matter + antimatter will result in annihilation, and subatomic particles + their "anti" counterparts result in annihilation. But is this the case only for the same type of a particle and its opposite? For example, proton and antiproton will annihilate. But proton and antineutron won't. Is this correct?

The OP is already political. To me it sounds like the mantra of the anti-liberal party itself. So I just countered appropriately with my version of the "element". Curious though, which portion resembled an attack on liberalism? I should have phrased the one description as "the more stable liberalium isotopes". Read it again with that change and see if you get the same impression.

To expand on the findings, governmentium is more unstable when occupied by free radicals. It's these who cause the delay in timely reactions and inefficiency, but create the illusions that governmentium itself is responsible. If these free radicals were to do their job instead of hampering the parts of the governmentium differing from them, the element would be incredibly more efficient. The free radicals create the illusion that it functions to shrink down the total mass of governmentium. However, it turns out the free radicals simply move to replace the liberalium isotopes and not only does the entire mass of governmentium not shrink, it grows exponentially and becomes toxic. An interesting result occurs when free radicals are numerous enough in governmentium. They attract other unstable elements in nature to attack the governmentium's surroundings, which in turn excites the free radicals to a boiling state. The last illusion caused by free radicals is that the attack occurred because the population of stable atoms is free. However, it's the freedom of the radicals in governmentium which invite these attacks. Because governmentium is an element for the atoms and by the atoms, the free radicals will attempt to shrink the mass of governmentium in order to strip the atoms of liberties guaranteed by it. (Edit: It should be noted there are stable parts of governmentium which actually do increase its efficiency. These have nothing to do with the free radicals, who'll attack the stable parts as well.)

Yeah, but landing on the moon didn't threaten any industries who'll fight tooth and nail to keep it from happening, and fabricate negative campaigns against people like Al Gore who try bringing such change. However, raising our voice is always worth a shot, especially as we have a more renewables-friendly government now.

If an antielectron touched a proton, it wouldn't result in annihilation, huh? Same deal with antiprotons snuggling up to neutrinos. (And in biology an antibody touching a body won't end up in annihilation. )

Thanks for pointing out the lack of reference. I should've looked What I'm mainly interested in is others thoughts here or a plausible explanation. Also, furthering the chances that someone reading the paper will get a bright idea.

Do you mean one photon with another? If so, that's not what I meant. A receptor of some type is necessary to distinguish between each color, and would possibly replace the function of logic gates.

Is the "rumble" common in people too?