More stuff that you will never find a use for.Follow

I have figured out why you can't see the future or go into the past. It is because of an immense gravity well. But to us, it does not look like gravity because the gravity field itself rotates space time by 90 degrees, making a single direction in space to be time-like and time to be space-like, thus altering our perception of existance.

kjone, been hitting any drugs recently?

That Supreme Power is in Nature's Harmonic Simultaneous Perpetual 4X4=16 Corner Rotating Principle 4-Day Time Cube - Ineffable Truth.

If you place a child in a room and in the hands of a Word God, the child will suffer severe loneliness and will starve to death. God is Word fiction.

Until the fictitious Word of the Adult cloned God entity is cornered,ineffable Truth is squared, and the Earthsphere Life is Cubed … math and science of religion and academia are adult scams and constitute crimes against children. No genius has the Wisdom of a Cubic.

That is so spooky!

I had a premonition that you'd say GFY

I tried to read that Time Cube site once before. When I was done, I needed a drink.

Gravity is static, good try though.

I know what you're trying to say, Tarv, but I'm going to nit-pick even further.

Gravity is not constant in magnitude, but the presence of gravity is always constant. For all of you who still believe that there's no gravity in space, it's not true.

Twiztid

Friar Reinman wrote in responce to my statement that space time had been rotated 90 degrees.

Gravity is static, good try though.

----------------------------

Uhhhhh... I did NOT say that the gravity changed in any way. I said that space time changed. And Einstein proved that you can rotate space-time long before you were born.

And (totally pointless to my argument) gravity does change, at least in theory. Gravity waves are predicted, but have not been detected. Dark energy may also be related to changes in gravity, but that is not commonly accepted.

Edited, Sun Sep 5 21:25:16 2004 by kjones000

The Friar R wrote:

Sorry, I thought you were just another quack, trying to impress someone. I see I was wrong. Carry on.

_____________

No, not a quack, but I am a nutcase. But being a nutcase doesn't invalidate my assertions. It just lowers the probability of their being right. Unlike most fields of study though, being a nutcase is not that much of a disadvantage in the areas of relativity and quantum mechanics (or economics and WMD design for that matter).

And with regard to trying to impress someone, its generally not that bad an idea to get someone to say "Hey, Cool!!" at the start of his day. I have always liked to share that which is cool. For example, on a macro scale, separating two quarks from one another really doesnt require that much energy, the only trouble is, when you get them 50 kilometers apart, they are still attracted to each other with the same force as when then they were in the same nucleus. When you let go, they will snap back together. However, I have not been able to figure out how to create a 50 km long quark bomb, cuz quarks are mighty slippery.

EDIT: Removed 2x Post.

Edited, Tue Sep 7 12:28:08 2004 by RPZip

Someone fairly bright wrote:



Ah, but the fact that the speed of light is constant is not an explanation. It is an observation. Its 99% of what relativity is based on. And relativity does not preclude tachyons.

I am attempting to go one step (or half a step) further. If I am correct, then tachyons CANNOT exist, or rather, if they do exist, then they MUST be repulsed by gravity, and any gravity field sufficient to cause time's arrow, would propell them OUT OF THE UNIVERSE when they are created. Not only would they be propelled beyond the physical bounds of the unverse, they would forced back in time beyond the big bang.

Unfortunaly, as predictions go, this is a really crappy one, because (if I recall correctly) relativity proved that tachyons cannot interact with anything moving at C or below.

So, here is another prediction -- there should be tidal forces involved. Objects would still not exceed C in any frame of referance, but objects that are far appart from one another would tend to move farther apart from one another. Furthmore, this separtion should accelerate (something that has been observed). Here is the prediction - if we graph the acceleration, we should get EXACTLY the equation we would get graphing tidal forces occuing not in space, but IN TIME. I guess I am saying that dark energy would be the same thing as bifrication of matter in a black hole, only rotated 90 degrees in space time. (Thats the prediction anyway).

Dracoid; Ayup.

Well... the fact that the speed of light is constant is an observation and an explination. It is certainly a true fact. It is also true that the combined total velocity of all objects, be they photons or planets, is C; this is actually dervied primarially from string theory/M-theory, and not relativity, but time dilation observed at near-light speeds was the basis for this observation. At C your speed along the time axis is 0. If there were particles capable of speeds faster than light (tachyons) it would require reworkings of our entire concepts of physics; relativity, quantum mechanics and string theory would lose a large part of their base.

Furthermore, the current theory on gravity involves gravitons (particles with zero rest mass and two spin), which are predicted by string theory although far too small to detect currently. Most importantly, however, gravity is not instantaneous; gravitons travel at C. Newton's gravitational laws do not take this into account, but are very good approximations for most situations; however, when compared to the actual results (and the ones predicted by relativity) small differences occur. Most imporantly, however, is the fact that anything moving faster than C could ignore gravitational effects; it would move faster than the gravitons could.

And... er, what exactly are you trying to say about tidal forces? Because from what I remember about them what you're trying to say has nothing to do with it.

1)

Quote:

BTW, if we ever find information that is NOT been filtered through human consciousness, it would disprove all ideas.

Dude, when a dog plays 3 card monte with bottle caps and doggy treats, the information as to which bottle cap the treat is under HAS NOT been filtered through a human consciousness. (Assuming the human has lost track of where he put it).

2)

Has the propagation of gravity at C been observed?

3) The point remains that I am making a prediction. And that "sum" to C rule cannot make the same prediction. So one of two things is the case -- My idea goes beyond "C summing" and is right - 1% probability. OR My idea goes beyond "C summing" and is wrong - 99% probability. :)