Jump to content

Gpa

Members
  • Posts

    522
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    36

Everything posted by Gpa

  1. Imagine, somewhere out there, 60 light years ( 352 476 100 400 000 miles ) away someone may be watching first run episodes of The I love Lucy show. We are here waiting patiently for any signal from anyone. Whether or not someone is watching Lucy or if we will ever hear from anyone is unknown. Since we cannot go star hopping and check out the distant planets first hand we have to rely on the chance there may be a signal. The decision to listen for a signal is based on probabilities or as I affectionately refer to it SWAG (Scientific Wild Ass Guess). There is NO way of knowing if there is life anywhere else unless and until we receive an undeniable signal from them. So to say there IS or that there ISN'T life out there is no more than a guess by ANYONE, scientist, cosmologist, astronomer, or regular Joe. No one's opinion, regardless of how much math they use, is any more valid than the next guys. One thing to consider is the discovery of so many extremeophiles in places we never thought life could exist.That in itself increases the probabilities that life could exist on many planets even though WE couldn't exist there. "Life as we know it" has taken on a much larger ecosystem than before and that needs to be taken into account when we contemplate life on other planets. Now there is a BIG difference when you specifically qualify "Intelligent" life. That being someone who has discovered Radio and Television or who can receive and transmit electromagnetic waves containing useful information. There you may have a limiting factor.
  2. Agreed Darby, but I wonder, if it were possible to view the universe from the perspective that our solar system is the size of an atom and the time frame also relative to that, would the planetary orbits move in and out thru an equatorial orbit (not all orbits are strictly equatorial) so that they would then appear to 'smear out as a probability wave'? Asked in another way, where the planets orbits always equatorial or did they become so over time due to the angular momentum of the suns spin and the planets own spin and could they over time move out of the equatorial plane and in a compressed view of time appear to behave like electrons? Just one of my many "out of the box" ideas.
  3. Gpa

    no

    Or maybe this is what Greg is describing? http://www.history.com/shows/ancient-aliens/videos/playlists/season-1-web-exclusives#ancient-aliens-foo-fighters
  4. Ruthless, I've considered your idea too. Its an interesting "coincidence?" how systems keep a similar frame work from the micro to the macro to the mega system. It makes me wonder how there couldn't be a grand design. I remember a TV show many years ago that involved the same idea. I can't recall which show it was but it may have been either The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, or another show of that type and era. I remember it was black and white. Perhaps someone else may recall it. It involved a couple of scientists considering the structure of an atom and wondering what might exist inside it. The atom was fairly unknown at that time. They thought there might be something like a miniature civilization within. As the show ended, the camera began backing away from the two scientists in their lab, out of the building, then further away, up into the air, away from the earth, through the solar system, moving out and away from the galaxy, further out into darkness, then suddenly, through a glass window and back into a room with 2 scientists looking through the window at their experiment, containing US! I remember that show because it freaked me out back then. Maybe someone else will recall it and I may be able to find it and watch it again and see how well I really do remember it. I have been looking but with no luck yet.
  5. Gpa

    no

    I wonder if Greg was under the influence of "something" and he came across an article like this one and superconductivity is what he's trying to discuss? Or it may just be a nonsense post. It is certainly confusing. http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=388
  6. It would seem, regardless of exactly what the middle east comprises, that there have been conflicts equal to and far greater than what is occurring currently since before 2271 BC. In light of the constant uprising among the people of that area I fail to see any significance to what Zeshua supposedly predicted. To say there will be conflict in the middle east over some 5 to 10 year period sounds like a pretty safe bet to me. Sorry, I'm not buying. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_the_Middle_East
  7. It would seem there are many differing interpretations as to what exactly makes up the Middle East and it has changed over time. I offer these links (there are many others) to help "clarify" it for anyone who is actually interested in it. All that really matters is that Zeshua is right. Right? http://middleeast.about.com/od/middleeast101/f/me080208.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/me.htm
  8. Gpa

    idea #49065

    From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. Hmmm. Where have I heard THAT before? :confused:
  9. I think the 'reasonable explanation' would be that the oblect is an ice formation. If you zoom in on the Polar Regions you will see many other formations that are similar in size and appearance. That is if it isnt, as Darby suggests, a fake to begin with.
  10. So, this postulate is simply to wake up the forum. Nicely played.
  11. Paladius; At this moment, I neither accept nor deny your premise that the time line has changed. You have offered no supporting evidence or even presented a statement as to what you believe the change has been. Without such evidence your statement, that the time line has been changed, is meritless and without sincerity. Perhaps, if you would care to enlighten the rest of us with your knowledge, we might have some inclination to believe you. As it stands now you have made this and earlier assertions that the time line has changed but I have not noticed any proof or statements as to the change involved. I for one would be interested to know what changes have taken place. Please understand I do not challenge your 'ability' to perceive changes in the time line but unless you offer some kind of evidence your premise is wanting.
  12. Concusion 3; That's an interesting TT test but it seems it will cause either of two things (at least for me). First, if after I write the time, date, and place on the paper and then sit back and see myself standing there it would most likely scare the crap out of me and I would have a heart attack and die and that of course would prevent me from surviving into the future to travel back to the date on the paper and that would then prevent my traveling back to give myself a heart attack so I would survive to travel back and I would be caught in an endless time loop. Or, as soon as I write down the time, date, and place on the paper and sit back and don't see myself standing there I will know that at the very least I do not survive to the time when TT is invented/ discovered. If you ever can TT back to a date you establish NOW you wont have to wait for yourself to appear. You either will immediately or you won't.
  13. TL; What you call vicious and violent I call Bravery and Commitment Osama was a wanted international terrorist. He was wanted Dead or Alive. He resisted as he said he would and you don't have to be holding a gun to resist and he was killed. Early intelligence reported that he would wear a suicide bomb vest and detonate it before being captured. He may not have been wearing it but perhaps he reached for it or a weapon. We may never know all the details but more may yet come out. As far as being 'vicious and addicted to violence', which again I call Bravery and Commitment. YOU'RE WELCOME. We used it once before against a guy named Hitler.
  14. Eyecare; It may not be so much what is moving 'things' in the Universe but that the Universe 'itself' is what is moving. I have had thoughts along the same line as you are and without a solid background in physics myself I rely on information and opinion from others that do. While I don't always agree with everything physicists assert I respect their reasoning. As my background is centered in Biology and Chemistry (Biology was my first love and Chemistry ended up being my job) I have a different way of looking at things. I always saw physicists (especially theoretical) as champions of the phrase. 'Eat your cake and have it too.' But that's for another time and place. What I would like to offer you are these links that I found quite helpful and the additional links found within them. These authors will certainly explain things far better than I can. I hope you find them useful. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575 http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00990.htm
  15. I heard about this today and thought I'd post it here for others to see if they haven't already. It's a short article but some may find it interesting. http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/72244
  16. It is interesting to think that time travel can be accomplished as simply as solving a polynomial equation. I remember solving them with matrices some 26 years ago. Unfortunately, for the life of me, I would be unable to do so now so I will remain stuck in this time. I did take a moment to review the process on-line to see if I remembered right and when my forehead slammed into my keyboard I quickly remembered that I really no longer cared to. In my life since college, I have not encountered a single polynomial that needed solving. TimeLord I wish you the best with that. While I still don't think TT will happen I do think faster than light travel may and if so will allow for some fantastic advances. I know, if you can reach warp 10 in a slingshot around the sun you could warp backward or forward in time but beaming up four hundred tons will always be difficult. The Voyage Home is my favorite. I also know this invites the wrath of Darby, for whom I have the highest respect, but I was never able to accept the speed of light as an insurmountable limit, much to the chagrin of my physics professor. I still got an A. I put down the acceptable answers and disagreed with them in the margins. I offer rather that it is the current upper limit that we 'can' know and that perhaps it should be considered as the … (get ready for it) … Escape Velocity for the universe we exist in. That would be in keeping with the fundamental rule that nothing can travel faster than light, at least not 'here'. Once a photon or anything else exceeds 186000 miles/s or 299792458 m/s it leaves this universe. I surmised this theory after finally receiving the best response to my non acceptance of the speed of light as a constant. I argued that nothing could simply come into existence at the speed of light and forever remain at that velocity. It must accelerate and it must be slowed by interaction with other bodies, i.e. planets or black holes and their gravity. A thesis advisor offered that at a speed other that the speed of light a photon is 'something else'. Hence, my explanation why light can not 'escape' a black hole, it's not unable to escape… it's slowing down. So, if we do exceed the speed of light and leave this universe, would leaving this universe and entering an alternate universe be TT if the alternate universe was at a different point in time than this one? We may never know but it seems to me that it may be the only possible chance of being in a different time / time line. We would have to be in a different universe. I guess I'm in Michael2's corner on this one.
  17. Skarpz; You've got the right idea and attitude. The best place to start is at the beginning. I would suggest, if you want to study in physics and chemistry, get the math courses out of the way first. Both of those disciplines can be very frustrating without a solid foundation in math. As for other ways to learn than just classes, the internet has many sources. There are online classes (if you're wanting credits toward a degree I don't know if they are accredited) but they may still be at an introductory level and have value. Just looking up things you see posted here through a search engine and reading about them will help. Never be afraid to ask questions. Many others posting here seem to be quite knowledgeable and will be able to help you understand something. Good luck
  18. Gpa

    2009

    My Dear Sir; I am aghast at your imputation that I was pompous in my remarks. After all, how could you have known I was attired in my best 18th century clothing complete with ruffs at the breast and wrists and a powdered wig as I sat before my computer to respond to your post. How could you have seen as I finished my retort and sat back in my chair and oh so smugly raised my arm and waved my hand side to side in saying goodbye to the one whom I had just so eloquently dispatched with my cleverness? Perchance it was your infernal time machine and you discovered where I lived and went back and stood unseen in my room and watched as I wrote it. Confound you sir. I throw my gauntlet at your feet. Have your second contact my second and we shall settle this at dawn on the Field of Honor. Actually I was trying to be sarcastic in my post. You are the one who claims to BE a time traveler and as such you would be an 'expert' on how time travel is understood in 2032. Your post while wordy failed (for me at least) to explain just HOW time travel 'works' in 2032. You alluded to Zeno's paradox, Cantor's work on infinity, 1/infinity, the conservation principle, Hawking, Einstein, some fuzzy math 1/9=0.111…then times 9 9/9=0.9999 carry the 4 ( I think that was in there) 1=0.999 and 0.0…1 = 0 and other such 'metaphysical' non-sense but none of that provided a nat's butt worth of evidence that you had any idea how time travel was 'understood' in 2032 or any other time. You imply 'my' counter analogy of the building was erroneous. The blown up building was 'your' analogy I simply referred to it because I had no idea how that related to the Grandfather paradox unless you're telling me that if I take a picture of my grandfather before I kill him then my existence is secured but still bad news for the second me. Anyway, I didn't think I needed to apply constructive criticism and how could I ask honest questions of an apparent dishonest discourse but if it pleases you I will try. Here are a couple softball questions. If you are from the future, and I humbly believe there is a 1/infinity probability of that being true, I'm sure the recent shooting in Arizona did not go unrecorded so the results should be readily available to you so please tell me what the outcome is? Second question: Who runs and who wins the presidency in 2012? As for constructive criticism all I can offer is; use a thesaurus and or at the very least a dictionary. Otherwise I will be forced to begin proceedings to have you expelled from the word of the month club.
  19. Gpa

    2009

    I do enjoy reading these posts and I don't often respond but even though I know better, sometimes I can't help myself. It's interesting how some can say so little with so many words. 766 words… nothing said. Perhaps if we 'bifurcate' this into 'its two branches', the metaphysical and the physical, we could decipher what was intended, or probably not. Lets see, blowing up a building after you take a picture of it and determining that since it didn't also collapse in the picture that that somehow correlates to the Grandfather paradox and provides that if you travel back and kill your Grandfather that the 'second' you is the one that wont be born and the other you will simply go on his merry way but at the same time you contend that there are no parallel universes or alternate time lines. The second you, never being born, causes the surviving you to become a metaphysical anomaly because 'you' were never born and therefore you could not interact with the physical universe if there are no alternate universes or time lines. Blah blah blah… No, this isn't going to work. I can't make any sense of those 766 words. They must be metaphysical. Metaphysical; a statement or theory having the form of an empirical hypothesis, but in fact immune from empirical testing and therefore (in the view of the logical positivists) literally meaningless. 234 words… I hope everyone has a great New Year.
  20. Hello again. Twighlight and Darby, thank you for your input and showing me where I lack clarity. I see that I may have come on too strong in my first post and now I have hdrkid thinking I hate the Quran. I don't and I don't think it's my place to judge any religion but, I have read and studied science for many years and I know a little bit about that. I won't ask for proof of time travel because I don't think any will be forth coming. I would like to hopefully expand on my first post. I didn't want it to be too long winded and I don't know how to work that universal consciousness thingy thing. I start by apologizing again for coming on too strong with a flat denial of the existence of Time. That is incorrect. I do however maintain that Time is not a physical substance and therefore non-supportive of physical travel in or thru it. Having said that, I must say that I time travel forward and backward in time everyday. When I'm going somewhere I plan the trip in advance knowing when and where I will turn, often visualizing the entire trip in my mind and when I arrive at my destination if everything went as planned I realize I had in a sense traveled forward in time or at least had seen into the future at the start of my trip. I can also go back to the Thanksgiving weekend at my Grandparents home. I see the homemade noodles drying on the back of a chair as I race thru the house and out the back door. I stop and look into the chicken coop. I could never get the eggs from the chickens. They would always peck my hand but grandma could just reach in and grab them. I get the tack from the shed and saddle the pony. I go to the old corn bin and by the Cemetery and then turn to race home. There's a slight hill in front of the house and as the pony lurches sideways the saddle slips and I fall headfirst on the gravel skinning my upper lip so bad I can't eat Thanksgiving dinner. In my mind, where the concept of time actually exists, I can time travel. If I could physically time travel I would certainly go back and tighten the saddle either at the old corn crib or by the Cemetery and I would not have fallen off the pony. Let me see. Nope, I can still see the scars on my upper lip thru the mustache I grew to cover them. What? Someone said I can't go back yet because time travel hasn't been discovered yet. If we are talking real time travel it doesn't matter 'when' it is discovered. Someone will travel back and those of us 'back here' will be made aware of it too. What? They keep it secret. So you think 'everyone' in the future will keep it secret. As I said, once it is discovered someone sometime will use it that has less scruples than everyone else. In a more direct response to Twighlight, I see where you are going but I don't see why we MUST equate time with a process except for our own edification. At the Big Bang, Time had nothing to do with it unless you feel it was 'time' for it to have happened. Yes, time began 'after' the Big Bang. It would seem nothing existed before that but for time to matter it would have had to be the first thing. Instead it is a 'measure' of everything since. The emergence of the four fundamental forces happened at the beginning smallest measure of 'time' so a lack of 'time' can not preclude the formation of the Universe. Yes, it took time to develop, from OUR perspective. But it would be the height of arrogance for us to assume the Universe can not exist without our ability to perceive time. Darby, I define the 'substance' of energy as the ability to physically quantify its effect on everything else. We can hold energy or at least it's potential in our hand when we hold a battery. We see energy when we see heat waves rising from a road or desert sands. I apologize for interchanging the terms mass and matter but often, in conversation, they are interchangeable in that inference of one implies the other since they are linked as mass is the measure of matter. I hope this isn't too long and I hope I made my view of time and time travel more clear.
  21. Greetings, from a Time Travel nihilist. I doubt I'll make any friends here since most of you seem to believe in time travel and as I know that it doesn't exist, we certainly won't have common ground to begin from. I read these posts for a couple months before I felt I should reply and perhaps I still shouldn't but what the heck. It would appear the moderators here are skeptical also and challenge posters claims of TT as such claims should be. I too am prepared to have my opinion analyzed, considered, criticized, critiqued, examined, investigated, and judged by my peers on this site but it can not and will not be altered because of one simple fact that everyone, for whatever reason, ignores or refuses to consider perhaps because it would shake their very foundations in physics, something I have no problem doing because I am not restrained by a rigid mindset. Yes, I am bound by the Laws of Physics but not by archaic ideas whose time is well past. Remember we once thought the world was flat or that man couldn't survive at speeds above 25 mph, that the sound barrier couldn't be broken. All were proved wrong. So will Einstein's 'special theory of relativity' be. What was he smoking in that pipe? TIME my friends is a human concept. Not a Law, not a theory, not a hypothesis. It serves to define the occurrence of an event, something that is meaningful and crucial to us but of no consequence to the Universe. Our finite existence compels us to consider time as relevant but we are the only thing on this planet that does so. Additionally, the simplest way to prove time doesn't exist is the fact that everything in the Universe is either energy or matter. Time has no substance. It is not a particle. It is not a wave. It does not have mass. It does not have a charge. Therefore, IT CAN NOT EXIST. It isn't something you can travel in like air or water or even space because empty space really isn't 'empty'. In the most basic sense we do time travel but only in one direction, forward, and at a self defined speed of one second per second. You cannot travel into the past because there is nothing there to MOVE into. You cannot travel into the future any further than your present because the future occurs as you experience it, as your present, and since we have defined the passage of time to be one second per second you cannot accelerate it to experience it any faster. This allows me to segue to the special relativity theory. It doesn't matter how fast you are traveling. We have defined the rate at which time passes. A year is a year is a year and it is the same measurement at the speed of light as it is at 65 mph. If and when we are able to reach the speed of light or as close as we do and someone's twin comes back 1 year older just as the twin that remains behind this abstract premise will be disproved. Sorry if I've burst anyone's bubble. Time Travel is still one of the favorite concepts of sci-fi. It does make for some interesting plot lines and I will continue to enjoy movies with the concept but it is just a movie. I look forward to the assessment of my post by others that disagree or agree and would be intrigued if I am proven wrong (In part, possibly. In total, not likely.). Perhaps someone will reply yesterday and really prove me wrong. Thanks to the site owners for providing a place to express these opinions.
×
×
  • Create New...