?

Log in

A Brief Subplot of Time
Cynics and Speculators Unite!
Recent Entries 
5th-Dec-2005 08:56 am - Time Cube
tshirt
http://www.timecube.com/

The surest sign of a stupid theory...large centered different colored blerbs repeating crap/testimonial/meeting times with "guru" periodically. I'd like the make of this site to get slammed by real science and thrown out for stupid metaphysics/theory.
27th-Sep-2005 12:23 pm(no subject)
tshirt
http://www.thefinaltheory.com/pages/1/index.htm

New book called the "final theory" seeks to debunk some issues with the unique force called "gravity" and seeks to explain a new "atomic model".

It says it is derived from Einsteins "space elevator" thought experiment (which discourses the effects of gravity as a change in acceleration and also starts into a theory of warped spacetime) and "Flatland" (a book I read in Geometry class that opens your mind to the metaphors that exist between various dimensions and their [virtual] inhabitants). I imagine they will have the "Ant Race on a Donut [or toroid]" analogy too. It seems to me that there is an "invisible direction/dimension" which we can't move into but which things affected by gravity move into. It also seeks to clarify time vs energy.

I am seeking to compare this to the "John Titor" predictions that there are indeed N10 (six curled Calabi-Yao dimensions) dimensions (insomuch that this is the truer theory than the N11 one) and the prediction that time is altered by gravitational areas and zones.

I am very interested in the thoughts about Gravitational Lensing, the speed limit of gravity (some tell me it is the same as light and others say it isn't), and I'm also curious as to how there is a formation of blue stars (blue light) in the center of Andromeda given that it is hard for stars to form around it's black hole.

The idea that gravity is not a force at all is well defended. a) we can shield all other forces but gravity. b) what kind of force gets to accelerate anything regardless of mass. IOW, why does gravity get to have an infinite amount of force (Force = mass times acceleration) but gravity accelerates all masses the same...even very large ones and that means a very large object can pull on something very very far away and a very large number of things. So where does all this "force" come from? Why is there "so much of it?".

Another mystery is the quanta ideas and wave particle duality. ie: how come electrons get to jump from shell to shell without "travelling" there or passing between? But then what about uncertainty principle? What about the mysterious Bose-Einstein condensates and ZEF and virtual particles outside of Black Holes? Will all that be explained?
26th-Sep-2005 12:19 pm - John Titor's String Theory of E8 X E8
tshirt
http://www.johntitor.com/

10 January 2001 01:13

54. E(8) x E(8)?

(HOST: Does this refer to string theory? If it does, did John predict this would be the dominant equation. Again, I don't know enough about the subject. )

<http://superstringtheory.com/basics/basic6a.html>
18th-Aug-2005 03:02 pm - Questions.
tshirt
Q. Is it possible that electrons "jump" to their other "quantum levels" (ie: they move to higher "orbits" without going through the space between each orbital, IOW, they snap there immediately, (or is it too fast?). Is it then possible electrons move through the Calabi-Yao 6D somehow while retaining 3D shape? It seems to me that as one progresses to higher dimensions, the lower dimensions become "ethereal" in a sense. For those in a real "planeland", lines are boundaries only, not "things". For those in space, planes are flat imaginary sheet shaped boundaries. For those in 4D, ideal "spaces" are probably ethereal. But are they ethereal or taking on a different "property" or "entity".

Time is an aspect of existence but not a boundary in space. Nonetheless, it has length only. Time has meaning as a model of 1D but is a very good example of 1D for few other notions have this kind of "length" in "apparent infinity on each side of the point called the "present". The present is a limit that is approached from each side of the past and future in infinite halved steps. I'll have to put my essay on time up sometime. It is an interesting topic of what really is "time".
tshirt
http://ascension2000.com/Shift-of-the-Ages/shift04.htm

Bogons: *****
Originality: *
Consistency: (*) <- 1 "anti-neutrino"
Plausibility: *

Again, the premise of our model is that the “waves” themselves are traveling through this fantastic concentration of “background” aether energy that exists throughout the Universe. As we continue in Hyperspace, Kaku then describes the shock he encountered when discovering Kaluza-Klein theory, which directly paved the way for an understanding of what was going on:

Since the theory was considered to be a wild speculation, it was never taught in graduate school; so young physicists are left to discover it quite by accident in their casual readings. This alternative theory gave the simplest explanation of light; that it was really a vibration of the fifth dimension, or what used to be called the fourth dimension by the mystics. If light could travel through a vacuum, it was because the vacuum itself was vibrating, because the “vacuum” really existed in four dimensions of space and one of time. By adding the fifth dimension, the force of gravity and light could be unified in a startlingly simple way...
17th-Aug-2005 06:33 pm - One of my favorite reads.
tshirt
http://www.mlawrence.co.uk/#introduction

This theory of everything talks of "Zero Mass Black Holes" and how "Everything" is a kind of black hole.

Originality: ***** (AFAIK)
Consistency: ***??
Plausibility: ***??

I simply cannot comment on the consistency or plausibility much but this seems like one of the better explanations for things out there. It is very simple and coincides with a lot of what is now known about singularities and physics today.

Can a physicist comment? I'm hoping to invite a few over who are not too busy. :D
17th-Aug-2005 06:01 pm - First one to rate:
tshirt
Website: http://www.qsmithwmu.com/

Originality: ***
Consistency: ***
Plausibility: n/a.

Just a good look at the various arguments but highly metaphysical and philosophical in content.

The gist of the theory: "Acausal (lacking cause) origins of the universe". Explores acausality's implications on theism/atheism and explores the question, "do we need a cause for everything?"

Q
1. Can we say the cause or the time itself is undefined in some way?

2. Did time even exist before the big bang and could it without space?

C
1. I do think that time and space are definitely interdependant if one sticks with space as the mere backdrop of emptiness that everything else fills. (that begs another question though...

Q
3. Is there such a reality as empty space? ie: before big bang? Despite the oddness the physics might be therein?
tshirt
First, I want to thank azalynn and beetlebomb for inspiring this in some ways

I made comments in the past here on this blog referring to the fourth dimension as a spatial one. There are several arguments against this though.
The single dimension time and the three dimensions of space are unique. While one can "go through" time (the verbiage suggests a kind of spacial movement), it is illusory to think of time and space as anything similar. On another note, the fourth dimension, the kalabi-yao spaces and the extra dimensions of string theory are not "spaces" in any way. The fourth dimension has a unique character and is something we already "experience". We experience the first dimension as time. We experience the second but I leave that mystery to you if you don't already know. I do know and it's been stated elsewhere. Hence, when discussing things like wormholes in "startrek", these things are really "NOT POSSIBLE". This is because wormholes are based on a metaphor that is not truly analogous.
Read more...Collapse )
This page was loaded Jun 23rd 2017, 1:35 pm GMT.