there are two of them

fsk

8th February 2003 06:38 UTC

there are two of them
well what can I say, Im here again drunk as usual. Only this time im gonna do my best to keep my english good. What I just realised is ....
well I'm sure you have asked yourself how and why does this word work. I asked mysaelf that plenty of times, and I was sure that there is this single thing that is the reason for all that we see around us. But that just cant be. Why? Because if you say that something is, you are saying that something else isn't. If there was only one particle or energy or whatever than all you could see would be... like a screen of points with the same color value. which would be the representation of nothing, empty space. But as you see right now, the letters of this post are clearly not the same color as the background. So the only condition for anything to exist is the 'diference'. I mean would yoou know that shit smells bad if everything smelled like shit.

anubis2003

8th February 2003 07:11 UTC

There are certain rules that control everything around us, but many different things will conform to these rules. This is what allows there to be differences.

fsk

8th February 2003 07:37 UTC

Hmmm, yes, but try to write rules with only one letter:).

Great avatar by the way.
200...
san
ibu hey this doesnt work out right:)

anubis2003

8th February 2003 14:43 UTC

Why do the rules need to be written with one letter?

Yeah, I know my Sig doesn't work well as a grid, but I decided to go with it anyway.

fsk

8th February 2003 15:12 UTC

So the only condition for anything to exist is the 'diference'.

A better way of saying this would be the first condition for anything to exist.

Why do the rules need to be written with one letter?

what I wanted to say is: you cant have rules if you dont have the difference in first place . If that makes sence?

Im gonna stop this -beeing drunk and posting- hooby of mine:). Even dough Im getting better at it:D(at least the language part). And Im sorry for posting somethin that hasent got anything to do with AVS. The idea seemed a lot better yesterday:).

nixa

8th February 2003 15:19 UTC

FSK: That is somewhat true but one can have many forms and still be one...Water and ice are/is an example.

fsk

8th February 2003 15:37 UTC

Ice in water 1

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

ice i water 2

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

they are both made from 0's but you need the " " too to make ice. the diference Im refering to is the diference between "0" and " ",or "1" and "0" or the diference between the water and ice in the first place

I mean would yoou know that shit smells bad if everything smelled like shit.

But than again its just a thougt i had while beeing drunk:)

anubis2003

8th February 2003 16:01 UTC

The difference in water and ice originates with a difference of temperature. The rest occurs as the results of the laws of physics.

Zevensoft

9th February 2003 00:24 UTC

Water itself ignores physics actually, being one of only a few compounds that expands when frozen.

anubis2003

9th February 2003 01:07 UTC

It's not ignoring physics. That is impossible. It is possible that it doesn't conform to physics as we know them. All things must follow the laws of physics of the universe that they are in. Something about water's chemical structure causes it to expand.

EnDurA

9th February 2003 06:35 UTC

i agree with anubis, water can't ignoe pyhsics, even if it did there would be a law to describe why that happened.

if i fired a gun into a wormhole and the bullet went back in time and killed me, would i fire the gun?

anubis2003

9th February 2003 21:56 UTC

This question has no answers in physics as we know it today. Their can be no paradoxes in physics. The easiest way for you to be able to kill yourself back in time would be if there was such thing as a multiverse(more than one universe). A new universe would be spawned at every decision - brush teeth or not; shoot myself or not - one where it does happen, one where it doesn't. In this way, to travel back in time would be as easy as transporting oneself to a universe that is at a different point in time. Read Michael Crichton's book Timeline. It's a really good book. Also, Stephen Hawking has written several [nonfiction] books on this topic.

legohead

9th February 2003 22:04 UTC

Dude the answer is actually quite simple yet quite complex. You might want to read 'the universe next door' which explains things like many worlds theory. Generally if you think back to the beginning of time when the universe = 0 . Now - as infinity laws show - is 0 actually absolutely nothing?? If so - it must be absolutely something (just think about it). But which one does it decide to be? It is something - as much as it is nothing - as much as it is everything in between.

the world ain't 3 dimensional like an 3d superscope. Its either 7,9 or 11 dimensional (probably even more dimensions). Depending on how you look at it..... hmmm.. something tells me there are going to be a few heads being scratched... :)

anubis2003

9th February 2003 22:30 UTC

Your first couple of sentences don't make much sense(the zero stuff). There are other dimensions, but I don't think this has anything to do with time travel.

legohead

10th February 2003 01:09 UTC

Well actually - if you do want to understand matter/energy etc (energy dimensions within space dimensions) and how it is truly different - you must understand time (hence space time).
Relativity and quantum mechanics will explain that further.
This forum ain't the place to discuss it anyway - I can see how this is truly going to be blown out of all proportion if this thread continues.
"If you think you understand physics - then you really don't know anything about physics!"

EnDurA

10th February 2003 06:38 UTC

at the singularity (big bang) the universe would have been infinatly small and infinatly hot, at 1 second past the big bang, th rate of expansion would have been about ten thousand million (million) km's a sec. thus as a byproduct the heat would be rapitly cooling as well, that now is somthing like -247 degrees celius and can be viewed as microwave radiation.

As for multiple universes, i think to complicated, seeing as each universe would have it's own laws and configurations, if thse do exist, we would never be able to reach them seeing as if we hoped in a ship at the beginning of the big bang and travelled at the speed of light, we'ed never escape our own universe seeing as the faster you travel, the slower time passes for you.

Legoheads right, this might turn into computer tweak *3 and would probly get into an arguemnet about space time singularities or somthin

A breif history of time and a universe in a nut shell are also good (the later of the 2 is a bit complex)

UnConeD

10th February 2003 07:26 UTC

There has been no proof yet that such time-travelling wormholes are possible afaik.
The problem is that space/time doesn't behave like a nice 4D euclidian space. A spaceship that travels at a speed near the space of light experiences time-dilation: if the voyage takes 5 years, then the time on the ship could only pass 2-3 years (depends on the speed).
Relativity is very weird :)

EnDurA

10th February 2003 07:32 UTC

hmm just one of the pains of space travel

Jaak

10th February 2003 22:13 UTC

Like Einstein sayd (was it he or ...) that when some object moves faster than speed of light then the space for that body equals with infinit and time with zero...
That means that ur everywhere in no time (or someting like this), if we could controll this process then travelling throu time and space would be possible.
This all is much more complicated and id like to explain this pit more (those wormholes and stuff...) but im in lack of english....
UnConeD is correct: we cannot look hole universe as 4D, its like 5D including time, 3d and like other levels of something (oh shit this is spooki what im talking)....

Ok, I know, this is verey weird post (i wrote it 00:15) with SO many spelling and grammar mistakes

anubis2003

10th February 2003 22:27 UTC

11D or more most likely(I've seen up to 27D).

Any object can not reach the speed of light, because as velocity increases, so does the amount of energy required to speed it up any more. To reach the speed of light an infinite amount of energy must be expended. Time travel is most likely in wormholes and the like, although it would take something with a negative energy density to be able to keep a wormhole open long enough to get through, even at the speed of light.

Zevensoft

11th February 2003 05:41 UTC

Sorry but I know for a fact that the theory of traveling at light speed reduces time to 0 is false. Example? LIGHT! Since when does light arrive instantly and be everywhere? Never. And light does have a mass, ie. it gets pulled in by black holes. So that just broke a few 'theories' right there.

Time is a dimension. As such, it is impossible to change one's momentum in time, without affecting time itself. Let's imagine a car. You can move sideways in the back seat. We will assume all 3 dimensions of space into this 1 dimension of movement. Now time is the car moving forward. No matter how much you move sideways, you will always be travelling forward at the speed of the car.

Another thing which breaks the theory that all the universe must do what physics say is quantum emissions. Einstein himself hated these, as this was the hole in his 'theory of everything'. They are truly random, with no observable means of determining when they might occur.

What some people don't realize is just how big a dimension really is. 1 dimension is infinite. Having 3 to move in really is a lot. 4 is consiberable, but the human mind just cannot fathom the vastness of 10 or more dimensions.

Many people may not realize it, but even images they see and thoughts that might occur are still 2 dimensional, 'seeing' in 3 dimensions is rather hard to visualize. A 2D person can only see in 1D, as shown by a quick paper drawn experiment. To us he may look like he can see in 2D, but the truth is he can't. But us, being 3D and able to perceive 2D, can see all of him, inside him, and anything in his world, all at once.

Imagine being a 4D person looking at this 3D world. Of course this is hard to visualize, just as the 2D man has trouble visualizing his world as 2D from a 3D perspective. Now imagine how hard it would be for this 2D man to travel out of the peice of paper. Pretty hard hey? Well imagine us trying to do the same thing. This is what makes time travel so hard. Before we can move in the 4th dimension we must master the 3rd dimension first.

I think when some people say things like "11 dimensional" or "26 dimensional" they don't really understand just what they're saying. In relational terms, imagine a box. This box has a side length of 2cm. In 2 dimensions, it's area is 2^2cm, or 4cm^2. In 3, it's volume is 2^3cm, ie. 8cm^3. However in 11 dimension, this is 2^11cm, or 2048cm^11 of space. Absolutely HUGE space for storage, and it all fits in your pocket. But only if your pocket was 11 dimensional, and that you could 'even out' the object so that it filled all 11 dimensions.

EnDurA

11th February 2003 07:03 UTC

light does have a mass, ie. it gets pulled in by black holes.

blacks holes aren't exactly a hole, if u stood on one you'd probobly be ripped in half by the gravatational difference between your legs and your head. (nice way to die). Nor are they black, they do emit light, but it wouldn't pass through the event horizon.

most people also think that they will someday suck in everything. Black holes only suck matter in if it gets to close to it. Dam stupid virus protector!!! (mental note disable auto scan).

Like Einstein sayd (was it he or ...) that when some object moves faster than speed of light then the space for that body equals with infinit and time with zero...

it is ABSOLUTLY impossable to travel faster than light, if u did, u'd be crushed untill not even ur atoms remained (another good way to die).

hmm i think i should probly read somthing else, haven't had a good book since a breif history of time

In 2 dimensions, it's area is 2^2cm, or 4cm^2. In 3, it's volume is 2^3cm, ie. 8cm^3. However in 11 dimension, this is 2^11cm, or 2048cm^11 of space. Absolutely HUGE space for storage, and it all fits in your pocket. But only if your pocket was 11 dimensional, and that you could 'even out' the object so that it filled all 11 dimensions.

this would be absolutly cool, you could fit a car in your pocket!!

UnConeD

11th February 2003 08:43 UTC

Sorry but I know for a fact that the theory of traveling at light speed reduces time to 0 is false. Example? LIGHT! Since when does light arrive instantly and be everywhere? Never. And light does have a mass, ie. it gets pulled in by black holes. So that just broke a few 'theories' right there.

You got time dilation wrong. The point is that time slows down for the object moving at speeds near the speed of light.
A great way of showing this is to examine muons. These are particles (we receive them from space) that have a very short decay time, much shorter than the time needed to travel from outside the atmosphere to the ground.
Yet many experiments exist (even ones you can do at home with dry-ice) that allow you to detect muons here on the ground.

The reason is that, because of their high speed (near the speed of light I think), time slows down for the particles, so their decay-time is stretched for us.

Relativity does not claim light would arrive everywhere instantly.

Secondly, the thing about light having mass is summarized very nicely in Einstein's famous formula:

E = mc²

Or in other words, energy equals mass multiplied by the speed of light squared.
Note however that mass is NOT independent of speed. The 'm' is the adjusted mass, because objects become heavier the faster they go. Light has mass because it moves at the speed of light. Any slower, and its mass would be zero (because its initial mass is also zero).
This is why light can be attracted by gravity. However it does not have a mass in the traditional sense, because there is no matter to contain it in.

Zevensoft, I get the idea that you think relativity is still some sort of magical fairy tale. Of course it still cannot explain everything in our universe, but no scientific theory has ever been 100% right from the beginning.

And you seem to forget the basis of science: to build a model that accurately predicts what we experience in the world. It can never be PROVEN that when I throw a ball, it will fly in a parabolic trajectory. But we slowly built a model to describe the things we see, and a ball that follows a parabolic trajectory fits very nicely in that model, so we assume it is correct.
When a model fits with all known observations, we can be pretty sure it's okay, but we can never be 100% sure.

Chemistry is one the areas where quantumphysics, mechanics and relativity have come together to form a new, accurate model of what happens on the atomic level and where classic theories often had to resort to 'tricks' to make things work.

Zevensoft

11th February 2003 09:43 UTC

Meh it doesn't matter anyway, our lives are but a spark in the age of the universe, and the same goes for our understanding of it.

Zevensoft

11th February 2003 09:50 UTC

Oh and nice rebuttal by the way.

Another passing thought I just had, was that a fractal might be able to be used to transfer objects through different dimensional layers. But there are 2 problems with this theory I see already. One, it would take an infinite amount of work to build a fractal, and two, you need to be able to build in fractal dimensions in the first place. A chicken and the egg scenario. But then again, Big Bang anyone?

anubis2003

11th February 2003 12:46 UTC

[QUOTE]Originally posted by EnDurA
blacks holes aren't exactly a hole, if u stood on one you'd probobly be ripped in half by the gravatational difference between your legs and your head. (nice way to die). Nor are they black, they do emit light, but it wouldn't pass through the event horizon.

most people also think that they will someday suck in everything. Black holes only suck matter in if it gets to close to it. Dam stupid virus protector!!! (mental note disable auto scan).
[QUOTE]

The term black hole derives from science fiction but has been carried over into an actual term because it gives a very good representation of what it is. Take a look at a space time diagram for a black hole and it will look like an infinite abyss. And they are black to anyone outside of the event horizon, which would be us. And everything would eventually be sucked into it if it was the largest source of gravity in the universe, unless every thing was escaping from it at a certain escape velocity(which I know for any object behind the event horizon would be the speed of light). It is believed that thhis massive black hole is what is at the center of the universe.

Jaak

11th February 2003 14:09 UTC

Erm?
My explanations are just too stupid to put them here (lack of english)...
...speak on, its very educative to listen U all.

My try to speak up in this topic was fool and stupid, just pecause I got none of those new fancy sience books...

Yup, its IMPOSSIBLE to travel at lightspeed (space=infinit and time=0 (for this abject) and this IS impossible)...

legohead

12th February 2003 05:22 UTC

Hmmm... guess I was right about the post issue. Im itching to get my teeth into this arguement (like you wouldn't believe). But there would be no point anyway - there aren't to be any conclusions drawn here...

I will say one thing though - many worlds theory is mimmicked through many ancient and modern religions (it explains buddism, christianity, islam... hell you name it). And no Im not going to start rambling about aliens.... because aliens are irrelevant.

Think about Gaya.

legohead

12th February 2003 05:31 UTC

actually just thinking about it. This discussion would make some nice motivation for .avs presets. Whos up for a black hole/particle extravaganza? I say settle this the way this forum intends it too....