moth

so what does "add time to the bicycle" mean?

forces, like motion, require time to act (or show a displacement) that is not what you have been saying. you seem to be saying that time requires motion (and now force) to proceed.what you seem to lack is any evidence or any way to test your idea.

what about looking at it from a "selfish gene" point of view? before you were born your genes were dispersed in a population, they come together in you and probably there are more copies after you die. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged if we all share a single consciousness we would seem to be connected on another level, and of course we are all connected through time because you came from your mother who came from her mother etc. so if you could imagine all of humanity throughout all our history all at once,it may look like a family tree shaped creature and since we're speculating you could presume it is conscious. in such a situation being born would be like being singled out, and death would be like merging.

you can't argue with people by trying to stick words in their mouth. that is arguing with yourself.

so you are also psychic? how do you know what i believe?

duration-congratulations on your invention of this new math where 1/4 does not equal .25. perhaps this is why your physics is so flawed.

actually, as photons travel through expanding space, their wavelength increases (and frequency decreases) because they get stretched.

wouldn't the inertial mass of the light coming from a star be less than the mass lost from the star due to the conversion of matter to energy and not enough by far to be dark matter/energy?

how do you arrive at this conclusion ? the passage of time does not create motion without some force being applied to the object.

you have to define what you mean by "add time to the bicycle" before the question makes sense. if you mean the bicycle and the mustang both have n time units to cover 1000 feet and then you add time units to the bicycles n time units then obviously you can add enough time units to the bicycles time n that will allow it to "beat" the car.

if time was passing faster for the guy on the bicycle, he could beat anything but light(if time was going fast enough for him and slow for the other).

i don't understand what you are saying here. could you clarify?

it is obvious motion requires time. you argue time requires motion. a lack of relative motion between two objects just means they are not moving relative to each other. not the end of time. just because you can't tell if time is passing without seeing any change, does not mean time has stopped.

kinetic energy, which is not time.

momentum,but time is not motion. you can chase your tail until the end of time, it won't change the fact that measuring time is not time.measuring temperature is not heat.

the measure of time is not time. the essence of the measure of time is motion.

bent spacetime makes more sense to me, which is why it probably doesn't work that way. would it be possible to tune a quantum dot to catch a virtual photon?

i think photons mediate the magnetic field force. apparently in something like a permanent magnet the orbits of electrons provide the moving charge needed to generate a magnetic field.

i use open office. it has a formula editor and a drawing program called impress. you can download it here http://www.openoffice.org/

don't let me confuse you, i'm new to this too. here are my notes but this guy can explain it much better.he gets to this about 10 min. into the lecture.

if the passage of time requires an observer,then no change can occur without a witness. where does the witness come from? an observer would have to be created with the universe to watch stars and planets form and become systems that can support life.(if the answer for you is god,sorry to waste your time).

beam divergence is a tech hurdle no doubt, but by making the amplification area of the laser long to collimate the beam and choosing a beam diameter suitable to the wavelength of the photons used, maybe we could get close to having a good beam. the weapon potential would probably make it impossible to build something like this though.

are you thinking of deep impact? http://nasascience.nasa.gov/missions/deep-impact this got good data on composition,and some awesome pictures, but i don't think anybody has tried pushing a comet around yet.

there are plans for nuclear powered x-ray lasers from star wars days and gamma ray lasers powered by anti-matter are being studied. the effective range of something like that must be enough to cause a little ablation even from across the solar system. most of the actual projects i can find on N.E.O.'s from E.S.A. or NASA involve impactors. anybody know what happened to the E.S.A.'s don quixote project? i guess i mean don quijote http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/NEO/SEMZRZNVGJE_0.html

what about a ring of "tripwire" satellites around the sun between earth and mars to detect near earth trajectories and radio update to some kind of beam weapon to affect the offending objects trajectory. some kind of beam weapon seems preferable to a rocket because of the travel time of a vehicle compared to a beam weapon. you could shoot a beam right past the sun if necessary to hit an object on the other side of the sun, but a rocket would need to orbit the sun to reach the other side(i think).