mulreay

This has to be the most ridiculous topic I have ever read. We know as FACT you CANNOT keep CO2 in a 'fizzy' drink as the pressure of the drink is more than the ambient pressure of the room. You CAN'T contain a higher pressure within a lower pressure unless you keep the lid on. I have a design for perpetual motion if you would like to see it :sigh:

Yes we do. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Just for future reference buddy you may want to make your sums look like this..... 93,000,000 and 3,000,000,000 as it makes it easier to do the sums when glancing at it. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged What like a , ??? Hardly a scientific notation!!

This is a problem that faces many issues. Does infinity exist? The problems I have seen are as Iggy has stated.. My knowledge is limited so please bare with my rambling. By it's very nature you cannot judge something as infinite as you would never come to a conclusion e.g It is not possible for us to travel infinity so what is to say that somewhere up ahead is not the end? If we could travel infinity we would always be held by the fact that the journey may meet an end, (may or may not), proving infinity does or does not exist. So you enter a sort of paradox I suppose. Even examples people have tried to attribute to infinity are flawed by there very nature. For example the saying, 'if you had an infinite amount of typewriters and an infinite amount of Monkeys, one would type out the complete works of Shakespeare'. This is not true, an infinite amount of monkeys would type out an infinite amount of works of Shakespeare. That actual sums have been done for this event they would be along the lines of 10 to the power of 10million zeros or you winning the lottery every week for 29,000 consecutive years. That gives some aspect of the numbers involved. Many people especially mathematicians find Infinity a sore point and generally discount it. But as we can never reach infinity (Fact) as it's just a name not a thing we will never know. Then again many people have battled the idea of infinity in the universe to suggest that the universe in essence completes a circle, (the universe curves back on itself) the circle being the ultimate idea of infinity well apart from the ∞ of course. As always My amount is little, but my support is sincere.

Sorry I mis-understood the question.. deleted original post

May be you should practise.. It's not rocket science which I feel is appropriate on this forum.

I stand corrected.

I can answer both your questions with one rudimentary answer. No 'theory' is set in stone and can be subject to flaws as we progress in understanding. Hence we call them theories and not laws. e.g Theory of relativity. Laws of physics. Hope that explains well... something. As always my knowledge is limited and my opinion humble.

Very nice answer BC

So nearly as I said..a sphere within a sphere.. except on your model the object bending space/time would be infinitely small. I prefer the sphere within a sphere personally. As there is nothing infinitely small and before you add black holes they are only infinitely small because the math no longer works beyond the event horizon. You end in the realm of infinity x infinity etc.

An interesting thought about tearing. But then we are trying to imagine space/time as a substance or material that will stretch and deform as a result of bending. This is where the trick comes in and why there are no real graphical models of this phenomenon. It is easy for us to imagine a brick or a piece of paper folding because it is tangible and visible. Space/time is neither tangible or visible so where to begin? In essence you are trying to bend 'nothing' and imagine how 'nothing' would look or act bent. Usually when something is 'bent' it stretches but yet again we are thinking along the lines of matter not space/time. It is a conundrum and a very interesting topic.

Ok that explains it. No problem

Again finding myself wondering what you are saying and/or meaning??

To answer the original question about the image. I have never seen a true representation of how space/time is effected in 4 dimensions or even 3 for that matter. If something is effected in all three dimensions then the image would just be a sphere within a sphere as every dimension is effected.

I have an image here for you. Hope it's what you were looking for. Borrowed off the web.

Do I get it? holes enterance and exit I can spell entrance correctly for a start. Your argument has nothing to back it up apart from you blustering. Please don't go toe to toe with me. You will lose. Your argument has no substance and has the attitude of a 2 year old punching and screaming because they MUST be right as they shouted the loudest and longest.

That's a little harsh and could of been better as it's not quite true. Hot air balloons were the first sustained 'flight' in 1783. Gliders came a little later in 1804 which were only a model (not taking into account Da Vinci). Then the first actual take off but not sustained flight happened in around 1874. And then in 1890 Clement Ader’s Eole was the first 'powered flight'. The Wright brothers came later famed for 'sustained powered flight'. Sorry to bring it up in such detail but if you put someone down then I always say do it with facts.

Not sure what your getting at there. It has already been theorised that wormholes could be abundant in the universe if there was exotic matter (matter with negative mass/energy). Being able to detect or travel through a wormhole is another matter as, when these form they most likely close immediately. There is also the theory behind black/white holes being a form of wormhole.

I have to say I watched the programme myself. As toastywombel stated there is substance into the theory when you look at how particles behave in our universe. These are such far out there theories and will most probably never be proven/dis-proven in this generation or the next. That's not say that it's not a mind boggling subject that can be interesting to think about. So yes there is a possibility dstebbins that you rule with an Iron fist somewhere... Harry Potter?? The fundamental laws of physics will still play a part unfortunately.

It has already been proven that a human brain can make a decision at least 6secs before it becomes a concious thought. Does this mean we are not in control? No. All it means is that we find it difficult to imagine our brains even though it us doing things which would constitute action. We do it all the time without 'thinking' we react, we keep our bodies alive (breathing, heartbeats). To ask about thinking is to look into the void of all the stuff we don't understand. My brain allows me to communicate with you and that feels comfortable as I feel I am making the decisions but my brain is also making decisions that do not need my 'conscious' thought. But there all in my best interest. People need to stop thinking of the brain as a conscious organism it's not. Part is but not all of it. As always my opinion is humble and may be wrong.

The theory of folding space is quite real. To answer the original question about the distance being the same even when folded I have added a picture (art not my strong point) to help show the general idea. The neutron star idea is the closest we have but there is also the idea using super black holes which do in effect bend space/time already. It is by far all theory of course but also some think very possible as space/time is being bent naturally everywhere.

Sorry I'm new here so not wanting to step on toes. I have been reading through this argument/discussion and I find It very interesting. This is a scientific discussion that will go on and on as both sides (religion/science) can never find common ground. People say that science killed God and on the flip side (dark ages) God tried to kill science as being not doctrine. To argue that the Universe should be understandable and imaginable is an exercise in futility. I'm not saying one day we won't understand that illusive everything but it's certainly not today. This argument for creationism however I feel is just people searching for the easiest answer (no matter how incorrect) to find there place in the universe. I for one am happy that I don't understand everything about Space and the universe, how it came in to being and why? But I won't take the easy route and have a eureka moment using nothing but faith. As I say I'm new here and my knowledge is limited and my opinion humble.

I apologies for my lack of knowledge but I would like something explained if you can. It is possible for an atom or particle to be in two places at once hence the multi-verse. Hence quantum physics. But to have a quantum event. So.. we can dismiss the human effect as that is not a quantom event. It's a collection of quantom events not the singular. If a free radicle or singular atom or particle was to hit my DNA in one cell and destroy part of the code that would then be a quantum event. So are the resulting effects of said cancer a quantum event? Am I alive in an off shoot of the result because it's quantum? And because I can not imagine myself in the future unless I'm alive, would that make me immortal from this? My family would see me die but I would continue elsewhere. I'm no brain box but I try to understand.. Thanks in advance for any replys

Enjoyed that.

Thanks for that very helpful. I'm more of a space buff than anything else.

Hi guy's my first post on this forum but would like to add something. I'm no scientist but my friends and I had an argument about space-time the other day. This may seem trivial to you but I argued that there is no such thing as backwards in space-time and they argue that there is. My argument simply put was that even moving backwards you are still moving forwards. Is there a way I can put it to them that is understandable? Thanks in advance