Jump to content

michel123456

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    5982
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

michel123456 last won the day on July 12 2019

michel123456 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

517 Glorious Leader

2 Followers

About michel123456

  • Rank
    Genius
  • Birthday 06/08/1960

Profile Information

  • Location
    Athens Greece
  • Interests
    everything
  • Favorite Area of Science
    time & space
  • Occupation
    Architect

Recent Profile Visitors

67097 profile views
  1. The entire Neil Young archives free for streaming. https://neilyoungarchives.com/info-card?track=t1975_1129_01
  2. Mythbusters, look at 1min if you are more impatient than the impatient.
  3. Yes that looks pretty much to the poisoned drinks problem. Thank you for your reply.
  4. No, I took it for simplicity. I haven't. But with this method in 20 steps (40 tests) you have tested more than 1 million. Exactly. Where did you propose that?
  5. Posted in the Lounge as it is simply a thought. A method to test many people with few tests: say for a probability of 1% of infection cases, take a set of 7 samples from 100 people. Mix all the 1st samples in 2 groups of 50 people. Statistically, one group will be positive, one group negative. With 2 tests, you have already eliminated 50 people who have been tested negative. Separate the Pos. group in 2 groups of 25 people & use their 2nd samples. Again 1 group will be pos. the other neg. You have eliminated another 25 people with so far 4 tests (total 75 people). Continue like this until finding the single positive. You will need 14 tests for testing 100 people if my calculations are correct. What do you think?
  6. Let me be wrong. However here below some arguments: In fact it is much simpler than the accepted concept. That is the reason why I can understand my own ideas, while I am so dumb that I cannot understand what is what is "quite logical to most people". The only assumption is that we move through time. With all the consequences implied in the word "move". See graph down below No new interaction is needed. The "new interaction" is required when I am arguing that my ideas are an explanation for the missing mass & energy. But the new interaction is not needed for the new concept of "moving" through time. Vanishing quasar, see :https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-case-of-the-disappearing-quasars/ Vanishing star, see https://www.sciencealert.com/how-mysterious-disappearing-stars-could-point-us-towards-alien-life Vanishing stars, see https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/stellar-mystery-how-could-100-stars-just-vanish-180973821/ Unfortunately a Google search for new star returns a lot of music, & a search for new galaxy returns plenty of Samsung adds. Too bad. As regarded to Occam' s razor, I will reiterate my previous answer to Zapatos.
  7. Bad quote from memory, it was bananas & umbrellas making grandfather clocks. See http://www.gyroscopes.org/papers/The multiplication of bananas by umbrellas.pdf
  8. The past cannot be changed. That is correct. Simply, if you get in mind that you have moved from the past, then the past is free (void, vacant), in the same way space can be void. And because it is higly unlikely that our universe has something so special in order to exist alone inside a void, then the speculation says that the vacant is not vacant but filled with something. The concept goes like this: you have a completely random distribution of objects (particles, planets, stars, galaxies) sprayed over space & over time. Inside this totally random distribution, the planet Earth & us the observers. The only stars & galaxies that we can observe are those that lie exactly at the correct distance & time to us. (in a conventional spacetime diagram, all the O.U. lies on the down diagonals that cross at the observer). All the others object (the huge majority) are not observable. If all the objects of this random distribution slide in time together with us at the same pace, then we are condemned to observe constantly the same O.U. One of the characteristics of this speculation is that if, for some reason, the whole random distribution does not slide in time exactly at the same pace with us, we should observe distant things slowly vanishing in the void & other things slowly appearing from nowhere. In the extremely small I don't know if there would be any discernible consequence. Maybe also particles vanishing or coming out of nowhere when the time gap becomes too small. And also maybe some kind of bizarre interaction, because the whole random distribution must be "glued" by something.
  9. No, the universe in the future is not ours, it is a different universe. say we are at T=0, the other universe is at T=1, When we will be at T=1, the other universe will be at T=2, and so on. The other universe will always be one step forward. A different universe with different stars, different particles & different outcomes.
  10. I doubt to convince anyone. I myself have serious doubts especially early in the morning. It depends all on Mordred's (and Migl & Eise & Swanson't) explanations. If Time is really "nothing" but "a rate assigned to change in event", then I am totally wrong. I am indeed assigning too much on wording. But then I remember that time can be "dealed" (interchanged, rotated) with space. In this case, I must convince myself that the substance of time, if there exist such a thing (that Mordred said is not) must be very close to space, if not exactly the same. You cannot transform banana's into grandmother clocks (as somebody once said). Once you have swallowed that time must be close to space, the next extraordinary thing to understand is that in regard to space, time is extremely opaque. You cannot observe objects distributed in time as you wish: the time depends on the distance. An object as it was one year ago you can observe directly ONLY when it is one Light-Year away. You cannot observe directly an object as it was one year ago when the object is located a few kilometers away. And objects as they are in the future you cannot observe no matter the distance. Here one explanation would be to say that distance is exactly the same as time. That was my idea some time ago. But it fails into explaining other properties of time (like for example the sensation of time passing by) Then I came to this speculation: that time is pretty much like space, simply one step above. To say it simply, the 3D space dimensions are a section of the 4D spacetime. One observer in 3D can only observe things happening inside its own section. And there are unlimited such sections "sliding" in the 4th dimension. And not a single section "sliding in time". Because if it was only one single section, then the 4th dimension would "collapse" into 3D (which might be the case now that I am thinking of it). If I am correct, then: _There are objects behind us in Time, and forward (in the future), forming parallel universes only for observers that belong to them. _Any observer in each of the universe is able to send & receive information from his own observable universe only. He cannot have a direct contact with the next parallel universe, because of of the ISY/YSM symmetry. _Our Observable Universe is only a tiny part of the Whole Universe. _By some magic the missing mass & energy from our O.U. is lying in those parallel universes.
  11. I wouldn't call it a rabbit hole. It is a brand new universe.
  12. Obviously we have in mind different concepts of persisting. We are not applying the same definition. _If i understand clearly, for you "persisting" is the fact that you recognize the same object as time passes by. I do not discuss this. _To me "persisting" is the continuous occupation of past time coordinates as time passes by. I miss another wording for this. It is incompatible with "moving".
  13. Just like crossing paths: just because I let this path in the snow does not mean nobody else can cross my path. It is just a path. One (enhanced by me). Not two, not three. If you say that you can occupy multiple coordinates in time at the same location, then you are not talking of "moving" in time. You are "persisting" in time. In this last case, you are not "changing time coordinates". You are continuously extending from the one behind to the next in front, you are "building the Block Universe". And I disagree with this last concept. It seems yes.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.