alt_f13

Well, here is another documentary site I enjoyed. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/view/ As for the folded space, you got it, as far as concept is concerned. But the universe may be folded along many planes that would allow us many paths to the same place, or not... we just don't know for sure.

The point is I would weigh half a pound more if the Earth was not rotating. That is the effect of centripital force on a person on the surface of the Earth. Almost negligable. Seeing as Mars is smaller it would have more of an effect but certanly not 50%.

Anything by DJ Glacial. That dude rocks.

The name is arbitrary. There is no set 4th dimension.. just like dimension 1 is not up or sideways or whatever.

Cummon, aight. We can't all spekkin ze chinese up in here. I used to have Conversational Klingon on tape... but they decided it would give me too much of an edge and stole it back. I hate it when aliens jack muh s***. Next time dey get down I'm'a pop a cap. A disruptor cap. Now we'll know for sure if Klingon blood really does run pink. [edit] yo.

I did the math once. You do gain weight but not much.. I'll do it again and edit the post. [edit] Aight, check it, yo. Earth's radius = 6.38 * 10^6 m = Re Centripital accelleration at the surface = 4* Pi ^2 * R / T^2 = Ac Accelleration due to gravity at Earth's surface = G * M / R = 6.67 * 10^-11 * 5.98 * 10^24 / (6.38 * 10^6)^2 =9.79909 Seconds in a day = 24 * 60 ^ 2 = 8.64 * 10^4 SO... Your weight because of the earth's rotation is: Ag + Ac = Ay * my (Accelleration on you times your mass) 9.79909 - 4 * Pi^2 * 6.38 *10^6 / 86400^2 = Ay 9.79909 - 0.03374 = Ay 9.79909 - 0.03374 = 9.76535 So the force on you now is 9.76535 * your mass. The force on you w/o the rotation of the earth is 9.79909 * your mass. The difference is 0.03374 * your mass. To find out what the weight difference is in pounds take 0.03374 * your mass in kg * 0.22481 Or if you only know your weight in pounds, take your weight in pounds * 4.4475 / 9.76535 to get your mass and do the line above. (Yah, I know there is an easier way to do it in pounds w/o all the newton stuff but imperial is for dorks and I didn't want to do any more math.)

But we MIGHT be able to curve the surface of the universe, and if we are not able to create wormholes, we may be able to stretch and bend spacetime in a fashion that would still allow us to use naturally occuring wormholes. We just don't know for sure yet.

It's simmilar to North, South, East and West. There's only 4 directions in which you could travel on the surface, +x, -x, +y, -y, ie two dimensions. If you were to dig a hole through the Earth and somehow swim to the other side, you would have used the third dimension to traverse the two, cutting the distance down. If you believed the world was flat, you would find that you just swam in a strait line from point A to point B when they first appeared to be on the same flat plane. The universe may be like the Earth, in that it bends around on an invisible dimension we may (or may not, in Earth's case) be able to traverse. Who knows, it may be a spherical, uniform transition like the traversable inside of the Earth! Remember, the third dimension on the surface of the Earth is not visible to us either, essentially, but with the proper (super advanced and implausible) equipment we could use it to cut travel time down by taking advantage of the dimension. And hey, we might even be "digging" into the fourth dimension already, but just don't notice it yet!!

Cool, thx.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html Watch this. In particular parts 1 and 2 of chapter 3.

Just proof that skulls do not possess brains.

Change it to Adam John. That would make you more backwardser. Is your avatar a picture of you BTW?

Heheh. "No" as in "wait a sec."

No, check this. Race track style rotating surface. That way the gravity is increased but nobody can go in the middleof the domes, just the portions that are tipped upwards. Mars' natural gravity and centripital force would work together in this case and the physics have already been proven on car test tracks. OTHERWISE Have a series of particle accellerators underneath the domes. These extremely advanced accellerators would be used to send streams of Tritium (the heaviest of the hydrogen isotopes... it doesnt really matter.. the point is its HEAVY and tritium sounds good) in circles under the domes. With the tritium reaching near light speeds it would create strong gravitational fields because of the density of the atoms becoming greater. This way you could add or subtract particles to adjust the ammount of gravity or have part of the accellerator become destroyed so only a small portion loses the gravitational pull.

I suppose so, but when a mass constitues the entire mass of the universe, who's to say it moves at all? It does have a start and finish point (for our purposes those terms will suffice ) but unless you have something to compare even those to, it may as well have stayed put. I suppose too that there would most likely be a propellant involved, but without a central positional reference point, the exhaust and the original mass would be moving with opposite velocities. Now, as I mentioned before, there must be a universal positional reference point or moving at near light speed and accellerating would be exactly the same as moving slowly and watching a near light speed object accellerate past you. Clearly that is not the case as it takes immense ammounts of energy to accellerate the near light speed object. As blike said before, energy and mass shape timespace, so I imagine the universal positional reference point must be the center of mass for the universe.

Or I could wait for a real answer here. [edit] Isn't the universes expansion rate inreasing? I bet the immergence of mass and energy created an antigravitational tachyon pool (or something simmilar) at the center of the universe. With a net energy of 0, the universe aught to have a deficite of energy somewhere.

I think you missed my point. In reference to each other they are both moving near light speed. I am only backing up the statements made by blike with my first comments, that there is a universal spacial reference point that applies to all matter and energies. I am also suggesting that it would not be possible for a lone piece of matter in the universe to accellerate because it has nothing else with which to compare velocity.

QUESTION! If something moving past you at near light speed is the same as you moving past something at near light speed, then how come it takes so much more energy for the thing that originally accellerated to accellerate further? There has to be a universal reference point. So what if there was one just one piece of mass in the entire universe? Would it be possible for that to accellerate? In reference to what? Would there then be a cosmic speed limit? Am I correct in assuming that beyond the vacuum there is nothing? How can something be more nothing-like than nothing? I can almost visualise absolute nothingness as a flat surface on the membrane. Like a flatline on a heart monitor. It's the strangest feeling.

Were they invented purely because of the math or do they actually have basis in measurable reality? And if energy waves produce gravity, would tachyon waves produce anti-gravity?

Crap, I like being in the minority. Humans piss me off.

thx \o/

It wasn't silly... It could go in the joke forum though... mind you... it wouldn't have been so successful in there would it? Get my point? [edit] Yah, I didn't know you were a mod. That's radical.

You can do that? [edit] I mean, I did put it in general discussion for a reason. [edit] Hey, I did reach my initial goal!! Utterly useless and nonsensical conversation.

What are your favorite bookstores all of you? Online or otherwise.

Ahhhh. There was never any sort of study or anything. Ahhhh. I was just blowing smoke!!! Ahhhhh.