pywakit

No Michel. Lol. I didn't forget 'time'. Our universe's physical objects have three PHYSICAL dimensions. I have never thought of time as a PHYSICAL object. But of course it is a 'dimension' ... or parameter ... as in space/time. I assumed you all knew what I meant. My apology for not being clear. Back later ....

Incorrect. I was actually intrigued. At this point I'm willing to consider any reasonable solution. It WAS a good idea, assuming the above, and it doesn't rip our planet apart from tidal forces. Also, I am quite pleased that my story has generated this much interest. Whether from the serious debaters or those just finding the thought entertaining. I never thought of using the Rogue, because I was convinced of two things. First, that we could move Earth as I described, and second, that the impact with the sun would cause a shock and radiation blast that would 'probably' catch us as we exited from the solar system, even with a big head start. However, unless we could position Earth beforehand, it seems like the odds of the Rogue having the right trajectory at the correct time are a little low. And from the standpoint of the TV series, perhaps too coincidental. So maybe ... again ... a combination of methods.

I am very pleased that this is a source of amusement to you. Good idea. Lol.

Right. I should have looked up the Moon's mass before I wrote those posts. My bad. Back to the drawing board .... Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOk. What about this. It would be a scary ride, but what if we dropped into Venus's orbit, 108M kilometers from the sun, and used it's gravity to increase our velocity? Could we slingshot this way? I don't think it would burn away our atmosphere .... but we might get a little sun-burned. Even miles underground ... Just speculating out loud. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI guess what I am really asking is ... if we used a combination of methods ... engines on the Moon, and Earth ... and Venus and/or other objects within the solar system for gravitational assist, would it be possible to accomplish this? I don't give up easily, do I? Lol.

Ok Moo. I concede. ( for now ) Warp Drive it is ..... lol. Thank you Janus. And Sisyphus, too. Guess we better hope our sun doesn't ever take a hit. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOk. I'm over my depression. Lol. So let's build a collider out in space, create a stable black hole and have Earth 'fall' toward it. Or figure out a way to make Earth appear to the universe as a 'massless photon'. This was the 'super-technology' that our previous inhabitants left behind for whoever came along after. And this technology was going to speed up our trip to Alpha considerably ... and to points beyond. Now I am going to have to re-write my script. **sigh** Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedPs: Moo ... once we invent 100% matter-to-energy propulsion systems, I'm taking Earth to Alpha Centauri! Lol. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOk. Instead of leaving the Moon behind, we use it for our fuel supply. Not sure how yet. I will have to think about this a little more ... Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOk. Let's see how stupid I can look! ) Let's use the Moon AS our engines. Build them on the Moon, instead. Position it on the right trajectory, and use it's gravity to 'tug' us along behind. The really nice thing about using the Moon this way is it will act as the 'perfect' shock absorber for impacts. But this probably defies the laws of physics, right?

I am sure that most of you understood the meaning of my statement "In science there is no safety in numbers. There is safety in truth." But just in case there are a few who did not ... I was not only referring to the numbers of scientists on board with a particular belief, hypothesis, or theory ... but the numbers themselves. The math. I don't want to offend anyone ( of course ) but it is inevitable, so allow me to apologize ahead of time. Let's start with two hypotheses. Hypothesis A. The universe ( space ... finite, or infinite ) began with us. Hypothesis B. The universe ( space ... finite, or infinite ) existed before us. Man has assumed Hypothesis A ( generally speaking ) since he first contemplated the universe. This led us to the belief in God, and other religions ... all which reinforced our belief that we were put here for some 'reason' and that we were 'special' in the universe. We have exhausted every possible avenue ( at least to this date ) in the attempt to 'prove' this hypothesis, and have failed. This does not preclude the possibility, but certainly there is no evidence to support this. So let's try Hypothesis B. Now we assume the universe has existed before, and ( perhaps ) by extension eternally. In either hypothesis, Man has evolved/devised a set of constructs in which to explain the processes of the physical universe we currently reside in. Math is the most successful logical construct we have come up with. And there is no question it is a beautifully expressive ( albeit one-dimensional ) way to describe the three physical dimensions of space, matter, and energy. But we now know that it has serious limitations. The reality is ... math provides answers that are in direct conflict with known observations. If there was no conflict, math would easily explain all the processes/phenomena we have observed. In short, to put this another way, the universe didn't care what methods we use(d) to describe it before we came along ... and it doesn't care now. The universe has shown it has physical properties that will not conform to our wishes. It won't allow matter to get infinitely big, and it won't allow matter to get infinitely small. I can say this with near certainty, because if it DID allow infinitely small, we would all ( eventually ) be stuck in a black hole along with the rest of the infinite ... or for that matter 'finite' universe. It would truly require a 'magic act' or the intervention of some 'higher power' to prevent this from happening. The other point is ... NONE of the existing models ( bounce, crunch, standard ) could function ... and there would never have been a 'big bang' or any variation thereof. ST/SST/M-Theory were 'invented' as an attempt to reconcile the known observations and standard math. To bridge the gap between 'impossible' mathematical answers, and what our eyes were/are telling us. On it's face, reducing our universe down to one-dimensional processes seems a logical step to take. But I think the universe is not going to go along with us on this one. It clearly has 'properties'. It clearly has 'limits'. And I think we need to accept this as a 'working model' until proven otherwise. Michel sees a 'contradiction' in my little spheres. What purpose could it serve to consider three-dimensional spheres when one-dimensional 'strings' are so much closer to 'infinitely small'? Well, my answer would be ... there is no such thing as 'one-dimensional' objects in a three-dimensional universe. They are purely mathematical constructs. And they are butting up against reality. So 'stringers' are left trying to quantify 'metaphysics' mathematically. If infinitely small can not exist in this universe, then we are 'stuck' with a limit. Things can only get so small. And my spheres 'could' be as small as anything can get. There 'could' be no further reduction in size. And whether they are pure bundled energy, or a form of actual matter, they are going to have three physical dimensions. "ZERO POINT" is a mathematical construct. It IS an infinitely small point. And it does not appear to be real. Both are mathematical constructs divorced from any observation made to date. ( to my knowledge ) I would classify this as very 'hypothetical'. Not theoretical. Yes. I am in agreement. It needs to be explored further. Space. More specifically ... our visible/local/finite universe. I would never suggest you lose interest. There is still much to learn in this 'field' of inquiry. I think the results will ultimately prove the 26 plus or minus dimensions existed soley within the confines of mathematics, but we will still learn a great deal along the way. What my model does is just take our known observations, known physical properties of space, our experiments, our understanding of chemistry, EM, and the rest ... and puts them all together in one tidy little package. As I have said before ... mathematical probability/certainty does not equal 'actually existing' in our known universe. We know this to be true, for if it were not ... if the universe did not operate under strict laws, we would have seen SOME evidence of this in it's ( our visible/local universe ) 13.7 billion year history. Once again, I am sorry if I appear to be trampling on anyone's beliefs, or understandings. And just to be clear here ... my model does not rely on my 'spheres' any more than it relies on strings. To repeat, I only offered them up as a reasonable alternative to 'magic', since they would operate just fine ( I think ) in the three-dimensional universe we occupy ...

Lol. I stand corrected on the monarchs. On the other issue, there is a major difference between a 'space colony' and interstellar flight. Certainly, if there is a way to afford protection from high energy particles, and a way to keep the colony supplied, then space colonies are great. I think such a colony will need at the very least, a moon's worth of raw materials to be viable, and this would mean a 'stationary' colony. I will go back and refresh my memory on monarchs. Thank you. But I still stand by my other assertions. I apologize for speaking in such general terms, however ... For any who may be interested, this is a very good timeline of the events leading up to the persecution of those people who set sail ..... http://www.universalteacher.org.uk

Care to explain this comment? They didn't come to America on a lark. They were being persecuted by K.G. and the 'reformed' Church of England. Apparently you might want to read up on YOUR history. Perhaps you are unaware of the on-going power struggle ( in those days ) between royalty and the church. Ever hear of King James? He decided he didn't like the balance of power having shifted to the church, so he utilized a brand new invention to wrest power away. You see, all the King's subjects got their information on God through the auspices of the Church. Owning a Bible was illegal. For that matter, owning ANYTHING was illegal as everything was owned by the King, unless granted by the King. Even the very PERSONS of the King's Subjects were owned by the King. Anyway, God told the Archbishop, and he disseminated that information down through the ranks to the masses. King James pulled the biggest power grab of the millenium by using the printing press to print up Bibles translated to ENGLISH and distributing them to the masses ... and decreeing it legal to own one. The result of this was to make him the most popular king in history. The unintended side effect was to educate the masses, and to allow them freedom of thought for the first time. And in excercising this freedom, they began to interpret God's Word in their own manner, independant of the Church's filtering system. Quickly, variations of the 'official' religion began to emerge. Quakers, Protestants, and many many more. The masses were no longer so willing to blindly take the Church's word for anything, and the Church was very threatened by this. And so was Royalty. Things were quickly getting out of hand .... By the time King George came along, the Church's minions were making life pretty bad for those who would question the Church's Authority. King George, seeing where this was headed decided on an 'unholy' alliance with the Church, and declared the Official Religion of the Church would be the only LEGAL religion. This decree only gave more strength to the followers of the Church of England, and the slaughter of the disobedient masses began in earnest. The pilgrims were given the option of leaving by the King. The alternatives were death, or submission to the Church. So yes ... it was a matter of survival of their 'species' in the sense that religious freedom, and freedom of thought were more important than the risks involved in taking such a chance crossing the ocean in those tiny ships. But maybe you are right. Maybe it has been too long since I have studied history. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Janus? Do you concur? If so, 20% of the Earth's mass will not be acceptable, either. The only options left would be to invent a much more efficient method of propulsion, or an entirely different method of moving the planet.

Excellent analysis. And I thank you very much for taking the time to do so. Perhaps you would not mind staking it just one step farther ... ( no, I don't concede without a fight ... lol ) Instead of 'going north' let's move out very slowly, and carefully along the plane of the ecliptic, utilizing our current orbital velocity. Yes, this means going through the asteroid belt, and probably dealing with Jupiter's ( and the others ) tidal forces. Not necessarily impossible as we should have little difficulty 'timing' all points of encounter with the other bodies. Strictly from an energy standpoint, I am assuming we would now be using a tiny fraction of the energy required to move out at right angles. But I could certainly be wrong about this, too. I am trying to determine if it is an IMPOSSIBILITY v incredible challenge. Using 40% of the Earth's mass is clearly not an option. Your honeycomb scenario sounds great, but my #1 goal is to save EVERY single human possible. And we want ALL humans to participate in this effort. A collective effort where our very survival as a species is at stake. I understand the desire to not be 'wasteful' but even a 'damaged' or depleted planet is more protection than no planet. We have to remember that if we leave Earth behind, it is going to suffer a great deal more than a 40% loss. It will be, in all likelihood, simply swallowed up by the sun. If this ( moving out on the plane of the ecliptic ) would use say 1% ( just speaking hypothetically ) of the energy needed to move out at right angles would that bring our mass/energy requirements down to .4%? Math screwy? Lol. If not, using around 4/10ths of a percent of the Earth's mass would be quite acceptable. All that 'dead' mass is actually going to be very useful to us. It would still leave us with a magnetic field. An atmosphere. Natural resources. Sure, we would learn by necessity to become extremely energy efficient in our lives, but these are relatively simple adaptations, well within our current technological capabilities. Thanks again, and hope I am not being too irritating.

Moo ... love the scottish one ... lol. NOW STOP MUDDYING THE WATERS! ) ( Clearly I need to find amusing videos of our "fleet's" arrival at Alpha ... Hmmmmm ) Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAnd I don't mean to nag here but ... you have to remember, I am treating this as a serious subject. The alternative to moving our planet is CERTAIN annihilation when the sun is impacted. I can't seriously believe that humanity's response would be ..... "Oh well. I really would rather die now than go to all this trouble. Especially if the Earth won't be recognizable if we DO ever get to Alpha. Besides, we will probably all die anyway ... but even if we didn't ... living 6-25 miles undergound? FAGEDDABOUDIT!!!" ( Bronx accent ... lol ) "Forget about it!" for the linguistically challenged. So I am actually trying to find out if it is IN FACT possible to do this. And please don't hurt my feelings anymore. Can't you see that I am a sensitive human being? No respect ... **sigh** Lol. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAnother thing! Lol. I can't help but think about how scared the pilgrims must have been as they set off across the atlantic ocean. But they were even more afraid of King George, and the Church. These were very brave peope ... to face the fear of the unknown ... JUST SO THEIR 'SPECIES' WOULD SURVIVE. I also can't help but think about the lives our ancestors led 100,000 years ago. The comforts they DIDN'T have. The security they DIDN'T have. We would be far more comfortable, and secure than they ever were, once we got settled in. Are we really so different from those people? Or have we become so spoiled we can't stand to suffer the slightest loss? The slightest inconvenience? So weak? So timid? What has become of the species that withstood so much ... just for us to enjoy what we do now? I know one thing for sure. Every kid on the planet would be up for this. And I think ... ultimately ... Mankind too, would be up to this challenge. We are still a brave species .... Good speech? Lol.

Well, no. It doesn't sound very practical at all! However, you throw some unsupported statements out there. I don't know what you mean by the last statement, either. Seems out of context. I didn't really think we could use the sun, and since we would be travelling north of the plane, Jupiter would never have been an option. But back to enegy requirements. And let's be realistic about thrust output. Nothing better than we have now. Oh. Before I forget. We would all be miles underground ( with sealed entrances ) by the time tidal forces ... if any ... would 'swamp' the continents. And since the entire surface will have a mile or two of ice on it eventually, damage done to the surface is irrelevant. And the damage to the atmosphere is also irrelevant. We will not be exposed to it. We are pumping oxygen stripped from ice, or water. Plus we will have billions of plants underground to assist in the manufacture of oxygen, and scrubbing co2 out. As we get farther away from the sun, our atmosphere should condense. And when we get to Alpha, we will have all the time we need to restore a balance to Earth, as we will still have all the raw materials to work with. But maybe you are suggesting that the hydrolasers will set the Earth's atmosphere 'on fire' so to speak? Or at the very least, we would heat up the surface by a few hundred degrees? Sounds pretty bad ... Anyway, again I ask, what is the energy stored in 7 million cubic miles of ice? Nevermind ... You telling me that we "would exhaust all the world's oceans" sounds very authoritative. But ... just so I won't think you pulled that out of thin air ... maybe you would be kind enough to tell me the energy contained in all the world's oceans instead. Doesn't have to be exact .... lol. And one more thing ... water is not the only source of fuel .... maybe my hydrolasers are not the best method of propulsion available. Perhaps a better way to accomplish this would be through matter conversion. How much energy is stored in say ... 100 million cubic miles of rock? Not only do we have to escape our sun, we will need to 'decelerate' at the other end of the voyage. As always, thank you very much for attempting a serious answer ... Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Right. OK, now the statement makes sense. Actually, they were talking about nudging it out in response to the sun using up it's hydrogen ... A few billion years from now.

Lol. ajb I very much admire your enthusiasm. I am not here to debunk strings. I think there is a great deal of knowledge to be obtained from this line of research. I am not at all offended by your assumptions regarding my knowledge of GR, SR, ST, SST, or M-theory. As I have said before, I am always trying to improve my understanding of these theories. I just finished a quick review of the information contained on these sites ... New Insights Into Open String Theory:http://www.sciencedaily.com String Theory and the Unification of Forces:theory.tifr.res.in M-theory, the theory formerly known as Strings:http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk Problems with string theory:http://www.braungardt.com Physical Reality Of String Theory Shown In Quantum-critical:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/09 In its near 40-year history, string theory has ...:download.iop.org Just one exerpt .... from Physicsworld.com Very difficult reading for a man of my cognitive abilities. But I think I understand it to some small degree. It may very well end up unifying 'everything'. It also might end up proving my theory of space=energy. But the predictions you claim seem a little problematic. It does not appear to be the 'cut and dried' answer. There are too many variables. Too many 'possibilities'. Too many DIMENSIONS that have no basis in fact, and have yet to be verified in any tangible way. That would be well beyond my level of expertise. I only offered 'spheres' as a possible alternative to strings, and I gave my reasons why. You say strings 'seem' to have the right numbers of degrees of freedom. Are you suggesting that spheres would not? Perhaps the concept of spheres is too new to your thinking, and you have not fully explored the possibilities. Or perhaps there is nothing to explore there ... lol. I agree that things are getting very interesting. It's a very very exciting time to exist!! I don't either. But the fact remains with all the focus on strings there could be a viable, but as yet unconsidered alternative out there. Again, as far as predicting the number of dimensions, please correct me on my information, but it seems the predictions range from 11 to 26 dimensions. None of which can be shown to exist. But maybe you mean that it predicts the 4 dimensions we are familiar with. 10^500? Yikes. Massive indeed. It is also true that ST/SST/M-theory CAN provide a 'possible' description of black holes that GR can not. This does not however verify in any way that it is an accurate description, nor does it provide evidence, conclusive or otherwise ... All that said ... As I have previously stated, the research to date on strings does nothing to falsify my cosmological model. And although it is interesting to debate the validity of strings, it remains to this day a 'hypothetical'. And I stand by my assertion that it certainly does not provide for a stable foundation from which to build your 'skyscraper'. Also, as a point of clarification ... I speak of Brian Greene frequently, only because he is the 'public face' of ST, but I am not unaware of Michael Green's work. Perhaps my biggest problems with strings are the manner in which they 'clump' and also the problem I have visualizing 'limp' strings vibrating at all. I do not see a satisfactory mechanism for drawing the strings 'tight'. Furthermore, the biggest problem I have, as I have stated before, is that there is no mechanism for reversing expansion. It just 'magically' happens in M-theory. I am reminded of the cartoon where the professor/scientist, in explaining ST to his class, has the top and bottom halves of a chalkboard filled with stupidly complex equations ... and in between the two halves is the word *MAGIC* ... The very same word used by Witten. Anyway, I only have done all this as a reasoned rebuttal to your enthusiastic defense of ST/SST/M-theory. I would be very excited if the theory ( even in it's overall failure ) can provide us with a better understanding of the most basic functions of our universe. But if you are going to dismantle my model ... magic is not an acceptable construct for your argument, no matter how 'promising' it may appear. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedPs: I forgot to offer my congratulations on this ...

I have always been fascinated with the speed of a photon. And you are so right. We see nothing in the present tense. All is in the past. Kind of cool how our brains have little problem with the short distances. Wish they worked as easily in the long ones ...

Lol. You are killing me. STOP!!! Oh well. At least I have given you all a way to amuse yourselves ... Now about those energy requirements ......

OK! THAT TEARS IT! *takes off gauntlet and slaps everyone ... HARD* Lol. Just kidding ... sort of. Thank you all for your OPINIONS regarding Earth/Alpha's viability as a TV show. Yes, I think it would be fun, too. Now let's get serious. I listed a host of reasonable, rational, and logical SCIENCE-backed reasons why SHIPS to Alpha won't cut it. I am not going to repeat them all, but the fact is, none of you ever addressed ANY of them in any specific terms. So that is one rather gaping deficiency on your parts. Second, every SCIENTIFIC objection you raised, I was able to dismantle quite easily ... except for one. The amount of energy required to move Earth out of the solar system. I was informed it would take 900B times the average annual energy used by humans. I think this was a straightforward calculation based on raising the HEIGHT of Earth relative to the sun. I don't know if this also included using the sun's gravity to boost our velocity or not. I don't know if this was a calculation that is valid as an application of steady force. AND I DON'T KNOW if the energy contained in 7M^3 miles of ice ( and the potential energy contained in an equal amount of seawater ) is sufficient to do the job, or if my method of utilizing this energy is scientifically valid. In short, my new friends, I have easily debunked the myth ( SCIENTIFICALLY ) that ships are a viable method for saving our species if our sun were to undergo a sudden catastrophic change. Now it's your turn. Use science to PROVE my methods can't work. Maybe I am dead wrong about this. But I won't know unless you prove it. As with all my ideas, this one was not conceived in a vacuum. I very carefully considered every possible aspect I could. I have discussed it with a couple of people who are much more knowledgable in physics than I. They said it was possible. They said it did not violate physics. So fine. It's a fun story. Now show me scientifically why it won't work ... And don't yell at me ..... Lol. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Yes Moo. Those series did not follow physics. Never said they did. You missed the point. The point was they were based on a theme, but had different characters for each new episode. So they were THEME driven as opposed to CHARACTER driven. So it's not necessary to accomplish all this with ONE cast of characters in 5 minutes, a few days, or a few years, which was Michel's suggestion. As for your second point, I am in full agreement. This is "SPECULATIONS". So let's use science to figure out if it is physically realistic. )

Good post.

Could not agree more. And this is the problem with so many 'truisms'. The actual intended message is lost .... and it doesn't even require translation to a different language to lose it ...

Lol. The point being ... don't just run away. Examine the evidence first. Then decide. Galileo's critics saw no need to check his facts. You are so funny .... Just put a disclaiimer on Havel and we are fine.

How can I say this without offending you? You speak as a man in love. This 'girl' has been unfaithful to you for 26 years, yet you are convinced that she will prove her faithfulness someday in the future. Surely you realize that there could be any number of explanations that could also produce the same 'evidence' and make the same 'predictions'. Yes ... it CAN be all wrong. Forgive me again, but I did not come up with my hypothesis altering strings in a vacuum. You make an assumption ( yes, an understandable one ) that I know nothing about them. I know enough to understand they are HIGHLY SPECULATIVE no matter how much you want to believe in them. Yes, it all may be true. But there are many problems with strings. Furthermore, thousands have been working on this for decades, and yet we are ( hate to repeat myself ) NOWHERE NEAR proving they even exist, let alone stand as a platform for building upon. I think my spheres are a much more logical choice as a replacement for 'points'. I also think my spheres could better describe the properties of the graviton. I also think all of the above could just as easily ... if not more elegantly ... be attributed to spheres. Won't you at least consider them? No? Lol. Ok.

Lol. Michel, I don't think a 'few days' or even a few years would be workable. On the other hand we have many examples of very successful series that draw us in by the underlying premise. "Outer Limits" ... "Twilight Zone" to name just two. Earth/Alpha could be a 'hybrid' where we grow attached to certain characters over the course of the season, but each year there will be new characters. And there are many ways to maintain continuity beyond 'characters'. Each season could carry multiple programs and story lines ( several individual yet interrelated shows ) again, with new characters each year on each seperate plot line. When you have a whole planet involved, in one fashion or another, it would be hard to run out of interesting avenues to explore. I have never finished the script, so sadly it is a moot point anyway. Know any good screenwriters? I don't and it's not like I haven't looked for one ....

First let me say I very much appreciate your input. You raise a salient point here, and hopefully I can address it in a coherent manner. Beauty is seductive. We are drawn to it in almost every imaginable way. Often though, we find it to be an illusion. We can say 'space' is stunningly beautiful, but we know it will kill us if we are not careful. And so it is with strings/super-strings/m-theory. Lol. ( I believe Witten said M could stand for 'magic', among other things.) No, I suppose it won't actually kill you, but it can certainly lead you down an illusory path. If you don't want to be seduced by any one particular 'beauty' you must keep many examples around you. As an ex-musician ( lead vocalist in rock bands for many years ... unsuccessful I might add ) I was exposed to many many beautiful girls. This made it difficult to settle on any one particular girl, because there might be ( and frequently was ) a 'more' beautiful girl just around the corner. Although I tend to be rather hard on strings, I don't deny their beauty. As a musician however, I could not help but notice what seemed to be missing from ST, or SST. When we visualize them, we think of them vibrating like the strings on a violin, or viola. What's missing, or appears to be missing are one, and possibly two things that are necessary for a string to vibrate. Perhaps this is something covered long ago, but I will state it anyway. Strings must be held taut to vibrate. The more the strings are tightened, the higher the frequency of vibration. Of course, the thickness, and composition of the string will have a bearing ultimately on the possible range of 'vibrations'. 'Limp' strings don't vibrate. Second, there does not seem to be a reasonable mechanism involved to make the string vibrate even if they WERE taut. No 'bow'. And these 'missing links' would appear to reduce our process to a 'magic' act. If I were to offer any 'help' to Greene, and Turok, I would suggest that they try looking at this another way. Let's take a transitional step here. Wind chimes. Held in place by a string ( lol ) at one end, and gravity at the other, the energy of moving air molecules acts as the bow, and causes them to vibrate/resonate. If the action is strong enough the chimes will strike each other making them 'louder' and causing each chime to add it's particular vibration to the totality of resonance. So where do we take this? I can't help but notice the prevelence of 'spheres' in our universe. From the very very large to the very very small. So consider this possibility. Instead of vibrating strings think of spherical 'bells' ringing. I would picture it as a miniaturization of the classic atom. All those little spheres whizzing around the larger central sphere. Each orbiting sphere would have it's own particular vibration caused by the 'wind' ( EM ) and all would interact with the central sphere creating a totality of resonance. This would allow for a much simpler, and I think much more elegant manner in which approach the stability of the atom, and therefore the stability of matter. Again, I am just speculating ... but I think this 'girl' is a little more beautiful than the one I was with yesterday. Lol. And this 'hypothesis' does not conflict with my model. ( I don't think ) Dr. Tyson is the Frederick P. Rose Director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History in Manhattan. Dr. Ibison is a research physicist at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Austin. Ibison is considered a little controversial, where Tyson is more mainstream. And yes ... I agree ... language can be a tricky thing. As Martin clearly showed in the 'assumptions' thread, my understanding of GR, and SR are quite limited. I am always trying to absorb more knowledge, but I know some aspects ( such as the math ) will always elude me. Still, that doesn't seem to stop me from grasping concepts, or seeing patterns in nature, or what's missing from the picture. If I have any skills at all, it would be the above ... Of course, there are times I will see a relationship where one might not exist. But still, a useful tool to have in my belt, I think. I would never suggest Greene or Turok abandon their research. All roads should be thoroughly explored. The only danger is becoming so enamored with the beauty in front of us we fail to see the deeper beauty standing in the shadows .... The girl with ... shall we say ... the natural beauty, as opposed to the one requiring a lot of 'make up'. Lol. And clearly, strings require a great deal of 'make up'.

I really dislike sayings like this. Sounds great, but it is a false 'truth' in of itself. Irrational, and illogical. So what if the claim of 'found truth' is a valid one? You will never know that 'truth' or any other because you will have run away before giving the claimant an opportunity to prove his/her case. Galileo 'claimed' to have found 'truth'. I can see how 'running away' would have been sound advice. I guess all his peers must have been fans of Havel .... ??????

Martin, I very much appreciate the reminder that science has a human face. Fascinating thumbnail on Friedmann. Such a pity he died so young. Again, I feel quite inadequate in the presence of minds like Friedmann's, Einstein's ... and yours. I'm grateful to have any skills at all .... Although it is highly unlikely ( impossible? ) I will ever achieve anything comparable to the great minds of the past ... or present ... I found this summation comforting. I would consider it the greatest honor to be able to contribute to humanity's understanding of the universe. Clearly not an easy task, and perhaps I simply lack the capacity. Challenging conventional wisdom ( whether religious, political, or scientific ) is without a doubt a masochistic endeavor. But there has never been another option open to me ... you are what you are.

And my further apologies for assuming you are greek! Lol. ( and for any lack of coherency!! ) Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Never want to correct you, as you have been very kind, but you are incorrect on this. ( I think ) True, the focal point is 41 years in the past, but the actual location of that point would not be 41 LY from us. To calculate that point we need to figure out where you were on Earth at that moment, the correct point in orbit around the sun, the sun's position in the galactic arm, and the galaxy's position in relationship to CMBR. The following is from another forum where I make an attempt to debunk Time Travel. Kind of off-topic, but as long as I am waiting for further input .... Time travel is impossible. It is irrelevant whether or not the physics suggests it is possible. Here are the most critical reasons why. The sun is moving THROUGH space relative to the galactic arm at around 20 kilometers per second. Our galactic spiral arm is moving THROUGH space at about 220 kilometers per second relative to the center of the galaxy. Earth is moving THROUGH space relative to the sun at about 30 kilometers per second. Earth is spinning at about .5 kilometer per second at the equator. We do not 'take' space along with us. We move THROUGH it. If you were to travel back in time just 1 second in the past, you would find yourself at a completely different location. Perhaps a couple hundred kilometers underground. Or out in space. 10 minutes in the past puts you a hell of a long way from Earth. Not only does your machine have to transport you through time, but it must move you physically to another location. 500 years in the past? 34,689,600,000 kilometers from your starting location. Hmmmm. Wonder what the energy requirements are to move 200 pounds about 35 billion kilometers instantaneously? Better make sure your airbag is functional, and buckle your seatbelt. Tight. Good luck! Darn it. I made another error. Multiply that 35 billion by 550 kps. That's the speed of the Milky Way galaxy, relative to the cosmic backround radiation. Hmmm. Let's see. That would be about 19,250,000,000,000 kilometers from your original location in space on that 500 year journey into the past. I'm going to say that is about 2 lightyears. Instantaneously. My math is probably not very accurate. But you get the point. Interesting, isn't it that time travel is also faster-than-light travel. Hope the other end of your worm hole has GPS. Not looking very promising ..... So Michel, assuming my math isn't too granular ( lol ) That focal point is about .16 LY from our current position. Of course, we can't add all these up in a linear ( straight line ) fashion, so the real distance will be considerably less .....

You would mock an original story that 'could' potentially, hypothetically, SOMEDAY replace the 'Star Trek', and 'Star Wars' franchises? Lol. It's cool. But I must say, the compliments for original thought are few and far between. ( thanks to those that have ... ) Can't help but notice the 'genius' rating next to your name. Surely you could come up with something more amusing than "unobtanium". Hmmm. But, in fairness ... it was at least mildly amusing ....