Edtharan

In a black hole you will always fall into the centre, that is you have no freedom of movement in the direction away form the centre of the black hole (by the way, if you had freedom of movement in that direction, then you could leave the black hole). So, does this mean that the dimension that points away form the centre of the black hole doesn't exist? Lack of freedom of movement is not the criteria that determines if a dimension is physical or not and it never has been. You can not just arbitrarily redefine what constitutes a physical dimension just to make your theories fit. A physical dimension is one that is effected by physical phenomena and can in turn effect physical phenomena. But to measure motion you need time. If we take Time as a non physical dimension (that is derived from motion like heat is derived from atomic motion), then how can we measure motion. Without Time as a physical dimension, then every thing must occur simultaneously. If I have a ball, then where it starts and where it stops (and every point in between) are simultaneous. Imagine photographing this with balls on a pool table. If you take a long exposure, you will get the equivalent. You will effectively remove time and make the position of the ball simultaneous along it's entire path. Now, solely from the photo, can you determine the velocity of that ball? No. You can work out how far it moved (displacement). However, you need to know how much time the ball took to move the distance shown. You need time. You can not have motion without time. Time can not be derived from motion.

Remember this is an analogy. Space is not like a trampoline. When scientists talk about space being "curved", they are not meaning it in the literal sense of a a trampoline. What they mean is that if you draw a 3D line through that region of space, then it will appear curved and appear to violate Euclidean geometry. However, if you work out what kind of shape would actually allow that line to still be straight, then it requires a 4D universe that is curved. The shape of that curve (if the line was in 2D and the space was curved in 3D) would be similar to that of a bowling ball on a trampoline. Space is not "Stretched" like the bowling ball example, but it is instead "Rotated". And because it is not being stretched, it can not be ripped like the trampoline.

The twins "paradox" only occurs if only one of the twins undergoes acceleration. Think of the twins starting off floating in space. At this point neither twin is experiencing any force. One of the twins ignites their rocket and begins to move off. This is acceleration. This twin, feels a force. To speed up the rocket expels fuel, and this pushes the rocket. However, the Twin (Lets Call him Adam) does not fell the fuel pushing on him. So he is not accelerated by the rocket fuel. Adam has to be accelerated by the rocket pushing on him (not the fuel directly). So, Adam feels a force and sees the other twin (Lets Call her Betty) is still floating. So both twins see the other moving away at a faster and faster rate, but only one of them experiences a force associated with this "Acceleration". It is this force that can be used to distinguish between the frames of reference of the two twins. It is this force that makes the final experiences of the twins different from each other. As Adam is experiencing a force and Betty is not, this creates differing inertial frames of reference. The other ting is that Adam makes a round trip. First he accelerates away, then he begins to accelerate back towards Betty and finally decelerates (in this case deceleration is the same as an acceleration in the opposite direction until Adam's velocity is the same as Betty's velocity). So we have 3 different phases of acceleration that Adam experiences and we can work out the effects on Adam. Phase 1: Acceleration away Under this movement both Twins will see the other's clocks running slow. Phase 2: Acceleration towards Under this movement Adam will see Betty's clocks running fast and Betty will see Adams clocks running slow. Phase 3: Deceleration Under this movement both Twins will see the other's clocks running fast. You will notice that in Phase 2 acceleration Adam's clock is different to Betty's clock. It is this phase of the journey that causes the difference in the clocks. And this phase that causes the difference in their ages. This effect does not occur under constant motion (but turning around is not constant motion). No, the clocks are not synchronised. They will be different. What was meant was if the clocks are only in the same frame of reference they will agree, but once you change the frame of reference, they won't agree. So if two clocks start in the same frame of reference and are left in that same frame of reference, then they will be the same. If you accelerate one (change it's frame of reference) then they won't agree.

How does your theory explain the curvature of light in a gravitational field? If a black hole is just a region of dense dark matter blocking light, then light shouldn't be curved near the black hole. If light does curve in gravity, then dark matter is not needed for the explanation of a black hole. The black hole would be a region where the gravity causes the light to curve so much that it always moves towards the centre of gravity. The exact same thing occurs for normal objects in what is called "Escape Velocity". With Escape Velocity, any object that travels at a lower speed than it will always fall back down. The stronger the gravity the higher the escape velocity. With black holes, there is a point reached where the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light and as light does not have the velocity to escape the gravity, it falls back into the hole (thus we can never see that light). And as nothing can travel faster than light (that we know of) then nothing will have the velocity to escape the gravity. Yes, electric charge + motion will create magnetism, or Magnetic Field + motion will create electricity. However, you can't just have motion without either that initial electricity or magnetism and produce something. Neutrons, by definition have no charge, or magnetic field that is why they are called Neutrons (get it Neutral -> Neutrons). So even with movement it can't produce an electric charge. If you have the Dark matter as being charged, then we could detect it. If it has an electric charge, then as it move through empty space it will cause a magnetic field. If the dark matter is supposed to have a magnetic field, then we could detect these too. In either case it would emit photons and we could detect them. It would not in fact be Dark at all. It is for these exact reasons that we can see the Non Dark matter. So the Neutrons, we know, have no magnetic or electric charge. If the Dark matter had either an electric or magnet charge/field, then it would be as visible as normal matter. This means that the situation as you described it could not occur.

Time is it's own thing because of geometry. We can look at the world around us and see various geometrical regularities. Lines, angles, etc. We can construct a mathematical model about it (called - Geometry). We can then examine these models and ask various questions: What is a Dimension? What is the shortest line between 2 points (on a flat or curved surface)? And so on. We look at light and see how it behaves. We start to look at the way light behaves in certain circumstances (near gravitating objects like stars and such). Looking this way we can see light behaves in a very specific way in a gravitational field. This behaviour can be geometrically represented and this turns out to requires area around a gravitational object to have space curved through 4 dimensions. Now we know of the 3 spatial dimensions (Up/Down, Left/Right and Forwards/Backwards). But what is this 4th one? When we look at the effects of rotation on space we can use this to look for an effect associated with the gravitational field that matches the extra dimension of the rotation. This effect turns out to be a distortion of time. That is, time seems to run slower in a gravitational field and the stronger the field the slower time runs. So from this, we can conclude that Time is a dimension as real as the Spatial dimensions, but the way the universe is constructed, it appears that the 3D space is like a membrane moving along this 4th dimension. So what is time? Time is a Dimension necessitated by geometry demonstrated by how the movement of objects (not just light) are observed in our universe. It is the 4th dimension. Human perception of time is different. We think we see a constant "movement" through time, but in reality our perception of "now" is blurred. Our perception of Time is analogous to our visual perception. We tend to think of our eyes and visual system recording the world around us like a video camera does. However, our eyes are not really like that. If you hold out your hand at arms length, and look at you little finger's nail. That is roughly the amount of area that our eyes can make out any detail. But we can "see" far more area than that with detail. The reason this occurs is that our eyes are constantly moving around, they will look at one point, then move onto another point. Our brain compiles this mosaic into what we think is our field of view, and not all of these mosaics are up to date. Our brain's perception of "Now" is like this. WE don't actually perceive a Now, like how the "now" of a frame of a movie is stored, or a photo. It is more like a long exposure photo, the scene blurred out over a period of time and not all points within that time period receive the same attention. This blurring can extend over longer periods too. Ever heard the saying that "a watched pot never boils". What occurs is that when we are watching that pot, because more attention is put into those moment, we perceive that as being longer. However, if you later think back to that time, it might seem like it was quite short. Also, if we are in a situation like a car accident, it can seem like the whole thing lasted for several minute, but it might have been over in a matter of a couple of seconds. This "Human Perception" of time does not actually reflect the reality of time. Our brains have evolved to pay attention to what is important and ignore what isn't. In this sense, that is our human perception of time, is an illusions created by our brains. However, certain physical phenomena are regular (the swinging of a pendulum, the decays of certain particles etc), are regular and can be predicted accurately and are independent of our "perceptions". We can therefore use these to be a measure of time that does not rely on our own messy perceptions. It is through the "Physics" of these phenomena that we can mark out points in time (much like a ruler can make out point in space). This "thing" that can be measured by these phenomena and that we can detect the curvature of, is what Time really is. And that is the 4th dimension.

Water is made up of 2 parts hydrogen, so why not just use that. Water is actually quite common in the solar system (and presumably others too), it is Liquid Water that is rare, but we can just melt the ice as needed.

The key word that you seem not to be understanding from what I am trying to explain is that of "Rotation" In your analogy of a rubber sheet under tension, that tension actually causes a rotation. In the rubber sheet, that is a 2D rotation. In your 3D Rubber block that rotation is in 3 dimensions. Draw a grid on your rubber sheet like graph paper. Now, whenever you distort that sheet, you distort the grid. If I was to pinch the sheet and tie a knot in it (like you do in your essay), that will create a specific distortion pattern in the grid. It will at first bend towards the knot, then as it passes it, it will bend away. If we label the grid on the sheet X and Y, then on the flat sheet, at all points, the X dimension is perpendicular to the Y dimension. But, near that knot, the X dimension (as it appears to us from a distance) rotates into the Y dimension (may be not all the way, but part of the way certainly). However, locally, the X dimension is always the X dimension and they never see this distortion locally. They do seem to see that the rest of the rubber sheet seems to have been rotated a bit. This is what I mean by Rotation of the Dimensions. Rotation in higher dimensions are handled exactly the same way. Now, her eis an important point. You can not apply this kind of rotation to a dimension that is not part of that initial matrix. You can not use this to rotate the X,Y dimensions of that rubber sheet into Temperature, even if we call it a dimension. It just doesn't work. All the dimensions of that structure (the rubber sheet or block) must have equal reality to each other. Sure we could construct a rubber sheet/block where temperature was actually a dimension of the construct, but then in that case, the temperature dimension would have equal reality to the spatial dimensions. If there was only the 2 spatial dimensions of the rubber sheet, and Temperature was only a mathematical dimension, then no type of rotation would allow us to rotate that mathematical dimension with that of the physical dimensions. When we look at the effects of gravity, (even under your theory) it works out as some form of rotation (in your case it is the "tension" that causes the rotation). So that means that we should look at what properties get distorted by this rotation. We have the 3 spatial dimensions, but these alone can not account for all the rotation. There is a rotation that occurs in a non-spatial dimensions. And the effect of that distortion is a change in Time. The only conclusion is that Time has to be that other dimension and that it has an equal physical reality as the spatial dimensions. Sorry, I thought this was a debate forum... Also I thought you wanted us to debate your essay, that was what you said you wanted us to do... Logical maybe, but as you don't support your initial assumptions you can still reach incorrect conclusions if they are wrong. As for scientific: Well you don't provide any testable hypothesis and use no real maths (2 equations are not enough), it is not scientific at all. Yes, I have said that Time is a Dimension as that is the position I am defending. I could just say that all you have done is say that "Time is not a Dimensions" and claim that you are using a circular argument too. Lay off it, these "attack" against me can equally apply to you. You don't actually think that they make your arguments any more better? So are you saying that your posts do not attempt to explain what is in your essays and are about a completely different subject? Are your posts not supposed to be arguments to prove your essays? Have we just been arguing against a smoke screen? I have pointed out in many of my posts how your arguments are not actually against what the accepted theories are. You have used arguments that are clearly in violation of reality (moving object without applying a force to them, etc - and if you want I can quote that, but as it is not in this thread, I have not done so: Forum policy and all that). If you need to construct an argument that can not really be physically possible (in a discussion about what is physics) to support your premise, then that is a strawman argument. And do you know what? For those I actually think less of their arguments because of that. I didn't respond to their insults of you because I didn't want to start flame wars (which it devolved into anyway). But for my part, I was in support of you when they did that. That does not clear it up one bit. Doesn't molasses sink in water? So wouldn't it all just end up on the bottom of the lake? How does this effect the motion of the boat? I think I can sort of guess at what you are trying to say: That a denser medium will make object move slower in them than a less dense medium. So have I got this right? Because gravity changes the velocity of light it curves, because light curves in gravity we can conclude that gravity causes light to change in velocity. So, if they agree with you it is feedback. If they disagree with you then they are not being truthful? No. I have provided feedback, but because I have disagreed with you you have insulted me and ignored my feedback. If all you were looking for were Yes-men you should have said. If you were looking for feedback and critical analysis of your proposition, then you should be more interested and thankful of the people that provide the negative arguments (oh and by the way, what you just said is responding as if only you can be right and everyone else is wrong). Umm, do you understand the Scientific method at all? The Scientific method works on disproof. So if you are not interested in attempting to disprove your own theories, then you are absolutely not doing Physics. It is not mind game at all. All I was asking was that you even attempt to show that you have tried to disprove your own theories. You haven't shown any evidence of this, yet keep claiming that you are doing science, I was very interested to see what attempts you have made to do this. Have you ever heard of a psychological position called "Vested Interest"? I have absolutely no vested interest in whether your essay is right or wrong. You do. Take that into consideration of the psychology involved here. Also, some of your posts include self aggrandizing and statements that belittle others (including my self). This is indicative of a closed mind, one that has already been made up that no matter what we say, you will not accept it as you think that we are inferior to you (and you have actually made comments specifically about me in this way). Yes, there is a definite psychology at work here, but if I was you, I would first look in the mirror as to the source. So you keep repeating. But you offer no real substantial arguments as to why it can't be spacetime. You have given reasons as to why you think it is just space, but before your argument is complete you have to disprove spacetime. You know, if we weren't interested enough in it, we would never have posted in the threads. The fact that we have posted indicated that we are interested enough. Topology of knots (which is what you use) is a very complex thing. Try this experiment: Take a piece of rope and make it into a loop (splice it or something). Now once you have the loop, without opening the loop, tie a knot in the rope. It is impossible. Any knot you tie is not really a knot, it is a twist. You can twist it so that there appears to be 2 knots, but it is still really just a twist. And by the way, that doughnut shape that you proposed in your essay is a knot and therefore could not actually physically be created within the block (or with space) except by cutting it and joining it back up, so if this is you proposal as to why we can create electrons by smashing gamma-rays together, it can't actually work unless you also claim that it rips a hole in the fabric of space. What you propose could never end up being an electron, but would actually create a singularity. If the hole is supposed to be the electron, then you could never convert an electron (and positron) back into energy.

I am not surprised that there is some level of correlation between the two. This, however, does not eliminate the possibility that CO2 output by humans is not having some effect. In the graphs that has been presented showing an increase in CO2 that correlates with increased solar activity for thousands of years in the past does not surprise me in the least. Do you know why? Humans weren't emitting near as much CO2 back then, the amount of CO2 humans emitted would not have been having much impact at all. Showing a graph in a time and p[lace where the emissions of CO2 by humans were extremely low (or non existent) is actually a Strawman argument. The situation in those times is completely different to what is occuring now. Warming the Earth will cause more CO2 to be released, but Releasing CO2 will also cause warming of the Earth. So if, due to solar activity the Earth warmed (and there would be a delay between the increased solar activity and the actual warming of the climate) in the past, this has no real bearing on today's situation. The question is not whether solar warming can cause a global warming, but the question is whether CO2 released by humans can cause Global Warming. Presenting graphs and evidence that in the past there was some other trigger event is really just dodging the issue. With what I know about the climate, the delay seen in those graphs can easily be explained. As I have said before, there are "Sinks" and Negative feedback loops that can suppress the climactic change for a (relatively) short period of time. But, once these "Sinks" are overwhelmed, the change can be rapid, especially once the positive feedback loops begin to dominate. Think about it: Solar activity begins to increase. The Sinks slow down (or prevent) and immediate climactic response to this extra activity. Eventually these Sinks are overwhelmed and the climate begins to warm. This releases CO2 (and triggers other positive feedback loops) which increase the effect of the increased solar activity. This causes the climate to amplify the temperature of the climate to more than it would have been with the solar activity alone. Eventually the Sun cools again, but the increased greenhouse effect will allow the Earth to retain more of it's captured energy for longer which introduces a delay in the drop of CO2 as the temperature is still warm enough to stop the CO2 from being reabsorbed. Eventually the Earth cools enough for the CO2 to start to be reabsorbed (most likely into the oceans), this then uses the same feedback loop that caused an accelerated warming to help scrub the CO2 from the atmosphere. This will allow the Earth to cool faster than it would have (and as this would be driven by the cooling of the sun it should mirror it, but just be delayed a bit). This fits exactly with all those graphs that has been posted that was supposed to "prove" that GW is only driven by the Sun. Yes, it might have been "Driven" by the sun, but by taking an overly simplistic view of the climate system you can fail to see the actual reason that the CO2 increase and decrease lags behind the actual solar activity levels. Basically, because the climate has sinks and feedback loops, the effects on the climate will lag behind the effect of whatever is driving it.

I think the main reason is that we can't just take people off the street in case they might do a crime. The crimes have to be committed before we respond to the events. So if we are going to tackle crime, they first must be committed. This means that there must always be some crime rate. Also, even if we were able to eliminate all needs for crime (drugs, poverty, etc) there will still be crimes of passion. People get angry and might hit someone (I'm not making excuses for people like this though), the mentally ill, etc. We could never eliminate these because their causation is in a place that can not be predicted and is immediate (the cause and the crime occur close together in time). All these mean is that we can never completely remove the possibility that a crime could occur. This results in some minimal amount of crime rate that we have to accept. However, I do believe that we might be able to reduce the crime rate more by dealing with the issues of the divide between the rich and the poor. IIRC (I saw a graph once but can't remember where) there is a correlation between the gap between rich and poor and the level of criminal activity. The greater the difference, the greater the crime rate.

Or just get a Paper-clip and bend it back and forth for a few seconds. But be careful, I actually burnt my self once (it was when I was using one of the thicker paper-clips ).

If the "world" (universe really) is a perfect sphere, then any light beam will follow a Great Circle which will bring it right back to it's starting point. yes you have: (emphasis mine) So could you clear this up for me then: What is the minimum number of dimensions involved here for this to apply to our universe? The current definition of Time is an additional Dimension not of the 3 Spatial dimensions that we can compare the movement in the 3 spatial dimensions to and that, under gravity or acceleration the spatial dimensions can be rotated into (in fact all 4 must be able to be rotated into one another). As in you Time Explained threads, you deny this definition of Time and say that Time as is covered by this definition does not exist, then how can you then conclude in this Essay (which you say relates to your previous time explained threads) that there is a 4th dimension, which fits the above definition? The two are mutually contradictory. Sorry, but they are. It is fine to start some where. But, if when you come back around you end up with something different than what you started with, then there must be something wrong. It would be like me solving a mathematical equation and needing X to be both 1 and 2. No, your previous essays have never been shown to be correct. What you have done is ignored or denied (without proof) any counter arguments against your essays. That kind of behaviour does is not proof of your essay's correctness. True. But you did ask for criticisms and for use to examine it, and that is all we are doing. In discussions about how acceleration effects Time, you switched between explanations using gravity and acceleration to cover the same points. SO yes, although you didn't state explicitly that Gravity=Acceleration, you did treat them like this. Also Relativity does state that Gravity and Acceleration are the same and you have stated that you agree with relativity. If your explanations in one essay state that X can't occur and in another Essay they state that X does occur, they are in violation of each other. Maybe you do have an understanding of why they might appear to be in violation of each other, but you have not shared that with us so we can only conclude that they are in violation of each other. You have even made such inconsistencies within you explanations about an essay. No the rolling down is just an analogy, it is not designed as an explanation. However, the analogy, with a bit more understanding of what the analogy is supposed to represent, does still hold. With the rubber sheet analogy, it is not the fact that the gravity of the real world is pulling smaller balls towards the larger cannon ball, but the fact that the geodesic describes a curve. Because the geodesic represents the way light moves in that region of space, and because nothing can travel faster than light, it means that any force must, at the maximum follow that same geodesic. It can be less than the geodesic, but it can not be more than the geodesic. If you look at the way this then influences the way an object moves, you will find that it becomes drawn towards the centre. The reason the analogy uses gravity is that it allows us to create a physical shape that is analogous to the curve that creates a similar geodesic. Because you have taken the Analogy and the Model, you then use other aspects that relate to the analogy (and not the model) to disprove the current model (or create your own model). To put is simply: This is a gigantic Strawman Fallacy. You have presented arguments against the analogies, not the models (in all your essays, not just this one). When I have tried to use the models to demonstrate the reasons that your arguments are not aimed at them, you call me names and insult me (another logical fallacy called Ad Hominin). How does a boat relate to what I said. I said that light does not travel in curves, it only appears to travel in curves if space time is curved in 4D and we can only directly observe 3 dimensions. If we look at the path that light takes in a gravitational field, and then attempt to make it so that light travels in a straight line, then the only surface that it can possibly make a straight line on, is a 4D curve that resembles the 3D curve of a cannon ball on a sheet of rubber. Either light doesn't travel in straight lines, or it does. If light travels in straight lines then gravity cases Space-Time to curve. If Space-Time exists and can curve, your essays are wrong. Does light travel in straight lines? Again you resort to insults to attempt to make your points. Ad Hominin. What if I was to say this about your understanding of how gravity really is and the reason that you have come up with the explanation that you have is because you don't understand gravity, and the reason that, despite all the postings on these topics, you can't grasp what we are trying to explain to you is that you never will understand it. You see, it doesn't feel good when someone else parrots your words back at you does it. What if I am right and you are wrong? What if you are right and I am wrong? So far, you have only responded as if You were right and I was wrong. I have attempted to examine both sides, which is more open minded? Here is a challenge: Try to disprove your own essays.

Although not directly aimed at this essay, but because you indicated in other posts that this essay would answer questions raised in them: In Time explained, you stated that there were no other dimensions than the 3 we experience. In fact a lot of your arguments against my posts were that for your explanation of time there could be no extra dimensions. If your including them here as part of this new physics, but denying them else where, you are contradicting yourself. I wouldn't have brought this up, but you have said that these series of essays are linked and it is this link that I am questioning. I could make an explanation of "élan vital", but this has been shown be false. It is not real. For you to have an explanation, you must first show that you are actually explaining reality. So, you must first show that your new interpretation of what gravity is, is the correct interpretation. This means the mathematical formulas and peer reviewed article. Otherwise you end up with: This explanation is correct, if the previous essay is correct, if the previous essay is corrects if the... You have not established the correctness of you initial essays, so any essay that relies on these previous essays being correct can not be seen as reliable. You have offered no testing of the principles of assumptions (from previous essays) that you use in this essay. So you are on very shaky ground to start with. Another inconsistency between your essays is that in previous essays you treated gravity as the same as acceleration, but here you are treating it differently. If these essays are supposed to form a new physics, then they will need to be consistent. Even if these essays are not supposed to be a new physics (but as you are proposing radical changes to existing physics that would entail changes across all science, you are in fact proposing a new physics), your explanations should be consistent. If your explanation for energy violates your explanation for gravity, then one (or both) must be an incorrect explanation and therefore can not be used to aid understanding. Now, why the rubber sheet analogy is a good one for the traditional explanation of gravity is that it is mostly correct. Through experiments it has been shown that light curves a certain way in a gravitational filed. On the only assumption that light must travel in a straight line, we can use geometry to aid us in understanding what occurs. What we can use is called a Geodesic (wikipedia). In a flat world a Geodesic is in fact a straight line. In a curved world it can appear to be bent from certain points of view). If we work backwards from how we see light behave in a gravitational field, the only curve that fits the light geodesic is one that curves into a higher dimension. Not one that is just stretched in the known dimensions. So, according to geometry, space really does bend a bit like what the cannon ball would do. In 3 Spatial Dimensions it is harder for us to envision than the 2D rubber sheet analogy. This curvature should have some real effects. And looking at them we seem to get a dilation of time and space. Or looking at it from yet a higher dimension: Space and time seems to rotate into one another. Looking at the 2D rubber sheet analogy, the Space (the flat sheet) rotates into the vertical direction. So in the analogy, the Vertical dimension would be Time and the Horizontal dimensions would be Space. The reason it must be time is that the effects on what we observe. We must look for what is being changed, and since we have determined that (due to the geodesic) that space is being changed, the effect that we observe is that Time too is being changed. So as both space and Time are being changed and the changes in each account fore the changes in the others, therefore we can tell that Time must be the 4th dimension and has a physical existence equal to that of space. Because light travels in straight lines, this gives us a foundation to be able to work out what the "shape" that a piece of space is like. If we draw the geodesics for each light ray that passes through a region of space (and from different directions), then the paths these geodesics make is the shape of that region of space. For example, if we shine a beam of light and it comes back to us, but from the opposite direction, we can determine that the space there is curved all the way back around on it's self. If we can do this in all directions, then the only shape that the region of space can be is spherical (or spheroid anyway - if we time the beams of light we can more precisely determine the divergence from an ideal sphere the region is). The geodesic can even be used to determine the number of dimensions the region is curved in. 2 dimensions will give a different result than a 3 dimensional curve and be different from a 4th dimensional curve. Looking at the light from stars as the pass near the sun (during an eclipse) the geodesic shows that space is curved in 4 dimensions. 3 of space and a 4th non spatial dimensions (which with other experiments has been shown to be Time). What has been show is that it can not be a "pinch" in the way you described it in your essay. This kind of curvature would give a completely different geodesic than would the space curved into the non spatial dimension (like the cannon ball example).

Because there are a lot of stars there. The massive black hole at the centre of galaxies is not very large. (iirc: about the size of our solar system). The Earth is around 6,372 km in radius. If it were converted into a black hole then it's radius would be less than 1cm. If the Earth was shrunk down to this size (keeping the same mass), then the moon would continue in it's current orbit unchanged. Being a black hole doe snot effect objects in any different way than an object of that mass existing there without being a black hole. So a black hole about the size of our solar system and with the mass of 1,000 suns would not suck in all the light in the galaxy (or even just near the core). It the light passed within the radius of the black hole, that is different, it would be sucked in. As the centre of our galaxy is thousands of light years across and the diameter that the Black hole would suck in the light would be less than 1 light year across, you can see why the light from those stars are not overly effected by the black hole. Simple answer: No. Being pedantic: Yes. We are orbiting around the event horizon of a black hole, the only fact is that it is 25,000 light years away from us. And it makes no difference to us if we are orbiting this or a group of thousands of stars (which are not a black hole). People get a bit confused about what a black hole really is. They begin to think of them as fantastical objects that behave in strange ways. But a black hole is not all that much different than the Earth itself (ok I am simplifying here, but bear with me please). Here on Earth if you throw a tennis ball straight up, it will fall back down eventually. The harder you throw it the higher it goes. However, if you could throw it upwards at around 11km/s (39600km/h) then it would never fall back down. This is called the escape velocity. The reason for this is the further out form Earth you are, the weaker the effect of Earth's gravity is on you. If you work out the sums (too complicated for here), then if you can travel fast enough then the pull of gravity is never strong enough to slow you down to 0 and then pull you back. For Earth this is 11km/s A black hole, on the other hand has gravity so strong that you would have to throw that tennis ball faster than 300,000km/s to reach the escape velocity. Now relativity states that as you go faster, you will require more and more energy to push you that bit faster. To push an object to 300,000km/s (when you do the sums) means that you would need an infinite amount of energy to do so. When you do the sums for light, it means that at that point not even light could escape the gravity (if the Escape velocity is higher than the speed of light then light does not even have the velocity to escape). The further you are form a gravitating object, the weaker the effect of gravity. This also means that starting from that further out position, the escape velocity is less. The event horizon of a black hole is where, due to the lower effect of gravity, the escape velocity becomes less than the speed of light (for Earth this is about 1cm). Now the reason this does not result in a black hole at the centre of the earth is that the earth's mass is not all compressed into such a small space. The mass outside that radius pulls away from that point and so the escape velocity from that point is going to be much less than 300,000km/s.

The moon is not a single object. It is in fact made up of lots and lots of atoms, which they themselves are made up of electrons and quarks, etc. A Hammer throw is made up of the atoms of the thrower and the hammer. Asking whether the hammer is rotating about it's axis or the the thrower is like asking if the atoms of the moon are rotating around the moons axis or their common axis. It is both, the axis are the same.

Actually these are my own thoughts. So no real source (except my own brain ). Science and technology, although they act in synergy, are not necessary for each other. If Science were needed for technology, then we would have have to have science before we even improved any tool. Technology can advance by trial and error. If a tool using species has a variable ability to make tools or an imperfect ability to learn tool use, then one of the group will make (unintentional) changes to their tools that might offer an improvement. However, if you do have science, then it will begin to accelerate tool development and tool development will accelerate scientific development. It is the systematic search for patterns which I call science here. An Alien might not have the same scientific method, etc, but it is the systematic search for patterns that is important. When a species can identify certain patterns, these patterns can themselves be thought of as tools. This requires the ability to think abstractly, something that complex communication also requires, and if you remember I said that complex communication is also needed for technological development. This aspect of complex communication, the ability to think abstractly, is very important. Being able to abstract the concept of a tool to concepts like patterns, or even to communication itself (and thus becomes a language), means that the creatures can use their tool using behaviours and apply it to all sorts of aspects of their situation (including domestication of other animals, the creation of literature, their own minds which leads to philosophy, etc). So, because Technology and Science are enhanced by each other, this give the initial impression that they are mutually required, but because technology can develop without the pattern seeking that is science, and that pattern seeking does not require technology, they are not needed by each other. However, if a species is going to develop complex technology in a reasonable time from, then, yes. Science is needed by Technology. I would say yes. Pattern recognition is essentially what a brain does. It matches sensation patterns with their results. Science is the seeking of patterns of patterns. You drop a rock and it falls. You drop another rock and it falls. Therefore we have a pattern: Rocks fall. IF you then drop a stick, we can find another pattern sticks fall. But there is then a pattern that can be found between these two patterns: Things fall -> Gravity. This kind of thinking requires abstraction (and I explained all that above) to seek the metapaterns. In Chaos theory, an Attractor does not have to be a specific point with a specific clause defining it. It can exist as an emergent point. It is this aspect that I am mainly referring to. Because there is no laws of the universe that state that "Technological civilization will develop", that means that technological civilizations are emergent. There is a strong evolutionary advantage to tool use. Any creature that can use tools can expand their "imprint" beyond their biology. Think of a Frog. It has no tool use and the only survival advantages it has is solely in it's genetics. But a tool using creature can go beyond their genetics and develop tools that give them abilities that are not possessed by any living organisms (or could be developed by a non tool using organism - for instance space travel). This ability to create abilities that no living creature can possess and the fact that it's development is not tied to biology (it does not need biological reproduction before changes can take place) means that it can develop at a rate far faster than evolution. This is a dramatic advantage because this means that the technological creatures can never be out evolved (except by other technological species or creatures that evolve faster than the technology can develop - bacteria and virus for example). This massive advantage of technology means that any species that develops the ability for technology will become dominant. It is this that is the Attractor. This ability of rapid development not tied to biology that give the technological species the survival advantage. Each step along the ladder to technology does provide species with some for of advantage, even before any tool us is developed. Although it is not explicitly stated in any law of the universe from physics to biology to genetics, it does however exist as an emergent law, an attractor. Yes, learning by watching can be used to pass on tool use, but the important thing is the ability of a species to pass on abstract tools. This requires complex communication that can not be exchanged by simply watching another. As I said, there are advantages to all the aspects that lead up to technological development, but it is only when a critical number (with certain key abilities - eg: hands) are reached that technological development becomes possible. Then with certain other abilities (abstract thinking, complex communications, etc) these will lead to an increasing rate of technological development. Although the rapid development of technology requires a limited set of circumstances, it is my belief that these circumstances are favoured by evolution (not because of any design, but simply because they are useful for survival) and are complimentary when viewed from their impact on technology and it's development.

What this could also mean is that positive feed back loops have more effect than previously thought. It could mean that a small rise in CO2 (not enough to show up in the resolution scale of the graphs and our ability to detect) could lead to a feedback loop that causes the temperature to go up, which causes more CO2 to be released (which would occur with a delay), which causes the temperature to go up, which releases more CO2... The fact that CO2 levels and temperature have any correlation indicates (but doesn't prove) that there is something going on between them. IF there was no correlation between them, we should not expect to see any correlation in the graphs. But as there is a correlation in the graphs, this correlation has to be explained or refuted (both require evidence). As we know that increased CO2 does lead to a warming, then we do have some correlation between them already. Past warmings might not have been initiated by increased CO2, but the warming might have caused a release of CO2. The final warming would then have been less (probably far less if the physics we know about CO2 is true) if the CO2 was not released. What matters is not what initiated that initial warming into a feedback loop, but the feedback loop itself. If raising the atmospheric temperature beyond a point will trigger this feedback loop, then we should do our best to stop the Earth from entering this feedback loop. If the past warming has increased CO2 levels and CO2 does contribute to warming, this is its self a feedback loop. I am very sceptical of any Conspiracy theory (or name to that effect). Usually the motives behind the conspiracy are not very convincing and the rewards for implementing the conspiracy are not really worth it. For instance, the anti-capitalists really don't have much to gain. Capitalism requires expansion. New markets and new technologies are the corner stone of capitalism. Wouldn't alternative energy sources and the technology that goes with them therefore be an advantage to capitalists? And Nuclear power is expensive and not really many people control it. Also, as there are many other forms of power generation (from solar to wind, geothermal to wave/tide) then they are running a huge risk that someone else will develop one of these technologies in competition (leaving them exactly where they are now). This make a conspiracy extremely unlikely as the control needed to ensure that only Nuclear power is developed any where in the world is far beyond them and the rewards for the anti-capitalists would be greater from embracing alternative technologies. In fact, after each revolution in power generation, capitalism has leapt in leaps and bounds, so if anything the capitalists should be pushing for new energy technology, if for historical precedent if nothing else.

Fungi do not photosynthesise so light levels don't directly effect them. However, as light can have other effects on their environment (and competing species), it can have an indirect effect.

This would only be true if the balls were infinitely stiff. If the balls can be compressed then the energy from the impact can be distributed in other ways than rebounding. For instance, metals balls can be deformed, they can be dented in other words. This denting uses energy which is converted into heat (try flexing a piece of metal back and forth and it will rapidly heat up). The deformation also soaks up energy as the bonds between the atoms are changed. This is why cars have crumple zones. This is so the energy of the impact is soaked up by the deforming crumple zone and not transmitted to you. So, two steel balls can be joined just by slamming them together, if the metal is soft enough (enough heat generated by the collision could be enough to make the steel pliable enough for this).

This is a good point. The Aliens might be invading to stop an even worse threat from invading, so if this was the case we should welcome our new overlords. But it could also be the opposite, they invaded because they are really nasty. So as the reason for the invasion is completely unknown, we can not really predict how we should respond.

I don't know if it is just a problem with your analogies, but the way you described this, any light passing the "Knot" would appear veer away form it. For instance, if we were observing the light from a distant star pass close to the sun (say from our position just to the right of the sun), then because of the way you described the effects of the photon, the light from the distant star would make it appear to the right of its actual position. However, astronomical observations of this situation show that the star would appear to the Left of its actual position. What your description would lead to is a gravitational repulsion as the light is apparently bent away form the gravitating object. So under your model, it would be better to have gravity as a "pushing out" of the rubber sheet rather than as a gathering of it. See with the cannon ball sitting on the rubber sheet, it is stretching the rubber, giving more surface area. If you gather it into a knot, then you are reducing the surface area. As this is the opposite of the stretching, you get an opposite effect. This is why the rubber sheet analogy is just an analogy not a model. By taking the analogy too far you have created a confusion.

I think of this kind of situation in terms of an interference pattern. IF you were to go back and kill your grandfather, then you would not have been born and so you couldn't go back and kill your grand father. It would be a destructive interference and negate its self. It couldn't happen. However, if a situation could occur that wouldn't prevent you from going back, then that would be possible. If matter is a wave and can display interference, then this would have it's origins in Quantum Mechanics. Think of it in terms of light. IF you have a laser that shines onto a beam splitter, then one of the two beams created is reflected back so that it would destructively interfere with its self, then that path is not taken by the light.

But if it is just a manned planet, then how would they reproduce? You need women for that presumably. /jk The word you are looking for is "Infinite". However, humans have only existed for a finite amount of time and therefore the area of the Universe that we could have made contact with an Alien civilization is therefore also finite. Also, the observed universe is of a finite size, so any potential contact with an Alien race must also be within that finite volume. Current observation and accepted physics indicate that the universe is finite. This makes infinitely populate worlds impossible. Well, this is the hard question. We can never actually determine what they would look like and their level of technical development as we have never seen any life forms other than what exist here on Earth. SO we have only 1 data point, which makes extrapolation impossible. However, here are my own thoughts: It is likely that most inhabited worlds will not contain Technological life. The time that life has existed on Earth is around 3.5 billion years (3,500,000,000 years). Humans have existed (depending on how you define humans) for the last 100,000 to 1,000,000 years (or just 0.00285% to 0.02857%). So not much time at all (and it is less if you consider the time Earth has existed - 4.5 billion years). So if we take that as the number of inhabited planets that have a technological civilization at the moment, then even in our galaxy, there won't be many (but there will be some). I think that a Technological civilization is an "Attractor" (in terms of chaos theory) for evolution. By this, it is not a necessity that Technological civilizations will develop, but there is a pull towards it. The reason being is that tool use is a good survival advantage. The reason, however, that it would not be common is that there are a number of other aspects that have to evolve first before technology can develop. You might think that Big Brains are a prerequisite for technology, but there are animals that don't have a brain size near ours that use basic technologies. Take for instance Crows. These birds have been seen selecting twigs and modifying them to extract food from hard to reach places. This is tool creation and use, in other words, technology. And these birds don't have near the brain size that we do. However, there is a reason that these birds have not developed their technology to the point where they invent the Internet for instance (which I will get to in a bit). Another aspect that is necessary for technological development is the "Nest". By nest, I don't literally mean a birds nest, but the concept of a Nest. A place that is protected and the young are able to safely experiment with novel behaviours. Without this "Nest", young can not experiment with tool use, they need to be born with the knowledge to survive. They have no time to develop the tools. The next requirement is that of the Society. In a way this is an expansion of the Nest. In a Society, each member helps (in some way) to support the other members of that society. This improves the safety for young and it allows the Nest concept to be extended from only dealing with young to including Adults as well. Societies need structure and communication. Structure is important as a group of individuals is not as efficient as a structured society. Although a too structured society starts to impact the ability for developing novel behaviours. Ants and insects have highly structured societies and thus they can't develop technology easily. Communication is also very important as technological innovations made by one individual can then be passed on to others who can then improve the technology. Without communication each individual has to create their technologies from scratch. The final requirement is the ability to manipulate the technologies. This requires a high level of dexterity. Dolphins might be highly intelligent, but they lack the ability to manipulate objects, so they can not develop tools. If they can not develop tools, then no matter how intelligent they might be, they will never be able to create technology. Some argue that Intelligence is needed for technological development, but I don't think it is necessary. It will of course help, but it is not necessary. This would be why big brains are not a requirement for technology. Having a big brain will, of course, allow the creature to have a greater range of behaviours and likely be more flexible in their behaviours, but it is not an essential for such abilities. What this means is that if we encounter an Advanced Technological Alien race, then there will be some common grounds with which we can initial communication. 1) They will have the ability to communicate. Communication is essential for technological development beyond the very basics. 2) They will also have a community as a social grouping is necessary. If you can communicate and create technology, it is not going to develop far if there is no body you can show your developments to. A community needs rules and structure if it is going to hold it's self together, so they will have concepts similar enough to our Morals and Ethics (although the will most likely be different from ours - but even then there will be some similarities) 3) They will have some recognisable anatomies. Limbs to manipulate, visual receptor (eyes), etc. Without these they would not be able to manipulate tools. 4) They will understand the concepts of Play. Play is just experimental behaviours in a safe environment. They will also have evolved a method to encourage this play. They will essentially know about Fun (our reward for play). So, there will be enough similarities between then and us so that we would be able to develop meaningful communication. Now, I talked about why Crows have not developed the Internet. The main 2 reasons that crows have not developed the Internet is that they lack high dexterity and they don't have complex communication. They do have some dexterity, they can manipulate twigs, and such, but they don't have the high dexterity needed for complex tool development. Their communication ability, however, is also limited, they don't pass on their technological development to other crows readily. So technologically advanced Aliens would be vaguely similar in appearance (not necessarily humanoid or even bipedal). They would be social and have the ability to communicate. They would understand Play and certain emotions like Fun and Enjoyment. They would look after their Young (family - but likely a different structure to ours), and care for their Adults. And they would understand Morals and Ethics (but have different ones to us).

That is assuming that the person measuring the Metre ruler is in the same inertial (or gravitational) frame of reference and the Ruler. An observer out side that frame of reference will see a distortion. If the out side observer can see that distortion (contracted length), then a change in C is not needed. Just as to the local observer, they would not see a change in Time with the object being observed, they would also not see any change in distance, but the out side observer sees both. So, the Metre is not the same length in a high gravity environment as observed from a low gravity environment and time passes more slowly in the high gravity environment as observed from the low gravity environment. The situation you described does not actually occur. If it did, then you would be right, but as it doesn't then it actually comes across as a Strawman argument.

This is not an accurate analogy. It would be a better analogy to have the person drinking and having their blood filtered of alcohol. Drinking and Excersize do not remove the alcohol from your system. Where as the whole purpose of the carbon trading is to remove the offending substances from the atmosphere. You example would be more like removing heavy metals form the oceans to offset CO2 emissions.

I'm not getting into that argument again. So you keep saying, but when I ask you to actually quote them, you don't. Why is that? Has it ever crossed you mind that you might be doing that yourself? It is really simple. The kinetic energy from a falling body came from the energy it took to raise it up there in the first place. You do the calculations, and do the measurements and the energy to put into raising an object up is exactly the same as the energy it releases when it falls. This is Primary school (grade school or elementary school in some countries) physics. It is extremely elementary stuff. There is no energy lost (except as heat from friction with the air - but if you take that into account too then there is none lost), there is no energy gained. In your examples you assume that the object in question is created at the hight it is dropped from. But this is clearly not physically possible, so it has to have been put there, and to do that energy must have been given to it to move it there. That is where you're "missing energy" comes from.