Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Neutral

About HardonColluder

  • Rank
  1. I have no reason to doubt that Nikola Tesla did indeed make it in his lab . Also a team of scientists at Tel Aviv university in Israel reported making ball lightning in the lab with a 'microwave drill' a few years back . I can't find a wiki page on a 'microwave drill' . Sounds interesting though . I wouldn't be suprised if there's a fair bit of top secret research on ball lightning from directed energy weapons . Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged(I think it's probably plasma debri of somekind caused by a bolt of lightning hitting the ground) .
  2. It would make more sense just to delete it as it's not science , it's gibberish . But I think simulating the big bang on supercomputers can actually be considered a kind of virtual 'time travel' . As my statement is no longer associated with 'time travel' but a thread on 'gibberish' I regret writing it .
  3. I once made a design for a coilgun that used a spring loaded metal bolt with male brush terminals underneath , so that when the bolt was fired the brushes would pass over positionable , configurable female terminals . Each terminal would be associated to one of many positionable coils over the barrel . With this type of analog setup you can easily configure/reconfigure the timing of the pulses and the placement of the coils with ease until you settle on the configuration that gives you the most power (Which you can then hardwire into a PCB to replace the spring-bolt mechanism) . I never took it passed the design stage though (I'm too scared of HV) .
  4. I had a brief glance . I agree that 2d is just a subset of 3d spacetime . I'm not sure I understand the point of the document though . It seems to break down the fact that you wouldn't need an infinate amount of compute power to compute every possible random image (Or something like that . I have no idea) . WTF!!!!!! I have no idea what that means!! Emulating the big bang on a supercomputer would be the only theoretical approach to virtual timetravel I can conceive (And unless you could get every virtual? wavefunction to break in exactly the right way , who knows what type of virtual universe you'ld have computed . Not to mention the fact that you'ld need a computer as big or bigger than the known universe . I recommend a short story by Isaac Asimov called 'The last question' to anyone interested in a computable universe . One paradox of such an idea is that running a simulation of the universe in the universe would create a feedback loop when you get to the point in the universe where you create the universe in the universe . The needed compute power would jump in magnitude and causes a crash/overload . If we are indeed already in a virtual world , more virtualization may make our own world crash .
  5. I'd expect it to be impossible to prove infinite in nature . Infinite can be used as a different perspective on fractions . For example If I space apart 2 points and then place an object halfway between the 2 points (1/2) , then I move it a quarter more , then another 8th , then a 16th and so on , halving the fraction each time , I can do this an infinate amount of times , moving forward each time , without ever reaching the end as I can only move in the space I defined in the beginning . The more I move forward the smaller I become and the more it takes to move forward (Just like attaining light speed) . If someone needed to make 100$ and I said 'I can give you 50$' , then he said 'Well now I need another 50$' , so I give him 25$ and so on , he'd be getter richer to infinite , whilst never attaining 100$ because we're just playing with fractions of 100 (As 100 is not a fraction of 100 , it's unattainable) . But don't think on it for too long - That way madness lies!!! See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_hypothesis
  6. Hello . What a fine hospitable forum this is . My name represents the lack of influence contemporary science has on microsoft spellcheck as experienced by the atom smashing keyboard player from D:ream . Regards
  7. I agree that a cold atomic clock would not be cold enough . Like infinate acceleration is needed to move matter at light speed , you'ld need an equivilant "infinate freeze" to hold an object in stasis (Hypothetically , of course) . . I also understand that time looses it's classical meaning at the quantum level . Time being a way to stop energy from doing everything or being everywhere at one . I propose time doesn't exist on the quantum scale at all . It would be interesting to hear what effect 'increasing the temperature' would have on a spaceship accelerating very close towards the speed of light . If mass and energy is equivilant and you need energy to stay hot , then where would you get the heat/energy to keep a faster-than-light-speed vessel warm . The heat/energy would seem to be be just as impossible as the faster-than-light spaceship (Assuming the faster-than-light ship is a classical type that doesn't use tunnelling or space manipulation) . Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIf I have two pendulams , one large , one small (though any difference is sufficiant) , I can extrapolate a crude form of relative time from the differences between the motion of the two pendulams . I don't need anything else . Relative motions are all that's required . If I slow the pendulams down , I'm not affecting 'time history' , I'm just reducing the latency/frequency of my clock . If I speed the pendulams up , both will get more work done in the same amount of time relative to some other constant source of motion somewhere else . If I was part of the clock , hanging by my neck like a biological pendulam , and I 'turned time backwards' , my path would not lead me to a 'historical time' before I became part of a clock , as time for the clock started when I started pretending to be a pendulam . I can only manipulate the latency of my own clock , I cannot 'timetravel' in the classical sense . If time is a dimension I imagine it to have only a single degree of freedom (The speed and relative motion that exists between the other 6 degrees of freedom . I do not think it's required to treat time as an 'extra' spacial dimension).
  8. I much prefer the raising bread analogy to the balloon analogy . I vaguely remember being abit confounded when watching Carl Sagan give the balloon analogy (I think it was Sagan . So many others have used the same analogy to date) . If someone hears that 'Matter is made up of mostly empty space' , and that 'space is expanding' , it's understandable that some may jump to conclude that 'Matter may be expanding somewhat too' . For beginners , It's very helpful to know that energy isn't expanding .
  9. Mod note: moved from this thread How's this for taking libertys ; I think one problem that exists for any thinker is knowing how best to think about special relativity . I'm not sure it helps by imagining spacetime as an interlinked fabric , but rather , like mass and energy , 3d space and time is the same thing . It assumes another way of looking at light . That EM is in a constant state of balance that exists in every point in space . That creating interference in energy/EM can propagate a luminous wave (Luminous because we can see the interference) . To move in the direction of time is to be motionless . Time is motion . Taking energy from time will take energy from motion . We hit a wall at lightspeed because (with regards to energy)we are actually going backwards to a motionless state . Light speed is unattainable in the same way that absolute zero is unattainable . I predict that , at extremely low temperatures , time ticks slower . I predict that it is cold at near the speed of light . I predict that heating equipment on a starship will restrict it's velocity . Spacetime is like space-motion . Time is just a measurement of motion by motion . The wave-particle nature of light is because the wave is just interference . The particles are like the tracks of EM that we can pinpoint due to the interference but they represent a substance that is constant and everywhere , frozen in time and all over the void . Everything is a vibration in spacetime . Interactions happen when two appropriate frequencys of EM interfere with eachover. Mass/energy cannot be accelerated to lightspeed because for something to travel at light speed it can't have any energy (No mass) . Light is not energy itself , but merely ripples in timeless energy (Timeless in that it can do everything at once) . Any thoughts on this perspective (As I duck and cover) ? ('Timetravel' can only change the rate of motion through space so more things can be done in the same amount of 'time'. In that sense you're not travelling into the future as such but time is merely passing quicker for you as you are moving through time (spacetime) faster . )
  10. I don't really want to speak out against the general consensus . But I am interested in hearing the ideas of others who do . That's why I came to a thread with this title . But if you came here for a giggle , I don't blame you . For some reason I just always assumed dark matter/dark energy might possibly be a discrepency with the big bang theory , just wanted to give it a few moments thought for shits and giggles in light of the topic . It's ok . I'm incognito
  11. Very true . I guess I'm just wondering how best to take the world from another point of view . Like with programming , decent semantics can make work alot easier .
  12. I didn't mean it was arbitary nonsense . But when the big bang disagreed with experiment , by way of insufficient force of gravity , why wasn't the big bang theory scrapped ? As Feynman said "If it disagrees with experiment , it's wrong" . Wouldn't it be a more dynamic approach to consider a new theory from scratch , taking into account the problems the big bang model presented , than inventing invisble forces just to balance the equations . Dark matter has to have a certain amount of truth to it , as it's based on observation . The theory that the sun goes round the earth (sans relativity) was not 'unfounded' , but it was extremely short sighted for the time . I shouldn't of used the word 'probably' - That was my intuition speaking . I always want to bet on the consensus , but I feel troubled putting faith in a 'dark' science . For me , the question of 'What should I spend my time thinking about ?' is probably the hardest question of all . There's just too much information and too little time . I can't help but worry that I might be wasting time . I apologise if I'm talking complete nonsense . I have a thing called TLE that means sometimes I'm both awake and asleep at the same time . Sleep-wake duality .
  13. There's nothing wrong with considering an idea for which you have no evidence as long as you drop that idea when it conflicts with experiment . It's always healthy to wonder . After all , it's not like dark energy is so evident . Be it for or against dark energy , we're all searching for the truth . It shouldn't matter which route we take to get to it . Intuition should not be totally discarded because of the quantum revolution . I for one feel , intuitively , that dark matter is probably BS because of how ugly theorys become when more and more unfounded guesses are appended to them . But regardless of intuition , we'd all be better off if we considered the possibility of both outcomes , not just the outcome we openly endorse . I think alot of people who enjoy science are too afraid to speak out against the general consensus . It's just as important to have people spending time trying to unbalance equations as it is trying to balance them ..... To post or not to post .... Flips a coin .... so be it .
  • Create New...

Important Information

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